Caputo

Khora: The Hermeneutics of Hyphenation by Justin Harrison


I found a curious connection whilst researching in a paper entitled Khora: The Hermeneutics of Hyphenation by John Manoussakis. I don’t understand it all and I don’t know that I agree with it all, but towards the end I did find some parts that are interesting.

Outside the city of Istanbul there is an ancient monastery that is known to all the sources under this odd name: the Monastery of Chora (an alternative transliteration for "khora").1 Its unusual eponymy is explained by its even more extraodinary frescos and mosaics that dated back to the fourteenth century. It’s iconographic program includes depictions of both Virgin Mary and Christ that bear the same inscription alike: The Khora

In the first of the two plates we can see a mosaic of the Virgin the inscription reads' {The Khora of the uncontainable).

In the second plate, Christ is depicted with an inscription that and reads as follows: ' (He Khora ton Zonton = the khora of the Living)


In the paper he goes on to explain:

During the Incarnation, Platonic khora, serves as the intermediate, the triton genos (man and the divine; she [Mary] is the point of contact between the the two poles of all dualisms (Greek or Jewish); she is the overlapping place of the two circles, their meeting place and of course, the hymen that hyphenates them. Like the receptive character of khora, Mary receives the entire deity within her body without appropriating it into herself. Thus, she becomes a paradox, an antinomy, the chore of the akhoron, a topos that sustains what is a-topos and u-topos: the receptacle of the un-receivable, the container of the uncontainable.

In the second plate, Christ is depicted with an inscription that runs in both sides and reads as follows: ' (He Khora ton Zonton = the chore of the Living). Christ is par excellence the khora that receives both humility creation in their entirety, but with no confusion, in His incarnate person. The Incarnate Christ bears the same characteristics that ruled over His hyphenated birth: neither exclusively God nor quite Human, but both God and Human; neither just the Word nor only Flesh, but the Word who became Flesh; neither high in the heavens nor down on the earth, but the channel through which the heavens emptied onto the earth and the earth ascended in the heavens.

I don’t fully understand this but then there are elements that I am very interested in, The Khora and emptying out in relation to Christ and Mary as intermediate - between man and divine. The liminal?

In his paper Manoussakis sources Derrida and John Caputo’s work on Derrida, a key source to my research. I like it when connections present themselves to me, its encouraging.



 

Caputo and Derrida by Justin Harrison


Just documenting and collating key quotes for research- don’t worry about reading unless you really want to….

leaking

overflowing

contaminating

Density of language

The granular

Khôra

Differance

Leaking

Atolysis

Emptying out

Container

Liminal

Thoughts

Transform

Passage

“Transcendental conditions nail things down, pin them in place, inscribe them firmly within rigorously demarcated horizons; quasi-transcendental conditions allow them to slip loose, to twist free from their surrounding horizons, to leak and run off, to exceed or overflow their margins. The problem in a transcendental philosophy is how to establish communication across the borders; the problem in a quasi-transcendental philosophy is how to keep things from running into each other and contaminating everything. But a quasi-transcendental condition is a condition of or for entities, not an entity itself; a condition under which things appear, but too poor and impoverished, too unkingly, to dictate what there is or what there is not, lacking the power to bring what is not into being, lacking the authority to prohibit something from being. So différance describes the possibility and the impossibility of a language that addresses God, of positive, onto-theo-logical languages, like that of Thomas Aquinas, and the extraordinary languages of mystical theologians like John of the Cross, of mystical poets like Angelus Silesius, with all their paradoxes and paralogisms, detours and dissonances. Différance describes the languages of faith and prayer which, as Derrida's Work evolves, prove to be not just particular examples of language, but wemplary uses that exceed linguistic categorization and tend to coincide with language itself, to become the very yes, or amen, of language to what Is happening. That is why deconstruction is not ultimately neutral. Even diftrance describes the possibility and impossibility of the language in which God is coldheartedly denied by Hume of Bertrand Russell, excortpied by Nietzsche for all of It’s failings, or brushed off with a shrug by kon'y, who does not see why we need bother to talk like that,_Dilitance is altogether too meager and poor a thing to settle the quiete” Caputo Payers and Tears of Derrida p12-13

I wonder does Derrida provide the conceptual context for where transformation can occur - the passage way?


 

Khôra and the Impossible by Justin Harrison

Khôra - Ink and acrylic on paper


“Sans savoir, sans avoir, sans voir.”
Caputo J : Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida, Introduction p20

“Without knowing, without having, without seeing”

/////////////////////

Vertical forms suspended in space

A host.

Khôra - the liminal - the place of transformation 

/////////////////////

Khôra (also chora; Ancient Greek: χώρα) was the territory of the Ancient Greek polis outside the city proper. The term has been used in philosophy by Plato to designate a receptacle (as a "third kind" [triton genos]; Timaeus 48e4), a space, a material substratum, or an interval. In Plato's account, khôrais described as a formless interval, alike to a non-being, in between which the "Forms" were received from the intelligible realm (where they were originally held) and were "copied", shaping into the transitory forms of the sensible realm; it "gives space" and has maternal overtones (a womb, matrix)
Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khôra

Also:

“So likewise it is right that the substance which is to be fitted to receive frequently over its whole extent the copies of all things intelligible and eternal should itself, of its own nature, be void of all the forms. Wherefore, let us not speak of her that is the Mother and Receptacle of this generated world, which is perceptible by sight and all the senses, by the name of earth or air or fire or water, or any aggregates or constituents thereof: rather, if we describe her as a Kind invisible and unshaped, all-receptive, and in some most perplexing and most baffling partaking of the intelligible, we shall describe her truly.”
— Plato, Timaeus, 51a[1]

“As we will see, Derrida easily made the "no" stick. He dispatched this accusation, or deferred this congratulation, effectively and effI ciently, persuasively arguing that whatever their "syntactical" similarities there is a deep "semantic" divide between God and différance, that "it," différance, is not the God of negative theology. (We cannot fail to notice that "God" here is not exactly Yahweh, not the God of prophets like Amos or Isaiah, a God who wants justice, but the God of Christian Neoplatonism.) However highly it is esteemed, différance is not God. Negative theology is always on the track of a "hyper essentiality," of something hyper-present, hyper-real or sur-real, so really real that we are never satisfied simply to say that it is merely real. Différance, on the other hand, is less than real, not quite real, never gets as far as being or entity or presence, which is why it is emblematized by insubstantial quasi-beings like ashes and ghosts which flutter between existence and nonexistence, or with humble khöra, say, rather than with the prestigious Platonic Sun. Differance is but a quasi-transcendental anteriority, not a supereminent, transcendent ulteriority.

Caputo J : Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida p2

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In a previous blog I had commented on-

So in light of the nature of Derrida's approach to deconstructions and undecidability - where in his thinking does he reference a constructive approach? What if anything isn’t left undone -  Reinscription? Somewhere I read about a part of his work that touched on this but cannot remember which book it was.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Caputo goes on from the quote about to discuss that the direction of deconstruction ultimately points up - a passion for the impossible’ p3, whilst also contextualising difference, in a contructive/ generative way.

'"Translating" in deconstruction is nothing reductionistic, and that is because différance opens things up rather than barring the door closed.” P4

There is a place for generation rather than reduction. Reduction being the popular misnomer of Deconstruction.

Useful phrases from p2-4

“Initiating a pact with the impossible”

“Tout autre est tout autre” - every other is wholly other

Think about essence becoming real. Emerging from the Khôra. Extensia.

Do I emerge from the Khôra every day. Transformed by renewing my mind? Is the Khôra a limiting phrase? Just another addressing of the same thing? And how does this impact my research and art?

What I do like is this addressing of the’ impossible’, and a possible/impossible place of transformation across many manifestations, from major to minor. And then there is the inverted value system. Cultrally we like the dramatic the demostratable, the evidential. Yet these texts allude to the small the innocuous, being key. That maybe transformation is effected by the granular. The macro. The mustard seed.

God resides in and out of the impossible. Which is impossible.