/lit/ - Literature

>>12053413
>Every time, the outside point of view (which sees reciprocity) and the inside point of view (which wants to see only differences) had to coincide but remain separate.
reminiscent of my conversations w/ Jews

>Is there some way out of the crisis at a time when, according to you, the mimetic mechanism is spiraling out of control at the global level and there can be no sacrificial resolution?
This question is asked, and Girard claims that the sacrificial resolution is the disappearance of humanity. It's very clear to me that WW3 will be over the existence of Israel and the Jews, as has been posited in all the apocalyptic literature.

I would classify the Jews as a group as pathologically divergent from the rest of humanity - the schizophrenics of suprahuman groups. Should *group schizophrenia* be valued for bringing creativity or other cultural impetuses, or should it only be valued in an individual sense? I think if both sides SEE EACH OTHER AS THEY ARE, then perhaps peace would be possible - will a pathological schizophrenic choose to do that? I would hope for yes, while believing they would not. Will a GROUP that has pathological schizophrenic characteristics choose to do that? That would be the miracle of miracles.

And yet even then, I would be unsure of the finality of this situation - why couldn't another schizophrenic tribalistic group arise afterward?

>Christ took away humanity’s sacrificial crutches and left us before a terrible choice: either believe in violence, or not; Christianity is non-belief.
>religion may have invented sacrifice, but Christianity takes it away
just posting for eloquence

Ah, an answer to my previous question
>Foundation is never a solitary action; it is always done with others. This is the rule of unanimity, and this unanimity is violent. An institution’s role is to make us to forget this. Pascal saw this clearly when he evoked the ruse of the “honest man” defending the “greatness of establishment.” Only a group can
found something, an individual never can.
Then the question becomes, should we value the schizophrenic group, or schizophrenic individuals who work together to create something? What justifies one over the other? The danger of a concerted group effort and the relative lack of a threat by the individual.

Which is the ideal world of the four possibilities - one with (un)differentiated groups and (un)differentiated individuals?

I see now why they use the term goyim - to the schizophrenic group the rest of the world is an undifferentiated mass, all seeking reconciliation - to them the NPCs of human groups.

>Sacrifice no longer works now that Christianity has revealed the mechanism of unanimity. Archaic religions were based on a complete absence of criticism regarding this unanimity. This is why in one of his Talmudic readings Levinas says that if everyone agrees that an accused should be convicted, then he should be released right away, for he must be innocent.
see pic related