I'm sorry it offends anyone but I make no apologies for what I write here. One of these things below.
I suffer from a traumatic artistic and spiritual quandary. When I try to pour forth my thoughts in the form of the written word, I find to my dismay words and thoughts other than those desired being crystallised in physical form, as if a second will were commandeering my will and channeling it into avenues distinct from the ones desired. I set my arm in motion and unknown contrary thoughts are produced. This emanation of thoughts that are not my own occurs with such infallible relentlessness that it cannot be attributed to deficiencies in the means of expression. Perhaps I am but one self-enclosed 'self' within a myriad of other selves within this mind-body organism.
This hijacking of my intent of course applies to all these words, including these. What I intended to write was quite different.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I can sympathise with your state. A less charitable voice might say that you are describing insanity very accurately, however.
My suspicion is that your feelings and your thoughts are not harmoniously synchronised. You are trying to feel through your thoughts, instead of directly. Your feelings therefore need to find outlets through the narrow, shallow grooves of thought. There is too much water. The rivers and rivulets are many, but narrow, and so there are floods.
Have you read Gurjieff?
Of course I could be wrong. Maybe I patronisingly see my past in you or something, when I could not but think with passionate intensity; and all I really wanted was a hug.
I suppose I should have said 'organised', not synchronised, regarding feelings and thoughts.
was wondering about a little intro to clarify that the piece was an exercise in literature/ fiction. Thanks for the thoughts, which still apply except to the perhaps Borges tinged mad narrator! The elusive, infinite nature of the logical implications of the piece are what interested me to spend the short time writing it.
I'm not sure that I've read Gurjieff, though I've read a novel by Ouspensky, who I think was an acolyte of his.
I don't believe for a minute it is fiction. If it was fiction, it would have been obvious. You don't fool me.
Id recommend you order from Amazon a copy of 'Views from the Real world'. Or it may be in large bookshops. Do check it out. I'd send you a copy if i wasn't living in Kuwait where none are available etc.
Ouspensky, yes, worked with Gurdjieff in the early days, mainly before WWI, I believe. Then they went there separate ways. he was more of a systematist, as I understand it, more rationalistic. wheras I felt one thing Gurdjieff was angling at was the minds in the west are too trapped by abstract concepts, by the intellect.
In a simplistic sense I'd say he was for the light what Crowley was for the dark. They wee pretty much as strong as each other in their own ways.
That said, I don't see Crowley as evil as people make out, just dangerous.
damn my typos again
Though I htihk when a person enters the occult areas Crowley did, their original intent becomes almost wholly irrelevant, and they become a conduit for the forces within those fields.Just on the most superficial level, anyone signing himself 666, the Great Beast, etc is clearly so spiritually infantile as to clearly have gone in a very wrong direction. Compare to someone like Krishnamurti.
Ah but even if it isn't fiction, Neil, the words & thoughts produced are not my intended ones, & so mightn't reveal a mad position after all.
Interesting you say infantile. His mother (member of the fanatical Plymouth Bretheren) used to call him 'The Beast' as a five year old.
I agree that people can sometimes get themselves into consequences from entering the labyrinths of the occult that they perhaps hadn't expected. Even if they had foreseen minotaurs, perhaps they had anticipated differently constituted ones. I found it very interesting, and even a bit endearing, that a man (Crowley) who had seemed (to me anyway) so boundless sure of his thoughts about our cosmos, could say on his deathbed, or thereabouts, "I'm confused."
Personally, to some it might appear a form of awesome machismo, or some such, but to sign onself 666 & the like is to me a pathetic self-adoration, with or without a hint of humour.
Crowley a bit of an 'oocultizoid nincompoop', i'm afraid.
I'd also add that I don't think there's any 'sometimes' about what arises from delving into occultic ritual behaviour. I view that area as an absolute no. The existential simplicity of one's being is all that people require.
Would receommend an interesting book called "The Occult Tradition" by David Katz.
He shows how Christian Fundamentalism is itself a kind of occultism due to the 'hidden' quality of the interpretation it deems appropriate to the eschatological prophecies of the Bible.
Of course 'occult' just means 'hidden' or invisible. It could well be that one man's hidden is another man's revealed.
Just out of interest, are you a freemason, Jonathon? I'm not interested in Christian fuindamentalism, or any other kind. As Krishnamurti said, there is no path to truth. Truth is one's immediate consciousness. These surrendering of oneself to outseide forces seems an inevitable corruption of oneself and pathway into evil. Isee that Gurdjieff's best known book, Bellzebub's Tales is about a divine being called Beelzebub. Like most of this occultism, the individual becomes corrupted by an imagined pathway towards knowledge, & is revealed to him the exciting esoteric truths that evil isn't evil at all. The higher light, etc. And leads to the already described spiritual infantilism of ego worhip= Grand Masters of Truth, signing oneself 666, etc.
This seems to be the path you are on & I'd heavily advise you get off it.
No, not a Freemason. Not a member of any organisation except that belonging to my employer. Ok, I was baptised into the Anglican Church.
I didnt really think you were a fundamentalist Christian, though I sense you have a deep interest in the New testament.
It just seemed a relevant observation re katz, fundamentalism and the occult, because we had been talking about the occult, and because id never heard this idea before (that fundamentalism is a form of occultism). I thought you might be interested.
the irony in what Katz says hangs heavy only in that fundies prize themselves so vigorously on a revilement of the occult, as the occult is conventionally understood.
I share a suspicion towards the occult. Certainly people dont need it, if in communion with the uncreated. It can certainly be very dangerous and damaging. There seems little doubt, however, that many unbelievers derive benefit and insight from such things such as astrology.
Ultimately, though, Id look to what Paul says regarding turning such 'principalities and powers', if the energies behind astrology can be understood in this way, towards Christ.
Post a Comment