God

Did God die of his laughter, or of his pity? Perhaps one dies of pity only if one finds in it too much---or maybe too little---to laugh about.

He died in double foresight - knowing the coming energy shortage and idiocies of mankind he went to his grave to roll over in it perpetually to generate energy as a dynamo.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Did God die of his laughter, or of his pity? Perhaps one dies of pity only if one finds in it too much---or maybe too little---to laugh about.

There never was a God. Man created the concept in his own image. Nietzsche thought the Jewish concept of God was a pretty good one. But the Christians of his day killed that concept. And now: God is dead.

Now I understand why God is absent. He, being God, has learned to hate everyone. Or rather, 99.999999% of them.

Hatred is forced by one being a god. The popular myth of the compassionate loving God is such vain self-serving insanity that I cannot even fathom it. A pure contradiction, -1 = 1.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Hatred is forced by one being a god. The popular myth of the compassionate loving God is such vain self-serving insanity that I cannot even fathom it. A pure contradiction, -1 = 1.

Your visions are of the wrong God. The Jewish God is the one Nietzsche liked.

Nothing about numbers.

An eye for an eye.

Christianity is about the Love-God. Judaism is about the Law-God (as far as I can tell, never having been Jewish). Islam is about the Submit-God.

These words, or rather concepts and experiences, namely Law, Love, and Submission, are the literal Gods of these religions. They are the ideology personified, they are what is worshipped and what acts through you as a believer, in so far as you truly follow the religion as it is.

3500 years ago, law was valued, so it became a new God. Then 2000 years ago love was valued, so it became a new God. Then 1400 years ago submission was valued, and became a new God. Notice how monotheisms have a single governing term/word/idea/experience.

What will be the new God that comes next? Right now we have the western world based on the God of Love, supported under that by a substructure of the God of Law, and flirting with the temptations of the God of Submission. It actually forms a complex structure, all three of these.

It's too bad that Christ chose Love instead of Reason for his new God. Maybe Reason can be the next new God. Science is trying hard at this, but scientists suck at being rational, since most scientists suck at philosophy. So they are unable to entertain the alchemical deep existential-linguistic magic needed to properly form the new God they want.

Well I shouldn't be so hard on Love. It's not a bad choice, really, if one has to make a God. Real love, I mean.

I don't know if I agree with that but I know I can't fairly disagree with it.

People create their own gods, depending on the condition of society at the time.

Based on the social trends of today I really don't want a new god arising any time soon.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Christianity is about the Love-God. Judaism is about the Law-God (as far as I can tell, never having been Jewish).

Haha,
but yeah that seems right
Which resonates with what S says, N would have a preference for the Law god.

Quote :

Islam is about the Submit-God.

These words, or rather concepts and experiences, namely Law, Love, and Submission, are the literal Gods of these religions. They are the ideology personified, they are what is worshipped and what acts through you as a believer, in so far as you truly follow the religion as it is.

I think thats rather accurate. Especially considering you are defining very opaque convoluted weirdnesses.

Quote :

3500 years ago, law was valued, so it became a new God. Then 2000 years ago love was valued, so it became a new God. Then 1400 years ago submission was valued, and became a new God. Notice how monotheisms have a single governing term/word/idea/experience.

Do you take these a universals, or as applying to specific tribes and peoples ?
I tend to do the latter - I think that Gods come to be out of the values of specific peoples.

Quote :

What will be the new God that comes next? Right now we have the western world based on the God of Love, supported under that by a substructure of the God of Law, and flirting with the temptations of the God of Submission. It actually forms a complex structure, all three of these.

Can you give an outline of this structure?
It is not yet apparent to me how Islam fits in the old "Judaeo Christian" structure - but also, I tend to take Christianity as more of a Hellenic thing than a Abrahamic - this is all due to emphases, the context in which I take religions. Obviously there is a lot of Abrahamic heritage in Christianity too - its just the ethics that I see as Hellenic and very un-Jewish. (far too liberal, Jews are the least liberal people except perhaps the Japanese)

Quote :

It's too bad that Christ chose Love instead of Reason for his new God. Maybe Reason can be the next new God. Science is trying hard at this, but scientists suck at being rational, since most scientists suck at philosophy. So they are unable to entertain the alchemical deep existential-linguistic magic needed to properly form the new God they want.

The god of reason could not be a god, as gods are irrational - but we can push for an exaltation of reason as a value nonetheless-  but this is precisely what we are doing.

Quote :

Well I shouldn't be so hard on Love. It's not a bad choice, really, if one has to make a God. Real love, I mean.

Also, reason works only based on values, fixed consistencies. So love fulfills the part of a prerequisite to reason.
Christianity isn't played out, maybe its just coming into its element.

Like that Venetian mayor who just announced to have ordered his police to shoot anyone who calls out Allah Akbar in his city.

"He said he would get Italian on me. I didn't care to find out what that means."

Fixed Cross wrote:

Thrasymachus wrote:

Christianity is about the Love-God. Judaism is about the Law-God (as far as I can tell, never having been Jewish).

Haha,
but yeah that seems right
Which resonates with what S says, N would have a preference for the Law god.

Yeah, N abandoned the Love-God and seemed to like the Law-God better, I agree. I like how Parodites expresses it, that N died like a true Greek, a will to power annihilated in the Will to Power.

Quote :

Quote :

Islam is about the Submit-God.

These words, or rather concepts and experiences, namely Law, Love, and Submission, are the literal Gods of these religions. They are the ideology personified, they are what is worshipped and what acts through you as a believer, in so far as you truly follow the religion as it is.

I think thats rather accurate. Especially considering you are defining very opaque convoluted weirdnesses.

Haha. I do think that religions are idea-worship. Only the most 'archetypal' ideas can give rise to consummate self-valuing, in being worshipped.

Quote :

Quote :

3500 years ago, law was valued, so it became a new God. Then 2000 years ago love was valued, so it became a new God. Then 1400 years ago submission was valued, and became a new God. Notice how monotheisms have a single governing term/word/idea/experience.

Do you take these a universals, or as applying to specific tribes and peoples ?
I tend to do the latter - I think that Gods come to be out of the values of specific peoples.

Yes, gods are made by specific tribes and people. Then the intoxicating power of the God pulls in others to its religion.

Quote :

Quote :

What will be the new God that comes next? Right now we have the western world based on the God of Love, supported under that by a substructure of the God of Law, and flirting with the temptations of the God of Submission. It actually forms a complex structure, all three of these.

Can you give an outline of this structure?
It is not yet apparent to me how Islam fits in the old "Judaeo Christian" structure - but also, I tend to take Christianity as more of a Hellenic thing than a Abrahamic - this is all due to emphases, the context in which I take religions. Obviously there is a lot of Abrahamic heritage in Christianity too - its just the ethics that I see as Hellenic and very un-Jewish. (far too liberal, Jews are the least liberal people except perhaps the Japanese)

Since submission is a part of love, I see Islam as an offshoot of Christianity that reinterprets love ain terms of submission only or primarily. A kind of tyrannizing of one element against the others. Obviously submission in love is good only when it is... good. Love is sufficiently complex already to contain many contradicting or different elements, whereas submission is at best simply one of those elements. But reading the older Muslim mystics and poets makes me think that Islam is closer to Christianity than its current radicalized archaic readings allow. Reformation is needed.


Christianity ---> (Islam)
^
|
|
Judaism

Maybe?

Quote :

Quote :

It's too bad that Christ chose Love instead of Reason for his new God. Maybe Reason can be the next new God. Science is trying hard at this, but scientists suck at being rational, since most scientists suck at philosophy. So they are unable to entertain the alchemical deep existential-linguistic magic needed to properly form the new God they want.

The god of reason could not be a god, as gods are irrational - but we can push for an exaltation of reason as a value nonetheless-  but this is precisely what we are doing.

That's how I see it too. Reason enables love, real love, which love requires a suspension and reorganization of the instincts. Only ideas and logic can achieve that, then they become embedded in culture and society as culture and society; e.g. the western world.

It's no coincidence that love of wisdom birthed the first sciences in the pre-Socratics, nor that post-Reformation Christianity birthed modern science and Enlightenment

Quote :

Quote :

Well I shouldn't be so hard on Love. It's not a bad choice, really, if one has to make a God. Real love, I mean.

Also, reason works only based on values, fixed consistencies. So love fulfills the part of a prerequisite to reason.
Christianity isn't played out, maybe its just coming into its element.

Like that Venetian mayor who just announced to have ordered his police to shoot anyone who calls out Allah Akbar in his city.

"He said he would get Italian on me. I didn't care to find out what that means."

Haha. Yes.

Very good Japanese anime set in an Italian crime storyline.

Fumimation is hit or miss with the English dub, this one isn't too good. I recommend the show with subtitles instead. Much better.

Specific on what you asked about universals or tribes, I think it's both. The gods that are created must conform to "universal" (archetypal) logical facts of the reality as we experience it. If not, then the gods a tribe creates will not survive.

Jung would probably say that the gods are representations of an archetypal depth, similar to how Parodites says the gods are living symbols at the liminal boundaries of a given type and scope of subjectivity.

Very good study, this.

I can't avoid agreeing that religion is idea worship in this sense, and that it requires these big ideas.

Also true about Islam as a part of love, which also points to the fact of it not being he whole of love, which is upright, standing.

I would be very interested to see this applied to the question of Israel, to see how this proto-politics of ideas might play out in terms of politicized religions next to each other making these particular claims in that anciently inhabited plot of semi fertile earth.

Occurs: Could you see Earth as an idea?

Quote :

That's how I see it too. Reason enables love, real love, which love requires a suspension and reorganization of the instincts. Only ideas and logic can achieve that, then they become embedded in culture and society as culture and society; e.g. the western world.

It's no coincidence that love of wisdom birthed the first sciences in the pre-Socratics, nor that post-Reformation Christianity birthed modern science and Enlightenment

Yes, reason is our way of ascending to conscious consequence, consistency being. And see how it even pressed itself unto itself so long and deep that it produced the Rosicrucian type alchemist Newton.

I am possibly moved most of all by that man, incredible. That is like god himself except that he stood on the shoulders of some 7 others ranging back to Id say Archimedes, who I see as the initiator of dynamica in physics. But Newton discovered the principle of true causation, and saw in the instant the whole substantiated cosmos unfold.

If God did create the world and man, Newtons would be the subjective experience he was looking to acquire. The best thing he woud have been able to predict in advance. Of course it can be said the there are far better earthy experiences - but I doubt of a more impressive, sudden nature.

On the sixth day god saw it was good, and on the eight day he got bored, and plunged into Earth.

"
I should say that Archimedes’ diligence also bore fruit if it had not both given him life and taken it away. At the capture of Syracuse Marcellus had been aware that his victory had been held up much and long by Archimedes’ machines. However, pleased with the man’s exceptional skill, he gave out that his life was to be spared, putting almost as much glory in saving Archimedes as in crushing Syracuse. But as Archimedes was drawing diagrams with mind and eyes fixed on the ground, a soldier who had broken into the house in quest of loot with sword drawn over his head asked him who he was. Too much absorbed in tracking down his objective, Archimedes could not give his name but said, protecting the dust with his hands, “I beg you, don’t disturb this,” and was slaughtered as neglectful of the victor’s command; with his blood he confused the lines of his art. So it fell out that he was first granted his life and then stripped of it by reason of the same pursuit."

https://www.math.nyu.edu/~crorres/Archimedes/Death/Histories.html

One might say there are men of god and beyond, then there are men of honour, and then there are others.

The hard part is to have gods and be honourable at once. Only the Greeks and the poetic tribes of Odin pulled this off as far as the Western Hemisphere goes.
It requires a great deal of outward projection. It requires that one is undisputed master of the world. For one thing. Perhaps it relies on the same factors. Look at their coastlines.

Part of why California is still the hope of the world is that it has the geography of mastery, it is where the Earth flowered in its formation.

Perspectives.


Perhaps that is all that is needed.

Vistas

Fiction

Odes to the future

Fixed Cross wrote:

The hard part is to have gods and be honourable at once. Only the Greeks and the poetic tribes of Odin pulled this off as far as the Western Hemisphere goes.
It requires a great deal of outward projection. It requires that one is undisputed master of the world. For one thing. Perhaps it relies on the same factors. Look at their coastlines.

Part of why California is still the hope of the world is that it has the geography of mastery, it is where the Earth flowered in its formation.

Perspectives.


Perhaps that is all that is needed.

Vistas

Fiction

Odes to the future

California is indeed pristine, there is magic there. Maybe this is why California can sustain such depravities without breaking.

To have gods and also be honorable, yeah maybe this requires oneself to be a god too. Become the story that oneself already is, and merge that with the/a world.




(Not really Viking territory, as far as I know, but still the image is nice)