Thursday meta-hatred

I had an epiphany today, concerning the transcendence of the hated qua hated, or, if you like, the necessary inadequacy of all hatred.  We already know under the general schema of transcendence that in whatever is intended-to there is more than is present in it as intended-to in whatever fashion; that there are certain aspects that escape our experience (presently, that is; these aspects need not be beyond our experience in principle—but in whatever way we experience something, there will be facets that are inexperienced, that lie beyond the current horizon of experience).  In some cases we can say some things about what we are not currently experiencing; for instance, if we see a tree, we will expect that its far, currently unobserved side will exhibit some features consistent with the observed side (though of course this is corrigible).  In hatred, however, we have a stronger result: whatever it is that is currently unexperienced in the object intended to hatefully, we can be certain that it too is hateful.  There is, in even the most mundane of hated things, always more to be hated; thus we see that while the common expression that one hates some X "with all one's being" is, owing to the transcendence of the  self, flawed*, that one hates all the being of some X is much closer to the truth.  (Did I not say above that the inadequacy of all hatred is itself necessary?  Yes, I did, meaning by this however that the experienced hatred is necessarily inadequate, as there is always more to hate—however, constitutively, whatever more there is is hateful.  One does not at any time hate all the being of the intended-to but one can be confident that there is no nonhateful component.)

*In the case of self-hatred this may not be true.  In general I think that the doctrine of the transcendence of the hated for self-hatred is of paramount importance.

Comments

[standpipe b]

whatever it is that is currently unexperienced in the object intended to hatefully, we can be certain that it too is hateful.

I hate this assertion because it's bollocks, you know it's bollocks, and you used it anyway for its MacGuffin value. But I didn't come thereby to hate your entire argument (including, in particular, the part that follows the above) because it's pretty artful and entertaining all told.

If you have a pipe, I offer this comment that you might put it therein and proceed to related matters.

[ben wolfson]

That it too is hateful to the currently hating one, or would be so considered, anyway. I'm not totally sure it's bollocks, though I suppose there's a myriad of counterexamples. (A potential response: well that's not real hatred or something.)

Above, "facets that are inexperienced" should really be "facets that are unexperienced".

[Shawn]

I left a comment via livejournal, but I guess it doesn't get carried over to here.

So here's the comment I left via livejournal.

I hate you.

[ben wolfson]

You are so beautiful to me, Shawn.

[dave]

So which is better, Ben: Hate Specs or X-Ray?

[ben wolfson]

X-Ray, all the way.

[dave]

I wish I had one pair of each. I would put on the Hate Spex when I was about to yell at someone in public.