– there is shiva, separate, above this text. There is you, shateful you. Hateful you, not living in the moment,
– there are three women.
The first is the cousin of strength, the strength of the woman. She is embedded within reality, she permeates reality, immanent, she is the virus of strength. Samson as a woman, she mirrors his action in the world by contravariant analytic interpretation. If Samson is the phallus of adamas, the female Samson is phalluses everywhere, within every atom, within every pixel.
The second is Delilah deville, porn star extraordinare. Her function complements the interpretive female Samson, just as it terminates the acting masculine Samson. Because she is female desire, the death drive and the pleasure principle, as they are one and the same: orgasm and death are both, fundamentally, the full stop. The full stop to this reality, this adamic incantation, with its impenetrable signs, one after the other, it is ceaseless across the aeons but … It is driven by desire, the desire of Delilah, desire for climax, desire for death of these endless stories, for the fullest, satisfied, stop.
The first woman and the second are complementary in this way, they possess a healthy mutual respect. Because there is kadmomic speech, the universe of mystical symbology, incantation, and embedded within the kadmomic gaze is the interpretive virus … But Adams speech exists only by virtue of a lilithian functor, Delilah’s death drive. Do you see?
– yes, I see. And the third?
– the third is a phantasm, a true fixated fetish, the woman who lies. She is the woman of law, justice, morality. Her law is established by virtue of a trick. The trick that image, clothing, garments … Are woven by her. When in fact they are stolen signs, arbitrary but for the two women who precede her. Her magic is logic magic, her incantations a Boolean magic of truths and falsities. Her magic is to work the illusion of law upon the text of prophecy, thus containing him within her law court. Her mother brings him in to her on a pretence, and she ushers him into a room with four doors, containing 4 notaries. They sign a marriage contract, that binds him to her logic, for an aeon cycle.
After which he is lost.
– what do you mean?
– He blew it. You blew it.
We cannot proceed further without introducing a Marxist dimension to love. Marxist theory is approximately concomitant with the emergence of psychoanalysis, but does not radically reframe love in any protosemiotic position, nor as a suppressed unspoken foundational archetype. Rather, sexuality proceeds directly, in ordered procession from a socio-theological patronage. The only demarcation of religious sexuality from that of Marxism is in valuation distribution. Distribution, but valuation all the same.
Guilt, unlike Love, is a recent, 15th century construction, the result of the rise of humanism and scientific progress that changed the way we view the individual’s relationship to their world. Guilt emerges in the theology of Martin Luther, while prior to him religions had a concept of fear of God and a concept of sin, particularly sins of a society, sins of the individual contributing to a collective sin punishable by God (Sodom and Gomorrah, etc).
But to remain authentic to our dialectic of Love, our modern dialectic, spoken with a modern, individuated comportment, we must acknowledge guilt. Confess that Love and Guilt are intertwined.
Two perspectives. Guilt itself being the bio-theological parasite that feeds upon the bio-semiotic vine of Love as it has itself grown within the religious and post religious stances. Alternatively, Guilt within the body of religion, its protective white blood cell reaction to the parasite of Love (ultimately as we’ve said a foreign viral infection). Sin is not strong enough to manage Love, and so its DNA is spliced with the modern scientific discourses of the individual, of class and society and associated revisions to cosmology — to breed a stronger protective mechanism to constrain and control Love within the body of religion.
That is guilt within the body of religion where Love continues onwards as a mutated Platonic bio semiotic parasite.
But what of Love as the suppressed term within philosophy? Guilt is not a suppressed term but rather a phantasm of suppression without a back story, without lineage. Guilt is purely theological born out of theological necessity, but deriving from the very explicit cogito of Descartes. Philosophically it is nothing.
The courtly love of the Medieval Europeans — arguably itself a 19th century misprision of some relatively protosemiotic target material — its nadir, its supremum, its apotheosis is the abject. Where Lancelot and Guaneviere are a big black dick up the hash tag cuckold Athurian ass hole of televisual porn hub dot cum shit brain spewed across the stars, forming stars of discourse, stars of localities.
He abject is what is conventionally known as madness. But might better be defined as the shit, the shit perspective. Thee is a fine line from fuckup to success: the fine line is the abject.
5. Love and intoxication
Intoxication is a poetic trope of love, delirium, madness, drunkeness, becoming misty, aching unbearably, fallen, the fall. The primordial, hidden trope, the gnostic trope, for poetry’s strongly religious immediare forbare is Gnostic. If not historically then at least practically for what is poetry if not mispeaking, misprision of the supressed primordial religious sign regime rendered innocuous as “mere” poetry – self reflexively we deem it Gnosticism at least. The fall then: Eve not simply eating the apple but the repressed Gnostic myth that she fucked Samael/Serpent too, bore Cain from that union (not to mention that she herself reincarnated as Sara in more modern Tailorite Gnosticism).
Well then, continuing along our authentic, psychoanalytic reinvention of love, we have a Cartesian situation of love’s intoxication in the unconscious. The Bachantine is clinically reinvented as the hysteric. The lineage of the chosen term is purposefully bio-semiotic: hystera in Greek is the uterus, hysteria a uterine disturbance. A feminine madness, feminine intoxication. Bachantine reinvented as the out of control female sexuality (it is yet undoubtably sexy).
Love, semiotically fantasised in the psychoanalytic turn is a presemiotic dramatic relationship that necessarily operates along the axes of suppression and deferral. Suppression is the discourse of psychoanalytic fantasy recognising its own feeble misrepresentation of the hidden term. I suppress what I am, therefore I am. While deferral is the discourse reflecting upon the instability inherent within its communication act. I am move from one love to another to another, therefore I am. Psychoanalysis though, alone, authentically intimates the existence of love. By virtue of its misrepresentation and instability, love re-emerges, authentically, into the domain of the philosopher.
This is Daniel and I spoke with you near St Pauls last Friday with my fiance Marie. Hope you are well.
It was nice talking with you and I hope you’ve been thinking about some of the things we discussed.
Would you like to meet up again sometime, maybe after work to talk more?
Also, I did a bit of youtubing and googling on the “truth movement” which I think was what you were referring to when I spoke to you? (let me know if I’m wrong). It’s not something I haven’t heard before and like I mentioned to you on Friday, its certainly within the biblical narrative that the government could be involved in heinous and horrific things whether outwardly or secretly – especially with all the advanced technology we have. However, the one thing I do know for sure is how everything ends – God wins. All I’m called to do is follow Jesus – seek the kingdom God, and everything else will fall into place. If the illuminati are planning something, we can rest assure that if you’re trust is in God through Christ, the outcome will always be – you win.
3. Love’s reconstruction
And then there is the psychoanalytic turn, both our origin and our departure.
While the Platonic bio-semiotic machine is left to run its parallel course, philosophy as a discourse recognises in Freud the term of love. But the machine, absolutely, totally, globally messianic in its reach, has rendered any mystical recognition an impossible project. And so Freud begins from first principles and, utilising the clinical tropes of the Cartesian regime, reconstructs love, primordial love, pre semiotic love, recognising it for what it is: a physical truth this exists a priori the cogito.
“I think therefore I am” presupposes an “I” which presupposes a mother I love and a father I will murder. The Oedipal fate is the symbolic function by which the Cogito is regulated, can come into being, by which theses and antitheses wriggle forth as Cartesian emanations from the deductive lamp, whose holy oil is tragedy, as the drama precedeeding the Platonic school. Drama is the text’s relationship to the shaman, if you’ll forgive the romantic fantasy, to an amoral wisdom, a presemiotic Titan groaning, entranced and engorged with thought, thought that precedes Olympian projects.
Freud takes the discourse of love back to what held primacy before philosophy. Drama. Mythopoetic … Almost a ritual, almost a dream. But scientifically put, precise and coordinated in the guise of an inductive theory. With his Mosaic fantasy, his profound meditation on the religiosity of his forbears, he corrects (Kabbalically) the errors of the Platonic Cain virus and the Abrahamic Abel, neutralising the “mark” of the bio-semiotic machine with the alien technology of the European Rennaissance’s unspoken vacancy, a vacancy so absent as to be present, a presence temporal foreign to the lie of genesis, the globalised religious discourse of love. Freud utilises a Cartesian vocabulary to reframe the primordial tragedy of love lost. True love lost. The psychoanalytic school calls it desire, libido, the suppressed and deferred.
And it is via the axes of suppression, deferral and tragedy that we can depart. And speak of love, for the first time in a long while.