End of Days...or End of Ways?

END OF DAYS… OR END OF WAYS?

So help me God, today (10. 11.05) on CNN:

Wolff Blitzer in The Situation Room: “So, Rev. Robertson, what about this “End of Days” talk, … with all the catastrophes happening, is this the End of Days?” One could tell the ideological tokening on this one was going to be heavy. Rev. Jerry Falwell, founder and President of Liberty University in North Carolina is in the wings. Giraldo Revera Fox news territory, spiritually muscling into the ranks of CNN religious experts.


I had to stop and turn my head until the darkness goes, as an old song went.


But I, also, have invoked the name of what I call the one-word text-token term for the completing totality. Predicating on its use entails metaphysical commitment, but it does not detail the text of reality. It is not an act to be done frivolously, but, if responsible, expected to be supported by reasonable considerations. My use in linking it with hurricane Katrina as “act of God”, I hold to have been responsible. The reasonable considerations are the layers of irony, from collapsed democracy in Iraq, to the wrath of ‘Rita, if the “St.” be left off of “St. Rita”, patron of the abused in Catholicism, plus analysis of the twisted, self-punishing mentality of the abused abusers – Plus, New Age esoteric Christianity, linking catastrophic changes on earth, at this time, with, changes in the skies as Pisces is replaced by Aquarius. My basic argument from sign use is this: hurricane Katrina qualified as a historical calamity of an order deserving the predicate “act of God”, if any do. (Point 1) “Act of God”, as conveying commitment to the judgment of completing totality, would apply, in consideration of the ironies, here, if anywhere. Therefore, the conjunction “Katrina was an act of God” can be asserted as true (whether one chooses to do so or not is up to them).

Then: along comes Wolff Blitzer interviewing Past Robinson to top off my morning. Counting down to that tiny wedge of time between 4:00-5:00 Friday, before the sunset starting Yom Kippur, and the constitution vote next day in Iraq. I wonder if there will be anything to atone for, this year, and, if so, whether the old Nol Kidre holds? Is this the End of Days? Is there a place to vote on Wolff Blitzer?

*****/
S* (sign-use) loops through the unconscious

Another deconstruction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/11/AR2005101100515_pf.html


Laura Bush says sexism possible in Miers criticism
By Tabassum Zakaria
Reuters
Tuesday, October 11, 2005; 8:47 AM
COVINGTON, Louisiana (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush joined her husband in defending his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday and said it was possible some critics were being sexist in their opposition to Harriet Miers.
"That's possible, I think that's possible," Mrs. Bush said when asked on NBC's "Today Show" whether criticism that Miers lacked intellectual heft were sexist in nature. She said Miers' accomplishments as a lawyer were a role model to young women.
*****/

Analysis of this S* (sign-use) situation

1. Hyp. (defended elsewhere) the Harriet Miers appointment is motivated by an attempt at religious balancing act: The Chief Justice of SCOTUS goes to steady John Roberts’ Catholicism; Protestant’s get the female intern appointee. Respect for Male Fatherhood at the table’s archetop; respect for Female Motherhood at its opposite end. Something like that is how such a balancing act (in Libra, one notes) might be fantasized.

2. (If hyp.), Miers’ appointment evokes the “God” of WWII opposites of fascism and communism (see preceding); reversed (she represents fascism; he communism); and conjoined in restaged (as totally symbolic opposition, as the Leader of the Supreme Soviet to his Duma) mysterium coniunctionis. This last is taken from Carl Jung’s psychology. It refers to a process called “marriage of opposites” that takes place deep in the unconscious side of the human psyche. Bush’s balancing act, if that is what it is, is a manifestation of this attempt to “marry opposites”, perhaps to ideally sink differences, by supreme court appointees from both sides of gender line, coupled as (unspoken) opposite sides of the Catholic/Protesetant religious line; and perhaps thinking by this to be doing good all around.

3. However, many considerations negate the essence, but perhaps not the workability of this. For one thing, it double-hides the God hi-jacking under way. If my choice is between A’s god or B’s god, but neither A nor B nor their juxtaposition has been chosen to be chosen between, that is a metaphysical imposition. If I don’t impose my “God” on them, they don’t impose theirs – or a choice between theirs – on me. Simple as that. On the other hand, if they do impose theirs, or the choice between theirs, on me, American citizen representative, all bets are off in imposing mine on them, because it is not a war Americans have started but a war that has been started in its/our name -- by the God-hijackers.

4. The charge by George and Laura Bush that opposition to Harriet Miers may be “sexist”, resentful of the forceful, competent, accomplished female harbored by certain extremist right-wing groups. “Good riddance”, they might say. The crypto-racist, latently anti-Semitic white male with inner issues left over from the feminization perceived in “Aich” Bush (#41) would of course be suspicious of Harriet, born-again Christian and Republican (at roughly the same time, early ‘80’s, when Reagan came in). She’s vouched-for good Southern Baptist type people (folk).

5. But that “frames the issue” wrongly; never mind for a moment that the control lies in framing it at all, however the moral equation works out. She is to be resisted, not because she is a female, but because political use is being made of her being female, and one of a particular political stripe – unspokenly promised to line up against abortion rights. Let’s face it, that is the hidden “God” issue, the definition of a fetus vs. “baby”, and rejection of the ideological term “murder” for abortions. These are the major tokens of moral and religious poison in today’s group discourse. The abortion issue has been a continuing obsession in group-fantasy since Vietnam. Opposing it is the way those who are perpetrated its rapacious cruelties and genocidal slaughters try to assuage their guilt. “We don’t take life needlessly, for pleasure! – We defend it in its most basic form, the baby in the womb.” But it is not THEIR womb, however much they might believe (what they call) “God” is in every fertilized ovum. “The unborn”, as generic term of reference, often heard from the mouths of such people as ex-Attorney General Ashcroft, is an ideological construct, first of all, a sign-use cathecting the user’s identification with fetal origins. This is OK. It is even known now that an entire psychodrama of action-reaction to stimuli through the mother, the umbilicus, to the brain and later conscious memory (pre-verbal, looking for metaphor). But in terms of real, in the sense of objective, human experience this period is merely potential. “Murder” has always been a term applied to what may happen after birth. It is a stretch, and a stretch through bonds of Fatherly authority, to extend a term with a definite descriptive application to borderline cases, in order to evoke (and profit from) the ideological twist. For that is what it is. The idea that it is “Murder” comes from their head. They ferociously act out punishing others for what has originated in themselves. And that ain’t right. By framing the opposition to Harriet Miers as “sexist”, the entire abortion scenario can be split off, re-tokened, kept discretely out of sight, ever seeping into the unconscious as ideological poison. It hi-jacks and betrays both what the feminist revolution was all about, and the perception of what justice is, in this frame. It “squares under self-contradiction”, a form of sign-use beyond explanation here.




6. Neither Catholic, Protestant, certainly not Zionist Jew, have been elected or appointed as God’s mouthpieces in America, to Americans.