About Hamlet, the antic disposition, God and stuff.

To be or not to be. To be, and be, and being someone observed.

Looks like Hamlet has said it all.

Let’s say you believe in God because “something” must’ve originated the Big Bang. But then, what created God? Done, we just killed Him with the same reasoning that gave him life. Let’s say then that He has no beginning or end. He just revived!.

Assuming his constant and endless and mathematically possible “existence” . Does it matter? How is this related to Hamlet?

Without a doubt, this “constant” God will affect the equation, so it does change things. How? Antic disposition. 

Shakespeare said it already, we live in a stage. And as the writer needs his reader, we need spectators to our super important life. That’s when God appears. Almighty, powerful, good and full of… morals

.

Then all is reduced to our –performance- “acting”, and who’s watching. Today, we have Facebook, Twitter, or whatev platform to satisfy our need of making sense –maybe unconsciously- of our existence, so maybe that's why the pulento has been left aside.

 What a senseless life. But again, Hamlet knew best.

“Where words have effects that cannot be controlled, where they are imitated or enacted independently of the agent’s will, then they explicitly point to the wound, the uncontrollable effects of mimesis. At this very point, as Hamlet will note –in Platonic terms- the “body of contraction” (contraction equals the “contract” that binds words to things) has its “soul plucked from it” to “appear a rhapsody or words” (III, iv, 321). Mere words (with their own power) because not mere (controllable and knowable) ideas.”(During, 1992, p210)