Rise Peter, kill and eat. Act 10:13
Those who wrote about alchemy have the same inclinations towards mixing substances up. They believe in perfect harmony and the interval in which the grander element could be formed by the fire of their imaginations. They believe, idealistically, that what is said or written, means exactly what it is said or written. what is said and written is not what is said and written. That much you can read. That much you can also repeat after me. The-belief-that-things-tie-things-together-to-reach-a-cohesive-and-cohesive-proof-of-that-belief-is-precisely-a-precise-chain-of-words-arranged-to-be-repeated-for-proof-of-that-belief; whatever that belief might be. Basically, you add elements up. The stone; the gestalt; the limit that totalises or narrows down the elements into what is gold or precious, is a device to provide that advantage that rhetoric, in a sense, does for beliefs.
Others, at the same time and space, believe in precisely the opposite of the above - the fall, the trip and the slip of the ideal. You basically do not get your gold. These are the skeptics, without realising that they create the oppositions that provide proof of the beliefs in their opposites.
well then, let us assume something here - that perhaps to rise is not to ideally reach up into some infinite, indivisible end that is immortality. Also, it is not to rise to some ideal world in which all things can be resolved peacefully. Rather, could not that rising be the rising to commit violence to which would give us life, in a very finite sense - that of human sustenance. So that this movement (ascendency) is simultaneously a violence and the gift of life through death.
Rise, in its very human sense of the word, is the physical movement of raising one's body from the ground. Whereas the fall of man, or the human condition that physically chains us to our finitude, predicates that the violence is always done to us - to rise to do violence (violence to the Messiah) is exactly the prerequisite of salvation; creation and restoration. To explain this a bit further (always ahead of itself), for us to rise to heaven or supposed immortality, one ultimately kills or sacrifices the giver of life; for us to rise as a human being, one also kills or sacrifices the animal object. To rise, is also to kill oneself, in which the rise to heaven can even be imagined or conceived, and perhaps achieved.
at the heart of this above assumption is the destruction that is embedded in nearly every encounter of elements - that of the alchemic tradition as well as the Word - in its universal sense.
But this destruction occurs simultaneously with creation. No addition is possible precisely because division is perpetually at work.
The spirit that is divided from the whole is the almost completion of the precious gold in the phenomena of rise. To rise, in the way like yeast in a oven, is both destruction and nourishment occurring. But this rise, is not the completion in that the rise is the precursor of the end that is to come - human death. To return is at the heart of the matter. To return the spirit that was missing to human is the rise - the aftermath of the violence, which in itself (as spirit) consists of both the violence and the nourishment. (Violence to the human; nourishment to the soul)
Which matter? No matter. We cannot even begin to talk about matter without assuming that there is something matter about matter that matters. That is to say, matter actually exists. But must everything be called matter?
To return is to return to somewhere. But this somewhere ultimately is a nowhere. Nowhere could we have any vivid idea of what that somewhere could possibly look like. The digression of imagery here may seem highly forced. But consider again, that I have moved from one assumption to return to the fundamental assumption of rise.
To rise is to kill.
In a very cyclical and vicious way, the repetition with the difference is violence and nourishment, simultaneously. There is nothing dialectical about this. The rise of the image is only to commit violence to it by disturbing it with blood and gore. The flesh is ultimately torn apart and eaten. This sacrifice (for ascendency) is a betrayal to the human flesh, which is whole and simultaneously entraps the soul as well as allows the soul to seep into the outside. We do not know what soul means or what it is as substance. Frankly.
The departure from the flesh, that violence potentially does to the body, is the rise. To die, as part of grace, is to the rise, simultaneously.
To further such a thesis, one realises that it becomes a rhetorical question without explicitly knowing what that question is. To put it simply, who can thematise death unless one truly experiences it? Therefore, to rise, simply put, remains just death. What you get is always, perpetually, an almost complete whole. It is incomplete. I mean the process - a tie that endlessly ties us to the incompletion. While it is complete, i.e. the rise and the sacrifice, it is also incomplete because many more out there living are still not dead. What is produced here is an assumption that we can simultaneously believe in the repeatability of the rise as well as the repeatability of the violence but these repetitions do not ultimately point to the end; if there is one.
but we know there is one. One in Many. Because the idioms of cycles and repetition actually assume that any one cycle must come to an end; an end of a cycle in order for the next to occur. In a peculiar logical explication, a cycle is simultaneously the end and the beginning at any given time and space. We do not explicitly know what ends and what begins, but in order to thematize this, I call it Almost. Actually, I almost thematize it. But what is it? That I do not know.
To make the most out of all there is, the only in most is also lesser than what we can grasp.
Perhaps, at the heart of the issue is really, literally the heart that is always threatening to stop. To die, is precisely to stop blood from flowing in us. It is a time bomb as much as it is the muscle of life.
At the same time, for one to live, one must stop someone else's blood from flowing.
At the same time and space, for one to rise, in application of the word, we simultaneously kill and sacrifice what must be sacrificed in order that something new (the trace) is produced and reproduced before the final, the end of what must eventually come to an end.
The rise of the next coming.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment