DON'T YOU MAKE MY BROWN EYES BLUE: Apophatic theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's true what women say...

about thee'men.

They be PIGS!  yeah.  ALL of em!

  

Pigs.

They be like horses, two.

Once,

 you get em started,

THEY... FUCK... ANYTHING! 

I mean...

 ANYTHING!

Even... 

ah dummy?

MARTHA!  MARTHA!

You so Tense.

How many number one priorities can a women have?

Mary has chosen one thing.  

And ...

IT?IS 

THE BEST THING!

I have been anointed.

HORSE OF COURSE!

"If you have two of any one thing...

antichrist

antichrist - copy

 
antichrist - copy
(2)

you only need one of them?"

+

Blue eyes vs. Brown ...?

One of my mother's favorite song.  She couldn't sing worth a shit;  but this didn't stop her from trying and singing it to me.
It made her happy; so obviously you don't interrupt that.   

But...
 my eyes...WERE...blue. 



  +

"JUST LIKE A MAN!"

~(My!Mother)~ 

And all that happened...

was me not "ABEL"  finding something for her in the kitchen pantry;

had she the pantry decently organized.

Neither could I.

"Even the outfit he's wearing looks a little girly...?


+ 

Clay can be shaped into a bowl;
 but...

 it's the empty space having made it useful?


+

"We do not know what God is.

God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything.

 Literally God is not,

because He transcends being."

Apophatic theology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Apophatic theology (from Ancient Greek: ἀπόφασις, from ἀπόφημι – apophēmi, "to deny")—also known as negative theology, via negativa or via negationis[1] (Latin for "negative way" or "by way of denial")—is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God.[2] It stands in contrast with cataphatic theology.

A startling example can be found with theologian John Scotus Erigena (9th century):

"We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."

In brief, negative theology is an attempt to clarify religious experience and language about the Divine Good through discernment, gaining knowledge of what God is not (apophasis), rather than by describing what God is.

The apophatic tradition is often, though not always, allied with the approach of mysticism, which focuses on a spontaneous or cultivated individual experience of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception, an experience often unmediated by the structures of traditional organized religion or the conditioned role-playing and learned defensive behavior of the outer man.

Ineffability is concerned with ideas that cannot or should not be expressed in spoken words (or language in general), often being in the form of a taboo or incomprehensible term. This property is commonly associated with philosophy, aspects of existence, and similar concepts that are inherently "too great", complex, or abstract to be adequately communicated. In addition, illogical statements, principles, reasons, and arguments may be considered intrinsically ineffable along with impossibilities, contradictions, and paradoxes. Terminology describing the nature of experience cannot be properly conveyed in dualistic symbolic language; it is believed that this knowledge is only held by the individual from which it originates. Profanity and vulgarisms can easily and clearly be stated, but by those who believe they should not be said, they are considered ineffable. Thus, one method of describing something that is ineffable is by using apophasis, i.e. describing what it is not, rather than what it is. The architect Le Corbusier described his design for the interior of the Chapel of Notre Dame du Haut at Ronchamp as "l'espace indicible" translated to mean 'ineffable space', a spiritual experience which was difficult to describe.

In negative theology, 
it is accepted that experience of the Divine is ineffable, 
an 
experience of the holy that can only be 
recognized or remembered ...
abstractly.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

 — Ludwig Wittgenstein

"Tao can be told but any definition given is not perpetual; the name can be named but whatever name given is not perpetual."

 — Chapter One, Tao Te Ching

"My life, the most truthful one, is unrecognizable, extremely interior, and there is no single word that gives it meaning." 

— Clarice Lispector

T.S. Eliot's poem "The Naming of Cats" (1939) playfully suggests that every household cat must bear (besides whatever the family calls him) two additional names: one an exotic appellation shared by no other cat; the other forever unutterable because it is known only to the cat himself 

("His ineffable effable / Effanineffable / Deep and inscrutable singular Name"). 

This idea is carried on in the movie "Logan's Run".

"Moses said to God, 'Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you," and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” God said to Moses, 

“I AM THAT I AM"

 — Exodus

3:13-14 

(New International Version) 

(see Tetragrammaton).

“Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.” 

--Douglas Adams Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

In negative theology, 

it is accepted that experience of the Divine is ineffable, 

an experience of the holy that can only be recognized or remembered abstractly. 

That is,

 human beings cannot describe in words the essence of the perfect good that is unique to the individual,

 nor can they define the Divine, 

in its immense complexity, 

related to the entire field of reality. 

As a result,

  all 

descriptions if attempted will be ultimately false

 and

 conceptualization should be avoided.

  In effect, divine experience eludes definition by definition:

• Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization regarding the whole (one cannot say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor can we say that God is nonexistent).
• God is divinely simple (one should not claim that God is one, or three, or any type of being.)
• God is not ignorant (one should not say that God is wise since that word arrogantly implies we know what "wisdom" means on a divine scale, whereas we only know what wisdom is believed to mean in a confined cultural context).
• Likewise, God is not evil (to say that God can be described by the word 'good' limits God to what good behavior means to human beings individually and en masse).
• God is not a creation (but beyond that we cannot define how God exists or operates in relation to the whole of humanity).
• God is not conceptually defined in terms of space and location.
• God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.

Obviously,

 he loved his wife.  

The second one of course:

 even if maybe just... time... having run it's course

the companionship more important or the lesser of two loneliness.

Maybe even senility.

That's still E = mc2 within space time thoughts theory.

 Even though the via negativa essentially rejects theological understanding in and of itself as a path to God, some have sought to make it into an intellectual exercise, by describing God only in terms of what God is not. One problem noted with this approach is that there seems to be no fixed basis on deciding what God is not, unless the Divine is understood as an abstract experience of full aliveness unique to each individual consciousness, and universally, the perfect goodness applicable to the whole field of reality. It should be noted however that since religious experience—or consciousness of the holy or sacred, is not reducible to other kinds of human experience, an abstract understanding of religious experience cannot be used as evidence or proof that religious discourse or praxis can have no meaning or value. In apophatic theology, the negation of theisms in the via negativa also requires the negation of their correlative atheisms if the dialectical method it employs is to maintain integrity.

***

Which I have done. 

As I'm still alone...

still no need conforming unless no longer the surplus needing...?

It indeed takes courage.  

And I'm letting, in my mind, Kurt Godel and the two uncles named after on my mothers side of the family taking the "crazy" bullets for me.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/-NH_is7VuCI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Voltaire the source of my wits.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/r5KeGccP9Jk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>