Everyone would like to be (a) God. Some have not conceived the possibility; others haven't
the desire - yet if God exists at all, then all is his will and there seems no outlet, even in
death. Also, and equally, I am at least a descendant of and related to God: may be even as
a child who grows up, leaves his parents, becomes independent and may supersede them.
Our history is a moving picture of our forms, rising, falling and changing, but always separating
and becoming more remote and differentiated not only from our earlier forms but
from each other. Man now has little in common with his fish, worm - and plant - forms,
though still interdependent and related.
Thus it seems we have less near relationship to our Source (God) than ever we had. But
as we become more remote from early forms, we become more and more complex, and
paradoxically we retrogress functionally more and more to early types of ourselves,
although our primal subconscious instincts become more overlaid by the deliberate, the
arbitrary and the conscious. This chaotic transition resolves itself into a logic by which we
become conatively pragmatic, yet all our inventions and discoveries, etc . , come from atavistic
urges - the old instincts - by profound nostalgias becoming our source of inspiration.
In this process away from and towards God, we perchance develop self-will, and this is
where we again run amuck - another chaos of transition which has bred our dictators, some
of whom have been nascent while others come late to their epochs and the bulk of men
drift on unequally yet hardly human.
And so, to be nearer to God we must regress functionally and rely mostly on atavistic
impulse from the remotest strata of our being until we are motivated by a pure instinctivism
needing no other reaction than its own spontaneity.
Ideas of our being God must be realized by a process of re-memoration backwards to the
first or primal instincts - till the necessary one is reached . As I am not making Gods, the
formula must be your own guess . . .
Our 'Self-Truth' is an identity of Will, Desire and Belief: when this identity is focussed
on to one thing, we need not interfere with our minds by thinking. For the Soul is near and
casts its omniscience through us; not by language, but by inspiration. Then we will know
the answer, and action will follow.
Discourse to the Bewildered Well-meaning
Whether Religion claims to be apocalyptic or otherwise it remains anthropocentric. (The
Greek Pantheism was at least honest and created not only the greatest men but the nearest
yet to the Ideal State - whatever its drawbacks . ) Our panlogistic conceptions of God
are never closely related to subjective significance : the conceptions have little qualitative
difference from our own emotions, desires, functions, etc. The first requirement is a blind
faith in the alleged miracle, mysteries and abracadabra of authority and its dogmatic teaching;
to hold man captive from his instinctive search for Truth. In return for his slavery the
wildest promises of eternal happiness (after death) are made. The trouble with the apostates
is that they have no fecund substitute, and cease to believe much in anything, whereas
vital belief (whatever its truth) is essential to any creative effort.
The ethical and the social are different profiles of true religion, and wise laws their concrete
form . The Ideal is the aesthetic potential, the urge for constant improvement and spontaneity. The social and the ethical aesthetics are but different idioms and diverse directions of the same quality of sentiment. Equity can be taught - by example - as a duty.
There will be no social transformation until this becomes a pragmatic religion that gives salvation today, as well as tomorrow. The only alternative to worship is its sublimation to the service of the social and humane. This does not cancel God; if we have a duty to God it must be by our appreciation of life to the full. Have faith in yourself and your Soul will have faith in you. What the hell were you born for - to murder each other, to grasp more than you need? If so, then God is hate and you are his disciples - devils - I know no others .
Man is now a normal chaos, an affair of bloody bathetic paradoxes, a madness of greed and hypocrisy and Earth has more meaning without him. This cold madness is the result of forced beliefs, lies, half-truths and bad laws taught him through politico-religious hierarchies.
All this could change easily by correct learning and evaluation of the factual. Human
nature (at the worst) is the most plastic thing on this earth, and although man has swallowed
every absurdity and lie, he would still find an altruistic and healthy diet easier. I predict
that our next 'society' will be a wise synthesis based on ' Co-operative Individualism ',
i . e . , if we are not shortly blotted out by the final culmination of this lip-avowal to the best
while espousing every activity against it.
ALTERNATIVE TEXT:
Whether religion claims to be apocalyptic or otherwise it remains anthropocentric. (The
Greek Pantheism was at least honest and created not only the greatest men but the nearest
yet to the Ideal State . . . whatever its drawbacks . ) Our panlogistic conceptions of God
are never closely related to subjective significance: the conceptions have little qualitative
difference from our emotions, desires, functions, etc. The first requirement is a blind faith
to accept the alleged miracles, mysteries and abracadabra of this authority and dogmatic
teaching; to hold captive man from his instinctive search for Truth in reality. In return for
his slavery the wildest promises of eternal happiness are made - when dead! The trouble
with the apostates is that they have no fecund substitute and cease to believe anything
much: whereas vital belief - whatever its merits as truth - is essential to any creative effort .
The ethical and social are different profiles of true religion, and wise laws their concrete
form . The Ideal is the aesthetic potential and the urge for constant improvement for immediacy.
The aesthetic, social and ethical are merely different idioms and diverse directions
of the same quality of sentiment. Equity can be taught - by example as a duty. There will
be no social transformation until this becomes a pragmatic religion that gives salvation
today, as well as tomorrow. The only alternative to belief in worship is its sublimation to
the service of the social and humane. This does not cancel belief in God: if we have a duty
to God it must be by our appreciation of life, men, etc. , to the full. Have faith in yourself
and your soul will have faith in you. What the hell were you born for - to murder each
other? - to grasp more than you need? Then God is hate and you are his devilish disciples .
For man is now a normal chaos, an affair of bloody pathetic paradoxes, a madness of greed
and hypocrisy, and Earth has more meaning without him . This cold madness is the result
of forced beliefs, lies, half-truths and bad laws taught and enforced through certain politico-
religious hierarchies.
All this could change easily by correct learning and evaluation of the factual. Human
nature (at its worst) is the most plastic thing on this earth - it would still find an altruistic
and healthy diet easier. I predict that our next 'society' will be a wise synthesis based on
'Co-operative Individualism', i . e . , if we are not shortly blotted out by the culmination of
this lip-avowal to the best, and every activity for the worst.
On Psychology
Psychology should be taken in small doses and not swallowed whole. To swallow it whole
puts an end to common sense : it has been allowed even to over-ride the law, which for the
evil-doer has become a "psychopath's escape " .
This new hierarchy with its categories, techniques, matrical tenets and arbitrary theses i s
n o w established and fortified b y every pretentious argument. Psychologists have been converted
into vehicles of enthusiasm for their own theories, with a labyrinth of dialectic meanings
overloaded with a complex and transferred vocabulary that can mean anything - and
yet not mean that to which their words commit them.
Psychologists are as neurotic as their creed, and their fear of deviating from their self-imposed
criteria confirms their estimate of the psychopathic.
Psychology is relatively true for certain types and periods only. Whereas one admits to
some of its truths, most of it need not be true, and the remainder is mainly untrue. Analysis
may be applied to particular individuals, whether diseased or not, but little of it is applicable
to a majority outside the 'chronic' category. Most people grow out of their fads or
adapt them - often advantageously! Pshaw! - the undefined premises prove the inconclusions.
But, psychology is already becoming an over-reaching, over-riding psycho-caucus.
There is too much loose talk of uninhibition and suppression. How much is anyone mad,
normal, or otherwise? Not much, because early conditioning makes enactment unlikely .
These things come and go with us all. Taking the exception, their idiocracy apart, madmen
are often normal 'average' and conventional. In extreme cases of schizophrenia there is a
transference of certain ideas and values to serve a dominant obsession and, often, great satisfaction
is found by 'as if . The lives of schizophrenics are often as full as the lives of 'normal
' people. Strong emotionalism must exhaust itself in fulfilment and where there is frustration
or failure then the only vent is in violence and antisocial acts. This, to a degree,
applies to most people. Religion, the arts, collecting, hobbies, etc., outside our work, are
usual alternative interests which act as a catharsis and keep us sane by a form of schizogenesis
of normality. What else is love and friendship but extreme, refrangible schizophrenia?
Close the door on reality and the 'as if door opens. Oversuppressed or uncontrolled, our
damned 'Ids' will, if possible, have the final word ! But they are rectifiable, as in the initial
stages of all things, and re-direction and control are often simple and always possible - outside
congenital idiocy.
Analysing this psychosis-stuff with its abundance of complexes, mental arrestments etc.,
I state this as applicable to many: that I myself may have had all these 'things ', in some
degree and at some time, and have come through no worse, perhaps have become more
adaptable because of them.
Now, as being older and more aware, a more conscious being, those complexes I have
retained, I want: they are useful, harmless, and serve my purpose.
It could be proved that many psychopaths are the offspring of, and have grown up with
many of these self-created psycho-bogies. My friend who coined the cliche "inferiority complex"
hardly expected it to slop over into its current usage and meaning. Everyone now
seems to fear being thought of as inferior; modesty and reserve are discounted . The reaction
is that ignorance and over-indulgence find fertile soil, and every nincompoop would
now be a Dictator. One is almost tempted to assert that most madness, ignorance, evil, and
the general malaise, is due to lack of early frustrations which are the best means of later
control. I can say of myself that all my wrongness and weakness comes from a lack of correct
suppression and discipline at some early time; and it would not have interfered with
the best self-expression.
'Psychology' is now the equal of any other dogma in as much as it demands the full
acceptance of rigid conclusions from undefined qualities and premises.
Psychology has no dominant thesis or definition of such fundamentals as 'consciousness',
'intelligence', 'thought', 'purpose', etc. We know that there are no exact or final definitions
or conclusions of anything, but we are also aware that certain correct hypotheses - viz . , the
ether - have rendered us certain other facts and thus indirectly proved themselves. But the
offer of such very shaky nominalism - which begins nowhere and ends in an excusing
pathology - presents a worse gamble than that of any religion. Psycho-ism has no standard
of morality, behaviour, or normality with which it mainly deals, so must be based on the
common mean, the "average" - an inelastic average at that. Thus anything 'abnormal' or
'sub-normal' could or might be pathological . And when the common denominators are
realized from Ids of Greed - then where are we? The zombie our level? Genius a madness?
No, for civilization there must be a more arbitrary ethical-intelligent standard . Above the
'normalities', an Ideal that is tactual, that is directly related to reality - with its integral precisions
determined by social motivation. Convention, whether of morals or behaviour may
be as wise as anything man has invented.
Know thyself- how much of such knowledge is possible, helpful, or necessary? Better for
most to un know what they think they know. It doesn't need a biologist or a psychologist to
tell us that the mind has strata of atavistic remnants which in suitable soil may degenerate
into the foulest anomalies and freakishness. We also know for certain that we may curb
our greedy appetites by re-direction and the placing of our real values outside them, thus
cultivating our best potentials. Yes! fundamentally, everything is as simple as that, and
there is little need for Witch-doctors. Without 'Bell, Book and Candle' one could go on
laying these hideous ghosts of patho-psychology. That which is appropriate to normality is
so ungeneralizable, trivial and transitory as to be almost worthless. Different environment
- different selection; but our mutation now is a choice: man is the arbiter of his genes - if he
so desires . . .
Schools of psychology have their passing fashions and phobias: the Freudian 'free association'
technique of interpreting dreams and mental ills, always with a sexual basis, grew
stale, gained stimulus by the 'as new and latest' oedipus complex (very rare in families) , and
solutions were claimed for that theory or a variant of it. The absurdity of the 'free method'
is self-evident. If I dream of washing dirty dishes, it means that I desire intimacy with my
mother or (failing that) , my sister, cousin, in-laws, or a relation of some kind, or, if necessary,
anyone they care to nominate. But they will also give much the same interpretation
of any other dream, however opposite or diverse the symbols and situation . In fact, they
can make any dream mean anything that conforms to their purpose. Nearer the truth: there
are many different types of dream, each needing a different technique of translation.
Logically, by intricate and accurate co-relating, anything may be proved derivative, as
'one from another' - which does not prove anything. Take your phobia (or what have you)
to a psychiatrist for the real dirt . . . Expensive amusement for something you can do better
yourself.
Most people, all average, have their own form of assuagement by abreacting to each
other, what they call 'spilling their guts' . . . The exceptional psychopath is always with us.
I have (like many others) a dislike of climbing and of crowds : both labelled phobias. As
applying to myself, the reason is simple: I had both ankles crushed in childhood, so climbing
was either tiring or painful. As for crowds, I could smell too much and always began to
feel lousy. Yet, after my twentieth year, these 'allergies' ceased to bother and since then I
have climbed and mixed unaffectedly. This commonplace suggestion did not satisfy the
psychologist - he had to prove and confirm his thesis - so he probed into my very early
affections . I admitted 'natural affection' for one of my Aunts and for another 'unrelated '
lady (old enough to be m y grandmother) . And there he had it . . . i n his own round-about
way! I had illicit desires for them! Although it was extremely ingenious, his relating ideas
of 'climbing, crowds and coitus' - it was nonsense . For, if at any time during my life, such
an idea or desire regarding these two people could ever disturb my phallus - awake or asleep
- I personally would give loud cheers and be first to praise such a method of psycho-analysis.
Alas, poor Freud, I knew him well. The obsequies linger on, 'free association' and
'abreaction' (dialectic variants) are still the main techniques to interpret the mental cloaca.
Schizophrenia
Schizophrenia, now considered psychopathic (and a literary tag) is nevertheless one key
to psycho-physics . It is an essential part of general normality. Indeed, all we inhibit
and reject splits our mind as does, probably, the primal acceptance of good and evil.
Schism being constant, the uncommitted and rejects of mind form a spooky being, which
seeks indulgence or substance by the 'as if . It causes a flaccid probabilism, a slurred,
smudgy or blurred seeing and thinking - now a vogue in many art forms . The old
accomplishment of completion is almost lost. The conflict creates the necessity of self-socializing,
usually satisfied by over-insistence on 'I am I' based on this shaky medium! Yet
all of this is only normal and evidence of the the extensiveness of the 'as if connotation and
other forms of make-belief. More corrupt are disbeliefs, half-beliefs or aimless circum ambulatory
believing. Don't delude yourself, no-one can believe anything and everything; it is
always inefficacious.
The substantiality of things is realized more by negatives, i.e. their shadow, separating
them from otherness; colours, tones - an afterthought. So we gauge all things by their
extremes and are inclined to jump all in between. The essential separateness of ourselves
from other things - 'I am this - I am not that' - is a major duality and the more intense the
greater the reality. Abstractly and actually the snag is: that all opposites are not the entire
absence of each other, they are relative quasi-absolutes (as all else) , and are a quantitative
degree of each other, radiating from some unseen middleness. All recognition of reality
depends on this and other pseudo-dualities. In co-ordinating we incline to near likenesses
(easier to relate to the ape than to the tree). By such unities we leave something of ourselves
behind - a future harvest. We gain by increasing our susceptibility to other things:
this sub-relating may be infinitely inclusive, and it extends us.
Schizophrenia is much more . . . because we are a multitude of past beings, experiences and
longings; a vast heritage competing for you to be another you again. We are a permanent,
fluxing and inter-relating Trinity: 1 ) I am - consciousness - body: 2) Ego - subconsciousness
- mind: 3) Self - consciousness - S oul (mainly unaware of it) . 'Mind' is the medium
of appetences and 'thought' the tool that conates through body: all constituting an
automachy by apparent yet phoney dualities - and we remain mainly colour-blind.
On Consciousness
Definition of consciousness and subconsciousness: Consciousness is considered as indefinable
although we are aware of its being our entirety. Analysis along two lines, distinction
between act and content as separable: The cogito argument: " Cogito, ergo sum" could be
more fully expressed as: 'Sensation, cognition, thought, action', e.g., ( 1 ) If something bites
me and I feel nothing, nothing has happened consciously. (2) If I am bitten and it hurts
me, i.e., sensation. (3) If ! see the thing that bites me, that is perception as cognition. (4)
'Thought' then follows, to avoid and prevent recurrence followed by action. (5) Therefore,
consciousness is con-sentience and awareness of varying degree and direction. The final
phase is introspection or reflection: a scrutiny of the event and processes involved are subsequent
and determine future acts . Ergo: "I feel therefore I am". Therefore, consciousness
creates memory and fore-knowledge, i.e., preceptiveness and intuition from sensational
experience recoverable from memory, the main function being to create ability to cope with
events, e.g., the experiencing, questioning and reifying factors of future individualistic Ego.
The subconsciousness, so called, is probably the emotional structure, the conjunctional
amalgamating and rationalizing of impressions, where values are measured against empathy
and antipathy, good and evil, which form our hopes and fears . As subsurface to consciousness
the subconsciousness is not directly accessible to introspection, except by vivid
revisualizations, or via dreams . It is also capable of being tapped by certain techniques such
as semantics, indirect association, and dream-interpretation (when accurate) . Automatic
drawing and writing may also release earlier memories . No one has yet probed its limits to
re-acquaint us with our own past concatenation of experience, although there is individual
evidence of a previous existence.
Accepting consciousness (of all degrees) as the outward facet of 'Mind', the situation is
so complex and dualistic, the interactions that form our mentations so baffling, that unless
we accept the fact that we are creating our own Ego from Universal Mind, everything is
irrational.
On Paradox
Paradox: If used as a truism or as relating to contraries, paradox is simply, though indirectly,
stating that extremes - opposites and contradictories - meet or intersect and fulfil
each other and that their copula is the mean of their ratio. Thus: Black, Grey, White - all
opposites relate to each other by their variability, which does not mean that A is Z, or the
reverse . It may imply that both A and Z are degrees of each other. But while A and Z are
as they are, they are not each other. Attenuation or superimposition gives variability to
both . Our clumsy language itself here precludes gymnastical predicates, i . e . , that A is Z or
that Black is White . There is no paradox, paradox exists only where the same relation is
self-contradictory or when two opposites take over each others ' qualities. But mostly, paradoxes
are involved with semantical or syntactical ambiguities, making a circular argument:
"It is true that it is false", which is hyperbolic assertion for emphasis, or "trying to be
clever" . The statement should be: "It is untrue", or "It is a false statement", nothing more.
Again, one could more picturesquely assert of a great book: "It is in the greatest of all
styles, it is without style", which is a series of mis-statements, mis-implications, and is a
misnomer. The statement should be: "Its very stylelessness gives significance ".
Again, to give an old "play on words" variety: On one side of the card is written the words:
"On the other side of the card is written an understatement"; on turning the card over
appear the words : "On the other side of this card is written an overstatement" . The best
answer would be the Cockney' s well-known mouthful . . . Another answer is that it is a
hyperbolic statement, i . e . , abstract conjunctionalism of two opposite words making a
meaning as a misnomer or solecism. Any self-conflicting statement is the extreme of understatement
and overstatement. Thus : "I feel dead and alive".
Paradox is a disease of fallacious vocabulary. A number of so-called paradoxes are mere
solecisms, flabby thinking prompted by apparent contradictories: "He is an atheist, an
unbeliever", whereas he may be a greater believer (in no God) than a believer in God. Does
this entail, as natural corollaries, the assertions : "He believes in disbelief', or "He disbelieves
in belief'?
Apart from the essential concatenation of variables between opposites (whether known
or not) there is another way of faulting the phony paradoxical. If we use things relating to
semantical meanings, the paradox becomes more shadowy - thus: "On the other side of
this card is drawn a true portrait". On turning over the card appear the words "On the
other side of this card is drawn a false portrait". I have simply replaced the words 'statement'
by 'portrait' and 'drawn' by 'written' . It is now proved unequivocally that the whole
thing is absurd, there is no portrait, true or false. Ipso facto there is no statement, as such,
entirely true or false. (The actual wording is: "On the other side of this page is written a
true statement. On turning over appear the words: On the other side is written a false statement."
q.v. Jourdain.) I should emphasize that 'written' and 'drawn' are the same; that a
portrait is a statement, or a statement is a likeness of something - therefore the latter fails
as having no positive statement of anything. It is a looking-glass illusion - a reverse reflection
of the word not explicit in the reflection as further meaning; a predicate without the
statement - nothing equals nothing. Truth is inexistent when anything is entirely false or
true; thus a thing entirely black is not white. Our real dilemma is that nearly everything has
'quasiness' and will intersect either end. There is a series of letters that when reversed are
the same (a palindrome), making it possible that a word formed from such letters, on being
reversed, has the same meaning; which proves only that forms as well as meanings may be
ambiguous.
There are other such tricks by reflective reversal, all of which means that our reasonings
and mentations rely on legerdemain semantics held together by a loose syntax. So, many
judgements have as their criteria this writhing hypotenuosa as emphasis. The greatest absurdities
are seldom self-evident, though man is a ceaseless exhibitor of his own.
Another such paradox arises: by the use of adjectives that are either autologic or not, and
by onomatopoeia (itself heterologous) as distinct from words denoting properties. Then,
e.g., thrust, spurious, soul, elegant, lunge, mind, splendid; or colloquialisms, shove,
scrounge, gorblimey, etc . , ebullient, if crude, often have expressive virtue . Truth, vulgarly
rendered, suffers not by such emphasis . Thus, autologic words have the merit of being
colourful, vivid, and having an emotional catholicity. If a friend said to me: "She stinks" -
then I know a bookfu!' Moreover, the meaning of these picturesque words almost visualizes
itself whereas heterologous words lack these forms of veracity. There are so many
examples that more are unnecessary. A vague paradox intrudes when we ask whether the
words 'heterological' is 'autological' or heterological (q.v. Grelling) . They are both in as
much as either... having dog-knotted paradox.
We should mention that the anomalies of language have never been indexed. The very
thought of this 'undertaking' as a prelude to a rational syntax, etc., gives anaemia to all
scholars and logicians.
When we have developed a mind that can grasp a simple form, with analogous meanings
and associations by contiguity, then our sensory continuum will respond interpretationally
even if symbolically. Having evolved such a heterologous, chancy, quasi, or uninterpre
table language it is not surprising that it would think for us. To revise and vivify meanings
we must revert to the naive, the crude or the colloquial for a simple expressionism
without preamble and a hiatus of qualifications . Truth is evident in simplicities; overlooked
in complexities. Know Truth by this: It is radiant and needs no emblazoning. Which suggests
indirectly that most 'logical forms ' are another dehydrated Hippopotamus.
Beginning of the End to a Rebeginning
I believe in the Eternity of Ego whether I am carnate, discarnate, reincarnate, or whatever
metamorphosis I suffer. For I am change and forever ultimate however I may appear. I am
all differentiations, all unities, separatenesses and inconceivables. My fatigue, my forgetfulness
are a mystery of duality, yet they must be my way of knowing by the effort of re-remembering.
This is the way to the new abortions or higher selves: constantly determining
values by acceptances and rejections, by becoming rights and wrongs, by deceiving me
and teaching me against my greater inherences. Self can know only not-self, from dissolving
omniscience.
I believe in eternal equity - whatever may momentarily stun or deceive me - to myself
and, through all my commitments, to others. I teach the acceptance of all things without
love or hate . I, as a lover of the flesh, say this: Not only is S elf-love itself a value, it is the
supreme means of determining all values. The 'will to pleasure' and the coalescence of total
experience from all things is the ultimate.
Pleasure is seldom found when it is sought outside for it is first within and can relate
where we so will when our will and beliefs are one in desire and one of necessity.
Through this 'necessity' we create the dynamics that ultimately serve our desires that we
have made necessary, for it shall be our reality one day.
As a misologist I have a great superstition about spontaneity as a way of action. First, the
self-unity with the sublimation - then the courageous act. The first inspiration from our
Soul is the technique for all subsequent inspiration, for this self-illuminism is the only thing
that begets inspiration.
To give reality to your autistic thinking is the great theurgy of which I have given you the
key: Sublimate your beliefs into the unfamiliar energeia of orgasm, for it is numinous, it is immanence and the moment of conception-creation.
Zos stretched himself, saying: "These innocents need things unwrapped, then doctrinized
and ornamented . . . so let me remember my old abilities, summon my elementals,
and commit my will to a new theurgy. "
Illusion and Reality
Knowing only our impressions of reality, felt or seen, we find reality illusive and call it illusion:
the shadow misnaming the substance. It gives this equation: Reality is illusion;
Illusion is reality. Illusions transpose into reality and vice-versa. There are illusions that are
illusions, i.e., not guising anything; there is also an illusionable reality. That reality is makeable.
A thing is as real as it is conative . There are no precludable propositions or possibilities
except those limited by the dimensional framework of which we know not the limits,
and perhaps there is an indiscrete partial that floats out and returns? We are ever the fleshy
surface, but there are further possibilities (in flesh) than those we know. Everything shall
become unto flesh: Dreams may be as true as 'reality', certainly less expensive . Although
the Classical Gods are all well fleshed and versed therein, I should mix best with the drunken
Dionysus, Silenus or Satyros, for like them I prefer to sleep on the bellies of Nymphs
than on any Athene . And when I enter this heaven's brothel I shall have a laudable phallus
ravening, spilling over. My own predicament: "Which has the broadest bottom? " To
play with great Cats, drink rough wine, copulate to sleep, has no satiety in me. Alas, passes
the dream . Again I awake in some Athene's bed - permitted once weekly. Where are the
Elysian Fields? Ever on the left, or into your fears, and left when you are told to go right.
There is no pleasure where there is fear; otherwise, has Hero ever met Heroine without the
bucketful of aftermath?
Pleasure is never complete in itself; shall I ever find the broadest bottom? Probe deeply
enough, and everyone is superstitious, meaning that they also hope to find the broadest
bottom. Satisfaction ceases with satisfaction. Therefore be ever satisfied with your dissatisfaction,
for if I satisfy function in one form, I become - dissatisfied. Then, ipso facto, I
must change into another form and, by such a process, eternally change, seeking a satisfaction
without reactions. Whether flesh takes over dreams or dreams flesh, there are no
pleasures for me except as transferred to flesh.
One Thing Evolves Another
One thing evolves another, always a little different, which becomes a plethora of variety;
then, the revolutionary mutations surpassing selection and environmental changes .
Ultimately, man emerges, not only an epitome of his ancestry but o f his experience through
mind, thought, intelligence and Ego. (I shall not stress my metaphor: there are automatic
machines that so completely serve their purpose that only consciousness and the arbitrary
are absent. The first camera gave a shadow-graph but if we include the latest complex camera
we get a rough parallel to the senses' growth from infancy onward.)
All hypotheses are the off-spring of a metaphor that finds a parallel in fact; hence all our
knowledge derives initially from symbol, metaphor and hypothesis, plus the audacious
long-arm linkage from an episode (our personal guess by 'freer' association).
The symbol used: this camera reflects not only an image within, but, like a magic-lantern,
projects the image outside upon a vast screen; and so with our senses . The cardinal point
is that neither the camera nor our body is conscious of any image . Only the photographer,
representing Ego, the senses, etc. , is conscious; and although he works through and by the
camera, he is outside it and separable. But, but, but! The photographer, as such, is entirely
dependent on the camera for expression. This is also true of the Ego which consciously
expresses itself only through the body. But there is a chain of intermediaries, each one acting
as a medium for the others : camera, learner, teacher, improver, and inventor. The main
copula between body and Ego is mind which is an index of memories, whether unconscious,
subconscious or conscious, which results from our reaction to otherness and which is also
the assimilative and recollective faculty of memory. The brain is capable of registering
innumerable impressions and of classifying them chronologically. At the moment of death
the astral mind transfers itself to its own warehouse to await the new body; otherwise there
would be no heritage . Thought, mind, intelligence, Ego and Soul, do not develop pro rata
with the body (camera) but they manifest best when the body matures and achieves perfection. Illustration: The ability of Michaelangelo or Rubinstein would be utterly nonplussed
working through an unsuitable and untrained medium - there would be only scribble
and cacophony. We are deceived by the gradual manifestation of intelligence: first the
recognition of resemblances and differences, then of comparisons, etc. The superimposition
of imagination and critical [lacuna] on these comparisons is intelligence, with all its
co-ordinating properties. My symbol is mainly visual but there is always a certain amount
of unity and assistance from the other senses. We see a thing and receive an impression
which, if casual, is almost worthless. When our observation is appetitive and appreciative
it is due to sense co-ordination and is effective apperception from which our values, levels
and selections come, assisted by mental references stimulated by all things relevant or not.
What is Ego? You; the individual that has, by means of differentiation, gained separateness
from the 'stinking lump '. Ego becomes energized and is rendered conscious by constant
impact on all otherness - known and unknown. A like liking, or disliking, like and the
unlike, and by audacious effort liking remote likeness and seeking relationship with the
highest or lowest as directed by our good and evil. What is the 'stinking lump '? What we
were, but what we have long superseded and what is now inimical to our highest potentials.
Who taught the photographer? Experience (impact) with other bodies (cameras) - the
Soul which initially inspires as desired. Who created the Soul? The Gods as manifest likeness,
because the non-dimensional is inconceivable. Man is not ultimate; the best now pilot
their own craft, and tomorrow is another day towards space . . .
Argument by Parallelism
From one thing evolves another, slightly different but becoming a plethora of varieties .
Then there are revolutionary mutations, above selection and environmental changes. Man
emerged not only as an epitome of his ancestry but of his experiences, with Mind,
Thought, Intelligence and Ego.
A SKETCHY METAPHOR:
Keeping our symbolism within limits, we now have automatic machines which serve their
purpose so completely that only the arbitrary and consciousness are missing. The early
camera threw a shadow-graph, and, if we include also the latest of complex cameras we
have, broadly, a parallel with the growth of the senses from infancy. All hypotheses are the
offspring of a metaphor that finds a parallel in fact. Hence all knowledge in the beginning
was from symbol, metaphor and hypothesis, plus the audacious long-arm linkage from an
episode (often a guess by a more free association) in our past, relating to the present.
The symbol: The camera not only reflects an image within itself but, like a magic-lantern
projects the image outside itself upon a vast screen. And so with our senses. Here's the rub;
neither the camera nor the body are conscious of any image. The photographer (representing
Ego, Mind, etc.,) is conscious and, although he works through and by the camera - to
realise his desires - he is outside of and separate from it. But the photographer himself is
entirely dependent upon the camera for his own expression which is true also for the Ego,
which chiefly has conscious expression through the body.
There is a chain of intermediaries, each link acting as media for the others (camera,
pupil, teacher, manufacturer, innovator, inventor) . The main copula between body and
ego is 'thought' - from the mind, which is an index of memories, whether unconscious,
subconscious or conscious . Thought which results from our impact on otherness is also the
assimilative and recollecting factor of memory. The brain is capable of recording ego 's
innumerable impressions and chronologically cataloguing them; when death takes place
the astral mind transfers these to its own warehouse, to await the new body, otherwise there
would be no heritage, never a difference, never a genius. Thought, mind, intelligence, soul,
do not develop pro rata with the body, only ego does so; but, to us, they all manifest better
with the greater maturity and perfection of the body, or camera. The ability of a
Michael Angelo or a Rubinstein would be utterly foiled by unsuitable, untrained media -
only scribble and cacophony would appear. We are deceived by the gradual manifestation
of intelligence; ability must work through a near capability of expression. It must be
remembered that whatever is, may not be so forever; neither memory nor flesh have
reached their limits. Who taught the photographer (Ego) ? Experience, plus other bodies
(cameras) and the demi-urges - originally the soul, which initially inspired as desired, from
our necessity. Who created the soul? The Absolute, as manifest (dimensional) likeness,
because the undimensional is inconceivable. Man does not achieve the ultimate by leaps,
slow progress has made him what he is from his experiences and aptitude, not from choice.
ALTERNATIVE TEXT:
What is Ego? You, the individual as experience, a distinction that has, through differences
and duality, gained separateness from 'the other stinking lump ' . Ego becomes energized
and is conscious by constant impact on all otherness, known and unknown: a like liking, or
disliking like and the unlike, and by audacious effort, seeking remote likeness and forming
relationships with the highest or the lowest, directed by our levels and valuations as good
and evil. What is the 'stinking lump '? That which we were as the first conglomerate, effervescing,
but which we have long since superseded, and which is now an evil into which we
slip back.
On Perception
Perception is a rapid sequence of impressions, none of which is accurate or complete but
vague and partitive, an orient, unfinished or untrue. Perception is built up from a multitude
of impressions which, superimposed, give a rough reflection of a thing relating to a
particular position (view). By constant reorientations and the noting of details of the surface-
content we arrive at a general truism or judgement of the whole. No one could hope
to synthesize the whole, pictorially, as one. Verbal expression, being a 'timed sequence',
would be easier as a synthesis but never sufficiently accurate or even visually complete.
Indeed, for perception to have any true reflex value a highly-trained and skilled faculty is
necessary. Observation is never perfect, always partitive, omitting predicaments of illusion
by 'simulars ', perspective, wishful seeing, and later-seeing through our flabby pre-knowledge
of a thing. So all ideas are formed from impressions of a thing, usually slight sensations
without emotion, but when experiential they are affective, i.e., both emotionally and
sensationally. They then awaken correspondence with the preceptive or intuitional.
Conative ideas are thus born with Empiricism... Taking Art as subject, the following would
be its syllogism: ' Composition, proportional reality, functional conjunctionism by value s ' .
The obvious failure of any such formula is the ambiguity of both words and syntax - there
are few one-in-one meanings. Thus ' Composition' implies 'balance', 'harmony', but not
necessarily 'pattern' by an arranged dis-symmetry (indeed, composition is essentially asymmetrical
balance) . Not only does every word need qualification but the whole thing could
be transposed and transcribed in other words and terms. Whole sets of such syllogisms
could be written, more or less as true: 'idea', 'form es) ', and ' Composition', would be sufficient
- if our words were - and would give a fundamental axiom from which tautology
would follow, allowing all contiguousnesses, correlatives and elatives as deductive concatenation.
All this bull-shit means is that all forms of mentation adopting 'a form of logic',
as expressionalism, are modalities whose rules serve only their own. Thus, the values that
created Pre-Raphaelism and its sets of rules cannot apply to Post Impressionism... therefore
any form of analysis should probe into the fundaments of all modalities, styles, conventions
and idioms, and expose as truisms the common denominators between them.
Used thus as symbols, then only is the mind prescient enough to stimulate casually as inspiration.
Indeed, it is more than probable that only when we transgress our logical rules, and
trespass, do we ever reach a state of worthwhile concept, reformulating our thesis to fit it
- and another piece of psycho-hocus-pocus is either born or discounted.
Mind and Matter
Mind and matter are always evident to each other: A crystal does not appear to us as an
intelligent thing, yet it is perfectly so with respect to its own form and function. To us, a
blade of grass seems more intelligent and courageous, too, as it fights for its place in nature
with the oak. The insect, bird, reptile, and mammal appear successively more intelligent as
complexity increases. This is the great illusion. The minds of the crystal, the rabbit,
Michaelangelo, or God, are the same, only the means of each mind differ; the one is manifested
more fully than the other. Ability is always equal or superior to the means. The
dynamic inter-relationship of all things causes the universality of change, a transformation
process embracing everything, although the over-all content is the same - everything in
time changing into everything else. Thus the butterfly became Aristotle! But change is so
gradual that any thing is always completely itself as manifest reality. Nature does show us
rapid metamorphosis, but only during gestative periods and in early forms of life . The most
magnificent example being the egg-larva-butterfly emanation; the most perfect allegory of
a thing becoming its own Imago.
From the least form to the highest there is a fundamental pattern of change - from simple
to complex - which follows definite laws, the whole purpose being to further expressional
means and individual perfection for ultimate independence. The case of the individual
appears to be more important than the mass. Nature's quest is for the genius, the
altruistic few who create everything worthwhile in the world. Certain beings are older in
time, a point which everyone reaches, but not at the same time . Hence there is no equality
but always equity - an insoluble mystery of 'Why?'.
This is mere supposition only if it presupposes that we are but automata. This i s what happens:
Nature creates and is manifoldly re-creative - a dual concurrent production of replicas.
Body not only creates body but mind also; ego and soul replicate themselves as our
own. Indeed, God recreates the potential of God as our individual self. Thus, all universals
appear ultimately within the individual. Within each of us, by our own encouragement, will
be developed all possibilities from whatever our residuum of experience and present
means . This will entail voluntary frustration of one thing to obtain another. To become
good - sacrifice evil, and our choice will manifest itself, though sporadically, depending on
our consistency in overcoming periods of fatigue . When sacrifice is total, i.e., all for one
thing, then the result is a cataract of power.
Our past experience alone yields valid inference (organic and intuitive) not only from our
reactions to it but from the sensational aftermath value of our active participation. All
actions become irretrievably formative, whereas our thoughts are mutable and mainly
directive. The only elements opposing Man are exterior ones which may cause conflict,
e.g., man himself, disease (unities without empathy; or natural decay). All actions create
our destiny, therefore whatever environment and accidents we inherit are to a certain
extent our liability.
Man Forgets
The manner of interpenetration of anything with other things (natural or artificial) is rectified
by experience and forms, natural affinities or allergies. There are no conflicts as such;
fire may be hurtful but it is also useful - both are facts by impact, forming our fears . All
such phenomena are indifferents . The whole Cosmos is a harmony of empathy and indifference
- everything is always a near-perfect harmonious unity, though temporary and continuously
changing. Man is either a mere automaton without sin, responsibility, etc., or he
is partially responsible and creates evil. In his efforts to create his own Ego-image he necessarily
deviates; his lies, pretensions, fallacies and assumptions become the hyle, and are
not evil even though he would rather satisfy himself on illusions than face the difficulties of
reality. These are creative qualities, but Man is a forgetter. Everything he generates returns
to its origins; the past never sleeps. Ability is acquired over long periods of experience of
all kinds; it is necessary to experience sufficiently in order to acquire additional factualities.
How does Man manage to become the world's worst bastard and inconceivably evil? Is it
conceivable for anyone to be so small-minded as to imagine himself as God without the
ability of being decent? And so on, ad nauseam . . . Yes! Man forgets (reciprocation).
The Law of Change
The law of change is of quantity and quality: duration is eternal, a constant factor; all new
qualities become as real as the original qualities. The original Ids are the same in a microbe
as in Man, but in Man they have branched out, effloresced, become more indirect - but
remain the same . The Ids appear as eternal - their phalli, the new expressionalism; they
guise their functions of acquisition. They are the eternal stimuli, and that which ceases to
desire ceases to be (as it is) and death becomes a necessary mutation against resistance.
If there is a Law of Progression there is also a Law of Regression. Although everything is
changing, everything is always complete; any series of changes and emergent qualities are
probably cyclic. Man is the summit of this, which only means the end of a particular cycle .
Each state is a synthesis o f all preceding states and i t resolves their difficulties. [Lacuna]
Ontological and dialectical forms emphasize the interconnectedness of all things and the
self-development of each thing, its separateness and self-identity. From such gleanings the
only sentient syllogism would be: 'supposition, experience, composition' .
Modifications of a Universal 'A' : 'A' is a changing factor and develops towards 'B', as
'Ab ' . Only when it is fully 'B', as 'aB', does it develop into ' C ' : thus, 'aBc ' . When it
becomes 'fGh' does it formally cease to manifest 'A' . In fact, forms rather than functions
have changed. 'A', 'b', 'c' and all preceding states are resident as residua. 'A' never ceases.
The complete cycle is 'AMZ'; 'M' being the apex. From 'A' onwards are potentials of
'M'; from 'M' to 'z' are differentials of 'A' to 'M' by refunctioning all the specializations
of 'A' to 'M' as 'M' to 'Z '. If this sequence of experience has any purpose at all it is for
individuation and extension of faculties and aptitudes, i.e., the formation of genius as a
responsible being, ultimately independent even if interdependent.
Ego : an ideal unity of ability (i.e., relatability). Our concepts of Ego become our
Daemon. Our sense of inferiority is caused by our inability to individuate our self through
our concepts rather than through others' concepts.
We cannot test either dialectics or our forms of mentation, against Nature. Nature creates,
we make partial similitudes how and where we may: we know nothing of the continuous unfelt
impacts from Cosmic sources that may inspire change and determine all things . Moreover,
nothing is impossible with Nature whatever our limits. All our thoughts and conceptions
relate to things, therefore the processes are similar: ideas change, gain content etc., by
intercommunication, and so develop; any one thing or thought is the medium for another.
The test of all things is not fidelity but ethical pragmatism. Anything true to its own laws
(even when false to other things) will manifest a content, perhaps different and contrary -
moral or not - to all other known things . The human brain and body are capable of receiving,
indexing and giving back whatever is put into them, as any other complex machine;
but they are also capable of re-forming, judging, evaluating, believing and feeling.
Whatever the brain receives (a priori) it shapes to its limits as a jug shapes to itself the wine
it receives. Ego does the thinking, or para-percepting - Mind: the procreative; Soul : the initiator;
the Absolute : the originator of all media though itself not a medium . So, Man's path
and destiny is to create his own semblances of Ego, Mind, S oul and Gods as his own.
Whether Man is so endowed (he is a refraction of all conceivables) shall be manifest with
his ability. Better to be an artist than a sterile shite! Reaching across the very rafters of
Cosmos is a vast shadow, Man's frustrations silhouetted . . .
Far better a facade of make-believe or some self-made arabesque than . . . ? For whatever
we serve we are subject to - and all things are their own good and evil - inescapably.
Although certain integers must give evidence of 'fact as factual' (e .g., Knowledge,
Mathematics, etc .) everything is essential to truth for everything is true (fact and fiction)
as infinite relatability. Truth ceases to relate outside our span, and all conceivability is within.
But who knoweth the dimensional extent of Ego?
What is Truth?
What is Truth? Propositional forms are inferences from an 'as/or' synthetic composibility,
inferences of partitive semblances refrangible from both ends and equally correlative from
any 'inbetween' ratio to either end. Illustration: an octave spanning all assonances by resonance,
therefore any degree (of itself) is mergeable or emergeable within its span (usually,
categorically imperfect). Irrespective of this, truth always and only equals its ability to
be true (from any premise) . Truth is also ability of transpositions, as from the audile to the
visual prismatic scale - from which primitive pattern we originate our own schema.
Facts are partitive, or correlative of truth, posited by time-place: "It is a fact that it is raining";
to be true it must rain all the time in all places. It may have done so, and may do so
again, but usually does not - meaning: "It frequently rains 'as/or' somewhere, sometime " .
And all our truths are a s such. Truth necessitates all fictions. Look upon Ego as
Altrotheoego for you can 'put into' Ego anything you so will and it will give back semblances
(truth enough) . Any arabesque of unverifiable fictions will find pragmatic testimony.
Syllogistically: supposition, potentiality, probability.
The Ecstoicism of Zos vel Thanatos
Awaking and yawning, he wondered whether this was a re-birth or another reiteration of
yesterday . . . and when he had clarified his mind and cleansed his body he thought thus:
I will give my other self the one ethic, the one sin, the one virtue and many other onenesses.
Equity is the whole moral law. From it sprang this Cosmos, your future equation and
Nemesis; for whatsoever you take from life you will give back. Whatever you commit to life
you will entail as good and evil.
Virtue is positive when to yourself, for how else could you love others unless you are fit
to love yourself? To do unprovoked injury to none should be the whole ethic of behaviour
towards all beings . Never forgive those who serve thee ill, until thou hast punished them,
for thou wouldst thereby injure others . Greed and all wickedness survive only through ease
and success. If the law of the Country is rotten, adroitly live thine own. Make punishment
suitable and not excessive, as revenge would also injure thee. See that all thy motives are
healthy and altruistic. The fool strikes in heat without judgement, often over-injuring,
therefore 'correct' only with cold passion, knowing exactly what you do. For if we are all
sons and related and are interdependent, or if others are as ourself, how can injury to them
(except as correction) ultimately benefit us? Your immediacies are from yesterdays, your
tomorrows the aftermath of the todays : their good and evil live on.
The body is our whole means of expression, therefore guard and preserve it, for it is your
common right to survive . Be not over-fastidious, rather harden your body and mind so that
you can face reality in all its facets, and accept the violence of pleasure or pain with fortitude.
For remember, this body has potentialities not yet realized: Man is not the ultimate . . .
and it is often wiser to cleanse the mind rather than to remove the dirt of your labours from
your body, or the earth from your feet; the body is temporary, the mind more lasting. Have
a shameless mind and your body will manifest its beauty.
The great gesture is that which neither expects nor asks for anything, and which inflicts
on others only what is merited. Ask not forgiveness of Gods or men but take your reparations
Willingly.
Disregard the fortuitous, give effect to your desires by effort. The Ecstoic has no fear of
reincarnation, karma, 'last judgements ', nor of the earth itself giving way beneath his feet.
If he is injured - it is acquittance. His sole effort is to do no injury to others . He is acceptive
of Nature and mainly negative to Man. He faces life and death with open eyes, and if
he seeks suicide as relief for a while, he goes forth to meet death with a smile knowing he
will come again. How cautious he is in doing good - delicately, like a funambulist. He has
no morals, beliefs or ideals that are not tactual to life, possibility, and human nature; thus
heaven and hell are within his hand. He neither prays, begs, nor borrows (if possible) , but
works by the sweat of his mind and body; therefore why should he pray - or prey? He
expects nothing for nothing yet often gives. He is too proud to act or to believe merely for
rewards - or punishments. He acts and believes in the way he considers wise and healthy:
neither Devils nor Gods, or his Ids, can corrupt him. If he seeks sanctuary, he is tired, unfit
to accept unequal odds, but he always comes back . . .
We love the child for its total dependence and acceptance, therefore b e ye the same to
your parental good and evil, for until ye have paid and have become sufficient unto yourselves
ye shall wear this halter of dependence.
The Ecstoic is largely indifferent to praise or blame but makes no virtue of it; he doeth
whatever he does and asks none to accept unless he so desires. He will say: "This I believe,
but I would that you believe differently, as your actions are different" . He is often austere
in eating, heavy in drinking, as he believes in having at least one weakness, but would
forego this and find another weakness if he found he became less human thereby. He is a
fine soldier, unambitious; yet if none desire the van he will go first; if none desire the rear,
he will be last. He is the last to retreat, he never surrenders, rather would he destroy himself;
but he fights only in what he considers a just cause. He is fearless because he can smile
with the Gods at life and death as mere temporary transitions.
Although he cannot condone and stomach all religions or cults, knowing their corruption,
yet has he been animist, polydaemonist, zoomorphist, pantheist and monist, but he
usually becomes apostate to them all, becoming ultimately a 'Self-love Theurgist '! The
Ecstoic has his own esoteric cult, sacred to his own symposia: his effort is to convert himself,
not others. He believes that a religion should equate with a person' s level, a new polymorphism
having texture to changing life and tactual to all possibilities - as the young begin with the alphabet, so may they come to know the most abstract truths.
The Ecstoic's solipsism embraces creation as the atmosphere, for it is the world in which
he lives. This contact with it does not preclude his following his mind into all elsewheres
to receive inspiration from Allness.
The Ecstoic is never superior - a saviour, saint, apostle or gospeller, as such. He is often
in the company of sinners, though never self-righteous. He condones much and condemns
little - outside himself - yet he is resolute against corruption or injury to the young or helpless.
He loves all animals, for are they not great Ecstoics? The veriest fool can understand
the one ethic of Ecstoicism: Do not desire, or do, injury to others, other than they do unto
you. Do as you please, to whom the pleasing is the law. Return good for good, corrective punishment
for injury.
You are not alone in this world, whatever your beliefs; and you are relatively responsible
for its wrongnesses. Your example and your attitude can change things.
Again: what you do not desire from others do not commit to them; far better violate yourself.
And what you desire from gods or men, ask for decently and accept only when reasonable
as 'Quid pro quo'; and if you give - forget it! For who knoweth what is for their good.
Be as autonomous as possible, self-disciplined, resilient, fearless, with moral courage to
face all difficulties. Have your stance in reality and let truth be your mirror: these are the
Ideals of Ecstoicism. Virtue is impersonal and greater than love which involves attachments
. There is great virtue in serving the necessitous . Desire little from others - fulfilment
may return as demands or as useless or undesirable gifts.
Let your hero be Prometheus : did he not take from the gods to give to man?
Again, I say: I would that you were different from me. Go forth in your way and be greatly
your truth without injury to others . This shall be your law and the road to your Numen
and to your becoming . . .
Here Zos fell into a deep abstraction and when again he became foreconscious he spoke
to himself thus:
"All morality smells somewhat, and immorality often stinks . Something more is wanting
for Eternity. There are many lives in this one, as there are many closets in space, and one
sincere belief spawns ability anywhere. But there is this difficulty for others - of knowing
how and what to believe . Must I give the magic word? Then so be it: He that so loveth himself.
. . all creation will come unto him. "
Mind to Mind and How
By a Sorcerer
Rendered in an idiom other than for scientists
Consistent with other directions of abstract knowledge, the threshold of the occult is the
market-place for the charlatan . Coinage is sometimes different - lies have a strange longevity
and fecundity - truth becomes buried. Abstracts such as 'mind', 'thought', 'intellect',
naturally have no exact definitions; to agree at all, we have had to resort to the Classics.
Should I, as a God, fall into this cesspit of inexactitude? I, too, revert, and rely on 'Delphic'
means for my answers. There are no conclusions . . . but I assert that the most positive and
exact evidence it is possible to present to others, reposes in the lowest, most common
denominator of occultism - 'fortune-telling' . Be patient awhile for you will be enlightened
by what follows.
The means used and the way it happens are simple and the inverse of scientific. I use a
traditional formula, created by instinctive guess and arbitrarily formed, not evolved by
hypothesis and experiment. The law of sorcery is its own law, using sympathetic symbols.
This logomachy was subsequently deduced from actual practice, using cards like an 'oracle',
the exponent as interpreter.
Thought may be looked upon as dynamic, ever-present like the Ether; we are inescapably
in and of it. It is neither a work incomplete nor completing though always changing our
shape and degree of consciousness. Man is a vehicle of thought, and thought governs the
world. Scientists constantly mistake the 'means' for the cause: brain, nerves, body etc. , are
the media of thought, and when thought is dynamic in them we say it is 'the mind ', which,
in itself may have some queer relationship with The Mind behind it all. If mind has any
'seat' it is in the whole body, rather than a part. Because thought is a subsequent impression
of feeling and all things cohabit all the time - identity is by identifying, and the price is
suffering (and much more thought). So, Identity is an obsession, a composite of personalities,
all counterfeiting . . . a faveolated ego: a resurging catacomb where the phantom-like
demiurguses seek in us their reality.
There are abstract 'Ids', symbols that are cognizances of the mind: inveterate, interpreted by
some kind of metaphor. Our actions and beliefs being liars to each other, our usual language
is useless for mystic communion. The nexus between cause and effect is medianimity.
There is a Grimoirium of graphic symbology and vague phonic nuances that conjoins all
thought and is the language of the psychic world. Mind is a continuant and all concepts
are relatable to preceptions and contact, therefore real; the continuum of all aspects of
memory and learning is consciousness - the past again becoming explicit, more or less.
Our whole mentation is cognizing our cognition: I do know not only that I know, but
how little I know of my own omniscience.
The conjugation of 'a priori' and 'a posteriori' creates the anoetic . A little knowledge is
necessary common sense, much is dangerous, as the motive is a form of greed. One aspect
of Knowledge not only discloses another but a whole series of fresh problems .
Invariably, inspiration is the only mechanism science has for the disclosure of new facts
and such a form of guessing is a casual process of 'mind to mind' recollection and transference.
Our very existence establishes a previous history (thought, mind, body), so all subsequences
are difef rentiated derivatives of 'a priori'.
If there is a 'primacy of practical reason' then judging by results (in man) it has become
its own laughing poltergeist . . . we are worse in prospect than in retrospect: and nothing
seems to exceed its own archaism. Wisdom appears a stasis, while Knowledge is ever forming
- never complete. Whether within or without, nothing is fully explicit; Nature reveals
slowly her techniques and media; of her motives we know nothing, we only guess at them
from our own wishes. The tactual quality of relating is by a sentiment - the latent memory
identifies and gives knowledge . . . Our truth - the totality of impressions from affections
when confirmed by our atavism. All we know for certain are the great uncertainties and
unknown commitments of ourselves. Our lives are spent in finding the solution, a reciprocity
of para-rational creativity. We are only fitted to co-relate our own level - whether by inspiration
or any other means .
Certain directions of Knowledge should be arrested, they give little and at great cost: we
have always had a plethora of the means of destruction. Laws of Art and Logic are limited
rules of patterning and nothing is deduced, except variations from them: there is no technique
of spontaneity and inspiration
Science, like Logic and Psychology, is its own bogey and as neurotic as its own creed: its
fear of deviation from its arbitrary standards and categories confirms all the definitions of
the psychopathic . . . Science also has to await its rare artists to make an audacious guess for
enlightenment or mutation. For me, the inexplicable of beauty, the undivulged of things
gives them their enchantment - not their known meanings.
From the above evolves a suggestion: that the mind knows all, that thought, which permeates
all things, is the conveyor and nexus, and that we become en rapport and evocative
by some cryptic symbolism which we must originate. Here is a clue: How do two fraudulent
telepathists convey messages to each other? By a legerdemain; some subtle secret code.
And the means of psychic correspondence, telepathy, premonition and prediction is by a
like parallel. Merely to establish telepathy between two people by known things, means little
outside of the proof, so we extend to the unknown, i.e., prediction, and by a simple form
anyone may put to the test.
Language - Words in general and in particular
The revelationary and predictive possibilities of a personal or a universal symbolic language
have never yet been rationally probed or exploited, either as from mind to mind or from
our own mind. And when I (as Ego) question the mind, what mind is it? Absolute, submind
or mind of my own? Answers are only given when the correct language is used via
inspiration or automatic means. Mind is absolute articulation: the nearer we simulate, the
more expressive . . . Through the shaky structure of language has evolved a quasi-automatic
jugglery of words in a jungle of indiscrete meanings and loose tergiversated grammalogues:
forcing us to rely on crudities and colloquialisms for one-to-one meanings or qualify almost
every word we use. A simple sentence may be self-contradictory. What is remarkable, is
that by transposing or casually mixing words in a sentence what nonsense is made, which
proves that words have to fit and obey the predetermined grammatical pattern, which, if
itself ambiguous - gives ambiguities. It is not my function here to lay the foundations for
a rational language, but it is the essential work of logicians and scholasticism: who so far
have lamentably failed - suggestions galore and nothing attempted. It is now urgent, not
only as a check on speculative intemperance, misuse and absurdities, but as essential pruning
of inevitable extraneous outcroppings of our spatial language . Our excessiveness of
unnecessary words has itself become a form of mentation (with semantical half-truths) -
rather than a means of discovering. There is this paradoxical equation: Truths are their
conditions, so bind us to their own rules of conation.
Truths are only partial-transitives to words, i.e., there is no full-blooded semantical truth:
words are the material of sentences, "meanings" by qualified inferences or relatables limited
to certain rules.
Language as now, is ideal for authorship, poetry, hyperbole etc., sufficiently varied to
allow of choice for any expressionism, we need only use words of our own selecting: defective
as over-spatial and illogical syntax.
As for Ego requesting from Mind: To so question - use simply 'one to one' symbols in
short sentences of telegrammatic form. Answers will be emotional and abstract, pregnant
by finding their own means - maybe as by words in travail . . . All reasoning is a muddling,
truths can only be suggested, must be self concepted. My truths may not be yours, truth
has interchangeability into any belief.
The Mind is generous one way: It will give power to anyone on - one condition only.The
original language was a series of phonograms, purely of emotional expression with gestures
aiding; subsequently, graphs were added - crude pictures, mainly of things : developed as
sound-signs, the 'ideograph' ultimately relating abstracts: syntax gave words their sequence
and spatial inexactness. If logic needs its own language, theurgy, i.e., communication
between 'Ego and Mind' also needs its own form, based on the primal universal language:
sign plus sound plus meaning.
What are the essential requirements of such a language? The axiom is simplicity: Signs
and symbols used - as near as possible - have relevance as geometric, arabesque or abbreviated
picture-graphs; with a 'one to one' meaning. Syntax is mainly conjunctional, an
accurate sequence of words giving significant meaning: Certain properties cannot be either
implicit or explicit in one word, nor of autological form. Our real predicament begins with
abstracts. Example: The word 'God', what do we mean and how symbolize - by attributes?
I'll agree we all mean 'Absoluteness' - itself limiting: 'God the unpredictable absolute'
is better: any such symbol must be arbitrary and fictional.
And they crowded towards him saying: "Lord save us, we would learn of your wisdom" .
And h e answered them from his dissolving magnanimity, thus:
"As your brother I hate your guts - the Truth is always terrible. Though your stomachs
are distended, you have no room to conceive reality. How much of myself have I saved after
my sacrifices? I am naked to my Ego, swimming the Sea of the Qliphoth, ready for the
increative from the labyrinth of the Mind. Should I, in my travail of death, speak of these
miracles? Better that I told you about your un self-evidence to expansive Truth, with your
all-redundancy living a dissolution. Your love is fratricidal, and a self-hate that spawns all
destructive diseases. Did not the Gods make you as beautiful as the Moon? Now look at
you ! Not healthy fat but a flaccid over-weight, or like animated corpses, wayward as somnambulists
or drunken ghosts: unreal - ugly.
What, I ask, is there to save? But right you are in some things : lost to yourselves and
damned by your own Gods. So, unless you come unto the reality of your Truth through
yourselves, you will be born again abortively; and unless you are true to your Gods, how
can you know your truths outside your damned kennels? You know not what you want . . .
but I am too conscious of your hidden desire:- easy remission of your sins and Heaven a
fortuitous brothel . Verily, I say unto you: space itself could not contain your greediness!
Know you, that Heaven is very limited, - and on Earth? So suffer your flatulences and
inhale your own stench; for Here and Now is your time and day of mayhem, sadism, and
every debauchery . . . this world is nearer your lecherous dreaming than any hereafter.
Once I asked you: If equity is ultimate, what could you expect? When you can answer,
without fear of reciprocity, then only is your self-redemption by manhood near. For now
you are mere caricatures, dirty tatterdemalions, deserters, frustrated bastards unworthy of
mixing with animals . How near you are to your self-extermination to which you are wilfully
blind. But . . . I was once of you, with you, and perhaps no better. . . but I destroyed my
pretentious fa<;:ade and had no ears for you. Go your way without injury to any man, and
beauty and self-love will grow again from the manure of your discarded foulnesses."
Zos departed, muttering: "After my dissolution, I wonder how much I have gained from
my duality?"
Allegory
Temptation is always here : the Devil came unto the Stoic, Zos, with the old, old story,
offering the world with every luscious promise of power in exchange for his S oul, and Zos
replied: "Every stupidity would seem outlasting; first know, I have greater temptations to
use my own powers and already possess far more than you offer, for I was begotten of my
own God. Other Gods, the Soul and myself are one with all things and no other man or
devil shall rend me. And absurd, my bartering what I already have ! Moreover, I need little,
sufficient food and shelter to work and a few amenities, so what else should I desire of
my own superabundance? - I am neither sickening, aged, nor so greedy that I need the
world's slavery to maintain and pleasure me. Yet how catastrophic if I, or any man, held
the World in power . . .
The supreme littlenesses have become Gargantuous; conquering the world is now a
cheap-jack's technique: one's only needs seem sufficient lust, hate and loud-voiced slogans,
with promises, to establish a parasitic hierarchy. But look, those swine yonder: voracious,
and rightly so for they are essential and useful scavengers . Is my function to excel them -
become the greatest swine? The only gift I need is an 'ability' which none but I can attain.
You are as other bastard dictators, promising everything, giving nothing and living on the
credulousness of fears and greed."
Then, facing the Devil, he laughed and spat in his face, saying: "What I give you, I give
freely!" After which he wiped his spittle from his face.
Abstract Art
What is now labelled 'uninhibited expressionalism' is usually a deliberate attempt to be different
from, or to react to, some orthodoxy, style or dated sentimentalism by non-functional
exaggerations - therefore a misnomer. Failing by this non-parallelism they resort to
arbitrary symbolism and other absurdities, and also adopt sensational methods and values
from the worst exhibitionism . Indeed, unless their work at once 'slaps you in the face', it
fails . Also, the glib talk and furore over 'abstract art' is equally misleading and unmeaning.
To give an abstract of a concrete - a clock - first remember its function. We must remove
the face, expose the works and dismantle to analyse, restate the mathematical formula from
proved hypotheses (ideas) , then the mechanical metallurgic basis with the chemical and the
electrical, etc., right down to the atomic as necessary for an 'abstract portrayal'. Does
abstract art give or symbolize this? Whether it does or not, we are less wise having removed
the face - we can no longer know the time! Faceless and featureless things have no meaning.
Is abstractism 'unfunctional purpose' catering for sciolists? If you really wish to see a perfect
rendering of an imperfect 'abstract of an abstract' - use a looking-glass, for whatever
you see, be sure it is not the real you, nor would your anatomy or any part, nor analysis,
disclose such, although we are refracted as an extract from the absolute abstract.
The Moderns and Art - 'Absit Invidia'
We must own that the effect of their respective arguments, as usual with frenetic propaganda,
is not to satisfy us with either, but to dissatisfy us with both. Neither side has much
veracity in its conclusions - the usual jumping from half-truths into the uncertainties of
generalizations .
The Greek ideals (of art) were tactual of reality and potentiality, with the possibility of
being true to Art and Life. Whereas the atavistic nostalgias called 'modernism' are mainly
the dark sanctuary of incapacity - the fear of facing and expressing reality. The fine traditional
works (not always so in their period) will always remain great, because they are works
that have survived the ephemeral fashions and phases of thought. The 'Academy school'
has lost its fine traditions and oft degenerates into sentimental and analgesic art. Let us
remember that although Art may have direction it is not necessarily knowledge, truth, intuition
or anything else: it is ubique, a metaphor of possibilities and of making aesthetic and
other interesting sensations more permanent.
What is Art? The function of Art is the ornamentation of things and of life for pleasure
or interest. It has this paradox, that it can make anything appear possible, and is the most
justifiable form of lying. Fundamentally, all art is an essential and natural graphic syllogism
without antithesis. That is: 'Idea, form and composition' - (asked by one of my pupils to sum
up Art in one word, I replied: ' Composition' - with the proviso that successful coitus needs
sufficient libido), with spatial parenthetical embellishments never accurately indexed.
Yes, but this content does not qualify i t as great art or anything very much; indeed, quite
elementary patterns are significantly all this and still quite commonplace. Hence, of the
fundaments: the 'Idea' should be original or a fresh interpretation of the familiar. 'Form'
should be aesthetic and, however rhythmic, logical and vital.' Composition' should have
balance, however asymmetrical or inventive, and always remain geocentric.
These three elements at their best when unified, however abstract, constitute fine Art and
may significantly throw an halation of nuances hard to define. Colour, tone, perspective,
conventions, degrees of realism, etc., are subsidiary although sometimes dominant: indeed,
there are great works of Art that are purely linear and colourless, and others that have dominant
subsidiaries such as colour. Hence Art is elastic and elusive, where much overlaps,
where certain qualities may have special value or be absent, but the three fundaments are
always there . And apart from the more abstract values, the above should be the criterion
for judgement, whatever the idiom, school, style or period . As for the public, the best
advice re: 'modem art' is to like whatever appeals to it and not what it is told to appreciate.
I can remember such statements as "Lord Leighton (and others later) equalled
Michaelangelo", and so on ad nauseum. And G.F. Watts stated publicly when I was fifteen
years old that I had already done sufficient work, which, when properly exploited, would
surpass, etc . . . So be careful what you believe, and trust your own inclinations; modern
things, whatever their style, are always under- or over-rated. The fear of the ultra stylist is
- the next one.
Personally, I believe that reality, too remote, paralyses Art. What we term 'genetic' is
either emphasis, exaggeration, or mutilation of natural stuff - at its best a synthesis. Man
is excreative; if he were increative he would neither require Art nor anything else.
The latest idiom appears to be an effort to express sincerely what we do not believe, as
if it were co-equal to expressing what we do. This effort seems the destruction of beauty
by such artistry, and, already, our most appreciative class is dying. The authorities and
educational experts have helped - from the culture that lavatory distempered walls
(L.c .c .), etc., display... "Muraglio bianca di mauo ".
Finally: great Art is the result of great ability, whatever the idiom, style, and so on,
inspired by the subject having its own meaning - the apperceptive concept of the Thing's
ethos . Thus, the portrait of a person should be more like him than himself - seldom complimentary...
Laws of Art or Logic are limited rules, as of patterning, and nothing is deduced except
variations from them: there is no technique of spontaneity.
Beauty is the depth of the average mean, and the alignment of all extremes
.
Perfection cannot be caricatured because it is perfect economy.
Discourse to the Next Moderns
Art may be a means of experiencing by abstracts, symbols, etc., what can not be conveyed
by other means; but not by equivocation or by something contrary to our healthy feelings
and intelligence. At the least it has to have pattern and give intimation of its genetic truth
- and should be technically competent.
When I see something that might be a vomit of small ingenuity, called 'Portrait of my
Mother', then - as in the method of 'psychoanalytic free-association' - it could be called
'God', 'The Soul ', 'The Rape of Helen', or any damn thing you please. This sewerage is
served up to the public as deep abstract! Well, they are the best argument I know for the
credence of psychology, i.e., the smutty-romantic pathology of St. Fraud, Junk and Co...
Anything badly out of alignment or grossly distorted must have merit - seems to be their
first maxim . Their stuff is not vital or grotesque; but a disintegration, flaccid, stinking, and
of lost meaning. They are necrophagous . Fortunately, this decay quickly dessicates and
becomes the manure for something different. (For beauty, vitality and inventiveness in the
chimerical, horrific, grotesque, etc., see the works of Bosch, Grunewald, Graf, Deutsch,
Cranach, Breughel, Durer, Michaelangelo, and even Leonardo studies.)
Let us have Art that we can look at twice; if not beautiful, something that stimulates
towards an illusive significance, and in a style that does not involve the poster-artist's tricks
for effectiveness - always the sensationalism out to arrest attention by kicking, or other
means of shock. The most compellingly dynamic works I know are archaic - a static simplicity
that is vital if not beautiful. Like my cat, I always judge a thing in this wise: is it true?
(genetic or actual); can I breed from it?; does it smell good (to eat)? New idioms are easy
and abundant, but ability . . . well, that's recollected.
On Reality
Certain maudlin literati glibly assert the acceptance of reality as fullness and finality, and
the 'surrealists ' just as glibly assert the opposite. But we are a kind of mental and actual
symbiosis (with restless schisms). How much of reality should we accept and of what kind
- for to accept the whole is impossible? There is a constant shuffling of the extrovertive and
introvertive as reality or non-reality, and all values and levels are rejection of much more.
I ask, which are the essential realities amongst those for which we strive? Also, our acceptances
are well filtered, stultified by allergy and prejudice, devitalized by fears, cheese-paring,
and often unacceptable to our inner 'as if imaginings. And what of the wayward and
intrusive thoughts, ideas, vagaries and more subconscious chaos? Beginnings of things are
deceptive, for ideas birth and rebirth to ultimate flesh, when shaped by utility. And what
of our future uses? We know little of reality as such, so accept all things as potentials of a reality,
even those we only feel and guess. If we could accept and stomach all things, some kind
of Godhood would be nearer.
Thisness and Thatness
Reality is explicable in terms of one principle (duality) in any single thing, ultimately in all
things - abstract or concrete. One thing maketh another near-like thing, all with a constant
factor of variability and inherent duality. The homogenous becomes heterogenous, then, a
multiple individuation: therefore the ethos of anything is its potential for variability and
individualism, unrelatedness a question of orientation, duration, place, quantity and quality.
The resolution is the same - degrees of each other furthering individual Ego (as separating
from the Universal) .
Not-self is the least degree of self (i.e., the vastnesses of otherness are the hylic of creating
Ego) .
All contradictories have ground of synthesis in the 'mean of their ratio', i.e., inbetweenness
is the spatial point: White, Grey, Black dimensionals and the terminology of both . But
the absolute idea is prismatic, colourful, vivid, giving aesthetic veridity, and nearer syllogisms
as: ultra-violet, prism, ultra-mauve is the designated structure which we constantly
re-design (as harmony or not).
What is unmanifest is absolute, what is manifest is reality, as all differentiations.
Therefore all true analysis must be by co-ordination of contradictories.
Man (scintillating and syntactically tessellated). Any two or more points (things) anywhere
are alignable, eg., all manifest differences are communicative on an abstract axis
(i.e., they intersect or join).
For any enquiry or dissection of (human) existence we must first determine our altruistic
purpose, which is: to experience fully phenomenal reality and acquire power of resolute
choice of self-predestination, over-ride all failures and realize, by sufficient ability. Only by
penetrating to fundamentals, to the primal unsoiled insights of man, may we resurrect a
symbolic communion with sublated mind and the netherworld of the demiurges.
Only by a brutal and destructive analysis of corrupt conventions, traditions and modalities
as adversely affecting mentation, can we hope to reveal the primal sources, cohere pure
apperception and apprehension, and revive genuine thought-forms (as philosophizing)
which are now either buried, vanished, or over-ridden by spurious forms of hetero-zeteticism
masquerading as prescience.
Human reality is so structured that, superficially, it is immediately self-evident; further
stripping reveals only the conative means. The really real has no structure that we know,
thereby we must accept our psychosomatic and emotional structure as proxy (reality).
From this equation we make our personal purpose, purely hedonistic with its dilemmas
- if wise, an ethically felicitous altruism having relevance to the factors of like and dislike.
As all significant, they determine our values, and ultimate values, and become forever our
good and evil, because all things are algedonic and only differ in degree, frequency and
duration, as mainly our concern with them. Our failure to find pleasure, and our fear of
pain, becomes an apperceiving morass: frustrations become a jungle-growth of pretences,
the 'inasmuch as', a respectability or hypogene and/or, and every Jackassery making pedagogy
and successful failures.
One predicament or inconsistency arises: that since pleasure is the main good, we should
seek pleasure, and when so sought it is seldom found. E.g., all ends in themselves are self-defeating,
therefore aesthetic and such values are the best forms of hedonism. Another
manner of obtaining pleasure is to make the seeking (means) the pleasure, for whatever you
thus find you may so make pleasurable. Likewise, pain is avoided by rejecting what produces
it. All motivation is explained entirely in terms of desire for pleasure (however weird
the forms) and aversion to pain. The pleasurable evaluates the useful and conative.
Because it may 'work out' contra, is another predicament of our perspectives.
Time is merely our duration of relationship with things and events, and space equally
such a loose association.
Measurement of space: lie on your back, close your eyes and revisualize any past event;
then open your eyes suddenly and you will observe that the ceiling is an appreciable distance
away. Hence, the nebula of Orion both rests on your shoulders and is equally millions of
miles away.
We constantly search to confirm our deviations and fallacies as truth, mainly by inhibitions.
Whatever we can clothe with a degree of veracity, or simulate as real, shall become
a form of reality at some appropriate time/place.
Being dimensionally confined, we are baffled by space . . . yet in certain inspired and
dream states the sense barriers appear to dissolve and we marvel at our late ignorance of
space. Yet there is no mystery, a simple equation! Many times it has been made rational to
me and on awakening I have worked out a correct mathematical formula which, for a time,
appears understandable and true; then the meaning vanishes and I am left with either an ad
absurdum, an uninterpretable formula, or the usual circulus in probando, thus:
Any part has the potentiality of the whole, therefore the whole is plus all particulars as possibilities, both ad infinitum. (Briefly, anything is everything - as potentiality.)
The 'whole' we partially discern and conceive is manifest as physically pulverized, confluxing
and cohering, making apparent increase to create diverse differences, and, when
sufficient, forms entity. There cometh a constant separating and rejoining, ever seeking
new form and forms. This menagerie of past forms becomes our prescient heritage: there
appears a designer's hand with affection for summation, epitome and synopsis, with a
unique index of what shall activate most . . . everyone lives under such a selected predestinating
'Totemic' influence.
Apparently, the Absolute we may conceive transcendentally - it first pulverizes as itself
refracted sensually for every dimensional diversity. The eternal alogical law would seem to
be " . . . do as you please as long as it is different . . . ". But man, forsooth, is addicted to moralities
and whether guised as ideologies or religion is rotten with good and evil . Man forever
indirectly punishes himself by breaking his own laws. Think what you will, one cannot
break or disobey natural laws, or achieve the absurdity of conquering oneself or the flesh .
Only a fool forces a machine; control your body by guiding gently as you would a wayward
child; non-resistance may be more sensible. When I have empathy with earth and flesh,
then, maybe, my will and desire become of supreme importance.
Spiritists Say -
Spiritists say: "The inner being conquers the outer" (meaning body) . Such absurd statements
are typical of Eastern nominalism. There is no 'mind versus body' - no civil war.
The waywardness of the Ids, our emotional instability, are permitted by the mind and
essential to the life-force. They may be disciplined, transferred, changed, or occulted for a
while, but never conquered or destroyed. Control is a social ability, not a total abstinence,
or creation would cease - Nature's suicide ! What is body? A vast experience, veritable strata
of wisdom from our many past forms made implicit and organic and formed by mind
and all inner states. Is it more than quixotic that mind needs destroy its own processes and
media? No, there is a vast co-operation with mind constantly rectifying the body for further
expression. As men, we express more than our birdform, etc . All emancipation will be
by and through the body, for the body is the house and means of mind, nourished by all
outwaynesses: soul, God, stars - all contribute to the miracle of flesh.
Redouble your belief by fastening on to "I, eternal I as body", and the rest phantasmagorically
- mind, soul, God.
Sword Dance of the 'Ids' in a decaying World
Purpose and virtue of life: first to summarize some of the difficulties of our early and most
sentient period in that it creates our fears and allergies. Our 'Ids' at birth are wild, and like
other arboreal products, are amoral, virile as weeds and respond equally to good or evil,
with more possibilities for evil . They are malleable by direction, discipline and transference,
never by abuse or suppression (the garden of our 'Ids' must be the travesty of horticulture)
In addition, we inherit a basic pattern from our chromosomes and genes which is
our essential individuality and also rectifiable. And there is the most potent of all - 'environment',
which includes parents and everything associative and inflicted upon us at that
period. Whether environment is good or bad it is our inescapable Nemesis: all our early
controls are forged and forced on us from it. These three fundamentals are in constant
impact creating experiences, forming our complexities, frustrations, desires, good, evil, hate,
temperament, character and the direction of our individuality, ethics and principles. So amid
this unrhythmic gyration our early life is usually chancy. After the dangerous transition from
adolescence comes the opportunity to break or not the harness of these controls. We have
paid to cross another threshold; some quizzically, some half-awake, most with the ideals of
a maquereau, enter and . . . here a lengthy etcetera must serve as we all know the sequences
(e.g., our own) . Later we shape our orbit to some ambition, ideal or desire: more or less
form judgements from experiences, knowledge and those things that serve us best ... we feel
the piking finger of "I am I", a sort of psychic masturbation: we grasp at things and find
every frustration and we seek escape in every kind of illusion and sedative, instead of self reformation and virtue in behaviour. And there is always the band-wagon, manufactured
pleasure, thinking done for you: this permeating miasma of the 'ready-made ' and its noisy
spielers, few entirely escape.
Forsooth, all these factors are part of our Destiny, predetermined from our previous life. Why moan so much, when we can lead a full life . . . whether as labourer or craftsman - there is no greater virtue than to work hard at something for which one is well suited - there is no better service to yourself and others -
than to enjoy
your leisure your own way, making or seeking your own amenities: generate your own truth
and worth without argument, i.e., without forcing them on others or allowing others to
inflict theirs on you. But this is a mad world to awake in: robbed of your birthright, freedom
measured out, misapplied and seldom trained for our rightful work . . . sickeningly I could
go on. This present top-heavy and officious hierarchy with more parasites than ever
before . . . is already showing cracks, its feet of clay, without intelligence of its own - one
good shove will see the end. When the intelligent cease to sell their ability to unworthy
causes individuality will come into its own . And these saviours, prophets, atheists, nihilists
etc . , are useless: they are so entirely self-deceived, such supreme egotists that they really
believe that only by the extension of their careerism and ideologies can good accrue to
others! To hell with their heavens and their miserable bargainings . . . and the atheists, for I
have forgotten more than they could digest. Let them save themselves . . . On different days
I am different . . . even deny my denials; but sometimes I am blessed, to some extent intoxicate
myself, and draw nearer to Gods and Soul than these spielers ever were. Here, an
intrusive voice whispers, "What about a good strong woman to finish off?" Ah, yes ! I was
forgetting the priceless warmth of flesh. Therefore lead me to the best tavern - I know
nothing finer: every drink shall be a libation to a better Earth . . . our need is for improvers :
a constant rectification . . . and an ever open eye.
Commination & Valediction
My friends, a word allow me: Many moons ago I spoke thus, saying I accept all things, that
the final conclusion is that there is no conclusion, that reality is your only truth and that he who
be-lives his truth can create a reality, that the impact of flesh is all consciousness, that pleasure
has no fear, that life and death are the same realities (today is yesterday's rebirth and death the
great pregnancy for tomorrow's life), that no man knoweth anything, for there is no 'absolute
collective' . This is the beginning of Wisdom for your Inceptor knows all life . To become
your reality is also the means to the Ideal . Know this also: Who knew not before he knows
- has less when he knows . Enough - is too much! Let me reiterate :
"I believe in the flesh 'as now' and forever . . . for I am the light, the truth, the law, the way,
and none shall come unto anything except through the impact of flesh on reality!
Did I not show you the eclectic path between ecstasies, that precarious funambulatory
way? - But you had no spunk, were tired and fearful . . . awake I say! Dehypnotize yourselves
from the rotten idioms you be-live and be-lie. For the great Noontide is here, the great bell
has struck . . . let others await involuntary immolation, the forced redemption so certain for
those coprophagists. Now, this day I ask you to search your memories, for consciousness is
impact, a nostalgia from a previous experience - is desire and consummation, is life, i.e.,
consciousness. The Inceptor of all memories is your Soul. Again remember! Life is desire,
death its rebuilding. Life is eternal and there is sleep."
That I should have loved you! I, the Pan-Enanthroposist, a Narcissus who thought you
a looking-glass; that you were my brothers! But when I look at you I see such a vast endemonism
of myself, a substantiated stench, a visual presentation of emotional ugliness and
no vestige of the humane - I am amazed and non-plussed, for there is so much I would
destroy . . . too much to reconcile. Ideals seem remote and become imperative. Your Ids
have triumphed!
So let me pass on. There can be no following, for except through some phenomenal
debacle I see no reformation or recomposition. Such a dramatic change would need a
magic that could instantly change the very protozoa into men: then, having such magic,
neither would I waste nor abuse the powers . Time must change you: you have no worth
except destructively; the mind has tired of you . You were given great potentialities towards
pleasure and virtue! You have squandered all in your greed and inexhaustible vandalism -
now the world is almost a bloody muck-heap . So, farewell my brothers, keep hating yourselves.
I make path towards the beasts . . . until I make my form of death.
The Conclusions Of Zos delivered to his other Selves
I believe in the life; in the flesh of infinite variety. We are eternity, with - as now - a fleeting
and fluxing consciousness. Possibilities of being are limitless, because there is no total
of experience or memory. Our potentialities are within this all-spaciousness, reined in by
dimensionals and senses.
I believe in Ego as our full-known stature; in Will, Desire, Belief, Values, Principles; in
Beauty, Art, Virtue, Equity, Ideals and much else; in Man and all his paraphernalia and
incongruities; in the not-knowing in all knowledge; in my own incomprehensibility; ever
complete - never complete .
I believe in Ego unbegotten and always present . . .
And they interrupted him saying: "Lord, you once told us that you always thrust your
penis into every possible desirability. We did likewise and are now satiated, diseased and
prematurely old in spite of aphrodisiacs, unguents and medicines : O' Lord, in what is there
to believe that will save us?"
And he answered them: " Once I did so speak, but never asked you to do likewise, nor
that it was the whole purpose of life; each man to his own meat and drink. Better to go
astray than to follow. For my pleasures I willingly pay - do you? Now here is a simple way
of life within the moral codes: I teach polygonic truth, so accept all things as reality; but as
you cannot swallow the ocean, then accept by 'as if . You are the greatest reality, therefore
believe deeply of yourself or whatever you find acceptable and natural, and the Gods will
believe in you."
"Strive to become man, for the fullness of manhood has not yet been reached, and is
more urgently necessary than ever. Cut the navel-cord, free yourself from the womb, and
your Soul will give you your virtue and your genius. Finally, know that everything begotten
by you, and in you, is by unities with otherness to further your individuality. Your sincerity
will bestow reality. Pleasure shall be our respite from service to others, ourselves and
the Gods. There is no greater pleasure than the mutual; reciprocity is my law."
