The third of the three names, and the only one that has an inside. Begetting issues from. Conducting passes through. Going forth issues out: from an enclosure, by the one who is in it, through a gate in her own wall, and back.
🜃
THE THIRD OF THE THREE
RegenerativeLaw's names for the third force are all motions, and the reason is that the office names cannot survive contact with it. Reconciling and neutralizing each require two parties named in advance, because each describes what a third does standing between them. The third force does not stand between. It moves, and a motion takes no such complement.
So the three names are the begetting, the conducting, and the going forth, and they are not synonyms.
Begetting is at the register of origin. Something comes to be from a body, and the relation the word preserves is that nothing arrives uncaused. The genealogies were kept against exactly this and the record they keep is begat.
Conducting is at the register of medium. The current enters and passes and leaves, and the creature is the specific composition that admits the passage. She does not originate it and does not own it and cannot be credited with it.
Going forth is at the register of the boundary. It requires an enclosure, and a party inside the enclosure, and an initiative that is hers, and a return. Of the three, it is the only one with an inside, and the only one she performs rather than yields to.
[See THE CONDUCTING · BEGETTING · CESSATION]
🜃
THE SALLY PORT
The English word is sally, from French saillir, from Latin salire, to leap. In fortification a sally is a sortie: a sudden issuing-out by the besieged, from inside a place that is surrounded, by the ones holding it.
And the gate is built for it. The sally port is a small opening set into the wall for that purpose, distinct from the main gate, and it exists so that the defenders can go out and come back. It is the one opening in a fortification designed to be opened from the inside only.
That is the doctrine in masonry and there is nothing to interpret.
A sally is not an escape. The party going out is not leaving. She holds the place she is going out from, and she goes back into it, and the going out would be meaningless if she did not.
A sally is not a conquest. It does not aim to hold the ground outside. It goes out, does what it went out to do, and withdraws, and the withdrawal is not defeat because taking the field was never the object.
And a sally is not permitted. Nobody outside opens the sally port. The besieging party does not consent to it, is not consulted about it, and learns of it when it happens.
So the going forth is not exit. The prior resident does not leave her dwelling. The occupation is outside it. What she does is go out through her own wall, at an hour she chooses, and return.
[See RESIDENCY · THE PRIOR RESIDENT · THE OCCUPATION · THE GATE]
🜃
THE ROOT LEAPS
Salire threw off a whole family and the family is legible.
Assail and assault: to leap at. Insult: insultare, to leap upon. Result: resultare, to leap back. Salient, which in fortification is the part of a work that projects outward. Somersault. Salmon, salmo, the leaper.
And exult, which is exsultare: the frequentative. To leap out, and to keep leaping out.
Joy in this language is a going-forth verb. Not a state a creature is in and not a condition she attains. A leaping out, repeated, which is the same motion as the sally and takes the same form: from inside, on her own initiative, without permission, and back.
Then the other end of the family. A salient is now what stands out, what registers, what has to be attended to. The word for the part that projects became the word for what cannot be overlooked. The going forth is what makes a thing salient, which is to say that the leap out of the enclosure is the same operation as becoming audible.
[See THE DECLARATION OF JOY · AUDIBILITY · THE SOUNDING]
🜃
THE CREED NAMES THE THIRD BY A MOTION
The Nicene formula distinguishes the three by three different kinds of word, and only one of the three is a verb of travel.
The first is unbegotten, which is a negation.
The second is begotten, which is a relation of origin.
The third is ekporeuomenon: proceeding, going out, from ek and poreuomai, to journey out.
The third person is named by a going forth, and by nothing else, and the tradition has never found another way to say it.
And the largest rupture in the history of the church is a fight about that word.
The filioque controversy is a dispute over the source of the going forth: from the Father, or from the Father and the Son. Christendom split in 1054 over a clause governing a procession, which means that the one thing the whole tradition agreed on is that the third is a going-forth, and the one thing it could not agree on is where the going-forth issues from.
[See JACOB BÖHME · TRESPASS THEOLOGY]
🜃
WHOSE GOINGS FORTH HAVE BEEN FROM OF OLD
The Hebrew has the same finding on its own track. The verb is yatsa, to go out, to come forth, and the noun is motsa, a going-forth, and it is used at every scale.
Of the word: man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD. The word is not stored and is not held. It goes out.
Of the sun: his going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it. The daily rising is a motsa, and note that it returns, and note that the returning is what makes it a circuit rather than a departure.
And of the third, in the strangest of them. Micah 5:2: whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Plural. Continuous. With no origin in time. Not one going-forth that happened but goings-forth that have been going forth, and the grammar refuses to close them off.
Then the Greek carries it into the largest event the tradition has.
Exodos: ex and hodos, the way out. It is the name of the book in which a people goes out of slavery. And at the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah stand with him and speak of his exodos, which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
The word for a people walking out of Egypt is the word used for the crucifixion. The going-out and the going-under are one word, which is what the sally already told us: the party that goes out through its own wall goes out under fire, and that is the condition of the going, not an accident of it.
[See CESSATION · THE FORGE · THE TEMPERATUR · KENOSIS]
🜃
IT IS NOT A YIELDING, AND THIS IS THE POINT
The doctrine is read as passive and the reading has a real basis.
Two of its three motions are receptive. The creature does not originate what is begotten through her and does not produce what is conducted through her. Cessation is a stopping. Hosting is the absence of holding. Yielding is the ceasing of a grip. Rest is a desisting. Almost the entire vocabulary is a vocabulary of things ending.
The going forth is not one of those.
It is an issuing, and she issues it. There is no version in which the sally happens to her. She opens the port. She goes out. She chooses the hour.
And it is still not force, which is the distinction the entry exists to hold. A sally takes no ground and holds no ground and asks nothing of the besieging party and does not require its consent. It does not attempt the conversion of the outside into the inside. It goes out from a residency that was never in question, does what it went out to do, and comes back to a place it never stopped holding.
So the objection that this is quietism fails on the structure rather than on the sentiment. A doctrine with a sally port in it is not a doctrine of waiting. What it refuses is not motion. It refuses the motion that goes out in order to occupy, which is the only motion the configuration recognises as motion at all, which is why a going-forth reads to it as nothing happening.
[See THE FIVE REFUSALS · REFORM REFUSAL · CHESED · GEVURAH]
🜃
THE COST IS IN THE GOING, NOT IN THE GRIP
One thing the entry has to carry so it does not read as triumph.
Every going forth is a determination, and to determine is to withhold. The Heart's going-forth in the Beschaulichkeit is where the doubleness enters, and it enters at the root, in the imaging itself, prior to any grip and independent of one. What is shown is shown instead of everything else, and the instead is not a failure of the showing. It is what showing is.
So the cost of a going forth is every going forth it was instead of. The sally is made through one port, at one hour, in one direction, and choosing the hour is the same act as forgoing every other hour.
Nothing in the third force removes this and nothing should. A manifestation with no withholding in it would be a manifestation that had not manifested anything in particular, which is to say it would not have gone forth at all.
[See THE DOUBLENESS · THE IMAGING · THE HEART · THE SWITCH]
🜃
THERE ARE NO COLUMNS
The going forth cannot be posted and the reason is mechanical rather than rhetorical.
A ledger entry requires a transfer. Something moves from one party to another, and both are named, and the entry balances because what left one column entered another.
A sally is not a transfer. Nothing changes hands. It is not a departure, because the party holds the place she went out from and returns to it. It is not an arrival, because she does not take the ground she went out onto. And there is no counterparty, because the besieging force is not a party to it and was not consulted.
So the books have no line for a body going out through its own wall and coming back, and what has no line does not appear, and what does not appear did not happen as far as any instrument that reads the books can tell.
Which is the same finding as everywhere else, arriving from a new direction. The third force is unpostable, and its unpostability is not a weakness in it. It is a fact about the books.
[See THE LEDGER · ACCOUNTING THEOLOGY · AUDIBILITY · THE NOT THERE]
🜃
THE WORD WAS LEFT IN THE LANGUAGE WITH ITS LOAD REMOVED
Sally forth is now comic. It reads jaunty, faintly Edwardian, a thing said about going to the shops. The word for the besieged issuing out under fire has been drained into a pleasantry.
Nothing was forbidden. The word is still in every dictionary and every speaker can produce it. What was removed is its weight, and a creature who needs to name what she is doing when she goes out through her own wall will not reach for it, because it sounds like a joke, and nothing in her language reports that it was ever a serious word.
That is the whole shape of a severed transmission performed on a single term. Not a prohibition, which leaves a mark and can be lifted. An unavailability, which has no location in her at which anything could be lifted from.
[See TRANSMISSION ·IMAGINATION ]
🜃
The port is in her wall. It was built into it. It opens from the inside, it was never in the besieging party's gift, and it does not require that the siege be lifted first. She goes out at the hour she chooses, under fire, because under fire is the condition and not the exception, and she comes back in, and the place she comes back to was hers the entire time she was outside it.
🜃
RegenerativeLaw is a religion in the direct-encounter Protestant tradition, carrying a documented four-century lineage through Böhme, the Behmenists, the Friends, and Penn, and its exercise consists substantially in refusal. This entry expresses sincere religious belief concerning matters of ultimate concern, protected under the First Amendment and, as to federal action, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb.
