aestheticocritique12 Protoith Aesthetico-Epistemico Critique What, in fact, is man before his God? He is incapable of judging the nothingness from which he was born towards the infinite in Nature. This 'Holy Hypochondria', this anxiety of the creation belongs however to a fundamentally different world from the nothingness, from the mataiotes which it apprehends. The question of whether it comprehends that which it apprehends, cannot be regarded as a criterion of its value. 1 Just as a mother is seen to begin to live in the fullness of her life only when the circle of her children, inspired by the feeling of her proximity, closes round her, so is the nothingness of the creation seen to be truly a concern for the living, only when the triumphs of the anxiety which it incites are gathered in spite of it. When the God that the saint receives and suffers, liberates the mystic world from the world of Ideas, he then again and again finds himself subjected to the ‘victorious powers of life’ and falls prey to that world, whenever he calls out in search of his God 'non coerceri maximo, contineri tamen a minimo'. 2 The empire of the planets, the sky, and constellations is not looked for under stones. The lowliest of botanical sciences studies the lily amongst lilies, the formation of the very flower, just as common politics studies man amongst men, in short, the formation of a state. The splinter in your own heart is the best keystone to the emotions of men. How can we be fair, kindly, and humane towards others, let our dictums be as praiseworthy as they may be, if we can not extinguish measureless pride as we would a raging fire, and lack the capacity to make strange natures genuinely and truly a part of ourselves, to appropriate strange situations, to make strange feelings our own? Perhaps redemption has already begun the moment we begin to take kindness for others as the fitting measure of our deeds. Verily, Linnaeus might dawn the name of Homer in Ceos. For our seeds today yet wait some tears from Empedocles: from an ever fading past we are touched by strange old lusts for deed, by echoes of a metaphysics of the ethical that we long ago relinquished to dream: ta phainomen suzein. 3 The admonition of dreams has always been mediated by word or image, thus its greater strength has already ebbed away, the strength with which it strikes us at the heart and compels us, though we scarcely know how, to act in accord with it. This moment is the Geramantian plow, beneath which fate is to be turned. To change a threatening future into a fulfilled now, - this is the work of a bodily presence of mind, a Prometheus Vinctus and labor omnia vicit, even as he to whom destiny speaks loudly has the right to speak yet more loudly to destiny. Measureless pride, the epitheton ornans of the life of idleness has been seized with lingua serpentina. O caecam providentiam, o justas Heracliti lacrimas! [Conradus Mutianus Rufus in Der Briefwechsel. P. 242.] Men do not choose to dream, there cometh upon them some strange old lust for deeds. For all our striving is but the memorial and tablet of our father's usury, and each deed of many do we know but the resolution governing. Thus there is great wealth and much wisdom in the fact that great shamefulness and much addling is there in hope: Pride itself createth wings, and findeth out that obscurity with fountain-divining powers! For Hope is the greatest cunning, cunning that createth; for in every hope is there valediction and brass. It is my favorite wickedness and art that my virtue cometh upon a crane's wings, and my hopes hath learned not to betray themselves through the children of my hopefulnesses, - loss and failure, shamefulness and addling! If my virtue is even the virtue of a barren mother, then in Pride is all of my adulteries resolved, yet pronounced free and Holy by their own hopefulness; if my virtue toucheth my deepest shame and my most insolent beauty; if my wickedness is a hopeful wickedness, at home in nests of beetles and under the branches of fig-trees, - rather hath my pride taken these children of my hopefullnesses under its wing, and cared after them; nurtured and fed them even. Thrax erat, hic Thracum domitor - this is my virtue. Ethos anthropou daimon- this is my virtue. Verily, even as hope is the fame of thy pride, and even the wisest of thy men did not unto me appear very wise, so hath I found men's pride to be much less than the fame of it. Thus thou leapest repeatedly at hope, but beware of flying! for prohibited to thee is flight unto hope, lest pride discovereth the sourest grapes that hath not been tasted by man! and the bitterest apples too! Internae propter facinora commissa. -- What awful wisdom is this, my well-loved Horace? Pride, that is weight; but at once weightmaster and scale. Courageous teeth hath I as well, that I might ventureth my teeth unto the sourest grapes and bitterest apples; that I might fly unto my remotest hope, -- courage! 4 Into more remote hopes flyeth I with new wings, unto discoveries of pride which poets hath never drempt of with my wings; thither where Gods art ashamed of palladium!5 Through our corporeality, indeed through our own lived body and the universality of the flesh, we are in the most immediate way imbricated in the world of perception, and mediated throughout the course of our own existence in the order of time. Nevertheless, we are blind and for the most part incapable of separating the temporary retardation of the natural, lived body in sin from our moral being, according to the measure of the consciousness of defilement. In short, the world of ethical terror holds in germ an entire repressive history which makes moral sensibility incomprehensible. The consternation at Golgotha is not just an emblem for the desolation of human existence, it is the ethical vision of the world; for the ethical vision is not imparted to man through love, but through fear, through our estrangement from ourselves and the unrecognizing universe that surrounds us. The moral sensibility, as the body, is attuned to experience of such an order that it bears some relation to itself; as the body bears relation to itself by virtue of the intuition of physical pain, so the moral sensibility has its own intuition which is of the order of terror. If the object of this experience grows out of proportion to the individual moral agent, he no longer really experiences it at all, but registers it directly, in concepts divorced from the intuition of ethical terror, as something incommensurable and extrinsic, for which he has the same indifference as this moral catastrophe has for him. Man then, erring, must, like spirits, continue to live - and what remains after life seems senseless to him. We are by the moral catastrophe overwhelmed, because it demands an ethical response and, insofar as man is disassociated from the consciousness of defilement, thwarts all efforts to take its measure, and to therefor to act in complete moral security and responsibility. If man suffers because he is impure, than God is innocent, and morality has no light but that shined upon the world in terror. In short, the ethical world of sin and the physics of suffering, which is grounded upon the lived experience of the body, are united within the immanent sphere of God's grace. Evil is derived not from the principle of finitude in itself, but from the dark and selfish principle that has been brought into intimacy with it as the Heraclitean 'pride without measure;' and this intimation is furthermore possible only insofar as the moral agent has been divorced from the intuition of ethical terror. Although the consciousness of defilement seems to be a memory inaccessible to any re-enactment in the imagination or sympathy, a moment that has been abolished by the progress of moral consciousness itself, it nevertheless contains in germ all possible moments of the life and future of the moral consciousness, even as 'the heart has its own order,' because it conceals within itself the secret of its own passing, which is of the 'order of intellect.' The greatest consolation in human nature is therefore, paradoxically, the smallest guarantee, - it is the straw that the drowning man clutches, it is the consciousness of defilement which man must take pains to grasp. What would righteousness be that was not measured by the immeasurable terror at what it is? God touches only for a moment the dwellings of men. Therefor at certain moments, those founders of the abyss must be consumed by the fire of what is deeply sheltered, and perspectives must be fashioned that displace and estrange the world, reveal it to be, with its rifts and crevices, as indigent and distorted as it will appear in the light of redemption. The only morality which can be responsibly practiced in the face of this terror is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption. The destructive character of this morality knows only one watchword: tamen genio illius gratias enatavi. It knows only one activity: clearing away. Its need for fresh air is stronger than any hatred, more severe than any aims towards retribution and vengeance. Really, only the insight into how radically the world is simplified when tested for its worthiness for destruction leads to such an Apollonian image of the destroyer. This is the great bond embracing and unifying the ethics of sin and the physics of suffering. The destructive force of morality sees nothing permanent. But for this reason it sees pathways everywhere. Eternity - That, with a greater knowledge of the Earth, followers of truth call both their Phorkyad's eye and their blind Plutus! My Eros, thou deep charlatanry and sucum ingenii! Even thy Seraph's ear hath a craving to hear wonders which everyone whose ear hath not been pierced with awl hears always around him. Yet thou canst not bear it when a fly desires to croon! Thy cherub's eye even desires to see miracles, as the courage of a lamb, though thou couldst not bear it! What couldst the courage of a lamb be for thee? but vanity. What couldst the chastity of a beetle be for thee? but indigence. What couldst the charity of a fig-tree be for thee? but exuberance. Foolish Eros! Cast but thy pure Phorkyad's eye into the well of my love! How should the lutulence of that well thereby blind you? Verily, shall my own Phorkyad's eye laugh back to you with it's purity, for this is psuche pasa. Thy wormwood is too bitter a food for the impure to be fellow-partakers of! Yet knowest thou anything other than the courageous teeth of the impure; knowest thou other than of Hope, awful Eros? and therefor is thy wisdom emptiness and great vanity? Sweeter than thy wormwood is my Pride, the only true source of wealth and of wisdom! and the sweetness wherewith it is sweetened, that is Hope! Truth, bodied forth in the saltation of represented ideals, resists being projected, by whatever means, into the realm of knowledge, which it obtains only by strife against itself. In the great philosophies the world is seen in terms of the order of ideas. Yet, now that we have conceived of these ideas in forma formans, rather than as mere forma formata, and even though the conceptual frameworks within which these world views have been articulated has, in the passage of time, become fragile; these frameworks, such as Plato's theory of ideas, the aestimatio and mensuratio of Nicholas of Cusa, the Kantian deontology, and Bergson's duree vecue still remain valid attempts at a description of the world. The more intensely these respective thinkers strove to outline an image of the universe, the more were they bound to develop a theoretical order which, for latter interpreters, would be seen as serving that original depiction of the world of ideas which was really intended. The metaphysics of life does not, of course, shrink from this final consequence, but it must thereby, at least in this one point, itself enter into the sphere that it would close off for us, that of theory. The historical self-consciousness of mankind is never immediately given in the form of a historical narrative; and it is philosophical doctrine that is based upon the codification of historical knowledge. In short, it is philosophy that has been invested to the fulfillment of a historical self-consciousness. 6 Philosophy, if it is indeed philosophy, cannot be evoked in more geometrico. Rather one, with Plato, takes the Idea as an appearance of truth within phenomena, or with Benjamin, takes phenomenon as an appearance of truth within the Idea, the vicious circle inherent to all ontological speculation, which raises phenomena to the level of necessity within the empirical consciousness, can not itself be located within philosophy, that is, either Platonic philosophy or the inverse of this. This is simply to say that the status of this mechanism cannot be adequately resolved to any precondition of philosophical thinking. The theoretical distinction between subject and object is theoretical as such and remains so, precisely because the mechanism by which phenomena are raised to the level of necessity within the empirical consciousness is, by the vicious circle of ontological speculation, made invisible. This is to say that, while the various disciplines make the effort to acquire knowledge, philosophy is concerned foremost with the representation of truth as the content of beauty and, by corollary, the affirmation of human values. In other words, the two dimensions of philosophical thought are, respectively, epistemological and aesthetic. Aesthetics and Epistemology can only be united in metaphysics for the former, through the infinitude of reflection which was central to the Romantic philosophers, implicitly denies, through providing a proof of the ‘absolute actual existence of the ego,’ the theoretical distinction between subject and object, 7 which is the very mechanism by which epistemology is developed into genuine knowledge. The metaphysics of life must make use of the intellect's administration of judgments, which it rejects, and in doing so it indirectly accepts the use of judgment. The acceptance and recognition of such takes place whenever a metaphysics does not merely perceive and interpret but makes evaluations. This is evident above all in the Phaedrus and Symposium, which contain several pronouncements of decisive importance in the present context. The one invites us to contemplate the relationship between Eros and recollection, between Eros and the fall and incarnation of the soul; the other offers a profound meditation upon the relationship of Beauty and Truth. To interpret their sentences in terms of the logic of their system, as no more than part of a time honored eulogy on behalf of those great sages of the Socratic tradition, would inevitably mean leaving the sphere of the theory of ideas; which is where their existence is illuminated. Throughout the Phaedrus defilement is conceived in terms of an objective event; defilement, in point of fact, is brought upon the soul in 'being yoked together with things of the Earth,' as Hierocles says. Yet, even as those who lose their footing turn somersaults in their fall, so would the Soul, in the intentations of its own defilement, fall from symbol to symbol, from Idea to Idea, down into the vertigo of its bottomless depths, were it not that, even in the severest of them, it has so to turn about that all its apprehension, vainglory, and godlessness seems to be nothing but Narcissism and self delusion. For it is to misunderstand the Phaedric conception of the soul entirely if we make a distinction between the defilement, in which this anabasis into salvation and redemption takes place, and that grim signification of death and damnation in light of the espesura of God. Rather, if we are to understand the doctrine communicated in the Phaedrus and Symposium, we must consider it in terms of its own immanent presuppositions, we must return to the primal phenomenon in which it is rooted. Beauty taken in itself does not already contain in its womb the images of things, which Eros then only has to receive passively from it. No matter how we regard it or proclaim it as the original source of philosophy, beauty in itself is never the source of the ideas in which this philosophy is first comprehended and understood. Eros does not betray its basic impulse by directing his longings towards the truth; for Truth is beautiful not so much in itself, as for Eros. And so it is with human love; a person is beautiful in the eyes of his lover, but not in himself, because his body belongs to a higher order of thing than that of the beautiful. The law to which Eros is subject and by virtue of which he is continually reborn - not what is created by Eros in the acquisition of ideals - provides the true content of the erotic impulse. If this law were completely antagonistic to beauty, it would at the same time have to destroy its own essence, (as in the Romantic conception of the passivity of love, which is apparently bound up in the experiences of sorrow and of longing to the extend that it cannot to any degree be isolated from them) for it exists and has application only insofar as it is active, and it cannot become active by any means except through constantly resubmerging itself into the object of desire. Always changing, but ever itself, Eros in all of its productions always stands opposed to the life of the beautiful without ever turning itself upon it, without ever rending it, without ever being antagonistic towards it. For it is precisely visions of this frenzy of destruction, in which all earthly things collapse into a heap of ruins, which reveal the bounds set upon the Phaedric contemplation, rather than its ideal quality. Eros is himself a representation of the soul, of the soul that is most soul, that of the philosopher who desires the truth because he is not himself in possession of the Truth. Now, Eros carries in himself that cardinal wound which is the emblem of his mother, Penia. The very object of Eros is determined by the fact that it must be taken possession of - even if in a transcendental sense - into the consciousness through an aesthetico-epistemological negation of all the ontological assumptions about man. The defilement of the soul, of course, thereby loses everything that was most peculiar to it: Saint John's 'a solas', the secret and privileged knowledge, the arbitrary rule by birth and death, superfluity and poverty, in a Natural world, the supposed infinitude of a world without hope or the grace of a deity. All of this vanishes in the anabasis, in which the immersion of Soul in defilement has to clear away the final illusion of the objective and, left entirely to its own devices, rediscovers itself, not playfully in the earthly world of things, but sternly under the eyes of heaven. And this is the essence of the Soul's immersion therewith: that its ultimate objects, in which it has faith that it can most fully secure for itself that which is vile, turn into forms, Ideas, symbols; and these orders of ideas fill up and deny the void in which they are represented, just as, ultimately, the religious intention does not rest in contemplation of the faces hippocratica, but in resurrection. At a final stage, in despair, death itself becomes a property, something non-exchangeable. Its metaphysical uplifting relieves us of its experience. To the spiritual in eadem damnatione, to the epic unity between life and death, wherein this immortality is introduced, corresponds a patrimonium generis humani and worldly restitution that leads to the eternity of downfall. Yet the saltation of this eternally transient worldly existence, transient in its totality, in its spatial totality but moreover in its temporal and World-Historical totality, the saltation of Messianic nature, is truly a call for rejoicing, for nature is Messianic by reason of its eternal and total passing away, of its hopefulness. This hope man naturally visualizes in the dreams of a future state, in the contemplation of Ideas under the form of eternity, just as Cephalus speaks of hope guiding the wayward thought of man. In its finished form philosophy will, it is true, assume the quality of doctrine, will be superordinated to theology, but it does not lie within the power of mere thought to confer such a form. The peirata of life and of earth, to borrow a term from Solon, are at the same time spiritual and negative; Man, who is conscious of this bears it as 'a spirit of heaviness' and must, according to the inner law unto which both life and earth adhere, be as much superseded by as dissolved within his Will, just as the principle of life within the creature. Even the God must in the end serve the Will to his best and execute its law, just as the earth must be as a sign to its duration. This fulfills itself in the end and from the heavenly orders, brings One. The shaping, the inner plasticity of the will, which is analogous to the eternity of downfall in Platonic history, is so heightened that the destiny of the dead breaks over the God so that the plasticity of the Will is turned inside out and God becomes completely an object. Here is apokatasis as the supreme expression of Identity: the Palladium falls unto its own principle, even as 'the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.' 8 081227 ... Protoith Death is not, as it was once understood, finitude in its deepest articulation, but is the extinction of the plastic, heroic Eros in beauty. The space and time of this death, in the spirit and negative aspect of Eros, still do no emerge in the pierata of Life as unity. The term 'Eros' is not intended to describe the process by which love emerges as an actual experience, but rather to describe that aesthetic ideal which emerges 9 in the process of forgetfulness and longing. Eros is an eddy in the stream of the heart's self seeking, and in its movement it swallows in aletheia [forgetfulness] the true, the physical object of beauty involved in the process of longing. Eros should not be thought temporally as a chronological beginning in the inception of the experience of love nor ontologically as a structure or fixed form, as a complete experience, subject to a systematic specification of knowledge, but in terms of a configuration intended to make aletheia possible and to renew the capacity to long for. This configuration is both concrete and a-priori; it is indeed the folding and unfolding of the a priori into the concrete, of the aesthetic ideal into the object of physical love, an involution which, because it takes place in time, is never complete. At any moment the configuration of Eros is both emerging and withdrawing, showing different aspects and concealing others. The thought of Eros is speculative -insofar as it exceeds given experience - but not simply transcendental, since it cannot be separated or distinguished as a condition of the possibility of the experience of love. Eros can not therefor ever be abstracted from a physical body, a physical object of love, as a mere impulse within a particular place in time. - It is never revealed in the naked and manifest existence of the actual human body; its configuration is apparent only within this dual impulse of forgetfulness and longing. Eros is present neither in the actuality of a physical woman nor behind that woman as her ideal or archetype - it is a configuration or pattern that develops through time and necessitates the renewal of longing. This development through time characterizes impulsiveness only as the secondary characteristic of Eros. Furthermore this configuration is the subject of a dual impulse in which Eros appears both as a process of restoration and re-establishment and as something imperfect and incomplete, as a pattern in which singularity and repetition are conditioned by one another. Eros and Thanatos are distinguished in that Eros must be repeated and can be lived only through repetition, whereas Thanatos, as a transcendental principle, is that which submits Eros to repetition. Yet because, in the view that we have hitherto put forward, Eros is himself, with all of his productions, disassociated from the order of time, Thanatos may be looked at as a principle which is constantly re-emerging within the Erotic configuration itself, 11 not as something which submits this configuration to repetition, but as the means by which the beloved is pulled back down to her material semblances, to preserve the impulse towards longing. Not only do the visions of Eros come unsummoned, 10 but the visions of our beloved are such a matter that we had never seen them before remembering them. These visions of the beloved are developed in Thanatos, the darkroom of the lived moment, and these are the visions that we eventually are permitted to see. Only that in the beloved which has not been consciously and explicitly experienced, as the smell of her hair, the curl of her lip, what has as yet played no significant role in what we call lived experience, can become a component of the Erotic vision. Instantaneously, Eros draws the semblance of the beloved into its hidden and, if one may put it so, wooded interior. The struggle of Eros with woman is, as it were, displaced behind the scenes, and one sees that it must have gone on before. The true struggle, the inner frustrations of love - which are its genuine character - defy aesthetic representation. For either love triumphs or it is defeated. In the first instance, one does not know what was represented by the woman or why; in the second, it is abashing to have been the woman's voyeur. For in the end, one moment or another must indeed give the sensual preponderance over the spiritual and aesthetic element of love, and precisely to this moment the voyeur does not accede but demands an even more striking moment, for, as in such representations the sensual must gain preponderance, so its punishment under fate, that is, by moral nature, is demanded, which salvages its freedom through death. If the grounds of a mythical primal guilt are sought in the bare, vital drive of sexuality, as in the sentence above, then Christian philosophy finds its most distinct counterpart where that drive is furthest removed from drastic and reproducible expression in art: the life of the virgin.The pagan if not indeed the mythological ideal of this sort of innocence owes to Christianity at least its formulation - a formulation most extreme and fraught with consequences - in the ideal of virginity. The dual impulse of forgetfulness and longing, which warps through time the genuine image of the loved, culminates in the most severe distortion of the her reality and sensual aspect, - the ideal of virginity. As is the case with natural guilt, there is also a natural innocence in life. The latter, however, is tied not to the sexual aspect of the body itself, nor even to the mode of its denial, that is chastity, but rather solely to its antipode, the spirit (which is equally natural). Just as the irreducibility of the sexual life in man's experience of love can become the expression of natural guilt which, concentrated in the haunting image of virginity, renders all attempts at the aesthetic representation of the inner life of the lovers unsuccessful, so the spiritual aspect of his love, based on the variously constituted unity of his identity within the relationship, can become the expression of a natural innocence. Even though virginity as a union between the two erotic impulses cannot be realized in the order of time, it may be regarded as a fundamental aspect of the vision of the loved, for the irreducibility of the sexual life in the experience of love is that on which it is grounded, and this ground is itself dislocated from the order of time. The institution of marriage, which serves as an attempt to preserve the dignity of the virgin through time, may be regarded as an example of this haunting virgin in an actual social body. The self-equivalence of the spiritual aspect of love is, in fact, the sexual identity of the erotic lover. Self-equivalence, as the essential moment of its constitution, distinguishes it from the daemonism of the purely infatuated relationship towards the body. Does not matrimony, the lover's openness upon the self-equivalence of his own revelation and spiritual life, consist in catching sight of the permanent possibility of war with she that he loves? We shall see no end of such horrors until erotic lucidity develops into a revolutionary messianic consciousness that finally breaks the spell of fatality, the truth of being operative in the logic of identity, the image of virginity operative in the logic of the erotic configuration itself. The essence of all that is beautiful is always bound up, through the maniacal double-impulse of Eros, and though in infinitely different distortions and manifestations, with semblance. This union attains its severest grotesquery in that which is manifestly alive and precisely here, in a clear polarity between the triumphant semblance of the body which is the object of longing and the semblance which extinguishes itself in aletheia. For everything living is lifted up beyond the domain of the essentially beautiful, beyond that which provokes Eros to longing; accordingly, the essentially beautiful manifests itself, in its form, most of all as semblance. 12 Eros reveals the true countenance of the beloved only fleeting. In order for Eros to apprehend the physical body, in order for the woman to be handed over to Eros, she has to be destroyed, and by being eaten up in aletheia, made into a different kind of object, one which Eros can long for even after it has been taken a hold of, lest Eros would lose interest in her and the configuration of the erotic impulse as such would collapse. And this is the essence of the idealized woman. Eros then is destructive, with no place for authenticity or fulfillment. And longing, in this sense, is catastrophic, taking when it would seem to give, a perpetual state of emergency on behalf of the woman. Longing is a play of sadness, a ruination. It offers no possibility for genuine fulfillment, no moment of decision, no meaning to life. It is not the place for a lover to play out the tragedy of Eros in loss and gain. The opposite of the life of Eros is not truth and certainty in his role or his identity within the relationship with the loved, but the indecision and longing towards the virgin; and this relationship is in fact nothing more than a heightened sense of that relationship which exists between natural guilt and natural innocence, the non-arbitrary in judgment. Through this two sided impulse the actual love, the physical woman, is distorted; through aletheia, the falling away of materiality and imperfection from the vision of the loved, she is idealized, and through longing she is pulled down to the level of semblance; and these, working in concert through the duration of the two-sided erotic impulse, distort her reality. It is the physical object of love which the double-impulse of Eros distorts; it is the distorted, the grotesque vision of the loved which is revealed within Eros; a love caught between the impulses towards aletheia and longing. The complete vision of this love lies wherein the imperfection, the materiality and semblance of the woman is completely extinguished in aletheia, such that all that is left is a longing who's object can not be realized-- the virgin. In short, the dual impulse of Eros; forgetfulness and longing, through time, conceals some aspects of the loved and reveals some, reveals some and obscures some. This amounts to a distortion of the reality of the loved, and this distortion culminates in the ideal of virginity, which haunts the lover; the virgin represents the completely forgotten materiality and imperfection of the physically loved woman, and something which one cannot do anything but long for. That, the ideal of virginity, the culmination of this distortion, is the union between the two aspects of the erotic impulse: aletheia and longing. The virgin is the clearest articulation of polarity between the triumphant semblance of the body which is the object of longing, and the semblance which extinguishes itself; the aesthetic ideal, which is finally lost to aletheia in the aspect of the virgin. 1. http://books.google.com/books?id=-01z4iNV6WkC&pg=PA382&dq=ontology+of+nothingness&lr=&as_brr=3&ei=eW1SSYjOG5WyyQSBu8iMDg#PPA382,M1 2. http://books.google.com/books?id=4czatbnbI5gC&pg=PA324&dq=non+coerceri+maximo,+contineri+tamen+a+minimo&as_brr=3&ei=k29SSd6QFJLmyQTqo6TaAg&client=firefox-a#PPA324,M1 3. http://books.google.com/books?id=cbNA-P0_4pQC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=macrological+and+micrological+morality&source=web&ots=QzXYa945Zt&sig=d-wRlro5J2yL0JOowwvEEeWqsxk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA139,M1 P. 139 4. http://books.google.com/books?id=EOBW3zcuh7QC&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=fountain-divining+powers&source=web&ots=o-FtpCnPFM&sig=BLf2V3zNPuguUww2BUI1L0ZOTqE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA89,M1 P.89 5. http://books.google.com/books?id=Bz7j5PMxjnEC&pg=PA40&dq=Greek+God+falls+own+principle&ei=1XJSSbHzL5GeyATW9fSPBg 6. http://books.google.com/books?id=-BLVTANnfgMC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=historical+self-consciousness&source=web&ots=Y4QH_01aj7&sig=7vdThyGYOhDpP_TdHaaLCacvAT0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPA187,M1 7. http://books.google.com/books?id=a-ysMbX8AIUC&pg=PA68&dq=Romantic+passivity&ei=vnNSSZqLAoqEywSripTwAw&client=firefox-a#PPA68,M1 8. http://books.google.com/books?id=YUYJLrxDsQ0C&pg=PA17&dq=kant+third+term&ei=4WHoSLTbApWKyQS9oPRz&client=firefox-a&sig=ACfU3U208URo3ajzv1Yixp5tW7_WJY7qrw#PPA48,M1 9. http://books.google.com/books?id=DapHCtuZDmgC&pg=PA170&dq=eros+and+equivalence&ei=qZ1OSdzSNYqEywSQju20Bw&client=firefox-a#PPA166,M1 http://www.nietzschecircle.com/nietzsche_essays.html 10. http://books.google.com/books?id=cbNA-P0_4pQC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=macrological+and+micrological+morality&source=web&ots=QzXYa945Zt&sig=d-wRlro5J2yL0JOowwvEEeWqsxk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA56,M1 P. 56 11. http://books.google.com/books?id=fSwrBQz0oJEC&pg=PA426&dq=adorno+metaphysical+experience&ei=TJhOSaHYD5PqyQTCjpX8BA#PPA423,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=Bz7j5PMxjnEC&pg=PA40&dq=benjamin+falls+own+principle&ei=nZlOSYOXHaeGzgSI68G1CQ&client=firefox-a#PPA38,M1 12. Eros as a metaphysical experience: http://books.google.com/books?id=zYP_Yy-5bn4C&pg=PA208&dq=metaphysics+of+the+ethical+adorno&lr=&ei=C5lOSY_TKpPqyQTCjpX8BA&client=firefox-a#PPA207,M1 081227 what's it to you? who go blather from