This goes beyond wisdom. It seems like madness but he is talking about The Thing.
The bone to dig up in this tekst is the Ark. Not the philosophers stone, the magicians Gem.
Occultism is not the short cut, but the fastest way. Not the shortest, the densest. Time is compressed.
This burns people up, like is depicted in the good book of the tribe with the Merkaba. A few rabbis took this ride, some died and most went insane. It takes only the skilled rider across the abyss. The fearless one who does not only expect the most bewildering, most frightening but looks forward to it.
It took until the twentieth century for human consciousness to attain the courage to grasp the vastness of the fact that there is such a thing as a truth, relative to our race. Our western, intellectual imaginative, Jewish Greek Christian, Roman German scientific English modern man, who has resulted in the Americanized semi-literate masses of the new Age.
The Age of Horus if I may speak freely, the one who does not give a shit.
All new, all irreverent. It must be disciplined over many centuries, from the look of it.
How is this to be done? By implicating the most powerful tool for control we have -?? or not at all? If so it must be the tool that allows for the most power to be expressed within it’s boundaries of jouissance.
The Word, The Thing - Gobbominded Fausts “contrail”, the intellectual event horizon before the black hole of the plummet, the significance of the house of David.
How could it possibly be resolved with Philosophy? It could only happen through science. But they would die before admitting Newton’s forgotten blueprint there.
The lizards made me say that.
The Path of the Righteous man is beset on many sides with angels, harps and sharp angles.
In him live two souls: Man and Thing.
Man is built a certain way.
Let it be known that this is not a testament to mastery in my eyes - quoting a person who is deemed crazy by most people I know and jittering around it with nervous jumps - but I am running simply into the necessity to admit to certain truths which are not philosophically viable.
let me put it in a philosophical way.
If there are three selves within the human; relative to each other Divine, Human and the Animal;
Where would the lines be drawn?
And if there were four selves - Immortal, Ethical, Human and Animal - ? Ethical here as “soul”, divine but individual, so mortal.
The purely Ethical not as an abstraction, but a lived reality. And so, in this model, is the Immortal. It must be attained within, or though mortality. Like I said, on the other side of the intellectual horizon.
Plato’s forms are here not ‘cats’ but inner realities - the relations of the drives and more conservative instincts.
The assumption here, the one basic assumption of occultism is that there are two things; force and form, and that between these, when they are experienced at the same time, consciousness occurs. The rest is a reflection of this fact along the interests of the human “mindbody” (it makes no sense to separate them but yet they are two words). “For the tree of life you shall freely eat - but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat”. This means that one cannot divide life into a duality - into logic - one must keep the values relative to each other, and balance them, as a creator, a sufficiently independent will who is responsible for himself, who does not attach to anything but its own concentration.
In this concentration, the form appears to the subconscious. It takes only the right symbols to activate this form to consciousness.
After having brutally violated the philosophical code, I have now arrived at the most delicate form of disagreement with it. The question: can a symbol be trusted?
Why? Why is power inherently preferrable, why do you experience the lust for power (over self) as the highest meaning? Is this Nietzsche talking here? What is it about power that makes those like Nietzsche and these “magus” elevate it to such primary status of human meaning and value? Why is this sort of “power”, mastery, the most important, real, crucial thing? Why?
I am asking honestly, because I don’t get it.
Again… why? Improve the human race? How is this anything but a contrived, shallow and arbitrary purpose grasped so as to give oneself a semblance of meaning in one’s life? Would you drown without this contrived “purpose”? From where does the meaning and value of the human race derive?
What is so inherently valuable about the human race that we ought to devote ourselves to “improving” it? And what sort of megalomaniacal narcissistic self-view is needed to actually believe that one’s solitary little life is so vastly and universally important that the “good” of humanity itself hinges on its actions, achievments and good-will?
And how is it hypocritical-sentimental to feel love for mankind and “all beings”, rather than merely rationalize it in the sphere of reason and aesthetic belief…?
Again, I am asking honestly, because I really don’t get it. Any sufficiently intellectual and enlightened position of thought out to understand the arbitrary and false meaning that mankind ascribes to itself, to the world and to life generally. None of these things really matter, so to convince oneself that they indeed do matter is tantamount to willful self-deception and dishonesty with oneself. Most people are forgiven this sort of dishonesty of intrinsically valuing themselves, humankind and life generally, because they are too ignorant, they lack the self-awareness necessary to see into these contrived and shallow processes of mind… but those of us who are not so lacking in self-awareness cannot be so forgiven for our willful ignorance, for remaining children forever.
But how do you arrive at the idea that I experience lust for power over self as the highest meaning?
Can you quote from what I wrote, or quoted (Aleister Crowley, not Nietzsche), that says this?
Well even though I dont see it that way there is a point there - let me quote Trotsky here:
“Life is not an easy matter… You cannot live through it without falling into frustration and cynicism unless you have before you a great idea which raises you above personal misery, above weakness, above all kinds of perfidy and baseness.”
But this is what mankind has always done, as we have discussed in the discussion about the void.
Why do you now not understand where I come from, when we have been discussing this at such length?
Well, let me counter that - why not?
This is all about bestowing value. Perhaps it is all too much, too megalomanic, sure, I can see that it comes across like that. But what is the alternative - ? Just let it all go about its blind animal business of killing and procreating? Why is that any better?
His love is not meek, is what I think his point is there. He’s one of those guys who would remind you that Jesus brought the sword. It is not that it is not felt, just that it is not felt quite in the terms of ‘loving everyone’ It’s a more primal thing, which in the end wants the well being of all that exists.
But I think you are false in stating that this meaning is false. And self contradicting - because by the certainty in which you make this claim, you do attribute value, be it a negative one. Who are you to decide the value man attributes to himself is false? Who are you to say anything at all, if you think there is no such thing as real value?
Really, that would only be so if he were you.
To him it matters. You are claiming objective knowledge, but you are only expressing your own valuation. But I am not even convinced that you really value like that - because I imagine that if you would, you would not be here.
These judgments are coming across as if you think you are God.
No offense. What do you know more than such “children”? Why should anyone take you on your word, that they, life and humankind have no intrinsic value?
From the humans, of course!
Whether they are random and inconsequential results of the big bang or created in Gods image is totally irrelevant. We, humans, value our life, and that of our progeny. If anything is clear, it is this. We are “selected” (as interpreted in retrospect) to be a chain in the process of evolution because of this. You are free to renounce this value, but that only has consequences for you, not for mankind.
You have patience to attempt this, here. Then again, this is for you only.
Crowley rhetorically asked how a system of value such as Qabala could come from what “the general position of the ethnologist” called “an entirely barbarous race, devoid of any spiritual pursuit,” and “polytheists” to boot. As Crowley himself practiced polytheism, some read these remarks as deliberate irony.
What “this”? Is this post part of a private conversation?
What does? What seems like madness?
Who is talking? Are you talking to someone? What has this to do with me?
The thing? The THING?
What bloody thing!?
LIsten you. Perk your ideas up.
JJ,
For your own mental health I would leave this one alone. That is, only if your own mental health doesn’t permit you to leave Wittgenstein alone.
Agreed.
Jakob has taken a turn for mastery mystery.
I understand what he’s saying completely.
I also understand where JJ is coming from. It’s not a good angle. Not impossible, but I couldn’t find a way to link it up – cause it is a private conversation.
Hear hear
What I am expressing here is indeed the exact opposite of Wittgensteinian meaning.
Gobbo, yes I am patient to try this here I suppose - after I made the posts I felt the energy just out of the circuit, wasted, dispersed - unlike when one posts something which fits in the context of ILP even if it is disagreed with or misunderstood. The subject of occultism is so utterly out of place here, of course - but that does not, Silhouette, mean that it cannot be understood. There is a lot more of the real world here than in Wittgenstein, who really is the “mystery man”, the dude who just said things because he could, who was so intoxicated with his own mind and put so much faith in his own language that he lost all footing on any cognitive ground he might have had. Only to find it again later in the realization that he had been talking nonsense all the time.
You can reject occultism a priori, without looking into it. And you can certainly claim that it has no place in a philosophy forum. But any thinking man who refuses to end up a nihilist will sooner or later realize he needs something which takes reason from it’s throne of Truth and places it back in the context of the source from which it sprung.
Nothing per se, not intentionally so.
I could say that I dont know what you’re getting so exited about, but I would be lying.
A concrete version of the Kantian / Freudian / Lacanian Thing.
“I want to focus on the specific version of this Thing: the Thing as the Space (the sacred/forbidden Zone) in which the gap between the Symbolic and the Real is closed, i.e. in which, to put it somewhat bluntly, our desires are directly materialized (or, to put it in the precise terms of Kant’s transcendental idealism, the Zone in which our intuition becomes directly productive - the state of things which, according to Kant, characterizes only infinite divine Reason).” [Slavoj Zizek, “The Thing from Inner Space”]
I can take the fact that, of all people, you take offense to what I express here only as an encouragement, as a sign that I am indeed expressing what I intend. You are after all an adherent of the philosopher who has made his mark on the world with the detailed elaboration of the error, which is characteristic of a certain intellectual over-zealousness that is frequently occurring among youthful thinkers. This error is the idea that there exists direct contact of language and cognition. Wittgenstein did not understand what Freud did so well, that there is a medium between the two.
No, you are doing it again.
He’s doing it again!
What did I tell you!
Try what?
You and me both, dispersed we were, dispersed.
[/quote]
alization that he had been talking
Well I am sorry to hear that.
“The Thing” is a term for the one thing that falls under the name of thing in which all the qualities of an average thing, such as physical presence or conceptualization, are lacking, and which possesses a different quality, one that cannot be recognized by man in his world of average things, but is felt, needed to drive everything into thing-hood for them, by them, of them. This quality is expressed by driving artists. Michael Jackson for example, the objectified unreal. In the Muslim myth, in which a billion live, the Thing is very simply a big stone. It motivates people to be what they would not normally be. Psychoanalysis of evolution.
i’m going to help add another layer (perhaps the first?) to the pyramid you’re trying to build…because you seem to be going off into some bullshit
formulating the campaign: universe to be as vast, and control as perfect as possible. expanding will.
money is the most tangable form of will on this planet, and for all we know, in this dimension. but more important than that, is the thing that created, and gives power to money. humans. humans are the biggest source of will on this planet (…and for all we know, in this dimension)
i think that we can all agree on that
this leads to a pretty known campagn…population control. obvious isn’t it? all governments know, and have always known as much
now…‘lets go deeper’
think of the world, and everyone in it, as making up one giant mind. this mind would be beyond schitzophrenic
all of these competing wills
what if there was one will, and all others conformed to it?
but…‘we need to go deeper’
one’s universe aka mind. (there can be no two perfects. if two things are perfect, they are one in the same…[some shit that goes into quantum physics 
. seriously])
there cannot be two you’s. you exist because of yoru brain but not necessarily only in it. it wouldn’t be a stretch to think that anyone who knows you has a little bit of your mind in theirs
what if one mind became prominent in all others? to the point of possession
So a perfect square is a perfect circle? Someone should be told.