If I am nothing, what is God?

[Raymond Sigrist]

Amy Hollywood:

“In medieval thought, the enflamed/enflaming mirror represents the soul when she empties and purifies herself in order to become the perfect reflective surface for the divine. The French-speaking beguine, Margurete Porete, for example, calls her treatise “The Mirror of Simple Souls.” The soul becomes a mirror of the divine and unites with “the all” that is God by emptying herself of all createdness and hence of all being. Porete’s use of the mirror image would seem, then, still to be inscribed within a masculine discourse that reduces alterity to the same. Yet if the self becomes nothing in order to reflect the divine, God is also nothing.”

(“Sensible Ecstasy-- Mysticism, Sexual Difference, and the Demands of History.” Page 191)

 

[zenzero]

Friend RS,

God is also nothing.

Yes, exactly! for the same reason Gautama never spoke of any God at the same time he never spoke of any soul too.

Love & rgds

 

[Willamena]

Amy Hollywood:

“In medieval thought, the enflamed/enflaming mirror represents the soul when she empties and purifies herself in order to become the perfect reflective surface for the divine. The French-speaking beguine, Margurete Porete, for example, calls her treatise “The Mirror of Simple Souls.” The soul becomes a mirror of the divine and unites with “the all” that is God by emptying herself of all createdness and hence of all being. Porete’s use of the mirror image would seem, then, still to be inscribed within a masculine discourse that reduces alterity to the same. Yet if the self becomes nothing in order to reflect the divine, God is also nothing.”

(“Sensible Ecstasy-- Mysticism, Sexual Difference, and the Demands of History.” Page 191)

Except that if the self is still something, then God becomes something in order to reflect the divine.

 

[Alceste]

Amy Hollywood:

“In medieval thought, the enflamed/enflaming mirror represents the soul when she empties and purifies herself in order to become the perfect reflective surface for the divine. The French-speaking beguine, Margurete Porete, for example, calls her treatise “The Mirror of Simple Souls.” The soul becomes a mirror of the divine and unites with “the all” that is God by emptying herself of all createdness and hence of all being. Porete’s use of the mirror image would seem, then, still to be inscribed within a masculine discourse that reduces alterity to the same. Yet if the self becomes nothing in order to reflect the divine, God is also nothing.”

(“Sensible Ecstasy-- Mysticism, Sexual Difference, and the Demands of History.” Page 191)

You might need to define "alterity" for me.

Never mind - "otherness". Fair enough. I don't think Ms Hollywood gets it. I mean, I relate to her conclusion but not the process by which she arrived at it. It's like when Bernays wanted to change the perception of smoking so women would do it, thereby doubling the market for his tobacco clients. He surmised that the cigarette could be promoted as a kind of penis substitute that women, being naturally envious of men's penises, would attach themselves to. So he organized a posse of women to light up at some social revolutionary march, and BAM. Women started smoking. Just like that. You see what I'm saying? Went via an absurdly cockamimi route, yet somehow arrived at the optimum conclusion nonetheless.

Says something about reason, doesn't it? And the human mind? The conclusion seems to come first and it's foundation is entirely unknown to our rational mind. Reason only explains how one might arrive at this conclusion. Best not to get too attached to the offerings of reason lest one look like a fool.

Anyway, everybody knows that in order to see anything in a mirror one must first wipe off the scunge. The self is the spattering of toothpaste and shaving cream that must be removed in order to see what we are. Seeing what we are is seeing god. (Or no god. Or whatever.)

 

[Raymond Sigrist]

Except that if the self is still something, then God becomes something in order to reflect the divine.

I think I agree. When the unnecessary aspects of my self are removed, I see everything as a reflection of the divine. (Whatever the "divine" is)

 

[Raymond Sigrist]

You might need to define "alterity" for me.

Never mind - "otherness". Fair enough. I don't think Ms Hollywood gets it. I mean, I relate to her conclusion but not the process by which she arrived at it. It's like when Bernays wanted to change the perception of smoking so women would do it, thereby doubling the market for his tobacco clients. He surmised that the cigarette could be promoted as a kind of penis substitute that women, being naturally envious of men's penises, would attach themselves to. So he organized a posse of women to light up at some social revolutionary march, and BAM. Women started smoking. Just like that. You see what I'm saying? Went via an absurdly cockamimi route, yet somehow arrived at the optimum conclusion nonetheless.

Says something about reason, doesn't it? And the human mind? The conclusion seems to come first and it's foundation is entirely unknown to our rational mind. Reason only explains how one might arrive at this conclusion. Best not to get too attached to the offerings of reason lest one look like a fool.

Anyway, everybody knows that in order to see anything in a mirror one must first wipe off the scunge. The self is the spattering of toothpaste and shaving cream that must be removed in order to see what we are. Seeing what we are is seeing god. (Or no god. Or whatever.)

"must be removed in order to see what we are." Yes, or at least for me, it is removed to see how much fun I can have on this strange journey called life.