From the same book
The sole subject of the parabasis is the birds–their being the most ancient gods and what it means for men to live with the birds or to live like birds.
This is one of the central chapters, which some say is when he tends to get most explicit. And this above is so explicit I almost don’t want to explain it. The theological-political is not some kind of external entity, it is YOU, it is me. You can decide what it is by being a certain kind of person. Problem is, you will be persecuted if you decide to be your own theological-political. Kabbalists “play god” in this way by nature, and they and their goy minions don’t like when we do the same thing in our own way.
Good to know
The Peace and the Birds are the only plays hitherto discussed that present actions against Zeus.
Aristophanes has 11 surviving plays. A cynic might interpret the above as Strauss’s subtle way of talking about overthrowing the goyim, not “Zeus”. And we can re-interpret the same statement for our own purposes too.
In the parabasis the birds attempt to win over the human race to their cause.
Nope, the human race likes their Yahweh too much- he lets them get away with being garbage.
Truly what’s going on in the US, whether you can accept it or not.
Anyway, Strauss talks about the birds preceding the gods. Think of this in the context of my posts on Jenny’s books. She only talks about the gods, not what precedes the gods.
Do I even have to explain to you at this point how that translates into 2021 language?
sigh. Explaining only invites hemlock, that’s how it works.
Truth precedes the dogmas of the time. Those dogmas very well could be true. The point is that they’re able to be put into suspension at least temporarily. And the irrational rabble can’t have that for even a split second. “What do you mean dogma? Like what for instance?” Use your imagination… (if you’re a bird).
Ah the Ein Sof
The birds say nothing here about the genesis of air… Surely one of the darkest points in the birds’ dark account of the origins is the status of air, of the principle par excellence according to Socrates’ account.
There was only so much of being a bird Aristophanes could take, that’s why he slandered Socrates. He was the air that contained him!
You probably heard the story of how after Socrates knocked Plato for a loop Plato burned his plays. He was originally going to be a playwright before he met Socrates. This is similar to my point about how Hegel talks about drama being the finest art while being a philosopher himself. Prior to the play Clouds which demonized Socrates, Aristophanes had already written two other plays. One might imagine Socrates asking him irritating questions that made him doubt the morality or truthfulness of those plays. Socrates WAS the Ein Sof. That’s not allowed in reality, that’s immanentizing the eschaton. The best you’re allowed to be is a bird, as long as you keep quiet about it, and preferably an orc-bird, never the air the birds fly in.
Or to put it in the usual way I put it, one might imagine Socrates winking at Aristophanes about the theological-political. Aristophanes thought he was lampooning the most powerful entities in Athens, and Socrates probably showed him there was a greater context that he was afraid to question. And thus Aristophanes lampooned Socrates instead of that greater context.
On the birds and the air
Both doctrines transcend the sphere of nomos
Recall here this about quantum physics. Birds like to believe themselves birds, they don’t like to be reminded of the air. They’re proud of being birds because unlike humans they’re able to fly. They don’t like being reminded they fly in something, because that makes them feel like a “human” themselves. Feels good to believe oneself to be a bird and not a human. Jesse!