Short Merrell Wolff Notes
Some short notes from some of Wolff's essays and books, and how I'd implement them.
And here… see also this summary (if you so desire)
Ananda is the associated 'joy, felicity and happiness' contained in the Realization or Enlightenment
Consciousness-without-an-object is the same as Consciousness without a subject, as such it is not "the consciousness of some transcendent being who is aware of content.” Rather, to be likened to "Root Consciousness"
Point-I, the unique I, segmented into different conflicting desires, with respect to other beings.
Space-I, the integration of the eternal 'now' with the dissolution of segmented subject identities. The aesthetic poles of consciousness expanding between Point-I entities, encompassing the eventual nature of "Space" itself. Rather than the components within space.
Note: the symbolism of a thread is used in both the explanations of Point and Space "I". The mechanisms with which relative consciousness interacts with linear reality is threaded upon the Point-I. Whereas, Nirvana and such Space-I is the thread upon which Space rests. The differences are also likened to granular picture by picture reality versus the continuum of the "now".
High Indifference: the balancing of Ananda and relative consciousness. A resolution to the "paranirvanic tension".
Initial thoughts on the "Christian" GA, from an explicit Transcendental enframing:
One could think of the Gansian formation of the originary scene as entirely within relative consciousness. Sitting encompassed in a point like argumentative balancing of unconscious conception/conscious perception(sociological enframing), and finally mechanistic(psudo-unconscious) introception. Rather than a more comprehensive and ostensibly Promethean formulation traditional GA holds closer to the ideal that the scene itself will hold en masse, and lacks focus on the emboldening of the human. To contrast, a formulation a step higher would make explicit the introceptive, holding primary focus on not just the change from non-human to human through the use of language.
This kind of discussion would work to successive realizations of which the originary scene is kerneled within. Such that, the teaching of originary thinking is explicitly embedded within the learning of originary thinking. As Merell Wolff puts it, "knowing the knowing and knowing of the how of the knowing." To more precisely put it, expanding the guile of prospective agency. This is the essential difference between classical GA and the Transcendental Idealism "added package". This, however, is only dealing with GA as a proposition, where the categorical significance isn't necessarily immediately altered(the eventual "purchasing power" increases, like land that's increased value).
Takeaways:
We could more simply and perhaps more effectively say this is the Promethean Idealist approach. Separating it from adjacent, primarily misleading, uses of both terms. Simply, that we can extend the consequences of the dialectal exchange of the modes of language to further encompass the primary frame in which we must traverse to get to GA. There's no need for sweeping overhaul of material that is already great, but rather to embolden what's already there.
Of course, relationally and most importantly is the actionable significance that such an expansion would imply. This would be, as mentioned earlier, like purchasing power and further fluidity in traversing the 'levels' of language. It would put an emphasis on the creation of compacted Ideals/ 'Noetic' ostensives. While, perhaps, a traditional GA outlook would put primary focus on the historical significance, in the sense of linguistic terminology, we could skip that. Dealing directly with new compacted 'centers with implicit imperative implications for further consolidation'.
In the higher-level ends of traditional GA, these epistemological problems don't really happen, compared to the transition and inundation of someone new to GA and perhaps the eventual way we talk about GA.
[(October 15, edit. Feel free to skip this, it’s more stream of thought and came to mind re-reading the above) Side note: this, once again, isn’t a denial of the “rightness”, “validity”, or to even say that the ostensives invoked, in GA, are particularly wrong just simply lacking and bloated, e.g.: we’re “always already” interacting and using upclined, nested language. Notably these pathways are rich and embedded in scattered histories, both of personal and societal descent.
There’s nothing inherently wrong, or to even say immoral, about the way GA proposes itself; however, Promethean Idealism sets up it’s own framing which appears in juxtaposition. (You could alternatively consider this the technical difference between Point-I and Space-I). Further meditation, mediation, and consolidation on the aesthetical value the P.I. framing suggests is certainly needed.
(For example, if we’re to suggest creating new Noetic Ostensives, then what would that entail, specifically? However, we would say, in response, that such actions can only be recognized when they’re actually done. There’s no way to skip the actual effort involved. Rather than creating reified declarative language, we're placed in the interem period, waiting, rather than simply talking our way out of it with “negative ostensives”. Of which, paradoxically, this waiting, immersion within the now, is part of what makes it generative.)
As such and so to a certain point, I don’t see any inherent problem for why some GA scholars cross the threshold into the Promethean aspects of the research and development. At the very worst we simply generate new dialogue between classical Generative Anthropology and Promethean Idealsim.]