nine words, ten syllables

There is no time

     now

and nothing like

     This

As the 19th gives way

Joseph, it is said, provided a home. 

Mary, herself, is mystical entrance. 

Jesus, a dwelling place in this existence of What-Is-Throughout.

It doesn't matter

Joseph did the right thing.

He did.

even if there is no time

Yes.

It sometimes feels like a waste of time.

path and pathos

The detective in Australian series says we are unknowable.

No one knows what's in anyone's heart.

No trust, just inquiry.

The pathos is what is unknown. 

The path is unknowing.

metempsūkhousthai

Story

tells

it-

self

No 

body

listens

Returns

empty

here

This is my body

Brent Scowcroft said about the end of the Cold War, “...we were confused, befuddled. We didn’t know what was going on, and we didn’t think it mattered much.” (--in The Strategist, by Bartholomew Sparrow)

Today we know a lot more. We know that the confused, befuddled, and unknowing are rife and resolute in their setting and carrying out of foreign and domestic policy.

We know that a new extinction is afoot. What is disliked, mistrusted, or simply hated is now shot and murdered, bypassing any mediate steps to constrain, dissuade, assist or detain anyone considered a threat or antagonist to prevailing force and opinion.

Elimination, one observes, is current work of police, military, and covert forces of national security. 

I abjure this creeping toward Bethlehem to be spawned.

Fear mothers desperation as control fathers delusion.

This new family is not viable.

Walk away.

Leave home.

Pull up stakes.

Wander.

Take the whole 40 days, forty years, forty centuries.

Become human. Act human. Observe the human surrendering to that which transforms the human into what is beyond human.

What is beyond human?

Try this!

And this.

Then this.

arational accord...awaken interest.

From  Scott D. Moringiello review of a Robyn Horner book about Jean‐Luc Marion in The Journal of Religion:

In the first section of the book, “Situating Marion,” Horner devotes individual chapters to Marion’s intellectual biography (including his philosophical and theological mentors), to his philosophical context, to a superb distillation of Husserl’s phenomenology as it bears on Marion’s work, and to the fate of phenomenology in light of the criticisms of Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. It is in this first section that the question of metaphysics comes to the fore. Marion works in the wake of Heidegger, who “uncovers the fragility of and inadequacy of a metaphysical thinking of being as substance, as cause, and as presence” (36). Moreover, Heidegger “protests a thinking of God as highest being” (36). Horner explores how Marion overcomes thinking of God as the highest being in the second section of the book and how he renews phenomenology to stand as the new first philosophy in the third section. 

For Marion, according to Horner, thinking of God as the highest being is nothing short of idolatry. In trying to think God other than by way of metaphysics, Marion’s theological writings employ four basic motifs: distance, the icon, love, and the gift. “God enters into thought as distance, gives Godself to contemplation in the icon, is only to be known as and through love, and this more particularly as a gift of love” (49). In the second part of the book, “The Theological Destitution of Metaphysics,” Horner analyzes Marion’s writings on each of these four motifs and devotes individual chapters to Marion’s On Descartes' Metaphysical Prism (Chicago, 1999) and God without Being. 

If Marion’s theological writings try to rethink God other than by way of metaphysics, his phenomenological writings attempt to overcome metaphysics by way of the saturated phenomenon and love. Horner discusses these writings in the third section, “Exceeding Excess.” The first chapter in this section treats Marion’s rehabilitation of Husserl’s phenomenological project. Instead of seeing presence (Husserl) or being (Heidegger) as the phenomenological horizon, Marion understands this horizon to be “givenness” (110). With this horizon, Marion can argue that the subject is “a screen upon which phenomena become visible” (106). With this understanding of subjectivity in place, Horner, in the following chapter, goes on to give a detailed account of saturated phenomena, which are phenomena that are in excess of the subject’s intentional aim, and examines the premier examples of saturated phenomena: the event, the idol and icon, the flesh, and the face. Horner’s final chapter, “A Thought of Love,” is an exposition and analysis of Marion’s Le phénomène érotique (Paris, 2003). Horner notes that in this work Marion “essentially argues that metaphysics is deficient because it cannot think what matters, and what matters is loving and being loved” (146). Horner concludes that for Marion, “metaphysics can only be settled by a kind of faith,” one that can be “solely characterized in terms of a leap” (146).

(--from, Book Review, Reviewed work: Robyn Horner, . Jean‐Luc Marion: A Theo‐logical Introduction. London: Ashgate, 2005. xii+222 pp. $29.95 (paper). Scott D. Moringiello, Notre Dame, Indiana. In The Journal of Religion   >  Vol. 86, No. 3, July 2006)
  

Our Sunday Morning Breakfast Seminar had to do with looking at the institutional and structural economic reasons for cruelty and dominance, failure to consider a way of dwelling between capitalism and socialism, one that attends to eradicating the negative conditions and prejudicial thinking of those who are behind the suffering in this world, and working toward a more thoughtfully investigatory, collaboratively cooperative, and contextually appropriate method of engaging all members of the human race with dignity, respect, compassion, and love.

Yes, love.

As Marion evokes, so too participants in this morning’s colloquy, there is a need to rethink what love is, to reconsider God, and to re-evaluate the frustration centered on those whose debilitating physical, moral, or intellectual conditioning has left them antagonistic and unrepentantly averse to a more benevolent look at both themselves and everyone else.

(I do not consider what comes next Marion’s.) The thought that God “is not” but comes loving as the action of relational service and arational accord, awakens interest.

If the category of ‘being’ is not posited for God a-priori, there arises a process of “becoming” through  evolving engagement with what is presenting itself in an inter-relational occasion prompting new and creative responses to phenomenal manifestation in the moment.

In other words -- there’s nothing there until arising occasion responds with love. And then there is God.

There is (il y a) (da-sein) God.

To “is” God is what God is ising.

To “there” God is to love God into the present, or, God theres reality for the duration of what manifests itself there in the realization of loving engagement.

There “is” no God.

God theres what becomes itself in act(s) of caring connection.

No need to ask where God is.

Rather, step into God-becoming-apparent with love.