Are laws the clearer negation / accumulation?

Julian’s mysticism in Critchley’s book separates humanness from being human. Like a cited nun from Louvain playing mother with a doll. Gives weight to losing ones’ self in writing to become more present. Emulation of humanness closes the gap. Aggrandizing exaggeration becomes easy. Invited. Counter to the details mattering. “Abstraction and pious universalism are the enemies of actual thinking” p.61 running counter to the gap which draws generalization. Running counter to the draw of mysticism as a particular save the textual study as a summons to personal mysticism. Can engaging on a field of separation lead to particulars? The field locks in embodied reduction of humanness to a need to see it only in deified humans. Greek gods another topic. To contrast for explication, consider the Levitical approach where animals are sacrificed in service of the divine. Mysticism is paved in laws analyzed as ritual. Laws of ritual. Performance. Intellect engaged to understand the ways of the divine asking for action with the world. Can, of course, lead to aggrandizing authority over the world. Dominion. Everywhere. Belongs to anything but the divine and action in service to the will, where striving creates separation and separation is driven to closure. Wholeness. Mastery of a body of law. Though rather than a body unmasterable, unemulatable. Too far. Again a call to personal mystical experience as balance. So long as it remains uncommunicated.

RELATED EXCAVATIONS

1. Can see pious doing all the work in the quote from p. 61, lightening the load of universalism.
2. …

…where Bynum cites Detroit Institute of Art and University of Michigan.