mailing list
thee T.O.P.Y. archives

Towards an Analysis of The Logomachy of Zos


"Ego expands by that which evokes mutual effluxes; therefore look for the Theocentric in the Egocentric."

"If god personalizes our deficiencies, then, we thus personify his?"

Perhaps a bit more about Ego is in order;

"We are ever ultimate and all ultimates ultimately sublimate in Auto-Ego."

"If all phenomena are a fluxing unabsoluteness and are Absoluteness manifest, then is it surprising that we manufacture our ego that is neither-either but a wierder autism? Yet none remember having desired existence... but indisputably we have Ego, the only certainty we known. I mean by "Ego", our individuality as distinct and separate from all else."

For the word "efflux" we understand something given off in or as if in a stream. Ego, then, expands by that which summons forth mutual out-flowing. How should we understand the "by" here? Ego expands by means of that which summons forth mutual out-flowing. What is it that summons forth mutual out-flowing? What is it which causes things to overflow even as it overflows? That which, in becoming greater, itself makes all else greater. God, perhaps? Thus the God centered in the Ego centered, the ego can only expand by means of God which is that which in overflowing causes all else to overflow. This would suggest that only in the increasing greatness of all can Ego itself grow. This seems, admittedly, odd. Why should this be the case? We can leave this enigma for now and move on to another.
What can it mean to say that God personalizes our deficiencies? God causes the deficiencies to be personalized, perhaps? Maybe God causes finitude to be embodied in an Ego, in a personality. Our creation is precisely a "personalization of deficiencies", a bundling of flaws into one entity. What is the origin of deficiency, then, if they are to pre-exist the individual or humanity in general? Why God is the origin, of course, thus our creation is the efflux of God's finitude (i.e. his deficiency) into a form. God becomes greater by becoming less (i.e. finite) in us.
What is there for an ultimate to do but play with itself i.e. focus itself into self-knowledge. Do we have here Spare's favorite concept of "self-love" making an appearance? Of course, for the achievement of self-knowledge to happen, an ultimate must already have tumbled into the river Lethe, into forgetfulness, that it might come to find itself in Auto-Ego. The ultimate must forget it is ultimate in order to begin the journey of self discovery. Here we have very strong echoes of classic Gnosticism.
We can understand the term "autism" to mean being lost in a complete focus on self (should we understand this as Auto-Ego?). Here we have the classic idea of the flowing changing non-absolute as an expression of the absolute (this runs against a lot of my previous interpretations thus far insofar as it now seems there must be an Absolute). Might we have a three piece universe, then, made up of the Absolute, the expression of the absolute as non-absolute, and the manufactured Ego? Ego, however, is not just a non-absolute expression of the absolute, in its autism it must not be an expression of anything. From whence is the Ego manufactured, then, and by what? Ego in this picture is autistic, unrelated, and therefore not the relation of non-absolute and absolute. How can the autistic, the unrelated, have anything to do with phenomena? Is not the experience of phenomena a becoming related to phenomena? It seems the absolute must be the manufacturer of Ego, but then Ego is not autistic but rather just another related non-absolute. It seems we have a bit of a mess here, especially if were going to join these observations and epigrams to the other statements we have made or discussed thus far.

Autonomous Individuals Network:all rights reserved

* 23 *