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?

Advertisements

10 Responses to “The Answer”

  1. “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.”

    This is true, and you talk about the danger aspect–which is that for most people following this thinking to its logical conclusion leads to neurosis, insanity or more commonly, retreat back to absolutes. Thus the seemingly absurd but fascinating connect between totalitarianism and existentialism – Sartre and communism, Heidegger and Nazism, etc. My conclusion is that religion and social systems are illusory but absolutely necessary illusions for most people. The minority want to dispose of the illusions because it suffocates them, but this “vanguard” only ends up erecting new and usually more painful illusions to take their place.

  2. Hey Ben, thanks for stopping by. And good point there with the extremism of existentialism. Some of those guys, like Heidegger, were intellectual thugs. A haha, let’s just alienate the fanbase shall we?

    What’s funny about social/political systems is that, there’s no one solution. The failure of communism or national socialism comes from the fact that governments and societies are in constant change and require interplay between different agendas in order to maintain balance. Extreme forms of government fail because there’s no discourse, which means someone will soon enough grab totalitarian power.

    I’d like to think there’s some kind of solution to the problem of identity and suffering and the confusion that makes up life. Not that life is some sort of terrible thing in of itself, but there’s got to be a way out. I think the problem with salvation is that it assumes people will be saved by some external holy party, which both will not happen nor would it help anyone in the long run anyway. Gotta realize junks for ya self.

  3. Alienate the fanbase? I hope you don’t think I’m an existentialist. I posted on a somewhat similar subject, in fact:

    http://electrichermitage.blogspot.com/2008/03/daedalus-redeemer.html

  4. Hee hee, I wasn’t referring to you, but any random people who might come across this blog for the first time! I guess they aren’t fond of me yet, so… poor choice of words.

    Yeah, I thought that was a good post of yours though — an interesting touch comparing the existentialist attitude to that of Daedalus. The existentialist attitude seems so sad at the bottom of it all, doesn’t it? I don’t think life is entirely sad when you get to the bottom of it, but it certainly is bittersweet. But that’s why it’s beautiful, amirite?

  5. Hey man, haven’t stopped reading your site, just very rarely have anything interesting to add. Like this piece.

  6. Hey PS, I know how it is. I do likewise with most sites I read. Lately I’ve written a bunch of pieces and then contemplated whether or not to post them. Not because they’re sub-par, but because I don’t know if it is information I should be putting out there for anyone to read! We’ll see what happens…

  7. parallelsidewalk Says:

    Oh yeah, there’s a lot of shit I don’t post. Recently I wrote two posts titled respectively “Get a job, yes, you in the hoodie” and “Brad Warner is a cunt”. Both were relatively well written and don’t contain anything I don’t feel to be true, but what really is the use of publishing them? I probably write 2.5 pieces for every piece I put up. It’s all just a minor vanity project anyway to a large extent.

  8. Ha, that Brad Warner bit would be kinda ballsy. ‘Coz if you were wrong, then the piece could end up being about you! ^_^

    Is it related to Suicide Girls?

  9. parallelsidewalk Says:

    No, Suicide Girls is a very small part of what I find ridiculous about him, though his bizarre almost evangelical relationship with it does make me think he’s a little more of a tool than I might otherwise. There’s a lot of stuff, but most of it boils down to him just being completely full of shit and talking a good game against authority while running an authoritarian scam on people, and being a whiny little bitch who can dish criticism and arrogance but can’t take it.

  10. Well, I had always hoped his “hardcore” tag was sarcastic (he’s neither tough nor cool). But I only know his books and blog, I rarely read the SG stuff. My impression is that it’s decent modern, mainstream religion for young people. But he does shave off a lot of stuff, so he appears to me as a kind of “reformed” Zen Buddhist, master though he may be.

    What authoritarian angle are you talking about? It’s not just the typical “my way is the best” rhetoric? Maybe I asked you that before. You’d mentioned some things about his teacher being a bit of a control freak, but I’ve never seen or heard anything about that.

    If this gets too long and complicated, you may just have to post it on your blog, hee hee! Of course, you are assured a relatively quiet forum to discuss it here. No one reads this page (at the moment).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: