Essay on Orpheus and Christ

The myth about Orpheus and Eurydice - where is the grip here? With the ban on turning back, Orpheus is assured with an imaginary authority over death, albeit in a negative aspect.

If he had not turned around... but he turned and broke the ban.

The grip is in the imposed ban, obstruction. Does Lacan not explain in the same way the prohibition of incest?

Myth is a picture of repressed signifiers.

What is repressed here? The absolute overpowering of death, whatever detournament to imagine through a ban or something else, as well as to cheat...

The force of the false determines the lack of necessary existence.

Death is the irrepressible One, without which there is no real immanence.

The Terror of One, in which the world is deserted.

How is it with Christ? There is not even an obstacle, a ban, a condition.

Christ is resurrected unconditionally without a condition.

A small sect, a marginal leader as if avant la lettre underwent the arbitrary procedure of the Predestination.

If Orpheus is modernity, Christ is postmodern.

What is the difference between modernity and postmodernity?

Take Death in Venice and Lolita.

In both, it is a weird sex connection.

But in the first case it is only platonic and conditional, and in the second case - consumed.

At Orpheus, the victory over death is suspended for some ridiculous reason, with Christ - victory is consumed without cause.

The philosophers are the prisoners of the Correlate, as Meillassoux expresses.

With Christ, the world, without any suspicion, embraces its contingency instead of the eternalist idea.

The unconditionally resurrected Christ is the absolute impossibility of a necessary being.

If the prophecy of the Old Testament had not been fulfilled, Christ would probably have been the first anticorrelationist.

But if Christ is set in the Covenant, then things are overturned, and postmodern precedes modernity, as digital - analogous.

But is some quodlibet bodhisattva not a more successful incarnation of the principle of non-reason as formulated by Meillassoux?

Having fulfilled all the conditions for enlightenment and the consumption of the Buddha, the Bodhisattva is holding on to the world of Samsara to help others. Tied up without being bound in the correlationist circle.

Samsara is the Correlate, a shelter for the fools of Meillassoux’ s logic, but what if here is the bet of infinity, as his mentor Badiou claims?