The religious response

A religious response is any reaction to a statement that (superficially at least) entails an ethics of some kind. The ethics might be a social morality (people should wear more clothes and drink less alcohol, the west is an evil colonizer, etc) — or more mystical in nature (it is better to detach from the ego, we should be, not think, etc). Always a “better”/”worse” schema is implicated.

The seal of the religious response — its perfection and apotheosis — is within the Islamic religion, including its offshoots (the Sufi tradition).

Taking this as a very broad definition, it’s quite difficult to avoid a religious response, in agreement or disagreement with a statement. The piece you read before you right now might well be a religious response itself!

There are other responses that go deeper than the religious but are exhibited by religious people: the physical, for example. A physical reaction is one of attraction or rejection based entirely on DNA, pheromones, blood — a reaction to the body that has uttered the statement, rather than the statement itself.

The physical response is about physical compatibility and is biological yet with cultural-spritual implications: can a limb be successfully transplanted from one body to another, will the couple make beautiful children (eugenics), is the speaker of an alien race to threaten the racial purity of the indigenous tradition, etc.

The physical response is responsible for love, as well as hatred. It underlies religion: it is its lifeblood, its foundation. The religious response is, in fact, a byproduct of the physical.

Two verses

The circuitry of matter dumbly transmits love. The moon goddess wanes into absence: and Christ is crucified. The soldiers grin and fashion a crown of thorns. Christ bleeds, false blood. The Jerusalem-Complex outputs klippot. Christ separated from Christ-Bride by virtue of black new moon. Christ is vocalized, this unholy crucifixion. Teaming masses swarm, envelope your body now, a sacrifice of truth, in the name of truth.

Woe to every sinful deluded who hears the verses of God recited to him, then persists arrogantly as if he had not heard them. So give him news of a pain. And when he knows anything of Our verses, he takes them in ridicule. Those, for them, is a will have a humiliating pain. Before them is Hell, and what they had earned will not avail them at all nor what they had taken besides God as protectors. And for them is a pain great. This is guidance. And those who have disbelieved in the verses of their Lord will have a foul painful punishment.

The former set of verses have some kind of relation to the latter set. But not one of a translation or interpretation. The former set probably describe a fantasy primordial spirituality, the fertility cult of the moon shared by our common ancestors (a cult that operated for millennia prior to other religions, with real implications on the biology of human sex). The latter appears to be a warning to those who do not heed particular Divine instruction.


I’ve been the recipient of much anger from Muslim people over the past years: in fact, it’s fair to say that I’ve never really knew anger before I engaged with Muslim people. From strangers, from acquaintances, from friends: if they are Muslim, they will become angered with me, given sufficient time.

In my recent reflections, I’ve identified the personal reasons why this anger caused me the level of anguish it did: because I desired the Muslim body, to make it my own (and thus fill an unifiable hole in my life).

But, on the opposite side, what’s the cause of this aggression? Can it be because they listened carefully to everything I said and wrote, intellectually, and reached a position of necessary opposition (and hence a necessarily aggressive stance toward me)? It can’t be just about ideas: the aggression runs deeper than words on paper.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the source of Muslim aggression is much deeper: it is a physical, pheromonal, genetic. Like white blood cells, the believer detects something foreign within me — intrusion, alien — and is instinctively drawn to anger, as a defense mechanism, a purification strategy, a form of wudu. Fundamentally, the survival instinct kicks in when it is understood that I am not of the same race.

The Muslim consistently opines “stop saying this” or “you’re not permitted to say that”, then assumes a position open to discussion, and then loses their temper. But none of this is intellectual: it’s all about genetics, instinct. There is nothing personal in the response, it’s automatic, it is natural, embodied policing, white blood cell response, that ensures their body is maintained over the cycles of time.

Like guard dogs, they can smell something about me that spells: unwelcome intruder.

Sun Inscription

A little draft ditty I’m preparing for the Friends of Design. Unfortunately as its a draft you have to put up with my ugly monotone.

sun inscription
give up all sanction to me

life’s addiction
seen in through power of three

my relation freedom aligned sacrosanct
eternal repose

while the currency of fiction’s within bank
it’s the lady who knows

byways and highways
from the rivers into sea

here in the temple
first flesh emerge skull then you see

my sign’s a freedom aligned to the word
still a pharoah’s repose

while the wheat of fiction operates in orb
it’s the lady who knows

moon religion
yield body’s sanction to me

design precision
a diction that floweth from thee

my relation freedom aligned sacrosanct
a diamond repose

while the currency of fiction’s within bank
it’s the lady who knows

The Anti-Hallaj

Think/measure/account (H-S-B) the people that they will be left to say We believe (H-M-N) and they will not be tried? But We have certainly tried those before them, and Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars. Or do those who do evil deeds think they can outrun Us? Evil is what they judge. Whoever should hope for the meeting with Allah – indeed, the term decreed by Allah is coming. And He is the Hearing, the Knowing. And whoever strives only strives for himself. Indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds. (29:2-7)

Who are the people that think/account/measure (H-S-B)? They begin as people, but become God-as-Fetish-Cosmology.

The people are the fantasy Elohim, the Orbs of Creation, the Names of God (and influence) that constitute the Original Divine Body.
They are Elohim thought/accounted/measured, Divine extension in the beginning created, whose psychological origin is the beginning of this surah. They are the fantasy Divine “We” of the Qur’an. Elohim begins with (perfect) measure, and a declaration of faith: “We believe”.
And so the gods fall from grace inasmuch as their shahada means measure, means thought, means H-S-B. Then comes the threat of the test, material descent.

Simultaneously, by virtue of their fantasy nature, by virtue of the cultural-genetic body (their biological nature as nas regime, as a people, as a humankind) over which Elohim must be psychologically comprehended as a substitute fetish of the dislocated subject (in search of a body), they are tried by the shattering of their primal structure back into familial genetic substitution, now rendered Divine hypostasis.

“We have certainly tried those before them”: “We”, “trial”, “those that came before”.
We – the Parzufim, the son, the daughter, the mother, the father, the crystallization of the broken down Elohim fantasy – are the trial of precedence, the trial of lineage. The hypostatized Divine family structure is Elohim now, the “We”, in aggregate, molar form. The “We” are the trial, because the trial is lineage, the trial is the origin story, hypostasis as family, the family mythology, its opening, its middle and its conclusion.

Hence the origin story includes the intrusion of nas, prior to Divinity, begins with a substitution of spiritual for carnal, of Divine mind for material sexuality, the nas/humankind is replaced by the Divine “We” (and so vice versa), whose ultimate fetishization is the syntax of “We believe”. What intrudes? Desire for nas: for the body of mankind to be given unto the subject. The suppression of this basic desire drives and empowers the “We” (shifting from nas to Elohim) is a capitalist byproduct, spirituality as second order perversion. This spiritual fantasy is in debt to genetic/cultural/bodily/biological lineage, a debt facilitated by means of suppression/substitution/thought/measure/H-S-B.

And the subsequent act of the hypostasis (back into the trial of familial lineage) is itself a jihadic act of perversion against the body of humankind who formed the basis of its substitutive jouissance in the first place. That is, the jihadic act is against the carnality of nas-desire (nas for nas), suppressed and substituted/thought and measured in order to produce the capital of ecstasy within the order of Elohim. The effect is pure happiness: simultaneously pristine and base, the spirituality of the “We (Elohim/the True Body) believe”.

Thus the surah shifts (by the repressive act) from nas to Elohim and back (via jihad) into lineage/crystalization that asserts independence of the Body of Christ, all the while trading a currency derivative whose notional quantity is the sign of the nas.

What is “Allah” here? Allah is, of course, the voice behind the revelation and, therefore, is intimately tied to the subject.
“Allah will surely make evident those who are truthful, and He will surely make evident the liars.”
Allah is this surah’s unfolding, the process of substitution, the “making evident“ of truth and lie: Allah is repression and resultant re-expression.
Allah is unknowable in the act of deferral, the repression of the prophetic primal scene, and Allah is prophecy and prophecy speaking symptoms of that. Allah is the hidden evidence, the crime of substitution – and the lawyers for both sides. Allah is a judge here, in the sense that Allah is judgement, and judgement is the hidden evidence, the crime of passion rendering valuative/self-measuring. Allah is thought and measure, the substitutive act of the human “We” for original Orbic Elohim, ecstasy and fetish, and the second order jihadic act of fetish against that hidden body We into hypostatized Divine familial lineage.

The subject cannot outrun Allah because any act of hiding and any act of substitution (secondary judgement, judging evil) is Allah. The running is Allah, so cannot be outrun. But who’s the subject here? “Evil is what they judge”: they are the husks of the names, the husks of the shattered Orbs, crucified as they are by this process of thought. The husks: are they the subject, nafsic reminants, egoism, undesirable underbellies? But the Orbic fantasy was a substitution that became ecstatic unto itself, the original fantasy body was a substitution for the true desired object: and we are confronted by the fact that the shattering into familial crystallization (with its totemic formulation of evil and good) is the ecstatic fetish of substitution.

Allah is not everything and everywhere, not an impersonal immanence. Not even within every person. Rather, He is a specific being, a specific voice within the circuitry of the human subject, an bodily identity contained by the subject, speaking to the subject, speaking as the subject, the subject speaking Allah. This means that Allah is your act of suppression and your consequent symptoms: the We, the Elohim/the Orbs into the familial partzufim. This means that Allah is your act of suppression and your consequent mystical experience as symptom. And “you” are the container, the body that houses this Allah-condition: for better or worse, Allah is you. “I am Al Haq” is a mystical statement: the (repressed) accurate statement is, “Al Haq is the cause and effect of my repressed desire to be the nas, to lend power to the hypostatized family and constitute the mystic I”.

This is the high irony of the line: ”Whoever should hope for the meeting with Allah – indeed, the term decreed by Allah is coming.” Allah, unlike the angels, unlike the Elohim or the even Parzufim, is human, human process. The process of meeting God is one of looking in the mirror: the mirror need not be “perfect” to grasp this, it merely needs to be functional.

“And He is the Hearing, the Knowing. And whoever strives only strives for himself. Indeed, Allah is free from need of the worlds.” From the inability to substitute the process of substitution, husks of the names, back to the crystallized womb, the Mother Goddess (Knowing, A-L-M): from Hearing (shema, martyrdom) into the ultimate object of desire, the breast of the Mother Goddess, whose other name is Eternal Void. Allah runs from the subject’s obliteration back into the Womb of desire. What is the nature of this obliteration? It is a striving (jihad) whose other name is desire: from obliteration to Void (self-flagellation in devotion to the Kali principle), a denial of the body that becomes ecstatic, in the same way that the threat of war, the threat to the body, fulfills a deep religious need, generates religious capital. But Allah is free from desire: because Allah is desire.

Prayer and the Body: Revisited

Two years have passed since I penned this piece on prayer and the body. In it, I argued for what I was experiencing at the time: that the Logos is a higher order entity, what I considered to be a real, true physicality — it’s your real body, it’s my real body — in contrast to the illusory bodies we think we occupy as part of our constructed identities within social, cultural, historically situated regimes. I then go on to define what I think real, true prayer is, for this higher order, real, true body.

Armed this hypostatized logos-body, I was able to do two things:

  1. play down the importance of differences in cultural/religious practice as mere relative paths to a common goal, while simultaneously
  2. privileging (from my self-proclaimed position as a “Muslim”) the seven movements of the Islamic salat as universal, perennial, real truth functions of the real logos-body.

The salat of the hypostatized logos-body is the true meaning of prayer and, within the higher order realm of the real body, subsuming the realms of culture and history, this salat takes an Islamic form. The sunnah of prayer, as related within the tradition of Islam, is to be read as applying not to the bodies of Muslims within a particular Islamic culture/habitus but, instead, as a primordial movement of becoming, lived out by the logos, by your true body.

What’s wrong with this picture? Constructing an entirely different, alien body (the logos-body) is a clear substitution for the genetically indigenous Muslim body, that body of the Javanese, the Bangladeshi, the Pakistani, the Arab, the Orient — a substitution born out of repressed desire for identification, for a home within that body. It’s not a higher order body — but a horizontal, metonymic shift from the object of desire (belonging to/possessing the absent cultural body, the tie of kinship/womb). As described earlier, this shift itself became fetishized, generating perverse capital (fundamentally unIslamic reading/tafsir) whose ultimate value is the pleasure of evasion.

Hence the ambiguity inherent in the characterisation of the logos-body: what is it really? It is ecstatic evasion, sexual ambiguity (not physical yet not metaphoric, not the body of Islamic culture yet fundamentally Islamic).

Importantly, the logos-body is my own experience of fetishized displacement — but now universalized across Islam — my own experience, my own ecstatic vision, prescribed as the true substitute for the inferior cultural characterisations found within the religion. Thus the positing of the logos-body operates as a further complication to the Tailorite psychopathology, wherein the fetishization of substitution becomes crystallized (as the body of truth) — and is “plugged back” into the hole of the repressed, absent, desired Muslim body — by means of a “teaching” connector — whose essential nature is fantasy, yesodic domination. The symptom of repressed desire complicates itself with a secondary fantasy, inasmuch as it forms a fantasy substance who returns to sexually re-possess that which was originally desired.

The movement from ecstasy of the fetish to hypostatized body to the secondary fantasy of re-possession gains its capital from continued suppression of the original desire for the Muslim body: and so when she appears at the end of the movement, she is of course not recognized as such but, instead, relegated to one relative cultural body amongst a multiplicity, to be educated into the truth. But here’s the crux of the matter: she isn’t one relativity amongst many to be brought into the “truth” — she’s the  privileged object of desire (inasmuch she is a proxy for absence) — and the absolute truth (the logos in prayer, enunciated as a Tailorite lesson, the fantasy of her domination) — owes its  genesis and its return to her hidden meaning.

“Your body is unimportant, while my body is bread, my blood the wine, so eat my flesh and drink my blood.” 

Within the landscape of the Tailorite psychopathology, April 2010 represents a creative epiphany, wherein substitutive fetishization reaches its hysterical peak and, to the casual observer, it should be clear that the wheels have come off of my pretense at being Muslim. From that month onward, the position shifts into a less ecstatic, more introspective and paranoid mode and eventual recognition of what works it has wrought, and a confrontation with its hidden intentions.