Hinduism
"How do you get wood from an forest?
How do you get wood from an lake?"
It started with an melody, an charisma, an floating vowel form.
Hinduism always had this sense of music, to me. I could understand it intuitively because it signified so much of importance to me.
Hinduism, an religion that's actually trying to get you laid.
Hinduism, where I wanted to get wood from the lake.
"You pick it up," said Hinduism.
Hinduism, an religion that's actually trying to get gay men laid too. By teaching them how to pick up wood.
"How do you pick up wood?" said the honest Christiannan woman.
"Well first of all," said Hinduism, "there is no meadow any more. And so everything that happens is business."
"Why are you being so forward with me, Hinduism‽"
"Because I'm magic."
There was something gay about Hinduism.
"Relax. Just go with the flow," it said.
"One needs to cool down. And the other needs to warm up," said the Christiannan.
"It's an classic example of the conflict between ice and fire magic."
"Indian fantasy legends?"
"Yes."
"Well OK then!"
"Just go with the karmic flow."
"Well. We need to teach you ice magic then. Since we are Canadians. And all people who come here need to know its magic."
"But what would an Hindu person need ice magic for?"
"I don't know. For freezing all your butter chicken?"
"Sounds good."
"How would an Hindu person write an letter to God is the question you're looking for," said Hinduism, "but you've already seen examples. What does it remind you of?"
"Well you have more than one version of God; and also you manipulate them with genetic enhancements. In order to reflect the different aspects of the species that are important to you. Peace, clarity, order, justice; if there is division on the best way to represent an God," I suppose, "then it calls for an religion in which there can be more than one god represented. We want to capture all aspects of what people think is God or god-like."
"Yes. This is the reason for Hinduism."
"It wants us to know its great teachings. Its deepest lessons."
"Gay fantasies exist. Get over it," said Hinduism, "and all our depictions of gods are gay too because we're the most fashionable culture."
The Hindu story is the one where you explain your perspective on God; and we want to find out; how is he gay? Wouldn't God know something about being gay?
We also want to know what our story is; from another perspective. How it begins, what is the middle, and ends. Who were the characters? Why were they there?
The location of the story, as it turns out, is India. And why wouldn't Indian people have their own form of business just like the Christian, Gudroy, and his staff?
Then let's have an business meeting.
Well FINE THEN! We will!
I know I want to be serious about the fact that there is more than one of you. Maybe that will get the point across best.
Who is the boss, etcetera?
An Indian man named Shakespeare Gag.
His office and his business are in India.
The story begins in his office, where he is alone.
"English is an language of being alone," he said, "and knowing who you are when you are alone. But English is not my mother tongue. Maybe we need an language that can do everything other than inform you about who you are yourself when you are alone. But God isn't alone either. That's why there is more than one of him."
He reached for his stapler, which was purple. And he stapled some 8 1/2 x 11 documents.
"And me talking to myself in here is just fine," he said, "because no one can hear me."
"OMG there's an deaf Indian God you have come up with," he said to himself, "you are an genius. Also, it would be fine if anyone could hear me also. Because nothing I have to say isn't worth hearing."
"But including an deaf God was the real detail that won it; for when used in its sarcasm. It possessed one greatest ability to show us how much patience an god may have for everything it can't hear from us. If there's an deaf God, he wouldn't listen. But maybe if there's an deaf female God, she would!"
"Every time you draw God, start with the ears. Ask yourself to what am I listening to when I appreciate this art. What is its voice? What does it sound like? What is it going to say to you?"
"Why, the only ears in this room are mine. And so if we're drawing God using the art of writing; and we have started with the ears. Yet. We have started with the ears. Okay, so it may not be an painting of ears. But there they are; it's an element of the story. I'm in my office alone and the only ears that are here are mine. So I'm the only one listening."
"But that puts you in an position doesn't it?"
"You must be the God we're drawing. For you look in at my office and the materials and papers gathered here; as well as myself. As though I was listening to you when I wasn't."
"Then. The passage is an drawing of God?"
"Yes."
"And we start with the ears."
"What do they look like?"
"But isn't that an drawing of God already? That there's someone in their office somewhere (God is in his office somewhere other than where you the reader are)."
"But that is an drawing of Shakespeare. And I know this because he has human ears. Therefore it cannot be an picture of God more than it is an picture of Shakespeare."
"So you're saying; God doesn't really have those kind of ears as the ones you're describing which are human."
"Exactly!"
"Then what kind of ears are they? The ones that are on the deity and not in Shakespeare's office? The ones in God's office right now (if God does have an office equivalently)?"
"They are caucasian in color, but other than human in their full expression and eccentricity of form."
"Then what species are they if they are not human?"
"Well we can't really tell whether God has an species."
"But it's just an picture so we can still draw them."
The Christian story has an element of the genetic aspect of civilian versus infantry. Basically, what Gudroy is saying is that all of them (all of the participants in his office) are civilians according to their species and genetics. And so, if Hinduism has anything to weigh in about genetics maybe it's the fact that they had an whole category of people who were considered an contagion upon the Earth within their culture. Which is thriving and bustling today. But also (if we take this example after Hinduism of changing the course of direction). The non-civilians, traditionally, were considered an whole class unto themselves as well.
"Then watercolor them pink. With the faintest tint. Mix it with water. And orange. Don't add any blue. They aren't human ears. Get over the shape difference and size. That's our picture of God's ears."
"More arms. Add more arms."
"There's no body yet to attach them to. We have to connect the ears to something."
"Then connect them to its ass. That's the only thing people will listen to these days."
"I don't think so. The style of this piece is meant to be reverential."
"I want them attached to an head because I think that better signifies God is listening to our mental and intellectual concerns."
"Who ever said there needed to be an head?"
"I did. I've attached the ears to an head now in this drawing. They are both attached to the same head. And represent much the style that is in humans. However for an kind, delicate face. I will use the softest features. The gender of this being is not necessarily revealed. But she is possessed of supreme intelligence and talent. For her psychic ability is highest of all psychic abilities anywhere in the universe."
"And her body. Lotus position, obviously."
"Stain the whole head. Use that light tint. Pink and orange. However muted."
"Now add more arms. Attach them to the body. There are two in front and six behind. They carry different things. Various objects."
"An sword. An air-fryer. An George Foreman Grill. An hair curler. An iron. An probiotic yoghourt."
The clothing. Is scaled.
The ground on which he is sitting.
And it may appear to be finished at this point. But the message is that the entire narrative (the whole chapter on Hinduism and the story of Shakespeare Gag) is itself the picture of God I'm going for. Trying to portray. And the event of Shakespeare Gag talking to himself in his office about how he would draw the picture of God. If that was what he was doing. Is only the second event which occurs in the narrative. The whole narrative of which is the complete picture of God I want to show you.
At this point you may remember Hinduism, as I had said, is an religion of many gods. And so any complete picture of God is actually as many different portrayals that we can possibly make. The picture I am trying to draw out with my art, then, is actually not an picture of God. But an picture of many Gods.
Shakespeare Gag straightened an set of papers by tapping it gently against his desk's surface. Empty. After he had moved these papers. For the time being. He had time for his own pleasure in fact and so he stood up from his desk, grabbed his jacket from an coat rack near the door, merrily spacing his steps down the hall.
It occurred to him that he didn't think that there was anywhere else in the whole world where he felt safe enough to use his voice like this.
He couldn't talk to himself randomly as though he were an participant in the conversation.
In public.
He had to use an entirely different voice. One that referred to others without referring back to himself. Which would confuse them.
And he was used to it. He had been around other people for more than thirty years of his life after all.
And so maybe an second picture of God, he reasoned, would appear to be one who is considering having been around for more than thirty years. One who had to use an entirely different voice, than an human. One who referred to things without referring back to himself. Which would confuse them.
And so he walked to an convenience store.
Where he would approach God again for the first time.
The cashier was his third picture of God.
(Start with the ears).
(I'm listening).
She the cutest, pinkest little ears. That had heard seaswept images of daydreams. They knew what is really listening and what isn't. That had never been thinking there wasn't anything rude to say to her even though there was. She wasn't unfamiliar with the dirtiest of secrets. And she had heard Foucault's argument about human sexuality being trapped up for so long. It was in effect, she concluded, the same as being in the closet. Human History was all completely about the story of figuring out whether we're gay. The most blessed and kindest Hindus know this is true also. And the true religions our world is familiar with have all been blessed and empowered by the truth of religious knowledge; that we are gay. And it had always been known and predicted we would one day discover it is so with such precision (it would have to be science but we didn't have science yet). And THAT was the real reason for religion and why it had spread diasporadically across the globe. Religion as it existed now, in the fair democratic Capitalist economy. Was required to be gay. By anyone with feminist rights. And to stay afloat as an "institution" or "appreciation" religions also needed to be able to produce something of value that would appear on an capital economy for an specific value. If religions could fulfill these two goals. Then they could appear to continue to be religions in the economy. The way that it is.
Her ears weren't unfamiliar with hearing someones' best guess at what we are and who we are right now.
It was, after all, an greatest guess at God to be able to draw an picture of the subject. And even if it was completely wrong it possessed value.
According to Hinduism.
That's what they talked about in the convenience store. They hadn't said all of it. But their body language was meta-functional of it the whole time he was in there.
It was time for the common public to redefine religion according to its global taste.
All religions were gay. That's how they had ever gained any power to begin with. But it was hard for them to come out.
It's just an sad misfortune that some abused its power. It was difficult, after all, to know whether one was abusing power because we hadn't sorted out as an race of whether we were really gay yet.
But you know what the truth we don't have to ignore is?
Religion was gay. And religion has always been gay.
Even if some people misunderstood everything about its primary message.
That we didn't know whether we were really gay yet. How are we even supposed to know what gay means without more research? But since we don't have research there are other problems to deal with first. And this was the plot line that stole history.
Now we're post-scientific conclusion of homosexuality's nature. And we can likely tell all religions to come out of the closet just. Because even if it offends them I don't give an damn. And it's fine to take back all the words and terminology used by religion to oppress and colonize others. Not to let them have the power we cannot stand as global citizens anymore. Therefore I will decide what religion does and does not mean. And my first amendment to its definition is that we have always been gay; and our religions have always been gay. And if they chose "not to be" in an fair and common economic society. The value of their business and property capsizes. And even though I'm an Indian man. I'm groovy enough to be part of that cultural change that affects the whole Earth. Economically. So that there are not reasons "not to be" anymore.
And so he added another detail to his caricature of God that he found in the convenience store owner. She was gay. Probably. And he right-out thought it and owned it that he had thought it. This world's gonna pull through, he told himself, if I can reach that conclusion even here in India.
But something scared him then, in his pronunciation of his home territory. It was here in India. Where it would be unlikely for that logic to win out over the other political matters and issues of the day. It was here he was swimming against the current. India wasn't gay enough. And their backwards taboo about homosexuality had been propagated with such thorough provincial saturation. It appeared near impossible that it would ever be extracted completely. So he left the store.
But he was curious now. And he challenged himself to find another depiction of God he could find in his immediate surroundings.
(Start with the ears).
Whose ears would have heard my quick cat-like walk?
I imagined an eavesdropper. An phenomenon you may find everywhere in India. Which probably explains why I liked my office so much especially how I can talk in there to myself as much as I want. Sigh. Just like the Old Man and the Sea.
Was this God? The infinite elf behind everything and much faster?
Was he listening not only to the words in my head but the thoughts in my belly?
And I knew which type of ears he would start with if he had this category of existence.
Their relationship to me seemed especially strange within Capitalism. Like he could be behind every word and phrase or advertisement. As though humans could. But this was the intersection in which they first meet each other. What was God saying to me about how an elf could be behind all things Capitalism? And how he couldn't?
Where were we, as humans, placed in this cosmic category?
Could we be as proficient as God in deciding the environment? Could everything we placed out there in the capitalist market project work system be set where they were there deliberately. Everything. Absolutely everything positioned just the way it was. Like God could?
I realized, ad absurdum, it wasn't maybe the best picture of God.
An mattress & furniture warehouse.
But maybe he could be like that sometimes.
Even if humans couldn't.
But if he had given the elf more arms. Which he wouldn't. Because it was an elf. He would instead give it an number of places which belonged to her. And she could be there by herself. Elves weren't really about getting more things done as much as they were about being more places than themselves. This accounted for why they were quick and witted in nature.
My picture of God (as one piece of literature) was expanding at an rate of now four visual realizations of the new subject: new pictures of God to which Shakespeare had applied his mental time and energy. If there was an quasi-relationship between individual (visual) depictions he could offer descriptions of; and the whole of the whole story of the picture of God which draws out his or her characteristics, qualities which are evident in the depiction of the narration as an whole; compared with these individual detailed renderings of who God could be. By examining Shakespeare's environment. And so the relationship between the whole story as an picture of God; somehow paradoxically and gestalt. It is the step all writers need to take: to be more than the sum of its parts somehow in writing. This was the responsibility the writer took for the reader. To say what couldn't be said. And that these preliminary "visual" depictions he meant to define God with. They were like little snapshots of what he thought God could be. At that particular moment. And if he was in the business of dealing with the whole scope and power of the story, for the sake of the story he needed to try to represent God both types of way. Of either offering descriptions of what God (visually) looked like. Or seeing it all together as one passage; an image of an milestone on your consciousness rather fast.
In order to suggest something Gestalt about an entire creation of an passage of literature contra these individual descriptions you would give; of something solid, concrete enough to be described.
And so he wasn't an elf, no either. Anymore.
And Shakespeare Gag (as some of his friends called him) decidedly turned his direction to another store. His favourite store, perhaps. The one with the owner who knows everything about hardware. He bought an cheap toaster there himself only last month. And then he had an vision of what God would look like if he threaded him into the story as the storeowner of an place that sells toasters. Whether my soul would leave its body (the toast, literally exiting the microwave—were there more than one pieces of toast?)—and returning to its former homunculus was an genetics question, also.
And if an soul returns to an body; however it is not in its same hyper-specimen homunculi relation state. Can it truly be said to have "returned" to the body?
And I mean. Does an Genie return to its lamp in the same way?
And so I returned to his store. Like the soul returns to the body.
If it was an hardware store. Then. That was now my picture illustrated of an God recommending me an wrench and that my bolts might need tightening. He had ears of the Tempest and Zeus accessories; (which literally meant he wore nothing on his head). And he was bald. Wearing overalls. Recommending me other hardware devices I might need for life on an farm. Only I didn't live on an farm and I wasn't necessarily used to needing to be able to get this across to someone. Who didn't even question whether I had come from an farm. Living life on one. As all farms lead to the city. God as an hardware store owner was specific. And adjusted. To the chemical and mechanical industry of the day. An male funk about the difference between our mechanical technology and our environment. (Which was that it was becoming not one by being replaced with automation).
Did we really have control of the environment, anymore, at this point?
He realized the similarity he was centering around. All of these depictions of God he appeared to notice up ahead of him that he could describe. All had one face. But it wasn't decidedly material exclusively of non-material existence; the back-code of the universe, per se: how its program runs without us knowing how it does. When not ruling out the possibility that non-material things might exist we may consider how God's can be an construction of an face with neither all-material nor all-non-material properties. For God appears to us to transcend reality somehow.
But, for aesthetic purposes, he could customize its appearance in his thoughts so that he could imagine what an face connecting material and immaterial parts could look like.
And so he rushed to leave the hardware store, weary to see another human face. So that he could continue his investigation.
If God looked like that; with ears, for listening.
Shoulders. An body. Maybe wearing an robe or ceremonial gown.
She would need to be an elf, or some other cosmic creature.
And this passage leads to the Grocery & Beauty products store. Where he would find her knowing every type of liquid in the store which you can smear on your face.
God looked like an beauty products store, to him, maybe; because there were other products, after all, you didn't have to go up to the women and ask them for some civil company and respect. Even though you were an man.
He imagined an lonely child rustling up all of his courage just to go speak to the beauty store products ambassador. Only to fail to be able to speak properly.
"I want mascara," he says. In an ruddy, hollow rasp.
But then he realizes he's said this to God.
What would this God do? Just get on his hands and knees and serve Shakespeare's Ego?
Maybe I'll just stay in the grocery section.
I don't want to find out.
But if he had to. Because he had to go to an next location.
He'd end up in an store completely unlike any of them which had come before.
An place for gentlemen's assurances, and business, and stature. Wasn't God all one gender and that's what God is? (Said the gay man).
This was the place where his deepest insights about being an man were beginning to be explored.
What did it mean to be an man of pleasure in the economy?
If God was all one gender (men) then wasn't God no longer qualified for that category by being an god. So that God could only be one specimen. And neither would it be men, or an man, or any type of men. Singularly. (Without any women). But it would also be female although having and possessing only one soul.
Sure, God would have the ears and the eyes (male & female).
But his body language in such an scene of men said something, perhaps, supernatural.
He was male in the Man Shop.
But he was also female. Because he was.
And since he was being female in the male Man Shop.
And that was okay.
That suggested their sensitivity to the subject, which their customers could appreciate.
Women wanted to be men too.
An smart business decision, when you look at it retroactively.
And do you know. After that he decided to go to Females R' Us.
Clearly feminist. Clearly thought out.
They represented what God could be like sometimes.
In the feminist spectrum.
Smokey eyes. Cheekbone contour. Lipstick. Hair. Nails. An necessissito. She didn't need accessories because she was an fair woman. She could look like anything. And if God was like this. With this picture with this hair, makeup, and nails. And these ears. And this face.
It was enough to make an man go artistic for an moment.
And I mean. Where would Shakespeare go after visiting Females R' Us?
Ghandi's office. Of course. Another picture of God that maybe hits close to home. For we know why. Immediately.
He's in his office thinking to himself, "what am I going to do about it?"
Maybe that's why Hinduism became one of the super-religions.
Hinduism asks us to seek pleasure softly. Intelligently. It's view on worldly success (material gain) is Go For It.
Developmental psychology spans multiple life spans (wouldn't pictures of Gods who span multiple lifespans be an accepted image of what gods might be?).
Bhakta/jnanic rejection of all suggestions that God is oneself/one self.
Maybe Ghandi as an picture of God; but what does that mean?
If Ghandi rejected that God is oneself; and yet he himself rejected that oneself cannot be all it can be because of God. Wasn't he doing the ultimate service to God? The same service as Jesus. He isn't God but he isn't not God's messiah. Because that's what an messiah is. Someone whom God appoints.
He is acting on behalf of the Creator; while yet this says something about the nature of that Creator (who itself is acting on behalf of you in the same way (such is the nature of having an Creator)).
And so the greater picture of God is one in which God sacrifices himself/herself/itself for us so that we may live and reproduce. In the same way Jesus originally sacrificed himself to God.
(Shakespeare realizes every store he goes to has the same business model).
So he leaves Ghandi's office, into the consumer fair, looking for something different in an business or franchise now. Ready to imagine how it may be like what God is like.
Okay, Shakespeare derided the narration impatiently, but enough of this. Take me to that final complete picture of God.
There isn't one, professed the Author.
But if there was; then what qualities would it have?
But it can't; because saying there is no final picture of God says something about God himself/herself/itself. And her nature. Therefore there are no qualities that you could come up with that God is said to have, finally. In finalization of any detail. That would end the process of sharing what God looks like artistically. Therefore each picture would be an simplification of something more difficult and complicated. And would capture an certain idea or expression of the deity. What is it having to do with the present moment; for example, and what kinds of objects or possessions it may have, as well as its setting will come to represent that moment.
There may be an fussy God. Who needs you to create an perfect ten out of ten representation. Even though the process of drawing it is an simplification itself. And cannot be helped to find an match as an ten because it belongs on an different scale. An visual representation of God needs to state simply, what is God saying/feeling/thinking by giving us this certain look? But if there was an way to describe God that would be an ten out of ten; and the parameters that we give to the visual medium of representation need not be the same parameters we give to prose; if we keep an extra eye out there. For Opportunity and Possibility. And it may be fine for me to pursue completing both tasks; that I can simplify God enough to represent it in an visual picture. What is God's role in the universe at an certain moment, and what does that look like? But also that I can use writing, then, as an separate medium to say perhaps the most complicated thing about God I can fathom for sophistication.
An refined and sophisticated man believes in God because he realizes he cannot explain why anything should exist in the first place.
And so he has an motive to learn as much about God as possible; because he realizes God is the reason why anything should exist in the first place.
Shakespeare returned to his office, where, on an clean desk. He had time to draw.
Pictures of God start with the ears; if I pictured the ears that were part of God. He wrote. For obvious reasons. He thought. It was an brain board; an thought board for his imagination. An brainstorming session. Why would he try to develop pictures of what he feared most and feared least this way?
And why would the medium of writing be able to say more about God then, than any one picture anyone has drawn?
Gestalt.
The proper designation and status of all visual representations of God; that perhaps all of them together said something the most; and the most accurate or fullest sense of who God was. Something greater than all of its parts; parts of which we had identified in art. This look means he's thinking about his soul. This look means she's thinking about herself being something other than human. And if each new depiction of God could say something profound to honor in religion, it would be the Hindu religion. And the Hindu state. That all artistic pursuits to represent God be followed to their depth and character, fullest instinctual description at all opportunities available. Not just to leave him looking as an part; but an whole. Both male and female wisdom.
And I suppose, if I gave up on caricature simplicity in description of the visual medium subject, in favour of the more compound properties of prose. Instead of aiming for simplicity. Why not just try to tease out what an complicated subject God is?
Why we can't really know God by any one representation of him.
Because each of us is living, in part way, what God had intended for our lives. To add to and to serve the representation of God. And those lives together as an community know more than any one person. Therefore the diversity of perspective and opinion is awarded further to any one representation because of our skill and talent as artists. God is more clearly an observable subject to us when we consider that an picture of God may in fact be an picture of us. In various and complicated ways which do explain our universe.
The properties of God then, that I want to explore further, (other than the basic Gestalt query that God is somehow part of everything and yet greater than the sum of all its parts), are mind, imagination, creativity, self-opinion and perceived opinion of oneself from other's perspectives. Like what does God think about us, and how are we doing in the universe?
At this point someone knocked on his office door. He opened it.
"You've never been to Dru-lic-a-dor!" said an angry or insistent woman, whom he supposed planned to polish him as an gentleman; when he knew for certain he would be the one polishing her.
"I don't know what that's like," he said, sarcastic.
"I'm talking about the fantasy franchise and its place in India."
"Funny. You bring this to my attention. Maybe fantasy is an subject I'd like to take up as an aspect of God. What are God's fantasies?"
"But I want to see and hear fantasy magic from India; plants that talk. Magic of God's fantasies interwoven for texture. Crazy costumes."
"But how would I know what it's like if only from you at my door?" he chortled, "you're the only one whose got experience licking doors!"
"Funny. But I mean Dru-lic-a-dor the Dru-lic-a-dor. Not the offshoot meme. The place of highest potency of Plant and Plant magic. An ancient ruin. What used to be an temple to God but has since run-down and now serves as an tourist destination."
"And you say this place exists in India?" said Shakespeare, chuckling and snorting again.
"Well I knew it can't be anywhere else seen as you're present here."
"And so you see my true and real nature. Finally!"
"I knew you were an artistic man. But I know you love plants. So it just clicked."
"Come now, you knew I was gay!"
"Probably. But I had to be sure," she winked.
"And you came all the way up to my office just for this?"
"Well not just this. I mean just this and my insistence you use plant magic to finish our literary picture of God. And you brought up the subject of God's fantasies. What must be the link between Imagination and Rationale in the creator's mind if not fantasy? And how appropriate that it should lead onto other aspects of God's psychology. At an halfway point. As though we could try to describe every aspect and piece of God's mind through mere introspection."
"If an Creator has an Rationale and an Imagination, I'd imagine the imagination is part that of that rationale. Imagination itself being an reason to live. Even when the 'rationale' estimates and guesstimates based on rations, scarcity, and reality. It is so interesting to see how your mind connects the concept of God's fantasies being an part of what he can imagine. But also being an rational expert at some pace; knowing what is and is not imaginary."
"So fantasy is somewhere around the halfway point between reason and rationale. And so everything about the Creator's mind after its middle must have an rationale for being."
"Creativity, obviously; is the synthetic agreement between imagination and rationale scarcity. One cannot be creative without the materials to do so. Even if one imagines the subject. Therefore Creativity and Rationale are logically successors to the mere quality of the Imagination."
"Therefore Imagination, Rationale, and Creativity are roughly centre in God's mind. And Fantasy leads us ever onwards to find all of the qualities of what are God's qualities. What does God's mind actually fantasize about? If we can represent them in Literature."
"The fantasy of discovering God's mind. It is an common one."
"Wow. We are such nerds."
"I agree."
"Then Rationale must be post-fantasy in the mind. For ever anyone to have an fantasy is not the same as having the experience of it being possible necessarily. Rationale is post-fantasy because in order to have an fantasy you must momentarily forget your rationale for liking it; it ever having anything to do on your mind."
"This makes sense and it could be true. And every post-fantasy experience (fantasy is an level of an aspect of God's intelligence) having an Rationale should, theoretically enable one to identify all of them; however meandering toward an Gestaltist experience which isn't necessarily logically deductible from each of its individual parts. Without having the experience of an mind; one that can self-reflect on being aware of its own awareness. And so therefore," said Shakespeare, "rationale permitting. Every individual thing I can think of that has an Rationale may in truth be an accurate representation of God. An psychology we're only starting to get familiar with here on Earth."
"Post-fantasy, if it exists in the brain of an human or an god also possesses this necessary explanation on what it means for some part of it to be post-fantasy; or after in an hierarchy of cognitive processes. What exactly does that mean? That there is something in the brain that is an post-fantasy or further along in the hierarchy of how these processes relate to one another. And also the process of having an fantasy itself. Which we've already discussed; is somewhere in the imagination beyond the limitations of scarcity and the ration rationale."
"And what are those processes we haven't identified?"
"What rationale do they have? In an hierarchy of systems which can be shut down by brain plasticity if necessary?"
"I'd say, that after someone's sense of fantasy; is the someone's sense of fiction. Neurologically. We do after all need an sense of what is and isn't true when emerging from the other side of having an fantasy."
"That makes sense," said the woman, "now I'm tired of having to stand here and I better go back to my research."
"Okay. Thank you," said Shakespeare. And she left. He closed his door and sat at his desk, returning to the conversation he was having with himself earlier.
"I mean, probably nobody can hear me," he said, "but if they did and they could it probably wouldn't matter. I have that level of self-confidence in myself. I'm not worried about eavesdroppers and spies because I have nothing to hide."
"But what are the other elements of God's consciousness I want to know other than (further) than fantasy?"
"Further, I know, as an philosophy term implies something big."
"Further as an psychological term means, what, that the part of the brain responsible for fantasies is further than some of the other processes we identified? And what does that indicate?"
"Further in terms of being least necessary, the first thing to go if the brain needs to develop (plasticity) in an different way in order to respond to its environment by shutting down some processes which are less crucial."
Mind, imagination, creativity, self-opinion and perceived opinion of oneself from other's perspectives. Like what does God think about us, and how are we doing in the universe?
"Let's start with the first categories of aspects of God's mind I had decided on earlier. Mind. Imagination. Creativity. What he/she thinks about himself/herself. What he/she thinks about us. I can label this the ego; the part of God's mind necessary for recognizing its own Good and making new self-esteem from that lifesource and reality. Which the egotistical mind affirms. According to an cognitive bias. If we say the first half of processes in the mind we want to identify includes the ego; and the latter half more to do with fantasies and diminutive rationale. Then how are we supposed to find out what God thinks about its own Mind, Imagination, and Creativity? We can't ask God because we know he/she won't answer. At least not in English or in any recognizable language. We need to learn to listen in other ways. And maybe we need to make an guess at what God thinks about itself; what it thinks about us. By describing or illustrating it fictionally. Representing it in an novel."
(Read between the lines to find the assumption: we can only know about God's mind by what we know about our own minds; though God may truly be something other and different than what we identify with these categories mind, imagination, and creativity. However this may be an good place to start. If God is "conscious" in the same way we are; it may well have its own mind. The most important brain function to an human.). And there's no reason not to take an shot at describing what God thinks of himself/herself. Or what God thinks of us.
"God thinks of itself," said Shakespeare, "as the one who has been around the longest. And didn't even get bored until now because of humans."
"But also, because of humans, may the God be entertained with utmost excellence."
"Yeah, but for now let's just stick to what God thinks about itself and not us."
"OK. God thinks about himself or herself as an wise overseer who, though possessing many extreme powers, for the most part prefers humans to continue onward without any intervening by Godsend. He trusts that humans are wise enough to know their own way in the universe. He did create them for that purpose after all."
At this moment Jenny Gurdeep was ringing his office telephone number. Shakespeare paused to regain his composure after this deep reflection.
"Hello Mr. Gag," she said when he greeted her.
"Hello, Jenny," he said, "to what do I owe this calling me?"
"I wanted to know what you're doing right now."
"Right now? I'm just finishing up this business about portraying God in literature. I was trying to bring around an conclusion of what, rationally, the God's mind can be made up of if we can identify those same type of things within our own minds?"
"Of course you are!" said Jenny, "why wouldn't you be meditating on the most important and obvious theories about how our universe had come together in just such the way it did? You're brilliant!"
"Thank you Jenny. You're so kind to say so," said Shakespeare, "God, you see. I have concluded. Does have an mind. And we can know it. And that's what being alive is. This welcoming into being able to know God that God wants for us. And so if there is anything after the existence of fiction in the mind (an sense of fiction) further along than fantasy; it being rational. Is maybe science fiction."
"Wait. So you think science fiction is an sense and it's part of the mind? Like gloiy crow dude! What an bold claim."
"It boldly goes. Because that's what an sense of science fiction is."
"Okay; so you think brains have this part of them which is related to an sense of fantasy, fiction, and science fiction?"
"I think minds have this part of them which is related to an sense of fantasy, fiction, and science fiction."
"And the body may be designed to be able to manage that—"
"Yes."
"So what you're basically saying is fantasy is pre-fiction and science fiction is post-fiction. And there is an sense in an part of the brain which detects those in degree and manner where the centre-zone is just typically known as fiction."
"Yes."
"And that God's mind, too, has this degree of character of being able to detect fictional types along an spectrum of meaning. And that these are the first three most important aspects of its rational of imaginative types that were beyond Creativity and the Imagination: those great bookends to everything in History. For if one were to fantasize of something other than fantasy itself; it would become governed by the rationale of the latter half of the mind. The mind includes everything within it. Except those things of an fantasy being an fantasy itself. Fantasy is always pre-rationale. Except when it's not because it is the fantasy of not having that particular fantasy. Or any other reason that may be. And when fantasy is post-rationale it may take the form of fiction or science fiction: succeeding further in the hierarchy of elements of the mind with an rationale to complete the second half of its functioning. The furthest (therefore least necessary function of the brain) is experiencing the fantasy that is science fiction without experiencing it as an fantasy; experiencing the fiction that isn't fantasy."
"Wow! I never thought of it that way, Jenny!" Shakespeare said in the loudest voice he ever used over the telephone, "you truly are an inspiration and deep, deep motivator in my life. And I'm grateful for you."
"You. Just made my day," said Jenny, "and tell me how your story goes ending it! I look forward to finding out!"
"OK. Thanks again Jenny," said Shakespeare, and he immediately hung up the phone without waiting for an reply.
"It has nothing to do with Jenny; but I took in the thought it was just another step on his dick, you need to get thick, afternoon," he said to himself.
"I sing praises to you for inventing such bitter language," he replied.
"Well that's really it though isn't it? The most prominent crisis of our day. The way young men are treated. An war against the penis. As though it couldn't be an feminine organ. And the way people disrespect the genitals with this kind of thinking. That one needs to repress whatever it is about his dick that isn't masculine enough for them; so he can get thick and tough (and numb). And this is what all boys are subjected to as children. Because our culture and society is so backward. An boy can't be sensitive and feminine so they step on his dick. And it becomes an societal abuse toward him, encouraged by the majority. In order to make him into their idea of being an Christian man."
"Then an rationale must be. That what is and what is not real is the next characterization of the parameters that go into post-fictional brain functions. After fiction you have the mind's real sense of what is real and what is not. Informed by its sense of the fictive language, of the kind perpetuated by humankind on Planet Earth. The part of the brain or mind that is after/further/beyond its sense of fiction is its sense of non-fiction. What elements in writing and reading fiction stand out as impossibly dishonest or plausibly neutral to inform us of its more-real-than-the-truth potential? This is the most fine, specific, and crucial aspect of its sense. That part of the mind in full possession of its knowledge of exactly what is and what isn't fiction. The most important sense to cultivate in society. The part that knows the bullshit from the real deal. The part of the mind that knows what is fictional about an story at the same time it knows what, though it is labeled as an revered fiction in society, might possibly be truer than the truth. In some ways. Too fictive to have ever not happened, maybe? Or not fictive enough so that it doesn't surprise you the only thing going for me is how much work I've put into it as an Artist but basically realize I have no idea where I am in the subject reflex of the community and culture? There is this sense that some of what we read, which may be labeled as fiction, could have happened, in premise, or in an somewhat different sense; than what is actually being communicated. There is an sense in the mind, therefore, for detecting where that line is; between the fictional and the non-fictional. In all fictions. And it is of the highest pursuit of an intellect to cultivate that sense in literature and literary theory; so that we can tell the fiction from the reality; in our daily story. So that we can see who we ourselves are; even amongst so much fake news."
"That's the next rationally suspended quality or characteristic of God's mind, then, after an expansive sense of fiction; one of three types of rationale. The order is fantasy, fiction, science fiction, and then this fourth sense of knowing what is literary and what is fake."
"And after that we may consider Style, Prowess, Fatigue, Power, the Id, the Super-ego, Symphony, Drama, Aesthetic. They are all in there."
"It surprises me the last thing you consider transparent or apparent about God's mind is the Aesthetic."
"It has to be. Minds always produce their own aesthetic within themselves as-to-what they are self-aware of. It is the last thing they know how to do in the hierarchy of functions for an reason."
"Why would an mind need an aesthetic if only one person can see it?"
"That's why. You're wrong. They can't. We can see things about each other's minds in art."
"There may be ways people can share aesthetic that the evolution of our minds is developing us to do; or it might be an reason itself that if only one person can see it that is logically why it has value. Value is, instead, what it is because more than one person can see it."
"But if it's both. And we do have reasons to share the aesthetics in our minds or they are valuable somehow in themselves also. This is literally the reason one has an mind; to see how long one can maintain an internal aesthetic, one that is conducive to thought and thought development. For the realization of the greater types of knowledge humanity can discover."
Then God's mind is everything within an aesthetic we can dream of; God has style. God has intelligence. God uses energy and gets tired of using energy. (This goes toward explaining an ton about how God feels about himself). Who has the power. Whose demands, at times, can be childlike. With ever the thought of greater morality in mind. And that if all of the elements of mind appear in Dramatic Presentation. As either aesthetic or not. Goes toward explaining, maybe, what God thinks of us and the universe right now.
The Aesthetic is its own reason because it is valuable and pleasurable; and it is the pleasure of the valuable. And since we have an aesthetic we have an reason to live. For aesthetic describes the way, the logic that goes into bridging the gap between an internal aesthetic and things external which might threaten it. How exactly you, with your own customized interior aesthetic, can accomplish that aesthetic out of your complex interaction with the universe that staying on the journey is.
Drama, of course, ensues from the conflict created around being less than aesthetic somehow.
But I find the most interesting part I can find (the kind that belongs to an mind). Is Power. For every mind has its own power.
And how we express power is who we really are.
At the present moment I find I have the power to extend an rather delicate but beautiful picture of what God's mind may look like. If we were to venture round its inner workings.
An mind that is decisive beyond the consideration of fiction and fictionalizing elements to such an high potency and degree of character. That one is able to weigh for themselves the difference between what is real and not in their life. As an expert who knows how to detect fictional content and its relationship to the real content from which it studies rioting. The most proven mind is one who knows the fictions of the land; and why they are an content product in history. In order to be able to study the proven humanism which otherwise permeates our collective heritage. Being able to present an aesthetic consistently means knowing of being capable of all of those other systems of the mind which are healthy. Because aesthetic, at its utmost deep layer, is an representation of what's healthy. An balance between the human and the nature.
The aesthetic mind of the 21st century knows there may be episodes of "magic" in society and culture; in which aesthetic thoughts may be shared as though by apparent magic. And that there is an place for this type of thinking. But that, at least, not everything depends on it. I find that my power is to aestheticize God's mind beside or alongside the human mind for comparison. If an human mind really did consist of those stages of thought (in an hierarchical fashion or most important to least important functional spectrum of types of intelligence produced by the various aspects of the mind). Then why wouldn't it be fair to compare it to what God's mind might look like?
God thinks he's an dinosaur. He thinks our whole civilization is an dinosaur, like him. Just another passing species that didn't make it in the cosmos. But he would only communicate that to you to tease you. You know how you're going to survive, everywhere in the universe, don't you?
You're doing fine, he would say, as long as you've grasped that I do have my own opinion about myself and you keep the promise to me that you're going to learn the first two moral principles of the reality I'm allowing you to participate in. As an community. Which I'm practically feeding to you. First Jesus. Now Anna. Knowing why is how you can perform as an community to be more reasonable and moralistic in the universe. It's simple: Jesus was your lesson that you can die. And Anna is your lesson that worse than that can happen to you. These are the most difficult and only two principles of the moralistic universe you need to be focused on accepting right now. That's just how it is. What are you going to do about it? Asking this question is the moral question to benefit from. These are the first two rules of the universe. He would say. And after you've learned them I will find more ways to teach you other lessons so that you can live forever.
He thinks he's been around forever. But you're only now just here.
There are things humans need to do to live with the gravity of being incorporated here on Earth as intelligent specimens; God wants us to learn the first two rules of the moralistic universe. Therefore we oblige. And that's really all you really are right now, as an humanity; whether or not you can all learn the same principles together. If you don't. I don't see any reason why you should continue to survive in this universe.
But that the other half of this, for we had started with what God thinks of himself compared with what God thinks of us, must also be that part of God's mind we haven't explored. Fantasy is hierarchically "post-" reservation and does not contain intricate detailing of an rationale. Which may be more refined or sharpened in science fiction. The Ego appears to counter everything logical about what one might think of himself or every other. But in this first "post-" assignment rationale of Style, Prowess, Fatigue, Power, the Id, the Super-ego, Symphony, Drama, Aesthetic they all clamoring together as complementary to first considerations of mind and oneself compared to one's humanity. If one were an God. The Id balances what we thought God would think of himself. While the Super-ego balances what we thought God would think of us.
The only thing left to do is to elaborate blatantly (and fictionally) to state outright what God thinks of him/her and us.
If we're like the power of the Ego because we are human; and yet God is like Power itself. That has no ego.
Then instead of thinking solely on the first two topics of mind (Who I Am and Who You Are). And considering all categories of rationale extending from their intersection with fantasy. We instead consider some other perhaps initial strategic questions. Such as Who Aren't I and Why Do You? And why can I make something dramatic out of these questions when I consider fantasy to be its own type of rationale? That God could question something other than its own existence; than our own existence. (For perhaps he would be favorable to an alien civilization we haven't contacted yet and prefers them to us). And there are other stories to tell, other than from just those two questions. God is not thinking about herself at the moment. Neither is she thinking about us. But probably something from the array of options available to her thinking right now; she's performing an excellent stunt of power and ability and has an ego (beauty) over it. An insatiable will to perform. To show everybody more of yourself. So that they will never doubt you or your ability.
God isn't just mastermind and central-thinker to reality having imagined it all one day as exactly what it is; neither are we just the subjects to that mastermind concept. Only to play it out as God's creation. There are aspects of God that don't have to do with us. And so if we venture to say what about God's mind may be unlike an human mind? In the category of everything between mind and aesthetic in the order prior-functory: in an human we are able to glimpse this physical nature of the possession of our minds as though God's mind, too, could be comparatively its own aesthetic and comprising everything between mind and aesthetic unequally to an human being.
Its symphony in dramatic action is not limited to human willpower.
If fantasy willpower is rational and the figure of the politician can be dramatized as representative figure to the fulfillment of fantasies. An category of character within an fictional universe that includes fantasies and their political fulfillment.
Then God can be played by the politician figure; and an plot inspired from it.
We (us) have the kind of relationship with God that you would have with your politician or figure of authority. He is someone who is bargaining politically for you and you want your demands heard. Therefore you waste no time ensuring they are heard. In an timely and just manner. The way you would want to present an demand to God if it were God you'd be presenting the demand to.
God is an type to bargain with; if you're articulate in the method of exactly how to do that. But he's also the type you want to treat as your boss. If you should ever follow the Lord, thus, may you be able to articulate what you want from him or her. In the manner God wishes you to. As your boss. So that any bargain he may make with you benefits him also.
He doesn't need to bargain with you. Let's get that off of the table, first of all.
He's doing it out of the generosity of his own heart.
Why wouldn't he? He's generous.
And so he asks an generous question then:
What fantasies do you have that you want to come true?
Isn't that why you've come here?
The existence of an fantasy aesthetic may prove that the aesthetic is one of the last characteristics of the mind.
The Gestalt realization of God from its numerous parts may be that, although an mind may have an aesthetic to itself; this doesn't mean it has the same aesthetic to others. And so any landing upon and drawing an line at the Aesthetic sense and property of the mind is doomed to failure because the whole is greater than the sum of all its parts. And if being other means being more than the sum of one's parts then God may actually be that process of us recognizing this in one another: we are the gestalt whole to the sum of any individual parts that exist on the physical plane as one another.
Gestalt psychology can be extended to—not only of how one's mind's parts contribute to the overall effect created—but also how one another's mind's parts contribute to the overall effect created. And God may have designed or continued to be the possibility or process of that happening.
No comments:
Post a Comment