Romeo I is not

Romantic love is so crazy. It perplexes me. There’s this idea that people have gotten in their heads that there’s some other half out there (who we need or yearn for emotionally) that will put an end to our suffering or make us happy. I heard a talk by Ajahn Brahmavamso back in the day where he says that romance goes back to to 14th century troubadours or something of that ilk. I’d like to agree and write it off that way, but what about all the Greek myths and plays about tragedy and love? Love, an emotional attachment filled with sexual longing and hyper-real fantasy is an ancient drive. (And before you get all emotionally twisted, just remember — I’m not saying romantic love is purely a fantasy)

I’ve been known to talk about how having kids removes all the time from one’s schedule. Well, you know what? So does having a job, or a lover, or a really cheesy blog. Tonight my friend mentioned how he read a study indicating that wealthier people often have higher levels of stress or anxiety. He jokingly mentioned we can either be poor or unhappy. And romance didn’t even come into the equation! I wonder if romance even has much to do with happiness? Ack! But the drives are so powerful!

I’ve encountered a fair number of people practicing martial arts or various self-defense ideas (guns/weapons, business rhetoric, law, and so forth) and a large number of them are doing it because they want to protect their families. Fair enough — who doesn’t? It’s just… you have to be careful you don’t become a mobster.

For example, I knew a really good martial arts master — one who I otherwise admire for a variety of reasons including his martial skill — who once mentioned to me over dinner, that if someone ever sold any of his kids drugs, he’d slit the person’s throat. That statement has always disturbed me on an ethical level. Because people are in a constant process of change, and I know from experience that not all people do various things (drugs, religion, martial arts) for the same reasons. It’s not like only one person is at fault when distributing drugs.

Killing is not something I condone, and it’s a pretty pathetic action to take when it can be avoided. It would seem that most murders are done in emotional states, often spurned by romance. So many fights are over romantic or lustful interests. I’d like to think males wouldn’t fight so much if there were no women to impress, but then again look at prisons or private schools (but then again, those people are in shackles…).

Romance is complicated because it is never satiated or satisfied. It is in a constantly changing process. Relationship gurus and so forth talk about how loving relationships mature and grow and change, but they’re the same as all other relationships except sex is involved. Sure sure, that makes all the difference I guess.

If you wanna get all metaphysical about it, physical love is the ultimate distraction. And sexual desire is the main fetter tying one to existence. But cosmic love, that’s a different thing entirely. I ain’t raggin’ on that one, ya heard?

And if you is wondering: I’m not celibate. I’m a chump like everyone else.

How can I go on? (more anonymity)

As you may have seen, I did an amazing post about anonymity recently. I think anonymity is a pretty interesting concept in general. As long as one is anonymous, truly anonymous, one does not have a concrete identity. Wouldn’t you say that’s the case? Even a supposedly anonymous online identity is not completely anonymous so long as you’re interacting with other people to some degree. It just becomes another identity you create, a further manifestation of your ego, your duality.

So, by my reasoning, as soon as you have any identity you cease to be completely anonymous. And to conclude that train of thought, anonymity represents the sea of endless identity-potentiality. It almost does not — or cannot — exist.

When we talk about maintaining anonymity, it can only really refer to blending in with the mass or crowd. We have no independent or unique attributes assigned to us. So… on some level we can have an identity and be anonymous if we cause no attention to our identity. But then what is the point of it all?

I think Hatsumi is always referring to ideas along these lines in his books on ninpo. I think this is what people mean when they talk about being able to become invisible. Serious illusions work on this level — they draw your attention away from minute details so that your perception is dulled. Actually, all illusions work on this level, but to varying degrees of subtlety and manifestation.

A basic example (which might apply exclusively to males?) is when you see a group of girls walking together. The larger the group of girls, the more attractive they seem — as a group. This is because your mind tacks together all of the attractive qualities of these women in your sense field. But upon closer investigation, one realizes that no single individual is particularly attractive. (Sorry if that sounded sexist. I’m still a schoolboy at heart, I guess, hahaha!)

The same example can be used with almost anything. Individuality is more like a unique series of flaws. We see other people in life and society and we think they are happy or productive or functional or healthy, but upon deeper investigation it is revealed that they are all equally “damaged”.

Isn’t that so wickedly strange? Our imperfections are our definitions? I mean, sure we all have our virtues too but virtues seem to evade definition. Perfection doesn’t exist. Or it does, but its existence is non-existence. Or something.

So, when people are forced into having identities, it’s functioning to point out the imperfections of the individual. Individuality is imperfection, and imperfection is easy to criticize. Having internet identification, or mandatory voting cards, or whatever else: these are methods to control people. Isolating them from the fluidity required to have energy.

Simply shine a light on a single person and point out their flaws and the rest will eat him alive. The fundamental methodology of politics and media.

Willie B. spills it

Got no time for a real post today/tonight/whenever-I-am. So, instead I thought I’d just do one of those lazy things blog people do where they post quotes from other people who are better writers. But I’m doing it with someone really obscure: William Blake! I bet you don’t know who he is!

You’ll be able to impress all the ladies (or gentlemen too, I guess, but most guys are animals with strong desires, weak wills, and no ability to gauge character so it doesn’t matter what you say to them at social gatherings, ahaha!) with these quotes!

From The Marriage of Heaven and Hell…

Quote #1: Voice of the Devil (Plate 4)

All Bibles or sacred codes, have been the causes of the following Errors.

1. That Man has two real existing principles Viz: a Body & a Soul.
2. That Energy, call’d Evil, is alone from the Body, & that Reason, call’d Good, is alone from the Soul.
3. That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his Energies.

But the following Contraries to these are True.

1. Man has no Body distinct from his Soul; for that call’d Body is a portion of Soul discern’d by the five Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age.
2. Energy is the only life and is from the Body and Reason is the bound or outward circumference of Energy.
3. Energy is Eternal Delight.

Quote #2: A Memorable Fancy (6 & 7) — this way this one opens is just too good! Too good I say!

As I was walking among the fires of hell, delighted with the enjoyments of Genius; which to Angels look like torment and insanity, I collected some of their Proverbs; thinking that as the sayings used in a nation, mark its character, so the Proverbs of Hell, shew the nature in Infernal wisdom better than any description of buildings or garments,

When I came home: on the abyss of the five senses, where a flat sided steep frowns over the present world, I saw a mighty Devil folded in black clouds, hovering on the sides of the rock, with corroding fires he wrote the following sentence now percieved by the minds of men, & read by them on earth.

How do you know but ev’ry Bird that cuts the airy way,
Is an immense world of delight, clos’d by your senses five?

Quote #3: A Memorable Fancy (12 & 13)

The Prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel dined with me, and I asked them how they dared so roundly to assert, that God spoke to them; and whether they did not think at the time, that they would be misunderstood, & so be the cause of imposition.

Isaiah answer’d, I saw no God, nor heard any, in a finite organical perception; but my senses discover’d the infinite in every thing, and as I was then perswaded, & remain confirm’d; that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God, I cared not for consequences but wrote.

Then I asked: does a firm perswasion that a thing is so, make it so?

He replied, All poets know that it does, & in ages of imagination this firm perswasion removed mountains; but many are not capable of a firm perswasion of any thing.

That’s enough for now. Go get a copy or find it online, kids. Incidentally, you should look up Swedenborg before/after reading this. He was a Swedish theologian mystic (like Blake but minus the crazy wisdom) who was the subject of much of Blake’s criticisms during this work.

You can’t HANDLE the truth!

What’s all this business about truth? How is truth even an idea? I mean, we have no conception of truth and yet it’s this constantly invasive succubus of the human experience. The apple of our collective eye: objective reality! And then even when it’s experienced, it can’t be communicated without a subjective explanation or presentation (to say nothing of the subjective impressions others would take from it). Pretty weird.

From what I’ve gandered, truth is tied up in belief. Like, truth can’t exist without some sort of substantial belief in its existence. So, truth is some kind of essence, some kind of boiled-down objective definition of things; it’s a definition humanity is obsessed with. This is why everyone humps the leg of science so much, (although actually math is the real objective deal) because we seek to find some sort of objective experience to agree upon.

Of course, science only creates an objectively agreed upon set of measurements, whereas we can never actually agree upon the nature of our experiences. Science isn’t going to tell us which composer is the best, or which person is the most compassionate or evil, or why we exist. Science can’t tell us what love is, where it comes from or how to cure love-sickness. And aren’t those the kinds of things we really really want to know?! Boo, science! Boo-urns!

So truth is an illusion. Unless… our illusions are holding us back from perceiving truth?! What’s funny to me is that none of this is worth writing about and contemplating, unless you’re getting a humorous kick out of it. Seriously, who are we kidding? We’re not getting anywhere close to truth in this post. If anything, we’re getting more confused. Especially with this guy on board.

Basically, you make your own truth. You make your own reality, The Secret, Oprah, blah blah blah. Eh… no, but seriously — you create the effluents of your mind and your abilities. Problem is, most people don’t know that and when they get a glimpse of it or see it prematurely, they just want stupid shallow junk out of it (hence Oprah’s promotional stance). Magic powers are actually for poor people (only ascetics have them, lolz!!!). You could also say they’re for people who possess a filthy rich imagination.

If ya believe in something strongly enough it can become true, right? The problem is people have weak belief. They believe in something desperately. They really want to believe they’ll go to heaven, they want to put their blind faith in someone else. Of course, at the same time if you believe in something long enough it colors everything that surrounds you. So…no matter how stupid and miserable your beliefs, they can still adapt to and manifest within your surroundings by virtue of the limited (or is that unlimited?) perception of your mind. Which makes you wonder why any religion is any better than another, since the individual is just placing the whole damn universe within the context of a limited religious view and then coloring the universe with that filter.

I can hear you now: “Oh Wizard Smoke, your observations are so quaint and obvious.”

Well then here’s a question, smarty-pants: after you realize that everything is just a matter of your own belief — that all actions and abilities are simply self-lulled states of hypnotic belief which are manifestations of cosmic potential — can you still believe in things? Or does that leave one completely empty? I mean, can you follow through with something without thinking there’s some fantastic goal or ending waiting for you after the task is done? Or is that the magical moment of hishiryo, where the notion of beginning and ending all drop away?

Demons and their Buddha-nature

Buddha nature is a term thrown around a lot, particularly by Zen people and new-agers. But what does it refer to? Buddha nature is supposed to be the inherently primordial, stainless substance that all things have as their original being. Even the worst people and things, the ugliest humans or fungus, are originally stainless and pure of mind. Or something like that.

This builds up to the concept that Ch’an and Zen people throw around (I don’t recall where it originates from) that “you’re already enlightened, you just don’t realize it yet!” which sounds a lot more like new-age blabber than a useful tool for waking up. Realizing buddha-nature means you realize the primordial root of all things. You understand with your entire body and mind (really your mind, since your body is a portion of your mind) that all beings are built upon a base of a primordial crystalline essence.

See, when we say some crap like “even Hitler has Buddha-nature” it doesn’t mean that secretly Hitler was a nice guy and just didn’t know it. It means that Hitler’s causal chain of existence, the potential of his form and being, was superimposed on top of the primordial empty and stainless essence of all phenomena. He could only exist as a result of, and in contrast to, this source. Even nasty or confusing or complicated people are ultimately just complex and knotted manifestations of the fundamental source. When a person can unravel the entanglements that create these manifestations and see it for what it is, they take major steps toward enlightenment or full realization.

The extreme manifestation of this is a demon. A demon is a large manifestation in the mindstream, in the fabric of pure essence that refuses to acknowledge the fundamental source and return to it. A demon creates a stasis, like an iceberg, in the fabric of the mind. A demon is the ultimate manifestation of personal will, desire and potentiality. The reason a demon requires such fervent desire, is because the fabric of existence is always switching between dualities; the gravity of karma is always pulling us apart. But a demon desires to maintain a consistent existence within an extreme duality. Thus it requires immense desire and self-belief, self-love and a horrific threshold for pain.

In classical Greek numerology, 9 is the number furthest from the source of phenomena (the source is represented by 0). 9 is the strongest manifestation in the world of forms and identity. 9 appears in religious connotations as well, for related reasons. 9 symbolizes potent worldly presence and perhaps infinite exponential potential (since 9 is the result of adding together the digits of any multiplied product of 9). So, 9 symbolizes the ultimate in desire and belief.

I don’t know what the popular consensus on the meaning of the term “Buddha nature” is, and I’d wager that my own explanation would make some of the more fundamentalist, dogmatic Buddhists say that I’m going to hell or some such nonsense. But I rarely see this stuff explained very thoroughly. A buddha is the eye of the cosmic mind, the unclouded understanding of all things. A demon is the “hand” or active spring of energy and desire.

Ah, who am I fooling? This post doesn’t get at these ideas nearly as well as Blake did (unsurprisingly) all those years ago:

I heard an Angel Singing

When the day was springing:

“Mercy, pity, and peace,

Are the world’s release.”

So he sang all day

Over the new-mown hay,

Till the sun went down,

And the haycocks looked brown.

I heard a devil curse

Over the heath and the furse:

“Mercy vould be no more

If there were nobody poor,

And pity no more could be

If all were happy as ye:

And mutual fear brings peace,

Misery’s increase

Are mercy, pity, and peace.”

At his curse the sun went down,

And the heavens gave a frown.

–William Blake, The Two Songs

Vows

Religious ordinations often contain precepts and vows. What is the significance of a vow? When one makes a vow or resolute promise — when one decides to live by a code — the results or effects of that code immediately project themselves throughout society and the world. Even without devoting a conscious effort to vows, they influence one’s mind and actions. So, if one promises to abstain from killing absolutely anything in the world, the world rests a little easier, being absent of one more potential killer.

What’s so bad about breaking vows, is that they render the initial vow to be meaningless. Vows are only powerful as long as they are kept, but they gain potency and strength as the duration of their vow is increasingly fulfilled. In breaking a vow, the falling rhythm of karma and causality begins to turn and further vows of the same sort are less sincere or powerful as a result. And on a more mundane level, this explains people who repeatedly take up a practice and quit, or are constantly trying new things but stick with none of them. These are all weak vows which dilapidate with their inconsistency.

It’s strange how, in the beginning of a person’s desire for wisdom or knowledge or whatever, they look all over the place for it. They throw themselves into all sorts of esoteric crap and profound philosophies and practices in order to discover some kind of truth. But then, after all avenues have been exhausted, one does what comes naturally to their person. On a more mundane level, this is how many politicians begin careers: the ambition and enthusiasm to change the corruption inherent to systems of law. And of course they all end up following the path of least resistance.

Okay, so maybe it’s a little different than the ambitions of a politician. But… looking for enlightenment in the wrong place can end up the same way, except one ends up completely at the bottom of desire and chaos. The eye of the tempest! Kinda weird how those who seek to maintain positions of order end up maintaining chaos. That’s what they’re protecting you against in religions when they say you must kill yourself (metaphorically, of course).

What to do…

Anonymity

So, if you’re wondering why I keep my identity anonymous, you might be disappointed to know it’s not for any big secretive reason. I’m not some super famous person (yet), nor am I using this condition as a big ego-trip. Frankly, I think exposing my ethnicity and background would only serve to color people’s perceptions of my musings here. I mean, sure I’ve dropped some hints (you know I’m a dude, right?) but anything more would probably alienate some people. Not that I care what other people think of me, but at least this way opinions are almost exclusively based on my writing.

For the same reason I don’t wax politically here (at least not too blatantly), I don’t like to wear my agenda on my sleeve. You could figure out who I am, but what would that prove? Too many people write with agendas or slants or self-interest in mind. Not that I don’t, but I find anonymity is a nice way of leaving it behind temporarily. It allows this blog to exist apart from me. I don’t tell my real life friends about this blog nor point them toward it. For that I have other ones I write on, which are more closely linked to what I do in my day to day life.

Anonymity is a unique gift of the internet. And it is disappearing rapidly. It exists now under only a thin veil, one which can be seen through if a person cares enough to do so. Every time I post a comment on another blog, the blog-owner can find out where I am from and who my internet provider is. Furthermore, the provider knows what network my address is on and to whom it is registered. Of course, I am drawing attention to myself by not agreeing to provide adequate identification on this blog, are I not? It may seem like a draw or catch to pull people in, but it isn’t. I am quite happy if anyone finds this work to be of value. But what I value is a potential of anonymity itself. For does anonymity not also represent that phase of infinite potential from which all definitions and identities arise?

Furthermore, the recent protests against Scientology by an internet group of nerds, punks, hackers and so forth, calling themselves only by “anonymous”, has proven the necessity of non-identification in a society where more and more people fear the consequences of open dissent against unjust institutions. Whether or not this is the renegade group’s intention, to raise the ethical question of identity in a society afraid to combat its own shadows, the case has been opened. Too much of society is falling under the control and mandate of a higher institution. The only thing that protects people from unjust law is the ability to make mass decisions as a group. Outliers and independent thinkers bring attention and calamity upon themselves. In other words, the only anonymity is in fitting in.

In older times, identification was not easy. Indeed, passports were not necessary to travel abroad until after World War I. There were not as many people in the world, and yet people were not easily identified. The only people easily identifiable by appearance would be the noblemen and aristocrats financially worthy of a portrait or photograph. Even these images were in limited circulation.

The role of identity in the modern world is a static and drab one. Modern market-driven society aggressively seeks to define us and demands us to define ourselves in relation to it — largely through the products and goals it has predetermined for us to entertain. We have been fooled into thinking our identity or uniqueness is our ability to consume products we “choose”, that our tastes have any real substance, that Myspace or Facebook are anything more than a precursor of online monitoring or electric eyes. The government does not need to ostracize and label outlying citizens as heretics, for often society will do it voluntarily. Within the younger demographics of today’s modern society, it is a lack of presence on such online social networks that is strange, and which raises questions.

The world and its power structures are always trying to define each of us, to identify and categorize us — as an investment or a threat. Fortunately, the true fabric of identity comes from the imagination and the mind. Thus an adept can change their identity as they see fit. External appearances are necessary, but manipulations of appearance are easy and only a shallower layer of illusion (although some of the most shallow things are the most broad, a haha!). Identity may be the cause of suffering, but that gives no one else the right to impose identity upon us.

Delete Yourself (Part III)

There’s really no agreed upon point to existence. Not that existence is devoid of meaning, but there’s no complete consensus on what meaning is. Actually, it’s not like a concise point to anything could even exist; or that it would change anything if we knew what it was. For all we know, we’ve heard the real-deal meaning of existence a bajillion times in different mystical forms and it has made absolutely zero difference in our lives. But that’s an obvious point there, isn’t it?

In olden times, before technology and the human populace were so widespread and commonplace, life moved a lot slower. Communication took longer and people were not constantly multi-tasking. There was time to contemplate things, or rather, perceive things. Nowadays it seems like stuff has to be happening right in front of our eyes to seem like any progress is being made. Perhaps our thought patterns have changed with industrial lifestyles to scheme or analyze instead of praying or imagining. Who knows.

I actually consider attachment to our heavy thinking to be a result of not having enough time, that it comes from anxiety. I think the romantics and existentialists and so on didn’t necessarily think a whole lot more than anyone else, but their lives crossed a modicum of perception and awareness with a penchant for serious academic understanding crossed with new ethical progresses.

Modern technological life tends to make life physically easier on our bodies (even though intense mental work is supposed to be even more taxing on the body) and the average life span is longer. But this is also a side-effect of humanity’s tendency to hoard life. Materialism is a blatant symptom of the attempt to own and possess things, all of which are inherently devoid of a self in the ultimate sense. But whaddya gonna do? People search for answers in their own ways, and all humans across time have desired a solution or a way to ease the pain. Because… doesn’t pain get us all in the end?

One question of philosophy and religion: Is there a self or no self? A lot of people have some kind of awakening experience or read a bunch of Indian philosophy and then declare that “all is one”. But really, isn’t that still a sense of self? When we say all things are interdependent, that they’re all reflections of other actions, isn’t that more akin to the idea that all is zero? I get that impression from Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s talks and writings. He’s mentioned how people will attach themselves to the ecstatic feelings of union they encounter in meditative states. But that just results in a really huge, expansive sense of self. Not to mention, when people really dig on those experiences or talk about having them a lot, it just means they aren’t that experienced with them. Or they haven’t learned much from them. It’s like the folks who get really good at martial arts and then enjoy beating people up or asserting their power. They’re missing the point of the skill.

As one matures on the quest to destroy (or unroot) suffering, one begins to see formerly pleasurable actions as boring. It begins with the simpler things in life and progresses onto sensual cravings and so forth. One experiences the awareness that their end result is suffering. Again — these things are realized with the body, not intellectually.

But how is this insight into the suffering of activities different from the perspective of nihilism? After all, nihilism is a sense of boredom too, a sense of disenchantment. I think it really lies in the fact that a non-nihilistic person experiencing the fruits of realization will simply side-step boring or unwise activities without analyzing them very much or obsessing over activities before they happen, whereas the nihilist sits and is bored or exhausted by all things because they will not ultimately yield any permanent or satisfying results. The nihilist is enchanted by doubt and criticism, phases which we all go through from time to time.

But you know, it’s funny because when you do things without speculation upon them, they do yield lasting and permanent results in your life experience. It’s just not the visible, empirical, measurable activity portion which has that result — it’s your relationship to the activity and its effect upon your field of perception. I don’t really like science, but when I read a page about the theory of “bubble universes”, it made perfect sense within my intuitive sense of the cosmos. Of course universes appear and pop or shrink like bubbles. The cosmos is a mind stream. What a crazy dream is all is.

Which reminds me… about that non-dual “life is a dream” new-age stuff: It’s not wrong, it’s just that it doesn’t help anyone to tell us life is a dream. Not unless the philosophy is actually going to give us hints or a practice strategy as to how to get out of the dream or see it for ourselves. ‘Coz just brainwashing yourself with a mantra into thinking life is a dream is a pretty depressing way to live it out.

But then it is a dream on some level, just like everything I create flows away from me with its own existence. And from really high above, the dream looks gorgeous and beautiful. Kind of like how we look at a cityscape from high above. Up close, the city looks polluted and dirty, but from high above the grand scheme of it all can be seen. It’s not that the city does not still have problems, but it becomes a marvelous work of art.

Life is like that too, when seen from a distance. Even periods of depression or anger… they just look quaint or charming (and sometimes funny or sad) when we reflect on them later during disease or old age. Only the good times matter, right? Maybe that’s why even terrible people can delude themselves into thinking they lived as a good person. Who wants to cling onto the negative experiences or perceptions of a life?

Incredible, that even this whole universe is nothing but a single teardrop. Ultimately, “it will all be lost, like tears in rain.” That’s what is so bittersweet about this whole ordeal. When we desire some grand ultimate truth, or some profound and concrete meaning, or the secret to life, we’ve just got problems with our own ego. But you gotta do what you love, so if you love that…

The Answer

What is the answer to it all? The conclusion? It seems when we break everything apart, there are just fundamental dynamics and laws which compose phenomena and a bunch of temporal beings which exist in the midst of it all. Ya know: people and animals and gods coming together under the power of belief and the law of karma. But there do not appear to be real answers — no conclusive periods of final spiritual rest.

I’ve long since given up on philosophy as providing an answer or satisfying solution to any problems. Not that I find it uninteresting, and I still read some of it. But as I’ve been prone to say, philosophy seems to be intense artistic rumination on the various branches of thought that exist in dualistic reality. Unfortunately, thought itself is not a means to freedom because thought works circularly or in a rhythm. Thoughts eventually pop, or must come reeling back to the mind. And within all one-sided conclusions or analysis (a la scientific experiments) there is always a reactionary thought or some kind of conundrum. Almost all conclusions of a personal conviction and dualistic nature are only true by the strength or determination of our own efforts.

So, it seems on some level we exist purely by our own belief and following the strengths of our own convictions. Which seemingly agrees with and contradicts Nietzsche’s theory of drives. Nietzsche didn’t really believe in free will and Sartre liked to hop around an exact definition of freedom. Sartre begins to sound like “A” from Kierkegaard’s Either/Or (Sartre was also an extreme-left sympathizer/apologist, who condoned even horrible atrocities in the name of Communism). I’d like to think that the freedom that can exist within the realm of existentialism is the freedom of belief.

Freedom of belief (as I’ll temporarily define existentialist belief on my own terms) is not a conscious freedom of choice, but of a freedom to accumulate one’s own value structure and believe one’s own perceptions. That is, one is free to believe whatever one wishes, and what makes it more true than another’s beliefs is simply the conviction one carries with it. One does not have the freedom to do whatever one wishes, since there are laws in the world and the cosmos, but one is potentially free to color their mind with whatever perceptions they choose. One may perceive any event in any way they so desire.

In fact, this is inherent to the nature of occult practice, of which modern (athiestic) philosophy is acquainted. Sometimes I wonder if the deepest occult realizations are not also the heart of the intellectual mind — a realm of infinite complexity where occult and intellectual cease to exist as useful designations.

In existential terms the only good things seem to be those which are interesting or pleasurable. Thus, for those people who cannot see the karmic result of following their drives, this kind of philosophy is dangerous. But then again how can one, especially a so-called philosopher, believe in something they don’t see or create for themselves? It is a complicated thing, to intellectually assess free will, and I doubt it has any solutions.

The real problem I see with a lot of modern philosophers is that their message is not as profound as their ability to write. Instead of a consistent rhythm of insight, their writings often also consist of excess decorations of boredoms and insecurities. It’s no surprise that lots of black magick texts feature these shortcomings as well: an inability to boil down, condense and concisely transmit a meaningful statement and message. If one’s mind is disheveled, unorganized and constantly distracted, how could one hope to find the answer?

Heart of the Cult (Part II)

One interesting facet of any organized group, business or cause is the way they constantly gain and lose members. There is no permanently solidified heart of the group. There may be owners or icons whom run the group, but they do not control their creation so much as direct it. They do not have complete control over their creation. Anyone who has worked in a chain restaurant or store knows that the store employees have no real connection to the chain owners. The establishment remains regardless of who works there.

In some sense I am saying that once something is created and promulgated in the world, (like a business, social cause, philosophical or political theory, new technological medium, and so forth) it is impossible to completely disassemble it or undo it. It now has roots of its own, it can continue to exist upon the fantasies and drives and power-lust of new people who wish to entertain its existence. It exists of its own blind magnetism to weaknesses in the human psyche. The Japanese film, Suicide Club actually explores this concept — the impersonal replication of the cult — in a very effective way. I found it to be a disturbing movie in that sense.

Just like a body shedding its cells, groups shed their members until the group is composed of almost entirely different individuals. And just as the human body is composed of completely different cells in seven years time and yet maintains a personal likeness (despite the physical changes that have taken place), a group’s membership is composed of completely different members after a certain period. Of course, the group has changed a bit, just as humans have changed appearances gradually with age. And like humans and all organisms, groups and cults of all sorts eventually must burn themselves out. Still, while they exist the agenda of the cult often remains the same, no matter who is in it, and consistently malicious.

The scariest aspect of cults is how they are able to destroy the individual will and identity and replace it with the will of the cult. The cult itself has no concrete goal (since ultimately none exists) except it’s own replication. Cults extend promises of rewards in this life or the next in return for extreme personal sacrifices to the cult. The individual simply becomes a vessel, a human sacrifice.

Thus, there is no real, concrete heart of the cult, gang or corporation — just as there is no concrete unchanging self, no real personified or conceptually tangible manifestation of God or Satan, no literal answer to life’s existential questions. The cult moves across the landscape of the world as a phantom, devoid of conscious self, like a plague. And here one begins to suspect that all life, all existence is rather cult-like. That, the argument for one’s personal beliefs is itself some kind of trap which causes painful attachments and a conscious search for meaning only stirs further emotional torrents in an individual. These torrents of the mind are analogous to the way cults exist in society. Most cults think their cause is divine or within grasp. But in the end, it all pops like a dream, a life wasted.

‘Course, cults are actually defined by the way they isolate individuals from their former social networks and demand total submission. They’re a bit like totalitarian governments in that respect. At least with businesses and other groups we have some modicum of decisive action we can take on our own. We’re not under their thumb and possess the freedom to entertain more personal illusions.