Johnathan at Limbo — Completing Girard

Preface to the Unfinished Manuscript

In his final book, Completing Clausewitz, René Girard attempts to push the theory of Carl von Clausewitz to its logical conclusion through a mimetic reading of On War. In the early chapters of On War, Clausewitz had the apocalyptic insight that politics could no longer contain violence. But, so Girard claims, Clausewitz was never able to complete this line of thinking and, in the latter chapters, incongruently rests his faith on the competency of politics.

It is ironic, then, that by only developing the apocalyptic side of mimetic theory through a completion of Clausewitz’s intuition, Girard fails to complete his own earlier thinking on the potential of humanity to transcend violence. Haunted by the spectre of apocalypse, Girard could only suggest withdrawal, resting his faith on an interventionist God that is as incongruent to his own theory as competent politics were to Clausewitz’s. In this project, I hope to complete Girard’s earlier thinking as he had completed Clausewitz: through an immanent reading of mimetic theory under the light of Buddhist phenomenology.

But, perhaps, I should complete my own work before I attempt to complete those of others. The irony (and humor) is not lost on me: this project, in its current form, is incomplete in four substantive ways. First, the rigor and systematicity is not up to par with the best of my abilities. This is only my third pass and, so, I have been focused on just getting my intuitions down on paper. Even Part One – which I have worked on the most – needs considerable more polish. Second, my description of Girard, in Chapter 6, as "escapist" is a possible but partial interpretation. I need to explore whether there is something more charitable to be said about his suggestion to retreat, perhaps, along the lines of saintliness. Third, my treatment of Buddhism in Part Three leaves much to be desired. I've entered Girard into dialogue with David Loy, a modern Buddhist interpreter. I think my intuitions are correct but it would be much more forceful to engage directly with classical sources. Lastly and most substantively, I would like to systematically introduce Hegel as an interlocutor in a fourth and final part of the project. This is because, I will eventually argue that Girardian pathologies only emerge when subjects' quests for freedom are thwarted. Buddhism will be an effective antidote because it prescribes contemplative techniques to help the individual achieve this freedom. My intuition is that Hegel would offer commensurable social insights to systematically actualize freedom for an entire society, without which the prescriptions in this project will only be achievable by a dedicated minority.

So why am I not completing this project, choosing to release it in this unfinished form? The reason will be clear once I explain the original intent of this work.

I began working on this project two years ago, at the age of 20. I was midway through my journey in college, finding myself in a dark point in life, for I had lost the path that does not stray. I was introduced to Girard's philosophy in a Zen retreat center in the Catskills. Since then, mimetic and Buddhist theory have been my trusted stewards, albeit occupying different roles. Mimetic theory exposed the mechanisms behind my personal – at the risk of connotating something stronger than I intend – pathologies. Girard has become to me what Vergil was to Dante: a guide who reveals the shape of human evil. He rescued me from the grotesque pathologies of my personal hells and even directed me in purging their milder, more subtle forms; yet, as was the case with Vergil, he could not lead me to a complete salvation. The lack of Girardian guidance was filled, in my own life, by Buddhist philosophy and contemplative techniques. I began the theoretical exercise of squaring these two modalities, then, out of practical necessity: to expose the shape of evil in thought as to avoid it in action and to chart a course to liberation on paper so that it may be more swiftly attained in practice. As a result, this work can be read as a letter from my current self who – privileged by my alienated distance from society – has a clearer view of human affairs to my future self who – shrouded in the mist of action – will know no such privilege. I write to counsel him, as an aged, retired father would a hasty, entrepreneuring son.

This theoretical project emerged out of life and life it must now serve. I have no time in the near future to further develop this work in thought because I have been presented with opportunities to actualize it in practice – renounce violence, cultivate love, and accelerate innovation. Certainly, more can be done in theory, in the four ways I've listed and more, but philosophy has served its purpose in this stage of my life – I have illuminated in thought sufficiently, if not completely, the path forward and gained enough clarity for action. I don't see this theoretical distancing as abandoning this project, rather, I see it as taking on its necessary next form – necessary because these ideas will now be thoroughly tested by the hammer of experience on the anvil of lived reality. Therefore, I have not stopped developing this project because I have lost faith in these ideas, on the contrary, I am so convinced by them that I cannot be content in their remaining unactualized ideas. In fact, I have not stopped developing this project at all: the site of its development has merely shifted from thought to actuality. I hope to one day return to the world of thought to integrate the insights I have won through practice. But, until then, the pen must give way to the saddle and contemplation to action.