The Thorn of the Blue Rose:
“What if you slept? And what if, in your sleep, you dreamed? And what if, in your dream, you went to heaven and plucked a strange and beautiful flower? And what if, when you awoke, you had the flower in your hand? Ah, what then?” — Novalis
It is little known that there are in fact many Blue Flowers of German Idealism.
The one which appeared in my hands as I awoke happened to be a Blue Rose, of genus Rosa, within the family Rosaceae. It, too, signifies the “beauty of things” and serves as a mark of “inspiration”, but it is one which is itself already marked by the ways of the world. That is, the Blue Rose does not exist “in Nature”, but it is in all actuality a White Rose which has been dyed blue. Ah, what then?
The answer is perhaps more startling than before: The flower did not just simply appear in my hands, somebody else must have genetically manipulated it before giving it to me in my sleep! O, don’t you dare tell me my Rose is a fake!
My inspiration — !
In the 21st century, the call to “Romantize the world!” reveals itself in this kind of complexity as an in part revolutionary and in other part evolutionary plea to build instead a global or otherwise actual trans-finite (see here) neighborhood that we may at last call our home. It is better, it seems, to take our time and remain securely incomprehensible locally with our wisdom in this non-philosophical space and to periodically bask in the altar-ative (see here) experience of Wandering than to slow or otherwise stop the stream of Life universally. And to what end? For sake of that unknown “scientific” stranger who dyed my rose blue! That is, for sake of the “cutting” demand for philosophical clarity of all things! As if the primary aim of romanticization was ever anything other than to love, love, love on others especially when such understanding is absent.
My love — !
To be sure, this demand for clarity is contained within the call to “Romanticize the world!” itself, present throughout as the Thorn of the Blue Rose. Who could possibly deny it as a part of the poet-philosopher’s lived-experience? When the Sleeping Beauty awakes, she does so with a drop of blood on her fingers from the prick of the flower’s thorn.
This staunch, uncompromising call for comprehensibility, like crescent-shaped hammer and sickle cells ☭ clogging up the blood stream of the visionary Body, shall not in the final analysis present an insurmountable obstacle.
Yet, it presents itself around every corner in the form of “I can’t understand you” or “I simply can’t take you seriously” or “You must be more clear”. It also arrives in the guise of any of its many other variants stringing across the conceptual space like a marquee of words, each flash beginning with “I can’t… you are just so…” whose nettles catch our fingers each time the poet turns a page. The “materialist” voice incessantly bombards the active dreaming of the otherwise free and musical spirit endlessly from without, calling upon it to wake up and return to the restraining norms of everyday life and speech.’
Strictly from here, the only way to go about achieving such clarity of communication is to let the alchemical process enfold you further, to allow the Spirit to purify you so to speak in the alchemical Fire at the “speed of time” (see here) until all that remains is gold, until you are at last there. Does the poet-philosopher in her many deterritorializations know any other way? To obscure even the inspired obscurity in an unmistakable expression of a new form of perceptibility which may or may not be deemed acceptable. Ours is an internal process wherein we might suggest that a blood trans-fusion takes place with all of its aqueous plasma carrying with it – of course, who could forget? – the salt of Life, holding in suspension our fragmented cells and the many plateletic plateaus. The inter-workings of the vision of the Body are to be revealed not primarily by way of a seriously intrusive surgical method, but instead by many numerous and carefully-selected preventative measures. Here, not unlike the pricked finger, this sharper focus might be provided by an intravenous injection.
That (pro-)gnosis and foresight remain intertwined serves to our benefit. Perhaps we may have caught a glimpse of this scientist as he quickly left the room…
Accordingly, we may need to go a bit deeper into the incomprehensible by becoming-plasma or generally becoming-blood donor in order to acquire an idea of what it is exactly that we are doing right about here, which is to say a certain “significant” (see here) manner of Wandering in the Wilderness (see here). What it is we are doing in this central silent chamber of the salt mine (see here), which bursts forth with an “insupportable range of sound”? What are we doing performatively, for instance, when we attribute a certain revelatory anchorage to a sphere dangling like a fruit upon the Tree of Life? What is this Tree which are its “hellish” roots? What is this vision of the Body carrying with it elements of life and death, that ceaselessly burns-without-burning in the rare act of setting Truth ablaze? Whither the alchemical Fire of Enchantment within? What are we doing when we, now in the 21st century, call forth such obscure alchemical discourses, these astrological synchronicities, et al.?
Antonin Artaud, in Theater and its Double, elegantly writes the following of these ancient “gods that sleep in museums”:
“If the Serpent Quetzalcoatl’s multiple twists and turns are harmonious, it is because they express the equilibrium and fluctuations of a sleeping force; the intensity of the forms is there only to seduce and direct a force which, in music, would produce an insupportable range of sound. / The gods that sleep in museums: the god of fire with his incense burner that resembles an Inquisition tripod; Tlaloc, one of the manifold Gods of the Waters, the Mother Goddess of Flowers; the immutable expression, echoing from beneath many layers of water, of the Goddess robed in green jade; the enraptured, blissful expression, features crackling with incense, where atoms of sunlight circle – the countenance of the Mother Goddess of Flowers; this world of obligatory servitude in which a stone comes alive when it has been properly carved, the world of organically civilized men whose vital organs too awaken from their slumber, this human world enters into us, participating in the dance of the gods without turning round or looking back, on pain of becoming, like ourselves, crumbled pillars of salt.” (TD, 10/11)
[...] “Furthermore, when we speak the word ‘life’, it must be understood we are not referring to life as we know it from its surface of fact, but to that fragile, fluctuating center which forms never reach. And if there is still one hellish, truly accursed thing in our time, it is our artistic dallying with forms, instead of being like victims burnt on the stake, signaling through the flames.” (TD, 13)
Herein, Saint Artaud – as though ritualistically – lights the incense burner in the same way as has been done in our “Prayers of Oil and Salt” (see here).
In just one paragraph, he painstakingly relates the concepts of salt, body, depth, sound, rhythm, Nietzschean dance, light, fire, truth, and life in a complex constellation with such an attention to the often invisible, traumatic intensities of the facts of violence. He demarcates the surface from the depths, noting as does Negarestani, the reaction between substances which takes place most strongly on the surface in contrast to, let us say, the vulnerability or “fragility” of the heart contained inside. But what is it that we are doing in this imperceptible state?What is it that he is doing?
Artaud speaks to it quite clearly: It is our artistic dallying with forms, instead of being like victims burnt on the stake, signaling through the flames.
To be concerned with “salt” as we have seen is to carry a sensitivity to Form (see here) and its forgetting en masse.
The task at hand is now one of clarifying of all that I have previously written, to convey it in such a manner so as to be more easily digested.
That said, this post is intended to be nothing more than preparation for a certain model-building. Yet, since the challenge is nonetheless presented as a key avenue forward, we must understand it in its entirety before moving further down the street. This process, I suggested, mirrors the plasmic form. “The goal of plasma purification and processing is to extract specific materials that are present in blood, and use them for restoration and repair.” Likewise, we intend to experiment with the relative obscurity of prose-poetics, to purify its contents, and to use this gesture of extraction towards ameliorative ends. To do so, however, requires at last an “objectifying externality” or simply a model — which arguably has slowly been taking form as if by necessity in recent posts.
First things first, this conceptual extraction must be carefully carried out so as to not undo any prior progress. That is, one must continue all without loss of the sense of universal enchantment provided by impenetrable style of fragmented prose-poetics, without the loss of the Romantic-intoxicated flow of interpretation with-and-beyond of Novalis. It must be done, furthermore, within the space opened up by way of sheaves (see here and here) as provided by Grothendieckian topos theory. All of this to say without precluding a certain formalization for those may be so inclined.
In a way reflecting a musicological process (see here), this now extractive call to “Romanticize the world!” unfolds as though step-by-step:
- Descend into the heart of the salt mine, (philo-speculative experimentation, theoretical practice, subjectifying interiority)
- Purify its beneficial incense and romantics, and (non-philosophical mathematization, mathematical formalization via sheaf theory)
- Extract the salt of Life and return it back to the world (philosophical modelization, application, “objectifying externality”, new knowledge)
When seen through this stage-3 plasmic lens, this Novalisian call becomes one of the more complicated if not impossible but still necessary tasks given all of its associated risks and dangers of the mine itself.
Indeed, this call marks the “infinite task” of the New of philosophy which comes again after the intermittent “saving grace” of non-philosophical crisis interventions. What might it look like? It seems to require, as a constitutive feature, many life-times of experimentation in order to “get it just right” as we are prone to say.
Because its call to us seems to always appear here in our local neighborhood, our response by default is always tending towards “home” but never quite achieving the satisfaction of actually getting there. It is as if the salt extracted and its wisdom purified dissolves quickly as one makes their way to the Outside without coagulating again in the sunlight.
To become-plasma is to recognize that one is continually pierced by the Thorn of the Blue Rose, and then to be able to change one’s form in order to prevent or otherwise reduce and eliminate that pain in the future.
King Schelling Speaks:
We could thus “demystify” these two rhythms in the salt mine of an ascent by way of the 10-step Tree of Life and a descent by way of the 9+1 Inferno as being fundamental movements of Agape and Eros respectively — all without loss of due Form.
This experience in sum has been that of a complex but still “gentle” pull towards a “vast morphogenetic field of potentials” ever-present in Space-Time, while Eros enjoyed in the manifestation of these potentials themselves, and Agape is found at-last in their mutual realization and recognition of each other. Unwittingly, then, we have identified at least three “involutionary givens” (see here) which pre-existed the Big Bang, developing a possibly Trinitarian formulation of the conditions of possibility for our experience.
Including, of course, our salty experience roughly here, as I write.
These three coincide first of all Schelling’s Potenzenleche, and they also carry their respective Kabbalistic correspondences as well as those parallels with the light of Dante’s Paradise (shown above).
Put in Trinitarian terms, God as the subsistent One as such isa “hypostasis” or Absolute Person and, principally, He is the hypostasis of the Father as the ungenerated ground of the Trinity or monarchos. God, then, as the hypostasis of the Father, the One, the monarchos, is wholly unconnected to anything and so is deﬁned negatively in Himself by His separation from everything particular, ﬁnite and plural—deﬁned, in short, as the Kabbalistic Ein-Sof “free from the all [vse], as absolutely united.” [...]
On the other hand, God, in contrast to Himself as Ein-Sof, the absolute super-subsistent Father, is also perfectly complete in that He possesses all being (i.e. all content, every determination) or the All (i.e. pan). This “All” is understood as “every type of being in a certain aspect, speciﬁcally in its positive force or creating principle.” God determines Himself, therefore,positively over against the Other insofar as He possesses the All and is “not [. . .] capable of having anything outside of itself.” In other words, the hypostasis of God the Father contains the All in Himself (“positive absolute-ness”) as His essence or ousia in an eternal act and in this way can be said to have being. Yet the Father is not content to possess the All solely in Himself but must have it also in two other mutually exclusive eternal acts or positings for himself and with Himself.
We must then speak of God as not merely one eternal subject and act of the All (i.e. hypostasis) but three eternal mutually exclusive subjects and acts/positings of the All (i.e. three hypostases): Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These three Trinitarian self-positings, which we will return to below in more detail, echo Schelling’s famous three divine potencies (“Potenzen”), which are part of his Erzeugungdialektik (dialectic of generation), that is, being-in-itself (an-sich-Seiende), being-for-itself (für-sich-Seiende) and being-with-itself (das bei-sich-Seiende). (see here)
Do you ask to be conscious of this freedom? But do you also consider that all your consciousness is only possible via your freedom and the condition cannot be contained in what is conditioned?