[D-G] Communism definitions Physics

[Mike Lansing]

Widder's text to begin an exegesis. Firstly, here is where Aquinas
looses it:

'Although the truth of the christian faith exceeds the capacity of
human reason, truths that reason is fitted by nature to know cannot be
contrary to the truth of faith. The things that reason is fitted by
nature to know are clearly most true, and it would be impossible to
think of them as false. It is also wrong to think that something that
is held by faith could be false since it is clearly confirmed by god.
Since we know by definition that what is false is contrary to the
truth, it is impossible for the principles that reason knows by nature
to be contrary to the truth of faith. (Summa Contra Gentiles 1.7, in
Aquinas 1988:4)

The impossibility of confirming a precept held by faith seems not to
bother Aquinas here, but it does illuminate a central dilemma both he
and his successors face. The attempt to make philosophy a handmaiden of
theology calls for concessions on both sides, and it becomes impossible
to maintain a dual loyalty. The demand to be true to both reason and
faith ultimately undermines both. Hence as Nitzsche declares, the
christian god is killed by the christian will to truth
itself....Analogy and univocity emerge as the possible answers to the
problem of categories and are extended in one direction toward the
problem of individuation and in the other toward the relation between
god and his creatures. Here too, difficulties arise, since analogy
fails to account for individuation, while univocity threatens to
demolish divine transcendence unless strict limitations are imposed.
Ultimately, however, these limitations rest on the very faith that is
precariously tied to and supported by reason.'
(Widder, Reason and Faith: Aquinas, Duns Scotus, and Ockham, in
Genealogies of Difference, p. 115)

Aquinas looses it precisely where the signifier god is smuggled in to
represent the signified, which for the latter is thinking DNA forged
from the crusty lips of a volcano, thus killing by default the
signifier that goes with it. Aquinas in copula with both signifier and
signified corresponds to religion in safe copula with the State and
capitalism due to the habituation of theogonic reproduction (as per
Shults' Iconoclastic Theology). We are not arguing against replacement
of concept with percept, but are reinforcing Deleuze's project to
empower life in the wake of such violences already mentioned.

We must add Widder's passage on the middle term because of the
impossible trident and its perception: an Indigene can perceive the
trident correctly, though "civilized" humans may have more trouble. Why
is this so? Have you contemplated the Wiki page for the Impossible
Trident? One can insert Bernie Sanders' socialism or else something
like Widder's passage:

'....based on complex propositions such as "Socrates is white."
Nevertheless, judgment, which assigns predicates to a subject -- or
quasi attributes in the case of the divine, since a purely simple being
does not admit such an act of predication -- refers back to
apprehension as simple knowledge of being, and here there is no room
for analogy: between statements "god is [a being] and "socrates is is
[a being]" there can only be univocity or equivocity. Aquinas here
accepts equivocity, maintaining that reason can demonstrate god's
existence and analogically ascribe certain attributes to him but that
the divine being remains opaque. This move functions on the division
between essence and existence, and it forces Aquinas to admit that his
demonstrations of god's existence do not live up to stract Aristotelian
standards for demonstrative proof, which require a definition of the
thing in question -- that is, its essence -- as a middle term in its
syllogism.....To this Duns Scotus replies: "There is no point in
distinguishing between a knowledge of his essence and a knowledge of
his existence....For I never know anything to exist unless I first have
some concept of that which existence is affirmed." '
(Widder, p.125)

We are now in a much better position to forge concepts of abiogenesis
(see Wikipedia for Abiogenesis and the Miller-Urey volcanic spark
experiment) and the inorganic life that began there.



-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Johnatan Petterson [internet.petterson at gmail.com]
>Sent: 3/13/2019 5:04:56 PM
>To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: Re: [D-G] Communism definitions Physics
>
>hello Mike,
>
>you should be more accurate when talking. you say 'copula'. is this
1+1 ?
>when did happen this disease you speak about ? who is
>responsible? Aristoteles? were you agreeing with me the Greek books are
>guilty?
>
>Homo Sapiens is the heir of the viruses and the myriapodae, thru the
fishes
>(See Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire) his Homo bones are long tem
>stratification/solidifications , ancient myriapodae legs.
>
>surely the sickness is ancient. fortunately there was this wedding
>taking place between the World Place (Shekinah) and Ha Shem.
>
>after the beatniks making fun of TV control, the american sixties of
>Century XX saw a new political subjectivities party happening,
>vowing for no confidence towards the western christian god, the current
>instagram and tumblr leftist revolution, after the seventies
ecologists, is
>an instance of that, it
>defends the rights of Native american against oil pipelines Companies,
for
>example,
>within that continuation in thoughts. what should be interesting is to
seek
>the form 'in Concept' within which comes expressed this capitalist
violence
>you mention.
>
>i think it is worthy to be accurate in the way we phrase the guilty
rapers.
>is there one or many Locomotives?
>are they the key concepts created by Aristotle and which have been
preserved
>for us via books during the middle ages? or do the concept only follow
from
>forces
>of dark oppression? is Satan the Lacanian Other? Or is Satan multiple,
>spreading viral like Homo Sapiens?
>
>i think it is worthy of your efforts as someone who defends knowledge
and
>sciences
>against bigotry to be sharp on that issue. you thus mention the Miller
>experiment but you are incompetent
>in conceptually providing your Reader with the inorganic death of the
>ethnic god. Leibniz did better than you when
>he attacked Spinoza, defending against the Stoician the idea of a good
>perfection. good perfection being
>more important than Socrates bones as a cause for understanding his
>suffering.
>
>if you thus say you stand against the concept of god, it is with
concepts
>that you ought to fight this battle.
>in order to do so, you unequivocally forget the conclusion of Deleuze
>lifetime works in CC, as I said yesterday, that Percepts
>replace Concepts.
>
>i thus think with you, that we have to use Concepts with you to stand
>against something which you call
>'god' and which you blame for the producers, farmers, merchants,
consumers
>and bankers evident violence against the Native Americans, and other
>groups whose subjectivities have been by now been totally annihilated
since
>decades within the activation of the 'copula' of the christian white
ethnic
>god. the other nation who are unable to reinvent themselves (think for
>example of the Dogons who have this year produced a movie picture in
Dogon
>sacred language )
>all those like the Leaders of the Palestinians and the Iranians
Leaders who
>can not take part of the capitalist "violence" is indeed bound to
vanish,
>eaten and digested by Homo Sapiens' myriapodae jellyfish bones.
>
>who are you blaming for this viral HIV disease in yesterday's post
actually?
>: possible answers:
>Moses revelation and the Bible
>Ha Shem wedding with the Shekinah
>Augustus and the Roman armies
>Jesus Christ and the apostles
>the Germans invaders who destroyed Civilization
>the Chinese for the invention of gunpowder
>the Phoenicians and their circumnavigation ?
>the Founding Fathers
>the merchants who profited from slavery of Africans
>Ernest Renan and the orientalists who invented the concept of an Aryan
Race
>
>-all these factors combined together and whom you would ( a bit lazily
)
>label "christian god"
>is that your concept?
>is this how you sketch out the pathology of your Homo Sapiens with?
>
>who is talking requiring this inquisition against your ethnic god?
>who is cured from Homo Sapiens "disease" and why is s/he cured?
>a Nietzschean over(wo)man? how to avoid to this resentment at once
>collectively gathered in a new massive negative hatred (destructive and
>thus self destructive) flow
> by the melting in unison of the many nihilist "scientific" minds ,
>so that this resentment gets cured, so that Homo Sapiens becomes
>aware of the possibilities of thinking expression of differences,
> the ones happening according to CC Deleuze after the death of the
Lacanian
>Other?
>
>- who is to cure Homo Sapiens?
>
>: the wedding between Ha Shem and Shekinah?
>
>with what forces the concepts can be created?
>
>what is the 'inorganic' you talk about?
>
>is not the organisation of differences of intensities happening at
once at
>the occasion
>encompassed within the Alliance between Ha Shem and Ha Shekinah?
>
>were Deleuze & Guattari not wrong with their stance against
organisation in
>ATP ?
>why is the impossible not possible?
>
>
>best regards
>
>Johnny Petterson
>
>
>
>
>Le mer. 13 mars 2019 à 17:51, Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com> a
>écrit :
>
>> the concept of god does matter. To understand the pathology of the
>> concept is to understand a major violent disease of Homo sapiens, a
>> disease that is copula with the extreme movement of violence of
>> capitalism.
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Info:
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org