Monday, July 29, 2013

Logomachy Two

(Ongoing fragments from a previous attempt to interpret Austin Osmar Spare's Logomachy of Zos.)

by Austin Osman Spare

“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?”

Hmmm… a bit more about Ego perhaps:

"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 weirder 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

Efflux = something given off in or as if in a stream.

Ego expands by that which summons forth mutual outflowing. How should we
understand this "by" here? Ego expands by means of that which summons forth mutual
outflowing. What is it that summons forth mutual outflowing? 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, that which in overflowing causes all else to overflow. Only in
the increasing greatness of ALL can Ego grow. Why should this be so?

God personalizes our deficiencies? God causes the deficiencies to BE
personalized, perhaps? God causes finitude to be embodied in an Ego, in a personality.
Our creation is precisely a "personalization of deficiencies" perhaps. What is the origin of
deficiency? Why God of course, thus our creation is the efflux of God's finitude into a
form. God becomes greater by becoming less (finite) in us.

What is there for an ultimate to do but play with itself (Spare's favorite concept of
"self-love"?) i.e. focus itself into a self-knowledge, no? Of course, for this to happen an
ultimate must already have tumbled into the river Lethe- into forgetfulness, that it might
come to find itself in Auto-Ego.

Autism = being lost in a complete focus on self (Auto-Ego?). A classic idea, the
flowing changing unabsolute as an expression of the absolute (this runs against a lot of my
previous interpretations, seems there must be an Absolute). A three piece
universe then? Absolute, expression of absolute as unabsolute, and manufactured (?) Ego.

But Ego is not just an unabsolute expression of the absolute, in its autism it must not be
an expression of anything. From whence manufactured then, and by what? Ego as
autistic, as unrelated (not the relation of unabsolute and absolute). How can the autistic,
the unrelated, have anything to do with phenomena then? Is not experience of phenomena
a becoming related to them? It seems the absolute must be the manufacturer of Ego, but
then Ego is not autistic but rather just another related unabsolute. A bit of a mess here I
fear especially if were going to join this to the other statements.

No comments:

Post a Comment