Dead and Undead

So I was listening to Zizek and Zizek harkens back to a Kantian idea. The difference between a negative and infinite judgement. "You are dead" negation "You are not dead.". "You are undead." affirmation of a non-predicate. This invokes the infinity of the supernatural. I have always regarded vampires as a symbol of the Anti-life no values nihilism. They feed off life (in the Bible blood is the symbol of life and God's holy gift) yet they are never alive, they only drag other people into their realm of Nonsein (not being). But this a problem because they are are there. They have impact on Dasein. This affirmation of a non-predicate (even though in Kant being is not a predicate, but Heidegger deals with him) gives evil its proper due. It is total defamation of the holy because it has infinite affirmation of the Other. Death is not the other. Death is what God brings to the Other because the Other's existence as a non-predicate. Death is the wages sin pays, and the undead is sin + infinity. Human sins are finite, we have a savior who takes them away. Undead is simply wrong without end unless something else that is infinite takes action through death. This shows the privilege given to God, blood, and humanity. It's the heart of the message. And while this morality seems fascistic, it is also a good defining point if we look at it in a non religious point of view. An interpretation of being that infinitely goes and conquers all must be counter acted by another one that does the same thing yet is privileged by virtue of its primordiality. One that embraces rather than cuts off and separates, that is, discloses more and more rather than covers over.

Possible problems: Where would plurality be in this interpretation I seek? I don't know too much about Derrida, yet I already can tell he would have several issues with my ideas here. A disclaimer is that the Christian remarks I have made were for thought experiment purpose alone, if Job teaches anything its that we should not assume too much about supernatural and divine matters beyond what God tells us. Also is there not a totalizing, everybody else has been totally wrong way in this. But that's more of a matter of phrasing, and besides I side with Heidegger at least and I see the wonders of Kantian logic. Need input.

God

I don't get much out of being an agnostic. But I don't really know what exactly it was I was supposed to get out. It's simple really. Big Bang happened that was how the universe we know started. But how did the single point even get there is the first place. Two possible answers. Someone or something (aka God) made it or it was always there. If you are a hardcore empiricist you might try to privilege the latter. But since we are dealing with something clearly unknown mere see-ableness doesn't equal truth. Hence agnosticism. ID's arguments have holes in them. ID says: It's so complex so it could not have arrived by chance. I don't think you can say that about the universe itself, the laws that govern the universe can take care of everything really. But if the laws of physics were any bit different we would not exist. So ID works for the laws? Well we don't know what causes the laws. But that would create infinite regress. Causer of laws- What caused it?It would be more complex and unexplainable as the laws themselves. Instead of "Are we not lucky we have laws" It would be "Are we not lucky to have God?". Also the god of the gaps problem. Yet something lurks under all this. What we are really actually asking is why something rather than nothing? The good old question of being us phenomenologists have been asking the whole time. But it turns into the question of Dasien's being in the world as a discloser. And we get away from the god problem, which is a problem which I have thought more about of late. Maybe it is an old irrational attachment to the concept. I don't like the modern concept of faith. It's not even biblical. I'll rant about that some other time. But I don't like believing in something just because it feels good. Its a fools paradise. Even worse: Its uncritical of itself. It's simple and I wonder if one could really get anything out of it. And yet... I am attracted to the spiritual and I don't even believe in the soul. Lately I've been investigating Kemetism. It is the revival of ancient Egyptian beliefs. I am attracted to the goddess Isis. I don't know if its actual "I want to worship Isis" or "I like the idea of worshiping Isis". I also like the Kemetic idea of Ma'at (principle of order) and the one god Netjer (who is all of the gods in one, Isis is just a name or a part who I can relate to). Even if I got over my religion issues I wouldn't actually be Kemetic which would involve making a shrine, making offerings which I think the gods don't really need. Isn't my devotion, thanks, and love all you need Netjer? My thoughts are better than a thousand offerings as those are what I prize. Not sure if this will go anywhere. 

Small update on my politics: Socialism or Communism or Anarchism, I'm leaning toward Communism right now. But the next day i might decide that the state should be the first thing to go. Or I might decide that looking too far ahead is silly.

EDIT: maybe God can do phenomenology better than us lol