VLVL "Karmic adjustment"

[Glenn Scheper]

I surfed postmetaphysics to see if it means anything.
It turns out it labels the Baudrillardian collapse
of meaning, loss of the real, triumph of criticism.

I found a long fascinating web page relevant to death
in Vineland, adding to it my sole interest of showing
that autoerotics causing psychosis *is* the katabasis.

http://www.goddeathtime.blogspot.com
 God, Death & Time

        Death as Poetic metanoia

> refute the use of death to argue for the finitude

> the first ecstasis is utopia, not death

> in which what is after-death can be thought

> And he who reveals secret things makes known to thee what
> shall come to pass'. This lecture brought to my mind these
> lines from Daniel (2:29-30). Levinas's is moving from one
> grand discourse around death (the alternation of being and
> nothingness) to another (the alternation of the present
> and the future).

> If, Derrida writes, the 'death proper to Dasein
> was compromised in its rigorous limits, then the
> entire apparatus of these edges would become
> problematic, and along with it the very project
> of an analysis of Dasein.'

It is the self-intersecting shape of autoerotics'
poetic death that compromises death, making death
amenable to knowing and exposition. Thus, "Jesus
tasted death for all." (See Klein bottle, below)

        Death as question.

> We know death, but we cannot think it

> For Levinas, death is a question and 'as a question'
> it is distinct from or prior to experience,
> phenomenality, comprehension, judgement, existence.

> "Levinas' first interpretation of the non-intentionality
> in emotion is as a question. Where does this word
> 'question' suddenly spring from?"

> great French discovery, by way of Mallarme, that the
> essential question is the unanswerable question,
> is the negative of the question.

> Somehow the question that questions itself,
> keeps at a distance, holds off, ...

In Revelation, an angel tells John: "What? are these."
But John hears it not as statement, rather a question:
"What are these?"; and replies, "Sir, thou knowest."

Queen of Heaven, Emily Dickinson said to her 'mentor':
All men say "What?" to me, but I thought it the fashion.

I have a shouted What?! anecdote in my TheWord.htm essay.

You should be able to find in Pynchon's portrayal of Takeshi
the quality, or the essence, of question, of mystery, hidden
truth, known to only the few doubled tantrists: A QM-chaotic
(or void) indexical, What?, that opens a space for an answer.

If Takeshi can bring "Karmic Adjustments" to the Thanatoids,
who are those of our katabasis, then he must know the second,
healing metanoia and can instruct them, he is their saviour.

        The Other Vessel

> to think of death beyond ontology

> Levinas carefully brings into play an opposition
> which at one point he indicates as being between
> 'nothingness and the unknown'.

> 'Can death be said without its nothingness being
> converted into a structure in-the-world?' asks Levinas

> The beyond (founded on a structure that is IN time and
> BEYOND time) is it seems beyond ontology and temporality
> and, at the same time, signifies 'another relationship
> with the infinite' and 'a temporality other than that
> of being-to-death'.

I recall to you again my psychotic image of a crack-pot:
A vase-like vessel that was actively turning crazed, for
it was developing all over it's surface a Klein bottle's
self-intersection, and the contents, which are the void
crazing of destruction, were revealed on the outside, as
its inner and the outer surfaces were becoming one. But
vessel and contents are all the whole entity: a paradox.

This compares well to the unknown (as the vessel hides)
and nothingness (active nothingness: destruction, chaos)
contained therein. And perhaps the "this is wickedness"
in the Ephah of Zechariah 5:5-11.

Such a vessel may be useful in the set theory problem of
a book that contains a list of all books not containing
lists of books, perhaps useful as a manageable infinity.

        Also:

http://www.quodlibet.net/marion.shtml

> since the impossibility of being grasped is contained in
> the formal definition of the infinite

> He who gives life to the dead
> and calls the nonbeings as/into being.

> This is an indifference of ontic difference and not,
> one should note, its destruction.
> we see not only God's call of nonbeings into being,
> but also his annulment of beings into nonbeing,
> thus increasing our awareness of the indifference with
> which God views these ontic categories.

> Paul seems to here use nonbeings in reference to the
> brethren.

Yours truly,
Glenn Scheper
http://home.earthlink.net/~glenn_scheper/
glenn_scheper + at + earthlink.net
Copyleft(!) Forward freely.