Comments by William Theaux
1998/12/18
Mr Kozma and Mr Pope write two texts - that I comment as follow :
Mr
Kozma addresses the interpretation of the Hebrew theology, on the base of
a well described linguistic point of view
. He begins with a great contribution
about a link between the 'Greek' ancestors
of Oedipus and Canaan. He gives also very stimulating information about
ascendance in Freud's environment
.
This
contribution must be confronted to the statistic study which shows how close
any individual is, to practically any other one on earth, since only a few
links of person-to-person connections - a maximum of five or six individuals
who personally know at least one amongst them - make it possible for anyone
to be in contact with any other person. This impressive observation calls
for an explanation of how such closeness could organize. The concept of
'Significand' would condense it even more, while the presence of Taboos in
its system does not suffice for articulating distances
which separate and isolates these 'very closely
related' beings. We must think of a third organizational force - which I
personally identify with the Code
.
If
the logic of Code is difficult to apprehend (even 'impossible'
in my opinion, as long as we don't integrate the tool or factor which is
called Cybernetics and/or Artificial Intelligence - as for instance, it was
not possible to share the idea of Earth before we had the technology to circle
it), it has been nonetheless approached in the past by intuition,
or eccentricity. I suggest an image in mentioning this fact :
The
Rosetta Stone is appropriate for a reflection on Linguistics. It displays
three layers of three writings which makes a metaphor for an ascendance.
Champollion, who used it so well, knew, perhaps intuitively, that his own
name would distinguish his own identity from Apollion's and
Nampoleon's (in one layer), if it could correspond in another language
(in another layer), with the unnamed Name-of-the-Father. Such two-layers
system was well described by Lacan (as Significand and signified
- see below).
Lacan
showed how the closeness between words is divided by what Freud had already
described as censorship. The Rosetta Stone is simply interesting, at that
point, for reminding us that some linguists may have carried a deeper system
than the (two-layers) moebian one-two-face of this early psychoanalysis.
Following Champollion, we see one guy who, from a layer to another, and again
another, concludes that Hieroglyphs were Letters. It is remarkable that he
did not apply this process in the other direction and conclude that Letters
were Hieroglyphs !
Actually,
someone made this observation; he was Fabre d'Olivet and he used the Hebrew
Letters. He showed that they were, what he supposed to be, a Secret hieroglyph
(transmitted by an heretic pharaoh named Moses..etc... this
was before the discovery of Amarna; Fabre was contemporary with
Champollion).
There
is a site on the internet
which gives impressive suggestions in the
direction of d'Olivet, though it never metions it. Based on this repression,
separate meanings can be given to the Hebrew Letters. Repression however
is not an absolute necessity for an organization would associate the point
of views of d'Olivet (letter/hieroglyph) and Champollion
(hieroglyph/letter), between each of the closely related
elements that one also finds on the Rosetta stone. There may be a system
of Code.
A diagram,
where the 'code' is indicated, is easy to find in Freud's work
. Freud
published only one schema (except for a few sketches). It is a model for
a plural psychology, which displays the objects of the human world in a series.
This series, after having been described again by the philosophy of
Existentialism, offers a representation for the Code
. Without
formulating it further, Freud gave a hand to the pre-oedipian bi-layer system
of Lacan. As it is shown in the Egypt-Israel system of the world, the ignorance
of the Greek presence shows an economy centered on Death and a Narcissism
which is always obsessed with One - as Kozman denounces it with the Hebrew
language when it is seen as reflecting itself a-lone-all-one
. The result is a joke, sometimes a wit,
but not love.
The
Name-of-the-Father can be formulated, but when it is named/used, it no longer
represents the gene and/or toe code of the male chromosome that it is (or
the 'Y' as it is 'hieroglyphed'). When we have seen the legislation of fatherhood
for the X generation
, we were able to recognize the murder-of-the-father,
previously prevented by the interdiction to mention the name of the divine.
In the USA, the father's name is a secondary anachronism, and the responsibility
of one's chromosome is still in charge of a third party. People's bodies
still die without leaving a word in an Ecology.
The
No-Name-Name law of the Significand does not only allow the wish for
a corpse to being, it completes the silence of the signified with
Ignorance. We find a good example of this when Kozma notes that 'Freud did
not
know...' and 'Lacan, also prisoner...
simply ignores
' - or Christian and Jews 'never get the information
', etc... In my own experience,
I guaranty that the devotees of Lacan are ignorant of the Cave form
in the bell
he rang before them. Yet, I cannot be clear about
Jack the Hiddener... I don't know if he himself knew. Freudian ego
doesn't know what is known, except that this Ignorance may be more passionate
than real.
With
the layering of three, knowledge comes with the experience, not with
Transference. You must admit it, otherwise you hate the one who talks. Once
we count with the layer of code, we are not sure anymore if we are killing
any language nor even Nature. Of course there may be an Inquisition against
Genetics; yet, this questioning by Repression will simply put the Ecosystem
more at risk. Kozma allows this understanding ; for instance he indicates
that, instead of an ex-Terminator (g-o-d
), 'yehoweh'
is an Exitentiator - letting wonder how this
can be killed.
But
when the Code is the question, it is a thread of vowels - i.o.u.a.e - which
operates before de-knowing how the Maker and the made of the Maid make her
(AKA Ex-Terminator-Existentiator debate).
When
he contemplated the end of Oedipus, Lacan only saw pus
. He denied Sophocles' and Theseus' testimonies
who mentioned a dazzling light
. Kozma shows
it in principle by surmounting his attempt of murdering the murder, with
a bright decomposition. With his 'Freudipus complex' as a title for
his essay, he let us not forget the resurrection of the meaning.
The
pus of the language that puns pin (!) is not tolerable for our conscious
mind - Freud began to say. But the development of genetics, which is beginning
to make an industry of the decomposition, shows that we shall be able to
resurrect - it also indicates that an analytic tool of the Code is necessary
for this purpose. This is what corresponds with the Artificial Intelligence,
which will back-up, I guess, for our realization of a triple layering in
signification.
I witness
the difficulty in understanding this discourse. However, we must remember
that the gods were ancestors, and that the ancestors were seenable, as a
matter of fact, as corpses. Before we make that alive again, we have to cross
with a certain anguish. Before my chromosomes are alive again, in an ecosystem
forever mine, I have to fear their destruction before what Kozma calls 'idolized'
ideals.
I
guess that Kozam has read Osmann
- besides the language ancestry, which influences
our gravitation, C.Pope digs in the organization of the so-called Beings
who resolve our antique difficulty to raise (or depress) our identity to
the chemical flesh substance. I shall now pass to the second article where
the nature of 'the Lord', who obsesses the world since, is read from the
Bible.
According
to the title of his article, Popes tries to put a 'Y' on Essa
. This is opening to my first comment on his text.
Taking
the Hebrew Scripture as literally as it asks to be, we notice that what is
lacking from the information it gives, is the fact that 'the Lord' may designate
a gene, a genome, a biochemical entity. In this omission, the Bible makes
abundance of names in displacement. Thousands of years after this precipitation,
we must not forget that the Hebrew people have demonstrated to be the best
carrier of the memory gene. It has delivered the presence of the male gene
as the Family name - and its study has now proven that the Father's name
designates indeed the Y chromosome
. We must therefore
wonder if there is a link between this marvelous result, and the fact that
the code was covered up by the naming of the biblical idolized ideal, who
may be Semenkhkare, Tut and other pharaohs.
In
the progress of his integration of the Oedipian information in his model,
Popes indicates within three 'perhaps'
that Moses may have been killed and buried at
Baal Peor. He does not say yet ; 'perhaps he may
not have been killed etc...'. This is the point that I
support with my theory : something has not been corpsified - or/nor divinized
- in the 18th Dynatsy drama of its Aton politics. An item has escaped the
deathification. This is what is meant in Theseus' Testimony with Oedipus
at Colonus. Athens means that a piece of the code is carried from Israel/Egypt
in History in some Aegean vessel.
In
Pope's Dec.15 text, names are still sliding in all directions. Psychoanalysis
suggests that such displacements, in the layer surmounting the repressed
, is
stabilized by a murdered corpse. There is no such stabilization if a biological
presence of Moses has been active in Greece; the murder has failed and there
is confusion in the identity of the sons.
|
Following the Oedipian record, a function of Code
(in Greece) rescues the Significand (in
Israel). Names find places;
Semenkhkare is
"the Lord". And
Phineas, who kills him, is
Tut. The former is the
'Suffering Servant' and the latter the
'Wicked Priest' (who is killed in retribution
of his act). Phineas is killed but 'resurrected', for Israel understands
that he has been part of a deal which guarantied its own protection. In this
resurrection, his name as 'Joshua' carries - some would say 'usurps' - the
meaning of Semenkhkare.
|
Interestingly
enough, Moses question vanishes in Pope's text. Except for the above mentioned
three 'perhaps', his death at the hands of Israel is just mentioned to be
denied - leaving Osman's suggestion that Seti.1st killed him. But when I
asked Osman, he answered that he made this suggestion after Freud's - and
that he had, in fact, no other clue for this possibility.
As
we know that Freud had also remarkably repressed the Oedipian testimony at
Colonus
; the question
of the death of Moses thus remains absolutely open, after Osman and Pope
in Dec.15. While the Bible apparently struggles so much with the deaths of
Joshua and Phineas - the Hebrew record is straight forward with Moses' :
it keeps it secret - it will not give information on this subject.
However,
it is the most important; if it cannot be 'repressed', suggests Lacan, if
the absence of dead Moses opens a foreclosure
in the text, then psychosis results. Yet,
this can be saved by a Code - see Greece.
Usually,
women are involved in the maintenance of the code. I don't know where
Semenkhkare's wife was from? So my comment stops there.
Dr. William Theaux NY, Dec 18. 1998
1998/12/21
Following an update of Pope's Essay, I complete my comments:
About
Pope's progression leading to identifying "the Lord" (of the broken Covenant
in Exodus 33 and 34) as Nefertiti.
We
may have the feeling that we have embarked on a wrong deductive thread..The
shame of being ridicule is not unknown of Psychoanalysis. I therefore shall
consider furthermore the uncanny associations that we face.
Let
us not forget the Principle of our logic. Something which has happened is
remembered somewhere somehow; when is has been repressed, it is especially
remembered. From this logic, a set of facts in the 18th has been recorded
in an extra-Egyptian space. So Osman says that what has been repressed in
regards with Tut is to be found in the New Testament. As we look closer,
we find it, with a set of hellenic keys, in the Ancient Testament (with the
rest of the 18th 's out-of'Egypt memory).
Other
data must be considered the same way. The Amarnian everyday life and events
have been deleted from the Egyptian records; being the first episode of the
'Bible's construct' they are most probably represented in the Ancient testament
(otherwise they would be in foreclosure, would need an third layer Code etc...).
After examination, one finds that the two-moments of the Tables delivery
by Moses, include the Amarnian representation indeed.
Fostering
this reasoning, we wonder how two important women - Tiye and Nefertiti -
in the 18th may have been represented in the 'outer-scene'. At least, one
of them is Hebrew, and therefore must be in the Bible. Yet we face a special
issue: on the one hand, psychoanalysis teaches that the 'woman' and/or the
'mother'may be signified by specific exceptions in the 'out-of-scene' - on
the other hand the Bible does not seem to make difficulties for remembering
women. With these two premises, we may be more ashamed than ridiculed if
we don't face their portraits (Tiye, Nefertiti) in the scientific reading
of the Hebrew record.
Let's
seize the deductive thread from the ambiguous naming of Polynices and
Eteocles.
If
I understand well, there is a 'Wicked Priest' {WP - Tutankhamon} who kills
a Teacher of Righteousness {TR - Semenkhare}. Later the WP is killed..
Problematically, WP seems to be killed by TR (Polynice-Phineas).
In
a symbolic-logic way this would indicate that they killed each one another.
Such form of event is indicated in the Oedipian record (Oedipus' two son's
kill each one another).
But
in a chronology base, this is not possible. The second murder must be
accomplished by someone who bears the name or a title of TR (for instance,
'The Lord'). In several circumstances someone may bear such name; we shall
focus our attention on the one which makes its uncanny apparition in
Pope:98/12/20.
Pope
says that, if the 'married-once-again' model of Orpheus/Oedipus applies in
the Bible, Nefertiti may have been 'the Lord' who ruled in the guise of TR,
after his death. Since this woman (generic Miriam) may have been Tiye, in
the present state of great unprecision, let's write her name NT in our subsequent
formulation:
TR---killed.by---WP---killed.by---TR,
would become
TR---killed.by---WP---killed.by---NT,
Which is physically more rational.
Actually
one may see little probability that Tiye would contravene Tut's plan to join
Thebes again. It seems more likely that Nefertiti was the one in position
to maintain the hard line of Atonism. Yet, whoever was 'the' woman, if we
were in the case of a dream - it would be difficult to evict her representation
as the Rock which is eventually rejected altogether with the Savior.
It
is at this moment that the Hellenic record takes the relay.
I
do not locate in the oedipodies any presence of a third party in the reciprocal
assassination of the two sons of Oedipus. If the Bible indicates it (NT),
when it is named Balaam, it associates a native land by the river Euphrates.
As we know, the origins of Nefertiti are still mysterious. If she was from
an Egyptian house, I am afraid that much of what I say does not make sense.
We
must also consider that, if we have identified three actors (Semenkhare,
Tutankhamon and Nefertiti) for a logical thread, we have lost the identity
of a character that Osman used in his dual Tutankhamon-Panehesy scenario.
If Panehesy was an Hebrew priest, Phineas, of Akhnaton/Moses, he is linked
to Aaron. He has certainly been agent in some way, in the sequence of three,
TR-WP-NT.
Dr. William Theaux NY, Dec 21. 1998
Note 10 : Someone showed me once that
all Hebrew letters were all visible in the shadow of one appropriate
spirale. The experience is simple and quite compelling. It has been suggested
by a mathematician whose web pages makes it a little more complicated. Added
the difficulty to find a site with more impressive copyright declarations
on the Internet, it prevents an easy enjoyement of this instruction.
If this handicap is a symptom, it is probably related with the fact that
Akhnaton may have given to the Hebrew an Alphabet which was a secret information.
The Hebrew Letters were copyrighted in Egypt. This was claimed by d'Olivet
when he said that Pharaoh Moses had made public the Secret Hieroglyph of
the Egyptians. Our mathematician never mentions d'Olivet; his site is
worth visiting for learning about the
simplicity of Truth and the complexity of its repression
<back to text>
NOTE 20 : In Democracy - published
in D'AMOA a LESTRE
in France, I showed
the similarity between Lacan' s Optical Model and Plato's Cave, which shows
today the active ignorance of my colleagues against what Lacan presented
to them as the brain <back to
text>
NOTE 30 : The confusion in words,
wich illustrates the principle of displacement shown in Psychoanalysis, can
be made more precise :
Considering what an infant ears when he acquires his language (Yes I
know and Yes I No must be separated. In French there is no difference
between to kill and You [tu or tu es] etc...
added that the very young can only integrate the limited range that
s/he can pronounce
) his appreciation slides (see
diagram re:sub) on a layer where s/he appends object and/or letters.
On (the left side of) his Diagram
, Freud
piled the version of the series of objects. The Code
is what articulates these
objects together. Osman..Assmann..Kozman..Ashmun indicates a meme
(aka ego, appending either Letter - right- or objects
- left) - it appends an object (left side of
re:diagram) that is not articulated by a
lineage (Significand (ight side of
re:diagram)) <back to
text> <continue sub-note>
subNOTE 35 : Kozma's 10th point invites
for continuing this note. He says that a misunderstanding is generated, and
he gives an example of a misunderstanding which can be clarified when the
tool of Code operates. Kozma understands that Freud commits patricide, theicide
and that he denies his Jewish tradition etc... as well as many others. He
misunderstands that Freud did not commit (and/or interpret) a patricide,
in fact, since it is an Egyptian that he took great care to seeing murdered.
In claiming that Moses is 'Egyptian' (not-Hebrew), Freud
'save' a possible father from a possible murder that asks for a victim.
Thus the question is, why Kozma would see Freud murdering when he is protecting
?!
His stance 10 says "a lack of information... generates misunderstanding".
I say : the lack of a body/corpse generates this misunderstanding. I
say : Not information (Significand) but matter (signified).
I add that this lack of a ground for a Name-of-the-Father makes a foreclosure
that can be repaired the an industry of
Code.
At the present time (the end of the century compared to the beginning of
the century), Freud's protection shows to be temporary and it falls down;
his 'Egyptian' seems to be Akhnaton, and Akhnaton seems to be Jewish (by
Yuya-Tiye
). In this situation, if there has been a murder,
the victim is a Jewish messenger, a Jewhis initiator, eventualy the sense
and the meaning of the Jewish theology. Kozman shoul not even ask why
do we kill the tradition? from the beginning the tradition would be dead,
aborted.
In fact, this may not be. As Kozman sees it, the God may ek-sist, may consist
in the ek-sterior. The closing phase where a message realizes its sense,
beginning in Amarna, continuing in Israel, is laid in Greece (where it may
start from ,BTW... more on History of Christianity from
that point, will perhaps let us know where a circle begin/spin).
Once a Code can be deciphered from the Rosetta Akh-Mos-Oed,
even, I guess, the Rose Etat, Rosen State, will be able to speak
.
<back to text>
© William Theaux 1949-1999