Formula for Atheism: God is Unconscious

Q&A and discussion on yoga and other avenues of mysticism

Moderator: Moderators - Public

Formula for Atheism: God is Unconscious

Postby LD330 » Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:17 pm

Possible Pathways

Any act whatsoever can be done in the name of God. One can sacrifice a lamb for God, one can kill a man for God, one can eat a potato chip (or a Eucharist) in the name of God, and one can pick their nose in the name of God.

Acts done in the name of God need not be in accordance with the moralia of the society. They are done only in the name of God.

Any act whatsoever can be justified in the name of God. One can give every rational reason not to do an act, but it is still possible to do that act in the name of God—or, to put another way, it is still possible to do that act because it can be done.

Nietzsche’s formula for his age was God is Dead. Acts don’t need to be performed in the name of God—we can perform these acts anyway. We don’t need to justify them theologically.

Lacan’s formula for Atheism is God is Unconscious. We have not only realized There Is No God, but we have inscribed it into our unconscious such that all our thoughts affirm that predicate. We are no longer just refusing to justify our actions through God, but we are unconsciously operating on the presumption that God Does Not Exist.

Difficult.

But are you truly an Atheist if your Unconscious still believes in God?

That’s a question for the philosophers.

Walk in Beauty, Walk in Light.
User avatar
LD330
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: Formula for Atheism: God is Unconscious

Postby seekinghga » Thu Apr 12, 2018 12:37 pm

Can you please define "unconsciousness" as it is used within the context of this thread? Thanks.
"And they that read the book and debated thereon passed into the desolate land of Barren Words. And they that sealed up the book into their blood were the chosen of Adonai, and the Thought of Adonai was a Word and a Deed; and they abode in the Land that the far-off travellers call Naught."
- LXV 5:59
seekinghga
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:30 pm
Location: York, PA

Re: Formula for Atheism: God is Unconscious

Postby LD330 » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:14 am

Sure, Lacan is a Freudian so he means it in the Freudian sense, insofar as he wrote the formula.

As far as my interpretation I mean that which we don't see, but which is behind our frameworks of reality. This is a vague concept-- but I mean repetition or the tendencies.

Related to this affect is Antonin Artaud's poem I Hate and Renounce as a Coward. There is only part of the poem online, but it's worth the price of the book alone: I Hate and Renounce as a Coward

"I hate and renounce as a coward every being who agrees not to have been self-created, and who consents to and recognizes the idea of a matrix nature as the world of his already created body.

I do not consent to not having created my body myself, and I hate and renounce as a coward every being who consents to live without first having recreated himself...

Get back down in your grave god you lowdown corpse."

If you have a different interpretation of the unconscious, or if you have your own ideas on this subject, I'd love to hear them.
User avatar
LD330
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:25 pm

Re: Formula for Atheism: God is Unconscious

Postby seekinghga » Sat Apr 14, 2018 2:10 am

LD330 wrote:but I mean repetition or the tendencies.

It sounds like what some Hindus and Buddhists call the "vasanas". These are the tendencies which are accrued through learned, repetitive behavior (or metempsychosis/prarabdha karma if you are so inclined) and are responsible for all modes of attachment, including desire, addictions, personality, etc. These are also what need to be curtailed, sutured and brought back to focus in order to experience samadhi. They are what "remains" of the Ego from the standpoint of being across the Abyss. As Nothing can cross that wasteland intact save for that which is One, the vasanas or tendencies provide the loose structure in which the Neschamah (I'll admit to a fondness for Crowley's preferred terms ;)) inhabits to interact with multiplicity. The Ego then not being any kind of truth is merely a codified Habit which nevertheless allows us to broach the gap of the planes as it were.

See: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14646&p=101953#p101359
"And they that read the book and debated thereon passed into the desolate land of Barren Words. And they that sealed up the book into their blood were the chosen of Adonai, and the Thought of Adonai was a Word and a Deed; and they abode in the Land that the far-off travellers call Naught."
- LXV 5:59
seekinghga
Stone of Precious Water
Stone of Precious Water
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:30 pm
Location: York, PA

Re: Formula for Atheism: God is Unconscious

Postby LD330 » Mon Apr 16, 2018 10:57 am

I'm familiar with the Buddhist Skandhas as articulated by Crowley somewhere in the Equinox, somewhere in the Temple of Solomon the King. Vasanas are new to me. I love seeing the interplay of the ideas of the old Indian Philosophers and the Westerners like Kant and Freud.

Lacan has another formula, if you want to call it that, that all communication and language implies a God. That is to say, if there is to be actual communication between separate entities, one has to believe that reality as it appears is something more than empty sensations. This is the projection of Idealism. That language is more than sounds and that someone else exists is a theological notion.

We can take this further: if we use the rational-theoretical-theological? notion of brain states, we could argue that our sensory impressions are communications with an "outside world." That our brain is communicating with outside reality through some medium. The key notion here is perception (one of the Skandhas) is communication. Rods and cones, sound waves, etc. imply a God.

--A God that can be destroyed.

CHAPTER 40 THE HIMOG
A red rose absorbs all colours but red; red is therefore the one colour that it is not.

This Law, Reason, Time, Space, all Limitation blinds us to Truth.

All that we know of Man, Nature, God, is just that which they are not; it is that which they throw off as repugnant.

The HIMOG is only visible in so far as He is imperfect.

Then are they all glorious who seem not to be glorious, as the HIMOG is All-glorious Within?

It may be so.

How then distinguish the inglorious and perfect HIMOG from the inglorious man of earth?

Distinguish not!

But thyself Ex-tinguish: HIMOG art thou, and HIMOG shalt thou be.


COMMENTARY (Μ)
Paragraph 1 is, of course, a well-known scientific fact.

In paragraph 2 it is suggested analogically that all thinkable things are similarly blinds for the Unthinkable Reality.

Classing in this manner all things as illusions, the question arises as to the distinguishing between illusions; how are we to tell whether a Holy Illuminated Man of God is really so, since we can see nothing of him but his imperfections. "It may be yonder beggar is a King."

But these considerations are not to trouble such mind as the Chela may possess; let him occupy himself, rather, with the task of getting rid of his personality; this, and not criticism of his holy Guru, should be the occupation of his days and nights.

NOTE

(19) HIMOG is a Notariqon of the words Holy Illuminated Man of God.


If our perceptions are filtered by our tendencies, and our tendencies are perceived, they are immediately imperfect. He could be projecting a higher ideal. If the HIMOG is visible, it's because the entire world is not lost in Divine Samadhi.
User avatar
LD330
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:25 pm


Return to Mysticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron