i speak of god, though god be dead. i speak of god for in its death we eat of the divine corpse through the earth and in eating know it in the knowledge that is not the knowledge of articulation but of flesh before it speaks.
so these words are nothing unless the reader
has gotten on its knees and put its face in the earth and eaten of that
corpse. even then, they are nothing, but
of a different kind.
in this knowledge – of divine flesh in animal
flesh – we see – see with that vision not of words – that god was not god, and
that not-god had to die.
i speak of god in its living death, for in
our eating god reanimates and death becomes again the molecules of life.
i have so much to say of god and all of it is
untrue. i have so much to say of god and
i will say it in its untruth. for it is
only through untruth that we walk the way of truth.
i would rather speak of god than
humanity. and if you say being human all
i can speak is the human, i would say, on what grounds even can we speak the
human? on these grounds then i speak
god.
the pronouns i use are false. i say i.
i say it. i say you. i could call i they and it we and you she and
he. in god pronouns trade clothes like
actors. and glyphs and phonemes are
clothes on what we cannot say. not just
pronouns, but prepositions, adjectives, nouns, verbs – the entire anatomy of
speech, naked in its speechless glory, constantly robing and undressing. words are robbers, aren’t they? like god.
god is most adept at stealing from itself. it has stolen so many clothes from itself it
forgets what it owns. and this
forgetting is intrinsic to god, this slipping of ownership away.
that god doesn’t exist, that science can’t
find it, that psychology doesn’t want it, that religion bypasses it, that
philosophy murdered it, that art decreates it, that the crowds as always
assiduously ignore it – all this proves nothing, for god disproves.
if god has been sufficiently crafty and bold
to take nine billion names, to sacrifice its child, to morph itself through the
evolutions of the divine, to twist ladders into running wheels, to lay claim to
no merit, it can also stage its death.
non-existence permits such flexibility.
to say that if i speak of god i simply speak
of a projection of my own image is to miss that i may not have an image and if
even i speak of a projection of an image that hardly falsifies less other
speakings and that if i do not speak of god – who will?
the most compelling – often the only
compelling – aspects of the human are the inexplicable, aesthetically
generative, expansive and boundless, visionary, detached, holographic … what we
think of when we think of the compelling aspects of god.
god is just another word, like cabbage, and
one is surely not wrong to say god is as in a cabbage as cabbage is in a
god. we grow both, we eat both, we
worship both, we kill both. cabbages
evolve as gods do, and both may well outlive humanity.
when it is said – mysticism is truer than i can tell you – we speak of god. we speak of it in the inability to speak, in
the eternal inarticulation of truth. and
we speak of it with a word that is commonly and uncommonly mocked among and not
among those of the knowledge classes. mysticism
is not a less rigorous mode of inquiry than philosophy or science; it is a
differently rigorous mode: one can argue
a centrally rigorous mode as it uses the central artifacts of life – flesh,
breath, and as extension words – as tools.
it relies primarily on the spiritus of the technoanimal that gives itself
over to the relation between and among spirit and flesh.
