on on religion

Posted: 05/20/2021 02:18:51 PM. Updated: 05/20/2021 02:18:51 PM

Original date of publication: February 2020.

Ah, the general topics. The safehouse of security in days of lack of creativity. Religion, love, music, et cetera, et cetera! Let it be religion, a thing a person in the highly civilised circles considers either a dusty, rejected spectre of the past, or a fascinating, exceptional spiritual venture. One can spend hours watching videos on YouTube of people defending both perspectives, reusing arguments older than ages, but as they cite new people, the arguments are also anew. As if we had broken of from the past, and have stepped into the truly enlightened era, where religion is a dusty, rejected... Finally free from the biases, and having to believe in something our grandma taught us and therefore we are able to rebel against all religious/atheist grandmas of the world and understand all.

This entire discussion will stand in controversy, no matter the points made. Even if no points will be made, the fact of ever touching such unfashionable and problematic topic that causes people today to be afraid and not being able to touch it. Maybe as a superficial thing, it is fine, but God forbid someone have it as basis of their personality. Other things might be fine, but religion in itself must be discussed either as some weird other, as weird experiment within itself. The generality of it makes it even worse, is it economy, is it theology, is it metaphysics, is it logic, is it science, is it antiscience, et cetera, et cetera. Its ornaments are so out of the place, that one can't distinct between fiction and reality. Same does apply to everything, but in this particular case it becomes a aggressive vision.

Is it even possible to write 'on on something' without full detachment from the main topic? Contemporary metaphysics does not care about physics at all, it is just there. And this meta-religious discourse wishes to be beyond religious discussions, but even in previous paragraphs it instils controversy. One cannot speak in full freedom about a topic that is on this level of embedding in one's own culture. Inability to extend from one's lesson is one of the biggest torture in any attempt at doing honest thinking, as with dishonesty one can get away with any crime one wishes.

The accusations are never over, the discussion is never over, the work must continue, even if through silence. The anger sometimes must be expressed in silence, for it to grow and develop freely. Like a hidden heretic sect, becoming mainstream through ignorance of the dominant power. The ignorance usually creates voids in power, and voids in power create therefore voids in faith, and in these voids in faith one can get absolute power which can become a challenge for anyone, and the other. The words unspoken can be spoken in case of active silencing, and strategic usage of dominance mistakes.

I have lost this paragraph due to my absurd violence and accidental self-hatred. But, was it important in the reading and the understanding of the topic. Or was it repetition, as any repetition used in this text in order to amplify the implied meanings? I even blocked this blog few days ago, maybe it was due to artistic dissatisfaction. It is the biggest problem with writing that anything that is spoken usually stays, like shit on the wall. Stuck forever, until the author decides to null it. Not the first time. But let's return to the main topic. Religion in many ways is like that, as it also stays, and keeps itself outside of power-structures which exists contemprorarily.

And so writing has to cease, with the taste of dissatisfaction and ceasing. With false precepts of creative or power ambitions, and leaving the topic until it returns. And it will return, that is one of the few things I can be sure of. As each text exists to be read, it also has to exist to be written. Like in Borges' library of Babel. Does that even state the probabilist difference, or any critique of any view is forced to exist by sheer ontological force. The infinity of thinking is itself religious, and so we return back to the primary statements. like Ouroboros in the myth of Ouroboros

please contact me if you deeply disagree or are able to prove me wrong on any points. i will publish worthwhile comments and critiques under the article.

enjoyed the article? Please consider donating. Thanks.

Back to the index