GOD EXISTS

[andrew]

I would like to put your deconstructive talents to work so that I can view this process in real time ( sort of) . 

Have at 'er if you will! 

Here is a start: 

http://www.unspirituality.com/deconstructing-god-mystery-revealed/

Deconstruct this : GOD EXISTS! 

Thanks in advance.

[Layman Pascal]

Once God is taken apart we can put it back together in two interesting ways. Firstly as a new hybrid definition which explains a wide variety of uses.  Secondly as a flexibly organized system of relativized meanings.  

The latter is presented in my definitions of Orthodox, Modern, Pluralistic, Integrative "God" etc.  The former is probably most succinctly defined as the "force of coincidence between diverse ontological domains".

[andrew]

Thanks for replying Layman. You know, I have a vision of you as a kid always being the first one in the class to put a hand up when the teacher asked a question! But, if you don't mind, on this thread, I'd like to take a step back and explore the deconstuctive stage of development. This would be green exit/ yellow enter, no? Also, Chomsky says deconstruction is gibberish. Some accuse  Wilber of not really getting this phase. I don't know if I get it. I'd like to make sure that I'm grokking it as much as that is possible for me. 

I also wonder if this is the terrain where we can parse out how theists 'know' god exists; and how atheists 'know' that god doesn't exist. I'd also like to explore the deconstruction of Buddhism, too. Now I know this is ground that has been covered here previously, so I get it if some folks  don't want to do this. 

Here are some more links: 

http://open.salon.com/blog/caroline_hagood/2009/07/27/derrida_and_d...

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/txt/gb2000_3.htm

[Layman Pascal]

No. I was the kid who put up his hand only if no one else raised theirs.

Chomsky is a thorough-going (and excellent) modernist -- so he naturally finds deconstruction to be gibberish.  Wilber seems to have had a fairly narrow passage through the social and emotional aspects of Green.

As you know, I would generally associated Theists with the Orthodox God and Atheists with the Modern God.  The notion of "knowing" about God's existence or non-existence leads to a philosophical cul-de-sac. 

God is encountered wherever culture and psyche are working properly.  However the orthodox style is to "legally" enforce an ethnocentric myth as the shell of this experience.  The modern style is to insist that the experience must be rational, naturalistic, pseudo-mechanical and myth-free (or "invisible").

[Ambo Suno]

Nice, Lay. I appreciate this pithy rendition.

"God is encountered wherever culture and psyche are working properly.  However the orthodox style is to "legally" enforce an ethnocentric myth as the shell of this experience.  The modern style is to insist that the experience must be rational, naturalistic, pseudo-mechanical and myth-free (or "invisible")."

[andrew]

Yup, I second that Ambo! Lp is one hell of a bubble maker:) 

Hey, as Nietzche played off the crucifixion to declare god's death; would it be reasonable to assume Derrida was playing off the logo of christ when he declared that the text was foremost? Also, I was wondering if post-post structuralism would declare that the author and the reader are in a symbiotic relationship i.e. P2P 

Taking a break :