How does the mystic see ultimate reality? She sees it through analogy, as we have been discussing. Analogy is an indirect way of knowing through the prepositional "as," which connects something known to something unknown without making an equality or an eidetic identification. It is analogy's productive failure to identify in a complete or total way that makes analogy the proper approach to the divine. But how might analogical knowing give one a direct experience of the unknowable as the mystic claims?

Edmund Husserl invented the phenomenological "Epoché" to reduce prior assumptions about what appears to us on our subjective screens, so that whatever appears might appear "as" itself. Prior assumptions can block what appears from appearing as itself because they filter out what doesn't appear according to a given conceptual schema. Giles Deleuze pointed out how concepts can mold reality in such a way as to reduce difference or block it out entirely. But is it even possible to bracket our given concepts in such a way as to encounter what appears in a state of utter Naiveté? For Jean-Luc Marion when something appears from "elsewhere," it appears as invisible, or its is visible as invisible. This is not what appears as visible because of the phenomenological epoché. Reducing or eliminating prior assumptions doesn't reveal its invisible content, so that its "Primary Naiveté," in the words of Paul Ricoeur, is built into its phenomenological structure or way of appearing. It is revealed as unseeable. In order to get a grasp on this apparent contradiction, we'll have to review Marion's phenomenology, especially his great addition to the phenomenological tradition, "Saturated Phenomena."

Baddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.co

Love is always becoming other than itself because love is characterized by self-emptying (Kenosis). Love opens possibilities, so it must clear away cancerous repetitions of the same, or as the phenomenological "Epoché" would have it, it must "bracket presuppositions," in order to let what gives itself in love appear "as" itself. Love knows through an intercourse that does not reduce the "otherness" of the "Other," which is to unify without the equivalences of identification or of objectification. One of the worst and most persistent misunderstandings about Hegel's dialectical synthesis is that it reduces the positive and the negative terms of the dialectic to a unity in which one becomes the other without remainder. No! it is a holding together of a contradiction in which the otherness of each opposing term makes a third thing appear, which is the failure of synthesis, or the productive contradiction of love. The "refractory zone (Deleuze)" of Lacanian "non-rapport" between lovers that forms when these two terms are "brought near (Deleuze)" in the dialectic is a third non-object, which is unable to become an object, or a conceptual object of knowledge, because there is too much about it to objectively unify. The failure of symbolization at the heart of the Lacanian Real's "absolute resistance" to symbolic unification is the too-much indeterminacy of being "as" a becoming to determine through the equalities of identification. Knowing what is indeterminable through the intercourse of love must be done analogically with the phenomenological "as," which is knowing the beloved "as" it shows itself. The "as" of analogy is what allows being to become in relation to knowing without being determined by that knowing, so that love is always a revelation that makes "visible the invisible in its invisibility" without reduction to what intentionally appears, as Jean-Luc Marion would have it.

Baddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.co

The mystic uses analogy to have a direct experience of the divine, which is, of course, a paradoxical, if not an altogether nonsensical thing to say. Nonetheless, Analogy is a sort of immediate mediation of God's ultimate nature as love itself for the mystic. Love like God is not good because it is the ground of whatever there is including goodness. Love is what makes any other intention appear, so love's intention is that being be an indeterminate becoming, which is a becoming without the determination of a completely unified intention. Love is the intention that undoes itself because its nature is to be self-sacrificial, or an unintentional intention that grounds other intentions, which is what is meant by the "unconditional" or "non-transactional" nature of "Real" love. If love were determinate, it wouldn't be loving because love requires a free choice, so love as the ground of whatever there is, is a dialectical relation between the determinations of being and indeterminacy of nonbeing. But a free choice also requires the relation of the indeterminacy of pure potential to the determinations of the limits of form or structure, which is what Deleuze called, "an actual possibility." Analogy is this relation between potential and limit that determines without complete determination, which is to make present through absence, or through the failure of representation in the distortion of the intention as the failure to unify the phenomenal and the conceptual objects that appear on the subjective screen. Intentional representation gives us our first-person, subjective experience of a world by unifying whatever there is into the objects that appear to us as the world. But what happens when too much aboutness has been given for our intention to unify into phenomenological or conceptual objects, as is the case when the object of our intention is the ground of intention itself. The subject of mystical experience can only be known in its unknowability as the distortion of the intentional field that Lacan called the "Real."

Baddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.co

Any predication that is made of God, such as "God is a rock," both discloses and hides God. As Meister Eckhart preached, "As God reveals Himself, he hides more deeply in His mystery. The central tenet of mysticism is, as Epistolary John wrote, "God is love," and it is this predication that requires any description of God to be inadequate to its divine referent. Love must be indeterminate because coercion or compulsion isn't love. If there is such a thing as love, it is freely chosen. There must always be an irreducible remainder of indeterminate ambiguity about love so that it doesn't disappear into the equivalency of an identity. If one knows the beloved in full, then one does not love her. The mystic's desire is for the direct apprehension of God, sometimes called the "Beatific Vision." But the mystic's "direct" apprehension of God is in and through the indirection of the "Cloud of Unknowing." The mystic's experience of God is through analogy rather than the equivalencies of identity because analogy is knowing without determination, which is love.

Baddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.co

One of Jacques Lacan's most important discoveries was the relation between the desire to articulate in the register of the Symbolic and the failure of articulation in the Register of the Real. The Real is that which resists symbolization absolutely. This resistance can be construed negatively as a lack of articulation. Or this negativity can be positivized as too much to articulate. Lacan adumbrated this disjunction as the distinction between "having" in the register of the Symbolic and the failure to have or grasp "being" in the register of the Real. When there is a disjunction between what can be represented and what is, there is a sense of the numinous and of the noetic. The numinous is the uncanny sense of the presence of something that is beyond representation in the sensual or conceptual intention, so it might be thought of as a present absence. The noetic is the uncanny sense of intuiting what can't be intended, but what is fundamentally unintentional, or beyond one's own intentions. However, bringing Lacanian psychoanalysis into the realm of the noetic means that this exterior intention of the unintentional is our interior intention for what is beyond us, which he called "Jouissance" and which Freud called "Death Drive."

Baddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.co

Rudolph Otto explained that the "numinous" was an experience of something that was not reducible to rational explanation. These uncanny experiences were both terrifying and compelling. For Jacques Lacan the effect of the Real on the Symbolic also produced an uncanny mismatch between what could be known and what resisted semiotic revelation. No signifier could contain all of the meaning of whatever it purported to disclose through language, especially the intention of the Other, which was a reflection of our own failure to represent our intention in a complete way. In the "noetic" experience one intuits something that they can't name. Jean-Luc Marion's "Saturated Phenomena" were noetic because he described them as having "more than enough intuition for the intention." One could not intend all that she intuited when there was too much given for aboutness to contain. The symptom-like attempt to contain the divine by representing its intentions is the job of priests and the pious, but the awful wonder of the numinous and the noetic demand the respect of an open sort of representation design to fail.

Baddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.co

The concept of unconditional love is a non-transaction that nonetheless transfers what is valueless, or perhaps, invaluable to the Other without any countable worth, and without any guarantees or rewards. Unmerited grace has been a stumbling block not only for Catholics, but also for the Protestants who claim it as the cornerstone of their faith. Unmerited grace is defiled by the economics of "works righteousness" but also by the economy of belief. Whatever is traded for salvation, whether it be outer works or inner faith, vitiates the pure gratuity of what is supposed to be given without conditions. The purity of one's faith cannot purify one's love. Whatever is done in love, is done without expectations, except that love be made immanent, or incarnate, through the "Kenonsis" of self-emptying. The Dark Night of "subjective destitution" is characterized by one's loving willingness to empty oneself of all previous comforts, especially familiar concepts of self, of the world, and of religious piety. And sometimes the Dark Night not only requires this intentional world but also our very lives as well. To enter into the service of the Other is to enter into the Dark Night of the mystic where nothing is pure, except for whatever love brought us there. Piety doesn't purify our love, only self-sacrifice does.

Baddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.co

This is the episode in which I finally get to use the word "Mereology," which is the study of part-whole relationships. The word "holy" came into English through the Proto-Germanic root "haling," which meant whole, but it can be traced even further back to its Proto-Indo-European root "Kailo," which also meant whole but also "uninjured" and even "wealthy." However, the sense in which wholeness connotes being set apart is how it came to be associated with the sacred. Making whole is a semiotic as well as a religious impulse. The most basic religious impulse is to make holy by setting a part and making different. The most basic semiotic impulse is to represent by individuating a conceptual object through the processes of semiotic differentiation. The mystic walks into the Dark Night to differentiate new concepts from the failure of the old.

Baddass vibes mixed by James Reeves of Midnight Radio: jamesreeves.co