the birth of ‘God’

(this entry is very experimental and free flowing)

what is that which we hold sacred above all, that which we are called by ‘God’ him-self, to nurture, honor and protect at all costs? is it not life?.. yes, it is sin!

indeed, what is life other than the self-sustaining self-sustained? that which is not-death? indeed life is not that which ends, but that which self-perpetuates. to be life, it cannot be death. to be life, it must persist…it must be or be becoming. and what is being, other than a being self-interested? there is no perpetuation without an a priori self-preservation, a self-interest. there is life or there is death. the denial of death, this is life. the denial of death, this is the life that is dead.. is the life that self-sustains, that seeks its self-perpetuation..to the demise and marginalization of death. where there is life there cannot be death. the life that lives on to conquer death. there is life or there is death…

the very essence of life as lived phenomenon is that which the christian ‘God’ repudiates- self-interest, that which is contrary to ‘God’s’ will. assuming ‘God’ has something such as a ‘will’. but apparently the christian ‘God’ does so we’ll stick with that assumption. ‘life’ as christians understand it, is sin. for what is more contrary to ‘God’ than that which is most innate in all humans- the will to live? the will to self-representation, to self-sustain, to live in self-subsistence, self-sublimation? self-interest, the will-to-self utterly in contra-diction to ‘God’s’ ‘will’! and yet this is life a la mode! sin, how sweet it is. yes..we mean life, how sweet it is! the life of man! sin a la mode.

whence the paradox. existence is sin. to exist, to be, is to be in ‘sin’ since to exist is to live and to live is to self-persist, to be self-interested. (remember we’re operating off of the typical christian notion of ‘sin’, assuming things like a knowable ‘God’, and that this perceived divinity has an anthropomorphic ‘will’ anything remotely similar to our own, etc) existence is sin. to be created is to exist is to be in sin. creation is sin. creation from nothing is the creation of something, that something which is life, which is sin. this is the reasoning that is lost to christian assumptions…a theo-logic that creates for itself the problem of ‘evil’..of sin, of the problem of existence. you see what’s happening here? such a ‘problem of evil’ only exists if the christian ‘God’ does, or if this ‘God’ creates. for creation is sin.

we can toss the typical interpretations of the eden myth in regards to ‘sin’ right out the window along with the phallogocentric assumptions that fuel such readings. the garden could not exist without ‘sin’. without struggle. flux. tension. madness. death. if christians want to preserve their notions of a ‘holy’ ‘God’, they’ll have to confront the very question of sexual difference- why was an other created? sin occurred way before eve ever bit into that apple, it existed before she was ever ‘created’. or…sin came into existence once eve was created…but isn’t this the phallogocentric reading par excellence? but of course, this is the phallic God! the ‘God’ of the christians! who ‘created’ adam first! for prior to eve, the ‘world’, the garden was a phallocentric paradise where as far as adam’s gaze could see, creation was one. and then came the Other, with ‘nothing’ to see. the creation story is the story of the creation of sin. i will suspend any further thoughts concerning the creation story for now. but the christian niaiserie continues…

for did we not posit this’God’? is not ‘sin’, existence, this will-to-life, this will-to-self, is it not the self-same will-of-‘God’? for is not ‘God’s’ will, a will of self-interest? you see the problem we run ourselves into when we attempt in any way whatsoever to describe [G_D] in human language, by analogy and by recourse to reason? but of course, we made ‘God’ in our image! in the image of the christian! who is a man! the ‘God’ that is the pro-jection of the super-ego. an extension of the phallic order. what sado-masochism, what ‘castration anxiety’ in man compels him to posit that which in turn negates what he cherishes most- his own life, his own member-ship? what causes man to create a ‘God’ that nihilates his own existence? it is existence…with woman.

so convoluted and twisted is this heir, this progeny, of an ontological oedipus complex; the super-ego that posits ‘structures’ and ‘laws’- religion, morality, war- to re-enforce the self, the phallus…in terror, in re-action, in re-aggression towards the possible loss of self-certainty, of castration…at the sight of ‘nothing’, at the sight of the vaginal opening, at the sight of this…woman. 

under threat of castration, the threat of [nothingness], the ego promoted to the super-ego. it leaves behind its cathexis towards the anatomical phallus itself and moves onto a masturbatory grip of the idea of the phallus. forget the self, it is too vulnerable, to exposed to otherness, so let’s enshrine the idea of the self, close it off to any threat of castration, close if off from otherness by the ‘erection’ of architecture and structure! and so the self-constructions of religion and morality are born, (re)presentations of self-idealism. born, but how? product of what? of rape. man cannot procreate by his-self. indeed man requires a womb. self-idealism born of a second womb, the ideal womb, the one that man fixes in being within his phallogocentric economy to inseminate.. in repetition. such is nihilism. the abortion of woman. of difference. of otherness. for the birth of ‘God’.

the problem of evil is the problem of existence is the problem of being is the problem of self-interest is the problem of phallocentricity. what is the response to such interminable problems?

the question now surfaces- is a definitive castration possible? is an end to such narcissistic phallic dessemination  possible? would it not mark the end of existence (as we ‘know’ it historically)? the end of life, the end of..’sin’? indeed the end of a christian existence. castration would mean..the death of ‘God’! but of course nietzsche already proclaimed the victory over ‘God’, but he also admitted that even after its death, that this ‘God’ would cast a long shadow. what would remain after the death of ‘God’, after the end of ‘christian’ existence? [nothing]. there is life and there is death. there is sin or there is [nothing]. and yet, eden was but a shadow of an echo in the thought of a memory of a time in its twilight. we have been expelled from that ‘garden’ have we not? expelled by whom, by what? by the myth man creates to aid and abet his phallogocentric order. ‘christianity’.  is castration possible? de-nucleation that would lead to denuclearization? would this not amount to madness? hysteria? of course- for the christian. that man of reason, that crucifier of christ, the madman par excellence. to return to death, to return to the womb is impossible given that life, as-we-know-it-to-be-phallogocentric, expels all otherness, aborts all creation. against the horror of [nothing], man gave birth to ‘God’, an unnatural birth- indeed a rape of nature- an ideal birth. nietzche thought this ‘God’ had died, but it is stubborn. for it did not come to birth via natural means and it will not die by natural means. it was born of reason, of phallogocentricity, and so it cannot die by reason, by structures, by systems, by any logos driven intentionality. only faith can kill this ‘God’. nietzche slayed him once before, but just as death and being re-born is not a one and done phenomenon, neither is deicide. it requires repetition. it requires faith, hysteria, and the discovery of peripheral pathways that lead to as yet unknown ways of being affected.

no comments
Add a comment...

Your email is never published or shared.