filler 52
Added 2018-07-03 05:03:57 +0000 UTCa folie a dupe strip i've been working on for the last week.
dupe is a very literal-minded person, which has always made the references to god interesting to me.
the interpretation of the word "god" comes from the referential use to explain many unknowable or unexplained observations and phenomena, extrapolated to mean an unknown itself -- probably because the definition of god can vary wildly, making an easy literal understanding from a dictionary effectively useless.
Comments
WAS 100% THINKING ABOUT THAT SONG TITLE WHEN I SAW THAT LINE
gray Folie
2018-07-03 21:59:31 +0000 UTCDupe writes sins not tragedies
Will Toledo
2018-07-03 21:25:48 +0000 UTCthis is interesting -- first of all because i didn't know who job was as a christian prophet and i read the entire post thinking you were talking about the dead apple man lmao. more seriously, i have been reading research on dissociation for a while now, and at some point, i came to the conclusion that in order to have a sense of self, individuality, will, etc... dissociation is a necessary process. for example: a fly is a very simple creature with simple instincts that drive its behavior. 2 of these instincts are "food=collect" and "danger=flee"; if a fly finds some food, but a swat comes down next to it, it will "dissociate" the sensory information about food away for the time being in order to make a decision in its best interest. later it will be able to recall where the food was once the danger seems to no longer exist... but it cannot make a decision while being aware of both of these factors at once. this behavior process can extend all the way up to much more intelligent animals. meanwhile, a computer, while modeled after brains, does not dissociate -- a computer also does not make decisions or have a concept of identity without external input of discreet decipherable code no matter how much it "knows." a computer, however, can perceive reality and produce a change in reality by perceiving nonetheless. this reminds me more of the concept of a truly omniscient being, and it makes sense in conjunction with the concept that a god would "forget" information it knows temporarily when making decisive motions to act. reminds me of the "unstoppable force vs. immovable object" conundrum, that they are actually the same thing, and the notion that there can be both, but they cannot exist simultaneously.
gray Folie
2018-07-03 19:28:03 +0000 UTCreminds me of jung's "answer to job". in jung's reading, god exceeds man in goodness and nobility, but also jealousy, wrath, etc. however, god incapable of the self-reflection necessary to acknowledge the shitty parts. he tests job's faith even though, being omniscient, he should have this info already; dude just forgot that he was all-knowing for a sec. god's fascination with man is attributed to the fact that man has something that god lacks (man must be self-aware, being so weak and impotent in a big scary world) and that man is aware of god; "Loudly as his power resounds through the universe, the basis of its existence is correspondingly slender, for it needs conscious reflection in order to exist in reality." while job ends up prostrating himself before god and praising his might, "Job had been secretly lifted up to a superior knowledge of God which God did not possess... Job realizes God's inner antinomy, and in light of this realization his knowledge attains a divine numinosity." so god comes away from the encounter a little shaken by the realization that man has something over him-- which motivates the whole "jesus" thing later on. but if you can't get god to attempt to empathize with you, getting it to kill itself sounds like a good bet.
cherrvak
2018-07-03 12:49:41 +0000 UTC
