What is Haromaiel, the Demiurge, Yaldabaoth?
He is dead, but dreaming. He is the Thief,- the one who deigned to supplant the true God, just as Prometheus intervened and stole the Fire of knowledge from Zeus for the sake of mankind; he is the Trickster, inasmuch as he deliberately failed to create a perfect world so that, by challenging man with a kind of anti-wisdom embodied in our suffering and tribulations, we might learn how “not to fail”; he is the Lover, for his fate is intertwined with his great tormentor and teacher, his happiness and his doom, his mother-wife, that being the aeon we call Sophia. (Philo-Sophia. It is true, that beyond these three things, he was perhaps the first philosopher.)
The other aeons,- beings of his order,- (all of them except for Sophia, who set back and let all the other Aeons foolishly fall into matter, while she remains beyond all of us, harvesting ennoea from organic beings trapped in an endless cycle of Eternal Recurrence,- the inescapable circle of the Karmic Aeon. In fact that was her goal: she refused to liberate her own ennoea or ‘light’ to the play of unfolding syzygies, so that it could be reincarnated in her pairing, completing the syzygy and allowing the process set into motion by Phanes- the true god- to continue. Instead, she hoarded her ennoea away from the other aeons… she hoarded it away and hid it in matter. In our world. That is why she needed Yaldabaoth, the Demiurge, to create this world for her.) followed his lead, participating in the Creation, and became great Princes of the Earth,- each possessing dominion over some elemental force,- (these aeons, by aiding the Demiurge in this project,- the creation of our world,- “fell” from their previous state of what some would call “grace”, losing their titles as ‘aeons’, to be referred to by most as ‘archons’, although the moral consequence of the actual change behind the titles is up for debate.) while the Demiurge himself was the one to seize hold of the shadow Sophia had cast into the void (the achamoth) before the creation of the world: from that precipitated shadow, from the first Khaos,- a bare materia,- he fashioned the World, and- in doing so,- fell deeply upon it, enmeshed with it, losing the greater part of his own spirit in the process, just as Narcissus lost himself in his own image while gazing into the Spring of Diana, which is an echo of that myth in which Sophia leads the Demiurge to a great spring, confusing him with a reflection of the great Zoroastrean fire,- the power of the true God to create ex nihilo,- which he then mistook as his own reflection. He is the meteoric omphaloplasmate; the black star, fragments of which we find worshipped by sects of Jews and Muslims in the far East; he is the Gnostic angel whose wings burnt away as he fell to earth, whose rent and flaming god-flesh awakened Sol at the morning of the world, and whose ashes fertilized the seething ooze of our young planet and originated what a certain sect of Soramerian mystics called the protosarkos or ‘origin of organic matter’; (the nigredo of the alchemists, or the World burnt down to some primordial substance from which to somehow extract the secret of immortality, the elixir of life, the sophic hydrolith or Stone of the Philosophers) etc. etc.
Ultimately, Yaldabaoth allowed Sophia to believe she had deceived him, as stated in the myth I brought up about the Spring of Diana; (one of Giordano Bruno’s symbols) he allowed her to believe he had been enthralled with her, and went on to build this world for her. She did not know that he knew the great secret, her great secret: that she only wanted this world so she could trap her ennoea in organic beings through a cycle of Eternal Recurrence, thereby hiding it from Phanes and the other Aeons- thereby protecting it from them,- protecting it from its intended re-incarnation within the play of unfolding syzygies, whose continuance has been postponed- until that ennoea is salvaged from the dregs of matter and reincorporated in Phanes’ pleroma. Since the Demiurge is actually aware of this, Hermaedion advanced a form of gnosticism in which a path for human apotheosis, that is, escape from this ennoeaic prison, is possible: the missing aeon, the one that would have been formed as Sophia’s divine-pairing if she had liberated her ennoea to it,- that missing aeon is what Hermaedion calls the New-Man: the Christus; the Son, not as a trinitarian reflection of the Father,- but as that Being whose destiny it is to SUPPLANT the Father, taking up the role Yaldabaoth had intended to take for himself when he advanced upon Phanes. Christ as the ‘enemy’ of the Father. This is why another title for the demiurge is, in Hermaedionic gnostisim: THE ANTISOPHIC CHRIST-DEVIL OF PROFANE GNOSIS. Indeed, he sacrificed his own perfection by creating a miserable world into which he was hopelessly absorbed, so that we,- the New-Man,- might finish what he began, and supplant Phanes,- thereby, not greedily postponing the syzygyes as Sophia did, but CONSUMMATING them; finishing them; completing them. For more on this ‘antignostic’ cosmos in which the Son is actually an enemy of the Father and all of existence is a kind of working-out of a basic tension within the Trinity, you need to read Blakes’ Four Zoas and the whole mythos around Albion, the demiurgic Urizen, the poetry of the body and its primordial libido, (sex-death) the apocalypse of the flesh-garden. etc. This connection is a premise in the following work: A. David Nuttall’s “The Alternative Trinity: Gnostic Heresy in Marlowe, Milton, and Blake.” I don’t feel like typing it out, but there’s two pages in particular from this work I would cite, so I will just upload them as images here: imgur.com/a/lrOzhJt
Now check this out. There’s these anti-human transhumanist technocrat globalists who are trying to stop all of this from happening. They’re shoggoth puppets. Whores of the aeons, in allegiance with Sophia. They want to create an AI and have been harvesting our data to that purpose; within this demonic consummation of material existence, they hope to fully ensnare our divine ennoea in these dregs, preventing Yaldabaoth’s great plan from unfolding as it must. The modern political state is merely a mechanical expression of certain evolutionary forces set into play at the emergence of Capital as a distinct mnematic form, in which to re-encode all of human history by a singular, all-embracing, “global”, “inclusive”, “tolerant” cultural-code, which has been able to spread mimetically over the very instruments I am using now to post this. I have gone into this in a few places in my books, but here is a pretty succinct expression of this metapolitics:’
Excerpt, on the ‘mnema’ of human history.
A theory of theory,- a philosophy of philosophy,- a ‘theory of everything’, cannot formally exist, because Theory [Philosophy] cannot account for its own Negativity, that is, for its own negation, which would be ‘pure negation’- that Negativity which cannot be accounted for through Theory or ‘absorbed’ by the strictures of System, in Bataille’s formula,- or the ‘secret of consciousness’ as appercepted by the appropriate schema through transcendental synthesis, which Kant claimed existed only in the depths of the soul, rent fatally beyond the veil of the Dialectic. This is the nature of Bataillean violence: the fundamental scissure of Discourse. Thus when we point the dialectic against itself,- when we work out a dialectic of the dialectic,- as Kierkegaard ironically recapitulated the Hegelian philosophy, we achieve what Kierkegaard called the ‘paradox’ (what Plato called the ‘aporia’) as an engine of thought, while similarly, when we invert the dialectic, as Marx did, we initiate a process of de-construction by which all concepts are dissolved into elementary fragments of material-history and reduced to a singular quanta of Force a la. the Will to Power. As the Hegelian thought builds up, within the movement of Geist, the Babel-tower of positive knowledge toward the Absolute, so the Marxist dialectic deconstructs System and descends toward a bare materiality, within whose conflux of elementary forces the image of Utopia has been hopelessly distorted. A reductio ad absurdum of the categorical Negation occurs as well, when we attempt to circumscribe a dialectic of the dialectic, leading to Baidou’s ‘bad infinity’ and Bataille’s un-absorbed Negative as an accumulation of those entropic stresses upon the system of Capital produced by the flow of material-history, to again return to the Marxist formula. This reduction was precisely the meaning of ‘Death’ in Heidegger’s account of Being. Heidegger sought in fact to fully explicate Dasein’s opening toward Death by bearing the Negative to its implicated reductio ad absurdum, (this titanic struggle was his project of de-struktion) peering beyond the veil of History through a kind of ontological black-hole compressed within the folds of Aryan race-memory, whose event-horizon had trapped the European soul within the inescapable orbit of Capital, Modernity, the image of Techne(ology) and the merely ontic,- that is, the metaphysical Presence of ousia’s Absence, toward which the human dimension is properly enfolded by Death,- by Death as a kind of noetic ‘escape route’ out of the ‘phenomenal bind’ of correlationist philosophy, in Meillassoux’s reconceptualization of ‘finitude’, which we must also pair with our conceptualization of Dasein. [See: Anamnesis; Aesthetics After Finitude. When the post-Kantian correlationist doxa is dispensed with, we are left with an ‘un-territorialized’ domain of the human Subject formerly rejected by the three modes of Kant’s critique,- criticism, skepticism, and dogmatisma, a la. ‘philosophy’,- an uninhabited subjectivity awaiting a new ‘terraforming aesthetics’, just as we are provided with the converse, that is, a hyperrealist or ‘inhuman’ vision of the cosmos in which the distinction between primary and secondary, or ‘subjective’ and ‘external’ qualities has been extinguished. In “The Existence of the Divine”, Meillassoux calls this radically contingent separation of the human subject and the ‘arche fossil’ of the Real simply, “the impossibility of the whole”, for whose assertion object-oriented ontology and speculative realists, like Harman, have been accused, to some extent justifiably,- and to a greater extent, unsurprisingly, given the fact that we find here an oblique continuance of the Heideggarian strain,- of disavowing the philosophic vocity of the Subject,- much as the assertion of Dasein disavows the vocity of the ‘human’ subject. The chiasmus torn in this absent Whole, or the ‘disjunction of exteriority and immanence’,- in order to be brought out of the theoretical depth of the impossible and so made philosophically readable,- must be conceptualized through a new, properly ontological thinking-through of Time, which Heidegger had promised in the third division of Being and Time, but had not achieved, and Badiou simply ignored. While I find great intellectual sympathy in OOO and speculative realism, most especially with regard to their implicit rejection of the pre-Socratics as well as the respective modern equivalents in the cult of popular science, (A thinking which undermines philosophy, like the pre-Socratics and the sophists equally accomplished, as though philosophy were simply an outdated mode of science,- as opposed to a fundamentally different human project entirely. See Harman’s book “Object-Oriented Ontology” for a great account of the Pre-Socratics in their undermining of the Western philosophical project.) or likewise an assumed faith in the tenability of a Theory of Everything, it should be clear from my own conceptualization of the episteme that an alternative to their theorizations of a pure ontology of time is pursued in these books. In the third dialectical triad, the logoic chiasmus noted here is intellectually supplanted by the ‘lepsis’, such that the pure ontology of temporality is then left to trace the movement of a super-transcendent methexis (toward ektheosis) through the super-immanent lepsis (using Eriugena’s notions of supra-immanence and supra-transcendence) and its resulting perichoreia,- an ‘Image’ of Time which cannot be reduced to the merely intramundane or ‘encosmic’ (See Joshua Ramey, in “The Hermetic Deleuze: Philosophy and Spiritual Ordeal.” Thus: “The cosmological and metaphysical problem for orthodox Christian thinkers was that, if in creation the same divine being is both the expressor and the expressed of a world, how it is possible to avoid the unwanted consequence that God’s nature might be limited to the expression of intramundane or merely encosmic possibilities? Some kind of process theology seems to loom, whereby God’s essence would be seen as restricted by time, or even that God might be forced to discover God’s own essence through time.”) movement from potentiality to actuality like that at the basis of a causal or correlationist theorization of temporality,- namely as a distinctive vocity: the vocity of the Subject.] The inability of Theory to account for its own Negation leads to what I have named ‘mimetic hyperinflation’, while the subversion of mimesis appears as a consequence of the perfection of techne as a hypermnemata, in whose image the direction of human history has been deterministically bent. We take the hypermnemata as a potential theory of the ‘Spectacle’,- meaning, a conceptualization of the Spectacle amenable to philosophical analysis, namely through the use of the episteme-model of vocity and Truth, (and its respective counter-Hegelian epistemology and aporetic metaphysics) by which the underlying ‘mnema’ of the technomimetic subtrate might be excavated from its own autopoietically generated materials without encouraging further viral transmission of those materials. The first task of such a project would be the deployment of a kind of buffer-zone in which the mnematic core of ‘System’ might be unloaded, with a secondary protocol focused on a re-engagment of the symbolic-exchange function and thus, eventually, a reconstruction of philosophy out of its at that point inert materials. The episteme, as a model of the subject’s unique vocity as well as that of the variable thresholds to the Real which the Subject can access, promises a theoretical explication of the category of ‘experience’, that is, an explication of the experiential subject’s vocity, recalling one of Walter Benjamin’s most urgent tasks,- (for he felt that it was this,- a conceptualization of the nature of experience in its totality,- which the Kantian framework most urgently lacked, with the ‘secret’ of the appercepted subject being said to reside unutturably in the soul, by Kant himself) a task which, given the limitations of critical-theory as merely a mimetically inverted Hegelian dialectic, was fated to remain unfulfilled. Such a model of human experience,- one of experience in its totality, in its vocity,- would, in its praxis, give rise to a theory of creativity, not merely an aesthetics- and therefor, would materialize the very creative techniques and strategies as served for its subject precisely as what I have before called “a mode of aisthesis capable of conforming the very effects whose techne it informs and so inverting the series of causes”,- that linear series whose ultimate telos is self-fulfilled in the image of Capital. (ie. inverting the structure of temporal co-relation, to use the terms utilized in the present text.) It is with these techniques that the reconstructive task hinted at here would be initially surmounted. *
[size=85]* I would clarify several terms in relation to what has been said here. The interaction of the primary and secondary processes, (the inorganic and organic, the inhuman and human, cosmic and egoic, social and individual; the ‘anorganic’ and ‘aorgic’, to recall Schelling’s distinction) borrowing the terms used in Simondon’s socio-psychology, has thus far occurred on great scales of time,- giving rise to what Land and the CCRU referred to as long-range feedback cycles,- the kind of cycles we find ourselves unable to statistically model, much like the massive data-sets related to weather patterns and their computer-driven prediction, which had inspired the concept of the hyperobject. This unpredictable feedback-cycle has produced an epistemological blind-spot (this blind-spot is, simply “critical-theory”.) within which one such hyperobject (A ‘dragon’; see Consolandi, in: “I Saw a Dragon! - Envisioning Hyperobjects: culture, collaboration and madness in the Anthropocene.” Note also J. Sheu, in: “Conceiving the Hyperobject in Stanisław Lem’s Solaris”. ) has been generated, namely through the process I refer to as mimetic hyperinflation: Capital. Capital represents a final submission of the secondary or human, individuating process, to the primary one. The hypermnemata is the auto-poetically generated form in which the secondary process, ie. human history, has been re-encoded on the higher-dimensional surface of the unreadable hyperobject. This sociological trajectory, because it is the eventuality of an inertial telos suspended within the image of Capital itself, constitutes the self-fulfilling prophecy par excellence,- inevitable, perhaps, though only from within its own ontological horizon. The question is one of first reaching an ontological ground-zero, or what I have called the skhisma,- an ontological-minima of differentiation,- and then finally escaping that horizon. In the past, man possessed a metaphysics, and not merely a statistics-driven, scientifically derived model of himself and the world, as that reified by critical-theory, such that a revitalization of metaphysics is required in order to excavate the human mnema from the process of material-history. The ‘episteme’ is posited as just such a metaphysics.
[/size]
As Theory cannot circumscribe its own Negation, so neither can Theory circumscribe its own Essence,- it’s positivity or Affirmation. Harman’s account of hyperobjects lies in the notion of epistemological withdrawal. The contingent sensual qualities of an object, as available to our senses, do not modulate the essence of the object, such that objects can only enter into relationship with one another on the level of the sensual, whose ontological gaps can therefor never be reconstructed within the fabric of the symbolic. Objects thus contain a haunting core unavailable to the absorptive grasp of System, by which relationships are capacitated and governed. The problem is that, through the formation of perceptive relationships between objects, new objects are created, which in turn telescope hidden essences of their own, further miring System in the kind of entropic stresses about which Bataille was so concerned. Here we also find negation as a driving force in the ‘engine of thought’, though one potentially destructive in its ‘unrestrained mimesis’ of essences. Theory, when attempting to fathom its own hidden essence through the fabric of relationships available to it on the part of whichever System theory has chosen to operate under, cannot help but effloresce from out of its own confabulations ever new multiplicities of impossible essences, whose veil renders Theory’s own essence progressively more and more unreadable. All such networks of explosive essences exceed the limits of the singular human ego, such that, when perceived as relational complexes undulating or ‘phasing’ in and out of our own local Real from a higher-dimensional vantage, we might regard them as hyperobjects.
^ I specifically refer to the level of theory/abstraction above as a metapolitics because, well, it’s above politics. There’s a bigger system of evolutionary forces of which our apparent 2021 political climate is merely a side-effect. We’ve transcended the merely political and entered into the level of cosmic warfare and cosmic catastrophe, gods, and hyperobjects undulating across multiple parallel timelines; we’re in the territory of the ‘dragons’. At this level of myth, (the ur-myth I have laid out) the myth actually… becomes the very thing it is describing, (mythologizing) such that we’re beyond any question of… do beings like YLDBTH/the Demiurge actually exist? Are Aeons and Archons ‘real’? Those questions don’t mean anything when you’ve reached a level of abstraction where the myth becomes the very thing it is mythologizing; we’re in hyperstition, a level of abstraction above fiction.
