Speaking of “immoderately explicit” I forgot about this guy
The daring of this article (originally published in 1980) is closely related to its neglect. Kennington dares to argue that Spinoza writes esoterically in the Ethics.
This is from a different Parens book. I remember the last time I brought up Kennington a couple years ago I didn’t even say what it was about him, I just told people to go read him. I doubt I’m that reticent anymore.
You know how I often invoke the idea of the “political-theological”? That’s an allusion to Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus of 1670. This is 14 years after the Jews cursed and exiled him.
Parens is a real treasure
Doesn’t Spinoza mean rather that the person (such as a philosopher) who recognizes an image for what it is, merely an image, is the only one to possess a true image?
Or for our own time, cathedralists don’t understand the cathedral. They don’t possess a true image of it. I’m speaking to the habitual rationalizers in particular. They only persist as cathedralists because their image of what it is isn’t clear, i.e. isn’t a true image.
Yess you know how I look for esoteric studies on each thinker, similar to that Dante one I found? Parens might have just directed me to one on Spinoza, written by one Paul Bagley.
Recall this from this post
These words are indeed strange: they turn into ice…
the words, preserved in ice, will speak again
The thawing of each thinker. I have a “gotta catch em all” attitude about this.
Spinoza is the contemporary of the ketmanist in this regard
He wishes to avoid any misleading consequences that could flow from ascribing such nonbeing to images.
It isn’t only images that lack existence. It’s the souls of people who believe in those images, it’s the souls that have “nonbeing”.
The ketmanists, too, in needing to cater to the world of nonexistent souls, themselves make a pact with nonbeing in their own souls.
Here’s Spinoza from his better-known work the Ethics
happiness consists in a man’s being able to preserve his own being
Poor Parens quoting this, this poor Parens the ketmanist. HAHA! People with nonbeing-souls think they understand what exultant laughter really is…
“At least when you’re a sell-out they pay you for it!” Whoaaaa you said that out loud?
Y’know, when you’re the one being satirized it’s difficult to recognize it as satire?
Don’t you want all these geniuses to thaw? Surprisingly, most people don’t like that, for the reason I mentioned yesterday involving “harm”.
Think of yesterday, about the idea of a wisdom religion. You can’t have a wisdom religion for the above reason. When certain geniuses are unfrozen they cause too much harm to the ketmanists and rabble alike. Why is that? Because, at least the ones I have in mind tend to deal with this theological-political problem. And even an expert on that like Parens is not going to like when you talk about that too directly. That’s a great secret of our culture, that we’re supposed to live in blindness to what some of these geniuses said.