Rahu Ketu Contrasts as explained by a Deleuzian thinker
15th Nov, Friday, 2013. the BEST thing about blogging as opposed to writing a book is the opportunity of dynamic, human interaction to be part of the narrative process. Morning, in the facebook group on Deleuze a fellow member Ivan Krisjansen responded to someones query about Desire. In his explanation, I saw a vast platform, of definitions raised which was perfectly descriptive of the Rahu Ketu contrasts. Desire as everyone knows is the embodiment of Rahu, and surrender of desire/ fanatical righteous zeal is embodiment of Ketu. Hence, in Ivans descriptions I found a lot of Rahu (and hence, by virtue of anti thesis, Ketu) definitions. He wrote..
"First
thing to avoid is confusing the object of desire (e.g., a woman, a
person, new clothes , travel, etc.) as a single entity, as a single
thing on its own. You never desire someone or something on its own,
instead the object
of desire – for example, the woman – is desired in the form of a
construction of elements",
IMPLYING: Rahu is always an aggregate or summation or series, or a conglomerate of fragments combining together to form a cloudy being, an anormophic entity. Ketu on other hand is a singular, seprated, fanatical single minded instance. You seek something for the pure essence of it's being. Nothing else. Something like Truth for Truth's sake. hence, Ketu can lead to much more sigle, minded , fanatical obssession , than Rahu. As a contrast, in the Rahu desire, there is always a consequentiality involved. If I get A, then it leads to B, C, D.. a series of desirable consequences.
"For example, the woman – is desired in the form of a construction of elements,a collection of relations, an assemblage that
connects with the woman you desire and your own family, your friends,
your social life, your world. The woman you desire, like all objects of
desire, becomes an aggregate, a collection of relationships that fit
your world order, only then does desire begin to emerge. The object of
desire becomes both a woman and a landscape and she is desired all the
more only when the landscape unfolds, that is, you will not attain
happiness in desire until you have resolved the aggregate
woman/landscape. Just how and in what way will she fit into your world?
This landscape needs to be resolved before she becomes desirable."
IMPLYING: With Rahu, the backdrop, the background is extremely important for something to be placed in it's scheme of things. In fact, more than ITSELF, the objects total relations/ relationship/ connections, position with the backdrop/ environment/ comes TOTALLY into consideration! Hence politics, society, diplomacy is a important Rahu domain!!
"In
this way the aggregate becomes something more than the woman desired -
the desire is in the entire context belonging to the woman desired. You
never desire something all by itself and neither do you desire an
aggregate either, rather you desire from within an aggregate. For
example drinking alcohol never means that you desire to drink and that’s
it – rather desire will ‘flow’, that is, you may drink alone while
reading or working, you may drink with friends at a certain pub or at a
café. Desire flows across a spectrum belonging to an aggregate of
territories, styles of speech, dress, ornamentation, and so on."
IMPLYING:
With Rahu, the aggregate, the overall summation EXCEEDS the singular point, or singular points of specatcular inconsistency! With Rahu, it's a vast series of variabilities, multiplicities, dualities, multiple variables which COMBINE together to form an composite AGGREGATE. With Ketu, it's the REVERSE: one singular instance of inconsistency, one spectacular Singular instance, completely disrupts the entire summation, the entire structure!! Whole scheme of things goes for a complete toss.
Oh, by the way, some good brains you got Ivan Krisjansen!
