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.
- 2 -
On the question of symbolism:
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.
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 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.
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.
- 3 -
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.
- 4 -
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.
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "