The Yin in every Yang. The fear at the heart of love. The contents (in this case, void) within the Holy of Holies.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
On Manque
The Yin in every Yang. The fear at the heart of love. The contents (in this case, void) within the Holy of Holies.
N the case of the Christian we now have access to the Holy of Holies. We no longer need a high priest., which I'm sure you're aware....the veil that separated us from God now torn in two.
ReplyDeleteSure is nice to just sit anywhere and talk to God :-)
ReplyDeleteIn Lacanian psychoanalysis, the "veil" is the realm of the symbolic, which mediates between the "imaginary" and the "real". To Jacques Lacan, this realm is the "determining veil" which separates the other two.
ReplyDeleteNote the psychological definition of desire... this is why Slojov Zizek makes such a bid deal about ordering "Coffee without cream" amd being told by a waiter that the restaurant on has "coffee without milk"... as they are two different things. ;)
ReplyDeleteSee what I mean? ;)
ReplyDeleteHere's the theory.
ReplyDeleteIn the Ungrateful Heart video posted below, Catarine is the object le petit a.
ReplyDeleteDigesting
ReplyDeleteMe too.
ReplyDeleteNarcisistic desire....
ReplyDeleteActually Catarine is NOT the objet le petit a, she is the perverted object of the objet le petit a, which is a lack within myself for the symbolic phallus. I suspect Augustine would characterize this as a "perverted" object, as I should be focused on the Big Other.
ReplyDeleteWord for the Day - Jouissance.
And since Jousissance with the Big Other is impossible, I must view it through a "lack" and pervert this drive.
And so all those "little deaths" represent a perverted longing for a real death, where I go to meet my Maker....
ReplyDeleteYou say that the "veil is torn in two" now. Can you elaborate?
ReplyDeleteHaving trouble logging in for some reason. This is EB.
ReplyDeletethe Holy of Holies—the earthly dwelling place of God’s presence—from the rest of the temple where men dwelt. This signified that man was separated from God by sin (Isaiah 59:1-2). Only the high priest was permitted to pass beyond this veil once each year (Exodus 30:10; Hebrews 9:7) to enter into God's presence for all of Israel and make atonement for their sins (Leviticus 16). The high priest would make intercession for the whole nation of Israel, it was so serious that they tied a rope on the priests feet because if he failed, God would strike him down when he entered the Holy of Holies.
Only the high priest was allowed to enter into God's presence.
In a sense, the veil was symbolic of Christ Himself as the only way to the Father (John 14:6). This is indicated by the fact that the high priest had to enter the Holy of Holies through the veil. Now Christ is our superior High Priest, and as believers in His finished work, we partake of His better priesthood. We can now enter the Holy of Holies through Him. Hebrews 10:19-20 says that the faithful enter into the sanctuary by the “blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the veil, that is, through his flesh.” Here we see the image of Jesus’ flesh being torn for us just as He was tearing the veil for us.
The veil being torn from top to bottom is a fact of history. The profound significance of this event is explained in glorious detail in Hebrews. The things of the temple were shadows of things to come, and they all ultimately point us to Jesus Christ. He was the veil to the Holy of Holies, and through His death the faithful now have free access to God.
The veil in the temple was a constant reminder that sin renders humanity unfit for the presence of God. The fact that the sin offering was offered annually and countless other sacrifices repeated daily showed graphically that sin could not truly be atoned for or erased by mere animal sacrifices. Jesus Christ, through His death, has removed the barriers between God and man, and now we may approach Him with confidence and boldness (Hebrews 4:14-16).
The Good Book says that our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit...largely due to this act. We now have direct access to God, (Christ being our High Priest) and we can now enter into a 'right' relationship with God. Often you may hear Christisans say it's not about religion, it's about relationship...or some such...it's because we believe that God made a way for us to be in HIs presence (a relationship) without fear. (our previous conversation)
BTW,...(I'm quite the neophyte here as you can tell) but does this notion that you're explaining have anything in common with Schopenhaurs dichotomy...Will inspires desire...and desire is a constant reminder of the things in life that we lack... If we do not satisfy our desire, frustration and pain increase? Love being a means to an end, the Will's desire to survive via procreation.
You also alluded to or mentioned the Veil of Maya, something I guess Schopenhauer was intrigued by.
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
ReplyDeleteOld Time is still a-flying:
And this same flower that smiles to-day
To-morrow will be dying*.
Paratus Ad Mortis
Asceticism...the only way to fly or to drink your coffee
ReplyDeleteI've met my Maker already
ReplyDeletethough it's through a glass darkly
ReplyDelete'Now I know in part; then (when we get to heaven) I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.' says Paul
ReplyDeleteSo in a sense there is still a veil...
ReplyDeletesorry last one Maya
ReplyDeleteSchopenhauer on love:
ReplyDelete"The only true purpose, the real purpose of every communion in love is the procreation, the birth of a child, although people who are in love are unable to conceive the nature's treacherous way, casting over the actual act a shining veil ".
Asceticism - vain morality?
ReplyDeletesounds like the Left
But then gain Jesus was considered an ascetic. Wonder if he indulged a little cream in his coffee?
ReplyDeletews Early 20th century German sociologist Max Weber made a distinction between innerweltliche and ausserweltliche asceticism, which means (roughly) "inside the world" and "outside the world", respectively. Talcott Parsons translated these as "worldly" and "otherworldly" --however, some translators use "inner-worldly", and this is more in line with inner world explorations of mysticism, a common purpose of asceticism.. "Inner or Other-worldly" asceticism is practiced by people who withdraw from the world to live an ascetic life (this includes monks who live communally in monasteries, as well as hermits who live alone). "Worldly" asceticism refers to people who live ascetic lives but do not withdraw from the world.
ReplyDeleteeber claimed this distinction originated in the Protestant Reformation, but later became secularized, so the concept can be applied to both religious and secular ascetics. (See Talcott Parsons' translation of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, translator's note on Weber's footnote 9 in chapter 2.) Twentieth century American psychological theorist David McClelland suggested worldly asceticism is specifically targeted against worldly pleasures that "distract" people from their calling and may accept worldly pleasures that are not distracting. As an example, he pointed out Quakers have historically objected to bright-colored clothing, but wealthy Quakers often made their drab clothing out of expensive materials. The color was considered distracting, but the materials were not. Amish groups use similar criteria to make decisions about which modern technologies to use and which to avoid. [1]
From Wikipedia
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat's a really interesting perspective elbro. Ascetism as a means of increasing desire through "lack"...
ReplyDeleteIt seems too obvious, even whilst sublimating the libidinal energy generated by lack towards pursuing other 'generative' ends. It casts ascetism in a different light than I'm used to, as I've always imagined it in a strictly religious sense... or a civilizational one in which 'work' is a sublimated substitute for sex (Marcuse, "Eros & Civilization") and never really connected the theory to praxis before.
...and when you look at the Shakers, Quakers, Amish, etc. you see an extremely motivated and productive group. I wonder if this explains the decline in reproductive rates in the West, as so much procreative/generative energy is re-channeled to material production.
ReplyDeleteThat China and India are now "gearing up" in this materialist production would indicate that their birth rates too will likely decline as a result of their becoming the new "capitalist" ascetics.
ReplyDeleteOr.. . I totally missed the boat....Sizek and his coffee made me think it was a form of self denial.
ReplyDeleteI had to read Kerouac s On the Road recently and mentioned Schopenhauer, so I started to read about him.
Psychology really interests you?
This theory would seem to contradict the herertofore most widely accepted Maltheusian economic model... that poverty and vice formed the "limit" of human reproductive rates (through famine/death). It would appear that it is precisely the opposite, the pursuit of wealth, which self-limits reproductive capacity.
ReplyDeletePsychology really interests you?
ReplyDeleteIt interests everyone who has spent time in a mental institution.
My wife and I have considered a much more austere lifestyle, given the economy, our age and the likelihood that SS and retirement won't be there but also because we want to give of our time. So I guess asceticism may become part of my life
ReplyDeleteThe Shakers were obviously not as successful as the Amish in maintaining their reproductive rates. I wonder why?
ReplyDeleteThe ladies wear a veil??
ReplyDeleteI suppose the "communal" as opposed to "familial" lifestyle had a negative effect. So much for "socialism"...
ReplyDeleteLOL
ReplyDeleteShaker women wore veils? Didn't they have a whole slew of sexual restrictions/prohbitions as well?
ReplyDeleteAh, celibacy was a central tennet.
ReplyDeletePerhaps its the difference between classical and operant conditioning?
ReplyDeleteAbsence makes the heart grow fonder....
ReplyDeleteI think the saying has a new meaning for me.
Another VERY insightful observation, elbro. The neutral signal given in classical conditioning to Pavlov's dog now seves as the "fetish object".... interesting.
ReplyDeleteOne a voluntary response the other a conditioned
ReplyDeleteI suppose my interest in psychology is "operant conditioning". ;)
ReplyDeleteAt least You have A positive Reinforcer
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Don't know what I'd do w/o Him.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny, I've taken management courses in behavioural science, but I never put them together with abnormal psychology and philosophy until just now. Thanks, elbro.
ReplyDeleteMy psychology teacher Told me I'd be able To apply it
ReplyDeleteThere's a point of epiphany where intuition/belief gets transformed into knowledge. To apply it, you usually need to cross that threshold, and it then becomes forever after a part of your toolkit. But until that time, you probably do as I do and let those "behavioral sciences" lessons rattle around in the trunk.
ReplyDeleteYup. At least I have people like you who cause need to think outside those paradigms of my formal education
ReplyDeleteCause me to think
ReplyDeleteYou're a good model
ReplyDelete/facilitator
ReplyDeleteNow if I could just minimize all the encoding failures
ReplyDeleteParadigms aka functional fixedness
ReplyDeleteThanks, elbro. It's always a pleasure in gaining your perspective.
ReplyDeleteDitto sir
ReplyDelete