Justin E. H. Smith

my tweet went super expansive and hence very thin. but the kernel was a response to your pt re complimentary restriction/manifestation. my Q was: is that a complimentary structure of the "real" or of our participation (aka the "real's" disclosure/revelation)? 1/

so less what's yet unknown as what's unknowable. i've no sig exposure to the Rig Veda. but the lines & gloss suggest naming/speech as a gifted share in ordering w the hitch of a central obscurity in reflection on that process. 2/

so, what is the relation between being & knowing? the modern western trajectory on realism & idealism is just one exploration; a path like Putnam's, just one facet. 3/

the details are crucial & i try to avoid shallow, uncritical syncretism, but for me Sells on 13th c Sufi mystic Ibn Arabi fits right with these Vedic suggestions bc the themes truly are perennial. will double back w/ more on Ibn Arabi. but this is an ok unit for now. 4/4

but maybe similar things going on with the powers, freedom & limits of binding

Thanks for sharing, the passages are incredibly interesting! I'll have to think properly on how to proceed here, but I suspect it points to binding being a priori neutral, or a double edged sword, a necessity to being, but not necessarily sufficient to complete Becoming.

It's this notion of "stopping at a particular station". When do we know which stations are good? We can build upon it, make other stations depend on it, risking greater costs for transforming again, and risk of not being able to find out where being has departed from knowing.