[-empyre-] Re: love, sacrifice, and the eternal return

[Nicholas Ruiz III]

Epistemologies vary, no? Categories of knowledge
varying from place to place? Cultural geography and
love. Time
and place. To understand the gnosis of
love, speaking freely, means to have a vital insight,
or knowledge of the mystery....  Many would render
this an insight of supernatural life. But if the
spirit of one is not ‘alive,’ then what is it? So
gnosis is not precisely a resolve of the supernatural
kind, as it is so often mistranslated, but rather an
espirit, a spiritus, that breath of life, or vital
principle enacting existence in all bioorganisms. Does
love share such a destiny? In the third century,
Hippolytus of Rome tells us gnosis is the wisdom of
the heathen. But we are all heathens, no? Strange,
uncivilized, unpredictable creatures in a tenuous
world
?


--- Harun Thomas <ThomasH at daytonastate.edu> wrote:

> Friends, 
> 
> I offer a spectral conversation and an afterthought:
> 
> NRIII: . . . that is, love generates enemies by
> exclusion; the loved
> excludes the unloved...we might ask: does love
> render solely an aporetic
> circumstance of human existence?
> 
> OW: The other half of the puzzle is that it doesn't
> seem there is
> anything else to love than its repetition. So the
> force of repetition in
> love, the condition of possibility for love becoming
> banal,
> common-place, dead, is also the condition of
> possibility for its life
> and affirmation. . . . Is the logic of sacrifice
> bound up with eternal
> return?
> 
> sdv: Why in Owen Ware's brief note is Barthes quoted
> and not (for
> example) Kristeva's 
> much more interesting book 'Tales of Love', why that
> particular set of
> discourses?
> 
> NRIII: hmmm...a possibly interesting relation,
> perhaps...love,
> sacrifice and the eternal return? I suppose that
> depends upon how one
> renders such a concept as the eternal return, no? 
> Whose eternal return
> are you referring to...there are many...?
> 
> YM: Love and sacrifice are intimately intertwined
> throughout history.
> Or should we say surrender rather? But, what is
> sacrificed or what is
> surrendered to? . . . As soon as language returns,
> we fall into its
> violence, and the violence and hence the I need to
> be sacrificed, if we
> want to surrender to the affirmative 'love' [you].
> 
> HKT: If there is an aporetic circumstance of human
> existence, is it
> possible that this circumstance is preceded by a
> more originary aporia
> that leads us back/forward to/ward the doubling of
> affirmation, the
> inevitability of repetition, and terms such as
> exclusion and excess? I
> began a few humble, rudimentary reflections of our
> discussion a few days
> ago while visiting Philadelphia, the city of
> brotherly love, as it were,
> where I visited family and friends. In an effort not
> only to escape my
> propensity for reinscription, but also to
> acknowledge my come-lately
> entrance into this discussion, I ask: Have we
> already discounted,
> pre-empted, or foregrounded an ethics of exception
> (Lacan), a politics
> of love and friendship (Arendt), the rule of law
> (starting with
> Aristotle), or the birth of the subject through the
> discourses emerging
> out of subaltern studies? I ask an even more naïve
> question, one that I
> cannot resist: Where does love begin/end/come into
> being, geographically
> speaking?
> 
> 
> 
> 	
> >>> Yvonne Martinsson <yvonne at freewheelin.nu>
> 10/13/2008 3:35 AM >>>
> Owen et al,
> 
> Love and sacrifice are intimately intertwined
> throughout history. Or  
> should we say surrender rather? But, what is
> sacrificed or what is  
> surrendered to?
> 
> In a Lover's Disourse Barthes says he wants to say
> 'I love you' in  
> Spanish - te quiero -  because the subject is
> dropped in Spanish  
> syntax. And even more preferably, he would like a
> language that drops 
> 
> the object as well. The subject - object sacrificed,
> excluded,  
> eradicated, the word 'love' becomes affirmative. In
> love 'I' don't  
> exist - which is very contrary to contemporary
> culture of taking  
> control, getting in charge etc that situates us in
> the violence of  
> language, control issues and so forth.
> 
> Barthes also says he wants the lover to be a 'mute
> object'.  
> Interestingly enough he calls the lover an object
> here in the  
> discourse of love. A case in point for the 'tyranny
> of language'? As  
> soon as language returns, we fall into its violence,
> and the violence 
> 
> and hence the I need to be sacrificed, if we want to
> surrender to the 
> 
> affirmative  'love' [you].
> 
> 
> Yvonne
> 
> ====================================================
> 
> http://freewheelin.nu 
> 
> ====================================================
> 
> 
> 
> 13 okt 2008 kl. 03.00 skrev
> empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au: 
> 
> > Send empyre mailing list submissions to
> > 	empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide
> Web, visit
> > 
>
https://mail.cofa.unsw.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/empyre
> 
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> > 	empyre-request at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > 	empyre-owner at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au 
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of empyre digest..."
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. Re: love, sacrifice and the eternal return
> (Nicholas Ruiz III)
> >
> > Från: Nicholas Ruiz III <editor at intertheory.org>
> > Datum: söndag 12 okt 2008 15.34.13 GMT+02:00
> > Till: soft_skinned_space
> <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> > Ämne: Re: [-empyre-] love, sacrifice and the
> eternal return
> > Svara till: soft_skinned_space
> <empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au>
> >
> >
> > hmmm...a possibly interesting relation,
> > perhaps...love, sacrifice and the eternal return?
> i
> > suppose that depends upon how one renders such a
> > concept as the eternal return, no?  Whose eternal
> > return are you referring to...there are many...?
> >
> > NRIII
> >
> >
> > --- "Owen J. Ware" <owen.ware at utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> Nicholas,
> >>
> >> Let me try to address your first question about
> the
> >> 'superfecundity'
> >> of love.  There's something of a paradox here. 
> On
> >> the one hand, there
> >> is what we might call the 'tyranny of love' as a
> >> force of speech or
> >> signification that, as you put it, 'assaults' us
> >> from every direction.
> >>   This is the threat I see Barthes struggling
> with:
> >> the threat of love
> >> becoming cliches.  For Barthe, love-cliches are a
> >> symptom of a deeper
> >> exclusion, perhaps the exclusion of an excess
> that
> >> animates love and
> >> its discourse.  The other half of the puzzle is
> that
> 
=== message truncated ===