Friday, November 04, 2011

To Hive and Hive Not

Arcanum VI, l'amoreux. Oops, pardon our French. We mean zee lover.

Our unKnown Friend from an alternate vertical future -- our own yet-to-be-lived future, to be exact -- writes that the central theme of this card is the vow of chastity, esoterically understood. For "one is chaste only when one loves with the totality of one's being." Therefore, there is no true love in the absence of chastity -- and vice versa.

Chastity is the living unity and wholeness in being whereby body, soul, and spirit become one -- not through a merger that effaces differences but through a harmony that... harmonizes them. This is not uniformity but unity. It is the return of the many to the One, both in oneself and with the other, the former via the latter, meaning that, ironically, it takes two to be at one. (Technically three, but we'll get to that later.)

The bottom line is that two's company and three's a cloud. And whenever two are present, there I AM, raining down.

"There is a difference between spiritual things and bodily things. Every spiritual thing can dwell in another." And "Where I am, there God is; and then I am in God, and where God is, there I am" (Eckhart). When wholeness comes, the partial vanishes (1 Cor. 13:10). Poof!

As usual, the psychospiritual left embodies a direct inversion of this two-in-one principle. For instead of beginning with the individual-seeking-unity, it is in perpetual rebellion against the individual. Rather, it posits the exterior collective -- i.e., the benevilent state -- whereby our fragmentation and alienation are "cured."

Taken to its logical extreme, such a cure represents "perfect integration through perfect fragmentation. That is, the perfect unity of the state requires the utter destruction of all autonomous social bonds, rendering each individual more isolated and powerless..." (Taylor). It is as if the left grinds humanity to dust, molds this desiccated substance, like clay, into its new-and-improved man, and then breaths the spirit of Marx into him.

The critical point is that our drive toward unity can become as perverted and pathological as any other drive. The secular left creates a unity, alright, but it is a physical unity only, a reduction to matter and thus no unity of soul or spirit.

UF writes that "to feel something as real in the measure of its full reality is to love." Obviously, it is no coincidence that Genesis discusses human sexuality in terms of knowledge. Is the Torah simply confused on this matter? Or perhaps disclosing a reality from which the tenured have excluded themselves?

Imagine a typically prudish "human sexuality" class that leaves out the very reality without which sexuality is not human. Obviously, there is no need to imagine it, because the purpose of all leftist ideology is to demoralize and make us less than what we are, which is to say, human (in the full sense of the term, body-soul-spirit).

To love someone is to begin the process of knowing a person in their full reality. The operative word is begin, for as Bion theorized, love is a link (L) between subjects. It merely gets the party started. Until we forge that link, the Other is not really real, just a piece of psychic furniture.

UF explains that -- contrary to substitious materialist sophistry -- the one thing we know as really real is ourselves, the human subject. The materialist denies this reality, rendering the subject a side effect of matter.

Now, matter is obviously a kind of "one," which is an inverted doctrine of spiritual oneness. This material oneness is the false unity that inspires the left, and is the basis of their first political principle, i.e., "what's yours is mine," or "you work, I eat."

How do we escape the prison of our narcissism? Primarily through love, because love partakes of being. There is also knowledge, of course, but unless that knowledge is rooted in love and being via the Intellect, it is no more enduring than smoke driven by wind, and will not survive the Judgment.

UF writes that there are two principle methods of overcoming our cosmic narcissism, generally corresponding to eastern and western religions (although each has both; it is merely a matter of emphasis). The first is obliteration of the illusory ego, so that one becomes a "shadow among shadows." This is the "equality of indifference." If the separate "I" doesn't exist, then we're all one. Being that the ego is the ultimate illusion, just vanquish that illusion, and the doors of perception are cleansed (although nobody's home behind the door).

The other way -- the Christian way -- is to extend the love that one has for oneself to other beings. Instead of "me dead, you dead," it's "me living, you living."

Now, this is difficult to do. Obviously. But you don't try to do it all at once. Rather, you start with a small circle, and then gradually widen the circle. Start at the center, not the periphery. Try loving your neighbor before The Planet. Again, the left begins at the periphery. Obama is the great Unifier. But what kind of unity is it that doesn't even recognize my real existence? I'm not some ant in the leftist hive:

"When a Marxist says 'power to the people,' he isn't talking about actual people.... It takes no time at all to realize that Marxists and their intellectual offspring have no use for actual people in general, and only one use for 'actual people' who do want what they're supposed to want. They treat them like pets."

UF returns to Genesis, where God says that "it is not good that Adam should be alone," which is to say that "it is not good that man should love nobody but hisown." And God wasn't just ribbing, for he then creates the complementary other, who is actually of the same substance as Adam, even a part of himself. To love is to recognize the prior unity: "In the beginning there was only one love and its source was one, since its principle was one."

Again, love has to do with the recovery of higher unity, not the imposition of a lower uniformity. This is a key point. UF agrees that this reality is precisely inverted by the left, but also by old-fashioned Freudianism.

In the case of the left, it elevates economic interest to all. In the case of Freud, he elevated the sexual instinct to all. You might say that the left reduces everything to the first chakra, Freudianism to the second. And both are entirely compatible with materialism, scientism, and metaphysical Darwinism, which try to account for the top by reducing it to the bottom. That's not love. It is hate. Hatred of reality.

Naturalism is not so much a love of matter as a rejection of, or inability to apprehend, that which transcends it. This is why Obama feels that the founders erred in writing a constitution that made it such a hassle for him to appropriate our stuff and give it to others, or why his pal Bill Ayers feels he "didn't do enough" back in his days as a loving domestic terrorist. But he shouldn't worry. As an "educational reformer," he's destroying more young souls than he could ever hope to as a bomb-tossing psychopath.

In the coming year you will see the false love -- the hate -- behind the Obama phenomenon. As his spiritual dementor screamed, God damn America!

Yes, brace yourself for Obama's love, you ungrateful bastards.

29 Comments:

Blogger Rick said...

Mr. H sends his regards for the title.

11/04/2011 09:16:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Ah, you beat me to it - I was thinking of that article, too.

As to Obama's "love"... *shudder*
If we think it's bad now, just imagine what it will be like if he gets re-elected. The lamest of lame ducks, and he'll be on a mission. All for our own good, of course...

11/04/2011 09:40:00 AM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

Any theology of the body fans around here? Given my misgivings, it's heartening to see the convergence of MotT with JP2. Compare true nature of chastity described here to the true meaning of virginity: the integrity of the whole of a human being, which is not damaged by a sexual act in its proper context, as an expression of true love.

I read a book with my wife before we were married that discussed the purpose of marriage in similar terms, Sacred Marriage. Your duty to your spouse is to love them perfectly, and expand on that model. This helps a person avoid being paralyzed by the enormity of the task of becoming a saint, by focusing their effort.

Not to be a sower of discord, but is there a candidate that has received the One Cosmos nod?

11/04/2011 10:19:00 AM  
Blogger JP said...

GR says:

"Not to be a sower of discord, but is there a candidate that has received the One Cosmos nod?"

Wake me up when someone other than Romney has a chance to win the Republican nomination.

11/04/2011 11:49:00 AM  
Blogger JP said...

"The other way -- the Christian way -- is to extend the love that one has for oneself to other beings. Instead of "me dead, you dead," it's "me living, you living." "

Were exactly does "me dead, you dead" get you?

I'm still trying to figure out it's appeal.

Seems like an abdication of responsibility.

11/04/2011 11:51:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

I'm pretty hyped for Nobody again this year.

I had a Mennonite electrician doing some stuff on the house recently, and he was explaining that the Mennonites parted ways with the Amish. The Amish, though very strict in an external sense, seem to have no trouble with unholy living, such as drunkenness. The Mennonites, conversely, pursue holiness while accepting some technology. He had an iPad but he has no television, and his house has no central heat or air conditioning. He also expressed deep appreciation for the beauty of the Enterprise.

The point I'm Vannishly trying to make is that right-wing social engineering misses the point as much as left-wing social engineering. We are looking for personal holiness and righteousness which leads to community righteousness and ultimately to national righteousness. It does not work the other way.

The leftist utopia is a police state with an infinite number of laws. The kingdom of God has only one, and you exile yourself if you break it.

11/04/2011 11:53:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Gabe, re. Theology of the Body, I almost mentioned it in my first comment. I'm still working my way slowly through, but I think it's quite compatible with UF's take.

Re. politics, I'm with Mush. Republican candidates are underwhelming, but then again that's probably as it should be. Conservatives are not immune from the sort of projection the left heaped into Obama. I just hope whoever comes next loves America more than he loves himself or his own utopian visions.

11/04/2011 12:28:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"And both are entirely compatible with materialism, scientism, and metaphysical Darwinism, which try to account for the top by reducing it to the bottom. That's not love. It is hate. Hatred of reality.

Naturalism is not so much a love of matter as a rejection of, or inability to apprehend, that which transcends it.

That's not love. It is hate. Hatred of reality. "

It is at that, and it shines darkly through everything the left does... see any aspect of Occupy Wall Street for an example. It is horrifying.

From the article you linked to,

"For some reason, the one explanation of why people choose what they choose that is completely, categorically, eternally unacceptable is: because they want to."

Which sums it all up, the denial of choice and the ability to choose, the assertion that everything you do is determined by what happens to you, is such a venemous attack upon life, reality and the unavoidable requirement to choose in order to live.

It burns.

"Yes, brace yourself for Obama's love, you ungrateful bastards."

Trick or Treat my ass.

Speaking of hell, here's a proud mother and teacher relaying the doings of her daughter at 'Occupy Oakland'.

11/04/2011 12:43:00 PM  
Blogger Gabe Ruth said...

Mushroom,
I like the cut of your political jib.

JP,
First, let me say that I have zero expectation that we will see any sanity from Washington that is not dictated by events (at least in my lifetime). A pre-requisite to improving the odds on that is enacting term limits for congress-critters, followed by making political appointees and bureaucrats VERY easy to fire. Without these changes, the party in power barely matters.

For this reason, I don't usually get to excited about presidential politics. But the "anybody but Romney" talk has to stop. It will lead to exactly the opposite of its intent, namely, a Romney candidacy.

I'm a Ron Paul guy myself. Do you think he's a harder sell than candidate Not-Romney? Please show your work.

RG, I don't know what's come over me. Please don't hesitate to delete this comment if it begins to sidetrack the conversation on a very excellent post.

11/04/2011 12:47:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

I don't get to agree wtih JP very often, so a big second on his @11:49:00 AM comment.

Being on a roll, I'll unVannishly nod along with Mushroom's,

"I'm pretty hyped for Nobody again this year."

and,

"The point I'm Vannishly trying to make is that right-wing social engineering misses the point as much as left-wing social engineering. We are looking for personal holiness and righteousness which leads to community righteousness and ultimately to national righteousness. It does not work the other way."

Yep. And it cannot be imposed, it must be freely chosen.

11/04/2011 12:52:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Van, re. the Oakland protester, if that were my son I'd be wondering where I went wrong. I did find the following interesting, though, in light of today's post (emphasis mine):

"...for all the differences that make every individual unique, all our stories were so alike that it just re-enforced my desire to be there. While there are typically hundreds of people in Oscar Grant/Frank Ogawa Plaza each day, the place was packed yesterday, as people spanning all classes, colors, and heritages came to join us; there were monks there from halfway across the globe, tribes from all over, and Americans from all across the country who felt Oakland was where they needed to be right now."

Sounds nice, doesn't it? Until you consider that they are there attempting to force businesses to close, not to mention the other "shenanigans" the Oakland occupiers have been engaged in.

Does anything warm the cockles of the heart more than people united in their shared hatreds?

11/04/2011 01:20:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gabe said "A pre-requisite to improving the odds on that is enacting term limits for congress-critters"

I definitely understand the sentiment, but definitely oppose the plan. If you don't mind a rare burst of blue lingo, I made a rant against "Term limits" and blanket "vote 'em out" movements Here, and a cooler headed follow up here.

Personally I'd be thrilled to see the whole lot voted out, but only if individual voters determine for themselves that their legislators are unsound & unprincipled and they deliberately choose to cast a vote to vote them out. Term limits are just another case of legislating a law to release you and me from the responsibility of thinking and acting on our own... which is exactly how we got where we are now!

On top of that, they only serve to entrench the political machine into power - which we've proven here in Missouri. Congressional aids & interns - the bureaucracy (which remains no matter who is in office), who already have most of the power in legislatures, writing and advising on most legislation, become less tied to a particular politician who they know will be moving on, and align themselves even more with the machine than the men passing through it.

BTW, We The People actually succeeded in stopping a major machine bill, the love child of our democrat mayor of St. Louis, a big-time developer, the Republican Speaker of the House, and the Democrat Governor. "China Hub" Aerotropolis was a done deal, that couldn't survive the groundswell we swung against it. Well... most of it... they did succeed in splitting part of it off, but overall, they're realing from the blow. They called a special session of the legislature to pass it and failed. It was a burden, I hate politics (yeah, believe it or not, hate it) and having to do any of what it requires, but if roused, we can do what needs to be done.

We The People have to focus, take responsibility for making sure that those we do elect do as they were elected to do, and before any lasting changes will be made, we've got one whole heck of a lot of repealing of agencies, legislation and constitutional amendments (16th & 17th), before we can even begin looking at new legislation.

It's taken over a century to get into the mess we're in, it's gonna take decades, at least, to get us out, and we cannot legislate our way out - that's how we got into this hole... or trench... as the case may be.

The painful truth is that the answer is going to be painfully slow, and it starts and ends with individuals learning what our govt means, encouraging their fellows to get a clue as well, and then responsibly playing their part in the process.

Real Eduation is the only way out. No shortcuts.

"I'm a Ron Paul guy myself. Do you think he's a harder sell than candidate Not-Romney? Please show your work."

Lol. Guessed it. Not a Ron Paul guy myself. See his foreign policy, it is foreign to reality and our interests in it. Do I need to show more than that? I have some guesses about how fruitful that would be, but I'm game if you are.

11/04/2011 01:37:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

GR says:

"RG, I don't know what's come over me. Please don't hesitate to delete this comment if it begins to sidetrack the conversation on a very excellent post."

The comments section here often self-sidetracks. It's a feature of the blog.

11/04/2011 01:46:00 PM  
Blogger JP said...

I'm partially in the "Let's create a Puritan Utopia Through the Use of Force Club".

It's kept at bay, however, by my "Ideal of Militant Pacifism" or "If Someone Is Trying To Kill You, You Have a Duty to Die" ideal.

So, my desire to impose the moral order on all is opposed the my obligation to never utilize force under any circumstances.

Which makes for a fascinating internal dialogue.

11/04/2011 02:02:00 PM  
Blogger John Lien said...

JP. Assuming that you are serious, how could you willingly exchange your life for that of a sub-human killer? What good is done in that exchange? I have given pacifism serious consideration myself when we joined the Mennonite church. Our family left the church shortly after 9/11.

Sometimes you have to fight for what's right.

11/04/2011 07:20:00 PM  
Blogger Cond0010 said...

Perfect Love is the key to heaven. Not just there, but here, too.

Eden is here. We never left it, physically.

The original 'Land of the Gift'.

Can we attain 'Perfect Love'? Nah. But we can catch glimmers of it while we live. This world is not a hell for damned souls, nor is it a purgatory for spiritual cleansing. It is a place to enjoy as it was originally intended: its a gift.

But one litmus you can make about yourself to _know_ if your traveling in the right direction is how you respond to strangers: If you start out with a general amiable disposition towards strangers (always exceptions, heh...), you know your on the right track.

Psychic Furniture, indeed. :)

11/05/2011 12:46:00 AM  
Blogger Cond0010 said...

"The other way -- the Christian way -- is to extend the love that one has for oneself to other beings. Instead of "me dead, you dead," it's "me living, you living." "

This is why Christ is the pinnacle.

The Eastern Religions may have much understanding of the self, but it is too self absorbed. Seems like a contradiction, but it is not. They are seeking mastery of the self. To get that mastery, you need to cause the "obliteration of the illusory ego, so that one becomes a "shadow among shadows." This is the "equality of indifference."" This 'mastery' takes discipline, learning and years of work. Even then, you can still easily be a high functioning narcissist and make everyone else an extension of your 'non-self' (its the office, not the man. Get it?)

Through Christ you get the same result by merely loving others. Really loving others with no taint of self-service. So easy, a child could do it. This.. love... breathes life into the action: you are abiding the spirit of the concept and not the letter of the concept (Naricissism - or reversion to the civilized barbarian - is more difficult since many times to love the other means to 'give your "power" away'. But by giving it away, the whole is greater due to mutual sharing). Knowledge without love is a dead-structure - a skeleton without flesh.

Besides, the christian way is ALOT less stuffy. :)

11/05/2011 01:16:00 AM  
Blogger Cond0010 said...

"Knowledge without love is a dead-structure - a skeleton without flesh."

King Solomon learn that the hard way and can be seen through his wisdom in hte book of "ecclesiastes".

11/05/2011 05:30:00 AM  
Blogger Cond0010 said...

"But one litmus you can make about yourself to _know_ if your traveling in the right direction is how you respond to strangers: If you start out with a general amiable disposition towards strangers (always exceptions, heh...), you know your on the right track.

Psychic Furniture, indeed."

...and just to clarify what I mean here is that meeting a stranger for the first time is initially a projection of yourself upon another (with different 'clothes' and different 'experiences') and to love that person over time is the gradual perceiving of that person beyond the 'mirror'.

You see, each person really is a two way mirror (Don Quixote comes to mind, here). The hard part is determining what elements in the image is you.. and what part is that person (and to love them anyway).

If you dislike a person at 'first glance', maybe there are cobwebs within your own soul that need cleaning.

There. :)

11/05/2011 05:52:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Cond,
meeting a stranger for the first time is initially a projection of yourself upon another (with different 'clothes' and different 'experiences') and to love that person over time is the gradual perceiving of that person beyond the 'mirror'.

I'm reminded of this article (language warning) I read a couple of weeks ago:

"When you first meet someone, she said, you don't actually see them. You see a flimsy construction of their personality, created by your interpretation of the signals available. The way they make eye contact. How they interact with the bartender/waiter/homeless man asking you for change. The facts they choose to divulge about themselves. Because you have no other point of reference, every little detail resonates with added significance. Your mind, faced with a scarcity of information, is forced to create a projection of them.

It is fiction.

The fiction fades over time, as you get to know someone, she said. You witness them in different moods, interacting in multiple environments. Your construction of their personality deepens, nudges closer to reality. But on that first meeting, while you may get a peek, or even a full throttled gaze at their character, it is impossible to see the real person in front of you. It is a grand mirage."

Good bit of advice; it's a shame so many people don't seem to understand it these days.

I think it's not so much about liking or disliking someone at first meeting, as it is about how or whether you act based on those initial feelings. If you can look past the surface and remember that each person is in the image of god - no matter how corrupted that image may be - you are well on your way to a more genuine love of the neighbor.

11/05/2011 07:32:00 AM  
Blogger JP said...

John Lein says:

"JP. Assuming that you are serious, how could you willingly exchange your life for that of a sub-human killer?"

You mean internally? Execution of absolutist morality subroutine. Internally override self-defense program and related defense of self and loved ones logic systems. After all, I can always choose to do what I am required to do regardless of the apparent cost to myself and others. Do what is right regardless of the cost?

"What good is done in that exchange?"

I have absolutely no idea.

Maybe absolutely none.

The question is, as always, whether self-defense or defense of others is ever a morally permissible action.

And it's a question with an answer, so it's not an invalid question.

11/05/2011 08:06:00 AM  
Blogger Cond0010 said...

I like her conclusion better than mine as my premise did not factor in the gender/dating issue and the associating assymetric relationship that goes with it. Then there is social hierarchy (meeting for job interview, passing a homeless person on the street, etc..) and various other distractions and distortions (your late for work and someone is driving to slow, etc...) that can skew the perspecitve.

Her core point:

"When you first meet someone, she said, you don't actually see them. You see a flimsy construction of their personality, created by your interpretation of the signals available. The way they make eye contact. How they interact with the bartender/waiter/homeless man asking you for change. The facts they choose to divulge about themselves. Because you have no other point of reference, every little detail resonates with added significance. Your mind, faced with a scarcity of information, is forced to create a projection of them.

It is fiction."

Nice aritcle, Julie.

It fits better. Thanks.

11/05/2011 08:09:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Speaking of first impressions, I just saw an interesting case a couple of minutes ago at the drive-thru line. Cars coming in from two directions, and the lady behind me probably should have let in the guy to the left since he was there first. She doesn't, and suddenly I hear raised voices. Turning to look, the guy had actually jumped out of his truck and was yelling at her.

Now I don't know a thing about either of them, but from their behavior I'd guess they both have some issues. Though if he's willing to lose his cool over two extra minutes in the drive-thru line, I'd have to guess his are marginally worse...

11/05/2011 08:51:00 AM  
Blogger Cond0010 said...

Here's a nice video that talks about the negative filters we can have towards total strangers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfeXxkbgCVE

Very Nice.

11/05/2011 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

OT, East meets West

11/05/2011 09:20:00 AM  
Blogger mushroom said...

To clarify, I will say that I used the adverb "Vannishly" very tongue-in-cheek. I was really just meandering. Van is usually hammering his point home.

11/05/2011 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger horatio said...

On Ron Paul's foreign policy.

I am with him. I would rather be more free and live with more danger. End "Homeland Security", TSA, "PATRIOT act, etc.
Don't get me wrong-break into my house, you will be shot dead.
Liberty is dangerous. Security comes at a police state price.

11/06/2011 07:05:00 AM  
Blogger Rick said...

Scott Walker: 30 Century Man is on Netflix Instant.

11/06/2011 02:58:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Ron Paul? Seriously?
I mean, he may have a few good ideas irt the economy but that's easily eclipsed by his insanity.

Ron Paul the anti-semite? Ron Paul the "9/11 is the USA's fault?" Ron Paul the isolationist?
I could go on n' on about how idiotic Paul is.
He's the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP. The crazy uncle that everyone tries to avoid.

As you can probably tell I'm not a Ron Paul fan. And for good reason.

11/07/2011 01:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home