Because most people are not spiritual!

Because most people are not spiritual!

What the hell do you MEAN? I am not referring to something arbitrary or voluntary like the *law*. I am referring to something entirely INVOLUNTARY. I am talking about the incontrovertible presence of God in everything that we only PRETEND not to attend to.

Well, not everyone believes in that.

Shut the fuck up. I’m not buying it. It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not. I am talking just about the fact that for any SANE person every aspect of the material world is an entirely personal extension of the Self with its own Authority and Tenacity, that not one of these can one avail one’s self of as a means to an end without committing an infraction against one’s own Soul, that the technological mind-set is an evil that we try to drop like a drug, because in this mode of phenomenological inquiry the object is not honored as being both unitive and distinct, and everything has a kind of manic glow that evidences that we are floating in space and are dwarfed by the presence of Nature in everything. So Common Sense basically. [Andrew throws his arms in the air.]

I am all so talking about the basic fact that in all these things there is a teleology and a directionality in Time, for the game of symbols in our minds by which we devised a Chain of Being and a Utilitarian system of reasoning are not in any way related to this World, nor can they ever be, and so every seemingly cynical claim is just an invitation to deconstruct it, every rule an invitation to break it, because we all know that we are living in paradise and that this pretense towards hatred is a game because sanity its self dictates that we not mire our natural beholding of everything (as Love, as the Sun-like smile of a mother) with some artistic construct of the “Modern Man”, as though we turned a kaleidoscope and everything became fucked up, as though we and not Nature and God possessed God-like powers to deem the world “fallen” even as we hypocritically put down our selves by severance from it. I mean, come on. Common Sense. I LIKE pretending that’s not the state of things. But sometimes I just get tired of it.

Dm.A.A.

Because most people are not spiritual!

Because most people are not spiritual!

What the hell do you MEAN? I am not referring to something arbitrary or voluntary like the *law*. I am referring to something entirely INVOLUNTARY. I am talking about the incontrovertible presence of God in everything that we only PRETEND not to attend to.

Well, not everyone believes in that.

Shut the fuck up. I’m not buying it. It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not. I am talking just about the fact that for any SANE person every aspect of the material world is an entirely personal extension of the Self with its own Authority and Tenacity, that not one of these can one avail one’s self of as a means to an end without committing an infraction against one’s own Soul, that the technological mind-set is an evil that we try to drop like a drug, because in this mode of phenomenological inquiry the object is not honored as being both unitive and distinct, and everything has a kind of manic glow that evidences that we are floating in space and are dwarfed by the presence of Nature in everything. So Common Sense basically. [Andrew throws his arms in the air.]

I am all so talking about the basic fact that in all these things there is a teleology and a directionality in Time, for the game of symbols in our minds by which we devised a Chain of Being and a Utilitarian system of reasoning are not in any way related to this World, nor can they ever be, and so every seemingly cynical claim is just an invitation to deconstruct it, every rule an invitation to break it, because we all know that we are living in paradise and that this pretense towards hatred is a game because sanity its self dictates that we not mire our natural beholding of everything (as Love, as the Sun-like smile of a mother) with some artistic construct of the “Modern Man”, as though we turned a kaleidoscope and everything became fucked up, as though we and not Nature and God possessed God-like powers to deem the world “fallen” even as we hypocritically put down our selves by severance from it. I mean, come on. Common Sense. I LIKE pretending that’s not the state of things. But sometimes I just get tired of it.

Dm.A.A.

M.A.H.O.T.Po.C.M. 1

M.A.H.O.T.Po.C.M. 1

Myths and Hypocrisies of the Politically Correct Movement.

Reflections from a student of Philosophy, particularly Phenomenology.

Myth #1: Women are exploited by the mass media for their sexual appeal, thereby disempowered. In truth: Women consensually participate in music videos and stage performances that allow them to express their femininity, which includes their sexuality. One need never feel guilty for feeling a sense of attraction to them. (The same applies to men.) If one does, it all ways reveals an underlying insecurity about one’s own feeling. Keep in mind that we “notice” in Art really what we project our selves. It may in fact be there and be intended, but we cannot become aware of it without entertaining the possibility of it first.

Life is oft a struggle between the will to dominate and the will to love. Sexuality is a form of Love, whereas Ideology is an attempt to dominate. The will to power cannot comprehend Love except in its own terms. Hence Political Thought insists that the origin of sexual attraction is “social conditioning”. Yet in fact there is no such thing as a “definite society”. “Society” is all ways a projection of the individual psyche, because no two of us are exposed to the same sum total of people. What we find at fault with Society is therefore a projection of our selves.

Why, if Society is an individual phenomenon, does it appear to be pervasive and unitive? The answer is that Love is sparse and power is strong. The Astrological Community explains that this period in history (The Age of Pisces and Era of Pisces, as well as the Epoch of Pisces) is bound to be fraught with “false prophecy” and rigid systems of control. Fascism operates in such a way that a large mass of people believe in a Truth without having the nerve to question it, thus internalizing it, however dubious, out of fear and making it their ethical calculus rather than going by their own inner hearts and intuitions. College campuses are proliferated with hostility towards the individual, drawing attention only to history’s scapegoats while ignoring the inevitability that without a proper guiding light any one of us risks committing the same evil (in fact, moreso to the degree that we are swayed or enflamed by it).

Perhaps only a minority of women and only a minority of men have the raw nerve and power to be sexually empowered. These will be the kind of Strong class that make it to the top. The system is not corrupt, and whatever corruption exists within it is still manageable to the talented musician and entrepreneur.

Simply that these individuals (and I am thinking specifically of women) “conform” to a “sexual standard” is nothing more than a reflection of the hostile power attitude that looks at its own attraction with scorn and thereby label and project their own distorted views of sexuality upon the art. Whatever conformity may be apparent is to Nature, not to society or ideology. Since “conforming to society” is all ways done poorly, revealed in its earliest attempts to be a neurotic reaction to one’s own narcissistic projection, the sense of confidence that these women employ should be evidence to the contrary: They are powerful individuals. The only question is: Do YOU have the nerve to admit that you are attracted to them? Or do you lapse into Power and a feeble imitation of Goodness that seems strong because of the façade put on by others in the Cultural Marxist, Politically Correct Movement? Whatever your choice, do not blame others for your own desires. (This is of course directed primarily at men, but to be safe I will extend this to women and invite them all so to examine the men in these videos in a similar light.)

Dm.A.A.

On the Death of Science.

On the Death of Science.

When I was younger, (Well, I all ways was younger, ostensibly.) I took a college-level class in Biology while I was in high school. I did not do very well in the class, but that ought not to count against me except as an emotional appeal to Authority. Many of my peers who had once known and prized my company for being “smart” had now lost touch with me in their pursuits of impressive Grade-Point Averages, with varying degrees of ethicality in the process. Me: The leaves and even the branches of the educational tree were beginning to fall off for me.

I had been an avid reader as a student (Well, I had all most all ways been a student.), and yet I was all ways cautious to segregate the frame of reference that was fantasy in literature from the immediate Reality of my experience. Camus’ Nostalgia for Unity had all ready become apparent to me, however anonymously: How much I longed to escape into the world of Harry Potter, with its aesthetic perfection, even though this life abounded in many joys and Harry Potter too was not without its sorrows.

There was a simple and direct reason that, every Wednesday that Brick’s Biology Class had a mandatory laboratory “experiment”, I would lag behind my partner, whose passionless fervour for grades would render her impenetrable to me. I could never find it in my heart to relate the words I had pored passionlessly over in the overwrought text-book to the immediacy of my experience; it would have been the same mad, Romantic fallacy as had I projected the qualities of the Ideal Woman, coupled with and filtered through my memories of my current mate, upon that very mate and claimed to “know” her. Yet my partner had no trouble in doing this, and she made it into one of the good schools.

What I would come to learn much later was that there was a good reason why I had grown to distrust and ultimately jettison science. Derrida would have probably called it a “logocentric epistemology”. I learned the hard way, from the afore-mentioned Romanticism, that this sort of spirited attitude, a manifestation of the kind of Sisyphian Hope that Camus spoke of, that science in fact does not work in Real Life.

Dm.A.A.

Dream Journal

Dream Journal

At one point in the dream, prior to the climactic episode, I saw a news head-line cross the bar at the bottom of a television screen. This was in a metropolitan area. Having escaped, somehow, the underground facility that I had been trapped in for months (lower chakra vibrations), I was now in the midst of a bustling metropolis that I recognize from earlier dreams: The District. This area looked akin to the Apple headquarters and downtown UCSD, as prior dreams had portrayed it (as with Oleg).

The head-line, in the midst of some vacuous skyscraper interior (I think), open to the air by many balconies like an airport (in aesthetic) that offered no escape by virtue of their height but were at least not claustrophobia-inspiring, however bureaucratic and impersonal, read: “Materialists report that there are still immaterialists/immanents in the world.”

My wandering about, pondering this message in frustration, at once with its self for the public insolence it portrayed and with myself for being unable to abandon it as a concern, segued into my return from the emporium to my neighbourhood.

I dreamt that there were three creatures that I had to save. Actually, if I am to be honest, there were two. Returning from a sort of emporium, I discovered, at night-time on my street (which again was a host to a bustling home where the Qafiti residence would be in Actual Life), that there were several animals running about the street. Two I took into my care: A cat and a rat. I thought that they would be great additions to my family. A coyote, if not several, were pacing the streets, and I worried that they might consume the cat and rat. I tried to hold them in my arms, as though I were grappling with Pumpkin. I was terrified. It is all so possible that Pumpkin was out and about as well at this time, though I doubt this in context of what followed. My father drove by, and I was thrilled at the opportunity to stow my newfound friends in the family van. I did so, and to my chagrin I found him fairly inattentive. Thankfully, in retrospect, his neurosis was not of a hostile, angry character. Yet my rage made up for this fact. I had to keep reminding him to be careful and not to let them escape.

He drove us home, where Pumpkin met my new friends. Soon, I miss-placed the rat. I was furious, panicking, and I troubled my father about this. This might have been the following day, when we were on our way again to the emporium. There was a big event taking place. My father kept assuring me that the rat was safe, though he provided no evidence for this fact. My rage and angst were reaching a breaking-point when I discovered, in the back of the car, what looked like a stuffed animal. The creature, which appears now to have been a hedgehog, had a zipper like Awilda’s pencil case in Actual Life. I opened it to find my rat inside, alive and safe. My father’s assurances, however feeble, seemed justified, but only, I might think, incidentally. He did not know, surely, about the pencil-case, but it seems impossible to ascertain.

Dm.A.A.

In Defense of Higher Consciousness

In Defense of Higher Consciousness

Higher Consciousness and Altered States of Consciousness are totally things. I need not corroborate this claim, but I will explain why some deny it, to my chagrin, and why they are wrong.

Enculturation is the arrangement of symbols in such a way that perception is confined to certain rules. Imagine the mind as a series of switches. At times, enough of these switches are On, and they create a brilliant pattern of light and colour that we call the Universe. Yet whenever this occurs, Levitch’s scorned “Anti-Cruise” comes in, and it begins to flip them off. Having adequately silenced them, for it has “all the authority of Reason” and the Light has only the “authority of Tenacity and Faith”, Reason flatters its self like a pompous tyrant: See, there was never anything to that after all. In fact, in fact, this is a banal claim. All that Reason could fairly attest to is the current condition, once it has been subverted to Reason. The reasoning is circular: It is “only so” because it is “only so”, and we shall render it “merely so” to prove that it is “merely so”. The very process of thought is the flipping of switches – the re-arrangement of ideas and perceptions – in accord with an existing [set of] prejudice[s]. Most poets will attest to this.

All Life is a series of, as Foucault pointed out, Similarities and Differences. Every style of thinking, including Reason, is a different permutation of these facts. You would not KNOW how to deem one opinion superior to another were it not, as you should have to ultimately admit, a matter of aesthetic preference. Different ideas as seen to be related to each other in a way that creates a given aesthetic, such as Reasonable or Mad, et cetera. The nature of this aesthetic cannot be ultimately quantified in Words, for it is the Space of which Words are the Matter; it transcends words, and it MUST do so, for otherwise it would have no authority. Yet we usually, as Watts pointed out, pay attention to the Form and ignore the Background.

Every set of philosophical presuppositions and proclamations is thereby valued by the degree to which it creates a given state of consciousness. All arguments in favour of one style of thinking over another are appeals to preference; one values one state of consciousness over another. Philosophy is ultimately the exploration of states of consciousness, and it cannot be a discipline that exercises discretion were it not that some states of consciousness must thereby be labeled “higher” than others, or in some other way superior. (Let’s not belabor the semantics.)

To out-rightly deny someone’s experience in this respect is to be a poor philosopher. Theoretically, higher consciousness is available to anyone. At any rate, Truth cannot be expected to be readily available to all “Rational” beings, when many of its permutations are transrational. It is an attitude of ignorance and entitlement to demand proof for such as phenomenon without having worked to attain it. Philosophy can go in one of two ways now: Either the perpetuation of existing aesthetics through the manipulation of symbols, or through the exploration of new aesthetics by the same token, foregoing Familiarity for Novelty.

Dm.A.A.

God Does Not Play Dice (Or if He does, He is no Mere Gambler).

God Does Not Play Dice (Or if He does, He is no Mere Gambler).

It is a fallacy to refer to God as though He were a law-maker prone to human error. The Paradox of the Law-giver out not to upset the intellectual, however restless, even at the very start.

The paradox reads: A law-giver has no a priori value according to which to ascertain the virtue of his law. Only once he has made a decision does that law become just (and virtuous), after the fact. [a posteriori.]

This means that a human law-giver is all ways arbitrary. The human in this example tries to be God, effectively, in the way that many have misconstrued God. Now, the fact that this is a paradox [and I use “fact” liberally and loosely] ought not to bother one. As Kierkegaard pointed out, God is a paradox. But even regarding the brilliance of Kierkegaard’s phenomenology, this may appear like a vacant appeal to Authority.

This paradox is prejudiced in favour of Atheism from the start. Only if there is no Divine Grace to hold the law-giver’s hand is his action arbitrary. Were God present to administer laws, the decisions of the person of Pure Faith would no longer be arbitrary, even if in meeting a challenge the human is still prone to botch it as in any well-designed video game.

So remains the question: Is God arbitrary? Is He comparable to the human law-giver? The paradox never raised contention, at least on the surface, with God’s existence, but rather with his nature as administrator. Yet one need go no further than our own human administration systems to see that, despite apparent disappointments (exaggerated poetically in the eyes of a cynic) owing to human error, as in the case of the human law-giver that botches a Divine Project, on the whole a system can be much more effective and efficient, to a mystifying and miraculous degree that is never fully comprehended by any one of its parts [like Kafka’s Law], than an individual operating in isolation.

So is God arbitrary? If God is a system that encompasses all of existence, its Order is PROBABLY of a higher degree of both efficiency and mystery than just the experience of a human being operating in His absence. So how is the one, a system of relative chaos from the perspective of contemporary physics, to judge fairly the nature of a Divine Order [again, from the perspective of Physics, everything is in Harmony, and one might infer that this harmony is no mere Baroque Cadence] by COMPARISON WITH ITS SELF?

In truth, all arbitrariness is the absence of comparison. We make decisions THINKING them to be arbitrary but IGNORING the possibility (and probability, given dreams and other evidence of a transcendent Unconscious) that our actions are guided by more intelligent motives. Is Revelation not the comprehension of these motives, and Grace not the surrender to them (which is not a pitiable surrender but a bearing of grave responsibility)?

When an action is arbitrary, we judge it to be so because of our own masculinist prejudices. Why should something Random and Chaotic by reduced to an inferior position? Given a more integrated view, does this not resolve the problem of Evil? Perhaps all talk of God’s Goodness is merely consolation for us who worry so much about man-made laws of Bad and Good. Perhaps GREAT and AWESOME are over-used in secular conversation.

There is another prejudice immanent in this inquiry. It is that if Man following God is not arbitrary, God at least, as the Ground and the Ultimate Bureacrat, is. Yet what does it means to be arbitrary? When we judge our selves to be arbitrary in our actions, we feel that we fail to meet the “a priori necessity” of providing justification and warrant for our action. Yet all such things, in a world that is fundamentally NOT hierarchical, are merely comparisons to other things that we have done in the past or, if we are more sophisticated thinkers, objects of concern within our present(s). So we are arbitrary to the degree that we appear to be disconnected. [As Heidegger pointed out, Appearance (or Semblance) is Reality, inextricably, in different forms, to speak in scientific language. No false dichotomies, please.] But a Supreme Unity by this definition could never be Disconnected. As Schoenpenhauer put it, what appears at first to be a paradox is seen later to have been incontrovertible: A truism. The root of our problem at the beginning was that we construed of God as the Ground of Being upon which everything was founded, but we did not comprehend Him as including all that was “founded upon it”. In fact, no notion of a “foundation” (which is “arbitrary”) should any longer be necessary.

Dm.A.A.