dualisms

I think it is important to understand a few things occuring in
opposition or in pairs, it doesn't matter so much which way; these
aren't just your standard vocabulary words. Presumably tons of
philosophy books could be written about them (and already have been).
This note is just meant to be a quick reference guide.

1. ANATMAN and ANAMNESIS

The idea of "anatman" is usually taken to mean that there is no
"permanent, integral, autonomous being within an individual
existence". The common translation is "the Buddhist doctrine of
no-self". However, a more literal translation would probably be "the
Buddhist doctrine of no-soul"; and an even more literal translation
could be: "there is no single universal self shared by all persons".
(It is interesting how Buddhist terms are often mis-translated; cf.
this earlier blog post:
http://gathatoulie.blogspot.com/2009/10/dukkha.html.) So there is no
"holy ghost" or what have you (contrast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iandi,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entheogen), and from there the rest of the holy
trinity topples along with any other transcendent quantity, including e.g.
the Self (to recover the standard interpretation).

The idea of "anamnesis" is related to the "sophistic paradox" which
says you can't look for something you don't know anything about; in
other words, learning by doing is impossible... unless it is
constrained to function within a certain axiomatic system, say.
Anamnesis is the idea that the soul does know things, but it forgets
them; we then un-forget as we encounter things in the world,
especially if we look at them the right way. This idea is the
theoretical justification for the "socratic method", which basically
takes the sophistic paradox and turns it into a tool. The key thing
for this discussion is that, for all of this to work, we need a soul,
and the soul needs to be inscribed or imbued with something we could
call eternal knowledge.

It seems to me that whether this eternal knowledge is idiosyncratic or
universal, the theory of anamnesis is in sufficiently direct
opposition to the theory of anatman that we should all perk up our
ears a bit, especially given some of the other more superficial
similarities. Whereas in the greek theory, knowledge awakens, in the
indic theory, one awakens (if at all) to the absence of knowledge in the platonic sense, and moreover to a profound contingency.  (I won't say a "field of immanence", because that just makes immanence transcendent.)

Note, however, that this puts us back at the prologue to the greek story, with
Socrates, who says "all I know is that I know nothing" or "OK, I know
something about 'love', but that's it!"

2. MATHESIS and POEISIS

Mathesis means "lesson" and it comes to mean "mathematics", as well as
"science". For Foucault is it is "a general science of order".  (I've written enough about this topic elsewhere, so I won't go on here, but this seems a good place to mention that the pegagogic bent of these various dualisms is worth paying attention to.)

Poiesis means "making" or "genesis" and it comes to mean "poetry".
Some would see fit to oppose "making" with "faking" (mimesis), but of
course simulation combines the two. It would also be possible to
think of a "general science of disorder", but in fact we seem to
require a double deviation; we would then ask for "songs of
exception", for example in punk rowk.

3. NOMIC and LUDIC

Nomos means "law" or "custom", but in a rather amazing way, Deleuze
and Guattari connect it with numbers, names, and nomads. Perhaps the
idea is to continue the sophist's distinction between nature (physis)
and convention (nomos); the state or city requires its own physics,
e.g. gravitation, above and beyond the "law", whereas the desert or
steppe requires only, and exactly, conventions -- i.e. if its inhabitants are to survive.

Ludus means "play", or "sport", including e.g. gladiatorial combat,
and circuses more generally, but also "play schools" for youngsters.
The notion of "ludi votivi" was that in the sport one fulfilled a vow
to some deity. Circuses could also feature executions, which would of
course be a chance to show off the "transcendent" power of the local
tyrant. "Ludicrous" (causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking
or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable) might be a term one
would apply to someone sentenced to die in such a setting.