Date: 	Fri, 30 Oct 1998 15:37:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Jason Ingram <jwingram-AT-email.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: god


The similarity lies in god's death: many prior understandings of god
placed god in the category of the uncreated and eternal.  For god to die
requires a radically different understanding, one that undermines what it
means to be god.  

Further, stating that god Is dead loops back into issues of being; ousia
and parousia.  to understand god as effect (unless as self-creating and
thus ineffable [ineffability = an aporia of logic, which is a sort of
paradox]) also plays with paradox, since situating god as effect rather
than cause destablizes meaning.

I say a "sort" of paradox since I don't think there is anything
self-disabling about such uses.  That is, I mean paradox in the sense of
para doxa rather than in a more strict sense.  I see the play at work in
noting that god is dead as akin to Beckett's Irish Bull, though each plays
in distinct fields.

Also, logical "contradictions" can have value in unsettling the will
to truth.

On Fri, 30 Oct 1998, amd wrote:

> I do not think that there is a paradox in N's case of God. Your Beckett's
> understanding comes from not having a sense that existence precedes the
> qualia. God would look like respectively as an effect that takes a form of
> **subsistence** in 'its' existence. A metamorphoses that has a degree of
> movement, an attribute of the univocity of being that met its destiny. 
> 
> God is dead!!! In its death, life returns
> 
> amdib
> 
> At 11:57 AM 10/30/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >I think there is a paradox of sorts involved, along the lines of Beckett's
> >"God . . . That bastard! He doesn't exist."
> >
> >
> >
> >	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> 



	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---