The “EN-”d is Near: Fragments on the Christian Logic

Fragments on the “Christian logic” of Good and Evil

This blog-post was originally from a thread I posted in /r/radicalChristianity, found here. I am deeply grateful for this community and all of its unique members. 

Christianity is an inherently apocalyptic religion, (so my Other tells me out of her Eschatological studies), but the pressure right now is frightening.

There are world-shattering events in our history. It seems needlessly apocalyptic to try to predict them, but the world is on the verge of shattering right now by every reading I can take.

I suspect that the deep advantage of Christianity is not in its structures, because in a pinch Christianity creates structures; that is the story of its fragmentation.

The deep advantage of Christianity is in how it reacts to the unknown.

The Wilderness is where Christianity functions best.

In the meantime… we pay and pay and pay, until it sounds like a movement again


Ah, the sweet smell of the hypothetical Wilderness theology!

While I’m not sure if I’d be one to say “apocalyptic” so quickly, given the kind of ethos it carries I will say that that term is certainly heading in the right “eschatological” direction as your (the) Other suggests. I would say a bit more specifically it must take on a certain element of “future-focusedness” or “foresight” or “preparedness” if it is to remain tenable. At this point, we are still in the complex process of becoming-plasma in discovering a model to address “The Thorn of the Blue Rose” (see here). All this to say that I’ve been thinking mostly about the prefix “EN-” lately (see here). Those two letters seem to encompass (heh) a lot of thinking. It requires that we enfold (heh heh) a lot of wisdom (see here) in any given instance, whether first or last or somewhere in-between.

The initial move towards “fragmentation” (see here) seems to come first from the Whole One, which is then split into many Fragments (this I have come to understand as a generally “Christian” moment of the dipole, e.g. Christ “bringing not peace but a sword”, but it is not limited to Christianity). Then, it seems to be followed up by an intense purification or otherwise some kind of combinatorial logic (putting together of the fragments, albeit in a certain “intense” core to it (see here); I have used the image of the hummingbird if that makes any sense, whose heart is 20% of its body, who fights non-violently, who ascends/descends in the air with a certain control and yet seems uncontrolled in the core; who  behind vorticies as its body “spins” in the air… “EN” I have said is like a musical scale almost…), which leads back to a re-integration into an Almost Whole One, a (W)hole One if you will.

We must look-over this process with a certain “construct awareness” (see here) to ensure that the gluing on the sheaf (see here) is “proper”, pouring some salt in the wound of the ()hole complex as necessary.

Ad fontes, “back” to the source, to the fountain, etc. where to say “back” is also to say “forward” in a particular way. A brief word on that phenomena may be found here, called the “quantum of the will-to-power”. I know well by now that you, my reader, are not at all phased by any of my (these) make-shift words. So, the tension between before-since and the “ence-ance” (as in differance/presence dichotomy even as late as in Derrida, allowing opening up to Laruelle and /r/Nonphilosophy  generally speaking) seems to disappear entirely in the EN prefix. If you’ve been following along (I don’t expect you to, don’t worry), it is around here that I am given to consider the significance of the burning of incense (ence-ance) in religion, which has been fruitful. Frankincense, to be frank, is said to also have health benefits…

That said, Christianity taken in itself and only in itself appears to have a kind of ()hole complex to it (term originally from Negarestani’s work, my reading of it is here). In any case, the process seems to go, as someone like Somov in /r/Biocosmism might write, “From One to Many to Fewer to Back to Almost-One” 1. 2. 3. 4. A four-step process, in deep need of an objective externality or model. I find this differentiation-integration also happening in the work of Novalis especially, but also in the poetry of Rumi. Here, in the fragmentation-movement, is where I am (we are) given to focus almost exclusively on the elements of Wisdom literature in the Bible and in Jesus’ sayings, in the “apocalyptic” imagery found in places like Revelation/Daniel and some Old Testament prophesying, on the Nag Hammadi scriptures and the idea of gnosis/r/occult interpretations of Christian logics, etc. The key word for us I think ought to be not so much “apocalypse” as it is “prediction” or as I have called it “entensionality” (with its strange, strange, strange prefix “EN-”) or “pre-adumbration” (see here) of concepts, e.g. seeing “the shadow” it will cast before you even place the concept in the conceptual space.

You might be able to do a lot here in way of simple, perhaps even typical demonstration, for, say, a youth group or class room. Setting up the scene  of the Cross, casting a light on it, seeing its shadow, and identifying what else was “crucified” there as it were “behind” the image of Jesus, rather than the criminals “beside” Him, etc. We might be prone to say: “Millions have died so that Jesus could save us.” Standard or non-standard (post-)Jungian shadow-work seems to hold here as a general rule or guiding principle, though of course there are those dark and salty exceptions. Here, we understand that “EN-” is not an abstraction (MOA-1), nor an abstraction of an abstraction (MOA-2), but is a third-generation or in any case thrice-removed (Layman Pascal calls it MOA-3).

Put otherwise, the point of this whole “gnosis” ordeal is that the wise person alone is able to say “I told you so” (and, thus, is allowed also to say something with closure like “It is finished” — I think somewhere in here is a new interpretation of Jesus’ cryptic remark in the works…) and “get away” with it, who is able to say it truly and honestly and without (categorical) violence. Non-violence of course is my desired modus operandi as hard as it is for me to sustain it consistently. I do believe it can be done, though. This means taking on love as a fundamental existential mood. Yet, in order to do so, she must maintain a certain silence and humility or in any case a “stance” (significance of folding hands/bowing head in prayer) or “orientation” or “temperament” or “composure” throughout the entire process as it unfolds before their eyes — no matter how outrageous. This is the altar-ative silence at the heart of the salt mine (see here).

And so I (we) also continue a fascination with mysticism, not so much in way of negative theology and the Christian mystics, but with those who place a value on “silence” generally.

I have recently come to consider my orientation as a kind of hybrid between a quasi-Sufism (…you need to be initiated in order to be considered legitimate, so I say “quasi-” to be safe) and Quakerism, though not in any ordinary sense. This other, markedly non-Christian moment of the sheaf (see here) whose idea is re-integration of fragments (see here) is to be explored more in depth next. Strange enough, this understanding of “religious logics” has allowed me to go back to my Quaker roots while becoming-rootless as Deleuze would have wished as well. Indeed, the advantage to this Christian-logic of Good and Evil is in how gracefully or lovingly it reacts if apprehended properly, how it reacts always with the act of forgiveness completed, being always already forgiven, etc. but on the flip side that makes it in no small part “reactionary” in the face of the unknown future, and as such warrants a certain suspicion from me (see conversation here).

My aim for an approximation of non-violence is a consistently trans- or otherwise post-religious mentality.

This means acknowledging the dangers and violences of the “religious” shadow as a whole. I seem to lapse back into this side of “religion” too frequently due to my “Christian” skin as a preacher’s kid, even if it is shed time and time again. I never knew until recently how DEEPLY it has shaped my structure of thinking, how freely it generates these dualistic structures. How ought we deal with this more “reactionary” element of Christianity? Well, first, do you even acknowledge it exists even if you consider it a reaction of unbounded love and grace? I want your help: How might you address this specifically in an inter- or just in case a post-faith context, specifically? How would you draw upon non-Christian traditions here?

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply