Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Spiritual Gnosis vs. Progressive Gnosticism

It's a shame when one perfectly good word gets tarred by another through no fault of its own. A case in point is genuine spiritual gnosis vs. the political "gnosticism" discussed by the philosopher Eric Voegelin. In the April 7, 2008 National Review, Jonah Goldberg has a very insightful article on the politics of left wing gnosticism as it pertains to the Obama campaign, a campaign that goes to the very core of the left's spiritual pathology. It again demonstrates what happens when one abandons the "authorized" channels of religiosity for manmade ones, which ends up elevating man to a god and politics to his religion. In so doing, it collapses the critical distinctions between time and eternity, natural and transnatural, freedom and constraint, and other essential complementarities within which man lives -- and without which, he isn't a man at all.

As an aside, it is ironic that Obama is hailed as someone who can "unify the nation," when he can't even unify his own party. To the contrary, this has been the most divisive Democrat campaign in 40 years. The things they say about Hillary on left wing sites far surpasses the invective of conservatives, if only because the left is so much more handy with expletives than ideas. I don't like Hillary because of her policies, whereas the far left loves her policies but hates her because she stands in the way of their messiah.

One difference between gnosis and gnosticism is that people without spiritual gnosis -- e.g., atheists and materialists -- are necessarily "exterior" to the domain it discloses, and yet, proclaim this infirmity to be a kind of superiority. In contrast, a person who is not seduced by the group fantasy of gnosticism is in a superior position to judge it, since he remains within the confines of objective reality. In this regard, it would be interesting to know how many of Obama's supporters claim to be "irreligious" (or, like Obama himself, belong to heretical gnostic Christian churches that preach a spirtitually upside down "liberation theology"), as this would tend to confirm my view that real religion is the best defense against false ones.

We shouldn't be surprised that the spiritual path of the left mirrors the stages of purification, illumination and union, only in reverse. First comes union with the new messiah. For example, Goldberg notes that "Obama recruiters are encouraged to proselytize not by talking about 'issues' but by testifying about how they 'came to' the candidate..." In short, there must be a "conversion" process, a "metanoia," in which the scales suddenly fall from the Obamian's eyes and he "sees" the truth and joins the cult.

Goldberg writes that "Obama’s apostles include his wife, Michelle, who insists she is 'married to the only person in this race who has a chance at healing this nation.'" In this regard, she has testified that “We need a leader who’s going to touch our souls because, you see, our souls are broken.... The change Barack is talking about is hard, so don’t get too excited, because Barack is going to demand that you, too, be different.”

Thus, after one merges with Obama and is illuminated by the Truth for which he stands, ones commences with the hard work of purification, as we struggle to make ourselves worthy of the grace we have received. In other words, ask not what Obama can do for you. Ask what you can do for Obama.

Goldberg cites numerous examples to show how much of the messianic language that encircles Obama "is more New Age than New Testament." He quotes Gary Hart, who says that the Anointed One "is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians,” but is an "agent of transformation in an age of revolution,” whatever that means. Likewise, the dreadful spirit hustler and enlightenment pimp, Deepak Chopra, claims that Obama represents “a quantum leap in American consciousness,” while another pneumapath and career guru, Eve Konstantine, says that he “is our collective representation of our purest hopes, our highest visions and our deepest knowings.... He’s our product out of the all-knowing quantum field of intelligence.” (Deepest knowings? She doesn't even know that "knowings" isn't a word.) And Oprah Winfrey suggests that Obama doesn't only "speak" truth but is the Truth who will help us “evolve to a higher plane.”

Of course, in left wing gnosticism, God does not work through the individual. Nor does he work through the interior collective, or any kind of "higher we." Rather, he works through the instrument of that coerced labor camp known as "the state," which will take control over the spontaneous order of the free market and attenuate the true "interior bonds" of civil society. For progressives, liberty is not the solution, it's the problem, because it tends to lead to the exercise of free will, which in turn emphasizes the sanctity of the individual.

The heart of Goldberg's piece involves a discussion of Voegelin's point that progressivism is a political religion and therefore a form of gnosticism. This religion has "two core assumptions. First, it condemns the existing world as broken and alienating, plagued by evil forces preventing a complete and happy restoration of man’s spiritual and material life."

So the progressive, in his own garbled way, recognizes that man is "fallen." However, "the gnostic promise, to borrow a phrase from John Edwards, is that 'it doesn’t have to be this way.'" Thus, the second assumption; as Russell Kirk observed, these religions promise "a mode of deliverance or salvation from the prison of the world for man through a secret gnosis." By manipulating people with the right policies, we can create a "'kingdom of heaven on earth' -- not coincidentally, a phrase invoked by Bolsheviks, progressives, fascists, and every other variety of utopian collectivist. This effort to lasso the hereafter and pull it down to the here-and-now was dubbed by Voegelin 'immanentizing the eschaton'" (Goldberg).

Different demoninotions of leftism will have different secret formulas and incontations to create their utopia. For Marxists, "the secret lay in the intricacies of scientific socialism.' With just the right manipulation of material or historical forces we could -- ta-da! -- create a land where each lives according to his need.... For the progressives, the trick was giving ourselves over to the social planners and gnostic 'ideologists of Christ'.... today, the secret is Barack Obama." Goldberg cites a creepy video "in which children testify about the dire state of the world." It then "cuts to a baby opening a copy of The Audacity of Hope, complete with a whispery spirit voice promising a 'secret.' The video concludes with one child after another announcing that the secret is -- Barack Obama."

As I mentioned above, the wave of Obama support rides on a deep structure of religious energy that is unrecognized by those most susceptible to it. In fact, as Goldberg says -- and I have argued in the past -- "the craving to create a heaven on earth is the inevitable consequence of a godless society." Or, to paraphrase Pope Benedict, "the loss of transcendence leads to the flight to utopia."

The very definition of "totalitarianism" is the "existential rule of Gnostic activists": "Indeed, the story of totalitarianism is the story of men trying to replace the allegedly discredited old God with one of their own creation." So de-divinization always preceeds the "redivinization" of explicit left wing brainwashing. This is certainly how it worked for me in college. First you discredit religion, and then replace it with with a pseudo-religion that occupies the vacant spiritual territory. It took me years to undo this ironically named "higher education."

From this follows the worship of man -- not even Man as Such, the image and likeness of the Creator -- but usually a man. "Or, in Voegelin’s words, they 'build the corpus mysticum of the collectivity and bind the members to form the oneness of the body.” In short, we finally become the ones we’ve been waiting for. Or, more accurately, you will be forced to wait upon the narcissism and self-victimization of the infantile ones constituting the progressive mob.

Perhaps tomorrow we'll get into the actual meaning of true gnosis.

Saturday, April 05, 2008

The Big Bang and Other Modern Mythadventures

I'm reading this wonderful book, The Spiritual Ascent (previously published as A Treasury of Traditional Wisdom: An Encyclopedia of Humankind's Spiritual Truth), which is an 1,100 page compendium of all the world's spiritual wisdom, divided into three main categories that mirror the three stages of soul's ascent to God, purification, illumination and union.

In turn, each of these three parts is divided into two main subsections, and each subsection has between three and nine subcategories. Plus, like my book, it is bracketed by a Prelude and Afterworld that deal with "events" that take place "before the beginning" and "after the end," within the womb of God. But since they are outside time, they are actually the timeless "ground" of every now, which I will attempt to explain in this post.

This is obviously not a book to be eaten straight through and digested in one siddhi. Nevertheless, that's what I'm doing, as it is a worthy test of the spiritual athleticism of the Mighty Raccoon, who can by nature stomach a great deal of truth without bursting at the seams. It will undoubtedly inspire many posts as I make may way through its riches.

Speaking of which, the book is structured like a holographic jewel, in which light from each facet illuminates the other parts. In this regard, timeless spiritual knowledge is truly fractal and organic, in that each part contains the "whole." To cite one obvious example, purification, illumination and union are not actually serial or linear, but aspects of one another. Obviously there is no union in the absence of purification, but at the same time, purification and illumination imply knowledge of, and union with, their transcendent object.

Likewise, here below in the herebelow we can separate truth and love, something which even God "cannot" do. And why can't he do it? Because, strictly speaking, it is impossible. Thus, to the extent that humans do it, they are living in illusion. In short, don't blame God for the left, even though they are inevitable. To ask why there is a left is to ask why there is existence, which is to say, something separate from God.

I can't believe I didn't come across this book in the course of writing my own, but then again, perhaps that was a good thing, because I would have ended up relying upon it too much instead of traveling hither and yon to locate all the material I used to support my metaphysical views. Plus, it is critical to point out that I first "discovered" Truth, only to slowly but forcefully realize that I had done no such thing, if "discovery" implies that I was somehow the first to find it and plant the Raccoon colors on its fertile soil. It makes the "discovery" all the more powerful when you realize that you've independently discovered something objective and accessible to the uncreated intellect.

For example, I've mentioned before that when I originally wrote the book, there were no footnotes in the Cosmogenesis and Cosmobliteration sections that open and close and reopen the book, the reason being that I thought they were self-evident. Like Finnegans Wake, they were intended to be as vivid and clear as a dream. By its nature, the dream is a densely packed clearobscurity of gnocturnal logic that "contains" an infinitude of meanings that may be explicated in a linear fashion with daytime logic. But no matter how much the daytime logic is additively summed, it can never "equal" the holographic dream density of which it is a function.

In fact, a number of Perry's references deal with this inexhaustible aspect of O. First, he quotes Schuon, who writes that from the metaphysical perspective, creation or manifestion are "rigorously implied" in the principle of the Absolute, which is necessarily Infinite. This principle has been enunciated by Tradition in any number of ways, often in a symbolic or mythological form aimed at the "average ethnic mentality," so to speak. Perry explains:

"From the cosmological perspective, creation is a progressive exteriorization of that which is principially interior, an alternation between the essential pole (purusha, yang) and the substantial pole (prakriti, yin) of a single Supreme Principle (Self, Atma)," which itself is the "Motionless Mover" of Aristotle. In short, the first "cosmic act" is the bifurcation of the Principle into "Essence" and "Substance," without which there can be no manifestation. Thus, this original duality -- or complementarity -- underlies all the others, such as subject-object, part-whole, wave-particle, individual-group, material-immaterial, etc.

Now, I probably didn't make it clear enough in my book that I was not suggesting that existence "began" with the Big Bang. Rather, in my mind, I thought I was making it obscurely clear that I was creating a modern fable, in which I use the contemporary language of Big Bang cosmology to convey timeless truths about the eternal cosmogenesis to which scientists unconsciously conform their minds. In other words, you cannot derive metaphysics from the empirical study of the cosmos. Rather, we must frame Big Bang cosmology in the form of timeless principles that have always been known about the manifestation of reality, or the local manifestation from the nonlocal Principle.

Anyway, not too many people read my book before it was published, least of all my editor. But one friend who read the Cosmogenesis section recommended that I insert some footnotes in order to give the drowning reader a little laughjoket to cling to. As I said in the Apologia and Joycetification, every word of it makes perfect nonsense, and couldn't have really been coonveyed in a more unigmatic manner. But knowing that many if not all readers would find this joyful prologue to be an unspeakable overchore, the footnotes were placed in the mouth of the book to give some direction and guidance with which to chew in the dark. Indeed, the footnotes are mere night lights intended to help you make a little pisstop in the dark, not floodlights to illuminate the whole spiritual pathroom.

But Perry's book is more of a floodlight, albeit a dark one. It reminds me of the title of Grotstein's book on Bion, A Beam of Intense Darkness. You have to put this dark beam in your own I in order to remove the bright moat that "surrounds" heaven, so to speak, obscuring its brilliance.

If that's not obscure enough, here are some examples from the book:

Chuang-tse: At the beginning of the beginning, even nothing did not exist. Then came the period of the Nameless. When ONE came into existence, there was ONE, but it was formless. When things received that by which they came into existence, it was called their virtue.... By cultivating this nature, we are carried back to virtue; and if this is perfected, we become as all things were in the beginning. We become unconditioned.

Now, not only does this pithy passage summarize the entire Cosmogenesis section of my book, but that section is a fractal of the entire book -- which in turn "demonstrates" the principle of the "fruit" of manifestation perpetually arising and flowing out of this tiny seed of eternity. As Perry says in a footnote, "In the Beginning" is not meant to be just "once" but once and for all -- not "once upon a time," but, as I put it in the book, One's upin a timeless. Get it?

Again, it is quite easy to put these timeless principles in a Christian context, which should go without saying. For example, William Law:

Now these heavenly properties which were brought into this created compaction lie in a continual desire to return to their first state of glory; and this is the groaning of the whole creation to be delivered from the vanity of which the Apostle speaks.

Or Eckhart:

God dwells in the nothing-at-all that was prior to nothing, in the hidden Godhead of pure gnosis whereof no man durst speak.

Or William Law again:

The goodness of God breaking forth into a desire to communicate good was the cause and the beginning of creation.

Eckhart, in his usual playful manner:

God has made the world... in order that God might be born in the soul and the soul be born into God.... God cannot know himself without me.

Thomas Traherne:

It is no blasphemy to say that God cannot make a God: the greatest thing that He can make is His Image: a most perfect creature, to enjoy the most perfect treasures, in the most perfect manner.

Or to put it in Petey's plain unglish -- I could cite numerous examples from the book, but here's just one:

A divine desire to reveil and find Itself, unnarcissary yet inevitable, conceived in d'light immaculate and now swelling in the night-filled womb of unmanifest being, the radiant urizon of an insindiary Dawn approaches. When purusha comes to shiva with an unmentionable demiurge (the unspoken Word), how Lo can He go? How about all the way inside-out and upside down, a vidy long descent indeed to the farthest reaches of sorrow and ignorance.... Congratulations on the equation of your cosmic birth! Oh my stars, He expectorated a mirrorcle, now you're the spittin' image!

As I said, the remarkable thing to me is that this may look "made up," but it's clearly not. Rather, it's pure playgiarism of innumerable previous gnosis-alls, dressed up in the punnishantics of happily unhinged coonglish.

Friday, April 04, 2008

Murmurandoms From the Back of Beyond

This may look like a random list of portentous utterances, but it actually possesses a "secret order" that will be known only to real initiates, the true Sons and Daughters of Toots.

Nah, not really. I'm just presenting things in the order they appear in this journal. As before, an asterisk means "probably stolen," or at least a lila playgiarized. I've also indicated where these are thoughts about other people's thoughts (mostly Schuon and Anonymous), so it is possible that I've incorporated some their words (I put their name at the end of any passages they inspired).

I gotta get out of here. I'm late already. Sorry for any incoherence.


Esoterism represents a kind of "pure understanding," similar to theoretical mathematics. The invisible object that corresponds to this understanding is the Real. Gnosis is essentially the result of submission to the eternal principles that in-form dogma. In the same way, dogma is a formal support for intellection, or a "window into heaven" which transmits the inward vision. (Schuon)


Science studies the world in order to understand it. Esoterism understands the world in order to study it. This understanding is anterior to the world, and corresponds to the realm of vertical recollection, which intellectually frees us from the tyranny of the horizontal.


Heaven has two soulstices or doors, a door of winter, when the sun "enters" our world at the darkest point, and a door of summer, when it begins to withdraw and the fullness of light departs from this world. (Thoughts on Schuon. Not entirely sure what it means, but it sounds good.)


The unKnown God exists at no particular place. He has a probability to be found at any place, but can "be" there only when encountered there. As long as he is not found, he ex-ists nowhere. God is co-created by dwelling in the means available to know him, just as one dwells in a work of art in order to comprehend its nonlocal message. (Thoughts on some of Polanyi's ideas transposed to theology.)


It is useless to seek to realize "I Am Brahma" without first realizing the extent to which one is no such thing -- or that "all is one" without first recognizing that all is multiplicity; or that "I am saved" without first appreciating the extent to which one is fallen. The sage sees things in their multiplicity and relativity while at the same time seeing through and beyond them in their metaphysical transparency. (Schuon)


Could the ubiquitous practice of human sacrifice be a garbled hint of the revelation that could only come in the fullness of time? History is the universal Bible of which the Bible is the condensed version. Our intuition of the Being Who Is evolves over time, based upon increased interiority on the vertical plane, at least for the collective. Creator --> Lawgiver --> Essence of Being.

Or, memories of paradise (i.e., vertical gnostalgia) --> Institution of formal worship to guard memories and prevent them from being forgotten --> Priesthood to keep them alive and develop them --> Schools of transcerebral experience, faith that there is a path of exit and that the endeavor to ascend is not in vain --> Spiritual preparation of the world and of a chosen people --> Incarnation itself, i.e., break-up of closed circle in the most dramatic intervention possible --> Establishment of a realm of liberty so that human beings may be freely lured into this vertical attractor at the end of history. (Anonymous)


There are many tracks but 1 way ÷ 3 = Purification + Illumination + Union = O. Without purification, a spiritual teacher is likely to be an illuminated scoundrel, while without illumination a philosopher will be an intelligent oddball. Death is the guardian between the three worlds. To put it another way, for Union to occur, some disassembly is required.


Partial list of postmodern words one may string together in any sentence in order to prove anything: contextualism, decentered, discourse, Eurocentric, feminisms, gaze, gendered, hegemonic, heteronormative, marginalized, post-colonial, queering, subaltern, transgendered, whiteness.

For example, yesterday Vanderleun posted a blatantly Eurocentric discourse about the great post-colonial writer of color, Alice Walker, in which his hegemonic gaze ironically converted his own heteronormative whiteness into a subaltern of Walker's three feminisms, thus marginalizing and queering all over himself. WTF!?


The purpose of obscenities is to allow us to identify those people who are too stupid to express themselves without them. 6.2% of Vanderleun excepted, of course. And 93% of Dupree.


The more unity a thing possesses, the more weight, depth, and participation in Being.


Materialism is not the realm of answers but the graveyard for real questions.* (Probably Anonymous)


Wherever their are individuals, there are frontiers.*


The spiritual path is a road to de-mask us.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Everything Must Go!

Only six comments yesterday. I don't know if cleaning out Bob's journals in public is such a good idea. Seems to be driving away all but the stalkers.

Still, I'm enjoying it. It's like a garage sale. Sure, there's a lot of crap, but you never know if you might find that Beatles butcher cover in a pile of old records. Besides, what can I do without Bob's cooperation? You can't expect me to be linear and coherent. That's not my thing. I just enjoy sniffing along the trail for the post-cartesian unified paradigm. I feel as if I'm drowning in a sea of clues, and these journals are like the bucket with which I bail out the dinghy. So if some of it sounds dingy or all wet, that's why.

Here are some notes about Bob's favorite secular philosopher, Michael Polanyi: How is it possible to see a good problem? It is an intimation of a hidden coherence not yet comprehended in the particulars. "Knowledge of an approaching discovery" is an indispensable kind of pre-knowledge that is needed for mental evolution to occur. To put it another way, your life depends on identifying the right question. Ask the wrong question, and you might just waste the opportunity of a lifetime.

Truth is recognized by its fruitfulness. But how is it possible to implicitly apprehend the wealth of undiscovered consequences before we have discovered the truth from which they proceed? We are always in the presence of a hidden reality toward which various clues are pointing. Faith "knows" this. It is our "negative capability," when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, & doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason (Keats)

In this regard, does history reveal a higher principle? Is it a representation of something unseen? Do we only imagine the unity of history behind the multiplicity, or is there genuine synthetic knowledge at the level of history?

Yes, there must be an object of history, the nonlocal eschaton, the Omega point, which reveals the meaning of the local particulars. This point once "walked among us." It still does. Phenomenal history is a temporal reality behind which is the noumenal transhistorical reality of fall and redemption, the Arc of Salvation.

Our task is always to relate the horizontal realm of change to the vertical realm of changelessness. This is the crossroads where humans live, die, and are reborn. Otherwise, history truly is meaningless, a kind of literal tunnel vision or transtemporal myopia. Again, the point is to move from the line to the open spiral. The secular historian is like a frog at the bottom of a well who knows the sky only as a small blue disc.

An avatar is anyone who saves mankind from itself. Vertical emissaries are dropped from on high into history from time to time for various purposes, be they political, religious, scientific, military, or artistic. Most of them are unknown, others are hidden in plain sight.


Science is intelligence without wisdom. But religion, while it remains the safeguard of wisdom, often promulgates a wisdom without intelligence, so to speak. What religion should provide is intelligence guided by wisdom. Thus, it can never be world-denying, nor can it ever flinch from the discoveries of science.

Religious wisdom can easily accommodate any scientific truth. But if religion is reduced to a kind of flatland literalism, then it immediately puts itself in competition with science for the best "horizontal explanation," and this is a battle it not only cannot win, but looks foolish trying.

Likewise, when science attempts to be a source of wisdom on its own level, it looks just as foolish as the fundamentalist who insists that the world is only 6,000 years old. You cannot derive values from science, any more than you can derive metaphysics from the empirical world. Values and metaphysics are anterior to the world. They cannot "evolve" or change. Murder is evil in any cosmos, just as surely as being is always the first-born of beyond being, or the Son proceeds from the Father in the very nature of things.

And love will always be superior to unity, God being what he is. Or let us say that unity is only unity if it is a unity of differences, not a blending. Even if I could experience this unity-without-difference, I'd give it up for love. Which is why we ex-ist. Yoga is the union of local and nonlocal, which are bound by a love that is superior to both, but impossible in the absence of this "division," a division which is in the interior nature of things -- again, God being what he is.


Two statements that are equally "true," but what a difference: 1) Steven Pinker is an expert on language. 2) William Shakespeare is an expert on language. Which of these two men better comprehends -- or runs circles around -- the other?

This exemplifies the vast gulf that exists between (k) and (n). Pinker possesses (k) about language. By definition it can never be complete, being that using language to comprehend language is analogous to giving birth to oneself. And let's not even waste time with the idea that language can convey the truth of itself if it is reduced to a fancy system of animal signals. Rather, if language can transmit truth, then language is much more than it can ever say. Truth itself can never be exhausted on the plane of language. Poets have always known this.

In contrast to Pinker, Shakespeare -- as far as we know -- did not trouble himself with reductionistic explanations of how monkeys learned to speak. Rather, he simply demonstrated his implicit knowledge in a way that can never be surpassed. It is no different than the knowledge possessed by a musicologist vs. the knowledge possessed by Bach. These are clearly of a vastly different order, to such an extent that it would be silly to even place musicology on the same plane as music.

Just so, there are theologians and there are... pneumanauts. Theology is a declension from O, or O-->(k); its purpose is to give a coherent and "authorized" account for those kinds of experience we call "religious," but the experiences nevertheless take priority, otherwise theology is void of human content.

Theology is fine as far as it goes, but let us never forget that, say, Jesus, was no theologian. I'd have to go back and reread all of his words, but as far as I can recall, they are almost all (n), or direct "demonstrations" of O, analogous to the difference between Bach composing "for the glory of God" and a college professor yammering for the glory of tenure.


The genealogy of leftist wickedness follows from a number of key presumptions or under-lies. They are, 1) human beings have no essential identity, only an accidental or "existential" identity centered on race, class, gender, ethnicity, or "sexual orientation."

From this follows 2) rejection of that most precious of God's creations, the unique individual who can only actualize his potential and discover this uniqueness under conditions of ordered liberty; 3) no objective morality transcending culture; 4) an exclusive focus on nature at the expense of what humans have always recognized as "the Real," i.e., the transcendent and eternal; 5) a replacement of knowledge with a kind of bovine skepticism and doubt, which results in refined stupidity displacing Truth, or an "anti-word" that attacks the very links that make existence comprehensible; 6) a worship of the primitive as "authentic," since the lower is all that really exists; 7) an upside-down mysticism, or "pathological we" that revolves around material interests instead of transpersonal bonds. It is the "body of gaia" as opposed to the "body of Christ," so to speak. The former is the "black unity," being that an absence of light causes all distinctions to merge. The latter is the singular "body of light" that is superior to the distinctions it illuminates.

Leftism is a deeply spiritual movement, bearing in mind that "spirit" is obviously a neutral term. For example, the nazis were profoundly spiritual, as are the Islamists. It is a "revolt of spirit" to be sure, but this revolt cannot be understood on any material basis.

When authentic religion is rejected, it is always displaced by the magic from which religion rescues us. To put it another way, religion -- at least in its esoteric sense -- is a mental disinfectant that prevents the mind from proceeding down all sorts of fruitless and pathological dieways and loways. Thus, never ask why the left is so full of magical thinking, for that is the inevitable result of rejecting the transcendent truth to which the human mind must conform on pain of dying to reality and living in fantasy. Which isn't really "living" at all, just existing for a dark moment between two luminous slabs of eternity.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Spiral Bound

Here's another one of Bob's spiraling notebooks. Let's see what's in it. Hmm, you know what might be fun? To go in the closet and dig out some of the journals from twenty years ago, and see what was going on in Bob's fool head back then. Might prove to be very embarrassing, or at least a humbling experience. Damn, I should have done it for April Fools! I think he's going to get his fasting blood work done tomorrow morning. If so, maybe I can induce Dupree to rummage around in the closet while he's out. Call me his literary executioner.

Just remember, I'm not in charge of "quality control." That's not my job. I just throw a lot of stuff against the wall, so you can see what stinks. Anything with an asterisk means that Bob might have stolen it.


What is this, some kind of riddle?: "Lower self is cross of true self. True self is cross of lower self." I think I get it. Eternity must "bear" time, just as time bears eternity at the crossroads of the vertical and horizontal. Sometimes the burden is unbearable, but in the end, eternity is in love with the productions of time. I hope.


Man's real freedom is in the dimensions of height and depth.


The scientist would have us believe that existence, life, and mind each required a series of miraculous accidents. We agree entirely, for they certainly weren't horizontal necessities. "Miraculous accident" is just another way of saying "vertical descent."


Ever since language began colonizing the brain, it has been an unending task to synthesize all of these bits into a coherent self. It is possible to escape the animal nervous system with language, only to become trapped in language. As language is to the animal nervous system, metaphysics is to language.

Memes carve out a niche in mental space and reproduce there. When merged with the primitive superego, this becomes an agenda or ideology that partakes of a false timelessness.


Is what the universe is converging upon less real than the converging parts? Is a face less real than the parts of which it is composed? Only the whole face allows us to "see" its within. The face is the meaning of its features, truly a "hole" in creation, perhaps the first point of entry into the great interior of Being. Humans "dwell in one another" in a manner inconceivable to other species, as it "bounds the infinite," thereby making it ponderable. It is one of the many reasons I don't believe in extra-terrestrial life or artificial intelligence, for their proponents have no appreciation of the unique indwelling and intersubjectivity of the human state.

This is one of the crimes of the Islamic world, for to cover the female face is to annihilate personal identity, the unique within and the reason foe being. Leftists do the same thing by forcing you to see a "person of color" or other various group designations instead of a unique individual. It is a faceless ideology, especially when taken to its logical extreme, e.g. Cuba, Soviet Union, Berkeley, etc. "Diversity" is never diversity of individuals, but of groups, which by definition deny individuality. For example, "blackness" is seen as essential instead of accidental.


Leftist intellectuals sow their seeds, while the poor reap the bitter harvest. The left tries to eliminate existential tensions, while the conservative liberal has learned to harness and exploit them, e.g., through the free market. Something similar is done with regard to the spiritual life, e.g., one cannot eliminate sexual tension through promiscuity and "sexual liberation," but one can certainly transpose it to a higher key through spiritual union, i.e., marriage of souls, which embodies the eternal play of the cosmic male and female principles.


To integrate particulars is to interiorize. There can be no mere "external" synthesis. Wherever we see deep coherence, it is evidence of interiority. What we call "deconstruction" is only beneficial if it dismantles a false synthesis into its particulars for the purpose of a more intense and meaningful union, not as an end in itself, for it is certainly possible to impose a false whole that denies the particulars (which the left habitually enforces through various mechanisms of political, academic, and media correctness). But in practice, it is almost always a secular destruction, not a spiritual synthesis. It is the embodiment of the satanic principle which "flees" from O, from the center to the periphery. This is how and why deconstruction is the all-purpose tool of leftist tools. You can use it to convince yourself of anything.

The true individual is freedom lived.*


Music also has a "within," which is indeed the key to its mystery and appeal. Music reveals to us the within of time in its most abstract sense, in that it is unity-in-flowing diversity mirrored in the mind that "holds" it. Some minds can hold much more than others, both musically and cosmically. Scientism reduces the grandeur of the Cosmic Suite to a three-minute pop tune that anyone can play.

Revelation reveals the within of the Creator. To see God's face would be to see eternity. "No one can see my face and live." But one can die before one dies, then seeing is believing: Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God (Matt 5:8); They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads (Rev: 22:4). Some people saw Jesus' face and therefore saw the Within, while some see and do not see. But blessed are those who don't see and yet believe, for they have 20/20 foresight.

Faith is dwelling in the particulars, confident in the foreknowledge that their meaning will be revealed. It is "knowledge of an approaching discovery," meaning that one somehow already possesses the knowledge one seeks. "Clues" can only exist if we already know what they point towards. Is this why the left is so clueless about religion?


When you try to teach something you don't really understand, you just pass along the parts. Someone will then have to assemble them. Still, this is preferable to passing along a confident ignorance of the Whole. To paraphrase Schuon, when a man pretends to an understanding he doesn't possess, it jeopardizes what little valid knowledge he does possess. One obviously sees this pattern writ large in the atheistic/secular mind, but also in self-appointed "spiritual teachers" who go way beyond their competence to pronounce on all manner of topics of which they know nothing.


Life is to matter as mind is to brain and God is to existence.


If the mind didn't exist, we'd have no trouble explaining it.


Getting paid for what comes naturally is like a self-replicating dollar bill.*


Spiritual practice: arranging your own birth.


We must become metaphysically fit in order to be missionaries capable of the arduous journey from the future to the present.


Al Gore embodies the "hyperlucidity of the irrational," Bill Clinton the infectiousness of the shameless.


Bill & Hillary: Slimese twins.


Writing: What we give back to eternity in exchange for time.*


If President Bush voluntarily relinquishes his fascist theocracy in January 2009, he will be the greatest man who has ever lived.

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Prognostications of the Past & Memoirs of the Future

Hmmm. Some of these journals have notes for various books Bob has considered writing. This one says "Evolutionary Politics: Preserving the Radical Spiritual Vision of America's Founders." Too bad it will never get written. How do I know? Oh, I know, I know. He's all talk. Anyway, I think he prefers the immediacy of blogging, as it allows his ideas to become irrelevant much more rapidly.

Anyway, here are some of the topics the book would have covered and obscured. Sounds like the usual Coon porn to me:

--Man is the symbol and key of the cosmos, the abridged edition of God's adventure from the One to the many and back again
--Arc of Salvation
--Trial by existence
--Interiorized religion as final frontier
--Politics of infinite possibility vs. material scarcity & cognitive limits of the left
--Unless people can relate their horizontal freedom to timeless vertical realm, situation is hopelessly meaningless. We escaped the circle only to be lost in the line. Must find the open spiral. Spiral = hope.

People of the distant past possessed (or at least were guardians of) superior metaphysical knowledge embodied in tradition, whereas we have superior empirical knowledge, often knowing more about them than they knew about themselves. And yet, if revelation is true, they clearly knew essential things about modern man that he has forgotten about himself.

Natural selection does not predict. Rather, it takes already complete traits and retrospectively looks for their "partial" manifestation in the past. Thus, for the Darwinian with 20/20 blindsight, no current trait can be complete, or "essential"; rather, they are always an illusory resting place, "on the way" to another one. But they certainly don't feel that way to us. Human perfection -- i.e., something in the realm of Truth, Love, or Beauty -- doesn't ever appear as something "on the way" to something else. Rather, it cannot be surpassed. Thus, how can a process which only allows for temporary rest stops arrive at universal moral imperatives, aesthetic perfection or absolute truth -- including the "absolute" truth of Darwinism? Presumably, as we continue evolving, we will "evolve" a new theory of our origins. But if a transient entity such as Man can know Absolute truth, then he is not what the Darwinians think he is.

This is merely faith posing as science, only it is a false faith, since it is an adequation to a false absolute, whereas genuine faith involves comformity of the will to absolute truth as seen and understood by the higher intellect. Just as there are religious superstitions, there are scientistic substitions.

Interior control of religion vs. Exterior control of state: the more religious truth is ignored, the more laws are required, and by extension, a larger state to externally control thought and behavior. This is why it is always in the best interests of the liberal to attack religion, as it results in more state power.

Also, for this reason, the liberal never learns to master himself, as he gives over this mastery to the state. This creates the context for the victim culture, as liberalism teaches from the earliest age that you are not responsible for your own problems or for your destiny, whereas religion teaches that your greatest obstacle in life is yourself. (Thoughts on a remark by Dennis Prager.)

Also, in the absence of transcendent truth, there is no "higher self" to appeal to. Rather, we are treated as an animal, for example, with regard to sex education. Only for a human being can sexuality have a higher purpose than procreation, but can you imagine this purpose being discussed in a typical sex eduction class? No, of course not, for it is against the law. In short, for a liberal "humanist," it is against the law to be human.

Science describes reality from the outside. Mysticism discloses it from the inside. From the standpoint of the latter, science is subjective, while from the standpoint of man's lower nature, science appears objective. But science requires the bifurcation of subject and object, whereas metaphysics only requires the pure subject dwelling on objective truths that cannot not be. This is analogous to God, standing outside time, surveying creation and pronouncing it "good."

Leftists have undermined the "interiority" of America -- the shared feeling of what it is like to be an American -- and replaced it with a coercive, top-down, false unity (for unity can never be forced). The call for "unity" is required because they are the ones who have systematically divided us along fault lines of race, class, gender, and "sexual orientation." Thus, Obama is truly a symptom of the disease he purports to cure. As Dr. Sanity writes today, "Eliminate the politically correct, 'identity politics' victimhood sweepstakes, and we will have no need for a 'conversation on race.'"

Obama's speech was like an Enron executive saying, "Forget about what I did. Let's have a broader conversation about the stock market and about retirement security."

It seems that it is very difficult for conservative principles to take root in a culture where they haven't already taken root, the "root" being in the eternal verities.

Only more manliness, not less, can treat the problems of mere men. In other words, only conformity to the transcendent archetype of Manhood can overcome our mere biological maleness. It is the absence of essences in leftism, such as Manhood, that inevitably leads to nihilism and chaos.

When you speak truth, it is "toward" a target one is attempting to reach. But suppose you were Truth; then you would be the target, a sort of lure that pulls men toward you. In this sense, we are "caused" by Truth, while Truth, or the Word, is uncaused. It must co-exist in eternity.

I would like to write a sentence so perfect that to read it would make God present. Not that I could do it, only that the trying is its own reward.

Rejected bumper snickers:

"Become a Muslim and bag more chicks."

"No one bangs more women than a Palestinian."

"Progressives: The more they change, the more they stay the same."

Our leftist universities prove the adage that history is written by the wieners.

In the new age movement, there are many spiritual McMansions.

People accuse Islamophobes of being "racist." Well, Islam is a race. To the bottom.

Is there a way to harmonize the empirical and metaphysical, and not just reject one or the other? Yes, the One Cosmos promise: For the Hole in Your Head or a Whole New Head.

Monday, March 31, 2008

More Odds & Endlesses

Where were we? And does it matter in the non-linear dimension where I hang out? No, not at all. I can just peruse Bob's sacred journals at my leisure and riff away. I can explain the passages or just toss them out to readers and leave them shrouded in their penumbra of irritating mystery, adding to Petey's mystique -- as if it were possible to "increase" what is already infinite.

Here's one: "The left must make you metaphysically ignorant in order to convert healthy impulses into the sick ones they require in order to fulfill their project."

This reminds me once again that truth -- at least on the macro level -- must be the highest value, from which all others flow. I am currently reading a book that holds "liberation" to be the highest value, but this cannot be true. If it were true, then the truth of it would have to take precedence. Besides, "liberation" or "realization" are of no use to the world in the absence of truth, let alone love and beauty. Raccoons have no interest in "realizationism" unless it is an undeserved byproduct of the traditional virtues removing the impediments to grace; it is analogous to happiness, which cannot actually be sought on its own level, since it is an effect of right living, not a thing in itself.

Even if I could experience Oneness, I'd give it up in a nanosecond for twoness and then the threeness which is its fruit. I'm quite sure God feels the same way, which is why his interior life is intrinsically three. Yes, he had it all, but he gave it up for love. That's all you need to know about cosmology, at least as it pertains to your day-to-day life.

Yes, you can argue that "all is one," but only if you make the immediate caveat that the One holds the two within itself, the womb of eternity, or that the Subject gives birth to the object for all time. For "what good is it to me if this eternal birth of the divine Son takes place unceasingly but does not take place within myself?" (Eckhart).

Do you want to know what goes on in the core of the Trinity? I will tell you. In the core of the Trinity, the Father laughs and gives birth to the Son. The Son laughs back at the Father and gives birth to the Spirit. The whole Trinity laughs and gives birth to us (Eckhart).

Jesus is the smoking cr(e)ator at the center of history. This is to say, an Idea descended into time, the Idea of ideas. Once this Idea entered time, we could not love the world in the same way, except insofar as it embodies and reflects this eternal Idea.

The contemporary left wing equivalent of religion + sadism is narcissism + sanctimony.

America's founders were not anti-religious. Rather, they simply wanted to ensure an even praying field.

Whenever you hear the phrase "socially conscious," reach for your revolver. For the left, this replaces being "spiritually conscious," or just having a conscience in the traditional sense. It is their version of "fundamentalism." This is the reason why leftists are so attracted to environmental hysteria, as it allows them to feel morally superior at no cost to their moral depravity. They can lead an immoral life but imagine that they are purchasing "moral credits" by scolding the rest of us. Thus, the scam of "carbon credits" is no different than purchasing indulgences.

I would much prefer to have my theology politicized than to have politics theologized. In other words, there should be no objection to wishing to see one's religious values reflected in politics. This is altogether different from the left's project of elevating their horizontal ideology to a state religion.

Liberals only want to be judged by their intentions, never outcomes or consequences. As such, this is again similar to a reverse religion, in the sense that they worship at the altar of a kind of pure metaphysics (actually, "infraphysics," as it were), unsullied by the actual events of history. This is why the young and stupid are so susceptible to its charms, since they have the least history. I remember when I lived in the quasi-timelessness of childhood and adolescence. No wonder I was drawn to an ideology that reflected that false infinite.

Contemporary liberalism is for the carnal man (the only man who exists, since his spiritual nature is denied at the outset), therefore the weak man who wants his weakness "normalized." Furthermore, it relieves him of the strength of character it requires to grow to full manhood, while at the same time making him both wise and righteous in his own eyes. No wonder it's so popular!

Take your pick: crystal clear ambiguity or vague certainty.

Just as in science, we need a frame of reference with which to "see" religious facts. Just as the paradigm of quantum physics creates a way to see phenomena inaccessible to the Newtonian paradigm, religion illuminates a field of eternal and transcendent "theologoumena," or "facts of God." A fact is a relation between two events. Therefore, a religious fact is a relation between man and God, or O and (¶).

Once you admit the idea of "higher" and "lower" in any sense whatsoever, it's just a way of saying that things are oriented from the top down, not from the bottom up, otherwise your distinction is supported by "nothing."

God is either One or Zero. No, wait. The Godhead is beyond-being, or Zero, which gives birth to One, or being. Gravity takes care of the rest.

Atheistic mental masturbation: nOnanism.

Their telovator doesn't go to the top floor.

Is what we see a projection of psychic space? Or is psychic space the interiorization of the exterior? Obviously the former. For what does it mean to say that something is deep in the absence of a mental conception of space? If the cosmos is "infinite," it is only because the mind is; or let us say that exterior and interior are infinite in both directions. But since there cannot be "two infinites," it's merely two sides of the same möbius strip joint. The outer reaches of inner space: the only final frontier there has ever been, the evolution of the interior horizon. We're already living on the Other Side we're dying to get to. Hallow, noumena!

And another journal is swept into the recycling bin of history.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Reading the Sunday Timeless -- Live Tree Edition (3.21.10)

In water, resistance increases with the cube of speed. At a leisurely swim, it isn't bad at all, but if you enter the water from a great height, it is nearly like solid rock. Likewise, soil has its own resistance, which at our speed is very high, but roots at their deliberate speed easily find their way through the ground.

When the seeker awakens and begins moving with purpose, there is also a resistance from the "world," and it too increases proportionately with the speed. I'm not sure whether this is a design flaw or the work of a conscious enemy; perhaps it is a security device to keep the crazies from thrashing about too wildly. But it must be very frustrating for one who sees his goal clearly and tries to get there in the limited time given him.

If I were a lesser man, I would have immediately deleted this outstanding comment by Magnus and then claimed credit for it myself. At any rate, it is a fine example of a couple of symbolic "chords" with which the Raccoon may use as the basis of pneumatic improvisation.

Naturally, in discussing the transnatural, we must rely upon analogies and symbols from the ponderable world, such as "soil," "light," "speed," "height," "water," "resistance," and "asshole." This is not because spirit is a mere "projection" of these things, but rather, the converse; the "world" is the temporal manifestation of timeless principles that can be understood by the law of analogy. Thus, water flows like grace, the sun shines like Truth, and the lower gastrointestinal system "speaks" in the manner of the Cosmic Troll, or "anti-Bob."

As I was just mentioning to someone a couple of seconds ago, the reason why the world is so full of analogy, metaphor, and symbol, is that these aren't just literary devices but literal deivoices, i.e., the ethereal Word made fleshy, or earthereal. No matter how lo One gos, the logos goes two. And then three, as we shall see.

Thus, we shouldn't be surprised at the fractal and holographic nature of reality, meaning that we see the same patterns and principles repeat themselves at all levels. This is why the pneumanetwork of synchronicities in one's life can become so thick that you could cut them with the knife you "coincidentally" hold in your head.

In my own way, I guess I've always recognized this analogical cosmic structure, but it took a while to recognize what I was cognizing and to rerecognize it at a "meta" level. For example, as I've mentioned before, the topic of my doctoral dissertation was the parallels between psychoanalytic metapsychology, quantum physics, and non-linear, dissipative structures in biology.

In short, I saw clear "analogies" between the way the physicist looks at the subatomic world, the way the biologist looks at life systems, and the way the psychoanalyst conceptualizes the deep structure of mental functioning. "Seeing" is one thing, but seeing what you're seeing is another. And to see this is yet another. In fact, you could almost say that this is the trinitarian structure of transcendence: knowing, knowing that you know, and then knowing that you know you know.

So Spirit clearly meets with "resistance" in the herebelow. As for whether this is providential or demonic, let's consider the alternatives -- or whether there could actually be any on this side of manifestation. For example, if you want to create muscular beings with robust skeletons, you need to have gravity. If we had evolved on the moon, we couldn't have evolved, since there isn't enough gravity there to keep us down to earth.

Clearly, physical strength is a function of resistance. Could Spiritual strength function any differently? Isn't our character revealed and honed on the rocks of adversity and other cliches? Could there actually be any excellence in the world in the absence of resistance? To put it another way, could any useful thought be produced if we all lived in the friction-free land of the tenured?

I am reminded of the beauty of the competitive free market. One of the reasons the North evolved past the South is that in the case of the latter, physical toil was felt to be beneath the dignity of a proper man. Thus, physical labor was outsourced to slaves and other "undesirables." But it is only by struggling with recalcitrant matter that one begins to unlock its principles. Thus, the North leapt ahead of the South in discovery, invention, and creativity.

For certain non-Western cultures, a similar problem arose, in that the world was regarded as fundamentally illusory and changing, so that the evolved man sought out the timeless principles "behind" or "above" the world. Thus, these cultures produced bupkis.

Only in the logoistic Christian West was it recognized -- or at least practically realized -- that matter is a declension of spirit, so that the world necessarily veils and discloses the "mind of the Creator," so to speak, and is worthy in its own right. This is why "beauty is the splendor of the true," why truth is buried everywhere we look, both surrounding and penetrating us, why the human mind is a sonny mirrorcle of the Abbasolute, yada yada, etc., etc.

Not much time this morning, so let's wrap it up with a clear passage by Schuon and an Opeek one by Petey:

[T]here is no metaphysical or spiritual difference between a truth manifested by temporal facts and a truth expressed by other symbols, under a mythological form.... With God, truth lies above all in the symbol's effective power of enlightenment and not in its literalness....

Historical reality is less "real" than the profound truth it expresses, and which myths likewise express; a mythological symbolism is infinitely more "true" than a fact deprived of symbolism....

The uncreated Word shatters speech while at the same time directing it toward concrete and saving truth.

In coonclusion, God is not so much a rigid mathematician as a playful mythsemantician.

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Knocking Down Walls With Spirit Jazz

Why are we blogging on a Saturday? In fact, why are we blogging at all, when Bob said he was going to cut back? As to the first question, Bob just woke up refreshed and alert at 6:30, and here we are with nothing else to do. It's the only time during the day that the house is silent and peaceful, so why waste the silence and peace?

As to the second -- it's a little more complicated - but when that layer of rock forms between O and (n), we've decided that, instead of throwing up our hands, Bob's going to use me to bash his head against the rock with all the more force. Rather than backing off, we're going to ramp up the gymgnostics and verticalisthenics. Perhaps just as in weightlifting, the resistance is what creates the strength.

I am reminded of Sri Aurobindo, who often wrote of his struggles to "break on through" despite obstacles -- obstacles which seemed to throw up more resistance the more he progressed. Satprem (author of the best book on Aurobindo, The Adventure of Consciousness) writes that "if one draws down too strong a light, all the darkness below groans, violated." This aspect of the the mind "can be quite formidable, like an army of ants against an elephant." As Aurobindo's collaborator (known as "the Mother") put it, "the question in this race towards transformation is to know which of the two will arrive first, the person who wants to transform the body in the image of divine Truth, or the body's old habit of disintegrating." It's Evolution vs. Entropy, in a fight to the finish. Satprem elaborates:

"The more one descends the scale of consciousness, the thicker the falsehood and the more things die, of course, because falsehood is in essence rot.... Old age and illness are among its most evident falsehoods -- how could what is true become old, ugly, worn out, or ill? Truth is radiant, it is beautiful, luminous, and eternal. That is obvious. Truth is invincible. Death and old age can only touch us through our lack of Truth." This dark counter-force cannot be undone except by way of "a pressure from above, which responds to a call from below and breaks the seal, as the sun breaks the skin of the seed."

Sri Aurobindo spoke of the work of "dredging, dredging, dredging the mire of the subconscious." Satprem: "There is still too much jungle down below. The world is still full of jungles" over which "our mental colonization is a very thin crust." "In short, one has to face everything -- and everything resists.... [W]e cannot solve a problem, on any plane, without confronting all the opposites of our Goal.... And one easily understands how no transformation is possible as long as the forces [i.e., mind parasites] are simply muzzled, and remain prowling around in dark corners awaiting their hour. Since nothing can be subtracted from the universe, they must be converted." Thus, as Aurobindo wrote to a disciple,

"There is a sort of locked struggle in which neither side can make an appreciable advance (somewhat like the trench warfare of Europe), the spiritual force insisting against the resistance of the physical world, that resistance disputing every inch and making more or less effective counter-attacks." This touches on the folly of leftism, "the colossal vanity of those who pretend to cure the world by external means and new institutions; no sooner is evil healed in one place than it revives instantly elsewhere, in some other place, in some other form. Evil is not outside, it is within and below, and as long as that particular Disease has not been cured, the world cannot be cured" (Satprem). The whole world resists: "It is not we who wage war, it is everything that wars against us!" (Aurobindo).

It is not difficult to trancelight any of this into Christian terms. Paul: For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age. Therefore, take up the whole armor of God and the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench the fiery darts of the wicked one. Or as Jesus himself said, No one after putting his hand to the plow and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. No, we plunge ahead, bashing our hearts against the headstone. (I'm sure that Nomo can find many more good examples.)

Hmm, that was only meant to be a brief prelude, but I'm afraid it may have turned into a quaalude that put you all to sleep. We're still flipping through these mysterious journals that Bob has laying around, trying to decipher their childish scrawl and see if we can't mind a few gnuggets from them. Here's one I like. It says something to the effect that Schuon is like stately and dignified classical music, whereas new-age/integral pop is more like banal and trivial pap music. Then it says -- or I think it says -- "Coony Tunes = Modern Jazz."

I think I understand what he's driving at here. In the case of classical music, it's almost like revelation, in the sense that there is a fixed canon of immortal works that few people believe will ever be surpassed, e.g., Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et al. Pop music is the opposite, in that it is almost entirely ephemeral and without lasting value.

You could also say that classical music represents "old Europe," or even the old world in general, whereas pop music embodies the most crass and superficial elements of consumer driven fashion. But what about jazz? First of all, jazz is intrinsically American. But what is it? Above all, it is the art of spontaneous composition, but not in an undisciplined or arbitrary way. Rather, it involves instantaneous creativity utilizing a fixed chordal structure; or, to put it another way, inspired horizontal improvisation that is "spun out" through the vertical chordal changes.

As Bob tried to explain in the book, there is a reason why humans are so attracted to music, the reason being that there is something about music that reveals the very structure of the cosmos in both its "exterior" and "interior" aspects.

For example, a scientist might look at creation as an elaborate solo over the "chords of creation," that is, the twenty mathematical parameters that govern the character and development of the universe. These parameters do not rigidly determine events, any more than the chords of I Got Rhythm determine the musician's solo. Rather, the solo is infinitely free to vary within the constraints of the chords. In fact, in the absence of the chordal constraints, there can be no coherent solo.

A Raccoon looks at revelation in the same way, bearing in mind that there are three more or less co-equal branches of revelation, 1) the cosmos, 2) scripture, and 3) the uncreated intellect that represents the subjective "extension" of the Divine into the human realm. So Raccoons basically play live spirit-jazz out of these three songbooks in order to produce our loose canon of non-standards. Call it spiritual improve-isation.


Friday, March 28, 2008

The Journal of a Laughtime with Bob's Unconscious

Okay, I don't think that went over too well, and I think I know why. Bob just posted a bunch of unconscious fragments, when he should have allowed me -- Bob's unconscious -- to elaborate on them. After all, I am the one who produces these quirky gems to begin with, so I should be allowed to flesh them out to a glossy sheen. Which is basically how I operate down here in my analogical world, blending this and that metaphor in various inappropriate ways.

So today, Bob has set me free to look over the sacred journals, and to spontaneously "free associate" as I see fit, as soon as I come across a passage that engages my attention. This may take us far afield, but so what? I don't live in the same world as you timebound clockjockeys. I'm free, baby. The horizontal Man can't touch me. I'm always just over the subjective horizon, relaxing in Upper Tonga.

Here's a good one. The left in particular, because they deny the vertical, end up projecting it into the horizontal, which then creates a sort of dividing line between the way things are and the way they would like them to be.

Actually, I don't think it's just leftists who do this, except that in their case they can't help doing it. It must be a universal human tendency that becomes their default state in the absence of any vertical orientation. It's why the unreflective "reality based community" always lives in a fantasy they don't even know they're creating.

If you project the vertical into the horizontal, it results in either pathological hope or a dysfunctional, distorting kind of nostalgia. For example, back when Bob was a Boy of the Left, he idealized the 1960s, as if that were the apex of human liberation and fulfillment instead of a manic and frivolous escape from history, maturity, and hygiene. Some people might idealize "the Clinton years," or "the Kennedy years," and the media encourage this kind of reification of time.

Obviously, some conservatives and probably most Republicans are prone to the same thing, idealizing "the Reagan years," or imagining that some ideal candidate could come along and fundamentally alter our reality. But it has never happened and it never will happen. A true conservative realizes this, which is one of the reasons why we do not get too excited about day-to-day politics, since history is full of irony and surprises and forces we do not understand. It's like the weather.

One of the reasons why the global warming hysteria is such a scam is that they rely upon models that select a finite number of variables out of an infinite number. But if you overlook a critical variable, the whole model just generates BS, which is increasingly obvious with "global warming" models. It reminds me of the old joke about the Soviet Union. When their models didn't pan out, they promised to dissolve the people and elect a new one.

With regard to history, it cannot be reduced to anything less complex than itself. It cannot be comprehended from "within," but this is not to say that it cannot be comprehended. But the only way to do so is to escape "upward" and understand the metaphysical principles of which it is an instantiation. History is derivative -- an unpleasant "side effect" -- of vertical principles that play out in unpredictable ways in the herebelow. In fact, this is how we balance free will and predestination, as the large contours are fixed, even while we are given more than enough rope to hang ourselves down here.

Along these lines, there is an article today at American Thinker called Whites Can't Make Blacks Happy:

"One of the creepy things about our 'need to have a conversation about race' is the assumption that whites can somehow make blacks feel better, or be happier, or be more self-accepting. Nobody has the power to do that, except what individuals do for themselves, one person at a time."

Exactly. It is the height of immaturity to think otherwise, so to encourage this mindset is to encourage emotional immaturity -- which, of course, is the left's specialty, since emotional immaturity creates dependence, and dependence is the source of their power.

This is what I call Loser Power, and you should never underestimate its potential. It is somewhat analogous to gravity, in that it's just the tendency of fallen bodies to seek a state of repose by following the pathology of least resistance. And yet, just as a clever person can harness gravity and turn it into a productive force, e.g., a dam or waterwheel, a clever demagogue can convert a collective sense of narcissistic entitlement into real power. Think of how much narcissism and immaturity it takes to keep the leftist wheel of misfortune spinning! But they have no worries, because there's always an endless supply of inflated self-regard, Man being what he is, which is either less than or all too much of one.

We'll never run out of gravity, since it's not fundamentally a force, but a property of spacetime curvature. Likewise, narcissism is not a force, but a result of the ego's similar tendency to curve and bend psychic space around itself in a tight and compacted spiral. It is the opposite of spiritual "radiance," which must be marshaled to counter this tendency.

The bottom lyin' for the left is the belief that the ego can make itself happy on its own level. Thus, the left constantly promises things it can never deliver -- which is, ironically, what they accuse religion of doing. It is vital for the left that you not know the source of your own existential misery, and that you fall for their empty promise that they can deliver you from your own hell. As Lewis explains,

"Most people don't come close to lasting happiness in their own lives. So the popular Leftist charge of America's 'institutional racism' comes down to saying that 'The Great White Conspiracy is responsible for rescuing you from your bad feelings.' That is just cockeyed."

The real problem is that "Far too many black people don't feel good about themselves, and are constantly looking for answers from somebody else. That quest for the impossible has been turned into an accusation against the invisible but all-powerful white racist establishment. Michelle and Barack Obama were indoctrinated with those toxic beliefs at Princeton and Harvard, so that they are now making more than a million bucks a year, living in a mansion in Chicago while still feeling sorry for themselves."

This is what I mean about the endless supply of narcissism and entitlement. Whatever bounty the Obamas receive, it will never be enough to appease their in-built envy. Their motto should be "We made it, and so can't you!"

Speaking of converting envy, hatred, narcissism and paranoia into cash and other valuable prizes, just look at their spiritual dementor, the Reverend Wright. American Thinker reports that this poor, persecuted black man is about to move into his new $1.6 million, 10,340-square-foot shack in suburban Chicago. Maybe when he said Goddamn America, he meant it in that ironic, streetwise way, as in Damn, America be baaaaaad!

It seems that the Reverend walks around with the opposite of a pimp roll, which is a wad of singles with a hundred dollar bill around it to make the pimp look more affluent than he is. In the case of the Reverend, he has a roll of hundreds concealed by a tattered old one dollar bill on the outside.

Here's what the Constitution guarantees: 1) Life, since without it nothing is possible, while with it, all things are possible; 2) Liberty, since human life in the absence of liberty is not worth living, freedom being intrinsic to the human state -- even if most humans have to be driven toward it with whips, whether in Iraq or Berkeley; and 3) The pursuit of happiness, which is quite the opposite of a) the pursuit of pleasure, which is mere hedonism, and b) entitlement to happiness, much less pleasure. No, the government is only there to ensure that you yourself may pursue this elusive spiritual state called "happiness." To put it another way, if the government can confer it upon you, it's not happiness, but something far less -- something beneath the properly human state.

But as Lewis points out, the professional politician won't get far by promising that he can't make you happy -- which is why it is so difficult to translate the conservative intellectual movement into a political one, i.e., to turn Republicans into conservatives: "For politicians, voter dissatisfaction is the fuel of personal careers. You can't get anywhere by promising all the answers to people who don't need you. So the first order of business is to find dissatisfied voters, and if they're not there, stir up some dissatisfaction. That's why Obama needed the Rev -- to get him in good with a proletariat, any proletariat, in this case a black one."

This is also how you can discern a false religion from a true one, as the false one will exploit various things that are intrinsic to the human condition, and offer quick solutions to resolving or overcoming them. In contrast, Petey and the Transdimensional Order of the Friendly Sons and Daughters of the Cosmic Raccoon promise only a struggle and an adventure, but the struggle is worth it, and it will be the adventure of a lifetime, because it will transpose your little melody of a life into a higher key, so that you might even hear the song supreme and the cosmic suite.

At the end of Lewis' piece, he offers what might be a "prayer for the soul of the leftist." Just admit that there is a power greater than your narrow sense of entitlement, and repeat,

"1. There is no excuse for lack of effort.

2. Although I may be unhappy with my circumstances, and although racism and sexism and other 'isms' exist, I know that things are better now than ever, and the future is even brighter.

3. While I may be unhappy with my circumstances, I have the power to change and improve my life. I refuse to be a victim.

4. Others may have been blessed with more money, better connections, a better home environment, and even better looks, but I can succeed through hard work, perseverance, and education."

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Spring Cleaning: Mythellaneous Gods & Ends

As I mentioned the other day, I'd like to clear out all of these notepads and post-its I have laying around, and reduce them to some kind of coherent disorder, so I can finally toss them. I must have at least half a dozen notepads here in my lap, filled with murky mudditations and cognitively arrested developments that never even grew to juvenilia.

Let's start with this big yellow one. Hmm. Some of this looks pretty self-indulgent. When I look back over these things, sometimes I'm not even sure what I meant. Oh well. Maybe you can figure them out, or at least find a useful nugget or two on which to coontemplate. In any event, I apologize in advance for some of these nascent pre-thoughts that perhaps should have been allowed to properly grow up and become fully half-baked before being prematurely sent out to make their way in the world.

Is a merely rational theology possible? Need for a-logic in theology, or patterned transrationality. Pre-scientific mythologies are incoherent non-absurdities. Mental illness is an incoherent absurdity. Reason reduces world to coherent absurdity. Only metaphysics leads to coherent non-absurdity.

How do we mediate between a theological literalism that no longer speaks to modern minds and a liberalism that drains it of any emotional resonance with the deeper strata of consciousness? In order to understand the vertical, the realm of imagination must be engaged & expanded, e.g., Genesis: the less saturated, the more likely imagination can fill the innerstices. "Form walks with meaning in the ascent to infinity." God is found in the "deep within" of things. If not there, where?

To convey the eternal, the transcendent, the infinite, the absolute, within the things of time, one cannot do so without symbolism, paradox, myth, wordplay, oxymoron (virgin-mother) & other deivoices. Must have both spiritual experiences and a special way to communicate and talk about them. In so doing, the one pole strengthens the other. Trying to speak in such a way as to attract and engage the attention of the supramental consciousness. Linguistic theological attractors.

Mystical theology revolves around a central point vs. linear description of science. The verbal hammer hits the celestial stone, sending luminous sparks down below. The stone is one, the sparks infinite.

Why is there a literal hunger for music? To whom or what is it speaking? What's the difference between listening to the Eroica Symphony and reading a good biography of Napoleon? Schuon: "Music is the art of bringing terrestrial shadows back to celestial vibrations and divine archetypes."

Aquinas: time measures before and after, eternity is the simultaneous presence of the whole: "no beforeafter, nobodaddy, no mamafestation, nothing but neti..." Wholly present vs. everlasting. Christ annuls time, full-fills history: first and last, Alphomega, it is accomplished.

Mysticism is no different from ordinary life, just a different angle. Not an attempt to obliterate the ego by entering a murky cloud of unconsciousness, but infusing one's being with it -- not to merge with the ocean but to partake of it. Not merging with the infinite, nor clinging to fixed thoughts about it, but living in the flow between them. Epistemology vs. Mystepistemology: what did you not know and when did you unKnow it?

Your Being is God's Doing.

Something must be understood a priori of the nature of God before we can make any statements about him. It is tautology unless we have uncreated, implicit, pre-conceptual knowledge of the category of God, into which certain experiences will flow, or be "attracted." If we don't agree on our ontology, epistemology will just confuse. God is an innate readiness to experience O. Or vice versa. To "invite" the religious object.

When you ask what something "is," is it atoms? Or is it the palpably physical? Or the thoughts you have that are able to ponder the physical or atomic, the macro or the micro? Which is more "real?" The supraconscious does not "ex-ist," or "stand out." In-sist, maybe. We can notice its vapor trails on the inscape of consciousness. Higher realities don't "stand out" except to those who "stand in" them. How do you go about standing in them? Same way you stand in the unconscious. Relux & call it a deity.

Rt. brain develops ahead of left brain & is where our unitary background of primary being resides. Just so, God is not what stands out, but that from which other things stand out. God is not in space. Space is in God. Creation is holographic and fractal: therefore, whole of God is in the consecrated bread. It has no physical existence, and yet, can only ex-ist in the physical. So the question is not whether God exists -- it is whether or not God can be made present.

Creation and storage of eternal memories. How is this done? How do temporal events move into the zone of timelessness? Garden of Eden: from the zone of timelessness to time, symmetry to asymmetry. We live in time but we remember the timeless. Adam blew it. He's our blewprint.

Revelation is the first draft of metahistory, journalism makes a daft farce of history. Merger of vertical and horizontal in prehistory. They only became completely separate with modernity. Still merged in Islamic world.

Those half-humans who live solely in the scientistic horizontal: factsimians.

Idea for title of Victoria's Secret catalogue: "All Thongs Considered."

Viagra: a cure for what fails you.

Trying to make a post out of all this BS: "composting."

Modern philosophy: "A systematic abuse of language invented for that purpose." (Not sure who came up with that one.)

Dream a little dream: you are the dream programmer, the medium through which the programmer works, and the material with which he works. The world is in your dreams, but you are the world that is in your dreams -- i.e., you created the dreamworld you inhabit, as well as the you that you experience in the dream. How is this any different from waking life? Like a Klein Bottle: there is an "inside" and an "outside," but only one surface. Could the dream be the cosmos outside in, and "reality" the dreamer inside out? How could it not be.

Well, one journal down, six or seven more to go.....

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

How the Word is Flushed When the Weird Becomes Flesh

In The Religion of Eternal Racism and Eternal Sexism, Bruce Walker addresses a sort of paradox, that is, the left's embodiment of "eternal" principles, when the whole point of the left is that -- in the turgid but accurate phrase of Eric Voegelin - it "immamentizes the eschaton," meaning, in plain Raccoon lingo, that it collapses the vertical into the horizontal, which dispenses with the "permanent things" of the transcendent realm altogether. As a result, all that is left for the bereft left is a horizontal, temporal, and material struggle "below," which necessarily pits one group against another, based solely upon the lust for power. Any cynical "humanist" will tell you that this is simply the way of the world.

This is because, in the absence of absolute principles to guide them, humans are reduced to something slightly below the animal kingdom, in that we have their form but not their nobility, restraint, and common sense. Rather, we are like "animals gone wild," somehow liberated from our genetic program to undo nature's delicate balance and wreak havoc on the planet. Any good "environmentalist" will tell you this.

My point is that the left can have no "eternal principles" on pain of immediate and final self-refutation. Therefore, it must obscure its absence of principles with constant tactical maneuvers that change from day to day, week to week, and year to year. Obviously, if you deny what Schuon calls the higher "principial" realm -- which contains the absolute and eternal metaphysical principles of which this lower world is an instantiation -- you can only live in a kind of "absolute relativity," which, if you give it a moment's thought, is intrinsically absurd. Frankly, it is metaphysically impossible, as relativity would then be absolute, thus negating itself. Obviously, cultural and moral relativism are intrinsically absurd and self-negating as well.

Walker highlights this absurdity of the left, in that it hews to faux-eternal principles which can never change irrespective of what actually happens in what they ironically call "reality," being that reality for them is reduced to the flatland, material world. For example, Walker asks, "How many 'civil rights' leaders talk as if racism is an immutable, eternal characteristic of American society? How many feminist leaders talk as if sexism is an immutable, eternal characteristic of American society? The mere passage of years, the mere enactment of statutes or adoption of polices, the decades long public relations campaign against bigotry -- none of this can be allowed to make a difference" (emphasis mine).

But why does the left embrace a kind of bitter and reactionary anti-theology, in which they hold to such a negative view of the world despite what actually occurs here? As Walker writes, "the sins of America are a religious article of faith to self-appointed black leaders and to self-appointed representatives of the female sex."

But here again we can see that the left is not guided by true principles, for example, the truly eternal principle that "all men are created equal." Rather, for the left, "it is crucial that the sin is not racism or sexism, but specifically American (or, perhaps, Western) racism and sexism." If the crimes aren't committed by white Westerners, feminists aren't interested. They will yawn "when told about honor murders, female circumcision and the imprisonment of rape victims," so long as non-Christian people of color are responsible. "The catechism of the Left is that America is evil," not that rape or honor killing are evil.

So the true motive that animates the left is not a "positive" principle such as equality, much less liberty, but an anti-principle. And this is why it takes such diverse forms, as the leftist must always fool you (and, more importantly, himself) into believing that he is defending eternal principles, principles in which he doesn't actually believe. For example, the left universally believes that it is proper for the government to discriminate on the basis of race, "gender" and "sexual orientation", and that failure to do so should be illegal. Not surprisingly, the party of trial lawyers loves these kinds of laws, because trial lawyers are the group that most benefits from this crass power grab in the guise of a principle.

The left once unanimously maintained that we should judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. But the fact that they so readily abandoned this principle shows how they are always rooted in tactics, not principles. Likewise, up until the late '60s and early '70s, the left was a vocal supporter of Israel, whereas now all of the wholesale anti-Semitism in the world emanates from the left (including, of course, the Obama campaign (cf here).

America's founders were (among other things) political mystics, in that they did not "deduce" the spiritual principles upon which the country was founded, but saw into the realm where they eternally abide. The intellect "sees" these principles with absolute certainty, "light to light," so to speak. As Schuon explains, "Metaphysical truths are by no means accepted because they are merely logically clear, but because they are ontologically clear, and their logical clarity is only a trace of this imprinted on the mind." Here again, this kind of higher truth is "not held to be true -- by those who understand it -- because it is expressed in a logical manner, but it can be expressed in a logical manner because it is true, without -- obviously -- its truth ever being compromised by the possible shortcomings of human reason."

As further explained by Oldmeadow, metaphysical truth "has nothing to do with personal opinion, originality, or creativity -- quite the contrary. It is directed towards those realities which lie outside mental perimeters and which are unchanging. The most a metaphysician will ever want to do is reformulate some timeless truth so that it becomes more intelligible in the prevailing climate." Indeed that is the whole purpose of my book and this blog -- it's why I tried to make the book a metaphysical joyread, and to make cosmic truth fun for the whole family!

Thus, when the Founders said, "we hold these truths to be self-evident," they were not appealing to mere logic, but to something much higher -- something eternal, axial, and principial, in this or any other cosmos. They were not conveying to King George what they "thought" about reality, but they were disclosing and imparting this transcendent reality to the monarch. These principles would still be true if not a single human being were aware of them -- which, strictly speaking, is impossible, being that the human, qua human, is the being that is by definition conformed or "proportioned" to the absolute. Humans and humans alone are the cosmic mediators between time and eternity, God and creation, vertical and horizontal -- which is why we may know eternal Truth and conform ourselves to it. Or not.

In short, because we possess free will (freedom being one of the Divine attributes reflected in the human being) we may incarnate Truth or uncarnate the Lie. It's all up -- or down -- to you.


Dr. Sanity brings attention to the same unprincipled leftist principles in her post Morally Twisted, which gets into the question of why the worthless Palestinians get so much more attention than the worthy Tibetans. Read the whole thing, as it really lays bare the broken moral compass of the left:

"In the holy book of leftist belief, 'victimhood' is the most celebrated quality deserving of attention and pity. This is in part because many on the political left have a pathologically narcissistic need to see themselves as 'champions of the oppressed', hence the constant need to find and maintain an oppressed class of people to champion. But it also dovetails nicely into the the Marxist dialectic that underlies that ideology. The world is divided up into two groups, you see: the oppressors (i.e., white, male,heterosexual, Republican, Americans or Israelis) and the oppressed (everyone else)....

"Now compare and contrast the Palestinians with the relatively gentle culture of Tibet and the non-violent philosophy of its spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama. You can also compare and contrast the deliberate brutality of China and its Communist leadership with Israel. China's brutality and oppression is almost always given a free pass by the left in much the same way they have extended to Fidel Castro and other despotic totalitarian and authoritarian regimes their devoted loyalty and sympathy. Israel, as a Democratic and morally conscious nation actually works hard to spare innocent human life is automatically condemned whenever they respond to Palestinian provocation simply because it represents Western values and is by definition of the neo-marxists of our day, an 'official' oppressor. The left always calls Israel's response to the provocations 'disproportionate'; but in reality, it is the left's moral equivalence that is so disgustingly disproportionate."

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Cosmic Forces and Terrestrial Farces (3.11.10)

We live in a world of forces.

Duh. What an insipid way to start a post.

No, wait. I don't just mean physical forces, but mental forces, spiritual forces, and even "wealth forces." For example, at American Digest there is a quote from the Adam Smith Institute to the effect that there are no causes of poverty, being that it is obviously the "natural condition." There are no wealthy animals. Poverty "is the rest state, that which happens when you don't do anything. If you want to experience poverty, just do nothing and it will come. To ask what causes poverty is like asking what causes cold in the universe; it is the absence of energy. Similarly poverty is the absence of wealth. For most of humanity's existence on this planet, poverty has been the norm, the natural condition."

Poverty just is. It doesn't become an actual force until the left takes over and begins to magically "create poverty" with bad ideas. There are no wealthy animals, and human wealth only began to exist on a widespread scale in the past couple of hundred years. There are forces that result in wealth, such as human creativity, initiative, vision, risk, etc: "We should ask what are the causes of wealth and try to recreate and reproduce them. When you ask the wrong question, 'What causes poverty,' you end up with wrong answers.... Instead of trying to take wealth away from rich people and redistribute it, we should be seeking to implement the conditions in which as many people as possible can join in the wealth-creating process for themselves." Thus, the first law of wealth is "get off your ass." The second is "get the government off your ass."

In the mental realm, truth is a force. In fact, it is without question the most important force. Some people -- mostly aging hippies and addle-brained youths, who represent the two main constituencies of the left, wacktivists and hedonists -- will tell you that love is the most important force, but love is a derivative of Truth, not vice versa. I do not worship "the God of love" unless he is first the God of Truth, for who besides a leftist would worship a lovely liar like Marx or Obama?

Hmm, I read something to this effect just the other day.... Where was it.... Yes, here it is, by you-know-who, Mr. Gnosis-all: "God is 'Light' before He is 'Heat,' if it may be so expressed; gnosis 'precedes' love, or rather, love 'follows' gnosis, since the latter includes love after its own fashion...." Schuon goes on to explain that "one can love something false, without love ceasing to be what it is; but one cannot 'know' the false in a similar way, that is to say knowledge cannot be under illusion as to its object without ceasing to be what it is; error always implies a privation of knowledge, whereas sin does not imply a privation of will."

Although the lie -- being a privation -- has no "absolute" existence, it does represent a potent "counter-force" on the horizontal plane. In fact, if you think about it for even a moment, it has possibly had an even greater impact and influence on the world than truth. Or at the very least, it is a constant battle. Truth is always embattled on all sides, just as light is surrounded by darkness. Only by positing something "fundamentally wrong" with humans can you explain their constant attraction to the Lie. The bigger they are, the harder we fall.

You'd think it would be uncontroversial to utter a simple truth, but you'd be wrong, wouldn't you? I am reminded of Obama's shamelessly opportunistic and manipulative "dialogue about race," when the whole reason we cannot say anything useful or productive about race is that the left will brand you as racist if you do. It seems that to carry Truth is to pick up a cross and paint a target on one's back.

Animals cannot lie. While they can have certain naturally selected mechanisms of deception, they certainly cannot live a lie. But living a lie is in the normal course of events for human beings. Someone said that language was given to man so as to conceal his thoughts. Interestingly, this problem is fully recognized in scripture, as the very first conversations recorded in the Bible are lies. The serpent lies to the woman, the woman transmits the lie to the man, and the man lies about it to God, and then a rebellious angel leaks it to the Times. The very emergence of self-consciousness seems to be inseparable from lying.

So lying is absolutely fundamental to human existence, a fact that wasn't systematized until the early 20th century, in the works of Freud (the good Freud) and his followers. In particular, the psychoanalyst W.R. Bion developed a sophisticated epistemology showing how a vital lie is at the basis of most all forms of psychopathology (at least those that aren't mainly genetic and/or biochemical). Once the lie is in place, it causes the psyche to enter a sort of parallel universe, for it constructs itself on the foundations of that initial falsehood.

A mind parasite is essentially an internalized lie that takes on a pseudo-life of its own. I believe the term is an accurate one, for it is meant to convey the idea that a vital lie that lodges itself in the psyche is not static, but takes on the characteristics of the host, so to speak. I remember once discussing this with my analyst. I don't remember the exact context of the problem I was whining about, but he said words to the effect of, "What do you expect? It's as smart as you are."

In other words, the mind parasite has available to it all of the elaborate machinery of the mind. Therefore, it can easily justify itself, elaborate itself, gang up on the truth, intimidate healthier parts of the psyche. It's like a dictator who uses legitimate means to come to power, but then corruptly uses all of the levers of power to stay there and eliminate opponents.

Those who are in thrall to the lie are by definition slaves. While they may enjoy a subjective sense of freedom, it is an illusion. In fact, they have forfeited their freedom and are attached to a monstrous demon that they have generated out of their own psychic substance, in the same way that a spider weaves a web out of its own body.

Think of a vivid example that is readily at hand -- the Islamists. Is it not obvious that they are absolutely enslaved by artificial beings of their own creation? And that they want everyone else to be enslaved by the same demon? Does this not demonstrate the insane power of demons?

There are personal mind parasites and collective mind parasites. Many cultures revolve entirely around monstrous entities that have been engendered by whole communities, such as the Aztec. Here again, it would be wrong to say that the Aztec had a "bloodthirsty god" -- rather, it clearly had them. Thousands upon thousands of human beings sacrificed to satisfy this god's appetite for human blood, elaborate mechanisms set up to supply fresh bodies, the heart of the sacrificial victim cut out by the officiating priest who would himself take a bite out of it while it was still beating. A whole society of Jeffrey Dahmers trying desperately to allay anxiety by vampirically ingesting the life force of others. The Islamists are just the latest idition of this unconscious anti-religion. But you undoubtedly know some people in your own life who do the same thing -- hungry ghosts who "feed" on the spirit or blog of others.

In all times and in all places, human beings have looked for ways to objectify and worship their self-created demons. This is preferable to having them run around loose in one's own psyche. Take again the example of the Islamist. How would one even begin to tell him: "you have a persecutory entity inside of you that your life revolves around. You have placed it outside of yourself so as to make your life bearable, for it conceals a truth that is too painful to endure."

To a large extent, this dynamic is at the heart of more mundane politics as well. For those who do not experience George Bush as a demon, it is almost impossible to understand those who do, any more than we can really understand the motivations of the Aztec. The collective mind parasite has a grammar and logic all its own, inaccessible to all but initiates into the Lie.

You don't actually want to get that close to an intoxicating Lie of that magnitude. It's not safe. Better to observe it from a respectful distance. Otherwise, you will find yourself pulled down into a false world of counter-lying rather than simple truth. You cannot create an artificial "good demon,” which is what secular leftists are trying to do when they aren't creating bad ones. Those who criticize my "negativity" probably think I am engaging in the former -- heatedly countering the lie -- when I am calmly engaged in the latter -- simply affirming the truth that is and has always been. This is the inner meaning of "resist not evil." Resist it in the wrong way, and you come into its orbit.

For as old Anonymous points out, a demon operates through a combination of will and imagination. You may think of perverse will as the male principle and perverse imagination as the female principle. Together they beget the demon child that then controls the parents, taking over both will and imagination. C onsider how so much art and academic nonsense is nothing more than the elaboration of the perverse imagination -- ideological superstructures giving cover to lies of various magnitude. Think of how much "activism" is simply the angry agitation of the perverse will, just the punitive hedonism of a corrupt superego.

This is the inner meaning of "you shall not make for yourself a graven image," for Truth is a living thing, a Being, that cannot be reduced to the idolatrous systems of men, especially corrupted men who do not honor Truth to begin with. Most modern and postmodern ideologies and philosophies are opiates of elites too sophisticated for such powerful pneumaceuticals as Truth.

And this is the inner meaning of "honor your father and mother”: not rebelling against received truth and tradition in an adolescent manner, especially before you are even mature enough to understand what it means. But the Obamaniacs will always be with us in one form or another.