Hello dear e-frankists and christcels. I haven’t posted in a long time, and I’m pretty bored tonight so I thought to send a meditation. For those interested in my life developments in the past 3 months, nothing pretty much happened – I am still a comfymaxxing NEET with a 4k/month shekels neetbux package. I have recently stopped eating at McDonald’s and I’m eating a lot of vegetables rich with minerals because I want to be more energetic and wakeful. But let’s get to the pikantic wordsphaggotry – today I want to discuss John Duns Scotus.

Radical Cuckery

I want to begin with a very stupid and retarded issue: Radical Orthodoxy (AKA: Cuckickal Cuckery). I have once opened a PDF of the Radical Orthodoxy Reader and cringed hard. Is that supposed to be the beacon of contemporary theology? Is that supposed to be the best the modern academy can offer? All I see is vane intellectual geneaologies and stupid concept-alchemy (examples: “deterritorialized christ” [...ew]).
But the most retarded aspect of RO is their posturing as orthodox by contrasting themselves with John Duns Scotus. For those who do not know, there is a bullshit discourse around whether the details of Creation are merely analogizable to the details of the divine complex (God), or if they are practically identical in their quality to the divine’s. It is a discourse concerning only annoyingly pedantic individuals who care much about meaningless intricacies (that definetly have nothing to do with the constitution of modern secularism – a consequence of way more ancient views regarding the technical cultivation of matter).

Deleuze&Heidegger’s Attribution of Expression to Duns Scotus

Nevertheless, I fundamentally want to address the communication between two books: the Habilitationsschrift (Heidegger’s systematization of Duns Scotus) and Gilles Deleuze’s Spinoza and the Problem of Expression (a post-Scholastic interpretation of the spinozic corpus). It is clear that in both of those systems the core theme is Expression (the release [ek-] of pressure [presse], the manifestation of the compiling thoughts of God). Without delving deep into the geneaology of the concept (in the case of Deleuze originating in the post-Boethian school-of-Chartres, while in the case of Heidegger originating in post-Cusanian Kantianism) I want to address the entire breadth of its “gospel”.
Expression (which is – as we’ve established – the releasement of divine noetic pressure) is the making-sensible of creative meaning (the word “meaning” is particularly used in Heidegger’s dissertation, while Deleuze largely uses the word “implication” [concealment and introversion of substance]). What is this “implication” or “meaning” of creative expression, you may ask? Now, it is very easy – it is the “content” or “substance” of God’s thought; a milieu-of-action and a variety of continually-complicated sperms constituting the program of Creation as a whole. Heidegger et Deleuze establish the concept of Expression as one of individuation – by which the undifferentiated infinity of divine essence and mind continually migrates into particular singularities, elaborates and details itself into the practically distinguished shapes, forms and qualities of our all-manifold Creation, thereby realizing and embodying the creative-drive and intellectual-content of God.
In other words, the theory of expression culminates at the production of “things” (in Scotus’ Latin: res), individual forms uniquely distinct, upholding their unique, individual qualities. The non-negative distinction between things (creating a “plane” of consisting forms) is called by Scotus “real distinction”, that which establishes “things” (res) as unique expressions of divine meaning.

The Theory of Attributes

According to Duns Scotus, God differs from creative individuals only by the modality of His breadth (infinite essence versus finite essence). Scotus conceives the universe as a register of intensified essences – individualities and haecceities – expressing an insensate universal essence which we may attribute to divine thought.
In Deleuze’s interpretation, connecting Scotist individuationism with Leibnizian Lullism, individual expressions of the divine complicate one with the other to form judgments and sentences. This creates a natural system in which expressions are literal expressions: letters complicating into words, words complicating into sentences, sentences complicating into messages, and so on, etc. etc. etc.. This connects with kabbalistic exegetical ethics which consider the Torah (as a text) to be a system of numerical and grammatical units (a recurrent rabbinic proverb is “all the letters of the Torah are the Names of the Holy One”), making creation as a whole a sort of “code” organized around patterns found in scripture, making scripture itself a literal archetype or program of Creation.