Rolling Deicidal Arsenal II: The God Gun

jesus-gun1

 

Christ didn’t die alone. We all die with him. Most in fever dreams of medicalised torment, as our minds dis-arrange and bodies rot. If we are lucky we die quickly and alone, not as pornographic spectacles for our “loved ones”. Else we must endure the torrid intimacy of their concern, smile, be brave and help them through it, just so they can delectate on the meaning of it all. Well fuck that! Cohle asserted that he lacked “the constitution for suicide” but that shit-eating attitude just brings you more suffering, or worse, inevitable capitulation:  to His terms (Yeah, looking at you TD finale). The bent rules of this squalid antechamber to Hell.

What goes around, comes around, inhabitants of Cancer Planet. Bestir yourselves, slough off your zombie insouciance an fucking kill god!

Again.

Last time God was impaled (slowly) and (agonisingly, slowly) soul-sucked on Elric’s cold black rune-sword.

This time round we have an engineering solution to the problem of theology from the late Barrington Bayley, a writer celebrated for his bleak metaphysical passions and picturesque space operas. There is capitulation, of a kind, in this story, but also a satanic ambition that we at EI cannot but endorse. The story is called The God Gun. And you may read it here. I hope it will prove at least consolatory; at best inspirational.

Until next time….

 

3 thoughts on “Rolling Deicidal Arsenal II: The God Gun

  1. “Finally, let us contrast this with the very different way that we (– I say ‘we’ to be polite) treat the problem of error and illusory appearances.

    People used to consider change, alteration, and becoming in general as proof that appearances were illusory, as a sign that something must be misleading us.

    These days, on the other hand, we see ourselves mired in error, drawn necessarily into error, precisely to the extent that the prejudice of reason forces us to make use of unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause, objectification, being; we have checked this through rigorously and are sure that this is where the error lies. This is no different than the movement of the sun, where our eye is a constant advocate for error, here it is language.

    Language began at a time when psychology was in its most rudimentary form: we enter into a crudely fetishistic mindset when we call into consciousness the basic presuppositions of the metaphysics of language – in the vernacular: the presuppositions of reason. It sees doers and deeds all over: it believes that will has causal efficacy: it believes in the ‘I’, in the I as being, in the I as substance, and it projects this belief in the I-substance onto all things – this is how it creates the concept of ‘thing’ in the first place …

    Being is imagined into everything – pushed under everything – as a cause; the concept of ‘being’ is only derived from the concept of ‘I’ …

    In the beginning there was the great disaster of an error, the belief that the will is a thing with causal efficacy, – that will is a faculty … These days we know that it is just a word …

    Much, much later, in a world more enlightened in thousands of ways, philosophers, to their great surprise, became conscious of a certainty, a subjective assurance in the way the categories of reason were applied: they concluded that these categories could not have come from the empirical world, – in fact, the entirety of the empirical world stood opposed to them.

    So where did they come from? –

    And in India people made the same mistake they made in Greece: ‘we must have lived in a higher world at some point’ (rather than in a much, much lower one: which would have been true!), ‘we must have been divine, because we have reason!’ …

    In fact, nothing has ever had a more naïve power of persuasion than the error of being, as formulated by the Eleatics, for example: after all, every word we say, every sentence we use, speaks in its favour! – Even the Eleatics’ adversaries succumbed to the seduction of the Eleatic concept of being: Democritus, for instance, when he invented his atom …

    ‘Reason’ in language: oh, what a deceptive old woman this is! I am afraid that we have not god rid of God because we still have faith in grammar … “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s