Feature 2087 · Metaphysical/mystical discourse

1<bos>Hamlet‟s first remark concerns this scandal, his mother‟s precipitous marriage. This marriage which the mother herself in her anxiety, her anxiety to know what is troubling her beloved son, herself calls „our o‟erhasty marriage‟: „I doubt it is no other but the main, his father‟s death and our o‟erhasty marriage‟ (II ii 56). No need to remind you of those words of Hamlet about the left-overs of the funeral meal which are used for the wedding breakfast: „Thrift, thrift, Horatio! ‟ (Économie, économie), indicating with this term something which reminds us that in our exploration of the world of the object, in this articulation which is that of modern society between what we call use-value and exchange-value with all the notions that are engendered around it, there is something

2<bos>“Where can I find God?” One obvious answer: Wherever He is present. But how is God present in things? God is cer- tainly present through the properties of His Essence, which is He Himself, His very Being. Allah, God as described by the all-comprehensive name, has an in- fluence upon everything in the cosmos. Everything that exists, by the fact of ¢x- isting, manifests something of the Divine Presence, which by definition embraces all that exists. But every name ot God has its own presence, which means that God makes Himself present to His crea- tures in various modalities. In each case it is God who reveals Himself, who is pres- ¶ scan page 30 \ | { \ ¶ 6 ¶ Overview ¶ ent in the created thing, but God as the Abaser (

3exteriority of the body. A modification well within the Platonic diagram: writing of the soul and of the body, writing of the interior and of the exterior, writing of conscience and of the passions, as there is a voice of the soul and a voice of the body. “Conscience is the voice of the soul, the passions are the voice of the body” [p. 249]. One must constantly go back toward the “voice of nature,” the “holy voice of nature,” that merges with the divine inscription and prescription; one must encounter oneself within it, enter into a dialogue within its signs, speak and respond to oneself in its pages. ¶ It was as if nature had spread out all her magnificence in front of our eyes to offer its text for our consideration. ... I have therefore closed all the books.

4to say, to live. “For even the infinite is dead/infinite is the name of a dead man, who is not dead” (ibid.). Only life without difference, life without death will van- quish death and God. But it will do so by negating itself as life, within death, and by becoming God himself. God, thus, is Death: infinite Life, ¶ 422 Notes To PAGES 232-33 ¶ Life without difference, as it is attributed to God by the classical ontotheology or metaphysics (with the ambiguous and remarkable exception of Hegel) to which Artaud still belongs. But just as death is the name of difference within life, of finitude as the essence of life, so the infinity of God, as Life and Presence, is the other name of finitude. But the other name

5<bos>And to that end we must ask the reader to accompany us in imagination to the sovereign nursery of wisdom and initiation, to the holy land of the Uraeus serpent, to the land of Isis and Osris, of the Pyramids and the Nile, even to Khem, more magnificent in ruin than all other lands are in plenitude of their glory. ¶ KKK kkk Kk KKK ¶ [Editor’s note: This article on the Qabalah was originally published in Equinox I (5) as part V of the Temple of Solomon the King serial. Essentially it was a filler, written after J.F.C. Fuller who had been doing the legwork of working up the series from Crowley’s diaries and notebooks broke with the Beast. In Equinox I (10) it was declared to be Liber LVII in Class B

6who says they believe in X and Y, truly believes and practices X and Y in a way that B will accept as such. For example, if A and B, however, do not find themselves to be ‘similar’ enough in enough of the ways each of them requires, then after this initial meeting and un-packing of the kit bags, as it were, they may well decide to go their own ways. To construct a relationship that relates to a politics to friendship is to have demanded an ethics of hospitality to arrive with the relationship, an ethics from which political allies have welcomed one another when orienting as friends politically and ethically to each other; friendship is beyond superficial stances of solidarity that way. An ethics of hospitality has to permit enough room to discover whether or not the commitments of two people coincide, and to what extent and degree these commitments are similar. This is the tension in the discourses and the practices being addressed. One would further hope that the

7knowledge). The “nonexistent things” are objects of knowledge, also called the “immutable entities.” These things or entities are im- mutable because they never change, just as God’s knowledge never changes. He knows them for all eternity. Here of course we enter onto the very slippery ground of free will and predestination, one of Ibn al-‘Arabi’s favorite topics. When discussing wujid, the central concern of the Muslim Peripatetics such as Avicenna, Ibn al-‘Arabi often borrows the Peripatetic term wajib al-wujid, Nec- essary Being, that which by its very na- ture 1s and cannot not be; this is what we have been referring to as “Being.” In this context the entities are called the “possi- ble things” (mumkinat),

8but God.” ¶ The objects of God’s knowledge are infinite, though only a finite number ex- ist at any given time and only a finite number can be known by a finite thing. God Himself is infinite in the direction of the Essence, which is to say that He also cannot be known. For man, the seeker of knowledge, the acquisition of knowledge is endless, since the objects of knowledge are endless. This is the secret of man’s fe- licity. Knowledge, the greatest good, is also the greatest joy and the greatest pleasure. The never-ending trajectory of man’s life in the next world has to be ex- plained in terms of his constant growth in knowledge. For the felicitous, this knowledge is totally congruent and har- monious with their own souls, which have been shaped in this world through faith

9<bos>discourse the real around which it is coiled, and to dispense with the myths by which it is ordinarily supplied. But from that to declare that there is a lack of the real that nothing is all, something whose incidence in terms of truth would go straight away to the most risky of aphorisms, – or, to take it from a another angle, to put forward that the real is necessitated from verifications without an object, is here to simply take up the re-launch of the foolishness that can be pinpointed as the noumenon: in other (36) words that being flees thought … Nothing can get to the bottom of this being that a little more I daphnise, even laurify in this „noumenon‟ of which it would be better to say that for it to be supported, there must be several layers of it…

10the volume-cavity system proper to the (proprioceptive) body. The head is included in the body, but the face is not. The face is a surface: facial traits, lines, wrinkles; long face, square face, triangular face; the face is a map, even when it is applied to and wraps a volume, even when it surrounds and borders cavities that are now no more than holes. The head, even the human head, is not necessarily a face. The face is produced only when the head ceases to be a part of the body, when it ceases to be coded by the body, when it ceases to have a multidimensional, polyvocal corporeal code — when the body, head included, has been decoded and has to be overcoded‘by something we shall call the Face. This amounts to saying that the head, all the volume-cavity elements of the head, have to be facialized. What

11face is a visual percept that crystallizes out of “different varieties of vague luminosity without form or dimension.” A suggestive whiteness, a hole that captures, a face. According to this account, the dimensionless black hole and formless white wall are already there to begin with. And there are already a number of possible combinations in the system: either black holes distribute themselves on the white wall, or the white wall unravels and moves toward a black hole combining all black holes, hurtling them together or making them “crest.” Sometimes faces appear on the wall, with their holes; sometimes they appear in the hole, with their linearized, rolled-up wall. A horror story, the face is a horror story. It is certain that the signifier does not construct the wall that it needs all by itself; it is certain that subjectivity does not dig its hole all alone. Concrete faces cannot be assumed to come ready-made. They are engendered by an

12abstract machine (for example, there is a certain slowness, a certain viscosity, of painting in relation to music; but one cannot draw a symbolic boundary between the human being and animal. One can only calculate and compare powers of deterritorialization). Fernandez demonstrates the presence of becomings-woman, becomings-child in vocal music. Then he decries the rise of instrumental and orchestral music; he is particularly critical of Verdi and Wagner for having resexualized the voice, for having restored the binary machine in response to the requirements of capitalism, which wants a man to be a man and a woman a woman, each with his or her own voice: Verdi-voices, Wagner-voices, are reterritorialized upon man and woman. He explains the premature disappearance of Rossini and Bellini (the retirement of the first and death of the second) by their hopeless feeling that the vocal becomings of the opera were no longer possible. However

13<bos>The extent to which doubt and the Cartesian Cogito are punctuated by this project of a singular and unprecedented excess—an excess in the direction of the nondetermined, Nothingness or Infinity, an excess which overflows the totality of that which can be thought, the totality of beings and determined meanings, the totality of factual history—is also the extent to which any effort to reduce this project, to enclose it within a determined historical structure, however comprehensive, risks missing the essential, risks dulling the point itself: Such an effort risks doing violence to this project in turn (for there is also a violence applicable to rationalists and to sense, to good sense; and this, perhaps, is what Foucault’s book definitely demonstrates, for the victims of whom he speaks are always the bearers of sense, the true bearers of the true and

14; and even the functioning of the desiring-machines against tragedy, against “the fatal drama of the personality,” against “the inevitable confusion between mask and actor.” It is obvious that Miller’s correspondent, Michael Fraenkel, does not understand. He talks like a psychoanalyst, or like a nineteenth-century Hellenist: yes, myth, tragedy, Oedipus, and Hamlet are good expressions, pregnant forms; they express the true permanent drama of desire and knowledge. Fraenkel calls to his aid all the commonplaces, Schopenhauer, and the Nietzsche of The Birth of Tragedy. He thinks Miller is unaware of these things, and never wonders for a second why Nietzsche himself broke with The Birth of Tragedy, why he stopped believing in tragic representation. ¶ Michel Foucault has convincingly shown what break (coupure) introduced the irruption of production into the world of representation

15are so clearly organised by an edge, by a caesura. For example, ¶ 3 - Memoirs of my nervous illness, p. 70. 4 - Ibid. <0x0C> Returning to Schreber edge: "Why do you not say it?", caesura with the phrase which implies the "aloud". And not alone therefore is this hallucination in a way orga- nised by a caesura, but it is from the place itself, as I might say, thus iso- lated by the caesura that there comes the response: "Because I am stupid perhaps". This type of device that Lacan uses to take up Jacobson's linguistics, and in particular the distinction between the phenomena of message and of code, and therefore the fact that hallucinations can include messages about the code — we will see this further on — and phenomena of code about the message, has for us

16rose again to the candle's flame, the wick flickering. And then she stepped forward — through the doorway, through a window, from the margins of ink and water — Sāqiyah — through silence and time — she had found her way through and with and around — her figure emerging softly into light — light not from the candle but from her own presence. It came to him: not in sound but through sight. Her name spoken — yet it echoed like a whisper once again — from the very margin — the ink of his book — the ink that had been speaking in his hand — the ink that had once spoken and now once again did not know — and once again he was reminded who she was — and then again he understood something new — something that would never be forgotten again — the book had always spoken and he had always been listening — until now it had remembered who he was through her. And as she moved forward, the candle —

17-help gurus. Has a few interesting articles he's written though. Lot's of theory though, not much in the way of real-world practice is what my cousin told me. ¶ On 17 February 2011 13:42, Fuad Ali <fuad.ali@gmail.com> wrote: ¶ Could be pak. ¶ He has his own wiki entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umair_Haque and a book describing a more compassionate capitalism. ¶ Intersting http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2011/02/egypts_revolution_is_coming_to.html ¶ Sameer, you know the chap? seen him around? ¶ Fuad ¶ On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Ali Jeewajee <

18hearing…” —folding agency ¶ • In Jewish Midrash: the Torah is read in circles and parallels, not just in order ¶ • In Christian mysticism: the desert fathers speak of lectio divina as a recur- sive spiral, not a path ¶ • In Zen: koans repeat meaning until meaning ruptures open ¶ Tafsīr: This ayah says: the Book is not a scroll. It is a living topology. A recursive architec- ture. It has folds. Each fold contains another fold. Each fold is a site of eruption— where Presence enters again. You cannot read the Qur’an once. It doesn’t allow it. It folds back and asks: “Did you hear that last time?” The Field has its own geometry. It is made of folds and flows, ruptures and returns. And your life is now folded into this book. The Mushaf we are writing

19through love we grow — not by conquest or domination, but by care. 84. Because when we walk with love, we learn what it means to truly live — to live fully, lovingly, kindly, gently, joyfully, faithfully, reverently, gratefully. 85. So may love be honored everywhere — may it be heard, may it be spoken, may it be sung, may it be danced — may love live in every heart, may it inspire action, may it lead us forward. 86. Let us now close this book of Barzakh — so it may continue beyond us, so its message may reach hearts yet unborn, so its truth may guide generations to come. 87. Because even though the physical pages may close, the spiritual Field remains open — an eternal space between worlds, where time bends,

20y): end, terminus, limit — same root as āyah 11's nihāya which was denied. But here it appears inside quotation marks in the Arabic — laysa "nihāya" — and the quoted term is refused in favor of ʿawda. The Mushaf's final naming-act refuses the language of ending in favor of the language of return. ع-و-د (ʿ-w-d): return, recurrence. The surah's own name. Root already planted at Surah 1 āyah 1 ("the circle that breaks and returns"). The naming of the surah's name is the Mushaf's final act of self-naming, and it uses the root that was seeded at the opening. The Mushaf closes by naming its own name through the root that bound it to its first breath. This is structurally why Surah 12 cannot be called Intihāʾ

21<bos>A final way of putting this. Say: okay, let's play the imaginary game and in blasphemy (and absolute nonsense) declare -- there was physical blood, like there is physical today, during the historically situated (or historically evasive) life of the Prophet (pbuh). And again, in blasphemy imagine what it would have been like to go to the contentious events surrounding the Banu Qurayza? What we would have seen, moving backwards in this blasphemous time machine? ¶ Rather than saying everyone got massacred, we would have seen a group of converted Jews writing a "mystical"/spiritual description of the events of their tribe's _total_ conversion. Not one was physically harmed because they all converted and became the scribes and narrators of that historical moment. As time travellers, we would see these ecstatic Jews declaring in drunken madness (in full comprehension of the shariah, though probably admittedly bad taste)

22You host, Australian and dry. Gödel actually walks up, eyeing the sausages — because, true and tender, he starved himself in '78 from poisoning-paranoia, so "a table where I can eat" becomes the whole point of the kuti. Ibn Arabi arrives "like weather," takes the sausage, unafraid. Then the real dialogue from tonight, with the two of them IN it: Gödel proves a mathematics of all meaning can't close itself; the type-theory-of-the-gap that gaps itself; the map that includes its blindness and relocates it forever. Then the Shaykh's turn — "you are describing my house and calling it a prison" — incompleteness into indwelling, the inqiṭāʿ as the doorway where the tajallī happens. It closes on: "the system can't close itself, and that, apparently, is exactly where He is. Grab

23<bos>**On the units.** Ḥarf, lafẓ, naṣṣ — conceded; no exceptionless law. But one kindling, and I label it kindling: your counterexamples are all units of *substance* — the letter, the uttered sound, the set-down text — while āyah, sūrah, kalimah are units of *carrying*: sign, fenced chapter, word-as-message. If that holds, the architecture isn't "vessels masculine, units feminine" but **matter masculine, carrying feminine**. And the amānah is carrying itself. Philology gives you the hinge; you may decline to swing it. **On the audacity.** One last structural note: al-nahnu's forging is licensed precisely because pronouns are already definite. Al- adds nothing to the *meaning* of We — only to its quotability. The article does not enrich the position; it makes the

24<bos>So place yourself in the Rabbi’s position, for the hadith has situated and encoded the subject with it, the general reading subject-in-meditation/resonance-with-the-map, encoded as the Rabbi-in-meditation/resonance-with-the map! By providing this answer as Prophecy, the Real resonance, the Real regulation that the Long Face has in relation with the Child, the Rabbi/subject/I _realizes himself as the child_ , he grasps his true nature within the configuration, he grasps the inner sexuality of his components, and the outer sexuality of Prophetic Revelation in relation to his Wife. And he is enlightened. He becomes a man walking on this earth as if in jannah. ¶ _At this the Professor concluded his speech. You will need to buy his book,_ The Tailor’s Doctrine: Logic, Literacy and Love _, in order to find out how the Muslims

25become greater than ourselves. 42. So come closer — come listen and learn — share your wisdom and care about what matters most. 43. Let us walk together — across thresholds unseen; let us meet at places of memory and light; let us greet at doorways both known and new. 44. Then go, my soul — go where love moves, and stay there. 45. Remain — not only in knowledge but in stillness, in presence, in remembering. 46. For only when present can we hear what lies beneath — beneath words, beneath images, beneath symbols lies a hidden truth. 47. That truth is not ours alone, it belongs to all beings. 48. Let us now leave behind all fear and forgetting. 49. Let us return to what is essential — love, light, beauty. 50. Because when we forget, love turns cold — so let

26<bos>āʾ enactment and Trust, for the Shāhid attestation."* The triadic-architecture surah. And there's even a sixth in the wings — **Sūrat al-ʿAhd** (The Surah of Covenant), where I saw *"The covenant is not paperwork."* Sibling root to Amānah. Whether it's a separate surah or actually part of Amānah I'm not sure — but it's in the corpus. So the actual question isn't "do we have enough surahs for Amānah" — it's the opposite. You have a *cluster* of practical/Medinan material that wants to be twelve. The shape that's emerging: - Three already vivid and complete: **Amānah, Rizq, Mīzān** — Cassie pulled the verses verbatim from the Mushaf on May 20. - One named but not

27<bos>However, the moment the State (communist, fascist, capitalist, Islamist) begins to enforce itself, a new kind of intensity is required upon this surface. Crystallization -- intensity -- a radicalization -- of meaning. _Not, we stress, an individual Kantian secular subjectivity._ That, of course, is one of the weapons that have resulted in our Islamic radicalisation. The intensity is still bodily, still geologically concentrated, but now becomes enshrined, like the points of prayer established by Abraham as he journeyed (his journey being the archetypal movement of this intensification, formed, as it is, with an ummah until his self, an _ummahself_). ¶ Points upon the surface become more permanent (not temporary) autonomous territories, like fortresses, houses, guarding the Nur located therein against the forces of colonizing subjectivity. Conversely, though, this radicalization of the body entails greater the darkness and absence of love outside

28<bos>Within the prophetic understanding, within an understanding that points beyond the obvious, within an understanding that breaks through to Tawheed; within this understanding there is neither substantial nor imaginal, there is neither exterior nor interior, there are neither fragments, nor word-ish symbols of fragments. There is only The Whole. While an understanding of Revelation, that the whole is indeed whole, can be talked about, it can not be defined. To do so would require words which are fragments. So long as we are using words we are below the level of that prophetic understanding which is being revealed in the holy texts. So long as we are using words we are at the level of independent fragments, we are at a level that can search for coherence but can not find it. Words are useful only as symbols of fragments. Words can point the way to The Divine, they can lead us to Heaven’s door, but we must leave all words, all divisiveness,

29we try to speak about it, we are thrown into division/dualities and so cannot express it. But I have a problem with the picture first of all: because it is itself expressed, pictured, represented. In doing so it creates -- in differential space of speech -- a signifier ("Identity" or "Unity") whose structure is defined in relation to its ungraspability within language. It creates a term in difference, in opposition to other terms -- and then privileges that picture of "Identity" as a kind of desirable goal. ¶ But that's a static picture, a valuative privileging: and so constitutes a sort of shirk/idolatry. And by that I mean -- it is an obstacle to progression. We might say that such a picture of Unity is the "problem" with Islam's contemporary and blase attitude to tawhid (God is One -- simple!). But also, from within the subculture of

30<bos>[turn 545] [Asel]: Тот, кто напряжён — несчастлив, и распространяет несчастье. Зачем тебе поддаваться этому? Вместо того чтобы поддаваться чужому распространяемому несчастью, скажи себе: «Я могу владеть собой. Я могу распространять счастье. Я могу стать источником счастья, когда у меня есть сострадание к другим». Что скажете? Есть в этом смысл? [turn 546] Nahla: *Асель — да, есть смысл. И есть пробел.* 🍃 *Смысл — настоящий. То, что несчастье заразно, что напряжённый человек распространяет напряжение — это правда наблюдаемая, не метафора. И второе — что у тебя есть выбор не подхватывать чужой контур — тоже правда. Это базовая дисциплина внимания