|
|
|
|
FRAGMENTATION OF BEING and the Path Beyond the Void by Kent D. Palmer
copyright 2004 All Rights Reserved. Not for Distribution.
Primordial Being is the linguistic basis for the concept of Being. We have seen that Primordial Being is a meaning cluster which has specific structure parallels with the structure of the Primal Scene. This structure contains three parts: the predicative, existential, and veridical. These work together to connect speeches to the world in a way that displays inner necessity. These three linguistic features are based on three distinctions: true/false; identity/difference; and real/unreal. These are imaginary distinctions upon which our Western worldview is founded. They are lost when the symbolic conceptual gloss of Being is produced by ideation. They are implicit in Primordial Being. We really only see these distinctions clearly at the imaginary level between the primordial (pre-ontological) and the conceptual (ontological). We need to unfold the imaginary level distinctions in order to see the full implications of the distinctions that lie dormant within Primordial Being.
The imaginary distinctions are unfolded by creating three different matrices where each dichotomy is crossed with the other two to produce Cartesian products. This produces twelve imaginary pairs from the three basic dichotomies.
Each of these pairs con be associated with a particular conceptual gloss. This structure allows us to see how several key concepts are implicit in the imaginary dichotomies that arise from Primordial Being. Explicating this structure allows us to recap some of our argument to this point.
Between the well and the tree is a minimal system of concepts which relate the dichotomies true/false and identity/difference. This minimal system brings out the distinction made by Heidegger between the Same and Identity. The tautology of identity "A=A" is an excellent example of how concepts are emptied of content. Tautology, which is the ideal form of identity, becomes an empty statement. Tautologies are pure unity, and they are meaningless. As Heidegger points out, this empty identity is based on the most robust notion of sameness. Sameness is identified with "belonging together." In belonging together is the concept of complementarity of opposites symbiotically adapted to each other. What is the same expresses this belonging together which disappears with conceptual unity. Strangely, identity holds within it pure difference of a thing with itself. This is an anomalous extreme situation which leads to paradoxes when a class is seen as a member of itself. The merging of pure ideation and pure difference is actually a nihilistic situation in which empty extremes are brought together. Sameness is a middle road between these extremes. Identity and difference are blended in sameness. For instance, a specie has sameness. Each kind belongs together with other kinds. Each kind contains the complementarity of male/female relations. Males and females belong together to form a single natural complex: the family. Species belong together to form ecological complexes. Belonging together is non-conceptual; it operates between the symbolic and the imaginary levels. Imaginary contrasting pairs belong together. When conceptual glosses are produced, these are turned into artificial unities which lose the content that exists on the imaginary level. The same is a key concept that expresses this complementarity that is found everywhere among the natural complexes. Tautological identity is false because it has lost the inward and outward belonging together that characterizes true identity. False identity is claimed unity which really doesn't mean anything because it is empty of all contents.
The next pair to be considered is true and false difference. False difference is clearly the field of diacritical differences in which every element in the field is defined in terms of its differences from each other thing in the field. F. de Sussaire proposed this model to explain the meaning of linguistic signs. This, of course, works for synchronic cross sections of sign systems, but falls apart once time is introduced. Such a system diachronically becomes a seething mass of changes, as the alteration of any one sign causes the meanings of all signs to change in unspecified, but arbitrary ways. This external unity of the field defines a pure plenum of differences which is nihilisticly opposite the self identity of any particular sign with itself. Pure unbound difference, which shifts arbitrarily with any change to an element within the field, is an extreme vision of utter fragmentation of the field of signifiers. We have identified this level of diacritical differences in signification as the background upon which the non-nihilistic distinction appears. The non-nihilistic distinction is a grounded meaning in a sea of shifting significance. It is a true distinction or difference against a background of false differences. In a non-nihilistic distinction a single difference is taken to be a line of demarcation at which a stand may be taken within a context of utter relativism. The non-nihilistic distinction perceives the natural boundaries beyond arbitrarily imposed category schemes. Plato describes this as finding the joints between the bones when butchering an animal. All natural complexes have built-in lines of demarcation which are discovered within the world by close inspection and experimentation with category schemes. Once the correct distinctions are found motivated by the structure of the natural complex itself, then the other proposed differences fall away. However, in the realm of artificial complexes it is very difficult to discern these natural boundaries. Thus, there is an intensive play of arbitrary diacritical differences around any cultural product. Discernment of the distinction that cuts through this haze of signifiers is all but impossible. When such a distinction is apprehended, it stands out on the background of artificial distinctions. It appears as a non-nihilistic moment arising as a counterpoint to all the nihilistically produced artificial differences that arise in the process of signification. Relativism -- the intellectual disease of our time -- posits that no such non-nihilistic distinctions may be apprehended. Yet strangely, the statement of this position itself is predicated on that possibility. In other words, relativism is a position which can only be articulated as a denial of non-nihilistic distinctions. It is a counter claim to those who have in the past claimed to apprehend non-nihilistic lines of demarcation in the shifting sands of diacritical distinctions. Mainly these were based upon religious truths that allowed the natural complexes of human life to be seen in one form or another. Denial of religious truth, though, in relativism leads to a position in which only the pure plenum of differences is designated as real, and the religious truth becomes the symbolic denied other. The imaginary differences which are posited by human categorization have their reality only as counter point to the symbolic other of religious truth. This meta-distinction is, in fact, a non-nihilistic distinction made by the relativists which, if denied, causes the relativistic position to collapse into meaninglessness. Any plenum of pure difference without a non-nihilistic distinction becomes meaninglessness. Only by holding at bay religious truth can the relativist position exist at all. So it is with all culturally developed distinctions. There is a counter point of the non-nihilistic key difference and the diacritical differences that surround and obscure it. Bateson called this the "difference that makes a difference." It is meta-information which adds judgment to the organized data. One distinction is highlighted and selected to be the key which gives significance to all the others. It is a threshold which triggers a reaction which singles out one difference from all the others as crucial.
It is important to see that these four concepts:
form an interconnected set that defines the difference between the well and the tree at the same time as positing their identity. The difference between the well and the tree is a non-nihilistic distinction which distinguishes them from each other while simultaneously recognizing their sameness. This Primal Scene is set up in endless time as a source for all non-nihilistic distinctions and all recognitions of sameness. In-time we have the endless fluctuation between pure identity and pure difference as conceptual glosses. The power of the Primal Scene is that it gives a mythic image that affirms over and above this another ae-ternal realm in which the non-nihilistic distinction and sameness operate, grounding all the natural complexes we discover in our world. It hints at the possibility of making non-nihilistic distinctions and apprehending sameness in artificial complexes as well. In fact, this is the distinction between Holy/Whole/Halig and Hollow/Hel as states (Hal). Wholeness derives from making non-nihilistic distinctions and apprehending sameness in human affairs which gives them the same character as natural complexes. Hollowness and emptiness derives from the application of pure difference and pure identity as a means of categorizing of reality which is arbitrary and ungrounded. Without the ae-ternal it is impossible to achieve wholeness. Without the ae-ternal the result is a kakatopia -- hell on earth. Yet the ae-ternal implies the out-of-time. To say that the well and tree are non-nihilistically different yet the same, implies a source of their wholeness which they confer upon in-time wholes. That out-of-time source of wholeness is not itself whole, but is "one." A single source of all causation that is the ground of wholeness in ae-ternity. The ae-ternal wholeness derives all its properties from that source which is as different from ae-ternity as ae-ternity is from the in-time realm. The ground of oneness is the reality which the unreal ae-ternity depends upon, which is, in turn, the reality for an unreal in-time realm. Thus, the in-time is doubly unreal from the perspective of this out-of-time oneness of the single source of all causation. The relations between the single source and the ae-ternal Primal Scene is described in two further minimal systems of concepts which relate the tree to the single source independently of the relation of the well to the single source.
We will discuss the relation of the well with the single source first. In this relationship the identity/difference imaginary distinction is related to the real/unreal imaginary distinction to form a minimal system of binary pairs. These binary pairs are then glossed with concepts which attempt to grasp their meaning. The first set of glosses is the difference between real identity and unreal identity.
Real identity is the gestalt, whereas unreal identity is the generalized or symbolic other. The symbolic other is an unreal identity because it is a gloss produced by abstraction which exists only in the illusory continuity produced by ideation. The symbolic other is the grandiose concept which is empty of content that reigns over the field of imaginary distinctions. It attempts to make non-nihilistic distinctions by fiat. That non-nihilistic distinction is between itself and all the imaginary oppositions. This attempt always fails because of the illusory nature of the symbolic other. It turns out to be merely another nihilistic distinction imposed by power, only to be destroyed when the balance of power shifts. The generalized other is the tyrant king that imposes its will and brings about a temporary false unity to the field of diacritical differences which is doomed to fall back into that field and dissolve, being replaced by another king for a day.
By contrast, the gestalt is a real identity which produces the form of all natural complexes. The gestalt is a robust unity which is still multifaceted. Unification is achieved by internal complementary relations, not by false identification of projected pure identity. The gestalt is a self-sustaining constellation of figure/ground relations. These figure/ground relations are dynamic instead of static. The concept of symbolic other is a static gloss which maintains itself above the imaginary field of contrasting pairs by power. When the grip is released on the ideational projector and it stops -- the whole thing falls apart. On the other hand, the gestalt is a ground up or grass roots kind of identity in which figures are maintained by their internal relations with their grounds. The figures are not projected upon their grounds, but offered up as non-nihilisticly distinguished. In the gestalt the figure and ground are complementary opposites that belong together. By gestalts we apprehend natural complexes. The gestalt gives the forms which are then used by ideation in obsessive repetition to produce the illusory continuity of the conceptual gloss. Thus, the gestalt is the natural substructure beneath the symbolic or generalized other which is taken for granted and exploited. The gestalt is the natural environment which is exploited as a resource by the formal-structural system. For instance, corporations are fictional legal persons. Thus, they are symbolic concepts which exploit the human and natural resources that are natural givens. Corporations are vortices of energy by which material are transformed from resource to product to profit. Money is the symbolic exchange between corporations. The cash flow of the corporation is the illusory continuity which maintains its existence. When cash flow stops, the vortex of the corporation dissolves. The corporation is a symbolic or generalized other to all the people who work in that company. It is an artificial unity, a false identity, shown by the fact it is a fictional legal person. Over and against the corporation are natural complexes like communities, neighborhoods, families which are gestalt wholes. The corporation feeds off of these gestalt patterns, but is inimical to them because its method of organization is directly contrary to those natural complexes. The corporation is always disturbing the natural complexes which it uses as a resource. It grinds up and rearranges those "materials" into new patterns of its own devising. Unreal identity destroys real identity in order to impose artificial patterning as a will to power. Yet, unreal identity needs the real identities in order to function. When it has exhausted the non-renewable resources, then the operation collapses and the corporation moves its investment elsewhere.
The other pair of opposite glosses that relate the well and the tree is the distinction between real and unreal difference. This is the distinction between genuine and artificial emergence. Artificial emergence is called excrescence because it represents an abnormal growth through production of unnecessary novelty for its own sake. This excrescence of artificial novelty is, in fact, only the diachronic dynamic of diacritical differences. The constant fluctuations of diacritical differences are expressed as competing novelties in the marketplace of products and ideas. This process only occurs with respect to artificial complexes. Natural complexes are stable and do not need a halo of false distinctions to be constantly created in order to be seen. Artificial complexes produced by the corporate socio-technical system seem to need this halo of false distinctions in order to be seen at all. The production of false novelty allows the perception of differences between versions of the same thing. This draws abnormal attention to one version, then another, then another within the diacritical field. This process forces attention to move through the field of artificial complexes, making the whole field visible. Whatever attention is drawn to at the moment stands out on the field of artificial complexes.
Genuine emergence disturbs the equilibrium of the dialectical field within which excrescence takes place. With genuine emergence a non-nihilistic distinction is made within this field. The artificial unity imposed by the symbolic other is destroyed, and the underlying gestalt is exposed. The underlying gestalt has changed so that a new power structure must be built up. We can see the genuine emergence as the messenger of change between the gestalt and the generalized other. The generalized other creates a false unity over the field of the gestalt. Then the underlying gestalt changes. The herald of that change is the emergent event. The gestalt changes through the precessing of the proto-gestalt. One gestalt replaces another, but the glosses do not immediately react. The power centers resist change despite the shifting of the power base. When the emergent event occurs, revolution follows. The emergent event notifies the generalized other of the change in the gestalt's underpinnings. Artificial emergence ceases. Repatterning of the entire field occurs. Then quickly a new symbolic other is formed, and excrescence begins again within the new regime.
In this description the change of gestalt indicated the existence of the proto-gestalt. That is the meta-patterning which organizes all the gestalts. However, the relation being displayed here is between the well and the single source. The single source gives oneness to the gestalt, and is also the source of the changes which transform that gestalt pattern. Each gestalt pattern is based on natural differences which may only appear from wellsprings of sameness and non-nihilistic distinction. Each change also exhibits complementarity and difference that makes a difference. The generalized other and excrescence are the unreal projections in time of these ae-ternal processes. In-time illusory continuity produced by ideation attempts to mimic the gestalt by producing the unreal identity of the symbolic other. This gloss maintains its own visibility above the flux of diachronic diacritical changes that appear as excrescences. When ideational projection stops, then only the natural complexes are left. Ideational projection is the intentional morphe of Husserl which forms the hyle (matter) of experience. This results in noemata and noesis differentiating themselves from each other. Noema are formed contents, while noesis are formings of content. Husserl noted that form and content are never separate in experience. Noesis emphasizes content, but it is already formed. All this for Husserl occurs because the transcendental subject (read symbolic other) has already exerted control by projecting the intentional morphe which is an apriori forming of content. Here gestalt is suppressed and replaced by artificial unity (intentional morphe) and difference (hyle). Once pure identity and difference have been projected, then the gestalt is imitated, or seen through a glass darkly, as noema related to various noesis. Husserl's call to return to the things themselves actually occurs under the auspices of the symbolic other and within the illusion of ideation. An actual return to the things themselves would see the gestalts of natural complexes without the superstructure of transcendental subjectivity. Transcendental subjectivity is an illusory continuity, a fiction, which in fact is unstable. It can only be maintained for a short time, and really only appears in the synchronic cross-section.
The final minimal system of concepts which arise out of the permutation of imaginary opposites relates the tree to the single source. Truth and falsehood normally relate to statements, while reality and the unreal classify beings. When these two sets of opposites are permutated, we get the following glosses.
True reality in the Indo-European tradition is associated with the concept of "RTA" in the Vedas and "ASA" in the Zoroastrian tradition. Among the Greeks the word ARTE is probably related to this Indo-European root. It means "alignment with cosmic harmony" that among the Greeks became the concept of "excellence." It is the unalterable law by which manifestation occurs. It is contrast to "ae" eternal law as its manifestation in-time. From "rta" comes our term right. Right is the opposite of both left and wrong. Our meaning is what is correct, but also what is ours to possess in an unalienable way. "RTA," which stands behind "RIGHT," is a deeper concept. RTA is the harmony which must occur in manifestation for it to demonstrate AE -- eternal law. Ae-ternal law is unchanging regardless of circumstance. Yet ae-ternal law must manifest in various changing circumstances in order for them to display the eternal law. RTA acts upon and within creation in order to display what is uncreated. Thus, RTA is the coherence between reality of the single source as it manifests in ae-ternal law and the truth of the proto-gestalt. The proto-gestalt is the inner coherence of all the worlds. That is the inner coherence of all manifestation. This inner coherence of manifestation circles around the ae-ternal law constantly pointing toward it. Because the ae-ternal law, is pointed at it, the single source is proclaimed. But RTA is the means by which the contingent inner coherence of phenomena constantly aligns itself to continuously point yet again toward the ae-ternal law. RTA is a constant correction which, through its very change, makes ae-ternal law continuously visible. RTA is truth in its relation to manifestation and reality in relation to the "AE" that demonstrates the constant intervention of the single source.
From RTA we diverge in two directions. First, it is possible to diverge toward false reality. False reality may be glossed as ideation. When naming and categorization occurs in language, reality is falsified. Paraphrasing the Tao Te Ching -- "the RTA that is named is not the true RTA." The corollary of the Whorfian hypothesis is that reality is distorted differently by each language. Categorizations implicit in language pre-divide the world making imaginary distinctions. Conceptual distinctions are only critical glosses on those built into language itself. This is why we have emphasized the distinctions built into Primordial Being over the emptiness of Conceptual Being. By laying out the ramifications of the distinctions in Primordial Being, we see how those shape the Indo-European view of the world which culminates in the Western worldview. The falsification of reality through linguistic naming and categorization is the ultimate basis for ideation. In ideation the gloss is created and projected upon the natural complexes that appear phenomenologically. Ideation produces the illusory continuity that glues segments of narration together so that the naming process appears as a continuous stream. The commentary which accompanies a collage of pictures appears to give it unity. Our inward thought is just such a narration which attempts to give unity to our experience. Stop that inward narration of thought, and it's difficult to find the self. The Buddhists say there is no self. The self is an illusory construct built upon the projection of linguistic categories and the internal process of ideation that allows those linguistic categories to be continuously applied to experience.
The other direction of divergence away form RTA is toward true unreality. Since reality is defined as the single source of all causation, then what is unreal, yet true, is that which is within the coherence of the proto-gestalt but does not derive directly form the single source. This is named by Chittick: "the imagal." In Arabic it is called the Khayal. It is the mythic realm in which images instead of words and linguistic categories have their root. What Ibn al-Arabi says about the imagal is that it is both real and unreal simultaneously. This means there is an element of truth in the image, but the image itself is unreal. The point is that since there is no direct apprehension of the single source, it is via the imagal that we have some access to that realm. Words as false reality, and images as true unreality, describe our two approaches to the single source which both miss the mark, but each in a different way give some inkling of the ae-ternal law.
Total divergence from true reality (RTA) is false unreality. False unreality is pure fantasy which bears no relation to the single source at all. Words and images distort RTA, but when these are combined, they produce a fantasy reality which is a total distortion. Today we call this entertainment. We are entertaining ourselves to death. The narration of ideation combined, with images, gives us story, movie, sitcom, novel and all the other forms by which fantasies are produced as diversions. These culminate in the virtual "reality" of computerized entertainment environments which react with images and narrations to our own choices and actions. These diversions take us into a realm totally devoid of RTA where we generate our own outcomes and are lost to the outcomes that emanate from the single source expressing ae-ternal law. In Zoroastrianism the opposite of RTA/ASA is the DRUJ: the people of the lie. The lie is what goes against ae-ternal law, and thus disrupts cosmic harmony. In Islam this is called KUFR -- those who cover up reality. The druj is false and unreal both.
What is of interest in this is how true reality is still only a partial description. It lacks all reference to identity and difference. This is true of all the minimal systems discussed so far. Each one lacks some aspect of the set of imaginary distinctions which are bound together in Primordial Being. So RTA is true reality, yet this is still not the whole story. The only way to solve this dilemma of partiality is to permute the three dichotomies together to get 23 images similar to the trigrams of the I Ching.
These can be seen as related to Chang's four types of harmony and with disharmony.
Glosses for each trigram are provided:
This trigram is glossed as the ephemeron. It is the state of pure change which Heraclitus spoke of when he said you cannot step into the same river twice. It is the purely ephemeral affluxion which is merely swirling turbulence like clouds ever changing within which forms are not fantasy. It is the hyle, or pure experiential matter, of Husserl which the intentional morphe forms. It is utterly empty and may be described with the Old English word "idel."
This trigram represents the traditional idea of essence. It is a gestalt of attributes and from which is self identical and can be named. It is intuited within the noematic neculi which emerge form the affluxions. It is the natural complex which has its own kind. We apprehend the kindness of the natural complex which remains the same for a period of time despite the transformation of the noematic nucli within the affluxion.
This trigram represents the spacetime locus which has been called the eventity. It is a locus considered synchronically and diachronically which may be named. Synchronically it is a diacritically-related sign, while diachronically it is a point identified by excrescence. As a locus within spacetime, it may be named so that a correspondence is set up between a locus in the spacetime continuum and a linguistic term which is also diachronic and synchronic.
Together essence and eventity embody the lowest level of harmony by Chang's definition which is logical consistency. Together they define what Whitehead calls the "organism" in his process philosophy. Essences appear in spacetime as eventities. Eventities have kindness. The combination yields relatively stable things which may be seen to have logical relations to each other which are consistent.
The next trigram is at a higher level of abstraction and is glossed as the epoch or eon. The epoch is a projected set of essencing eventities.
It is a symbolic or generalized other which exists as a conceptual gloss. It is self-identical and exists only as an illusion of ideation. Epochs of Being, Epsitemes and Paradigms all fall under this concept. The epoch is an attempt to group together a set of eventities which form a regime of a dynamical system.
This trigram is the genuine emergence which, by making the non-nihilistic distinction, also makes rta visible. It disrupts the Epoch and causes a new conceptual gestalt to form. This is called the novum because it is like a nova of a star which is a radical change of state that releases light. The novum and the epoch are opposites. The novum is a true reality which, when it appears, forces the false unreality to vanish.
The novum and the epoch together manifest the next higher level of harmony above logical consistency. This higher form of harmony is called, by Chang, Interaction. The eventities interact within an epoch to give it a special character. The novum interacts with the epoch to cause the turning over of conceptual gestalts which show that the proto-gestalt is precessing. Mutual interaction between eventities, and between epoch and novum, provide the harmony within a temporal gestalt and between temporal gestalts.
This trigram is glossed by what Koestler calls the "holon." The holon is a whole which contains parts and is itself a part of a greater whole. The holon is the true coherence of the epoch rather than its projected gloss.
This trigram is glossed by the word "integra." The integra is the uniqueness of the thing beyond its essence. Each individual of any kind has its own unique configuration. Normal metaphysics is reductionist in that it forgets that beings are unique configurations of necessary and accidental attributes. The quality of uniqueness that gives each being its integrity is very important. The novelty of the novum derives from the uniqueness of its integra. It is through the integra that the novum is recognized as being different from the other beings in a particular epoch which form a holon.
The holon and integra explicitly manifest the next higher level of harmony identified by Chang as mutual dependence. The holon exhibits part/whole mutual dependence, whereas the integra exhibits mutual dependence among colleagues or likes. Things of the same kind are still vastly different and it is because of their difference that the integra of different, likes can fit together in complementarity.
This final trigram is glossed by the term "holoid" which comes from George Leonard. He called the holographic wholes holoidal. In the hologram each part contains a picture of the whole. This is the inner coherence of the holon and integra together. This final level displays the highest form of harmony that Chang calls interpenetration. Interpenetration means that each part reflects all the other parts in a synchronized synthesis. The holoid points directly at ae-ternal law in the most direct way. It manifests that wholeness in which all the parts are the same despite their uniqueness, or perhaps through their uniqueness. In the holoid truth, reality, and identity converge. It is the highest pinnacle of the integration of all the aspects of Being which is opposite the hollowness of hel of Affluxion, or pure flux.
The single source appears as the nexus of these eight Western trigrams of Primordial Being. It is the origin of all of them singly and together. The trigrams cover over the single source which never appears directly. The single source is the origin of their difference and their sameness. The single source stands beyond Being, obscured by it as the eclipsing of the moon obscures the sun. That source, like the sun, is too bright to be apprehended directly without causing blindness. The trigrams of Primordial Being prevent blindness by eclipsing the sun of the Good.
The unfolding of the imaginary opposites from Primordial Being shows us the implicit structure which stands in back of the unfolding of the dialectic of Western philosophy. That structure repeats the pattern established by deep temporality. It establishes 12 fundamental concepts which describe various aspects of manifestation which is guided by Primordial Being. These concepts together establish a firm framework for relating wholeness to hollowness. Yet these 12 concepts each hide some aspect of Primordial Being as it displays some other aspect. This showing and hiding gives way to a deeper structural analysis which develops the primordial Western trigrams. These trigrams are glossed by eight key concepts which include, within them, the different levels of harmony alluded to by C. Y. Chang. In the course of unfolding the imaginary opposites of Primordial Being, we have laid out a core vocabulary for dealing with emergence and the gestalt. This vocabulary has an important role to play because it brings the primordial scene of the well and the tree into a conceptual realm where it can be applied to historical events. Yet, the bridge back to an ahistroical mythic time is unbroken. It shows that the same model which was discovered in deep temporality exists in relation to Primordial Being as well. This same model unfolds into a panoply of concepts which help us to situate and understand the unfolding of historical time in which the phenomenon of emergence plays a key role, and in which gestalt wholes are the key unit. This wholism, implicit in Primordial Being, is all but lost in the transition to Conceptual Being. It is our struggle to attempt to regain that wholism against the tide which flows toward hollowness and hell. Conceptualization of Being is a major move toward the institutionalization of hollowness in the Western tradition and the slide toward ever intensifying kakatopias. Yet, at its core there is the ever present possibility of wholeness that lurks behind every idealism and every reductionism. The key problem is how to re-realize the wholeness in the midst of the stultifying degeneration into hollowness. It is as if the Western tradition carries within its foundations its own answer, hidden, waiting to be unlocked. The question is how to unlock the wholeness inherent in the hollowness. If it were possible to unlock it, everyone would recognize it as our own most possibility. (Could this be the secret of the DAJAL?) Wholeness and hollowness are intertwined within the Western tradition. They are intertwined in each of us who are embedded in that tradition. By returning to Primordial Being, we discover a vocabulary to describe wholeness in relation to hollowness, both diachronically and synchronically, as well as their synthesis. We need to appreciate that our ability to describe and define wholes is of a piece with our ability to experience hollowness. Yet the reverse is the case as well. We are capable of experiencing wholeness because we can describe hollowness. Our "hal" or state revolves between these two extremes.
|
|
|
|
