Lol. Not defensive, James. I like to get to the meat of things if that makes sense. I may have read it, and I will refresh myself immediately to see whether we are aligned. However, I don't go along to get along, if that makes sense. This article was written in March of 2025 and I will post a snap-pic of it in my notes section or my restack section. Let's be real here, you would've loved it if maybe you could see lineage from your work to mine yes? In my mind, we are two men getting as close to "something" as we can, we have different methods and that is healthy but ego will always rear its ugly head. I have had to call out another person for intellectual theft already, so I keep tabs on dates of publication etc. So, if I came off defensive, allow me to recalibrate. I do keep tabs on your work. Its fascinating in a way. I will say this, if your article and mine align, then we agree...in this alone, for now.
Alright, alright. Easy tiger. Haha. I'm just glad you liked my article. You've read it enough times, I can show how many if you want. I don't think you need to remind yourself of it...
I went for a refresher. Sadly. No James, in fact, you do exactly what my recently posted work, if you read or looked at them, warns against. Would you like me to continue?
I did read your comment on my article. Sadly it was off the mark, I'm pleased for the engagement though. I like addressing misunderstandings inline, helps other people get the message. So thanks for that.
Are you sure it was off the mark? What makes you so certain?
Let me provide a few thoughts on that article. Personally I wish someone would engage my work as I do yours. Critically, yet you don't take it very well:
This is a perfect case study of "The Violence of Interpretation" ( I just posted it) in action.
1. The Scalpel Disguised as Scholarship
I wrote: "Every glance is a scalpel. Every moment of attention carves the infinite into pieces I can handle."
You take the ambiguous "ehyeh asher ehyeh", a phrase that has breathed with interpretive possibility for millennia, and surgically remove all ambiguity. You carve away "I AM" to preserve only "I will become," butchering the text's living multiplicity to fit your theological agenda.
2. Naming as Dismemberment
I wrote: "To name is to amputate... The river, when named, loses its constant becoming."
The Hebrew phrase is a flowing river of meaning, simultaneously being and becoming, presence and process, eternal and temporal. You freeze it into "becoming," amputating its ontological richness. Ironically, by insisting on "becoming," you kill the very dynamism you aim to preserve.
3. Interpretation as Possession
I wrote: "Every interpretation I have made was an act of taking. I did not seek to understand; I sought to own."
This is precisely what you are doing. You don't seek to dwell with the mystery of the divine name; you seek to own it, to make it serve your philosophical project. You transform God's self-revelation into your personal theological property.
4. The Observer's Delusion
I wrote, "The observer watches the writer shape lies into coherence."
You present yourself as the neutral scholar simply "returning to the original Hebrew," when you're actually imposing a highly specific philosophical framework (process theology) onto the text. You mistake your interpretation for pure observation.
5. The Trespass of Certainty
I wrote: "Certainty is seductive precisely because it is false."
The most devastating irony: You condemn others for theological certainty while displaying absolute certainty about your own translation.
This is what I am waiting to see. Can you read the above and point to where your text defends itself against my defensive probes? Are you so much above the rest of us down here in the "muck and shit" that is philosophy currently that you miss the greatness that comes from this exact exercise?
Your choice. This is all in good faith, and it's also a good experiment for me in multiple areas of my own personal studies.
Yash this is what you commented, nothing new here - but I merely corrected a mistranslation - so this is all nonsensical. I wasn't inserting anything - I was correcting someone else doing that.
Defensive much? Easy now... 🤣🤣🤣
It's obvious the article made sense to you. That's all I said. Am I wrong?
Lol. Not defensive, James. I like to get to the meat of things if that makes sense. I may have read it, and I will refresh myself immediately to see whether we are aligned. However, I don't go along to get along, if that makes sense. This article was written in March of 2025 and I will post a snap-pic of it in my notes section or my restack section. Let's be real here, you would've loved it if maybe you could see lineage from your work to mine yes? In my mind, we are two men getting as close to "something" as we can, we have different methods and that is healthy but ego will always rear its ugly head. I have had to call out another person for intellectual theft already, so I keep tabs on dates of publication etc. So, if I came off defensive, allow me to recalibrate. I do keep tabs on your work. Its fascinating in a way. I will say this, if your article and mine align, then we agree...in this alone, for now.
Alright, alright. Easy tiger. Haha. I'm just glad you liked my article. You've read it enough times, I can show how many if you want. I don't think you need to remind yourself of it...
I went for a refresher. Sadly. No James, in fact, you do exactly what my recently posted work, if you read or looked at them, warns against. Would you like me to continue?
This was an article I recently commented on of yours, I believe. My point still stands. Let me know if you would like to see my assessment fully.
I'm indifferent.
Noted. All the same, if you choose to you can read my thoughts further below. Enjoy your Sunday, James.
I didn't read...
I did read your comment on my article. Sadly it was off the mark, I'm pleased for the engagement though. I like addressing misunderstandings inline, helps other people get the message. So thanks for that.
Are you sure it was off the mark? What makes you so certain?
Let me provide a few thoughts on that article. Personally I wish someone would engage my work as I do yours. Critically, yet you don't take it very well:
This is a perfect case study of "The Violence of Interpretation" ( I just posted it) in action.
1. The Scalpel Disguised as Scholarship
I wrote: "Every glance is a scalpel. Every moment of attention carves the infinite into pieces I can handle."
You take the ambiguous "ehyeh asher ehyeh", a phrase that has breathed with interpretive possibility for millennia, and surgically remove all ambiguity. You carve away "I AM" to preserve only "I will become," butchering the text's living multiplicity to fit your theological agenda.
2. Naming as Dismemberment
I wrote: "To name is to amputate... The river, when named, loses its constant becoming."
The Hebrew phrase is a flowing river of meaning, simultaneously being and becoming, presence and process, eternal and temporal. You freeze it into "becoming," amputating its ontological richness. Ironically, by insisting on "becoming," you kill the very dynamism you aim to preserve.
3. Interpretation as Possession
I wrote: "Every interpretation I have made was an act of taking. I did not seek to understand; I sought to own."
This is precisely what you are doing. You don't seek to dwell with the mystery of the divine name; you seek to own it, to make it serve your philosophical project. You transform God's self-revelation into your personal theological property.
4. The Observer's Delusion
I wrote, "The observer watches the writer shape lies into coherence."
You present yourself as the neutral scholar simply "returning to the original Hebrew," when you're actually imposing a highly specific philosophical framework (process theology) onto the text. You mistake your interpretation for pure observation.
5. The Trespass of Certainty
I wrote: "Certainty is seductive precisely because it is false."
The most devastating irony: You condemn others for theological certainty while displaying absolute certainty about your own translation.
This is what I am waiting to see. Can you read the above and point to where your text defends itself against my defensive probes? Are you so much above the rest of us down here in the "muck and shit" that is philosophy currently that you miss the greatness that comes from this exact exercise?
Your choice. This is all in good faith, and it's also a good experiment for me in multiple areas of my own personal studies.
Yash this is what you commented, nothing new here - but I merely corrected a mistranslation - so this is all nonsensical. I wasn't inserting anything - I was correcting someone else doing that.
I'm glad my God of Becoming article made sense to you.
What makes you say this
This is from my second blog which I am repurposing. Should I show you the date it was written? If that is where you are going with this lol?