A crowd does not exist.
January 10th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: A crowd does not exist. :: A crowd does not exist. :: Why Iran? This is why. :: Why Iran? This is why.
Dr. Eldred:
…not realizing that everything that is is also what it is not, e.g.
“This is a frog.” In short,
everything is infected by negation and could not be what it is without
the shadow of ‘not’. Nor could there be any movement or any life without
negation. Plato shows this in his dialectic in the Sophist. Omnis
determinatio est negatio, says Spinoza.
Jud:.
Objects that exist cannot also exist as objects which they are not. If
they did they would exist as another object that was also that which it was
not, and two objects which exist not as they are, but as they are not, could
not exist as one object that existed as it is and as it wasn’t at the same
time. The reason for identification of *a* frog is not to differentiate the
object from what it is not (i.e. that it is not a Jet-airliner] - but to
identify it as an unspecified individual frog and as such a member of a
humanly created taxonomic category of animals, [probably suggested by Carl
Linnaeus] mutually agreed by English speakers to have the phylum-name
*frogs.*
In natural language no one would ever dream of introducing you [or
thinking of you] as: *The Dr. Eldred, who is not the President of France,
nor George Bush, nor the Head Elephant- keeper at Berlin Zoo, nor the Editor
in Chief of *Cambridgeshire Pig-Keeping,* nor Barbara Streisland’s upstairs
maid, nor an as-yet-un-named baby who has just been born in Paddington
Hospital, nor Saddam Husein’s hangman, nor every single person on the Island
of Guam, nor the one-legged Albanian albino with missing front-teeth who has
a hot-dog stall on the corner of 49th Street and Broadway, nor the…. *
ad infinitum
One can understand the Omnis determinatio est negatio of Spinoza I
suppose? Being outlawed from his synagogue and his community he was
forever damned as the Jew who is a non-Jew - an outcaste. Pushed off the
Amster Bridge as a scapegoat by a sly scissors and knife sharpener on the
Day of Atonement and left clinging to a log to carry away all the sins of
the Jews of Amsterdam on his back as he floated off ass-upwards to the
blue remembered hills of an offshore Goydom, he characterised himself by
what he was not for the rest of his days.
Tympan: Forget the Day Of Atonement and check out Spock’s new book on the
Shekhina or Sabbath which is a day when we celebrate both the soul and body
welcoming this bride to the bridal chamber or temple: “The bride is the
Shekhina who is to mate with God on Friday night to usher in the Sabbath. It
has always been considered a blessing for couples to come together sexually
to usher in the Sabbath in the same way.” (Leonard Nimoy http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum…
) .
I suppose one has to know how to share a temple with a lady or, to use a
lame term, a “partner” lol…. I think peep just used it no? Anyway, to be
with your sunshine is to show gratitude which is also an aspect of how one
celebrates the wedding that is the Sabbath. One is glad that one’s
partner… how do you say this to someone, does it ring true to address
someone like “Partner, where are you going today? Stay with me a little
while and rest…” lol… I hope I never call the love of my life
“partner”… The proper behavior of course is a reticent one. You hold your
tongue or at most use it so that nothing that is done with it looks like
words that have meaning but are rather sighs, incoherent moaning and other
forms of speechlessness. You can use words but you better make them express
your shipwrecked state in order to show your love your tenderness and
provoke a sympathetic look. It is in the reticence of his tongue that
Petrarch shows the self-interference of pure persuasion in the sense that
Kenneth Burke understands this deliberative rhetoric. In sonnet number 143
of the canzionere Petrarch is writing about the effect of reading another
love poet and friend. He says that he wakes in him or brings to his mind his
lovely lady when she was kind to him and when he woke not to the sound of
bells but to the “noise of sighs”. Of course its a memory that at other
times he sees as a “foolish” thought that he finds imposible to control or
reason with as he knows he should in his shame (see sonnet 273). But now in
this poem on the experience of memory he sees her “turn, her hair stirred by
the wind , and its as if she walks into my heart, so beautiful, the one who
keeps its keys. But my profound delight, which ties my tongue, has not the
means and strength to publish her and show what she is like, enthroned
within.” He is to understand that “not to publish her” means to no longer
remember her which is the best way to prepare to meer her in heaven which
no doubt is also a vain hope, a vapor, a ghost… that torments him in spite
of his useless, imperfect knowledge.
Tympan
As for Plato - nuff said. ;-0
regards,
Jud Evans.
Personal Website: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspac…
