On the Nature of God

By god it is meant — the concept of some supreme principle, spiritual truth, entity, or set of entities that exists within the subjective consciousness of the individual who is aware of it. (By god it is not meant — a single individual residing on a throne somewhere and randomly causing natural disasters to alleviate boredom.) The existence of god outside of subjective awareness is not relevant here — it is enough that the idea of a god or a pantheon of gods is a ubiquitous feature of the human experience, and that it has perhaps been the most influential of all human ideas both on the individual scale and on that of it’s aggregate, the history of humanity as a whole.

“God” exists for man regardless of whether or not god exists outside of man — as “god” is present in our consciousness. Countless fools have wasted precious energy debating on the so-called ‘objective’ existence, or lack thereof, of their pet deity. To do so is to miss the nature and utility of human spirituality completely. Let it be said once again, and a thousand times more, the question is irrelevant and unanswerable.

The nature of god has been approached many times and in many ways — almost always with a differing result. Needless to say, a concept such as god cannot be defined discretely and there is no one proper way to describe it. (Of course, if you over there want to continue insisting you’re consuming the blood of a long-dead Jew, and you over there want to continue praying to a fucking rock, and you want to kill each other over the issue feel free.) An explanation of what “god” is will, by necessity, be an expression of the subjective consciousness which formulates it and of how that consciousness understands the universe and its own place within it.

That is not to say that no two people will be able to agree on a definition, or that there is no incorrect definition, but merely that any single definition or description of the idea called “god” will be to some degree individualistic and thus cannot be normative. Rather that it must be understood that a description of the nature of god can never be more than a language-game of sorts, and that the purpose of the game is to express one’s conceptual understanding of reality and their own consciousness in mythological terms.

What is god then, for the person who now speaks?

God is the actor present in the mind who, when posed with a question, always returns the correct answer. The nature of these questions is not that of an inquiry into a piece of trivia or a divination of future events, in fact the questions we speak of here are seldom (if ever) consciously asked — though they recur constantly throughout waking life. The questions of what to do is the only question with which god is concerned.

All things are in constant flux — nothing may maintain identity with itself across two discrete points in time. Whatever situation the individual may find themselves in will be constantly changing — even though appears to be relatively static. And so the individual is constantly re-evaluating their surroundings and own thoughts so that they may adapt their behaviors and conceptual understanding to their environment. In much more simplistic terms, they are conscious and taking part in life. It is here that the question is posed, in the space between some new eventuality or realization and the performance of a willed action. (It should be noted here that these willed and performed actions are not only physical but mental, for example accepting or discarding a certain thought or impression such as “I feel like x” or better yet, “This affect, idea or evaluation x is part of what I am”)

It is at this point that the individual is presented with answers in the form of potential actions. Usually one answer is presented almost immediately, and this is commonly, and incorrectly, assumed to be the answer given by the conscious individual him or her-self. This is usually not the case, as anyone who has gained insight into the nature of the ego and their own mind may ascertain providing they are aware and capable of lucid thought. In actuality, this is often (though not by any means necessarily) the answer of the individual’s oldest and greatest enemies — and is thus the deadliest of all known poisons. The voices/conceptual circuits/learned thought patterns which return answers are not part of the individual’s true nature, though they seek to disguise themselves as such — and it is for this reason that they are called actors.

To restate the definition: “God” is the actor present in the mind who, when posed with a question, always returns the correct answer. The nature of the questions posed ensures that there is always a correct answer, though it can never be an ideal answer. In the plurality of possible courses of actions to take there is one path which resonates with the individuals purest and strongest nature–no matter how forgotten and tarnished this nature may be, nor how far the individual has strayed out under the cloudy skies of twilight. It is often the case that in order to even hear this answer one must exert themselves greatly — and even then it may not be heard. But it is always given, and if it is not heard above the din it is because one does not know how to hear it.

As to why a certain answer may be correct and another not, or to what defines and composes this “more true nature” it is beyond the scope of this post to address. Suffice to say there is a single rule which all correct answers will abide by, which is:

“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”


~ by ethmgallagher on March 22, 2010.

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

%d bloggers like this: