“Joseph was never a child: he was a great man trapped in the body of a little boy.“
“The colorful tunic which Jacob gifts Joseph is an icon of mimetic rivalry. Its desirability derives from its scarcity, representing Jacob’s scarce love… There is no modest way to wear a garment whose meaning and intent is to demonstrate preferential treatment.”
The coat of many colors is the false, histrionic life of the Instagram Vacation Selfie, making others feel bad about themselves, while self-deceiving oneself about how one’s own life really is.
Even the gesture of Potiphar’s wife, clutching at Joseph’s garment, may be read in this way. If I can’t have the man, I can at least post about my “experience” with him.
As David Foster Wallace describes in his short story “Good Old Neon,” a person can be so disassociated that he spends his whole life living for what others might think of him. The k’tonet passim is the garment we all want, but for the wrong reasons.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
On the one hand, agreed. On the other hand, lots in academia also just kinda strikes me as a repetition of Adorno’s critique of the Jargon of Authenticity. Is anything new under the sun? But fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Archilochus was the first Romantic. His motto: “Normalize Cowardice.”
The problems with romanticism:
1. Delusions of grandeur, egomania. 2. Fake solidarity with the common man, pseudo-populism. 3. Celebration of anything opaque. 4. Aestheticization of politics.
And so the gift (mincha) went on ahead, while [Jacob] remained in the camp (machaneh) that night. (Genesis 32:22)
And [Esau] asked, “What do you mean by all this company [machane] which I have met?” [Jacob] answered, “To gain my lord’s favor (chen).” (33:8)
According to rabbinic interpretation, the meeting between Jacob and Esau is a world-historical encounter, a compressed sign of all that is to come in the conflict between Jerusalem and Rome.
I never made the connection between autonomy and mon-ocularity, but it’s a fascinating and vivid one. Heteronomy as binocularity. Kafka knew this well.
Time for a @threadapalooza on Michel Foucault (1926-1984), historian of madness, archaeologist of the marginal, skeptic, existentialist, culture war touchstone, enfant terrible turned god of hipsters, and one of the most original and brilliant minds of the 20th century.
Whether you love or hate Foucault, whether you agree or disagree with him, his thought is THE thought of our time. You cannot study the humanities at an Ivy League school without reading him. 2
And even if you don't read him directly, his claims have trickled down into the reigning ideology of both elites and counter-elites. Foucault is intellectual napalm. 3
Derrida and Foucault were equal opportunity skeptics. Their form of Critical Theory was never intended to be a movement or a cudgel. They valorized the periphery but were mostly not in the business of changing policy or grabbing power, beyond their own opportunism.
Cultural conservatives are wrong to blame them for “woke-ism” and the activist class are wrong to see them as ancestors.
Both were boogie dudes who found opportunity in vice signaling their hostility to being bourgeoisie. Their ideas have use, but are not as dangerous as people think.
If you think translation choice largely doesn't matter you're likely a pragmatist. The meaning of words is how we use them. If you think it does, you're probably a romantic. Everything turns on the perfect word.
It's ironic that the foundation of Christian theology is "the Word made flesh," and yet in contrast to both Judaism and Islam that Word can be translated without any real loss in meaning. You don't need to know Greek or Latin to be a good Christian. Any Bible will do.
Christianity is pragmatic. Which is also good for missionizing. Judaism and Islam are romantic. Yes, the Torah can be learnt in translation, but one only recites a blessing on Torah read in Hebrew. The Quran is only holy in the original.