Final scene from Robert Bresson’s 1967 film.

“The small town is plagued with alcoholism, marital infidelity, unbridled masculinity, violence, and moral ambivalence. Mouchette’s father and brother, we have already seen, operate by selling liquor on the black market, with complicit police that turn an indifferent eye to a crate left behind. They, like other townsfolk, are paid in shots of alcohol, consumed without speech. Following Sunday mass, the village parishioners leave church and hastily head to the bar before the bells cease to toll. Mouchette’s dying mother has to hide gin from her abusive spouse. Even the town’s interdependent poacher/warden pair, Arsène and Mathieu, bring an end to their cat-and-mouse charade in the woods by sharing a drink from Arsène’s canteen full of gin. The motif of alcohol and its abuse stands as a distinctive mark of the moral decay of Mouchette’s society; however, the corruption of this town is not limited to alcoholism… Indeed, Mouchette’s society is one of extreme decadence and lawlessness, one that is ripe for a scapegoat upon whose back it can collectively discharge the burden of its vice and one from which the victim will gladly depart.”

Read more about the film HERE.

re: god and human freedom

a conversation between cherry bomb and aryan kaganof

On Nov 20, 2007 10:14 PM, Rosemary Lombard wrote:

came across this while reading around transcendence/immanence
a fascinating philosophical article
on god and human freedom
comes at christian scripture, existentialism, marxism
from an ENTIRELY different angle to the traditional church
very unorthodox
yet still from a christ-focused perspective
thought you’d also find it interesting
esp how it might relate to your youniverse

“ama et fac quod vis”
(love, and do what you will)
– st augustine

[although the he-personification of god
and use of ‘man’ to mean generic ‘human’ irks me a bit,
i see the publication’s date was 1970, so it’s alright ;]

Nov 21, 2007
poem for rose, paradoxically
Filed under: kagapoems, poetry, paradoxism — ABRAXAS @ 10:24 am

i stumbled upon
myself stumbling upon
the difference between transcendence and immanence

my stumbling was the means by which i knew
there was an i to stumble
upon that which was there to be stumbled upon

immanence implied that i was everything that i stumbled upon
and everything i stumbled upon was me
transcendence granted me existence outside of what i stumbled upon
and that my being might exist outside of knowing

what was unknowable was how to unstumble
and thus in my unstumbling upon
myself unstumbling
i became unme

now immanence implied that everything unme
could be unstumbled upon and that everything that could be unstumbled upon is in unme
whereas transcendence seemed to be saying that unme is also outside of unstumbling
and therefore could not be unstumbled upon

here i found a contradiction
because if it is only possible to stumble upon something outside of me
then surely it is impossible to unstumble upon something inside of unme
unless of course my stumbling upon
myself stumbling upon
was in fact inside of me

meaning that there is no difference between transcendence and immanence
hence god’s indifference
to the problem

On Nov 21, 2007 11:59 PM, Rosemary Lombard wrote:

this is our business

does the ground worry
if a seed is growing or withering away?
or how often a wayfarer stumbles?

the substrate whereby
we are
is god
within with without

our embrace of existence lies in union
love is the yes to life
love is the blossom of anti-entropy

carly's loving hands

Carly’s loving hands (2008). Photo by Rosemary Lombard