[1] There is a certain sense in which theology is a master form.
How could one possibly claim this? Because it's a form that presupposes
itself to be higher than every other form; a form that pretends to deal
with the highest conceivable form, and what gives it this power is the
fact that many humans (subconsciously) validate its
presuppositions of itself. (The linguistic and conceptual function of
the term God is that it assumes a hierarchical status).
[2]
There is a way to make use of theology that is unconscious to theology
itself, which is to say, as a kind of thought experiment that seeks to
contrast hierarchical value, even though the ideal of theology is not a
real value but a mere abstraction. One can make use of theology, not in
the sense that it's real, but in the sense of searching for higher
concepts and their functions.
[3] To
assign a construct, such as theology, to a place of epistemological
supremacy, is detrimental to the species, precisely because it seeks to
dissolve [condemn] life into idealism, because it renders consciousness
defenseless against idealism. The ramifications of this are bondage and
tyranny through the demarcation of false value. In theology, mankind
subjects itself, and is fooled by, its own imagination; ultimately
theology is a form of being dominated by the subconscious.
[4]
Theology is a pretend discourse about the highest form; in it, and
through it, the theologian is seeking several psychological ends:
comfort, power, amusement, relief.
[5] Above
all, theology is the lie of the highest form; the supremacy it
presupposes for itself is a supremacy of imagination. (However, this
doesn't mean that the idealism of theology can't materialize itself
within a body of believers, who then strike out for real supremacy
though violence, or even legislation). It is in this way that ideas have
power, they do not have power in themselves, they only have power
insofar as they are assimilated and enacted by humans, insofar as humans
bring them to life with action.
[6]
Theology is also a species of mysticism insofar as it's concerned with
"utterances, sayings, oracles, discourse, reasoning," all within the
context of an idealized, projected Being or Beings (or Force). The key
component is that this being is imaginary. Potentially this means that
there is no end to discourse on "God," but that theology, done properly,
remains a domain of infinite creativity. This is also one of the
reasons why it can provide a continual escape from reality.
[7]
Theology is an idealism that man is always trying to impose on reality.
This desperation for imposition drives man into the domain of
manipulation, and this manipulation is so motivated and energetic... it
brings the resources of intelligence to its aid, so much so, that it
becomes genius and actually ends up making strange progress through its
effort and desperation to convince itself of the truth of its
machinations.
[8] Theology is an
endeavor of ignorance that is driven by subconscious desires. The
theologian is not actually aware of what he's doing; this unawareness is
one of the most crucial, unspoken attributes of theology. It is through
this unawareness that the theologian derives his motivation and
psychological comfort. What does this mean? It means that theology is
really the deployment of imagination as a defense mechanism against
existence (theology is, at its root, reactionary).
[9]
The worst thing about theology is not that it exists, but the form in
which it exists; a form that ends up negating critical consciousness,
submerging the subject in pure idealism and then filtering reality
through this idealism, which has the effect of sabotaging the social
potential of the species. (This is sabotage because it means that man no
longer approaches the world as it is, no longer seeks to master nature
on nature's terms, to transcend nature, but because of theology, filters
the world through idealism, demanding that nature conform to idealism,
imposing idealism on everything). Theology is like an a priori
disability that gets in the way of man's process with nature (logic can
also function this way).
[10] Value in
theology: that theology gives rise to concepts is most interesting,
those concepts being derived through assertions and proclamations
regarding the supernatural nature of reality, and sometimes these
concepts lead to the formation of new concepts, these new concepts then
take on new substance or new content, or expand ideas, or possibly even
expand consciousness.
[11] It is
important to understand that because theologians are not conscious of
their forms, they cannot make the most of them. It's possible for Karl
Barth to discourse on the concept of God, but it is not possible for
Karl Barth to understand what his discourse means within the broader
context of existence (because he does not have a higher
philosophical/rational (secular) view to contextualize his own
theology). If he was left to the devices of his theology, he would never
be able to escape the presuppositions of his theology, and escape he
must if he doesn't want to be the irrational victim of his theology.
What this really tells us is that theology is a lie in tension with its
own non-theological presuppositions; it tries to hide these
presuppositions behind the theological premises it deduces from them.
[12]
The admission of theology is a confession that one doesn't have
anything else, if one is trying to give theology, or proselytize to
theology, or lay down a narrative of theology, it's because one is
admitting and confessing that they don't have anything else, their
imagination has been exhausted, and so they're trying to offer theology.
[13]
If theology is one thing, it is a form of deception, but interestingly
enough, theology is not one thing, it is a multitude of things. It is
not, just deception, it is also a desire for truth, between this desire
and between deception, one finds the essence of theology.
[14]
If theology could say one thing, it would say, "I fool you." This is
the ethos of theology; and an important question is, in how many ways
does, and has, theology fooled mankind?
TOWARD THE ESSENCE OF AN EMANCIPATORY THEOLOGY:
It
would never occur to a fundamentalist that there is such a thing as
theology beyond and outside the insecurity of fundamentalism. But
outside of fundamentalism is when theology gets interesting (and
relevant) because it has the potential to transform into a unique
discourse that goes beyond itself.
What
this looks like in practical terms is that someone, like the Apostle
Paul, is viewed as just one theologian among many theologians, one
creative mind among many creative minds; (very important): one is free
to reject and expand his ideas! Only then can the same mechanisms, which
were at work in Paul himself, be permitted to continue their
development toward higher levels of Humanism.
Here's
an important maxim of theology: one is only dealing with the vital
roots of theology when one has unearthed and identified the
philosophical (naturalistic) concepts that lie hidden beneath the
surface of theology.
If one is truly concerned with truth, then one cannot evade, leave off, or ignore, the hidden and unspoken, foundational (naturalistic) presuppositions on which theology rests. To do such would simply mean that one was deceived by theology!
-
-
-
