adequate and inadequate ideas in the XVIIth Century

How to build a Third Temple in Jerusalem/AlQods/Yerushalaïm?
Do you think a (new or ancient) religion should have a new third temple? Or do you believe three monotheisms
should manage themselves a way to a shok therapy by building a new temple together? Do you find your self attracted by such a proposal ?
This is the place now to share your sounds and images: how do you visualize the architecture of our New Temple?
Share images, maps, sketches . Free Imagination.
Post Reply
User avatar
sylviajenepi
Site Admin
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:49 pm

adequate and inadequate ideas in the XVIIth Century

Post by sylviajenepi » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:19 pm

hi all.

Mike Lansing is having some reading difficulties so as he asked us to do so
we post something to stir up the conversation with him.


I did not know what to post that would still be intellectually satisfactory.

I was tonight continuing my education and reading King Lear by
W.Shakespeare.
I had reached ACT IV

like:
Scene 1
Edgar:
<< Yet better thus, and known to be contemned
Than still contemned and flattered. To be worse,
The lowest and most dejected thing of fortune,
Stands still in esperance, lives not in fear.>>

<<Mejor asi, saberse depreciado
que depreciado por igual pero adulado.
Ser lo peor, la mas baja y abyecta criatura
de la fortuna, entranya aun esperanza,
vive sin miedo.>>



Spanish Notes for Act IV reads:
2. Empieza la vision interna de Gloster, paralela a la de Lear. El mundo se
ha apagado para el, pero ha descubierto una verdad
luminosa.
3.A pesar de la tragedia constante y latente, hay un efusion de vida en
toda la obra que se resume en esta idea de Edgar:
mienstras estemos vivos lo peor no ha llegado.


Gloster: <<(...) Oh Edgar, hijo querido, fuego provocado de la ira de tu
padre, si pudiera vivir para verte con estos dedos,
otra vez ojos diria que tengo.>>

I think this connects well with previous mail I sent about Bicameral
Conscious Spinoza: TTP last saturday:

In TTP , Spinoza explains the difference between two kind of lights: the
prophetic, and the natural light.
The latter is common to all mankind, according to Spinoza, and has been
used by Jesus Christ and the Apostles
to spread the good news of a possibility to salvation of man & woman. It
appeals to discussion and reflexion: it was the only thing
Christ told the Apostles needed to convert the Gentles. Discussion and
reflexion was thus very appropriate to the Roman and Hellenistic
world in those ancient times like today's, a world where discussion and
concepts is highly valued, more valued than faith jumps, a world of people
which they had to convert to the trust in their own Self-natural light.
The Duns Scott passage by Deleuze in book S & Problem of Expression refers
simply to this Self-natural light, to nothing deeper.
If you think about it, this difference between two kind of lights stitches
up (or matches up well) with a world of inadequate ideas
and lack of constant certain notions. A world of discussion stirred by
inadequate ideas and schizophrenia starting to loom up with the creation of
philosophy in Greece and books in intellectual consciousness, as explained
by Julian Jaynes.
The prophetic light, in Spinoza's vision, in its singular touch, appeals
not to the most simple dogma of charity and justice, but to a kind of trust
going beyond Reason:
a kind of leap like the Knight of Faith might do later. Spinoza is not
direct when tackling this topic, yet it seems he hints quietly at the
possibility of the impossible inhuman experience in relation
to the prophetic experience. His characterization of the Hebraic faith as
something temporal and out of place (hallucinatory) outside of Eretz Israel
and the Temple destroyed:
this is made up for Spinoza's audience who was mostly people made of all
faiths--like in the Roman times,
which means mostly people reading Latin and good willing philosophers,
those Free-Thinking Christians of the 17th Century. Spinoza's goal was a
deepening of the faith inside Intellectual Realms of Philosophy, both when
reading/writing Ethicsand the Tractacus Theologico Politicus.
If you thus look up closely to the three or four kinds of Knowledges: in
Prop XL of Book 2 Scolia 1 & 2; Ethics, it matches thus quite fit with a <<
becoming - Jewish >> of Leibniz, Nietzsche and the Philosopher of later
times, (see <<Focus>> by A.Miller in Deleuze&Guattari description of it in
ATP)
going alongside a <<becoming Goy or non - Jewish >> of Spinoza himself.
Somehow Spinoza's challenge was to write adequate ideas which could fit
perfectly right with the inadequacy of the philosophical mind of his times,
and temper mild installation of the adequate Mind within his
Spinoza-Philosophy. He created a Mind-Movement. a Substitution of an
Adequate Mind with an Inadequate one. This needs desires and requires
Schizophrenia.

I hope to stir so some good conversation.
My Best Renewed Congratulations to everyone here,

Post Reply