the house is god

[forever twenty seven]

some where in the book johnny is talking about girls that read to Zampano. One girl said she asked him if he had any children and said something to the extent of 'you are all my children'.

later on in the book navidson is writing the letter to Karen about how he needs to go back to the house. on the letter he says 'our house is god'...

maybe these are connected. i think it this book might be MZD's take at writing another bible if you can believe the bible is a fantastic work of fiction... i dunno thats just a thought i just started my fourth read through but this time im reading just the navidson record with out johnnys foot notes...

[verismo]

Maybe not a big deal, but I was just thinking about this today.

When Navy says that his house is God. Is he suggesting that he thinks his house is actually a, or the God. Or is he saying, "what I thought was our house, is really God instead."

[Nackelbend and Zips]

I always assumed he was saying that the house was a material manifestation of God, you know eternal, boundless, mysterious, cold.

[Mr Hood]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crass:
...the fact that God only exists because we think he does ...

---

ive heard alot of people say that lately, and i cannot for the life of me figure out how it makes sense. i mean, if i stopped thinking texas exists, its not gonna stop existing. the same is true if i subsitute 'air' or 'potatoes' or 'bruce campbell' or 'bitches' for 'texas.'

"denial also means ignoring the possibilty of peril."

i dont know where this idea of gods existence depending on us thinking he exists came from, but i cant seem to figure it out.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convinving the world that he didnt exist."

i mean, come on, if everyone in Usual Suspects decided that Kaizer Soze wasnt real, would he just zip, dissapear?

maybe im just dense, i dont know

[lazysmurff]

gods existence cannot be proved or disproved, and ultimatly it comes to a matter of faith.

are you willing to put your life in the hands of fate or a god? or are you willing to do things for yourself. i know this gets into that whole can of worms about determinism and such.

i guess, if your acting like there is no god, then for you there is no god, because whether god exists or not, it isnt affecting your actions. same thing if you act like god does exists, it doesnt matter one way or the other, your going to act the way you want to regardless of whether or not there is some omnipotent being waving their hands around controlling the world.

and on a side not, if god does exist, i have definitive proof god is a republican...along with santa being a democrat.

[John B.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crass:

Applying this to the real world: for thousands of years God has been looked upon as all powerful, as being the supremely dominant being or anti-being. But in truth God is what we make him to be. We never actually see God, we just assume that hes there, that he caused that hurricane or that fire for some purpose. Its all just what we make him out to be, our imagination allows us to believe that things arent in our control, that something else that is much greater than us is in control. If we wanted to we could deny the existence of God and then he wouldnt exist because his existence as we know it is entirely based on the mind of the person. . . . .

Theres more I could write but instead Im going to play Enter the Matrix right now, which is the best fucking game ever!

---

Am I the only person who sees the irony in this post?

[fatwoul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crass:
...No. Texas is among us materially as is the keyboard I'm typing on. It is not a manifestation of our imagination as is a dream or God.

---

Or maybe, y'know, it is

[crass]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fatwoul:


Or maybe, y'know, it is

---

To quote Aristotle, "A is A".

[fatwoul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crass:
To quote Aristotle, "A is A".

---

So in that case is nothing nothing?

I don't understand how someone with such a blind grip of what is what can really take any enjoyment from House of Leaves; a book where nothing is nothing; by that I mean that not one thing about the house is truly nothing.

[crass]

No, nothing is not nothing. That is a contradiction because nothing cant be anything because it is...nothing. A is A deals with reality, nothing not being real, not being a part of reality, has no real properties so it cant be defined with the term A is A. So because I follow a practical philosophy I cannot enjoy a book? [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]

[lazysmurff]

i believe fatwoul ment nothing is nothing as in "no thing is nothing" as in, there is no detail in the book that is insignificant.

and actually nothing can be defined using A is A simly by stating that nothing is the lack of something, and "something" can always be defined by your said laws of reality. for instance, a vacuum is a nothing. there is nothing there, no matter to be defined...make it an infinite vacuum so there are no boundries...yet we understand what a vacuum is because that "nothing" is juxaposed with our knowledge that nothing is the lack of something. hope you followed that, because i didnt

[fatwoul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by John B.:
Am I the only person who sees the irony in this post?

---

Or maybe in keeping with this thread, are you the only person? [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[Mr Hood]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crass:
No. Texas is among us materially as is the keyboard I'm typing on. It is not a manifestation of our imagination as is a dream or God.

---

i think the language barrier is preventing any real communication between us on the topic of god, for we do not use that word to refer to the same thing. although it is true there are some similarities in our conceptions of what god is, they are inconsequential, like the similarity of a laser beam and a goldfish: neither can whistle. i also think that my conception of god is unusual, which ive concluded is why i can never figure out what people mean when they say things about god.

enough of semantics, meet me at The Ghost! [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[ July 03, 2003: Message edited by: Mr Hood ]

[Stencil]

I though Navidson saying the house was God was yet another attempt to define the Other.

[buscemi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr Hood:


ive heard alot of people say that lately, and i cannot for the life of me figure out how it makes sense. i mean, if i stopped thinking texas exists, its not gonna stop existing. the same is true if i subsitute 'air' or 'potatoes' or 'bruce campbell' or 'bitches' for 'texas.'

"denial also means ignoring the possibilty of peril."

i dont know where this idea of gods existence depending on us thinking he exists came from, but i cant seem to figure it out.

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convinving the world that he didnt exist."

i mean, come on, if everyone in Usual Suspects decided that Kaizer Soze wasnt real, would he just zip, dissapear?

maybe im just dense, i dont know

---

On Texas, yes, it would not exist if you stopped thinking about it. It is merely land. It's our conditioning that puts the invisible borders around Texas. Same with the Kaizer Soze example. There would have been no plot in the whole movie if everyone didn't believe he existed. When it comes to God, ask one person from every faith in the world to describe God. You would have extremely different answers because of the "borders" that person was conditioned, or had created, to define God. To Navidson, in the letter, the borders are within the house. He set them there, therefore, to him, they exist. If he did not think that, then it would not be God to anyone.

I could go on forever on this one. I'll just stop now.

[crass]

quote:

---

Originally posted by buscemi:



I could go on forever on this one. I'll just stop now.

---

Thank God! Or the House.

[buscemi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crass:



Thank God! Or the House.

---

In House We Trust
House Bless America
House-fearing
For House's Sake!
House Dammit!
One Nation, under House, indivisible...
And on the 7th day, House rested.
Oh House, you Devil
Houses and Monsters

[Dravinus45]

quote:

---

Originally posted by crass:

God is all powerful. But as is explored in the Navidson Record, there is a very real possibility that the people that live in the house really control its movements, that their subconscience is what is moving the hallways.

---

Excellent point. I like to think of it in terms that define God as the collective unconsciousness of all living things, or the patern of energy that ripples through all matter. Or both.
And essentially, the house could be these things as well. And it is certain that the people within the house have some effect on it. Perhaps the house is part of, or merely an illustration of, the chaotic, yet creative, potential inherent in the universe, as a part of its inhabitants. The house evolves with its inhabitants, perhaps? Is god in a constant state of flux and is that why it is so difficult to define what is god? Is that why it is so difficult to define the house?
I've always thought that texts take on a consciousness of their own, especially in the case of HoL, or that it is merely an obvious example of words that do this. Is the text an illustration or representation of god, or is it one aspect of god? If god is the sum total of all things, to which contributions are constantly being made, are there maybe deletions?

[Stencil]

If the house is God (which I'm not convinced of, see my earlier post). Then the fact it is dark is interesting. For what else is God but the antithesis of light? God wouldn't have asked for light to be if it was part of his nature after all.

[pringlechip929]

So in essence God is nothing, the reason being there would be no something to begin with had there not been a nothing to define it. However, something cannot come from nothing unless nothing was something to begin with and if nothing is something then it is impossible for nothing to exist because the term 'to exist' is used to describe a state only attainable by something, so by that logic, everything is nothing.

[pringlechip929]

in other words God is everything

[noevilstar]

everything is nothing by the same token nothing is something...a dangerous voyage pringle ship...one i recently sailed...

[daemon]

crap. does this mean i'm indifferent to the ?

[noevilstar]

Also check out Hofstadter's GEB chapter too pgs. 109-115 for the recursive GOD acronym hehe and 103-126 for the whole chapter, a necessary read for la hausa (a phrase that belongs hear?)

edit: sry heres the Hof link http://books.google.com/books?id=aFc...lt#PRA1-PR6,M1

[pringlechip929]

That's a very good point, it also in terms of the weeds only justifies what I said when I said that something had to be there all along to begin with, the weeds dont exist because the gardener planted them, they exist because they do, they exist on their own and are only defined as good because there are bad weeds in existance to compare them to, which is to say, nothing has to "exist" (making it something) as a base off of which to describe something.

As for the other link, I have no comment because the thought of a meta nothing is boggling...

[modiFIed]

This is all pretty meaningless, you know.

Analysis of lexical definitions in terms of other lexical definitions reveals nothing but the inherent limitations of language and symbology, which I'm guessing we've all been aware of since high school. Other than that, who cares what "nothing" or "everything" is? They are only words, invented by humans, to symbolize catch-all concepts for, respectively, total absence and total inclusion. I see no value in extending the worth or power of the symbols (the words) to encompass new metaphysical realities - or any reality. They are what they are. And they ain't what they ain't. And what they ain't is corporeal or even real.

[heartbreak]

Very good point, modi and well said.

[noevilstar]

Analysis of lexical definitions in terms of other lexical definitions reveals nothing but the inherent limitations of language and symbology, which I'm guessing we've all been aware of since high school. Other than that, who cares what "nothing" or "everything" is?

The nothing<=>everyhting<=>god theme is spooled into HoL-

Nothing's All and Endless halls?
9, 9, 1+8=>Nein
XVI - Science

Hofstadter isn't related to this, you say? but is just about limits of symbols/language. It would sure be nice if we had a transcript of MZD writing as if he was Hofstadter analyzing the house/TNR... that would be helpful to solve that debate...

[modiFIed]

Right - HoL includes "nothing" and "everything" among its semantic/symbology examinations. I don't have a problem with that. What I was noting is that the exchange here - not to mention the one here - is boring and fruitless, because all that is being argued is definitions, which aren't really up for debate.

[noevilstar]

aye! Check. I see what you mean... To beat a dead horse, I'll add that the limitations of language and logic, and the paradox of "defining nothing" are not without merit, as they suggest more than limits of language but go on to suggest that there are still fallacies in human logic, and the way the modern brain thinks/rationalizes. As Modi has stated though, the paradox of definition itself is not the interest, but rather the nugget is in the possibilities implied.

✓