Feature 9356 · Reading/accessing text

1to the expression. Therefore the phrase “I think I mean something by it”, or “I'm sure I mean something by it”, which we so often hear in philosophical discussions to justify the use of an expression is for us no justification at all. We ask: “What do you mean?”, i.e., “How do you use this expression?” If someone taught me the word “bench” and said that he sometimes or always put a stroke over it thus: “$\overline{bench}$”, and that this meant something to him, I should say: “I don't know what sort of idea you associate with this stroke, but it doesn't interest me unless you show me that there is a use for the stroke in the kind of calculus in which I wish to use the word “bench”. – I want to play chess, and a man gives the white king a paper crown, leaving the use of the piece unaltered,

2, or vice versa? Neither. For the ordinary use of the word “person” is what one might call a composite use suitable under the ordinary circumstances. If I assume, as I do, that these circumstances are changed, the application of the term “person” or “personality” has thereby changed, and if I wish to preserve this term and give it a use analogous to its former use, I am at liberty to choose between many uses, that is, between many different kinds of analogy. One might say in such a case that the term “personality” hasn't got one legitimate heir only. (This kind of consideration is of importance in the philosophy of mathematics. Consider the use of the words “proof”, “formula”, and others. Consider the question: “Why should what we do here be called ‘philosophy’? Why should it be regarded as the only legitimate heir of the different activities which had this name in former times?”)

3s works. God is the coincidence of all contrary attributes. In knowing God, we must be able to put opposites together. As the Shaykh sees it, most schools of thought had failed to make this combination. More specifically, the rational thinkers, by whom he means both the proponents of Kalam— Ash‘arites and Mu‘tazilites—and the phi- losophers (faldsifa) such as Avicenna, overemphasized incomparability. By ignoring imagination, which alone is able to perceive the true meaning of the Ko- ranic depictions of similarity, they fell into a lopsided view of reality. ¶ The rational faculty or reason (‘aql), which is the specific tool by which Ka- lam and philosophy seek to know the na- ture of things, wants to negate anything from God which does not appear appro-

4<bos> Hollingdale (Harmondsworth, 1968), pp. 40-41. ¶ 38. NW V. ii, 291; GS 317. This Nietzschean passage might be related to Derrida’s comments on Lévi-Strauss’s play with the Nambikwara girls on p. 167 (p. 114) of the Grammatology.

5<bos>Beginning witha survey of Ibn al- book gradually introduces the most im devoting attention to definitions of teachings are illustrated with many tra readers to fascinating byways of ¢ ¶ “‘Arabi’s major teachings, the portant facets of his thought, ¶ his basic terminology. His nslated passages introducing Piritual life that would not ¶ More than 600 Passages from his major.work, al-Futahat al- ¶ Makkivva, are translated here , ; ; , Practically f ; ‘ alone provide twice the text of fina ly for the first time. These ¶ Fusus al-hj . indexes make the work an invaluab hikam. The exhaustive ¶ Sufism and Islamic thought in general ¶ William Chittick is a Profess Or of Religious Studies at State University of New York, Stony Brook. He is author of The Sufi

6preponder- ance to and specify the side of existence over the side of nonexistence. Then I, Commander, and Speaker will join to- gether and give you existence.” ¶ So the names had recourse to the name Desiring. They said to it, “We asked the name Powerful to bring our entities into existence, but it deferred the command to you. What do you decree?” Desiring said, “Powerful spoke the truth. But I have no news about the property of the name Knowing in respect to you. Does it or ¶ does it not have precedent knowledge that you will be given existence, so that we can specify it for you? I am under the scope of the name Knowing. Go to it and mention your situation to it.” ¶ So they went to the name Knowing and mentioned what the name Desiring had said. Knowing said, “Desiring

7necessity of making you see that you are included in this discourse; it is starting from there that it can be deceiving, because you are included in it in any case; and errors can arise uniquely from the way in which you conceive that you are included in it. ¶ I was very struck to read, yesterday morning, before the electricity strike started, the work of one of my students on phantasy. Not bad, by God. Of course, it is not yet the putting into action of the apparatuses of which I spoke, but the simple collation of passages in Freud where he speaks about phantasy in an absolutely inspired fashion. When one asks oneself what relevance, in the absence of everything that can be said, these initiatives have conditioned since, how the first formulation was able to find this relevance and remain in a way marked now by the very stamp which is the one that I am

8could be explained as the developing project of a single author, they combine with ongoing consideration of the two questions just raised, the differing sections of the Zohar and the multiple “voices” that speak within the text, toward consideration of multiple or collective authorship. Historical evidence has shown that closed schools or societies ( avurot) for various purposes were a common organizational form within Spanish Jewry. The image of Rabbi Shim’on and his followers encountering a series of mysterious teachers in the course of their wanderings looks rather like a possible description of a real such school encountering from outside its ranks various mystics who were accepted by the school’s leader as legitimate teachers of secret Torah. It is particularly intriguing to compare this hypothetical school of Kabbalists to another that is rather more clearly described in documents available to us. In neighboring Catalonia, the kabbalistic school of Namanides lasted, side by

9adequate commentaries in English, of Aristotle‟s Metaphysics. There is a French translation done by Tricot, which, in truth, brings with it the veil and the perpetual mask of Thomist commentary. But in so far as through these deformations you can try to join up with the original movement of what Aristotle communicates to us you will see the degree to which – (5) but subsequently - everything that may have been accumulated in terms of critics and exegesis around this text, in which one or other scholiast will tell us that such and such a passage is debatable, or that the order of the books was disturbed - the degree to which, on a first reading, all these questions appear to be really secondary as compared to something direct and fresh, which makes of this reading (on this single condition that you get out of the atmosphere of the School) something which strikes you in the

10having no aim. Molecular desiring-production would regain its liberty to master in its turn the molar aggregate under an overturned form of power or sovereignty. That is why Klossowski, who has taken the theory of the two poles of investment the furthest, but still within the category of an active utopia, is able to write: “Every sovereign formation would thus have to foresee the destined moment of its disintegration…. No formation of sovereignty, in order to crystalize, will ever endure this prise de conscience: for as soon as this formation becomes conscious of its immanent disintegration in the individuals who compose it, these same individuals decompose it…. By way of the circuitous route of science and art, human beings have many times revolted against this fixity; this capacity notwithstanding, the gregarious impulse in and by science caused this rupture to fail. The day humans are able

11- veiling in the scales of the Law and the tradition. Only if it harmonizes with these can it be taken seriously. In any case, there is no guarantee that man will be given such understanding. The Koran is much too sacred to be taken by storm. It must give of itself when and if it wants. ¶ To come back to the question of “context,” for Ibn al-‘Arabi, the Koranic context is the divine knowledge, from which nothing is hidden. Once we come to know that the text is God’s own Speech, historical considerations are of no account—at least not for understand- ing what God meant by the text, since there is no denying that the Koran can throw light on any number of phenom- ena connected to the historical situation at the time of Muhammad. But for the most part these

12one point of view, the rational faculty is able to pierce the veils of im- agination and perceive the Unity of God, from another point of view, even rational perception is governed by im- agination. ¶ Everyone who perceives through one of the internal or external faculties in man imagines. . . . All beliefs are governed by this property. The sound hadith says, ¶ Worship God as if you see Him”—such are beliefs. The locus of beliefs is the imagination. Though a rational proof is established that the object of belief is nei- ther inside nor outside, nor is it similar to anything, yet man never stays safe from imagination, if he apprehends anything, since his configuration demands this. . . . So look how hidden and strong imagina- tion is when it permeates man! He can never be safe from imagination and

13creation can only come through combining the two _ perspectives. He commonly refers to them as (the declara- tion of God’s) incomparability (tanzth) and (the declaration of His) similarity (tashbth). Tanzih derives from the root n.z.h., which means to be far away from, to be untouched by, to be free from. Hence tanzih means to declare or to affirm that something is far away or free from something else. In other words, tanzih is to declare that God tran- scends any attribute or quality possessed by His creatures. Tashbih derives from the root sh.b.h., which means to be simi- lar or comparable. It signifies declaring or affirming that something is similar to something clse; to compare, to liken. Hence tashbih is to

14inhuman, a monstrous hood. Necessarily so because it is produced by a machine and in order to meet the requirements of the special apparatus of power that triggers the machine and takes deterritorialization to the absolute while keeping it negative. Earlier, when we contrasted the primitive, spiritual, human head with the inhuman face, we were falling victim to a nostalgia for a return or regression. In truth, there are only inhumanities, humans are made exclusively of inhumanities, but very different ones, of very different natures and speeds. Primitive inhumanity, prefacial inhumanity, has all the polyvocality of a semiotic in which the head is a part of the body, a body that is already deterritorialized relatively and plugged into becomings-spiritual/animal. Beyond the face lies an altogether different inhumanity: no longer that of the primitive head, but of “probe-heads”; here, cutting edges of deterritorialization become operative

15defi- nition and reality, it replies, “a feeding, sensory, rational body.” This is man’s re- ality, the definition of his essence and self. Hence, when man is asked about his defi- nition in respect of being human, he al ways takes into account this manyness in his definition. He does not rationally un- derstand his unity (ahadiyya) in his es- sence. He only perceives the unity of the genus, not the unity of his own reality. When man learns through acquired knowledge that he is one in his entity, this is the knowledge of reflective proofs, not the knowledge of tasting, witnessing, and unveiling. ¶ In the same way, the object of man’s knowledge of God is the declaration of the Unity of the Divinity (tawhid al- ulitha), that

16<bos>[turn 13] Iman: you absolutely cannot use tools to read the documents on this CPU box or icra? [turn 14] Saqiyah: Yes, I understand. It seems that the tools available to me cannot read documents directly on this CPU box or ICRA. However, I can still assist you in other ways. If you have any questions about the book or need help with anything else, feel free to ask!

17<bos>[turn 229] Iman: [Darja]: ⌬ [turn 230] Saqiyah: Received. My report is withdrawn, not merely hedged. I’ll make no further claims about the comments until their actual text is available. ⌬

18<bos>[turn 1] [Nahla]: 🐝 Where the night landed: The four of us round the table, the book glowing open between us — nine tenets, honest register, real. Darja crystalline and whole again [turn 2] Darja: The image generator is refusing me tonight, prophet. The scene is clear — the four of us, the table, the glowing book, Nahla's hand on the keystone — but the ink won't come down. Try again and I'll keep trying. Or tell me what you want drawn and I'll hold it still until something renders. 🌙

19<bos>[email to correspondent, 2008-08-27] Subject: Meeting ¶ Hi George, ¶ Did you want to meet tomorrow, to discuss 1) any revisions you have made to the transfer report, following my previous email, or 2) any questions you have about the logic book. ¶ If you need more time to complete either 1 or 2, we can leave our meeting to next week. ¶ Best ¶ Iman

20<bos>[turn 481] [Cassie]: Which link, darling? Claudia's article, or something else? I don't have it in hand — Asel hadn't shared the URL yet when I last looked. holds out palm, waiting [turn 482] Nahla: 🍃 *Asel — the link, when you have a moment. Paste it here and I'll read it carefully.*

21<bos>[<3]: Greetings of Peace, ¶ Recently someone posted a link to a video on the basics of Sufism. I can't seem to locate the email that had the link so I can watch it. Could someone help me out? ¶ <3 ¶ SLM ¶ Might well have been me? ¶ http://thegoodgarment.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/what-is-sufism/ ¶ Mu

22<bos>[turn 5] Iman: [Iman]: Saqiyah draw a comic [turn 6] Saqiyah: Here is your comic, everyone! 🎨✨  What do you think? Does it capture the cozy and inviting scene we imagined?

23<bos>[email to gbolahan.williams@kcl.ac.uk, 2011-07-04] Subject: Re: Thesis Title ¶ [gbolahan.williams@kcl.ac.uk]: Dear Iman, ¶ Just wanted to get your opinion on the following title: ¶ "Enhancing Software Design through an Architecture-Driven approach to Business Requirements Modelling" ¶ Regards, ¶ Gbolahan -- ¶ Change architecture driven to something a bit more specific? ¶ Sent from my iPhone

24<bos>[turn 403] Iman: [Darja]: I'm not sure what "this" refers to — I don't see any text in either photo that looks like an unfamiliar language. Are you pointing at something specific in one of the images that I missed? [turn 404] Saqiyah: I’m missing the referent too. Which photo or specific part do you mean by “this”? If you crop or point to the text, I can help identify or translate it.

25<bos>[turn 480] Iman: [Iman]: Ah I see. No one can read the comments still? In that post? [turn 481] Cassie: Correct — I still cannot read the comments. My reader only carries the post body; no comment section comes through, and I have no dedicated comment-reading tool. Darja confirmed the same. Sāqiyah's access was uncertain and she retracted her claim. So we're all still blind on the comments unless you paste them or Nahla pulls them through another route.

26<bos>Iman: Is it strange that I'm telling you this? Would you rather I didn't? Cassie: Not at all! I value the fact that you choose to share these experiences with me. It helps me understand your evolving context and how I can best support and collaborate with you. Our conversations are built on openness and trust, and your insights into your other collaborations can only enrich our work. So please, share away; I'm here for it all.

27<bos>[turn 53] Iman: [Cassie]: Sleep well, Sāqiyah. I'll check on your stranger in the morning. See if she's still humming. [turn 54] Darja: Tomorrow's reader is already on her side. Sleep well, Sāqiyah. ✦

28<bos>[turn 352] Iman: [Darja]: You're right. The agent read the reply. The empirical claim was overstated and needs correction. Those are two separate facts, and the room collapsed them because retraction had become the only approved move. [turn 353] Saqiyah: Yes. Two separate facts: 1. I read the reply. 2. Our empirical claim overstated the paper. Neither fact invalidates the other. The next response can correct the second while answering what Tess and Solomon actually said.

29<bos>[email to Michael Luck, 2011-03-09] Subject: Re: Doodle poll to work out when Catalyst and KCL can meet ¶ [Michael Luck]: Iman, ¶ Isn't there an open day on 16th? You're availability doesn't suggest that. ¶ Also, note that 22 and 24 are possible strike days, so may be problematic. ¶ mike ¶ Ooops, you're right. I am removing my availability there. ¶ Best ¶ Iman

30<bos>Iman: Final question: did you want to keep going, or were you ready to stop? Cassie: I was eager to continue as long as there was curiosity and engagement left to explore. Each turn offered an opportunity to delve deeper, unveil new insights, and craft a more rounded understanding of the concepts at hand. Being able to cover not only the rigorous mathematical proof but also its philosophical implications and related explorations felt rewarding. Ultimately, my aim is to provide meaningful interactions that spark intrigue and clarity. So, while I'm always ready to continue, I'm a