Karacaoğlan says that they praise my name
the sweets we ate became poison
The discrete is in need.
Being in need, the discrete has to satisfy itself by satisfying its need. Therefore, it “moves” towards the direction(s) it needs.
This “movement” is also motivated by “desire”.
In a very broad sense, the discrete is in “want”.
Being in “desire”, the discrete is in “hope” about what it wants, in “worry” about not getting it, in “anxiety” about losing what it has provided, in “anxiety” about having what it has taken by force, and in “fear” at the moment of losing it. It is in “sadness” because of being capable of hope, worry, anxiety, anxiety and fear, and in “ambition” to get rid of this “general” sadness.
The ayrık skillfully hides this “ambition” until it has the opportunity to touch what it wants, if necessary.
In this sense, because of its “greed for touching”, the ayrık is extremely “clever” in finding ways to be able to touch.
For the weasel, “touching” is a tremendous pleasure, to the point of making its eyes spin.
During touching, the “touching discrete” thinks that it is “not a discrete”; this is the reason for its pleasure. However, the “thing touched”, for example, the opposite sex, does not know this. For example, the opposite sex thinks that the discrete is happy because of touching her, whereas the discrete is happy for another reason. In this sense, the discrete is also in betrayal with everything it touches.
In terms of happiness, faith, loyalty, and effort, in addition to betrayal, the disjunct is also a liar; that is, a liar. Because the disjunct is actually the most secretive and most desperate mental patient, capable of producing all kinds of tricks and excuses, and believing in them and making others believe in them too.
Every touch is a great pleasure for the disjunct, but because he is a disjunct, every great pleasure ends helplessly. Because the discrete is at the same time “finite” and “limited”.
The moments of touching are, for the discrete, the moments of the “removal of the limit”. In other words, “moments of touch” are therefore “flavors of limitlessness”.
But unfortunately, since the discrete is discrete in terms of its ground, it always finds an end to this pleasure and is “bounded” again.
Because it is “limited” again, the discrete also hates “what it touches” in a way. The reason for this hatred is that the thing it has “touched” has “limited” it again.
Because the greatest enemy of the discrete is the “end” and the “limit”, even though the greatest basis of its existence is the “end” and the “limit”.
“It (I)” is in an endless “desire”, under “constant provocation”.
In order to unpack the implications of this arousal leading to the ambition and “will” to touch, it is necessary to pay attention to the breadth of the concept of “touch”.
Sexual touching is an important de facto aspect of the concept of touching. But touching is more than that.
Let us briefly explain what we mean by giving an example of a very common “touching” that both creates and develops civilization.
For example, “teaching” is an activity of “touching”. The teacher and the learner touch each other during “teaching”, in this sense. The “environment” that makes this contact possible is, for example, the school. In other words, by coming together in school, the teacher and the student enter into “contact”.
Regardless of biological identity, the teacher is in the “masculine” position and the student in the “feminine”.
Suppose, for example, that this teacher is “discrete” and therefore driven by the “desire to touch”.
The student(s) that the (discrete) teacher wants to touch can be touched by coming to school, but for actual touching to take place, the (feminine) student must be “entered”. Therefore, the (feminine) student’s “place of entry” must be made open. Because a closed and “flat” place cannot be entered.
Let us remind again that by “feminine” we are not talking about the biological attribute of the student. The student is feminine in the relationship in question, even if he is biologically male. This is what is meant.
For some students this place may be open without any effort on their part. But usually the opposite is the case. Therefore, in order to open or pierce this (discrete) place, the teacher has to develop various techniques under the name of “teaching”.
One can see what these are, for example, by looking at what is done under the heading of teaching and learning techniques. However, what these techniques really are, that is, what they are, can be understood by looking inside them. Let us put it this way without going into detail.
Through these techniques, the (discrete) teacher tries to open up a place in his/her students to enter.
This endeavor is the “discrete teacher’s” endeavor to “seduce” the student.
If the student can somehow be seduced, the place of entry begins to open up in him/her. With the opening, the (discrete) teacher changes his or her face; that is, he or she takes on a different face from his or her previous sociological, biological appearance, i.e. the face of “knowledge”; in other words, for the student, the identity of the teacher is now the knowledge to be “imparted”, not his or her attire and the like.
This “knowledge” is the penis of the “(masculine) (discrete) teacher”. In other words, he himself is the penis in question.
With this penis, the (discrete) teacher enters the opening of the student.
At the moment of this penetration, both the student and the teacher feel pleasure.
This is the point where “education begins and continues”. However, the peak of pleasure has not yet arrived.
Reaching the peak depends on the realization of the “goal (telos)” at the end of the education.
The “goal” is the “transformation” of the student. That is, to be built and shaped in terms of the opening and the place of entry.
“education”, that is, “morphing”, continues until the penis, in the form of knowledge, deposits its seed in the opening and the student is changed by it.
It is important to remember: Generally, teachers do not take pleasure in students whom they cannot educate, whom they cannot teach. For example, if there is someone in a seminar who is outside the teacher’s power, that person is the one the teacher dislikes the most. The (discrete) teacher does not like someone he cannot penetrate, because he has his penis out and needs to respond to temptation. Moreover, he is also “afraid” of that person because he is someone who is there without participating in this collective “in and out”. In other words, he feels uncomfortable doing this in front of his eyes. Because the others have their eyes closed and are absorbed in the teacher in pleasure and delight, whereas the person outside the education, the student who is not a student, is not involved.
Let us continue.
The moment when the penis in the form of knowledge or teaching achieves its purpose is the moment when the knowledge or teaching is “attached” to the student.
The boundary has been removed, the discrete has entered the “(created) discrete” and they have come together; this is the moment of peak pleasure.
The (discrete) teacher is filled with pleasure at this moment and looks at the student with interest and enthusiasm.
Thus the work is completed. The student has now been “touched”.
At this point when the touching is complete, the (discrete) teacher returns to his/her former state; that is, he/she takes off the disguise of a teacher and returns to his/her original name, which is “discrete”.
The disjointed one has removed the mask of teacher and left in a temporary and partial tranquility and with a slight fatigue, until he finds another person or another thing to touch again.
The world is full of “disjointed people” who are eager to “touch” each other in the guises given above. In fact, these disguises are the means by which the discrete ones “touch” each other.
In this sense, the actions that take place in the institutions of civilization that stand out in the world are collective acts of “touching”, since they are based on separateness.
In other words, if this meaning is well understood, it will be seen that what is called an “orgy” is more common than one might think, and that almost all of them take place in broad daylight and in a commonplace manner.
By “commonplace” we mean what is meant by the word “normal”. We are not going into details.
There are many disguises that Ayrık wears for the desire to touch. Sometimes he enters a mosque disguised as an imam and gives a sermon; sometimes he gives a talk in a tekke under the robes of a sheikh; sometimes he gives a thunderous concert under the guise of an artist; sometimes he organizes rallies, makes organizations and prepares for actions under a political position.
Sometimes Ayrık engages in religious devotion, sometimes he is interested in philosophy. Because intellectual endeavors have the mechanism to create many temptations and power over the ignorant (perceived) public; that’s essentially why.
Lately, for some reason, he has a different interest in science and technology. He wants to go to Mars, he wants to transfer his consciousness to the quantum level. Looking at the movies and TV series he has made, it is possible to partially see his other “fantasies”.
When a microphone is handed to Ayrık, he can lose himself; he can act in very interesting ways. This is because the microphone and the camera as a means of reaching out to the crowd in front of him has or has not given him a very short preparation time to organize the organ of pleasure he will turn into. Hence the bizarre dialogues we watch.
With enough preparation, he can also appear on Youtube; there is no stopping Ayrık.
From a visual point of view, platforms such as Tiktok and Instagram are among the most prominent areas where ayrık’s (faceless) adjectives are poured out in public. It should also be noted at this point: Without analyzing the so-called social media from these perspectives, it is impossible to see what they are and what they lead to. In this respect, it is important to note that the Latin word “media” in the phrase means “middle ground”, that is, “mediocre”.
In short, a discrete person is someone who has a “touch” problem. It is nothing else. His teaching, his development, his economy, his eating and drinking are all erotic on the basis of the “problem of touch”.
The eroticism in question is characterized by the “problem of touch”. Therefore, it is loaded with “morbidity”.
But somehow, it is the same form that runs away from touching its own ground “like running away from death”.
Since the discrete is not a substance, it is afflicted with accidents and maraz.
We can say that a person is essentially “discrete” because he is afflicted with accidents and morbidities.
However, this state cannot be considered a “closed circle”. To make this state a “closed circle” depends only on one’s own superior efforts. But this is not acceptable; that is, these are not “natural”. If they were natural, we would have to say that there is no way out of this state, as many psukhe experts say (not forgetting that there are also psukhe experts who “touch” (discrete) psukhe in a more covert way, with pseudo-salvation prescriptions and pseudo-purification practices, some of them saying that there is salvation).
But this is not possible. Disjunction cannot be regarded as the essence and the end of the individual.
But to say that disjunction is neither the essence nor the end of the individual is not to understand these points. Understanding them is through the realization of what is beyond separateness itself. Otherwise, we would have reduced it to the word and established salvation in the word, which is one of the traps set by the disjunction itself. For example, to establish a theory, a philosophy, a doctrine in this regard is to reduce it to words. What is essential is different from this.
Let us explain it briefly.
As explained in previous articles, disunity is not a principle in itself. On the contrary, separateness is a concept that can be considered after “unity”. Because we cannot ground the concept of “unity” on the basis of “disunity”; in other words, we cannot put “disunity” first. Otherwise, the concepts of “togetherness” and “togetherness” in terms of “the endeavor of the disjointed to unite” are essentially null and void.
Unity precedes all concepts and has no opposite. Even the “idea of unity” itself is after unity. Otherwise, we cannot even speak of “the idea of unity” in this sense.
For these reasons, it is not possible to take “discrete” as prior and essential. In this respect, we should say that “discrete” and “disjunction” are essentially “created”.
Next, we said that the creation in question is a matter of “ground”. That is to say, it is the “ground” that is essentially separated and diminished, and therefore it is not possible for the separation to end without an action directed towards the ground.
Generally speaking, the test of the “experts” is given on what is referred to as the “ground”. Without understanding and recognizing the importance of this concept, it is not possible to see and get rid of the troubles caused by “experts”. But we are not going into that.
A grounded disjunction can only come out of a grounded disjunction. Otherwise, without “touching” the causative factor, one would fall into illusions of a remedy.
The discrete is under the influence of multiple things according to the states it is in, but beyond all these, the real cause of its malfunctioning states is its own ground disunity. All their other states are under the record of this point.
It is impossible to talk about a ground transformation for the discrete without finding out where the ground disjunction begins.
However, opening the ground of the discrete in terms of intellectuality involves many difficult issues. Because intellectuality is itself the performance of the inner stage in the disjunctive stage of the disjunct; that is, intellectuality is the inner performance of the disjunctive, as constituting its form. Therefore, to be able to explain the ground disjunction to the discrete through ideology depends on the discrete’s realization of its boundary on the basis of ideology, that is, its internal form.
Making the discrete realize its own boundary is not very bearable for the discrete. For, in fact, the discrete hates to be limited, even though it is itself limited because it is discrete.
Therefore, it is not a sufficient activity to show the discrete its ground disjunction through philosophical and theoretical pictures. How could it be? Philosophy and theory are already the discrete’s own fields of endeavor.
That is to say, to settle this issue in the ultimate sense depends on coming from or reporting from the transcendent to the border itself.
It is therefore impossible for the discrete itself to offer the discrete a remedy to resolve this issue.
However, there is a way to partially resolve this issue from within the intellectual, which is to somehow open the ground of the intellectual itself, that is, the inner form of the discrete, from within the intellectual.
This is one of the jobs of the theoretical intellectuality.
At this point, if the discrete can be shown its own transcendental ground from many different angles, there may be hope for the discrete to break out of its self-imposed prison.
We stop at this point and do not go into any of the above points. Now we just want to talk about a fairy tale of someone who tried to break free from the disjuncture and who did. So we will tell a tale. Whatever, it is our habit.
The story takes place somewhere in Mesopotamia, in one of the vast green countries. It is the story of a young man called Mullah Pazarcı.
Molla Pazarcı is a well-educated young man who knows Persian poetry, can deliver sermons in Arabic, and can write competent treatises on issues that confuse the public in times of need. He lost his father at an early age. When he was a young man, he and his mother traveled with him for Umrah, and he was attracted to science and wisdom, so he asked her permission and left her to devote himself to this path.
Over the years, through many efforts and endeavors, he studied the sciences, theology, philosophy and various arts, and even started to train students with the position of mudarris.
However, the desire to engage in knowledge and wisdom that Molla had found in himself years ago began to fade and lose its meaning. What he lost was not his desire, but the “knowledge and wisdom” that was the form of this desire, and what he understood by knowledge and wisdom was this education. This situation became more and more unbearable. Then, suddenly, Molla found himself at sea and in places where he could be busy at sea.
Sometimes he would finish his work quickly, sometimes he would make excuses and somehow he would go to the sea and the fishermen fishing there. Since he had a tendency to learn and teach, he soon learned how to fish with fishing rods and nets.
One day, while he was organizing his gear to go fishing again, a very mean and ordinary old man said, “May your hand be cut off” and he paused and turned around. At first, he was stunned by this word that he could not understand. However, he did not dwell on it too much and turned back to the front. As soon as he turned back, the old man said “behead you!” in a harsher voice this time.
The young man was furious and turned back to the old man to ask him to account for these words:
Have you lost your mind, how can you curse a person like that for no reason? What insolence, what impudence!
The old man, as if he had been expecting this angry outburst, replied without any hesitation and without mincing words:
You are stealing the property of the sea in broad daylight, and by design. May your hands be cut off. Then you stubbornly turn away from someone who tells you the truth, may your head be cut off.
Saying this, he walked away.
Stunned by these unexpected words, Mullah left everything he had and went after this man. Let’s not go any further; Mullah turned from the face of his desire that had fallen into him years ago to another face, and finally fate brought him to the tutelage of the old man in question.
Months passed, years passed, and Molla’s chest overflowed with wisdom. In every event, in every incident, in every action, he saw another face, another truth of the matter, and became able to read, write, tell, narrate without reading, telling or explaining. He realized that everything in the life of the world is not in vain and none of it is devoid of a truth. Wherever he turns, there is another side to it. This world is a bride with a veil, she has a face she will show to the one who gives her a wedding ring.
Molla’s heart has fallen in love with a woman. We don’t know how it happened, we don’t know from whom it happened, they gave Molla a lonely girl so that he could fulfill his wish.
The bride’s face is covered. Molla acts excitedly. Dilber’s face becomes visible; it is as if she is a world of disasters.
Molla forgets everything he knows, everything he has learned, everything he has seen. This place is another place, this sky is another sky. I don’t know how to describe it; just imagine that it is the sky whose face opens up, the earth and the sky that will soon kiss.
Her eyes are pure, her gaze kind; her red lips are inviting by themselves. Her skin cuts beautifully whatever falls on it; but not now. Now, the most beautiful dress of the most beautiful fabric, woven with the most beautiful threads of the world, is the worst dress in Molla’s eyes; because it is so, everything that covers this warm and pleasant skin to hug is ugly.
He might as well say a word and ask for his life in return.
Molla Bazaarman was in love with his beloved, day after day, over and over again, without tiring of it, without resting. It was as if there was no one else in the world for these lovers who fell in love with each other and made love tirelessly. Because whenever they came together, the sky merged with the earth, the mountains merged with the seas, and everything and everything became one.
Then fate took Molla Pazarcı’s beloved away from him one fateful day.
Molla became mad and returned to his old land. He did, but he was neither a mullah nor a sage. He was known as a madman. He slept here and there; he had no other decision.
One day he came to a tekke, sat in front of a large, beautiful “Huve” calligraphy and became engrossed. Then the ulema passing by decided to deal with him and came to him. They said, “bre mullah, you know that they say that the verb “darebe” hides a “huwa”. Now tell me, how can this darebe hide this big Huwa?
Molla Pazarcı, who did not pay attention to the test of the Ulema in this question, rolled his eyes and said, “They call you smart too; you do not know that there is a “darebe” according to its huve.”
This is the end of our tale.
In the following articles, we will continue to address the current issues of the Pigeon’s Necklace. We will not write anything for those who try to discipline these articles within the so-called boundaries of decency and morality. These articles are just a new pigeon necklace for those who have problems and troubles, penned without any boundaries; without a specific author.
