[D-G] Communism definitions Physics

[Mike Lansing]

the word you concocted, unzeitgemaessetikheidt' doews not appear in the
dictionary. Urzeugung, 'abiogenesis,' unzustand ' original state.'
Knowledge is replacing faith planet-wide, and Guattari's machinic
atheism is now a contemporary trajectory, though the science of
abiogenesis cannot self-destruct as easily as faith or
'feeling-compromised reason.' It is interesting to watch as thinking
DNA like Aquinas attempts to find its own origins, whereby the electron
of the sparking volcano still retains its individuality (and [italics])
its sameness to other electrons. Deleuze can sound like none other than
the neo-Confucians' concept of the 'diversity of particularizations,'
according to Chu Hsi, et al.

<-----Original Message-----> 
>From: Johnatan Petterson [internet.petterson at gmail.com]
>Sent: 3/13/2019 8:10:44 PM
>To: deleuze-guattari at lists.driftline.org
>Subject: Re: [D-G] Communism definitions Physics
>
>as to Nietzsche's quote in your mention,
>I'd reckon Fried. Nietzsche was talking (perceptually?) or anyway
>historically rather
>than conceptually. When mentioning "christian god", sure does he think
about
>the figure of the Jesus Christ dude. Nietzsche is often ironical and
the
>will to truth
>is speaking of the people who come as the historical followers of the
>historical Jesus Christ.
>The Figure of Christ "in the mind" of the followers "works" and
produces a
>religious effect,
>what Widder calls faith and which is just a feeling. Feeling
encompasses
>both Reason and Faith, again the both self destruct as concepts
>when you consider the necessity of producing concepts within the full
>feeling.
>Whether Aquinas proves the concept
>of that feeling, that is if nobody is missing the definition he gives,
>would probably not
>matter for Nietzsche. That was Nietzsche's novelty in the history of
>philosophy, its
>*Unzeitgemässetikheidt (?) *Nietzsche took pleasure with playing with
such
>"personnages conceptuels" as
>Aquinas or Jesus Christ, because he did not feel the need to prove his
>concept (besides knowing his concepts full well)
>unlikely anxious in a way that nobody would miss it, or not dig it.
That
>was what he meant by a sudden "will to truth"
>killing Jesus Christ in such a Roman Crucifixion Drama. The followers
are a
>metaphor for such historians of philosophy such
>as Nathan Widder. How ironical innit? Bravo Fried.!! carry on,
>Continuation, please!!
>
>Le jeu. 14 mars 2019 à 01:19, Mike Lansing <badger2 at mail2world.com> a
>écrit :
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>List address: deleuze-guattari at driftline.org
>Info:
http://lists.driftline.org/listinfo.cgi/deleuze-guattari-driftline.org
>Archives: www.driftline.org