Oracle an apostle or Satan-The intellectual truth of the cosmos

The intellect could harldy reminisice of sex with clarity that I had to call upon Orcale who could be a Sophoi of sort in helping the God do death to temporal existence and help Him move within the realms of His own authority. Is he an apostle or Satan then? To break the bondage of darkness, I visit the temple and with its belssings I pass by a funeral procession only to be welcomed by Oracle who is with the sun and at the noon would be a dominant power to enter my home and here I recite a Bollywood tune to endear the welcoming of Oracle and open the windows of perception. The divination I intend is for Freud to elaborate on sexual vitality as Oracle enters the service of God laying commnication through the windows of existence. Superficial knowledge is to be replaced with omnsicnece remmnant of God and thus leading into an ethereal existence beyond death.  It’s a grand event to acknowledge the pagans to have a foresight into the supernatural and thus realise the God.

Waiting for Oracle by the windows I favour he came but was more finnicky about the British English as to how clearly pronounce the alphabet to prophesy. I asked him if God was dead and he shook the head to mean yes. Who killed the God ? I enquired further. He calculated on his fingers and said five stars. Who are these? Satan intellectuals who want to run the universe on their own hands. So Nietzshe was correct it was the religion who killed the God.


Knowledge as an end without means

We resist the approach to knowledge for we have a bias against it, how could the person leading the view have authority to guide us let alone the entire human race? This is quite invisible in the case of Karl Marx in whose authority we surrender without much ado as far as the source of knowledge is concerned. The world view of Marx is taken as indisputable source for the knowledge to follow however critical it might be.

Then we have technological knowledge whose source is as mysterious as the technical skill of the practitioner is, If technological practitioner is taken to be synonymous of Karl Marx then his lengthy discourse on the seemingly developing technology might sound a personal drive to bring about meaning in the world however logical it might prove. The source in either case of technology practitioner or Karl Marx impels us to accept knowledge with self doubt which is the part of human nature and to eradicate the self doubt we accept the source of knowledge. Either case propounds dictatorship of reason. The reason would not oblige the ego but goes on to enumerate itself in bid to establish whatever ideology or product it has on its hand. It is this dictatorship of reason the intellect must show up arms against to revel in poetry and arts more as it was in the past then to always sinking the teeth into scientific developments.

The knowledge is beyond scientific or technical agenda the man pursues to make life livable and we must accept knowledge without much dilly-dallying as about its relevance to our times. Next could be the religion that could be the source of knowledge as it appears was treated in the past with much favour but in the modern times have been relegated to fanaticism and the one without reasonable basis. But it fights the dictatorship of reason and must go on to fight it.

Gambit of lost love

Lost love is not lost but hidden somewhere in the dark nook of mind. Something occurs evenly, occurs oddly but occurs after all; what about the things that don’t occur, they exist in mind in wake of preordained to be present in abstraction. The mind cajoles up things that reason foretell while ego plays with the drives that are fore stalled in memory as something already experienced or felt. What about love? Is it present in advance that when we see the object of love, it is evoked! In fact it is in abstraction of nature. The more pure the nature is, more the love. So it is in essence of man that he abstracts everything out of love for the nature unless he is an anarchist and given to the way of destruction which is death like obsession to recur to something earlier felt or present. It is return to an earlier state yet it is in abstraction of love essence.

The content of abstraction if fictional content that is evident in the representation of mythology. Everything marked for existence is either fictional or habitual in nature. Either the thought I am having is a production of my mind or it is production of habit of mind. So mind when used to behave in typical ways like those in actors yield content that is though abstract but something already seen or expressed.

Reason is a faculty other than the abstraction of love which gives order to the thought like placing the events in sequence of occurring. So love lost in gambit is the work of reason that having concluded the order of things writes an epilogue, the event that must end in the last. Hence the gambit. All love lost is gambit.

Love with Karl Marx on the other end of life

I connected to ghosts. Marx is on the other end of grave well by thousand days in inferno that he shook the dream of sexual orgy as if mad frenzy has taken better of Hitler in grave. They all had  dressed like tomatoes as slaves. No idea is dead as the interview of God describing Vulcan volcano if it really exists as the starting point:?and God yet not exist though the world has undertaken yet God would not be known.

There is a street in town running like Berlin wall and on the other end lives Marx in dejection having become destitute with the fall of Russian empire nonetheless love lives shy of Ottomon Empire though.

Equality of the sexes is a battle between resurgent God and Godless Marx. There is a pudding and vodka socialism living as alien in its own motherland.

Freud was right God is witness to sex of the species, creating a new replica of the sexual union each a master of his own orgy. She sickened with dirt in the air hardly moved with a kiss. But Marx reached out for a cigar in Castro fashion and lit the pyre of Mary while Jesus burned in pain of sheepish surrender as if the whole ocean is laid out in seconds by the God to resurrect humanity.



Nietzsche’s superhuman is not supernatural

The theme of Nietzsche that the entity occurs again and again eternally conduces a belief that it is not supernatural but mere effete to continue with the eternity. Something transcending the reality is super real while something transcending the nature is supernatural. The idea of eternal recurrence without transcending nature is not possible and if it transcends the nature it is supernatural. But Nietzsche does believe in transcending nature otherwise how the superhuman would exist but it is not supernatural that there is no reincarnation in the process of something occurring again and again over the time.

Out of the box a thing cannot recur till it goes beyond the limits of existence which are known to us prior the experience of transcendence. Though transcendence is not possible in the universe which has a finite beginning thus eternal recurrence is in odds with the big bang. The idea of creation starting with a bang denies a thing to recur beyond the point of creation but there might be the parallel universe existing prior to ours or our universe is a simulation of the one we are not a part of. The God exists prior to big bang that there are multiple universes in which the creation commenced ad infinitum. The Supernatural is the doctrine where the creation never was or never would be but existed in a time-space infinitely earlier than our simulation from where flows pure nature.

Nietzsche’s superhuman though recurs but never had a time-space which defines itself as pure nature in existence. If God was a concept that we killed then how could things recur without divine intervention and how eternity unfolds without divine providence. So God never was dead and it is the existence of God among the mythology that is supernatural and as professed by Nietzsche God had the chance of throwing dice but was overcome by the evolution of man, God is dead and the things that recur are not supernatural but mere confirmation of human condition which Nietzsche thought to repeat ad infinitum.

The Infinite Supernatural in whose face Economics fails

There is infinity extending in the supernatural from which the whole psyche is derived like an application interface for the layer that exists innate in every individual as posited by Jung. The supernatural exists at the root of psyche and cannot be undefined by any intellect of which the reason is the most significant benefactor though it is the compulsion of the personality to make sense out of the universe by employing reason. Reason is with the conscious soul hardly bearing any meaning or significance to the soul.It is the supernatural at the root of psyche from which psyche derives the whole meaning and visual symbols for its working. The individual is conditioned to obey the reason as it demands the answers which on the surface out rightly means nonsensical without any linkage to psyche. Psyche is the condition of the mental apparatus of the individual at any time and the individual in it contains the symbols which are common to the species. Marx and the other great thinkers before Freud avoided the psychological processes only to construe reality which was an illusion of the existing universe. They replicated thought which had no relation to the drive of man like indulging in Economics which could be considered esoteric activity in the information age when whims of the persons doing trade take precedence over the economic theories as postulated by the thinkers. To think on the lines of social anthropology is a mistake and the focus must proceed on to the psychic aspect of the individual when he is more confronted with the whimsical aspects of personality in day to day life.

So denying the supernatural is to deny from where the mind lends its imagery in relation to the external world. The Hindu Mythology and the Greek Mythology is the living examples as depicting the behaviour of the individuals when confronted by the Gods. So denying God was the essential failure of Karl Marx to acknowledge reality.

Karl Marx refutes existential confrontation

On the basis of what was developed by Hegel, the existential ground for dialectical materialism, Marx drops the same struggle inherent in the existence of man and goes on to provide the basis of economic justice without giving any particular stress on the inherent basis for psyche’s existence as it exists in communicating with the supernatural.To loose the shine of self in delivering the human justice by taking up the cause of economic equality, Karl Marx ignores the existence of the supernatural from where all the psyche has evolved not in a manner of Darwin’s evolution but confronting itself in a single moment on the path of human development. It has evolved in a mere thirty to forty years since the information age began. The data is inhuman for the psyche and its apparatus to comprehend the data is exemplary, thus spending  the most of energy in making sense out of whatever data man has garnered over a said period of time. It’s ridiculous to think Marx in the face of loads of data which was never contemplated by Marx himself and who was instead content to have a concise summary of human existence in his terse economic laws.

While most of the religion, the mind connotes with, is ritualistic murder of reason and thus is ignored by the cerebral activity and enters the phase of memory rote recitations and Marx’s hypothesis though challenging brain activity fails to strike the chord with the reason itself since it refutes the existence of supreme power that could lay equality to the whole human race. Instead Karl Marx goes on to create a basis for his ideas which is weaker force, the proletariat as opposite to the stronger supernatural. How could a weakened section of society demand equality which was forced by Lenin into a conclusion- the revolutionary overthrow of the status quo with violent means?

Lenin thus walks on the way of anarchy to bestow order like Hitler with the difference that Hitler though endeared death wish, Lenin avowed Eros. Marx thus failed to create a substitute for that which is weaker in nature ,as Hegel had formed for his basis a strong undercurrent of confrontation in nature of the opposing yet strong forces.