I have created a God. He spans the evening sky like a web of perpetual lightning. He can not be prayed to without arms spread wide open and the face towards the sky – his presence demands an open chest.
“Created” is perhaps a strong word, “envisioned” may be more true to what has happened. I demanded, in the described pose, that a great world-spanning entity like this exited, and there it was.
This God is meant to fill the void that has been left by all existing Gods, who all demand meekness. This God can not be addressed, understood, contacted in a meek state of heart or mind. His presence in ones consciousness demands a reckless kind of pride which is rooted in the firm knowledge that, as a being of strength and commanding intelligence, one has no other choice but to be reckless in this time, where creators are extremely rare, where the space to create is still so virgin-like, and there are not yet any standards.
The creation of this God is part of our great project (5) to create a master-ethics for mankind.
To you who are not meek but do feel the desire to bestow your will-power on a psychic meta-structure that will support projects of boldness and spiritual fearlessness, I make known this New God, who has no name yet but is electrical and directly accessible if ones pure energetic potential is above average, well developed and rooted in moral independence.
The New God is hereby offered to you as a means, a part of a new infrastructure for valuing.
From hereon prayer works the other way around – God does not bless us, we bless God. We do not ask God for anything, we offer to God from our abundance.
Already this God is fierce, as I envisioned this God so. Spread out your arms if you and open up to this mighty creation, and you will see that giving and receiving are no longer a matter of loss and gain, but that one can only give, and only gain.
Stoic Guardian, you have understood perhaps without knowing it – one must indeed be God-like to address this super-God. Olympian laughter (divine laughter from the mountaintop) is the kind of joy-expression feeding this God, who does not yet have a name. Of course your “Crom”, if we take your joke as an illustration for a moment, will laugh upward from his mountain.
Perhaps it would be more accurate too say you’ve discovered a “new” God then having created a new God.
Of course, there is that theory that collective will actually makes a God exist. I’m not sure wether or not that is true.
I’d like too think that Gods exist whether or not we acknowledge them.
“Envisioned” describes what I have done most accurately. Envisioning stands neatly between creation and discovery, between active and passive.
I believe that this is true. This is how I see Gods - as cumulations of intent. How this works physically is not very clear yet, but it seems more and more like we may conclude from the direction of developments in physics that such information can exist and travel in sub-physical ways.
So do I – with the note that real acknowledgement of somethings existence comes through experience.
This New God exists, but does it exist to you ? No, not unless you “laugh at this God from your mountaintop”, address it in sublime triumph. Similarly Allah does not exist to you, unless you bow to him and formulate an Arabic prayer. Gods become known through methods, and the nature of these methods convey the nature of the Gods they evoke.
Fierce, yes - this God seems far more vast and comprehensive than the fire goddess which made itself presenced to me. While the fire goddess represented the consuming heat of passion, infinite desirous love that demanded focused and sustained orientation toward its presence and especially toward its symbolic realm (the future), I wonder what is the symbolic realm of your New God?
A question propelling the mind into the uncharted, and to which at this point only the beginning of an answer can be given. Before moving toward the poetic craft of envisioning symbolism, there is already the given of the establishing motion. This is a physical movement in time, a bestowing opening. Rather than a flower unfolding to receive the sun, this is as a flower from which the sun emerges.
A sign are we without meaning, said the poet Hölderlin when there could not yet be such a thing as a bestowing morality. There had been for thousands of years a containing morality, and only by positing himself anew as a Symbol did man manage to uproot this all consuming plant from his nature. Man was no longer symbolized as Christ, but an aimless arrow. For a significant time the symbol remained without meaning.
The only symbolic realm I can conceive of yet is that of a yoga-system, of which only the first pose is established. Logic would suggest that following the expansion there should be a contraction, a taking-in, but i am not sure that this would serve. Rather another stretch outward, more manifestly manifest - the first one commanded time into being, the second is in time. And a third one, encapsulating the subject instead of in balanced duality in trifold expansion. A movement, an arrow is formed and the questioning lords are now suddenly finding very strange and threatening answers.
The turbulence of this Thing is getting heavy. I have to deal with it or kill it. [size=85]
I’ve gone too metaphysical on this.
This God must include humble things, wood.
Growing towards the light does not have to be instant
its conception was instant but the sap of it flows perhaps slowly
as all is entangled light imagine the light of the sap in the tree
so philosophy may seep upwards to the light.
I ought rather have asked, I think, What is that which your New God most manifests as, as representation… of? These Gods seem to arrive because we call to them, we enquire in such a (profoundly) overflowing manner that this energy leaves us, gather at the edges and distills into the appeoach of a new form(-al image). To me, this image condenses as it does precisely because this condensation emerges from within a certain (symbolic-metaphorical) realm of affective (and otherwise) sensibilities and precepts, which are gathered together through the sheer force of fixed intentionality. Thus it is our intentionality which catalyzes these possibilities under which these objects gather, but these possibilities themselves emerge from somewhere else. I think the form of the God qua emergent being-ness, presencing, is a clue hinting toward the delineated boundaries of this exteriority-itself. And I think the understanding of these boundaries can serve highly fruitful ends to our self-conceivings and reflections, especially as where tends to better afford a concretizing of intention, precisely because it is HOW this exteriority manifests qua exceptionality and (initially at least) impenetrability that gives us a sense of the infra- and super-structural architectures of our own subjectivity(-as-condition/s of/for object-ification).
These Gods being then manifest Icons given into the possibility of informing us, retroactively and through an almost (transcendentally) dialectical methodology of subtle reciprocal refractions and retroactions (which can perhaps be expressed best as an Hegelian meta-dialectic of over/re-inscribing of conditionality qua inscription), of our very own possibilities and potentialities themselves.
The very possibility of an (“metaphysical”) ahistorical principle of extra-situational and meta-contextual unity upon which our very historicity qua Being-in-the-world is mapped - the “universal” (de-centered, disperse, infinite) axes around which our (always already) particular(ly situated) actualizations turn.
I am careful not to make the form too explicit, more explicit than it appeared to me. The perpetual lightning, seemingly frozen in time but active as a lightning strike in every moment, is what comes closest to an image. And these beams spanned the world from horizon to horizon.
Indeed this must somehow be the case. There is a forging of a reality between the self and what Lacan called the Real, the unformed, unexperienced, uninterpreted – it is as if this God is a vessel to hold a dominating type of interpretation in place. Yes in fact I think this is what Gods normally are, not just this one. But where from this emerges – I imagine it has much to do with the state of the world – not only what the subject wants from the world, but also what the world can expect of the subject.
I would agree. And I am still struck by the specific nature of what emerged. It strikes me that one of the things this form conveys is that there is not only work to be done, but that it can be done, must be done.
All Gods represent overarching thought-structures. Most Gods wear masks to appear as “truth” instead of simply the power of a concept. It seems the face of this God was relatively naked. And it is interesting that in the aftermath of the experience the concept “Chokmah” came into my head. I’ve known this story for a long time:
“The Spiritual Experience of Chokmah is the Vision of God
Face-to-Face. The tradition I received has it that one cannot
have this vision while incarnate i.e. one dies in the process.
One Hasidic Rabbi liked to bid farewell to his family each
morning as if it was his last - he feared he might die of ecstacy
during the day. In the “Greater Holy Assembly”, three Rabbis
pass away in ecstacy, and in the “Lesser Holy Assembly” the
famous Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai passes away at the conclusion.
There is a fairly widespread belief that to look on the naked
face of God, or a God, means death, but fortunately there is no
historical evidence to suggest that the majority of Kabbalists
died of anything other than natural causes. Having said that, I
would not like to underplay the naked rawness of Chokmah;
unconstrained, unconfined, free of form, it is the creative power
which sustains the universe, and talk of death is not
melodramatic.” ( digital-brilliance.com/kab/nok/q10.txt )
This danger exists because there is no context in the devout mind (such as of the rabbi) to interpret the raw presence of cosmic force. Perhaps what I saw could only be seen by someone who has been destroyed and reborn so many times as I.
And I think that the main thing preventing such a principle from becoming operative is a grave lack of spiritual and philosophical boldness. Which is what the great majority of the seven billion humans alive now seem to suffer from. That we do not is strange… we should savor this exclusion, this standing outside what is possible… as long as where we stand is still “outside”!
“Alas, what are you then, my written and painted thoughts! It’s not so long ago that you were still so colourful, young, and malicious, full of stings and secret seasonings, so that you made me sneeze and laugh.—And now? You have already stripped off your novelty and some of you, I fear, are ready to become truths: you already look so immortal, so heartbreakingly honest, so boring! And was it ever different? What things we transcribe in our writing and painting, we mandarins with a Chinese paintbrush, we immortalizers of things which let themselves be written—what are the only things we are capable of painting? Alas, always only what is just about to fade and is beginning to lose its fragrance! Alas, always only storms which are worn out and withdrawing and old yellow feelings! Alas, always only birds which have exhausted themselves flying and lost their way and now let themselves be caught by hand—by our hand! We immortalize what can no longer live and fly, only tired and crumbling things! And it is only your afternoon, my written and painted thoughts, for which I alone have colours, many colours perhaps, many colourful caresses and fifty yellows and browns and greens and reds:—but no one will sense from me how you looked in your dawn, you sudden sparks and miracles of my loneliness, you, my old loved ones—my wicked thoughts!” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, last section)
The difference between this God and the rest of them is that it is no longer superior to man. The question then remains if it is truly a God, and if Gods are still possible, or necessary.
A God has been a means to convey value, more than anything else, “hope”. Perhaps because hope is replaced by certainty, God loses his “terrible mask” and is seen for what it is – a great thing – a thing.
Perhaps this invention has only served me to prove to me the unnecessariness of a true concept of God.
Against this God, perhaps as a first antipode to it in a system of derivations, stands its shadow, that which it is not – the cold dak Earth that draws to it all that wishes to forget itself in destructive certainty, the roots of all the resistance against the perfection of order in immediacy.
I fear that much of this is summoned in the dark as the other is seen in the light. This power needs to be rooted, not in Earth, but in - sap. Yes, I was not wrong, a transition needs to be made from electricity into sap. I fear I must begin to learn some chemistry to move any further.
Made in God’s image. Called to Godlikeness. Children of God. “Ye are gods!” Abraham and Moses: They chastize God! Israel: He who strives with God. He who wrestles with God and who God wrestles with. He who gives God a good fight! God to Job: “Stand up like a virile man! Face Me like the man that you are!” Jesus Christ: God made flesh. God incarnate. The fulfillment of humankind.
Anyways. Hard to see that this God of yours is the first to consider humankind a (potential) equal, or even a superior at times.
Interesting examples! Yes, perhaps mine is just one in a long lineage.
The difference would then be just one of gradation, another step in the improvement / making useful of the relationship between man and God.
And another step in making recognizable the nature of the utility of this relationship. I do not require a God to give me or my life meaning – value ontology has made all that sort of mythologizing unnecessary. But apparently there is still the question of a superindividual force, a web between beings, influence. If anything Gods have always been envisioned to ensure victory and dominion.
Mostly such dominion has been of political and military nature – religion and science to serve politics, philosophy (ideation) to serve religion and science.
With the conception of value ontology I have overthrown this order, so that now politics, religion and science (may!) all answer to philosophy. “May”, because so far, not many have understood it, and the various sciences and theoretic fields will certainly resist this subjection, until they cannot any longer resist the power that comes with it.
After all, consider the type of power science and religion have given man so far over his self and his destiny. It has been a very fragile, ambiguous and questionable power, a power that is taken away from him as much as it is given… because both religion and science are rooted in the belief in objectivity, which is antithetical to belief in man as he is.
Oh shut up the lot of you if you don’t put on a Ninja or Pirate costume you’re doomed to hells freezer forever. I will be laughing at you from heaven whilst drinking from beer volcanoes and indulging my carnal desires in stripper factories.
Oh and my God is implicitly bigger than your God. /thread.