#creatio ex nihilo

[mereinkling]

Only God Can Create

Satan has many disciples in this world. Some know him by other names, or worship him in spirit without recognizing his actual existence (e.g. Mammon). The irony, of course, is that the Devil is simply a posturer, or in modern parlance, a poser. And the presence of the Holy Spirit makes any single Christian more than his match. A prime evidence of Satan’s weakness is that he is a mere created…

[thedepthsofmyshame]

This is the creation myth of the only religion I want to follow.

By Mars Black

[some-spinner-in-june]

the love story of the blind idiot god

web weave on @mawofthemagnetar's eldritch horror keralis au <3

---

credits:

tabula rasa, mawofthemagnetar || @/insanitycreator || joseph campbell || four, sleeping at last || @/fairycosmos || the sunseekers, mawofthemagnetar || @/whereismycaplock || shapechangers in winter, margaret atwood || the hour of the star, clarice lispector || the sunseekers, mawofthemagnetar || wintersong, s. jae-jones || caitlyn siehl || epoch's end, mawofthemagnetar || @/theskeletonprior || epoch's end, mawofthemagnetar || to be alive, gregory orr || epoch's end, mawofthemagnetar || @/scars-upon-his-skin || lena oleanderson || epoch's end, mawofthemagnetar || troy (2004) || asofterworld, #359 || creatio ex nihilo, mawofthemagnetar || @/blorballs-of-yarn || music of the heavens turns out to sound a lot like a b flat, dennis overbye (via nyt) || creatio ex nihilo, mawofthemagnetar

[writers-potion]

Aight I just remembered what I was gonna ask. I think It'll be my second ask because I do remember I submitted the same question I wanna ask months ago HAHA

Okay so, I'm writing a story that explores a lot of subjects, one of them is morality

So... How do you make a fictional religion feel "real" in a sense? Like I know there'll be shrines, temples, and stuff but I need to know more than just that.

Take your time and thank you! ✨

Writing Realistic Fictional Religion

Hi! Thank you for the question :)

Please refer to my posts about writing hateful gods and writing deities for stuff about writing gods! I'll talk more about writing religion in general here.

Religious Hierarchy

Think about how you'd want your religion to be structured:

Polytheism: the belief in many gods.

Monotheism: the belief in a single, all-powerful god.

Atheism: the belief in no gods. A belief in nothing is stil a belief.

Are there tiers of gods? (Gods above Gods)?

Is there a "Mother God" or "Father God" that must be worshipped over everything else?

How are religious leaders selected and trained?

What kind of actions (celibacy, vegetarianism) do the believers need to do in order to be a faithful person? Is there a consequence when they don't do this?

Religious Texts

The most important question a religious text should aim to answer is: where did the world (and therefore, us) come from?

Here are some story patterns you can use:

Creatio Ex Nihilo: God creates the world from nothing

Creation from Chaos: God introduced order into a chaotic world

Primal Couple: The first "couple" gives birth to the world

World Parent: A god sacrifices (a part) of their body to construct the world's elements.

Emergence: Before the current world, there existed another world. After a period of time is over, a new world emerges.

Earth-Diver: A deity sends over a person/animal, etc. to construct a world out of the barren land they've created.

This "Origin Story" will dicate the basic values that your religion thinks is the most important.

Religious Practices

You have the freedom to invent your own religious practices. When you are trying to invent one, consider:

The weather. Is the Sun in your world so blazing that all religious festivals are only held during the night?

What can you not do in the name of religion? Are you not allowed to have stuffed animals in your bed? Not eat blue stuff?

Who are the people that work the most during festivals/worship ceremonies? Are slaves exploited to prepare the feast? Are the women the only ones that works while the men sing? Are animals tortured or exploited in the process?

Sacrifices. What/when/how do you offer sacrifices?

You can also think about:

Who determines the kind of religious practices the other people have to follow?

Are the reliigous practice discriminatory and if yes, who do they benefit?

Religious Locations

Historically, religious lands have had the power to have its own rules and be protected. which will provide a good

One Location vs. Many: Is there a shrine in every home/street, or is everyone required to report to the city square every Saturday?

The Ruler's Castle: Sometimes, the king is considered to be the "son of god" and the palace is therefore the most sacred place.

One Unreachable Location: It can also be that in order to be ruly faithful, you need to visit a place that is so unreachable that people die trying.

A Moving Location: Does the god choose their new home every year?

A Constructable Location: If you draw a circle in bone ash, does the patch of land inside it become holy and no ghost can enter it? What if you lack faith and the circle construction doesn't work at a time you need it the most?

Question of Morality and Religion

While many religions preach equality and kindnes, it has been used to justify conflict and discriminate those who do not believe in it.

Does the deity promote such violence? Or is it the bad leaders?

Is the deity uncritical towards such behavior? Or do they actively step in?

Is the God falliable? Like the modern-day presidents, is the god's survival/power somehow dependent on the believers? Is that why they stay silent even when bad things are being done in their name?

Does the god favor rich people?

─── ･ ｡ﾟ☆: *.☽ .* . ───

💎If you like my blog, buy me a coffee☕ and find me on instagram! 

💎Before you ask, check out my masterpost part 1 and part 2 

💎For early access to my content and priority questions, become a Writing Wizard 

[mywitchyblog]

Hello, do you think manifesting a specific person to have romantic feelings for you is an infringement on that person's free will?

Nope, not at all! 💅💖

That’s such a phenomenal question 🧐✨—“Do you think manifesting a specific person to have romantic feelings for you is an infringement on that person's free will?” Let me tell you why the answer is no (and here’s all the juicy tea ☕✨):

I’m literally doing this right now, manifesting someone who’s currently in a relationship. 💃💌 Yes, babe, I did manifest his breakup with his girlfriend so he could find ME, his true queen. 👸💎✨

I’m even taking it a step further—casting spells and invoking divine energies to make it happen. 🔮✨ I’ve called upon Asmodeus (the king of spicy breakups 💔🔥) to sever their connection and Hera (the goddess of eternal romance 💍🌹) to bless us with long-lasting love. 💖🌌

Here’s the tea ☕: it’s all about your perception of reality. When you manifest, you’re simply shifting into a world where what you desire already exists. 🪐✨ In this case, I’m just creating a reality where he and I are together, and it’s all happening of his own free will. 💕🌟

Manifesting isn’t infringing on free will because you’re not forcing or controlling anyone. 🕊️✨ Instead, you’re aligning yourself with a timeline where love between you is mutual, natural, and consensual. 💘🌈 You’re scripting the reality, sure, but it’s the one where they’re choosing you freely. 🔑💞

For my situation? I did divination, and the cards confirmed it’s fate! 🃏✨ Turns out, he was already meant to be mine—period. 👑💋 Regardless of his current relationship status, I decided he’s mine. That’s the energy! 💪💞 I’ve shifted into a timeline where he chooses me freely. 🕰️💘

Witchcraft, honey, is the cherry on top. 🍒✨ It accelerates and solidifies the manifestation process. 🚀🔥 My belief is that love spells don’t create feelings out of thin air—humans can’t do creatio ex nihilo, you know? Instead, spells amplify what’s already there and align us with the version of reality where love flourishes. 🌹🕯️💫

Before I did anything, I made sure to consult my cards extensively. 🃏✨ I needed to be certain that my actions—manifesting, using witchcraft to end his current relationship, and cosmically “gatekeeping” him until he’s mine 💎💅—weren’t violating his free will. And guess what? The cards said his current relationship is temporary anyway! 🥂🎉✨They litterally called this his "pre-me" phase like its meant to make him grow and shape/mould him into the best version of himself for me.

Like i decided THAT BOY IS MINE and the universe was like "yeah bestie so true ! just a matter of time". So yeah shifting to a reality where that person shall be with you or just shifting realities is that simple you just decide that it is done.

So the universe is indeed a reflection of your assumptions

So, to answer your question directly: No, manifesting a specific person to have romantic feelings for you is not an infringement on their free will. 💖 You’re simply aligning with a version of reality where their feelings for you already exist, and it’s consensual in that timeline. 🌟🌈

And in my case? I’m just doing what the universe already had planned! 🌌💖 Love, spells, and destiny are aligning beautifully, and I’m embracing it all. 👑💃✨

THAT BOY IS MINE PERIODT ALEXA PLAY THAT BOY IS MINE BY ARIANA GRANDE

[eesirachs]

since when/why do people talk about creation ex nihilo ? genesis 1 feels like it’s about ordering, dividing, pulling apart and naming, not creating from Nothing.

as a classics student, the Pre-Beginning/Before-Genesis can seem quite similar to the hellenic one (in Hesiod’s Theogony) sometimes (at least to me). original Khaos ; something that is nothing yet contains everything. except in the Theogony the gods come from Khaos while the abrahamic god seems to be outside it.

i might be saying useless/stupid things sorry, i don’t know much about the Tanakh but i find it very interesting and what i read often seems to differ from what people (mostly christians) told me

creatio ex nihilo is a first century, very christian re-coding of the hebrew bible. for those who don't know, it means creation from nothing. it is the notion that despite what the hebrew text says, this biblical god had to have nothing preceding him. but you are right: nothing about genesis itself suggests that nothing precedes creation. there is chaos, there is water. there is an entire heavenly council with whom god speaks. in the ancient near east, gods were often themselves created: the hebrew bible does not go that far, but hashem is nonetheless like his coequal gods in that he has much to play with when he begins making and ordering things. creatio ex nihilo is an attempt of early ce christians to make neat the problem of: if matter precedes creation, who made that matter? for ancient bodies, that matter—the chaos that precedes god's creation, the deep waters, the heavenly bodies, god godself—these did not need a named maker. these were peripheral questions for yahwists. mattering began with the matter of god's hand. everything before is peripheral

[santoschristos]

Four Worlds in Kabbalah

The Four Worlds are the comprehensive categories of Spiritual Realms in Kabbalah in the descending chain of Existence. The concept of “Worlds” denotes the emanation of creative Lifeforce from the Ein Sof Divine Infinite, through progressive, innumerable Tzimtzumim.

Atziluth (אֲצִילוּת), meaning World of Emanation. On this level the light of the Ein Sof (Infinite Divine “Without End”) radiates and is still united with its source. This supernal revelation therefore precludes the Souls and Divine Emanations in Atzilus from sensing their own existence. In Atzilus the 10 Sephiroth emerge in revelation, with Chochma (Wisdom) dominating, all is nullification of Essence to Divinity, not considered created and separate. The last Sephirah Malchut (Kingdom) is the “Divine Speech” of Genesis 1, through which lower Worlds are sustained.

Beri'ah (בְּרִיאָה), meaning World of Creation. On this level is the first concept of Creatio ex Nihilo, however without yet shape or form, as the creations of Beriah sense their own existence, though in nullification of being to Divinity. Beriah is the realm of the “Divine Throne”, denoting the Sephiroth configuration of Atzilus descending into Beriah like a King on a Throne. The Sephirah Binah (Understanding) predominates, Divine intellect. Also called the “Higher Garden of Eden”. The Highest Ranking Angels are in Beriah.

Yetzirah (יְצִי��ָה), meaning World of Formation. On this level the created being assumes shape and form. The emotional Sephiroth Chesed to Yesod predominate, the souls and angels of Yetzirah worship through Divine emotion and striving, as they sense their distance from the Understanding of Beriah. This ascent and descent channels the Divine vitality down through the Worlds, furthering the Divine purpose. Therefore, in Yetzirah are the main angels, such as Seraphim, denoting their burning consummation in Divine emotion. Also called the “Lower Garden of Eden”.

Assiah (עֲשִׂיָּה), meaning World of Action. On this level the creation is complete, differentiated and particular, due to the concealment and diminution of the Divine vitality. However, it is still on a spiritual level. The angels of Asiyah function on the active level, as the sephirah Malchut (fulfilment in Kingship) predominates. Below spiritual Asiyah is Asiyah Gashmi (“Physical Asiyah”), the final, lowest realm of Existence, our material Universe with all its creations. The last two Sephiroth of Asiyah channel the Lifeforce into Physical Asiyah. --Self Mastery

Top Image From Mysteria, 1913.

[ananke-xiii]

Darkness, balance and cages.

At the end of this post I’ve written that there’s a tendency to use vague concepts related to “Eastern mysticism” when tv shows dealing with Christian themes fly a little too close to the sun (pun intended). This happened in “Supernatural” for sure but also in other shows like “Lost” and “The Good Place” (although, especially in the second, they were a bit more subtle about it) and, I’m willing to bet, in many others, too. This doesn’t bother me per se because I think that an informed, planned, researched dose of syncretism can actually help creating thought-provoking art, why not?, however, I’m not a fan of “Eastern mysticism” used as a way to obscure and confuse the actual meaning of the story I’m watching.

Take for instance when Chuck starts blabbering about “yin and yang” and “light and dark” in s11. First of all, I know I’ll sound pedantic now but throwing around these words expecting the audience to understand what they mean is hilarious. I’m not staying awake at night to read about Taoism for sure but I’ve been trying to “figure it out” for quite a few years and I still don’t get what “yin and yang” mean. But fine, notoriously I’m a downer and the death of the party and this is silly Supernatural so let’s be real. And, anyway, they did explain what they mean by that: “There’s a harmony, a balance, in the universe. Light needs dark. Dark needs light”. This is a very “meh”, Supermarket New Age take but okay, fine I guess. However, if you think about this concept and how it relates to the story, it still doesn’t make sense. And I think it doesn’t make sense because Amara was originally conceived to be “stronger” than Chuck but then they backtracked because *implications*.

This is what Death tells Dean in S10:

DEATH: Creatio ex nihilo -- God created the earth out of nothing -- or so your Sunday-school teacher would have you believe. DEAN: What, so Genesis is a lie, eh? Shocker. DEATH: Before there was light, before there was God and the archangels, there wasn't nothing. There was the Darkness, a horribly destructive, amoral force that was beaten back by God and his archangels in a terrible war.

I have things to say about why Death would ever say such things, after all he should’ve understood the Darkness’ deal because he was also an amoral force that could stand up to God. But I digress.

I’ll leave theology aside and focus on one thing: what’s Death really saying here? Would it be so incorrect to think that either the Darkness created God and/or God was inferior to the Darkness? So inferior that he had to create other beings that would help him lock her up? And how did God create these other beings? Also, these words seem to suggest that a. God is not light and b. God didn’t create anything. He appropriated creation. If the Darkness was before light and before God and she was a destructive force it follows that she was a creative force that existed before God (and, to stay in-universe, created God, perhaps? Is the Darkness… God’s MOTHER? Is she the Alpha and the Omega? Did God want to lock his mother up because he didn't want to be destructed/eaten by his parent? Is this about Zeus vs the Titans? Is the cage the Tartarus? Did OG God have mommy issues? I'm rolling and I could go on but I'll stop here because I think you get my point). God as male, paternal deity creating reality because *mind/phallus powers!* is a lie. Shocker! (?)

They just had to change this stuff and here enters “yin and yang”, or the appropriation of “Eastern mysticism” concepts to hide the huge, tiny "mis-take" they wrote.

So throughout S11 we’re repeatedly told that Chuck and Amara are unspecified “brother and sister” (twins? big sis? little bro? doesn't matter?) but Amara does state that they were “equals”(in power, I believe) and that Chuck made the archangels because he wanted to be big (! mommy issues alert !). To which Chuck says that yeah, it’s true but also! Look! Creation is so beautiful! And where did creation come from? The show had already stated the “creation ex nihilo” hypothesis as bullshit so they went the other way: creation was… “just there”. In “We Happy Few” Chuck says: “It didn't come from my hands. It was there waiting to be born. It just is, as you and I just were”. They course-corrected and took the “formless matter” route according to which, very briefly and simplistically, the matter came out from an intermediate state of "nothing and something" but that wasn’t actually created (because God is the active principle) since it was “formless”, aka potentiality.

Now I just want to say that there’s a sort of tendency in Supernatural where “formless matter” is “just there”. These are the same words that Cas uses when Kelly talks to him about her death, resurrection and her feelings towards her baby and how... he was conceived. Both these episodes were written by the same writer, Berens, and I’ll just leave this here for your consideration and the, uhm, not-so-nice implications of this argument re: women, (pro)creation and abuse.

To be honest, though, I don’t exactly blame them for taking this route because what was the other option? The show had put itself into a corner: there are two cosmic beings that they had decided to present as a woman and a man who are also brother and sister and ALSO the two primary entities in all existence? Ahem, the incest trap was just around the corner so, yeah, I can understand why the matter ex machina was necessary in order not to go there.

But things still don’t add up in terms of “yin and yang”! See:

CHUCK: Amara’s been caged for billions of years, but y’know, she was always there. She had to be there. Y’know, yin and yang. Dark and light. DEAN: English, Chuck. CHUCK: There’s a harmony, a balance, in the universe. Light needs dark. Dark needs light. If you blow one of them up, then, I mean—

Does Dark needs Light? Uhm.

I’ve talked a bit about the danger behind the word balance. What I want to focus now is the “she had to be there”, “she was always there”. Again!!! What does this mean? Well, I’m trying to follow the logic they’re presenting me but what I personally gather is this: matter is just there waiting to be born (!!!) and the Darkness is also just there and she has to be and stay there otherwise the universe is in an imbalanced state.

I don’t want to go into the equation of Amara = formless matter because, again, incest trap! awful implications trap! but STILL this means that the "balance" in the universe can and indeed IS achieved when God is free to create and go around being the mess he is while Amara is caged and in pain. She doesn’t have to be free, she just needs to be. She doesn't have to be happy, she just needs to not-die. So that the universe can still exist. Who would want this balance, really? This is atrocious.

I mean, this is both horrendous and it proves my point: Amara is "stronger" than Chuck because the balance that Chuck is claiming to be necessary for the universe is a scam. Does the universe really need for him to be alive and free and for Amara to be alive and caged in order to exist? Or, perhaps, not? She brought destruction alright but the universe didn't end when the Darkness broke free, did it? So the universe can and indeed IS still in balance if Amara is out of her cage! What's different now? Chuck, ONE Sun, OUR Sun, is dying. Poor baby. One star dying is actually not that big of a deal, cosmically speaking and well, one day our Sun will die out, folks, and the universe will go on without us. Let's be fucking real for a second.

This is why Sam had to be “crazy and stupid” because Sam was onto Chuck from day 1. Because what does Sam say when God is dying? Well, Chuck, you keep on dying, but you know what we can do? Let’s also kill Amara and off with both of them and the universe can find its own new balance, EMPTY SCALES, out with the darkness and with "light", on with "formless matter", power to the people who are "just there", amirite? So Chuck comes up with the stupidest idea in the whole show, i.e. to kill Amara by the power of “10,000 suns set to supernova” while being wounded and figuratively associated with one dying Sun. It was never going to be successful. An arbitrary quantity against the essence of reality itself? A cosmic entity who eats souls, grace and feeds on creation/light? Please.

Amara and Chuck were never equals. The “Yin and Yang” was a lie and a smokescreen to make us think that yeah, Light and Dark, balance, yahoo, happy ending, God is love, God is (still) Light, while in the universe of Supernatural Amara/Darkness is the real Alpha and Omega. The fact that by S15 she bought into this balance, yin-yang scheme is quite painful. The caged stays (more or less, we don’t see her and I have problems with that but that doesn’t mean she’s not there) caged while existence lives on. Like previously and always on Supernatural. This, time, however, without Chuck. Because creation, existence, light without Chuck was always possible. Without Amara, though? Mmmm, perhaps not in the way we like to think of "creation". But "creation" kept on living because she agreed to co-exist with Jack even though she didn't have to. Did she choose, in the end, to "be just there"? Well, we don't know because we never saw Amara again, we only know she agreed via Jack. And so we believe in Jack and so we, *sigh*, believe in God. Amen!

[flagellant]

I apologize if I asked you this before but your self-insert/derivative post makes me think you might know the statement of the concept I have been looking for. There's a statement that goes something along the lines of, "nothing can ever be created outside of the influence of its creator". Do you know the official/academic way of stating it? It's one of those statements that when phrased in a specific way implies a specific set of background info and also is easier to look up more about it (maxim?). It's been escaping me for years! Thanks if you know it!

I'll be honest the only thing that comes to mind is creatio ex nihilo and while it's a fascinating and deeply intriguing philosophical concept I don't actually think it's particularly relevant! Sorry, friend--I don't think I can help you find it, but maybe some of my followers might know?

[thesomebodywho]

Creatio Ex Nihilo

Ex nihilo nihil fit or some other pretentious Latin bullshit.

I created this Tumblr account in 2013, probably to access the late nsfw side of Tumblr. As a horny teenager in the early 2010s does. After doing a little summer cleaning i.e. purging all previous follows, I still somehow decided to do something with this instead of just deleting everything. If I had to vager a guess as to why, I would probably have to say that I wanted to occupy my username here. Although I did not need to add a profile pic or tidy up the blog just to occupy my username.

I had actually created another Tumblr account sometime within the last two years but that was created just to continue scrolling whenever I was linked something from here. I cannot remember why I created that one instead of using this. Anyway, I deleted it. A moment of silence for the fallen.

I do not know what compelled me to actually post someting. Maybe I decided subconciously to use this blog as a creative outlet or something. Maybe shouting into the void could be therapeutic or something. Maybe I want to chase the dubiously significant clout of being someone on Tumblr.

Whatever the reason is, for now, I would like to commit to blogging here, even if just a tiny bit. I do not consider myself a creative person and as such I do not yet know if I can manage to squeeze anything interesting out of myself. To quote my sibling: "You know? I could just start posting random things and then expand into actual content after I become an interesting person." Finding them is left as an exercise for the reader.

Is it probable that I will purge everything again sometime in the future during the wee hours of the night? — Yes.

Will this blog die in obscurity after the passing whims of my ADHD fixations do not want to play with it anymore? — Most likely.

Does anyone actually care? — Probably not.

Does it feel a bit weird to write on here knowing full well that my friends see this? — A little bit, yes.

Do I realise the irony in calling out your pseudo-intellectual pretentiousness in the opening statement? — Yes.

Did I still commit to the most annoying blogging tropes ever commited? — Eeyup.

[urne-buriall]

creatio ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), pt. ii

putting the 'corporate' back into 'discorporated'

[preservationofnormalcy]

Hey, potential former deity again. No new memories that I can remember, and what I have seen in my head only comes if I actively think that I could be a former deity.

The only question I have now is if you've come across former deities before? Such as mortals right now, but were once immortal and worshipped by at least a decent amount of folks.

It's a bit hard to pinpoint the visions, because they-or I-seem to have been a wandering deity of sorts with a diverse cast of worshippers. I'm not too concerned about this since it's not interfering with my life in any way, just thought I'd inform you.

If you want to know anything I remember, I'd be happy to tell.

It’s….rare, but not unheard of. I’d have to consult Wren in Holistic Theology, they’d know better.

The Office definition of “diety” is intentionally pretty broad. Given that, most gods or dieties are not as physical as other beings, being primarily thoughtforms or from other planes and not fully in our dimension anyway.

It’s not impossible that one was transmuted to physicality or even a flesh based human body - some of our defining characteristics for gods are acausality and creatio ex nihilo, after all. Wren might be interested in talking to you about it.

[retrosynth]

To the Stars We Return - creatio ex nihilo / RetroSynth Lazersteel #synthwave #ambient #retrosynth

RetroSynth Lazersteel Records Proudly Presents: To the Stars We Return – creatio ex nihilo / RetroSynth Lazersteel #synthwave #ambient #retrosynth Released today on all streaming platforms! Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/album/01AZwCTrSMcoD0YwkEw600?si=VLqJ9soRSpumjTvg5bn1yQ&nd=1&dlsi=6547ae34f3214f8c Apple Music: https://music.apple.com/us/album/creatio-ex-nihilo/1730813342?i=1730813343 On…

[fabiansteinhauer]

Medien der Rechtsprechung

1.

Cornelia Vismann ist eine Rechtswissenschaftlerin, die ihre Wissenschaft auf dem aufgebaut hat, was manche Juristen eine verteilte Intelligenz und ein verteiltes Denken nennen.

Sie hat dazu nicht Handbuchwissen aus angeblich anderen und deren Gegenstand angeblich näheren Wissenschaften in eine Wissenschaft importiert, die diesem Gegenstand angeblich ferner stünde. Sie hat nicht behauptet, die Bildwissenschaft oder Medienwissenschaft wüssten mehr über das Bild und die Medien als die Rechtswissenschaft. Sie hat nicht gegenüber den Rechtswissenschaftlern behauptet, sie habe sich in diese angeblich fremde Wissenschaft eingearbeitet und könne den Juristen jetzt erzählen, was eigentlich ein Bild oder ein Medium sei. Sie war Rechtswissenschaftlerin, nur anders und anderen fremd wie jedermann und jede Frau. Sie hat auch nicht gesagt, vorher habe sich niemand die Fragen gestellt, die sie sich stellen würde.

2.

Der Anfang vom Aktenbuch ist ein Anfang, der mit einem Haufen oder einem Stapel beginnt, mit Literatur, die längst geschrieben und schon wieder verstaubt ist. Am Anfang war Haufenbildung als Strukturprinzip. Der Anfang von Vestings Medien des Rechts ist der Anfang eines Autors, der noch nach Erscheinen von Vismann Buch sagt, bisher fehle etwas, es gäbe eine Lücke in der Rechtswissenschaft, erstaunlicherweise hättten Juristen bisher über ein Recht für Medien nachgedacht aber noch nicht darüber, was die Medien für das Recht tun. Der fängt an wie Klaus Röhl oder wie die Juristen um 1900 angefangen an, als sie etwas zum Bildrecht schrieben und sagten, bisher gäbe es noch nichts dazu. Das ist starting from a scratch, creatio ex nihilo. So hat Vismann nicht angefangen, aber die hat einen Aufsatz "starting from a scratch" geschrieben, weil sie das reflektiert hat. Sie hat über Linien geschrieben, aber nicht Felix-Philipp Ingold importiert oder gesagt, Ingold habe mit den Linien etwas entdeckt, das legt erst Vesting 25 Jahre später in seinem Buch nahe, im berühmten Modus vgl. zu Linien Ingold. Vismann und Vesting haben unterschiedliche Sprachen gesprochen. Babylon ist auf den Korridoren, die Korridore laufen durch Babylon.

Die beide, Vismann und Vesting, arbeiteten zusammen, das geht nämlich. Zu sagen, der eine habe es richtig gemacht und sei darum zurecht der Rechtswissenschaftler geworden, der er wurde und sie habe es falsch gemacht und sei daher zurecht nicht die Rechtswissenschaftlerin geworden, die sie nicht wurde, so was wird gesagt. Man wird beide Versionen bestreiten müssen, weil beide Versionen widersprechen, auch sich widersprechen, nicht nur dem anderen. Vismann widerspricht nicht nur Vesting, sie widerspricht sich selber. Vesting unterschlägt nicht nur Vismann (er widerspricht ihr ja nicht, sie taucht schlichtweg nicht auf), er unterschlägt auch sich selber. Die Wahrheit ist nicht ganz, sie ist nicht vollständig, Phryne ist nicht bloß und nackt und offen, die liegt nicht offener und nackt vor uns als jeder andere Akt und jede andere Akte. Vismann ist nicht ehrlicher, Vesting nicht verschlagener. Vismann unterschlägt auch etwas, Vesting widerspricht sich auch. Das ist Komplikation: Falten, die beiden sind Komplizen. Der eine lebt länger, die andere kürzer, so dreht die Welt sich.

3.

Vismann hat nicht Pickering importiert, um aus einer epistemischen Praxis ein Zitat gerinnen zu lassen, das man angeblich nicht interpretieren muss, sondern das dann da stehen soll, als ob es stünde und das reichen soll, um dafür da zu sein, dass eine Autorität sagt: wie der Autor X sagt oder mit x kann man sagen oder wie Latour gezeigt hat.... Sie hat an Akten gearbeitet, an Räumen der Rechtsprechung. Sie die Autoren, die sie zitiert, auch auseinandergenommen. Sätze stehen so, als ob sie stünden. Die epistemische Praxis bei Vismann war eine andere. Darin ist sie mir Vorbild. Ich will an Bildern, an Objekten etwas wahrnehmbar machen, an Städten, an Häusern, an Landschaften. Ich will zum Beispiel Brasilia Teimosa lesen, nicht Bruno Latour. Ich will zum Beispiel die Ilha de Itamaraca lesen, nicht Cornelia Vismann. Aber dann will ich doch einmal Bruno Latour lesen. Dann würde ich mit Latour machen, was Latour mit Pasteur gemacht hat. Brasilia Teimosa und die Ilha Itamaraca sind nicht die Realität, nicht die Natur, nicht die Kultur. Sie kommen der Wahrheit nicht näher und entfernen sich nicht weiter vom Recht, vergrößern nicht den Abstand zum Recht, sind weder Umwelt des Rechts noch Umwelt eines anderen Systems. Ihre Protokolle sind aber anders als das, was man mit juristischen Lesetechniken entfaltet. Da stehen keine Namen an den Steinen und die Säule mit dem Fernseher auf dem Dorfplatz ist keine Rechtsquelle, sie steht in keinem Kommentar, wird von keinem Urteil erwähnt. Wird das Licht dort am Abend blau, flimmert was und die Bewohner des Dorfes stoßen zusammen, dann ist das nicht romantisch, nicht ursprünglicher als irgendetwas. Die Protokolle, die dort laufen, sind juridisch, man muss eine andere epistemische Praxis nutzen, um zu beschreiben, was das für Rechte und Rechtswissenschaft bedeutet - etwa dafür, was an dieser Stelle Polizei ist. Wenn ich Cornelia lese, würde ich ihren Stuhl mitlesen, ihre großen Zähne und das Horn ihrer Fingernägel, die erst langen und dann kurzen Haare und einen Teil der Straßen in Berlin. Ich würde die Küche in Sachsenhausen mitlesen, den Flaschenöffner von Stolleis würde ich mitlesen und die Schere, mit der sie einer Legende nach den Anzug von Joseph Vogl zerschnitten haben soll.

Meine These ist, dass Vismann an deutschen (!) Universitäten und an den juristischen (!) Fachbereichen und Fakultäten auf Beton gebissen hat. Man lobt sie weg, manchmal deswegen, weil sie von Stolleis und dem MPI protegiert wurde. Man findet haufenweise Verweise auf Vismanns Aktenbuch ohne Seitenangabe, das berühmte zu Akten vgl. Vismann, Akten. Ein Zitat, das nicht nur Cornelia auf die Palme bringen konnte, weil es hohl ist und die Autoren sich nicht einmal die Mühe machen zu dagen, wie man hier etwas vergleichen soll, nicht einmal die Seite wird erwähnt. Man zeigt eine Bindung an, nach dem Motto: Wollen sie Händeschütteln dann Vismann. Meine These ist, dass man sich nicht wundern muss, dass Vismann bei Autoren aus anderen Schulen der deutschen Rechtstheorie keine Rolle spielt, weil dort die epistemische Praxis eine andere ist. Dort sprechen Subjekte von der Verteilung des Denkens auf Subjekte und gewähren auch einer Küste den Rechtsstatus, aber nicht, in dem sie die Küste lesen oder drin baden oder das Recht baden gehen und verwässern, treiben oder oder trüben lassen, sondern in dem sie sagen: Latour hat gesagt, das solle sein und ein spanisches Gericht hat ebenfalls gesagt, das solle so sein. Sie sagen, es sei wie bei der Aktiengesellschaft und bei der natürlichen Person, richtig, sicher 1:1, Aneignung und Autorisierung, ab jetzt Eigenkraft. Die juristische Struktur der Autorität, die Referenzstruktur jener Referenz, die Pierre Legendre Referenz nennt und die Gunther Teubner Selbstreferenz nennt und deren Autorisierung in einer Kette von Sätzen etwas garantieren und sichern soll, die steht fest und ist wie immer wolkig leicht. Man kann durch juristische Leitungen keine Pizza faxen, man kann sie aber verschlingen. Ich verstehe, warum mir deutsche Juristen bis heute sagen, sie würden nicht verstehen was ich mache, es sei irrelevant oder noch weniger als Österreich anschlussfähig (sie benutzen bis heute das Wort, für dessen Nutzung Luhmann mindestens im Fegefeuer landet, wenn nicht in der Hölle schmorrt). Das Ding ist nur: warten wir es mal ab. Wer weiß schon. Woanders geht es nämlich doch anders. Man soll nicht gegen Windmühlen kämpfen (OHM...OHM...OHM. breahting in....breathing out OHM.) Pierre Legendres Referenz und Teubners Selbstrerferenz sind keine letzten Weisheiten, alle Säulen wackeln und wanken irgendwann.

4.

Sobald etwas verschwindet, wird es schön. Das ist ein Komplex (leichter gesagt: ein Ensemble), der/ das bei manchen ein nicht unbedeutende Rolle spielen könnte (Hamacher spricht sogar in der Rede auf Cornelia davon). Dieser Komplex oder (leichter gesagt) das Ensemble könnten eventuell Teil der Formel über die normative Kraft des Kontrafaktischen sein. Die Liebe ist symbolisch vor- und zubereitet, das Recht auch, beide kommen aus der Entfernung. Ach, die Architektur der 50'er Jahre, mit jedem Abriss wird sie feiner und eleganter, die Kacheln!

Ich freue mich schon auf die Legendrenaissance und die Teubnerrenaissance, auf die Renaissance eines Rechts, das autorisierte Sätze autorisiert aneinanderreiht, wie Latour das in dem Buch beschrieb, das in manchen juristischen Arbeiten zu den subjektiven Rechten der Natur und zu verteilter Intelleigenz erstaunlich zurückhaltend zitiert wird. dann doch lieber Wir sind nie modern gewesen, ein Buch, von dem manche wagen zu sagen, der Titel mache klar, was er sage und müsse nicht mehr interpretiert werden. Kicher! Was in Latours Buch über die Fabrik des Rechts steht, sagt Juristen nicht unbedingt Neues, da sagen manche eher, der Latour wisse nicht so genau über das Recht bescheid wie sie, darum seien die Beschreibung seltsam und er würde hier und was verwechseln. Wenn man die epistemische Praxis verändern will, wie ich mir das nur für eine besondere und kleine Rechtswissenschaft, nicht mit allgemeinem und großem Anspruch und nicht systematisch und nicht repräsentativ vorstelle, mit einem Majätsplural einem einem Wir und einem Was in Zukunft zu tun ist um die Zukunft zu retten, gar nicht verketten will, was dann?

Dann muss ein kleiner Haufen Leute (ein Haufen namens Person könnte reichen, ein Pfurz oder eine Flatulenz (letter und flying instruction nach João Tiago de Freitas Mendes) könnte reichen, noch Latours Buch über die Rechtfabrik abreissen, vor allem das letzte Kapitel. Es geht nämlich auch anders, als er dort beschreibt. Das Buch von Latour endet mit einer erstaunlich täuschenden Legendre-Lektüre. Latour kopiert Legendre, tauscht sich mit Legendre aus - und leitet daraus seine These von der besonderen Verkettung des Rechts in Signaturen ab. Es geht aber auch anders. Es gibt Signaturen und Kontrasignaturen - und nicht nur Juristen sinieren. Es gibt den Patriot Act und den Autopen - und Linien ohne Namen und Strom, vague Linien. Auf die Renaissance aller Autorisierten freue ich mich jetzt schon, aber erstmal geht es ab in die Entfernung, erstmal in den Abfall, in den Schlund, ins Vergessen und Loslassen, erstmal in den Abriss und Müll, erst mal in die Unterwelt, to the underworld and beyond, dann und erst dann könnten sie und könnte man nochmal an- und abklopfen. Vielleicht gibt es ein Nachleben.

Aby Warburg, immer wieder, ist ein Gegenbeispiel, ein Beispiel gegen Carl Schmitt ("Medienverfassung"), ein Beispiel gegen Niklas Luhmann, gegen Gunther Teubner, gegen Pierre Legendre - sogar gegen Bruno Latour, obwohl Warburg wie Latour mit Objekten arbeitet, nicht mit der Verkettung autorisierter Zitate. Warburg hat den Tod hinter sich, er hat es hinter sich, kein Rechtswissenschaftler und kein Rechtswissenschaftler mehr zu sein. Jetzt kann man an die Renaissance des Rechtswissenschaftlers Warburg gehen. Jetzt kann man ihn sogar so behandeln, wie Warburg Botticelli behandelt hat, das heißt: nicht im Sinne und nicht im Geiste Botticellis, sondern als etwas, was biegsam, "allzu biegsam" ist, also diplomatisches Objekt, Warburg entwickelt Grenzobjekte und diplomatische Objekte, die Polobjekte sind und deren Aufgabe nicht darin besteht, eine Abwesenheit zu überbrücken oder einen Abgrund zu meistern oder zu bewältigen. Man soll diese Objekte wenden, kehren und kippen können, um mit Regung umzugehen, in der Wenden, Kehren und Kippen vorkommen. Man soll falten können, weil das Können die Wahrscheinlichkeit das Müssens reduzieren könnte. Hoffen wir mal, hüpfen wir einfach. Man soll diese Objekte nutzen, wie man Schafslebern, Sternenbilder oder ein Astrolabium nutzt, um Wort und Bild geben zu können, um Orientierung geben zu können und um Aktion annehmen (unterstellen wie bei einem Unterstand) zu können, d.h. auch: Passion in Aktion zu 'übersetzen' und zu 'reinigen' (diese Worte nehme ich von Latour). Diese Tafeln sollen kreuzen und kreuzen lassen, sind aber nicht unbedingt Hybride und hybridisieren nicht unbedingt. Sie sind nicht unbedingt rein, nicht unbedingt rein, man kommt mit ihnen nicht unbedingt ins Gesetz oder aus dem Gesetz raus. Sie ermöglichen es, Aporien in Passagen zu reformulieren und in solchen Passagen mit Form und Formlosigkeit umzugehen. Sie heben nichts auf. Diese Tafelm "sammeln die Zerstückelung der Welt" (Didi-Huberman) um Kontraktion und Distraktion mitmachen zu können oder mitmachen zu lassen. Diese Tafeln sollen nicht garantieren, nichts sichern. Sie sollen nicht garantieren, dass Rechtsradikale draußen bleiben und nur die guten in den Salon kommen, sollen weder Juden noch Antisemiiten, weder Putinversteher oder Paästinerfreunde aussortieren um zu garantieren, dass nur Angehörige einem Angehören oder nur Demokraten an der Demokratie teilnehmen. Um damit zu tun, was Dirk Banse mit Ghassan Hage oder was Julia Gelhaar/ Andreas Fischer Lescano in er myops mit einem phobischen Lehrer machen, um den Salon für die Nichtphobischen salonfähig und die Anschlüsse anschlussfähig zu halten, dazu sind diese Tafel nicht da. Man kann das tun, man soll kehren , wenn man auf der richtigen Seite steht und weiß, wer sein Feind und wer sein Freund ist. Warum soll ein Volk keine Feinde haben? Warum soll eine Gesellschaft keinen Asozialen haben und warum sollen die Normalen keinen Wahnsinnigen haben? Warum soll die Demokratie keine Grenzen und Mauern haben? Das gibt es keine Gründe für, weil die gründliche Linien auch sedimentär und aufrührbar sind. Weder für die Mauern noch für die Tore gibt es Gründe, beides gehört insofern der symbolischen oOrdnung an. Man soll kehren können.

Die Tafeln sind Polobjekte [sie kehren auch], die mit einer polis und einem polos, der Polizei, dem Polizid und dem Polaroid umgehen sollen, das heißt: mir unbeständiger, meteorologischer und polarer Regung. Sie sollen mit Situationen umgehen, in denen unsicher ist, wer wie lange und inwieweit ein Freund oder ein Feind ist und wenn unsicher ist, wie man mit so einer Unsicherheit umgeht, Die Tafel sagen nicht, man solle mit Mussolini keinen Vertrag schließen. Sie sagen zwar, dass er ein Mörder ist und dass sich eine Katastrophe anbahnt, die legen die Spur zur Leiche Matteottis am Wegesrand zwischen Rom und Orvieto, vom Vatikan zu Corporale grell aus. Aber sie sagen so oder so, so oder so sagen sie so oder so. Sie sammeln die Zerstückelung der Welt und wenden das Detail, um so oder so Wendungen so oder so mitmachen zu können. Sie retten nichts und erlösen nichts, retten keinen Leser und erlösen keinen Betrachter. Sie sollen üben lassen. Breathing in, breathing out, in Situationen und für Situationen, die unbeständig, meteorologisch und polar sind.

[vermanaward]

ramble about how themis and athena both assert during their fights that their magics are not something the player is capable of using, despite themis supposedly seeing the player in a positive light (even while under athena's thrall). this is a common thing with amaurotians but serves to highlight just how little athena was different to her fellows in any meaningful way

athena's number one thing she's so proud of in p12n/p1 is that she has achieved something thought unachievable, true creatio ex nihilo. to silent forms, i give voice! except that uh. we kinda beat her to it in the anima relic weapon questline. we forged a real living soul from nothing, gave it form and name and growth and power. and then we did it a bunch more because ardashir and gerolt's weapon designs slapped. (we also arguably did it in the drk questline, too, and by accident that time.) like. babe. cmon.

[eesirachs]

i think we too hastily conjugated god into the site of the phallus. i think he is father, and maybe Father, but not of the Order of the Father. i think there is something matrixial here, something about god that is all imaginary and all pre-linguistic. with him we do not need to speak, do not need to pray aloud: he already knows. he already inhabits our minds, a trans-subjectivity. his creatio ex nihilo means, also, that he has always-already been-here. he has laws but he is not those laws. he is pre-ontic and yet emergent only with us and through us. we might stay safe and secluded from order with him. we might find jouissance