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.
"People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment."
User avatar
LD330
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 84
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: 389
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.
"People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment."
User avatar
LD330
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 84
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: 389
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:30 pm
Location: York, PA

Re: Formula for Atheism: God is Unconscious

Postby LD330 » Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:38 pm

I wrote a post on this topic earlier about the HIMOG, but deleted it because I blew up.

I finally found the seminar I believe was hosting some of these topics.

Some notes:

From a Plato dialogue--

Stranger: It is plain, Theaetetus, that you have never seen a Sophist.
Theaetetus: Why?
Stranger: He will make as though his eyes are shut or he has no eyes at all.
Theaetetus: How so?
Stranger: When you offer him your answer in such terms, if you speak of something to be found in mirrors or in sculpture, he will laugh at your words, as implying that he can see. He will profess to know nothing about mirrors or water or even eyesight, and will confine his question to what can be gathered from discourse.

Sophists do not admit perception. So how can they have empathy? Hence people get "Choronzoned" by Sophists who can convince others anything they want.

In Greek terms sophism replaced arete, human greatness. Development of this arete is one of the goals of the ONA.

I used to be afraid of the ONA, or felt guilty, until I realized that opferings offer themselves.

Psychoanalysis doesn't touch modern biology. To invoke biology or animals is to invoke the unconscious (Da'ath). Here, in the unconscious, we have what Lacan calls the subject of the unconscious.

“There are no innocent bystanders ... what are they doing there in the first place?” --William S. Burroughs

Well, their karma, their desire, their elixir brought them there in the first place. This is the subject of the unconscious.

The subject of the unconscious is the subject who avoids the knowledge of sex.

The subject here is only the subject in relation to the missing signifier.

The subject who is supposed to know qua subject of the unconscious, namely, the subject who is supposed to know what must in no case must be known.

"The subject being undetermined in knowledge is brought to a halt before sex, which confers on the subject this new sort of certainty through which his place as subject being determined and only being able to be so from the experience of the cogito, with the discovery of the unconscious, of the radical, fundamentally sexual nature of all human desire."

Knowledge in place of original shame, with respect to which all knowledge is established in an unsupersedable horror, with regard to this place where lies the secret of sex.

Research on the identity of the subject is to know how a subject sustains himself before the accumulation of knowledge.

What there is beyond knowledge? What is involved with respect to the subject in terms of a truth? A scrape of waste is the product of the unconscious.

Until psychoanalysis the world was always represented without the true man, without taking account of the place where he is subject, the place in which there would be no representation, very precisely because the representation would not have a representative in the world.

The end of analysis are these terms: that the Other knows that he is nothing.

Nick Land wrote:That God has wrought such loathesomeness without even having existed only exacerbates the hatred pitched against him. An atheism that does not hunger for God’s blood is an inanity, and the anaemic feebleness of secular rationalism has so little appeal that it approximates to an argument for his existence. What is suggested by the Sadean furor is that anyone who does not exult at the thought of driving nails through the limbs of the Nazarene is something less than an atheist; merely a disappointed slave.
"People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment."
User avatar
LD330
Gold Member
Gold Member
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:25 pm


Return to Mysticism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest