Transparency is the Only Shield Against Disaster
The following is an essay that I assembled from my comments on Aeolus Kephas's "Owning the Apocalypse; the Up Side of Annihilation." Over the past year, a kind of odd marriage between accident and intent has taken place; any passing comments seem to arrange themselves into a predetermined pattern, as if some presence from the future were projecting a voice into my head. To a great extent, I am familiar with this voice, for it originates in one of the several alternate versions of myself, and yet the louder and more immediate it becomes the more alien it feels. In any case, it seems to know what it is doing. In the labyrinth that leads from Earth to the theatre beyond Time, it is possible that any wrong turn is correct.
Hi Aeolus,
--Swampjism wrote, "If 'galactic consciousness' was only possible upon the deaths of six billion people, I would take the six billion if given a choice. Screw your Enlightenment! . . . .But I don't even think all this is the case. Personally I feel that the 'shift' has already taken place, and in a way has always been there. The Buddha, saints, mystics, shamans of all times and cultures experienced full awareness within this world, the Spell, the Matrix. In Mahayana Buddhism it is affirmed that samsara is nirvana. The whole cycle of birth and rebirth, which is Maya the original Matrix, is the realm of enlightened awareness."
--You responded, "We are on the verge of something truly mind-blowing, and our resistance to the idea of mass death as something 'negative' just shows, to me, how unready we are, even conceptually, for the magnitude of what is coming, as a species and as individuals. I can say this: the loss of identity which (*I* believe) is our only possibility for survival now will be far more 'terrifying' (and undesirable) than any 'horrible' death by apocalypse could ever be. Those of us who begin to experience this 'shift' may well wish we'd been numbered with the lucky 'expendables.' Galactic consciousness is nothing anyone in their right mind would volunteer for, and those dumb enough to do so, soon regret it."
Is it possible that these viewpoints are not mutually exclusive?
To my way of thinking, the cosmos is already as "perfect" as it needs to be, although our perception of this larger context has been obscured from the dawn of recorded history, and perhaps longer. "Apocalypse" pertains to the rolling on and rolling off of stage sets, as embodied in, among other things, the 12 signs of the Zodiac. These "stage sets" activate the potentials that are encoded in the All. As they stomp and fret their hour upon the stage, the actors prove all but indifferent to the larger context they have come from, yet fear, always, on some level, that they are still the stuff of dreams.
Always, it is space itself that acts.
"A world" disappears; the theatre in which this destruction is carried out does not have to go anywhere, or to "evolve" beyond what is already within its reach. The future does not necessarily follow upon the past, nor is the past only mechanically active in the present. As one stage set disappears and another one appears, there is an interval, a pregnant pause, a dead zone, in which the vertical and horizontal axes get realigned; we may experience this as an earthquake or a tidal wave that shatters and then reconstitutes the whole of the inter-dimensional structure.
Many new things then become possible, but this may or may not result in the projection of destruction onto physical time/ space. A continent sinks. The sun burns out. A wave consumes Valhalla, bringing to an end the blood feast of the gods. The Venir and the Aesir, it must be said, are too drunk to be feeling any pain. Or, one actor has been momentarily transported from the theatre. The "pregnant pause" could just as easily result in the ecstasy of a shamanic flight, in the seeding of a more localized "omphalos," or in the birth of transpersonal memory. Our "world" has been replaced with an almost exact duplicate. One actor has returned, only slightly the worse for wear, from his "close encounter" with the vertical axis; having reestablished "contact" with what existed before History.
Time is the magician whose tricks educate the audience; a master of bi-location, he then gladly joins them in a long round of applause.
Our preoccupation with linear "evolution" shows our incomplete grasp of the time-cycle, which, while not a form of exact repetition, does not involve the "creation" of any "higher" state of consciousness. Our experience is, in some peculiar way, important. "How" and "why" will at some point be self-evident, but are now, perhaps, self-evident only to our Doubles. It is he/ she/ it, the Double, who provokes the fear that all too often we project onto the world. Oddly, it is always the next production at the theatre that especially concerns us. If we are haunted by the catastrophes at the end of the last ice age -- when the yogic technology of the Satya Yuga fell, not soon to be seen again -- then we somehow do not locate the source of our emotion in the past.
This could be due to the continual meddling of the Watchers, to whose fascist network the Double may belong. How many cows have been sacrificed to the development of their superpowers? Experiments in recombinant DNA did not begin in the 1970s. We must push the date back by more than 11,000 years, to the wasteland that followed the last deluge.
As they hovered above the flood-plain, having said "goodbye" to the bodies they once loved, trauma became the fuel that powered their glass houses. Objectively, they have celebrated the destruction of their cities. Cosmic; their pathos. They have through the millennia made a virtue of Necessity. All memory of their actions is forbidden. For, now as then, we suspect that they do more than "watch," even if we do not know what laws they have broken.
Our paranoia is, for the most part, justified, but its actual object is far stranger than we think, more intimate than one's heartbeat. More "immanent" than death, which it resembles. As violent as one's transubstantiation. In the end, perhaps courage is of more importance than any sharpening of our prophetic skills. "For beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror which we still are just able to endure, and we are so awed because it serenely disdains to annihilate us. Every angel is terrifying."--Rilke.
Aeolus wrote:
"'This could be due to the continual meddling of the Watchers; to whose fascist network the Double may belong.' -- This is a fascinating and baffling statement -- my understanding of the Double is a being who cannot be co-opted, since it is hooked into Infinity itself. The double can perhaps be enslaved (as in the pods of the Matrix), but that's another matter -- or is this what you mean by 'belong'? My own experiences of the Double lead me to the conclusion that it is still 'trapped' or distorted by unprocessed or unreleased aspects (karma?) of the personal self, but that in essence, as a Totality, the Double is a kind of tube or opening onto the Infinite-a veritable god-self."
Hi Aeolus,
We do not disagree about the Double. This is only a piece of myth making, and what I say here may be easily contradicted somewhere else.
What I am suggesting here is that the Double, in his aspect as the Shadow, may appear to be allied with the powers that "oppress" us -- although the ultimate goal of these "oppressive" actions is very much open to debate. The Double, of course, is in no way limited by this, or by any other, role. As a "double-agent," he is neither "here" nor "there," neither one of "us" nor one of "them," and delights in playing stupefyingly complex games with our Psyches.
In my non-dual system, there can be no ultimate "enemy"; the original omnipotence of the Soul cannot be stolen. It does not break easily, or perhaps at all, and there is no action that cannot also be interpreted as a gift.
I do not say this lightly. The implications of this power-sharing arrangement are enormous, even terrifying. Placing upon our moral sense many harsh and almost impossible demands, a radical expansion of perspective follows from our contact with the Double; we can only gasp at the leap that we have taken, and the distance that we have come.
Hi Aeolus,
I am puzzled by your description of my comment on the "apocalypse" as "lateral"; it is lateral only if it has not been clearly expressed and/ or understood. My point was that apocalyptic images are encoded in the structure of time/ space/ consciousness, and can be encountered, as well as understood, in a great variety of ways. A wholesale "die off" of the human race is one that most immediately comes to mind, but this view appeals, perhaps too mechanically, to our desire for Wagnerian drama, and depends as well upon a suspect concept of linear time.
That the "apocalypse" is "immanent," I do not doubt; but it is the meaning of the word "immanent" that I would like to call into question.
Let me phrase this in a different way: we must be militantly open in our descriptions of how the horizontal and the vertical axes intersect. Viewed from the perspective of the horizontal axis, the "apocalypse" is the eruption of repressed archetypal forces onto the stage-set of the objective world; it is the projection of the vertical axis onto History; the penetration of dead cultural forms by the violence of primordial energy.
Viewed from the perspective of the vertical axis, however, the "apocalypse" might best be understood as a reflexively triggered spectacle, a trial by fire at the boundary between worlds. It signifies, quite simply, that the explorer has successfully entered into the axis, taking the whole of both the personal and the collective Psyche with him, and is being powered by a sufficiently explosive degree of force. The person who has entered is not the same as the being who will exit.
Hi Aeolus,
As regards the "encoding" of "apocalyptic" images in the structure of time/ space/ consciousness; I had argued, in my previous post, for an open-ended interpretation of the "die off" of our species, and of all other such "objective correlatives" for our fears. We must guard against what Whitehead refers to as "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness"; one person's portent is another's souvenir.
Grof's "perinatal matrices" also speak to this simultaneous existence of a "beginning" and an "end." "Apocalyptic" images are encoded in the very process of our birth; any large-scale "expansion" of the psychonaut's consciousness can reactivate the trauma of this earlier "contraction"; the experience is overwhelming, and immediate, but when an already completed story is reenacted for a "subject," does the spectacle take place in the present, in the future, or in the past?
Biology both recapitulates and prefigures the larger process of "cosmogenesis."
We may feel that some world-shattering event is just around the corner. As always, it is "just about" to occur; this does not mean that the images and emotions generated are not, in fact, the circuitous projections of a "memory." Conversely, the fact that an already complete "apocalypse" might exist in its own dimension, like a bomb, does not mean that its explosive energy cannot spill over into ours; any more than the brain is incapable of exerting an influence on the hand.
That the world has already ended; of this we may be certain. But is it the end of "a world" or of "the world," and is the spectacle of the linear or the non-linear variety? It is reassuring that the prophets of world destruction have proven almost 100% wrong-and yet...One might justifiably wonder if our amnesia as to the length of recorded history is an issue.
A slow, staircase-shaped, sequence of disintegration -- what John Michael Greer describes as "catabolic collapse," of crises followed by periods of partial adaptation and recovery -- is probably the more common pattern for the decline of civilizations. At the same time, this does not mean that there have been no all-consuming catastrophes, in which thousands of years of development have been wiped out (relatively speaking) overnight. I believe that the world-wide network of megalithic sites is a testament to this reality.
These giant-works are cues, the hieroglyphs of Kundalini, which we, in our quest for eternal youth, have chosen to ignore; they point to how easily the evidence of past world destructions can be hidden, by our preconceptions, in plain sight. Each day the polar magnetism that protects Earth from the Sun decreases.
Aeolus wrote:
Brian: "Lateral thinking is about reasoning that is not immediately obvious and about ideas that may not be obtainable by using only traditional step-by-step logic. Techniques that apply lateral thinking to problems are characterized by the shifting of thinking patterns, away from entrenched or predictable thinking to new or unexpected ideas."
Your injection of poetic fiction into the discussion-a more right-brain mode of expression-struck me as "lateral" because it went straight to the heart of the subject, rather than retaining the usual distance required for intellectual debate.
Hi Aeolus,
Thank you for explaining your use of the word "lateral"; it does seem to be a valuable concept. Here is another comment that I was working on before I read your response:
--Incidentally, the excerpt from "To Akasha/ Part 1; An Incantation for the End of History" was also not intended to be "lateral." It was presented as an illustration of movement along the "vertical axis" of which I spoke; where all oppositions -- such as "self" and "other," "male" and "female," "creation" and "destruction," "past" and "future" --are reconfigured by the violence of primordial energy.
Like you, I have for many years been haunted/ fascinated by the concept of the "apocalypse," as well as challenged by the sense of "immanence" that attends it.
During the period of 1990-1993, after receiving "shaktipat" from Anandi Ma, my body/ mind became the playground for the clash of resurgent archetypes. It was no longer possible to view the "apocalypse" as a concept, or as something that might unfold at some point in the future; it was instead the stuff of my everyday experience. The body became my inter-dimensional vehicle; and the breath its means of locomotion.
"To Akasha/ Part 1; An incantation for the End of History", and its companion book, "To Akasha/ Part 2", were begun in 1991, at the mid-point of this breakthrough, but, so complex were the literary and spiritual issues to resolve, that the final revisions on these books were not completed until last year. In these works, I almost always refer to myself in the third person; I do not use the word "I." This helped to correct any tendency towards omnipotence-an almost inescapable temptation when one is drunk on Kundalini.
To what extent should my visions be interpreted as predictions? Should "the mile-high wave," for example, be interpreted as a metaphor? On the other hand, the Arctic and Antarctic icecaps do seem to be melting, and sea levels may rise by as much as 60 feet in the lifetime of my daughter; glacial shearing may prompt the formation of catastrophic waves, leading to the submersion of many cities along coasts. All emotions must be examined, and even our most cherished concepts overturned. It is important to respect the ambiguity of the image.
It has been an age since the Tablets of Destiny were other than dead objects in our hands. The best translation of this "ur-text" was the first one to be lost, while the worst was the one that got handed down through time. There are versions, and more versions of the text, from all of which pieces have been randomly removed. We are the all too human beings upon whom tricks can be played. Always, there are projections-and pregnant ones-of which even the Double remains unaware.
By a kick now awakened from the dream of recorded History, I find that I have only as much knowledge as I need; no more and no less. From each according to his desire for omnipotence; to each, as he learns his lesson. Or so the revolutionary council would prefer us to believe. Time will tell. It is possible that Love will in the end make fools of us all, if Death does not do so first.
That some force has realigned the vertical and the horizontal axes; of that I have little doubt, but the preexistent Voice does not always guide my actions. It comes and goes, as it chooses.
There are many days, still, when I would echo Rilke's lament in "The Notebooks of Malte Laurids-Brigge," where he -- or rather his alter-ego -- wrote, "Have I said it before? I am learning to see. Yes, I am beginning. It is still going badly. But I intend to make the most of my time."
We must kill the gods, especially the real ones; as they have stolen the keys that were to open every heart. For better or for worse, we have no choice but to trust our vision, even knowing that it must always be imperfect; such "imperfection" is not due to any accident of perspective, but instead to the primal schism between worlds. The "inside" looks a bit different than the "outside." Yes, the "above" is a mirror, but it is not exactly the "same as" the "below."
The Square Circle is a work in progress.
Hi Aeolus
--If we follow the explorations of a right-wing visionary like Serrano, one of the founders of "Esoteric Hitlerism," we could easily come to the conclusion that the Double was a Fascist. In my remarks about the Double at the end of my comment on the Apocalypse, however, I was not speaking about what the Double is, in and of himself, but rather about how he is refracted through the prism of our fears. To draw a comparison: in Hollywood movies, for example, whenever the supernatural puts in an appearance-as the music of Anton Webern screeches and plinks and plonks-we can be sure that some orgy of horrific violence is to come; we cannot escape from our metaphysics without immediately being punished. About such things our transfigured selves will laugh.
Below, you will find one of my comments on Gary Lachman's "Archangels of Our Darker Natures" (Reality Sandwich 11/25). In this essay, Lachman explores the connections between Mircea Eliade and the Fascist Right, and I remark on how his vision-as well as that of Evola, Serrano, Guenon, and other such impressive writers-was corrupted by a naïve and arrogant relationship to "The Shadow."
I would suggest that our interactions with "The Shadow" and "The Alien" should be similar, and must be based on a sense of unconditional openness, on a reckless joy; instead of on the projection of our fears. It is we who are predestined to be messengers, not they, who risk less than their all. An age ago, it is we who had volunteered to jump head-first into Death, but some trauma has obscured the confidence that should accompany this role.
The Road of Excess Leads to the Palace of Annihilation
Gary, you wrote:
"Mircea Eliade remarked that he became ‘politically aware' during his time in India" -- a matter-of-fact comment, but I find it significant that this awakening occurred India, perhaps the only culture whose traditions stretch, in forms that have been interrupted but never entirely broken, to a point beyond the origins of our time cycle. Recent research suggests that there are references in the "Rig Veda" -- geographic and climatological -- that seem to originate the period of 6,000-10,000 years B.C.
Among most of the thinkers you describe, there is a sense that the "modern world" is the slipshod handiwork of the Demiurge, and that access to some higher, as well as more ancient, world is an immediate possibility, in spite of our fixed position within the Kali Yuga. At the same time, it would appear that some trauma has occurred; it is necessary to blame someone, and it is only to be expected that the elite will take revenge. "Eliade remarked that ‘One day I heard an extremist talking and I had to admit he was right. I understood perfectly well that there had to be some violent protestors too.'"
But once violence in the service of "wholeness" is legitimated, there is no horror that cannot occur. It is only a few short steps to Savitri Devi's belief that Hitler was "the god-like Individual of our times; the Man against Time; the greatest European of all times." He was "Kalki", the 10th and final avatar of Vishnu, and his temporary defeat was due to his being "too magnanimous, too trusting, too good," to his having "in his psychological makeup, too much sun." Insufficiently merciless, he was prevented from bringing the full grandeur of his vision to fruition.-But he will not make the same mistake again.
Upon his return from a UFO base beneath Antarctica, Kalki "will act with unprecedented ruthlessness. Contrarily to Adolf Hitler, He will spare not a single one of the enemies of the divine Cause: not a single one of its outspoken opponents but also not a single one of the lukewarm, of the opportunists, of the ideologically heretical, of the racially bastardized, of the unhealthy, of the hesitating, of the all-too-human; not a single one of those who, in body or in character or mind, bear the stamp of the fallen Ages."
All of this might seem grotesque, but it follows logically from a certain type of loss; a once perfect world has been wrestled from one's grasp. However distorted, this longing perhaps refers to a real object.
Morphogenesis places its thumb upon the Scales; knowing that it is impossible to keep any crime a secret; that one race's god is another race's demon, i.e., that the Devas and the Asuras have, yet again, been scheduled to trade places; that all the toxins that are in the mud will hatch; that there is no real way to deactivate a superpower; and that no "good deed" will ever go unpunished.
We can read the "Ur-Text" in a multitude of languages. We can then translate our paraphrases into other, less coherent, languages; the wealth of which must provoke a "great war" between interpreters. At this point, it is impossible to even begin to tell the Story. Who is who, and what side was one on? Such a babbling of tongues is inter-dimensional in its scope. It is even possible that the war has never ended, and that the two worlds, even now, continue to throw insults. See, it is Arjuna who has wheeled his chariot onto the field at Kurukshetra, between the roaring of two armies; all of whom have or will soon pass into nonexistence.
The "Bhagavad Gita" was one of Himmler's favorite books, and he always took a copy with him on his travels. "These, your family, are already dead, and so press on in the fight." It seems unlikely that Vyassa, the incarnate form of Ganesh, had Buchenwald in mind when he first thought of these words. But one never knows. The elephant poet has again withdrawn into his cave, into the joy of his perfected memory; our own memories are perhaps no longer on this level. We are angry, and have vowed to follow the river of our frustration to its source.
The "world" that stirs such deep emotions may have left us. Still, we love her. If we cannot have her, then we will see that no one else does, either. Through our occult arts we have conjured an exact duplicate of her body!-It is missing only a small ocean's-worth of blood.
From beyond Time, an ultimatum echoes, waiting for its vehicles to hear.
In the face of the immanent energies that flow from this lost world, it no doubt seemed cowardly to Eliade to keep the contemplative and the pragmatic aspects of his being separate; thought and action must again be brought into relation, as the parts of one dynamic whole. To maintain one's ritual purity would be to avoid the responsibility that was the counterpart to one's memory. Life is hard. History is messy, and, like the making of sausages, it requires the spilling of much blood on the floor. To be willing to kill was a test of moral purpose. Evola and Serrano have also described this urgent and absolute need to act on what they "knew." If only one's "vision" could be so easily translated into fact. Of course, however great one's intelligence or encyclopedic one's knowledge of comparative mythology, without a moment by moment awareness of "The Shadow" one is little more than a puppet.
Such awareness is not natural; it involves a radical leap beyond duality, which is an achievement as individual as every person who attempts it, and one that must be renewed with every slight shift of focus. Without such a mercurial awareness, Jung himself, the originator of our modern understanding of this "concept", would no doubt have fallen prey to the resurgence of archetypal powers that gave birth to Fascism, and would also be listed among this group of suspect thinkers. His very ambivalence towards Fascism, in the early 1930s, was itself a sign of his enormous subtlety as a seer; his judgment upon events was not in any way mechanical, but came only at the end of a long process of self-discovery.
The problem is that "The Shadow" does not look like "The Shadow"; it looks like the external world. So long as one sees oneself as separate from the evil to be overcome, or one's slightly more articulate ignorance as somehow privileged by the Absolute, then there is no real hope for a life-changing confrontation with the Other.
For the past 20 or so years, I have also experienced a sense of worlds upon worlds breaking open; of the geometry behind History just about to be revealed; of a lost world being wrestled from my grasp, like an object upon waking from a dream; of some trauma that contaminates all attempts at perfect vision. I can certainly understand the need to test one's energies against events, or to find some external cause that would give form to one's depth of intuition. Space/ Time is an obstacle-to be removed; and any form of action must be better than no action at all. Except when it is not.
To the temptation to impregnate politics with myth, my attitude has been a prophylactic "Just say no." Simultaneously, I would caution: respect the urge if not the act; the urge to revolt against Space/ Time is not different than the one that fuels each creative breakthrough.
Blake, for example, would be an artist who gave positive expression to this same world-conquering impulse. Sealed within the althanor of his transformation, he did not depart from the realm of symbolic action; all contraries met within one energetic body.
The fire of Prometheus, yes; the arrogance of the Archons, no. Quite strangely, the same vision can prompt results that are diametrically opposed. Apocalyptic violence escorts the dream of the Satya Yuga. Ecstasy guides the magus through each twist and turn of the labyrinth, and then finally out through the exit-into farce.
If, as some proponents of the occult right contend, an experience of primordial wholeness can be gained through the act of Tantric intercourse -- whether with a partner, or through the opening of the microcosmic orbit, thus reintegrating the root and crown chakras and subverting the horizontal projection of duality -- then Eliade, Evola, Serrano, Guenon and their like, must, when all is said and done, be regarded as a group of premature ejaculators.
As the maxim says, "In my patience is my soul."
The lost world that imagines us does not need to be created; and we, who are not other than its shadow, must learn how to approach it through the prism of our fear, whose force-fields we must navigate. "The Shadow" that for millennia has haunted us, now a guide, will again demonstrate his/her ability to steer. A hair's breadth of a difference separates discovery from destruction. Hidden in plain sight, the future/ past, already, is as perfect as it needs to be, and our post-traumatic stress only serves to cloud the issue.
--In response to this comment, "Kelleil" asked:
"Simply please...How is the Shadow able to guide now, as in comparison to the past? What accounts for the PTSD? As we are in the Kali Yuga, how is such progress possible and is that accounting for a new paradigm, a fundamental shift in the fabric of our reality?"
--My answer was as follows:
The ghosts of Antarctica and the paradox of the guide
Hi kelleil,
You wrote, "How is the Shadow able to guide now, as in comparison to the past?"
--After asking for simplicity, you have certainly posed a very complex question! Let's see. On the simplest level, I would say that the relationship between the shadow and the guide is a mystery, one that each day I continue to explore. Perhaps this is not informative.
On a somewhat more complex level, I would argue, based first and foremost on my own experience, that the shadow, the double, the inner teacher, and the preexistent guide are all aspects of one single presence; its energy is explosive, and it has the power to obliterate or to transform what it touches.
Contracted, it appears to be one's enemy; expanded, it appears to be one's friend. Quite strangely, it is neither of the above. If its agenda overlaps, in many ways and at certain times, with our own, it would nonetheless be a mistake, on this side of the experience of death, to jump to any conclusions about which side of the millennial war we are on. Luck overtakes us; but perhaps we are being set up for the kill.
On one level, each of us is irreducibly special; we have each come with a one of a kind gift. On a different level, we are all of us anonymous. We are many, like the dead, who must somehow learn to navigate by scent.
Like the alien doctors who invade our dreams, where, having beamed us out of one space but not quite to the next, with wide eyes they conduct their nonsensical dissections; so too, there is a shadow who conducts obscure experiments on our fears. He is the guardian of non-duality. Through the integration of his lower energies we gain access to his higher functions. Bit by bit, the shadow reveals his shared identity with the guide.
Ascending through the worlds, lightning flashes between the connections that join each part to the All. The web is infinite, and our vision correspondingly grows. At the same time, the key players in the drama can be counted on one hand.
Has the shadow become more user-friendly? No. Whether now, or 2,000 or 10,000 years ago, the shared identity of the shadow and the guide has always presented us with an ultimatum. "Abandon hope, all you who enter here." "Live free, and/ or die." True ecstasy necessitates the removal of one's skin. The Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge have never been two different trees.
Our guardians lie; it is the serpent who instructs us.
As always, we must begin by reintroducing the ego to the shadow-the most immediate one-which, however strong, is only as large as one's subconscious. Its contents are as unique as DNA. (Or so some think, and here we will leave out several steps in our exploration.)
But beyond the individual shadow there is also a collective shadow, upon which some trauma has prevented us from acting; it is this shadow that is only just coming into focus. Mad geniuses impregnate the technology of the One.
Fresh from the ocean, the ghosts of Antarctica grow dangerously real.
Image by kevindooley, courtesy of Creative Commons license.
Tweet
- 11-16-09
- Brian George's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version










Comments
Fascinating in a broad sense
I became rather enthusiastic, when I read your article. You have succeeded in presenting a coherent pattern of facets, which too seldom are broached here. And when it's done, it's usual us more technical types, who try to make equations with transcendence, theoretical physics and epistemology in a more linear way only appealing to a small group. You have made it more accessible.
But, and please take this as a personal, friendly opinion, sometimes this pattern gets lost in a free-flow, associative, flowery, cornucopial language. At least for me the result was confusing, I felt, as if I was in a maze. I'm not suggesting, that YOU lost your way in it, but then it's your maze, and I was after reading the article tempted to create an overall map with circles and arrows to follow you completely. But this would probably have resulted in something reductionistic, which would have spoiled everything.
Along these lines I offer some speculations. Did I detect an inclination towards a Richard Bach's attitude (Jonathan Livingston Seagull): Existence is either a school or for entertainment...? This is a simplistic assumption, against which I would propose a hardcore gnostic option: If the universe/cosmos is 'error', there's nothing to learn or enjoy except finding an end to ignorance (of reality), i.e. finding 'gnosis'. Such an approach is my own favourite approximation to truth worthy of consideration, not an absolute.
Which leads me to the next step; how do we find 'gnosis'/realisation/knowledge? You make it seem easy by assuming samsara=nirvana (and later returning to this by stating that there's a hairthin line between 'error' and truth), but experince has clearly demonstrated, that this equationsign or the hairthin line actually can be a lifelong process. There is no instant satori, usually you have to be chased through the snow or half beaten to death for years by some grumpy old monk, before the 'instant' satori finally arrives. Or for the overly intellectual driving yourself insane with a koan. And to make it worse, these days you can't even be sure, that your spiritual guide isn't employed by the joint efforts of a travel agency and the monastery's PR department.
'Everything is OK' is a highly debatable point, not centering on the inconvenience of terminating the 'ego' or even fear of death, but on the existence of suffering. Anthropomorphizing it (if such a word exists) leaves out children, mentally disqualified, animals, all of whom can't make sophisticated choices about 'just' skipping idle speculations. When my cat takes a mouse, the mouse suffers in a direct and very unacademic way. So please accept my criticism of glib pseudo-tao'ism and related fake-philosophies. In my opinion such are just an accentuation of western egocentria. Humanity is the measure of anything, and we can talk, or not talk, our way in or out of everything. The dumb or unsophisticated doesn't count in ivorytower perspectives.
my take so far
we are learning to speak jibberish, this is no joke, the more we read everything under the sun moon stars and galaxies, the more insane things appear, if not totally inane, the more we talk about the unconscious, or the shadow.But speaking mumbo jumbo jibberish is not unlike speaking about history, or philosophy, or looking into the heart of ancient texts.Gnosis is total gibber-gabber, not unlike some person let out of a mental institution,standing along the road waving at people in cars as they go by, now more then ever.But there is a deeper dimension to this and i believe this what Brian George is getting at, it's the lines between the lines of all this language that has been getting the better of us since the first word was light, and then all the rest has been chaos masquerading as order and the magician that is standing along the road pointing at the automobiles.At the point where the jibberish begins to make some kind of sense, we will be speaking an alien tongue. The exact sequence of this comes in some table of elements, to be sure science calls it this, ancient texts speak in the original language, which follows a series of transformitive visions.Poetry is the opening of the way, or third eye, or 4th dimension, even when most poets have no notion of this, and merely add to the jibberish, thinking they are saying something nice or not so nice, philosophy steps into the gap and makes nice or not so nice.And to sum up all this is just an apparent moment or cosmic moment.
And this is where we begin to write the new language.It begins with a climax.The and.
Rerabbit: There is poetry and then there is poetry
Maybe we agree.
Having the poetic sense of an automatic tin-opener, I wouldn't know about that. But I do know, that language (and other symbols) should be a subordinate tool of whatever amount of reality our peculiar universe contains. Not the other way round.
That's why mystics fundamentally agree (no matter what their experiences later are called), while religionists, belief-system-ists, ritualists or plain wanna-bes ever are inventing new words they use in their fantasy factories for creating fairy tales.
My favourite semantic example: If left becomes right in a mirror, why doesn't up become down?
Whole philosophies filled with atrocities or just plain nonsense are build on the inability to find functional answers to this kind of question. Which by the way isn't a koan.
And as to the possibilty, that poetry is a kind of emotional universal communicationform, which everybody understands disregarding talent, I certainly have my own elitistic opinionatedness on quality. Most people are as dumb, disinterested or lazy emotionally as they are intellectually. There are no free lunches, shortcuts or instant answers except in Hollywood or cottage industry fantasies.
yet
here you are, speaking to the issue, whatever that is to you.Poetic or so not poetic, make nice or not so nice, sounds different then merely either/or.Philosophy or Poetry, can opener or eye opener.So look at the forest for the trees, and or take a tumble down the rabbit hole, the Cheshire, is always ready to say:niiiiiiiiiiiiiice.
I only began writing poetry for one main reason, i heard the call.And then, i also realized that i would have to listen to the masters, in the first case that was Arthur Rimbaud, the young French poet that took the poetry world by storm.Upon passing through A season and Hell and Illuminations, i then was faced with my own serious reflection.At that point you take the leap of faith, or i like the leap of fire, this is just to make sure you know what you are entering, as in Dante's comment to Boethius "the blessed soul who exposes the deceptive world to anyone who gives ear to him"Boethius wrote 'Consolation of Philosophy'
Cultures sit down on chairs around the table of my solar plexus
“Cultures sit down on chairs around the table of my solar plexus. An arguement is about to start.”—B.G., “An Artist’s Statement”
“May verse be like a key
That opens a thousand doors.
A leaf falls; something goes by on the wing;
May all that the eye can see be created,
And the hearer’s soul stand trempling.
Invent new worlds and watch your word;
The adjective that bestows no life, destroys.” —Vicente Huidobro
Hi Bogomil and Revolutionrabbit,
Much thanks to both of you for your challenging and provocative comments. I cannot respond to all of the issues that you have raised at once, and so let me pick a place to begin.
Bogomil, you wrote, “But I do know that language (and other symbols) should be a subordinate tool of whatever amount of reality our peculiar universe contains. Not the other way round. That's why mystics fundamentally agree (no matter what their experiences later are called)…”
—Please allow this “mystic” to disagree! Sorry, I could not resist that. But seriously folks, perhaps most mystics “agree” because they simply cannot write; they speak in vague and uplifting generalities, and are incapable of or uninterested in translating the full complexity of their experience into language. Rumi and Blake are two notable exceptions to this rule—you could no doubt point to others—but, when these exceptions to the rule occur, they also tend to strike us as almost unimaginably peculiar; we look at their historical period and think, “Where the hell did he come from?” Their vision can seem to originate from a point beyond the clockwork of the time-cycle.
In order to bypass the intellect and the lower aspects of the Psyche; to return to the more archetypal levels of creation, and then move further outward or upward beyond form altogether; too many saints and yogis have let go of the very powers that we are here to develop as human beings. As I understand it, these powers have to do with our unique capacity for language, and for our role as “messengers” between the worlds. You may argue that the word “angel” means “messenger,” and that this particular function is their job and not ours, but angels—at least according to many traditions—exist only to transmit a predetermined set of instructions from “on high.”
Too much “mystical” poetry is what I would characterize as “devotional”; it makes reference to states and experiences that are nowhere “embodied” in the language of the poetry itself. The results may be quite effective if seen as a “finger pointing to the moon,” but the mystic has not yet found an “effective means” for bringing the reader along with him.
I have often felt that this split between the planes of consciousness was perhaps a fairly recent development—if the actual length and breadth of human history were to be kept in mind. It does not seem to have been there for the poets of the “Rig Veda” or the “Mahabarata.” In Homer’s time—during which, according to Plato, the art of memory was already in decline—the poet still seemed fully capable of performing his shamanic function.
It is only over the past century or so that some significant few writers have made a Promethean effort to push beyond these self-imposed limitations. You will notice that I said “writers” and not “mystics”—for I believe that writers and artists have inherited—or perhaps “appropriated”—the role that was earlier filled by shamans, prophets, saints, and yogis. There is much work to be done—and someone has to do it! A partial list of my models would include Arthur Rimbaud, Rainer Maria Rilke, Paul Eluard, Pablo Neruda, Jorge Luis Borges, Octavio Paz, Henri Michaud, Czelaw Milosz, and Zbigniew Herbert. These writers would probably not be on anybody’s list of saints, but I believe that they point the way to the reclamation of our primordial capacity for vision.
Transparency is the Only Shield Against Disaster
Gilberto
This George piece got me right from the title! I could not agree more with the concept of transparency shielding one from disaster. It reminds me of advice given to me by an acupuncture teacher when I inquired if being too ‘open’ was the reason I was picking up ‘stuff’ from my clients. He responded that I was ‘not open enough’. I’m not sure if this precisely correlates with what Mr. George had in mind but no matter- it works for me!
And yes, the Watchers do indeed meddle but I think both roles were agreed upon before we all came into body and did the necessary ‘forgetting’ that allows the experience to be integrated on all levels.
As always, bravo to Brian!
No weapon can cut emptiness in half
Hi Gilberto,
Those clients are just bad, and you should probably stay far away from them. Of course, you will have to become independently wealthy first! A small detour—to be followed by a new Golden Age of hermetically sealed harmony and contentment, in which all citizens will belong to the Democratic Party, vampiric oligarchs will be cured by Bach flower remedies, and no one will ever say a harsh word about another.
Of course, the acupuncture teacher was probably correct in saying that until then we would do better to keep all things in our field of vision, and to confront—as best as we are able—any undesirable energies head on.
The sentence “Transparency is the only shield against disaster” is one that just popped into my head, but I immediately understood what its implications were. There is a refrain from an old spiritual that goes, “I went to the rock to hide my face; the rock cried out “No hiding place! There is no hiding place down here.’” At times, when I have managed to access an expanded state of energy, and have attempted to move up what I call the “vertical axis” between worlds, it has seemed as though every carefully encoded secret has come bubbling to the surface, forced out of the body, the intellect, and the psyche by the power of an energy that desires to return home.
This is a mini-version of the “Apocalypse” that can erupt out of the “collective unconscious” at the end of a historical period or an astrological cycle. Some degree of physical destruction may or may not be involved; the new world might look almost exactly like the old. Space, I believe, is the ultimate destination of this energy—the space of the 5th element “Akasha,” a form of emptiness that is also a kind of 10D encyclopedia.
Something gains in power to the degree that it is hidden. If we can acknowledge and then integrate an energy or a piece of information, then to that extent we become free of their capacity to wound us.
This was one of the ways that Zen Buddhist monks were able to gain such authority in Medieval Japan. They appeared to be somewhat humorously indifferent to death. The warriors that they were attempting to teach thought, “These guys are even crazier than we are!” And then stopped trying to kill them.
Aaaah, the american need to be centered
Hi Brian,
thanks for your answer, and before I continue, I hope you understand, that I'm not being hostile, even if I disagree with you. I reserve my 'wrath' for cocksure missionaries, prophets and wanna-be messiases, neither of which you seem to be.
We all start from a basic set of assumptions, which almost always passively and unknowingly are considered axiomatic. Perhaps from sheer pressure of habit, perhaps from the idea, that it's impossible to make a further examination of such 'axioms' and go beyond them.
From a set of assumptions it's possible to build secondary structures, which inside the given frame can be quite functional. As a very clearcut example, I'll use the dinosaur of 'scientism', which was based upon an axiomatic philosophical materialism. Nothing existed 'outside' of that and was simply defined away. But 'inside' scientism impressive results manifested, leading to the false impression, that EVERYTHING was or could be explained. Eventually the only challengers were fundamentalistic religionists, who from even more narrow 'faith' axioms objected; mostly without succes, as their kind of axioms mostly were pure fantasy factory fabrications and difficult to support in a convincing way.
My criticism in the present context is that you present sets of secondary conclusions such as 'life is a school', 'bypassing the intellect', 'returning to archetypal levels of creation' and 'developing powers to act as messengers between the worlds' all based on assumptions/axioms, which you do not enlarge on. You just take them for granted.
I question this for the simple reason, that I have a very different set of basic assumptions. Assumptions I have actually tried to examine for myself with the use of such 'tools' as humans have available. I do not postulate, that I have found ultimate answers, only approximate such, which undoubtly need revising later. But I believe, that any debate should be made at this level, not on second-generation derivatives.
From this you and I naturally consider mystics, their communication skills, language in general, meaning and direction in life etc from widely different perspectives, where communication is difficult. But as I liked 'the between lines' in your article (as the rev. Rabbit called it), I can offer an inivitation of honest effort on my part to 'delve deeper' together with you. Maybe we can find common ground.
With the present silence on RS, it isn't as if any flow would be interrupted.
The brow of the universe bears no eclipse
Hi Bogomil,
I was working on a response to one of your earlier comments, but let me post it here instead.
You wrote, “Did I detect an inclination towards a Richard Bach's attitude (Jonathan Livingston Seagull): Existence is either a school or for entertainment...? This is a simplistic assumption, against which I would propose a hardcore gnostic option: If the universe/cosmos is 'error', there's nothing to learn or enjoy except finding an end to ignorance (of reality), i.e. finding 'gnosis'…
Which leads me to the next step; how do we find 'gnosis'/realisation/knowledge? You make it seem easy by assuming samsara=nirvana (and later returning to this by stating that there's a hair-thin line between 'error' and truth)…”
I do not believe that I said specifically that “Samsara = Nirvana,” but, if I did, I was not the first to make this correlation, which is anything but a recent New Age nostrum. Perhaps the most succinct statement of this idea can be found in the “Prajna Paramita Hridaya Sutra,” more commonly referred to as the “Heart Sutra,” which announces, “Emptiness is form and form is emptiness.” This is not an elitist statement, since it virtually eliminates the difference between “self” and “other.” It is also one of the key concepts upon which the elaborate superstructure of Mayayana Buddhism is balanced. As you probably know, monks in Mahayana Buddhism take a vow that they will not cross over fully into Enlightenment until they can take all past and future beings along with them.
“All life is suffering” is the first of the four “noble truths” propounded by the Buddha. This is followed by “The origin of suffering is attachment”—i.e. “attachment’ to any “non-dual” point of view. If there is no difference between the “self” and the “other,” then empathy for the sufferings of others is not a question of personal virtue or of adherence to any external system of morality; it is instead a matter of the clear perception of reality—one cannot help but feel, and to then “help” in whatever way is most in keeping with one’s nature.
I wrote, “A hair’s breadth of a difference separates discovery from destruction.” This is, as you have noted, a “poetic” statement, and thus is open to any number of interpretations. One way to read it is in the context of the second “noble truth”; as we move “outward” into the world of society and nature—which I will refer to here as the “horizontal axis”—or upwards and downward on the “vertical axis” that connects the various “worlds”, we have only a limited control over the phenomena that occur. Things happen—both good and terrible. What we can control is our own interpretation of the event.
Each experience can be viewed as either an “obstacle” or a “door.” It is up to us to figure out how these apparently contradictory viewpoints fit together. The challenge is an alchemical one. I do believe that the relationship of the “little mind” and the “big mind” can best be understood as a “koan.” The “koan” presents us with an almost opaque ultimatum—with a question that is meant to torture us, and which can only be answered by a sudden jump between levels. The challenge is not to “create one’s own reality,” but rather to return to the primordial depth of consciousness from which all later versions of “reality” arise.
It is in our simultaneous awareness of all apparent oppositions—up and down, good and bad, obstacle and door, life and death—that the “hair’s breadth of a difference” can be found.
transparency
The alchemy of the word
Hi rodomontade,
My key models have been "Modernist" or "High Modernist" writers--such as Rimbaud, Rilke, Borges, Mandelshtam, Seferis, Milosz, Paz, Michaux—rather than contemporary or "New Age" authors. These writers tend to work in a dense and challenging style. When they write in prose, which about half of them do, the prose tends to be only slightly less difficult than the poetry. I am actually trying very hard to be clear. One small paragraph in "Birds of a Feather and the Playthings of the 12”—my last RS essay—took about 9 hours to write. Nonetheless, it is probably true that my work is not so much intended to be "read" as it is intended to be "re-read", and lived with.
Always, I prefer to be working at the cutting-edge of my understanding, but I have also reached an age at which the tone of my work is somewhat retrospective; I am attempting to synthesize and master the past 25 or so years-worth of what Eliot described as "raids on the inarticulate." At the moment, my favorite composer is Franz Joseph Haydn, who I regard as a kind of undiscovered continent. Thus the "classical" and the "experimental" aspects of my work are held in a precarious—and each day to be renegotiated—balance.
As I mentioned to Bogomil, the great majority of traditional “mystics” have had little interest in translating the full complexity of their experience into language; they are most often content to “point a finger at the moon”—a sensible approach, but one that leaves their insights and energies only partially “embodied” in a medium. My goal is to use language in such a way that it is transformed into a “vehicle” for shamanic flight, and thus—given some degree of openness and cooperation—to take readers with me on a voyage.
About The Double
The self has many moods and tenses
The soul, a wholly other kind
Mismatched like good intentions
The heart misunderstands the mind
When you came into existence
A former dream you left behind
An alter ego in the distance
Belonging to another time
Looking through clouded lenses
What do you expect to find
In the end you'll lose your senses
Ears and eyes deaf and blind
Without guides or quick defenses
You wither waiting for a sign
You mustn't be dead against it
It shines a light on what you hide
Sometimes you can feel its presence
An essence like the scent of wine
Lingering beyond the present
Parting as you intertwine
By Dark Nerve
InspirationWhat is this omnipresent absence
At once remembered and forgotten
Reappearing without coherence
Everlasting, unbegotten
Fleeing without hesitation
A starry-eyed vagabond
Taking flight in desperation
Its stormy brain without a form
A figment without symmetry
Interrupts its weary host
Demanding quick cohabitation
Despite an insubstantial boast
It finds its way in uninvited
Without dimensions, front or side
Running wild, it grips the mind
Rearranging the thoughts inside
By Dark Nerve
I just love these precarious soul crossings, traversing the dangerous slopes of the mind and heart, loitering on the brink of the Abyss, plucking those delicate and shivery heart strings, writhing in the depths of the wild and strange....
And of course I adore the frenzied clambering up the dizzy heights of consciousness in search of the fantastical, the wondrous and the absurd...!
The more extravagant the better....!
Raids on the Inarticulate
Inexpressible
I've got an inkling I can't explain
A puzzling feeling without a name
A mumbled secret beyond the aim
Of clashing egos steeped in shame
Out of place and out of season
Strangely giddy beyond reason
I reel and sway, twitch and shiver
My soul on fire, my heart aquiver
With some intuition I can't deliver
The whole of me in dangling slivers
Cut like kindling to burn and shine
Set adrift in space and time
Poked and probed and torn asunder
By an inborn force as old as thunder
My final cause alive but hidden
Self and source arrive unbidden
In the void between light and sound
Meanings stray and clouds abound
Undiscovered worlds I yearn to find
In the cosmic whirl of formless mind
Written by © By Dark Nerve
Elegy
Fearful mythic mother
This stammering lament
Is the tearful prayer I mutter
When my soul is spent
The syllables I sputter
The plaintive cries I vent
Console me as I shudder
Kneeling and bent
Melting like butter
All the words I meant
Dispersing in the clutter
Letters never sent
Hesitant I stutter
Without a hint of sense
As rumors and whisperings
Echo in the wind
And now I hear you humming
As I wearily consent
Your soft insistent strumming
Compelling my descent
Written by © By Dark Nerve
Prayer To Venus
Notorious affliction, undoer of pride
Vilified harridan, scurrilous bride
Radiant catastrophe, glorious destiny
Daughter of oblivion, awaken my memory
Inhuman paramour, scandalous star
Harlot superior, too dear to be far
Ruinous prosperity, heavenly calamity
Curse of insanity, you rightly belittle me
Mauled in the gutter, convulsing I crept
Breathless I stuttered, brimming I wept
Holy concavity of carnal hyperbole
Please take the lead, I'm out of my depth
Shimmering prodigy of infinite charity
On a threshold removed, you blur as I brood
Immortal avenger of the unduly obsessed
Unman or unhand me but don't leave me bereft
Written by © By Dark Nerve
Incubus
I'm a stinking rabble dabbler
It's the patter that I rap
When I strike the frenzied babbler
It's more than just a tap
Tainted and chaotic
Unruly from the start
As grotesquely unmelodic
As the reconciled heart
Torn and misbegotten
In a medley of dismay
Incomplete and shortened
And mangled on the way
The pattern that I mold
Is too nebulous to grasp
It's barbarous and old
But perfect for the task
Of losing what you want
Before you even ask
In the dark a lonely haunt
Peeping through a mask
I'm the tongue without a view
The mind aptly out of reach
Rambling, misconstrued
Stranded on a beach
The wound that opens like a mouth
Without the gift of speech
Belated answers blurted out
Widening the breach
Straggling anomalous
Revoltingly obscene
Stridently anonymous
But hungry to be seen
Written by © Dark Nerve
A near death experience now assaults the wheel of history
Hi Dark Nerve,
Thanks so much for your pieces. Here is an excerpt that you might like from my book "To Akasha/ Part 1; An Incantation for the End of History. It is addressed to a goddess figure that I refer to as "Akasha." This is the beginning of section 2:
You whose name is Memory of Space. Who have coupled with the corpse of god. Who are clothed in living language. The astrologer to Xerxes on the Hellespont:
You have cast your spell on the Islamic poets who now masturbate in bunkers of the Kirghiz tundra. Any image is corrupt. No visible female can substitute for the perfection of your geometry. Like a tail behind a comet, their desire follows along the arc of your transgression. You have loosed the serpents of their DNA from any reference to the natural world. "Believe I am your friend--obey!" The brain destroying virus "ecstasy" overtakes them. You have fed to them the music of the spheres. You would allow no other food. You have caused them to convulse. They have rolled upon the ground. They have beaten their weapons into burning plowshares.
Sharks become compassionate. Pigeons launch themselves into satellite dishes. All sex becomes non-local. Love riots through the networks of a-causal correspondences. Under desert sands the dead poets speak in tongues.
Your neuroplasticity has rewired the neocotex of the weather. At last it will be possible to do something besides complain. Humans will be as gods, though bad ones. Perhaps the burden of their inexperience may yet be swallowed by a serpent.
Edom’s kings have escaped from the honeycomb where they petrified. Rebel giants have grown bored with being watchers. You have loosed the miles of vampires now gyrating from the Caucasus, like hungry tops. Evils burp from the cities that were old before the deluge. Few register the fact. Their citizens fit in. The black crystal of their architecture has again become transparent. You have burnt the scaffold of the human brain. You have teleported 8 thousand Jews through the auroras at Red Empire’s edge. They are whirled off into harmony through the Constellation of the Bear. They will teach Earth’s language to the UFOs.
The tongue of Einstein is at last transplanted. He has hitched his wagon to a rising star. From the labyrinth antigravity sprouts. You have called forth mutants from the White House lawn with their bird mouths opened for the blood of Jesus.
You have counted up each petal and each atom. You have stocked with amputees the Vladivostok brothels. You have violated each stone hallucination in the laboratory that the aliens once built for Ashurbanipal.
You now shuttle back and forth to nowhere through the great net of the 10 dimensions. You have come forth naked from the lightning of the void. Your memory has made the constellations. You have set your toe on planet Earth. Your footprints have been found upon the lava of a city--a city built 2 million years BC.
“It’s turtles all the way down!”
Hi Bogomil,
You wrote,
“We all start from a basic set of assumptions, which almost always passively and unknowingly are considered axiomatic. Perhaps from sheer pressure of habit, perhaps from the idea that it's impossible to make a further examination of such 'axioms' and go beyond them. From a set of assumptions it's possible to build secondary structures, which inside the given frame can be quite functional…
My criticism in the present context is that you present sets of secondary conclusions such as 'life is a school', 'bypassing the intellect', 'returning to archetypal levels of creation' and 'developing powers to act as messengers between the worlds' all based on assumptions/axioms, which you do not enlarge on. You just take them for granted.”
The concept that there are multiple “worlds” is one that can also be approached and understood in a multitude of ways. It can certainly be understood in an esoteric fashion—as parts of this essay would suggest—but it could just as easily be understood as a convenience of description; as a slightly archaic way of saying “frames of reference.”
Thus in science we could speak of the animal, vegetable, and mineral “kingdoms.” We could speak of the “world” of quantum physics or the “world” of astrophysics—the laws pertaining to each of which have proved to be maddeningly incompatible.
If our physical vision were sufficiently wide and penetrating, we could speak of the vertically layered “worlds” of the ocean, the earth, the air, the Van Allen radiation belt, and outer space.
In terms of our own day to day experience, we inhabit both the “world” of the intellect and the “world” of physical matter. These two “worlds” clearly “overlap” at their edges, but they are not exactly the same; if superimposed, a great many of the details do not match up, and must be forced by acts of metaphysical violence to coincide.
One “world” cannot be fully “accessed” from another—at least not without transposing the entire structure of our vision.
Although fully “real,” the boundaries between such “frames of reference” are never other than provisional. With a shift of scale, we can see that all of these apparently separate “worlds” are just subsets of the planet Earth—a “blue marble” that revolves around a medium-sized star, which itself revolves around an as-of-yet undetermined center.
A bit further out, and with another shift of scale, the Earth and the whole of the solar system would be no bigger than a point of light—a point that might look suspiciously like what I refer to as the “Bindu.” Frames of reference can be collapsed to fit one inside the other, or expanded to show the most microscopic of detail.
Cliffhanging? Re: Brian
As our present 'maps' seem to be somewhat similar, I can only answer your latest post with:
"Yes, and ......?" Where do you want to go?
I left at dawn for the Eternal City
Hi Bogomil,
I wrote this piece for you over the weekend. It is really more of a poem than a comment written for a forum, but it expands upon the line of thinking that I started in "It's turtles all the way down!"
A while back, Pagan Moir had asked me to explain my statement that "Space does not exist," and that all of space is actually contained in a single preexistent sphere, which can also be described as a 10D torus.
This is not an easy subject to explore or to describe--even to someone who has had a good amount of meditative experience. I registered her request, but have chosen to articulate my vision in tiny bits and pieces--to explore this concept from a variety of angles, and in comments addressed to a variety of people. "I left at dawn for the Eternal City" is the most recent of these attempts.
I left at dawn for the Eternal City; it seems that I have misplaced several days
Hi Bogomil,
In presenting this alternate view of the “Apocalypse”, of an end that opens the door to a perpetual beginning, I have used, as a convenient “frame of reference,” the concepts of the “horizontal” and the “vertical” axes; in turn, this provides us with a method of speaking about space—of moving up and down, as well as in and out. Each direction will lead us eventually to the circumference of a sphere—a sphere that can also be imagined as a point, as a pair of intersecting triangles, as a 10D torus, or as a 64 cube tetrahedron.
This sphere is both our destination and the vehicle that we must activate; it will take us from where we are to where we have never ceased to exist.
Let us “fix” the world—by letting space implode; in the eye of the storm will test the explosive power of the small. If we travel far enough and fast enough in the direction that we are going, we will at some point overtake our alternate versions from behind. To them, we will seem to be arriving from the future, or from a past whose depth subverts all current archeological theory. Who knows what each will think of the other’s odd appearance?
Once, the Great Year set up oars along the coast, to mark each spot where our surrogates had been buried, facing East. No trauma could remove the sun from before their eyes; however much tectonic plates have been—as if by accident—rearranged. Pangaea is a puzzle; there will always be pieces missing. For without such a catastrophe there would be no “primal schism.”
To the 1-inch city will return the storytellers—good to go!—from all of the cultures that a wave has carried off.
In one “frame of reference,” I am looking down and backwards at the Earth—at the fossil known as “Brian George”; he is little more than fuel. In an alternate “frame of reference,” I am standing like a new-born child on the Earth, feet bare, and with an ocean where my head should be; I am looking up and outwards at the clockwork of the Macrocosm—now once again translucent.
“Breath by breath”—I say to no one in particular—“we will sink our yogic drill-bits into History! By the power of our austerities we will renovate the Zero; one size will again fit all.” The music of the spheres becomes cacophonous, and then stops. As I stare, an atomic power plant half-materializes on a cloud; its warning signs flash, and lightning fills the air with the aroma of burnt ozone. The dark energy of omnipotence moves in for the kill.
to have once thought
to have once thought about the great things of this life.
to have perceived and then piercing some film one proceeds to reclaim that vast magnificent territory of the imagination.
as if passng through some round space outlined with ever curving shape, we at once consider the dark circle the even so were to also notice that language itself is not without this oh, nor numbers themselves, thence we are bound to follow its conture, yet we cannot recognize its beginning or its end, this then is the true state of the mind, beyond all its states and counter-states.
now one must enter this cipher, and having entered, one has already crossed its circumference, that it turns as we move forward is either true to our perspective or perspective to our true, there is no other possible reference point, other then that we move and it also moves.
having thus arrived at the middle of everything, we no longer turn with it, only now we are still within it, quitely observing its all pervasive endlessness, and having reflected thus are then moved back to the space whence it began its rotation, then only then can we begin to contemplate its motion around itself, its incredible simple swing of in and out, up and down, sideways through sideways.
the imagination exists at this level, it then is merely the first opening of its cycles within cycles, now as we follow its forward thrust, does it become readable, given its infinite amount of finite possibility, with in a given turn of its course, within this speck of reference too, we begin to see how all possibility exists with in a given amount of turns or changes.or turning changes.
in this moment the light goes off, when light is restored, we get a flash of the actual mysterium, or direct knowledge.Thee device now appearsas a grand apparatus of involved involving parts whose shape and reason fit together in some as yet unknown complexity.
a topography of totalities.a tense lens.a talisman of zeros.a shadow cast by phantoms.a ball of aions juggled by contrasts.a abstract void.a rabbit hole.
Respect for the proper use of tools
Through intent, ultimate reality is splintered into polarized, asymmetric fragments. The first generation fragments were of such a nature, that they from a human perspective are unconceivable and are considered as abstract principles, e.g. space, time, dimensions, fields and the guiding-lines relating them to each other (socalled natural laws) etc.
According to their various polarities, the fragments will attract or repel each other, seeking to re-establish the equilibrium of ultimate reality, but will, because of their asymmetry, not achieve this mechanichally. The asymmetry is not a simple version of fitting square-, triangel- or circleformed contours into similar slots, but have intentionally constructed hurdles build into them.
Nonetheless the process of de-fragmentation goes on, but only resulting in evergrowing structural complexities of an asymmetric (disharmonic) character. Including language.
At the level of human existence, the overall structure is what's called the 'ego' as defined in buddhism. The cosmic formation through which we relate to existence. As all other cosmic structures this is flawed, and can't give us any contact with ultimate reality. On the contrary it only reinforces a faulty awareness of reality, making reality inaccessible to us, presenting an illusion which we take for reality.
Contemporary US culture, with its almost obsessive reliance on language as a method for finding identity, communication, meaning, 'reality' etc. is, even in counter-mainstream contexts, seldom observant about language mostly being an extension of 'ego' and as such not an efficient tool. And while this tendency is most prononuced in US, the whole western culture is saturated by this infatuation of symbols (probably inspired by religious indoctrinated symbology and scientific achievements).
Not only do we indulge in graphically over-embellished semantics, where we pretend, that reality is described, we have lost contact with the fundamentals; our basic 'symbols' have mostly lost any resemblance of reality. Search of reality has now become 'narrative', a situation we passively take for granted. We are even well onto our way of inventing secondary belief-systems, which will support the word-mongering approach. E.g. verbal cottage industry interpretations of science, pedagogic models, psychological 'explanations' of human character ('collective subconsciouness' etc) all of which at best can be described as hypothetical, more often as fairy-tales.
My aim here isn't to propose vows of silence, discarding symbols completely (be they emotional, practical or intellectual) or to avoid the simple pleaures of small talk, but to consider that language as a reality-seeking tool, like everything else only functions on a background of consciousness/awareness, as opposed to mechanistic models.
The Terror of the Imagination
Brian - Thank you so much for The Incantation. I absolutely think you are brilliant and your work feeds my soul. Here is something you inspired....
Language is the embodiment of desire itself. We forget how long we have been here. Our yearnings extend infinitely into the past and future. Space and time but a manifestation of our desires. Eternity is our indulgence.
Language as desire is the distance we must go, as well as the extremity to which we are carried. We must take our desires to the full extent, only then will we encouter the inexplicable, the imagination stretched to its limits, meaning taken beyond the bounds of reason or logic. Our ultimate aim is to stretch ourselves till we have room to act. We still do not know the distance the mind can reach.
Consciousness is not bound by language but stretched or extended beyond the boundaries of language through language itself. We are not limited in extent by our longings. Language vexes us because it feels like a postponement as if we have been led into a trance, a state of hypnosis or suspended animation by the use of words.
Instead we are be stretched, stretched to the brink of madness and error. We must make our home here, where weird words lurk. It is here that we are turning, becoming.
Our fate is a bending toward the Multi-Verse. As we spin or are spun what befalls us is our destiny, the achievement of our desires and longings. It is here that we linger, it is here that we dwell. Eternity itself.
Longing is infinite.
“Speak—but don’t split off No from Yes.”—Paul Celan
Hi Dark Nerve,
Wonderful! Your explorations into the chemistry between language and desire are, in terms of my own experience, right on the mark; you do not put the cart before the horse—desire being, of course, the horse. The gods “desired” to play—“Lila”—and the whole of the manifest world was the result.
The language of your statements I think embodies the gymnastic balance that you advocate. I love this sentence—“Language as desire is the distance we must go, as well as the extremity to which we are carried.” This has the concision of an epigram. It has the systolic and diastolic movement of true exploration; throwing yourself into the inexpressible, you then turn back on yourself to examine the implications of the insight that you have almost accidentally caught.
The limits of the “speakable” are in no way fixed—as any comparison of a writer like William Blake, let’s say, with one like Alexander Pope will prove. Pope was certainly a brilliant poet and a supremely conscious craftsman. His didactic poem “Essay on Criticism” is one of the best brief summations of 18th Century thought. But his limits are those of the normal well-educated person of his time. Blake, although a near contemporary of Pope, seems to come from a different world altogether; there is no way to easily “figure him out,” and no telling what he is going to come up with next.
In a curious bit of synchronicity, you exploration of language and desire ties in with the title that I posted for my first comment on this forum—“Cultures sit down on chairs around the table of my solar plexus; an argument is about to start.” This is a quote from a piece that I wrote several years ago called “Artist’s Statement.” The paragraph that it comes from reads as follows:
“A mysterious conjunction projects my body/mind towards an unknown destination. I am an electric spheroid. Musical. Crackling with contradictions. As from a great height looking out and down, I observe that this is so. Desire creates a corresponding body. An ancient audience watches from the circumference. Should cloud separate from the oceanic mirror my prosthetic limbs would flash like lightning. Cultures sit down on chairs around the table of my solar plexus. An argument is about to start.”
And here is the beginning of my poem “After the Rig Veda”:
“There was not the non-existent or its shadow the existent then. There was no space—and less beyond. Desire came at the beginning. Are you sure that you live—or did the ancients mean something else by death?”
Non-do'ing do'ing
Those who, even to a lesser extent, have experienced transcendence will universally recognize each other. And their first message has always been: "Reality is beyond language".
The religionists and the symbolists listen to this and believe that by repeating this message mantra-like, they will not be ensnared or enamoured by language. But the mantra makes noise, drowning the silence.
There will be fingers, and fingers pointing to fingers, but no moons.
I believed, that I had found silence,
until I saw, that I had given it a name.
When I have learned not to hate or love the name,
it too, will go away.
the moon in the golden gutter
the moon in the golden gutter is a flutter
with moon man glamor
the aliens look at out supposedly through Belgian scientist mouth pieces
they are concerned, don't you know that us humans are making a mess of it
we use too much sun screen and eye shadow
oh those tricky aliens, always mocking us to our faces
literally as we scramble to find thier signals
in all the dead and dying languages
but the Pope on on the job
really to baptize them sinner aliens
or welcome them into the fold
it's all about golden gutters
the ones that mirror our view to the underworld
the reflection of all that historical grandure
those alien looking hats
looking down those stories into the street rivers
reflection upon reflection down into glory upon glory
the whole ball of wax melts down there
in Inferno, down where the lowest of the highest go
and the highest of the lowest come
and it all shines like a drop of holy water spit
for the heaven and hell of it
oh look out there to the winking blinking stars
and look back in here where all that unconsciousness
waits, in the vast silence of our mad rambling
monologue
with the mundane miracle that we even existat all
to the profound if not profane fact that we redact
it
It's not cool to have subjects
In the words of the zen-zage:
"The frog jumped into the pond..... Plop."
What is less commonly known is the frog's own comment:
"Darn it, they turned off the bleeping water-heating again"
Unfortunately the frog said it in froggish, allowing for a multitude of interpretations. Even amongst frogs, many of whom only have read the english translation, thus missing the quite colourful allusions of the original language.
I'm not quite sure, why I've brought this up, I just felt I had to.
“Flow down and down in always widening rings of being”—Rumi
Hi Bogomil,
You wrote, “Those who, even to a lesser extent, have experienced transcendence will universally recognize each other. And their first message has always been: ‘Reality is beyond language.’”
No argument from me that ultimate “Reality” is beyond language, but, nonetheless, the limits of what is “speakable” vary greatly from one period to the next, and from one place to another. Is it possible for language to give form to higher-dimensional experience, and is this perhaps one part of what human beings are here to do? For me, this is not an “either/or” proposition.
Even if we are here due to some tragic flaw or catastrophe that disrupted the original order of creation, we must do what we are able to guide each other home—whether to the “clear light of the Void” or the fullness of the “Pleuroma.”
Also, I believe that it is a mistake to view language only in terms of its capacity for “description,” or lack thereof; language can also exist as a kind of “birdsong”; a spontaneously arising overflow of energy and intelligence—best viewed as a gift—which the vehicle of that overflow then offers to whomever might be open enough to hear.
Who says words with my mouth?
Hi Revolutionrabbit and Bogomil,
If a haiku by Basho is an example of a very short “birdsong,” the “Mathnawi” by Rumi is perhaps the longest in existence. It is, if I remember, longer than the Iliad and the Odyssey combined.
Out of all mystical poets, Rumi’s attitude and approach is probably the closest to my own. You will note in the excerpt below that Rumi says, “All day I think about it, then at night I say it.”—this mode of expression is “spontaneous” only to a point. One key difference between Rumi and I is that he was speaking to be heard, whereas I am writing to be read. I might sometimes spend months or years in revising a piece to achieve this same effect of “spontaneity!”
Here is an excerpt from the “Mathnawi” that you might both enjoy. Translation is by Coleman Barks.
“All day I think about it, then at night I say it.
Where did I come from, and what am I supposed to be doing?
I have no idea.
My soul is from elsewhere, I’m sure of that,
And I intend to end up there.
The drunkenness began in some other tavern.
When I get back around to that place,
I’ll be completely sober. Meanwhile,
I’m like a bird from another continent, sitting in this aviary.
The day is coming when I fly off,
But who is it now in my ear that hears my voice?
Who says words with my mouth?
Who looks out with my eyes? What is the soul?
I cannot stop asking.
If I could taste one sip of an answer,
I could break out of this prison for drunks.
I didn’t come here of my own accord, and I can’t leave that way.
Whoever brought me here will have to take me home.
This poetry, I never know what I’m going to say.
I don’t plan it.
When I’m outside the saying of it,
I get very quiet and rarely speak at all.
No telling what he is going to come up with next
The instinctive and impulsive are of course independent of reason. What we call an ERROR is perhaps a concealed truth. A slip of the tongue or pen merely dormant but essential information lurking under the surface of reality. Perhaps the truth is partially eclipsed and therefore error is a necessity if we long to reach these hidden depths.
The inexpressible is beyond measure and like the infinite and eternal leaves us in a stupor but in this sleep lies the muffled voice and the hidden word on the tip of one's tongue. Myth is a great and immeasurable Mouth, the Mother of us all, whose voice has an incomprehensible volume, an unlimited expanse.
Her words stretched or prolonged, spun out or protracted through the infinite can be discovered in the silence of the now. In the voiceless and wordless untelling, faint whispers can be heard and made legible.
We must listen for the list of possibilities. What seems heavy or slow or shadowy is taking form in the word made flesh. The invisible becomes visible. The concealed is no longer hidden. Buried secrets rise to the surface.
nice
Newton's head falls upward and gets reattached to the apple tree
Hi Dark Nerve,
Here is another perhaps relevant excerpt from my "Artist's Statement":
Forever new, the technology of the shaman has changed little since prehistory. Does consciousness evolve? 30,000 years have made the labyrinth of the constellations only less transparent. Neither here nor there, the artist mediates between worlds, creating something out of what appeared to be nothing, and is then forced to move on. He follows where her memory leads.
The past is a museum. Jagged glass hangs from the windows. I hear mummified builders banging on the insides of their pots, trying to get out. I confront the scent of my childhood fascinations. Externalized. Gallery by gallery. There are reconstructed skeletons from species that never did exist.
Amazed, my feet know where to go. Security guards lurk in death's doorways. Fascist columns grow where they were planted by a colossus. My expanded self must first find and then appropriate the traditions that await his breath. A taboo begs to be broken. Incest between humans and omnivorous gods was once the origin of the superhero. Geniuses are loaded into classical cannons. Beauties mourn the sacrifice of youth. The muse of the inanimate consumes the fears of her active but until now robotic mate. Their vows to each other violate the golden silence of amnesia. Stars judging his performance of a poem at the first Olympic games are happy to have found their agent provocateur, the epileptic champion of their lust. She must establish a provenance for each memory he invents. He must make The Shroud of Turin retroactively real. Weaving a new body out of dreams, she must prove the truth of his hallucinations.
The goal of this revolutionary project is to liberate the inner teacher, who at first was dark.
Alice Baily went down the froghole
dragged by her books.
Hi Brian,
presently it's considered politically incorrect in some circles to 'criticize'. Sometimes this is carried so far, that you can't even disagree with something without being suspected of the deadly new-age sin of not being perfectly happy, harmonious and holistic. Instead you diplomatically ignore, what your after all don't like.
For me, such ignoring someone, is a rudeness far surpassing any kind of criticism. So, as I consider you a rather likeable and decent person, who doesn't deserve cultural solitary confinement, I'll be blunt.
The sheer quantity of your writings makes it difficult, sometimes impossible, to find the quality. I'm no stranger to academic longwindedness or the special lingo bureaucrats use to ensure that ordinary people don't understand anything of what's really going on, but you do present something, which looks like a print-out of an inner dialogue, which only you can understand fully.
I will also skip the fashionable fad of making 'constructive' criticism; by telling you, what you ought to do. You have a wellfunctioning intellect, and even my endless Bogomilistic wisdom shouldn't interfere with your formation of options or which ones you choose.
Respectfully, Bogomil.
The World according to Bogomil
For me, such ignoring someone, is a rudeness far surpassing any kind of criticism. So, I'll be blunt.
In this spirit of bluntness from someone who loves to dish it out but can't take it and is a master of the hypocrisy of being venomous while trying to cover it up with 'respectfully' and 'no offense intended' I think it is now a good thing not to diplomatically ignore someone.
Is it really a rudeness to ignore someone who you find repellent?
I dont think so. Say for instance they ring you up when they're drunk and start sleazy sex talk because they are too cheap to ring up a phone sex line.
So you decide to have nothing to do with them anymore because they've violated your privacy and taken advantage of their 'friendship' to verbally masturbate all over you.
I think its rather courteous to ignore them rather than criticise them.Not to mention intelligent to avoid the vindictive recriminations you can expect from someone who doesnt know the meaning of the word,'apologise.'
And of course its really wise not to bring it up because,being female, you can be sure a self confessed alpha male and his new best friends will be sure to turn it around and make it your fault saying something like...oh....'you should never have got on the phone with him.'
No,when dealing with people like these the only smart thing to do is stay silent and get them out of your world so they can't contaminate it anymore.
Re: DarkNerve. Further down the froghole
Or MAYBE an error just shows you're dumb or inexperienced.
And likewise can Mother Myth's Mouth Make Maya-Mumbo-jumbo. Anyway, she's not MY mother, ..speak for yourself.
I could out of blue nothing write a 'myth', which wouldn't contain anything of value. To anybody.
Sorry to lecture, but a small amount of basic logic wouldn't be amiss: Because language mostly is meaningless gibberish, when applied to Reality, this doesn't lead to the conclusion that all meaningless gibberish is somehow related to Reality.
Unless you've ingested some exotic, and probably illegal, herbs.
"World to be stuttered after in which I will have been a guest"
"World to be stuttered after in which I will have been a guest"--Paul Celan
Hi Bogomil,
You seem to have a very high opinion of your own lack of comprehension, as well as a great capacity to underestimate the amount of thought and effort that go into other people's comments.
Much thanks for your active participation in the forum. You have offered many strongly worded statements that express your own unique perspecitve.
Much that you have said up until now has proved challenging, and thus catalytic of continued give and take, but these recent comments are neither respectful nor productive, and I will not tolerate attacks on other members of this forum.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil
Hi Bogomil,
Say what you like to or about me. As you probably know, it is a part of my creative method to find ways to turn obstacles into doorways, and even hostile actions into opportunities for insight. I would strongly suggest, however, that you should appologize to Dark Nerve.
just one itsy comment
“The Earth will assume the shape of our living bodies.”--Eluard
Hi Revolutionrabbit and Dark Nerve,
Bogomil did bring up a few interesting issues of literary style—those of “inner-dialogue” and “obscure” symbolism and apparent “spontaneity.”
He wrote, “I'm no stranger to academic long-windedness or the special lingo bureaucrats use to ensure that ordinary people don't understand anything of what's really going on, but you do present something, which looks like a print-out of an inner dialogue, which only you can understand fully.”
As you probably know, Allen Ginsberg claimed that he never revised a line (highly dubious), and Andre Breton advocated for all cutting-edge writers an attitude of “psychic automatism”—an eruption of primordial energy that would shatter the false intelligence of the intellect and cleanse us of layers of dead civilized habit. Even early on in the 1920s, before the Surrealist troops revolted to overthrow their somewhat fascistic micromanager, it seems likely that this method was used mostly as a means to gather material, rather than as a hard and fast method to mechanically produce poems.
There are, of course days, when a kind of anti-gravity takes over and words fit themselves together like the pieces of a puzzle; to reveal, perhaps, a large-scale image that was there at the beginning—but, even on these occasions, I would argue that “luck favors the well prepared.”
The best "accidents" have about them an uncanny rightness, as if they had been waiting for that particular moment to occur and that one constellation of forces for the writer to stumble into.
For me, whenever I am accused of indulging in “free-association” or of subjecting my readers to a “print-out of an inner dialogue,” such an accusation always produces a kind of guilty thrill, and I think, “If they only knew!” For my methods are not casual at all. An average page of prose will take me about 8 hours to write—and this only brings us to the first workable version; there may be 10-30 later revisions, stretching over a period of years. When there are particularly complicated implications to explore, and then untangle, it is not unusual that a paragraph could take me a whole day.
It is true that for me writing is a kind of yoga, and that I might experience many states of expanded energy during the writing process—visions flow and “worlds” break open—but only a fraction of this ever makes it onto the page, and then only after a great deal of questioning and testing against other experiences and examination from a variety of angles.
A friend wrote about a piece that I had sent, “You weave so many threads together so artfully, with so many layers of allusion, that my Generation X (Y? I'm 36) brain goes clunk clunk clunk whiir whiir, like a sticky engine trying to rev.” I wrote back, saying that I was very familiar with the “clunk clunk clunk whirr whirr” sounds that she describes, and experience them on a frequent basis. William Butler Yeats wrote, “A line will take us hours maybe; Yet if it does not seem a moment's thought, our stitching and unstitching has been naught.”
Going beyond whatever
The way individuals or groups relate to existence will, given enough momentum, usually structure itself into a model (belief-system, ideology, plain herd-instincts etc) with a bid for supremacy. Dissenters will start a countermovement and the various factions will hurl anything from assumptions, citations of 'authorities' and scriptures to things that go kaboom at each other. I will later in this post position myself on this.
You cite your 'authorities' at me (Ginsberg et. al.). Had I been similarly inclined, affiliated to a 'movement', I would have 'proved' my point by citing Marx, the bible, Ayn Rand or some reductionist materialist philosopher or scientist.
But OK, I will for a while stay inside your perimeters, as far as I understand them. In the saccharine politically correct language of agreements/disagreements, it SEEMS to me, that you after all give give an updated justification for 'free-flow'/free association, which will lead to primordial energy and a cessation of fascistic false intellectualism. Your argument is, that you through using much time and energy on this don't present a haphazard result, but a more organised form.
As a basic platform my own thoughts are, that the 'free-flow'/free-association methodology is an interesting experiment, needed as an antidote to a rigid tyranny of excessive linear intellectualism. My thoughts are also, that this free-flow movement has gotten as much out of hand as did the false intellectualism, and has for a period manifested in extremist attitudes with very dark results indeed. It has become an -ism peopled with fundamentalists, who spread their messages in all parts of life, creating much social havoc. Detailed debate of this possible for another post.
More specific to you: Whether I indulge in my inability to comprehend or you write in an inaccessible way isn't really a big issue with me. My issue is your expectations on any reader's involvement. My point is, that to understand you, I have to use an inordinate amount of my time to tune into your highly individual mindset with its many 'layers of allusion'. I am neither mentally lazy nor do I doubt you have something to say (actually I know, that you have some astute observations), and it's also quite possible that I'm somewhat idiotic. But it still leaves with only a few options. As with Gurdjieff, who enigmatically HID his supposedly prophetic knowledge, I can take your intricate layers of allusion on faith. Or I can renounce them on the ground, that you after all are so enmeshed in the methodology of free-association, that you mistake obscurity for personal wisdom.
I'm undecided, but I remember your own attitude on 'mystics'. They are 'vague' (strangely enough I understand them??). As much categorical as my opinions.
Communication options:
1/ I and all others who don't understand you, can ignore you and leave you to the faithful, who do.
2/ I can play the saccharine game, while misusing the rules. I'm holier-than-you. I have the privilege of the 'enlightened' to make monologues. I can under cover of tolerance and/or 'sweetness' be unbelievable venomous.
3/ I can make direct criticism, with all its dangers of overstepping the invisible line between issue- and character debate.
As to DarkNerve, I will open a dialogue with him, if he wishes so. To patronize him or me I consider unnecessary.
“Everything possible to be believed is an image of truth”—Blake
Hi Bogomil,
In yesterday’s post to Dark Nerve you wrote, “Or MAYBE an error just shows you're dumb or inexperienced. And likewise can Mother Myth's Mouth Make Maya-Mumbo-jumbo.”
Today, in an attempt to modify your approach, you write, “But OK, I will for a while stay inside your perimeters, as far as I understand them. In the saccharine politically correct language of agreements/disagreements, it SEEMS to me that…”
While I appreciate the effort that it must have taken to pull back from beyond the edge of incivility, your comment nonetheless reads more like a militant self-justification than an apology. Both the tone and format of your comment are more than a bit accusatory. You seem to be arguing in favor of the convoluted thesis that rudeness equals respect. As I mentioned in a previous email, however, “Sometimes rudeness is just rudeness, and can be characterized as such without any reference to "political correctness" or New Age deadly sins" or "diplomatic ignorance."
You list three possible ways of interacting with others. These are, I take it, natural laws about which no one has previously bothered to inform me. But seriously, I believe that there are far more numerous ways to communicate with people than the three that you list above; they do not do justice either to others or yourself.
For instance, let’s take a look at number two. You write, “I can play the saccharine game, while misusing the rules. I'm holier-than-you. I have the privilege of the 'enlightened' to make monologues. I can under cover of tolerance and/or 'sweetness' be unbelievable venomous.”
—To whom are you referring with this talk of “misusing the rules” and “holier than thou attitudes” and people pretending to be “enlightened” and acting under the cover of tolerance in order to express their “venom?” If you are attempting to attribute this “venom” to other participants in the forum, then, as I have said, such toxic projections are not at all acceptable, and do nothing to contribute to the flow of dialogue. But perhaps you are referring to your own “venom”—a subject on which you are no doubt qualified to speak.
I must admit that I am totally at a loss to figure out where all of your anger is coming from, but that is an issue for you to look into and resolve.
You have repeatedly presented me with ultimatums that I justify my entire way of thinking and speaking about the world, but it simply does not interest me to do so. At some point, you may want to go back and actually look at my answers to your questions, which you have barely paused to note in passing.
I have done my best to address a number of issues that you have raised, to mark off areas of common ground where our preoccupations might potentially overlap—such as Gnosticism and the nature and origin of suffering and a suspicion of New Age wishful thinking and the relationship between speech and silence; in the process, I have hoped to provide some insight into how my literary methods are connected to my cosmology, and to the alternate view of the Apocalypse that I present in “Transparency is the Only Shield Against Disaster.”
Now it is up to you to read, and to make of our recent dialogue what you will. Again, thank you for taking part in the forum.
Turning Obstacles Into Doorways
Thank you Bogomil. I am overjoyed that you are not imbibing the new age prescription of eerie silence as a replacement for critique. I really don't like that and I've had it done to me on several occasions, so I welcome this opportunity to "turn obstacles into doorways" as Brian suggested.
Spontaneity involves the process of spinning a tale as well as the act of bridging the distance between the mind and soul. The mindsoul or imagination is essential to good story-telling. The poet is always an extravagant speculator.
The poet hears himself called and so leans toward what he desires. Then the poet must weigh and consider every option. Listening is just the beginning. He must then twist the thought fibers into thread at the boundary where heart, mind and soul meet. In this swirling giddiness, at moments he disappears.
Weaving like writing is an act of bending and binding as well as bounding and bonding. One is constrained yet one can leap beyond the boundaries and borders of those constraints. Language can cause us to languish for something more as we linger at the borders. But one should never feel swindled by this ecstatic affliction. It is an immense joy to play in these mind-fields.
It is the poet's goal to be mystically absorbed, stupefied. In this oblivion lies MEMORY, the mother of us all. Call her maya or mem or myth or deny her all together. Despite our amnesia we are carried away, affected with the rapture of loss and desire, of wakefulness on the borders of oblivion. It is here that we spin and are spun into the spinster's web. For she is the guardian spider forever vigilant.
She is the hostile host and we are merely ghosts, guests in her house. She is the door and the lock and the key. The enduring tree and the original trinity. Klotho, whose name meant 'Spinner', spinned the thread of life. Lakhesis, whose name meant 'Apportioner of Lots'--being derived from a word meaning to receive by lot--, measured the thread of life. Atropos (or Aisa), whose name meant 'She who cannot be turned', cut the thread of life.
It is here that we enter and leave the tale, the telling and the untelling. For in every narration we are re-veiled. Simultaneously revealed and hidden. Such are the sacred mysteries.
Re. DarkNerve
Hi DarkNerve,
thanks for your most gracious answer (I'm not ironic). And in the area of possible insults or communication-misses, the word 'gibberish' in my former post to you didn't imply your words, but referred to the kind of crank logic seen in: "They said TV was impossible 100 years ago, so ........... (insert weird idea)....... must be true also".
Apart from being handicapped concerning poetry (like some people are colourblind or tonedeaf), I'm not a non-emotional automaton, wanting to reduce everything to an intellectual/technical little box. Art means much to me, and I can appreciate genius, even when I don't like some flavours of it on a personal estetic/emotional basis. I love Debussy, Mozart mostly leaves me unenthusiastic. But Mozart is probably as good a composer as Debussy.
One part of my own argument is, that all kinds of emotional manifestations (be they art or whatever) presented publicly is an act of communication. If the artist wants a two-way communication, even with possible idiots such as me, s/he must make an effort of 'explaining' to me, as I have taken the interest to comment on his/her work. (And I only a heckle, when it comes to openly invasive tactics, such as some religions or political ideologies use). If art etc considers itself so elevated, that the reciever must undergo an inner esoteric transformation to understand it, narcissism could be at play from the creator of it, and s/he just delivers a 'sermon'.
Secondly, and more important to me, to make any exclusive claims of elitism, supremacy or superiority, reducing other assumptions, methodologies, tools, models or answers to secondary importance, WITHOUT solid substantiation is plain nonsense.
In 'normal' life intellectual, emotional or practical oriented people form opinions from their own character; .... excluding this, including that. When taken to collective ideology level we see e.g. 'scientism' against doctrinal religion, rapture captured bhakties against intellectual efforts, dry bank-accountants against good-for-nothing artists etc. Obviously it never leads anywhere.
And equally obvious I'm not advocating any kind of formal principles of tolerance or relativity (my own grumpy way demonstrates that, I believe).
What I am saying is, that any potential prophet not only has to find his/her own existential roots, s/he must also be prepared to answer to the most irritating "Why"s from competing prophets, to both the depth as his/her own roots and the roots of the sceptic/competitor; .... after first establishing common starting-ground for this. Setting up the rules of the game, so to speak.
Only this can lead to collective whatever it'll be called. (What people do privately is none of my business).
PS If I have used the word 'emotion' in a way contrary to the intentions of your post or forcing you into concepts you don't have, I apologize. Then a more suitable word can be found instead.
“Gnothi Seauton”—attributed to Socrates, among others
Hi Bogomil,
You seem to have an incredible sense of “entitlement” when it comes to the time and energy and attention of the writers to whom you issue your ultimatums. True dialogue does not consist of a reader presenting some carelessly worded accusation or demand, and then of a writer apologetically justifying his every word and concept. You no doubt see yourself as a kind of contemporary Socrates—as a heroic outsider doing battle with the “common wisdom”—but this is far from an easy role to fulfill.
One should first probably come to terms with his injunction “Know Thyself.” Such knowledge would involve the exploration of every aspect of one’s motivations—both as visible self-image and unseen hypnotic field—as well as of the ways in which one’s tone and language set in motion and then frame the “world” of a debate. It would be to know, for instance, that one’s own lack of comprehension is not in any way an “objective standard” against which all other knowledge should be measured.
making poetry respectable
we can compare Alexander Pope to William Blake, or Bukowski to Gary Synder, we can look at the various movements, one begetting another.Thus we have Dada giving bloody birth to Surrealism.I think referring to Breton as being like a fascist, is a bit forced.Only the Surrealists know for sure, what that was all about, but it certainly was about creating a profound letter of human imagination mailed to the future.WE can quibble over why Breton expelled certain individuals, my view is that it was never meant to be a art movement that stayed respectable, the whole goal was to give birth to another "other" knowing full well that the world wars was the unconscious content coming to the Freudian for, just as the "pure psychic automatism" that Breton called the process of revealing the poetic marvelous, was the spiritual no-mans-land of the "true functioning of language" which if truth be told still seems to be the real battle for man's search for meaning, as Victor Frankl called his book of his experiences in a concentration camp.WE are all in a kind of collective concentration camp planet, and this search is more desperate then ever.It is clear that poetry is a kind of deep cry from the psyche of humanity.The elites that run this planet seem to have only one solution, the final one.Only the wild word can turn that around.Make new digs in the ground of being.If I begin to sound fey, then perhaps you sould balance my utterance with the world news. Years ago I spoke to Philip Lamantia on the telephone, it was my first contact with him.Philip was the great American Surrealist that met Andre' Breton when he was 16 in New York. I recall Philip at some point in his surrealist initiation to me over the phone, saying that "You can't know what it was like to be a surrealist" he had a really cool way of saying surrealist like surreeeeeeeeealist, or suraaaaaaaaaalist, i always wondered what he really meant, by that remark, that was bookmarked between his long invocation of what it means to BE a surrealist.He filled my ears with so much living information in the matter of 15 minutes that seemed like lifetimes to me standing there in that phone booth.I realize now that he was really speaking about Andre' Breton himself.I imagine this teenager listening to Breton with something like reverie and awe.Of course I cannot know what It was really surreally like to be Andre' when he was first rallying his poetic bravos.And what he went through with the group in those early years, of developing his thinking about the true purpose of language, and the surrealist insurrection, and what he termed "the complete occultation of surrealism"
my novel Gone Hallucinogen Freeway is on Amazon.
"The pride of the peacock is the glory of God."--Blake.
Hi Revolutionrabbit,
Like many charismatic leaders, Breton had an effect on people that was at once catalytic and oppressive. I have known such people, and it is always difficult to figure out what to do with them. As I was coming of age as a writer and an artist, Breton was an important theoretician to discover, and I will always be grateful to him.
right
but,Brian you seem to have some personal gripe with Andre', at any rate, i understand that seeming oppression that seeks to undo oppression, perhaps Breton was as he was called the Pope of surrealism, and he had reasons that only he understood, for embracing a group then releasing them, one by one.If anybody that he released from the group suffered from their own ideas of what the group really was, then I never saw any evidence of it, other then the usual intellectual tug back and forth.I only talked to Philip a few times and i saw him read a few times, but each time held some special message for me, I can only imagine the effect Breton had on the people he chanced objectively but that is neither here or there.Or maybe it is there and not here, or both here and there.But again, a charismatic person like Andre' Breton does not come along too often, we do not see his likes today.And also Brian you yourself are a writer/poet loner.RS, is not the most intellectually stimulating place, that is hard to compare, to the sort of going ons that happend back in the day when artists and poets congregated in the surrealist group.All this explanations on your blog for the various series, this one "transparency is the only shield against disaster" (as challenged by Bogomil), was another exercise to showcase some skill you have honed, no?Do you dread the spirit of Breton?Or is he just another "theoretician" to notch into your pen? I really wonder, between tweed coat professors and your demonstrations of your intellectual prowess, just what you actually mean by transparency? Hmmmmm?
Icebergs radiating the customs of all worlds yet to come--Breton
“The swan of Montevideo with wings unfurled ready to flap at a moment's notice
Should the problem of luring the other swans from the horizon arise
Opens upon the false universe two eyes of different hues”—Breton
Hi Revolutionrabbit,
I had not realized that you felt such a strong sense of personal connection to Breton. I can fully respect that. My use of the word “theoretician” to describe him had only to do with the context of the earlier discussion, when I was making several points about the history of “free association,” and its usefulness as a term in relation to the actual working methods of writers. I offered Ginsberg as an example of someone who would probably regard himself as a practitioner of “free association”—as illustrated by his assertion that he had never revised a line, which I find difficult to believe—although his best work, such as “Howl” or “Sunflower Sutra,,” does convey a sense of an explosive flow of energy which is able to lift the writer up and out of the limitations of the ego.
I, on the other hand, exist in a far more paradoxical relation to this tradition; for, although my works might appear to be “free associative” to the casual reader, they are usually the end products of a long process of trial and error, of questioning and revision, in which I attempt to return to and examine the “world” of the poem or the essay from a great variety of angles. This, perhaps, is one way to understand the issue of “transparency” that I speak of—there are others—but none of them have to do with my responding to a series of ultimatums and attacks in which the person demands that I explain every detail of my methods, but then does not pause to read or think about my responses before issuing the next ultimatum.
As you know, I have always been happy to respond to any and all questions about my work—whether in my role as the mad poet or the eccentric professor, or in even more abstruse capacity; for example, in one recent forum I presented myself as a 432,000 year-old trickster. I have no interest, however, in allowing myself to be put on the defensive, or in responding to someone simply because he is shouting very loudly.
But back to Breton—I referred to him as a “theoretician” partly because of the context of the recent discussion; partly too, I guess, because “The Surrealist Manifesto” and other such similar writings have stayed more vividly in my memory than his poems, but also because my most recent contact with his charismatic and catalytic presence has come during my research into Giorgio de Chirico. I have spend quite a number of years in writing a book called “Maps of the Metaphysical Double; in the Footprints of de Chirico,” and, due to my deep sense of fascination with this painter/writer, have perhaps come to view Breton through his eyes, and to interpret his actions in the light of their falling out and subsequent decades-long feud. The introduction to this book was the first piece that I ever posted on Reality Sandwich; if I remember correctly, you were the first person to post a comment on this piece. Turning on my computer in the morning, I thought, “How wonderful that this person seems to get what I am doing—what a gift.”
This is one Breton-related paragraph from the introduction:
“You could, until recently, search long and hard for an art historian with any original insight into the world that de Chirico created. Most have been content to recycle the comments of other art historians, who in turn have paraphrased—with a footnote here or an anecdote there—a handful of the artist's own pronouncements. Comments from detractors such as Andre Breton, the self-designated father of and mechanic to the Surrealist Revolution, may of course be introduced, but these do not significantly alter the structure of the symbolic language in question. Breton was the first of the many friends turned foe. In a rage he threw at the artist's later work the pronouncement of anathema, an act that clouds the minds of critics to this day. Such betrayals only confirmed the artist’s perhaps megalomaniacal but oddly accurate sense of himself as someone chosen by the fates, as a solitary seer.”
—It is no doubt time for me to reevaluate this somewhat limited perspective on Breton. Flipping open a book of his poetry at random my eye falls on a number of first lines that I love, and that promise an exciting process of rediscovery. Much thanks for the stimulus to look again at what I had almost forgotten and written off. These lines are as follows:
1) The sexual eagle exults he will gild the Earth once more.
2) Less time than it takes to say it, fewer tears than it takes to die; I’ve taken count of everything.
3) In Paris the Tour Saint-Jacques swaying like a sunflower sometimes leans against the Seine.
4) Dreaming I see you infinitely superimposed upon yourself.
—Quite wonderful. A wave of nostalgia for the mid-20th century has just now risen from the non-existent ocean, and, if all goes well, will soon escort me to the Minotaur.
Re: revolutionrabbit
Thanks for your admirable grasp and clarification of the specifics on this thread. As so often before a great inspiration for me.
My knowledge of artistic-search-for-freedom is limited, but I've been deeply involved in social/ideological/psychological/pedagogical freedom movements for more than 40 years, both practically and theoretically.
My own sad conclusion is, that 'freedom' per se, non-contextual, leads to an alarming growth of hedonism, egomania and sociopathy. Something the political/economical/military faction hasn't missed and as an antidote propagates their various versions of fascism.
The pendulum swings once more to one of its extremes of EITHER the pandits of untempered freedom, who cultish-like see only the wonderful utopia of their ideals, and like all other fundamentalists have all kinds of explanations for the tardy arrival of utopia. OR to the other extreme of the neo-phobics with their only god of social Darwinism.
Freedom needs a middle-way 'companion' to temper it, and obviously fascism isn't an option. Amongst the many bids for such a companion, I have always liked Aleister Crowley's. While he maybe didn't get all the way, his compass pointed in the right direction.
Not directed to rr: Sure, opponents are uniformed, and their protests noise.
For Brian & Bogomil - Enjoy and Thanks....!
From The Air
I remember when we could find words for her
The whole neighborhood knew her name
On Monday it was hope or expectation
By Friday it was disaffection
A forlorn bride with a loaded gun
She could wear love's shadow down
Swallow the sun between sighs
She responded to no name on Sundays
Exchanging the breath of desire
For the silence of a quenched fire
I remember when we needed no religion to persuade her
She would appear in our dreams on time
At noon she wore the face of a straggler
By twilight she became a mother
The first and last without a cause
She dug out bowers with a hook
Yanked asteroids from the air
Cried an ocean between centuries
Unearthing the seeds of germ-war fear
I remember when we could call out for her
Without false echoes resounding
The tempests of Heaven spoke with her voice
At one world's end her words were small
At the birth of Hell on Earth
They overshadowed mountains
She could promise you a life without death
But she wasn't very good at lying
She returns souls to their proper homes
Some are rented and some are owned
But by forever they are hers to loan
Written by (c) Dark Nerve
Re: DarkNerve
Transparent institutes collide with the ultimatums of biology
Hi Dark Nerve and Bogomil,
1) Bogomil—I really do appreciate all of the energy that you have brought to this form. In its earlier stages, it was quite productive for me, and revised versions of my responses to several of your comments are being incorporated into an “essay” that I’m working on called “I Left at Dawn for the Eternal City; It Seems That I Have Misplaced Several Days.” At the moment, I guess, I am feeling a bit exhausted and talked out, and must rejuvenate myself with the silence to which we have several times referred.
2) Dark Nerve—Wonderful poem. In various forms and permutations, I am familiar with this “She” that appears throughout your work. Here is an excerpt that you might like from a long poem called “Descent”—also quoted earlier. This is section 1:
There are those who say you never really have descended. Others—have carnal knowledge.
At the end of time you stand!
On your head an attendant places the shugurra—the crown of the steppe. You have bound your explosive breathing with a torso. Ninshubur hangs on your shoulders the conscious dreaming apparatus. Kohl accents your enormous eyes. Your heart says "come man, come." Before entering space you take a moment to applaud your wondrous genitals.
Like a hawk you drop. An image rises towards you. Out of dawn you fall 2 ways at once. You are the lady of 10 thousand names—the breaker of the Seffirot. You have gone the way that does not turn back.
8 vessels crack. They have fallen to a seed of lightning from the void. They have shattered at your touch.
You are the mother of a dead sea language. Goad to Nimrod. The data base of splendor. Key to DNA. You are transport's catalyst. Muse to the gods of total warfare. Debunker of the hoax of evolution. Echo's prosthetic tongue. Lover of arts that are nonexistent. A zigzag. A lotus mined on Mars. You are the star of lamentation. The Shekkinah. Pleuroma’s iron veil.
You are the breaker of the Seffirot.
um, so this has to do with free association?
and how many times you polish or craft your writing? jeeze, yeah when i first began writing, that was my only way to write, to get the flow going.Obviously there is a lot of layers to how that works.How you hone your skills, it's a secret process, but it's also just a lot of tweaking the nuance.It took me many years to find that point where i would just be able to write off the top of my head.And that all happened on the computer.I finally decided that i had to put my poetic prose in a novel context.And then i had to learn how to self publish.Now i have to find a way to get it out there.ect ect.
as far as the Minotuar, my mentor was like a Minotuar, to me, about a month after i met him, he decided he was a hard core Surrealist, and we began our plunge into surrealism.Rik my crazy surfer mentor could translate French and Spanish, so he got lots of poetry for me to read that was not in English, or he did his own translation, he found all kinds of difficult books to find for me to read, and so on.So, Breton pissed a lot of people off, I'm not even beginning to know "what it was like to be a suraaaaaaalist in the 20's.
And, as far as Crowley, yeah i was drawn into that too, so when i got involved in that, i had been into surrealism for years, so i always saw Thelema through Surrealist eyes.My novel is an attempt to unravel all this from the beginning.
i was thinking about this de Chirico and Breton rift, and I know Breton had a very strange way of dismissing certain people, who knows what passed between him and de Chirico, i can only sermise that either it was something de Chirico said to Andre' and also for some reason Breton in his peculiar process saw these stark landscapes as almost too controled in their unconscious content, perhaps he saw them as deterministic even though originally he saw them in a different light, you have to try to know what it was like to be Breton in the middle of this surrealist group, and how and why he decided that certain artists had not met certain inner process surrealist criteria, thus Breton dismissed Dali also.