tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post1266462951184883862..comments2024-02-13T12:50:30.457-05:00Comments on Rants Within the Undead God: Eldritch Revelations: The Irony of God and CosmosBenjamin Cainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-65094406882676306402016-08-27T17:48:48.250-04:002016-08-27T17:48:48.250-04:00That thought of an everything god is not the core ...That thought of an everything god is not the core of my own beliefs, just an after thought. It can't be proven, but it's one that amuses me, the actual goal isn't to worship or hope for the best option , but instead to observe / invent those parts. The contradiction is the point itself, in knowledge of nothing , man invents something to sniker to himself in amusement while looking at his own futile and pointless existence , to witness all the delusions nature gave him to hide her own ineptitude in being. Among other things yet does not fall to delusion but looks still apon them in both bliss and sorrow. Gaining only more parts to play with as he slowly drifts into nothingness. Smiling in amusement at his own meaningless and unheard joke. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927483136875413353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-82933482462158231592016-08-26T07:44:07.381-04:002016-08-26T07:44:07.381-04:00This emphasis on different parts making up differe...This emphasis on different parts making up different universes sounds a little like Leibniz's mondalogy--except his system is tied together by God who designs Creation so that it unfolds in the best of all possible ways. Yours still seems held together by an underlying logic to make sense of your talk of "contradictions."<br /><br />Either way, it's a metaphysical speculation, unless it's supported by physicists' multiverse interpretation of their math. This raises the question of how we should regard metaphysical speculations. I like Nietzsche's aesthetic interpretation. Ultimately, these big ideas we have are creations that live or die in our minds. They're artworks that have meaning for us emotionally or else they're just toys we play with for awhile. Scientific theories are more objective, but their interpretations, too, are largely metaphorical and emotional. <br /><br />For example, Darwin's theory of evolution was interpreted as having a social component, as in what we now call evolutionary psychology, and that component fed not just into Nietzsche's dark philosophy but into twentieth century fascism (the weak perish, the strong survive, etc). <br /><br />The meaning we give to certain big thoughts is a choice we make, but we do so when we're moved by the ideology--rather like how we're moved by a certain artwork, whether that be a novel, a movie, a song, or a painting. Some creations resonate with us, others don't.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-19679676126369599802016-08-24T16:04:15.141-04:002016-08-24T16:04:15.141-04:00Technically , it isn't just a thought on the l...Technically , it isn't just a thought on the literal multiverse , since that could still be constrained by mathematical law. What would define each part is the parts themselves, wich exist by and are limited by the mind , the trouble is actually proving everything, wich is essentially impossible without going to every part , yet in contradiction everything includes parts inaccessible from part to another. Any route to would shift that part to another therefore making it possible and so not everything. The interesting notion though is its accesbility within the mind and the madness it curses man with when he's faced with the part he lives within while bearing witness to everypart. It wouldn't be the math that dictates each worlds features but the parts wich the world contains that define it. When observing and studying this world and its parts they must be of a certain kind , while those beyond are not , each individual part itself defining that specific part. Aka their would not necessarily be a single beginning aka big bang , since each part would be defined by its beginning just as much as anything. Technically their is math involved but it isn't using the four basic symbols we use for calculating things , instead its inter related parts , where 1+1=2 , this math would be 1#1=1#1 , where the one and one aren't added together but exist as one part, the 1#1. And technically it's both science and theology, where one is orienting our dwelling part and the other exploring the rest. Still to truly access these other worlds would require that our world contains a part to make that possible, or perhaps we dwell in a part where their isn't even another part. Yet, we can't yet say for sure , and some parts we might never know. I'm not going to pick one, yet I respect science so any mention of God and magic triangle spiritual energy are still met with skepticism, but also curiosity at the alien part. Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927483136875413353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-34713491084423829492016-08-22T09:34:22.755-04:002016-08-22T09:34:22.755-04:00The multiverse is indeed mind-blowing. But you'...The multiverse is indeed mind-blowing. But you're probably aware that there's a debate among scientists as to the scientific status of this sort of math-based generalization. It seems just as strange that math should be our entry to understanding ultimate reality, as that consciousness could be such an entry, as the mystic says. <br /><br />Also, if the different worlds contradict each other, as you suggest, it's hard to see how the multiverse could have a mathematical explanation, after all. Leonard Susskind speaks of a "landscape" of possible universes, but it must be math that provides the laws that govern that landscape structure between the infinite universes. If that landscapes allows for the universes to contradict each other, what sort of reasoning is being used to describe the landscape? Is this science or theology?Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-29544683435085997132016-08-21T15:13:02.164-04:002016-08-21T15:13:02.164-04:00The only thing more terrifying than the undead God...The only thing more terrifying than the undead God , is a God of everything. Who made both worlds with afterlifes and ones without and everything between. Who killed himself to die and stop existing , but still lives on as both the most good being , but also the worse and most evil , who will cast unbelievers into hell fire , but also only bring the wise atheists to heaven. It just depends what part of everything we are in XD hopefully it's the one where we die and never live again. Heck among everything , their are parts where God did not exist and didn't create the world , coming about naturally, while next door , in another totally separate and unreachable universe people live in eternal ecstacy, but then you can add or remove god and each splitting distinction is its own part of everything. Man just won the worse lottery and gets to see it all , but only exist in one part of infinite. Madness ? Hell yeah , but than again choosing not to kill yourself is the craziest thing you can do , or heck even trying to grasp reality itself is but madness.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927483136875413353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-9108836715484663802016-07-28T09:03:51.182-04:002016-07-28T09:03:51.182-04:00Ben, I was reading your book CHFCA recently. I cam...Ben, I was reading your book CHFCA recently. I came across the section discussing the relationship between ancient Rome and Judea. I'm fascinated by this topic, and believe that it's probably a subversive/taboo subject. I believe it's taboo, because it reveals a lot about the power base of the western world. Not only then, but quite possibly now. Also the mainstream history on the subject is embarrassingly inaccurate, possibly intentionally. There is a man on you tube, that delves into this quite a bit. <br /><br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKQiLEWyhnA<br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-19155377602061140762016-07-23T15:05:30.259-04:002016-07-23T15:05:30.259-04:00Yes it's complicated and I'am still learni...Yes it's complicated and I'am still learning about all this.Atman is not God-precisely Gods because the term originate from Hinduism.Atman is eternal metaphysical principles while Gods are transient and mortal like humans.This principle is realized through years of practice of Raja Yoga,Jnana Yoga,Neti-Neti meditation and et cetera.For the attitude of dualism and teaching of Primordial Traditions is best to read following articles:"The problems that result from locating Spirituality in the Psyche" by Rama P. Coomaraswamy on sacredweb.com/online article and R.Guenon "The Demiurge".Zoran from SerbiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-38001965145435267482016-07-22T19:16:43.902-04:002016-07-22T19:16:43.902-04:00That's an amusing cartoon, Anon. I had the ide...That's an amusing cartoon, Anon. I had the idea for this Principle of Irony some years ago. I offer it here somewhat facetiously. The germ of it was perhaps my learning as an undergraduate of what Aristotle says about luck, that it's what happens in the natural field of cause and effect when it looks AS IF there were a mind in charge who is toying with us. That's a paraphrase, but the point as I understood it is that talk of luck is ironic and satirical. We anthropomorphize the world because events unfold as if their source were otherwise, even though we know it's not really so. <br /><br />Of course, in the dark monotheistic context of the above article, I'm saying that God would had to have been destined to end in an ironic twist of fate. Fate would be the highest god, as it were, or at least Fate would emerge from God's fall into madness and melancholy. Roughly speaking, God wouldn't go quietly into that good night: organic life is his raging against the dying of the light. <br /><br />If we lay this context aside and ask whether as strict naturalists and atheists we should adhere to the principle of irony as a guide to truth, I think it wouldn't be a foolish gamble to do so. The reasoning would begin with the negative induction regarding scientific progress. All previous theories have been falsified, so the present ones will likewise be overturned. Either science will end in a perfect, complete theory or the process will be endless, because there's no such thing as Truth (or because truth has a pragmatic component, so it shifts with the culture, with the prevailing survival strategies, and so on). If we take the main lesson of postmodernity to be the latter sort of skepticism, at least with regard to philosophy if not to science, we can still get at a tantalizing ultimate truth indirectly, by imagining what would have to be so for everyone to be maximally embarrassed by their attempts to know what's going on at the metaphysical level. <br /><br />The deep question is whether we live in a world that will ultimately reward our attempt to understand it or is this world instead one that will humiliate us, because we're accidental, absurd complexifications? If it's more like the latter world, the truth should be stranger than our fictions. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-64042923895145618072016-07-22T18:53:18.660-04:002016-07-22T18:53:18.660-04:00Anon, I know what you mean. When I was younger, I&...Anon, I know what you mean. When I was younger, I'd argue with theists on the early internet discussion forums (Secular Web, mostly), and I eventually learned that those discussions are mostly pointless. Minds are hardly ever changed. All those discussions did was offer me a chance to hone my writing and debating skills, and to research interesting topics. I still enjoy reading or listening to debates, which is why I write dialogues (the Clash of Worldviews series), but I'm not interested in trying to change people's minds. <br /><br />When I discuss philosophical matters with friends or with strangers, which is rare, I much prefer to employ the Socratic method, to ask questions to get the other person to say something interesting so I can learn something or be inspired to alter my thinking. With enough beer I can pontificate, but that's almost a performance art.<br /><br />I think we atheists get by by distracting ourselves with work, family, and the rest of the business of living. That's why Dawkins' atheist bus slogan says "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." The second sentence is the pragmatic part: don't stew in fear of nonexistent hell, but neither should you stew in Nietzschean, existential angst. Get on with the business of living, because the atheistic truth is as loathsome as the theistic fiction. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-39663644758027664282016-07-22T18:39:12.864-04:002016-07-22T18:39:12.864-04:00Zoran, so it's more complicated than I assumed...Zoran, so it's more complicated than I assumed. I'll have to read more about it, and maybe it will get clearer as I read further into Revolt against the Modern World. From your summary, it looks like the system is dualistic, after all. In that case, I don't yet see how the magical control fits in. I take it the underlying, universal Self (God or Atman) controls the illusory material and mental worlds (i.e. material objects and egos or the mental constructions we misidentify as our true selves)?<br /><br />Not sure you're getting at my point about the dark age. If objectification or over-quantification are hallmarks of our present age, that would be consistent with the dominance of science and technology. But then that form of dominance would still be severed from psychological progress, the latter being mostly absent. Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-72529922635813758572016-07-22T17:25:08.591-04:002016-07-22T17:25:08.591-04:00I asked the question about your family. I recently...I asked the question about your family. I recently got into a conversation with my mother about the existence of god, which quickly devolved into a near argument. Being an atheist I really don't want to try to shake peoples faith, and believe that thinking the way you or I do does have consequences. Our worldview would lead some people to depression. I guess sometimes I wonder, what is it about us that keeps us from losing it. When I tell some people how I feel about the nature if existence, they seem to think I'm "dark." The reality is that I feel fine most of the time. I do feel a bit alienated from popular society because of my views, but other than that I feel OK. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-33105430648521071592016-07-22T14:40:24.625-04:002016-07-22T14:40:24.625-04:00The principle of metaphysical irony seems like an ...The principle of metaphysical irony seems like an attempt to upstage both the archaic religionists and the arrogant secular modernists. It reminds me of this classic xkcd comic: https://xkcd.com/774/. I don't think the idea that nature is some kind of trickster who's set out to defy our expectations can be supported. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-45601894052247477442016-07-22T12:10:50.687-04:002016-07-22T12:10:50.687-04:00Ben dualism and monism are modernist concepts and ...Ben dualism and monism are modernist concepts and have nothing to do with the esoteric teaching of Primordial Tradition represented by R.Guenon and Evola.On the basis of this teaching Reality is Triadic and Tetradic,first is relating to its dynamics and the other on completeness of manifested Reality(R.G."The Great Triad",R.G."The Symbolism of the Cross").The said part of Abraxas article refers to Prakrti(Primordial Matter) from which they are generated Body and Psyche(emotions,affects and mind) while Purusha-Atman who must emancipate himself and control that matrix.This article is taken from book "Introduction to Magic"by J.Evola and UR group.4 Yugas represents a qualitative form of time.In Satya Yuga(Golden Age) subjective time/duration is lengthen and in him dominate Form-Esence-Quality.In Kali Yuga subjective time/duration is accelerating and in him dominate Matter-Substance-Quantity(R.G-"The reign of quantity and signs of time").Apart from Evola "Revolt against Modern World" it is good to read his book-"Ride the Tiger".Zoran from SerbiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-77981542652666994722016-07-21T21:16:10.829-04:002016-07-21T21:16:10.829-04:00Ah, Zoran, but in that case, if mastering external...Ah, Zoran, but in that case, if mastering external reality doesn't have to go along with mastering of internal reality, I think there's a problem with Evola's mysticism. Again, the Knowledge of Waters text says the inner force which is deeper than the ego ‘is undifferentiated, being idea, substance, and motion, both physical and psychic; it is indifferent toward good and evil and to every form, in its plastic capacity to be transformed into all things. It is a blind yearning; in it, idea and reality are instantaneously and "magically" one and the same, just as in that reflection of it, that "path" leading to it, which is the power of imagination in man.<br /><br />‘Since everything is at the mercy of this force and exists through this force, know that he who learns to master it completely will be able to dominate through all of nature: fire, earth, air, and water, life and death, the powers of heaven and hell, because this force encompasses them all.’<br /><br />How, then, is the Kali Yuga dark age possible during the age of scientific enlightenment and of technological mastery of nature? It’s one thing to show that late modern culture is dehumanizing, which I agree with. It’s another thing to take into account the fact that nevertheless we intantilized folks have godlike power through technology. The simplest explanation of this imbalance is that metaphysical monism is false: there’s a profound divide between life and nonlife, between mind and matter. "Magical" mind over matter, then, can happen only with technological mediation: we inject our intentions and values into our machines, into our languages, worldviews, and cityscapes, and that’s how we control our fate by taming and humanizing indifferent natural processes.<br /><br />I’ll have to look into Rene Guenon. <br />Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-1397184615091628452016-07-21T17:24:52.337-04:002016-07-21T17:24:52.337-04:00Yes it can be said that scientific progress of mas...Yes it can be said that scientific progress of mastering the external reality is not going to pair with exploration and mastery of the inner reality.What we have at work is rapid sub-humanization,modern man becomes more and more blind to your own inner reality and "transhumanism" represent the culmination of that process.Science is not to blame for this trend,the problem is in carelessness and stupidity of modern humanity(whose days are numbered).I believe that non-humanocentric Metaphysics of Rene Guenon may with certain changes have the added value of verticality to horizontality of cosmicist worldview. Zoran from SerbiaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-67080042839081442812016-07-21T11:08:41.550-04:002016-07-21T11:08:41.550-04:00I've talked politics with my brothers and my d...I've talked politics with my brothers and my dad, but my family is either uninterested in philosophy in general or wouldn't readily understand the rest of my philosophical views. So they belong to the camp of what's likely the 85% of human adults who likewise aren't interested in philosophy or aren't equipped to do philosophy on a sustained basis. <br /><br />I haven't hid my views, but neither do I share them for the sake of changing people's minds who don't wish to be assailed with foreign ideas. <br /><br />My family's not particularly religious, so probably the most offensive part of my blog would be its writings on sex. As is quite consistent with those writings, while sex in the abstract is prevalent in the American-led monoculture, talk of people's personal sex lives is taboo. So the chance for me to spread my views doesn't present itself, even were I inclined to take that chance. I'm averse to awkwardness, so I'm not going to try to convert anyone to postmodern asceticism, like some loony, blinkered fundamentalist. Only were I personally attacked might I fall back on my philosophical writings, and tease out and satirize the gross hypocrisies that might lie at the root of those attacks.Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-48591693540721905192016-07-21T10:51:05.413-04:002016-07-21T10:51:05.413-04:00Guthrie, I've thought a bit about the need for...Guthrie, I've thought a bit about the need for what I called a "viable postmodern religion." As I think even Evola would agree, the words "magic" and even "spirituality" have been tainted, much like the word "liberal" nowadays--tainted by exotericists. Perhaps the outer meanings of key words that are fit for the ignorant folks always overtake the inner meanings, at least in mass culture, and so it's up to those who want to be authentic to disregard such biases and obfuscations in their search for the truth. <br /><br />But that's just a question about labels. The question for me is whether the classical link between inner and outer reality holds true. Heidegger put this in existentialist terms when he said that we can learn about Being in general by studying Daisein, or what it is to "be there" as a human experiences Being. That looks to me like the most naive sort of anthropocentrism. There's a reckoning that needs to be made here with the cosmicist implications of scientific naturalism.<br /><br />Yes, Evola does sound Nietzschean. I'm curious to read how he deals with the concept of race. I think he rejects the Nazis' pseudoscientific, biological interpretation, but I don't think "race" is the most useful category, in any case. Instead, I'd turn to the ethological types of alphas, betas, and omegas, or to something along those lines (leaders, followers, and outsiders). Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-78985837459151517622016-07-21T10:36:00.259-04:002016-07-21T10:36:00.259-04:00Anon, I said "superseded...at least to a larg...Anon, I said "superseded...at least to a large extent." According to "Knowledge of the Waters," 'To create something stable, impassive, immortal, something rescued from the "Waters" that is now living and breathing outside of them, finally free; and then, like a strong man who grasps a raging bull by the horns, slowly but relentlessly subjugating it, to dominate this cosmic nature in oneself--this is the secret of our Art.'<br /><br />Of course, modern psychologists and therapists would hardly put their work in those terms. What I meant is that the goal of self-improvement has been reinterpreted by modernists, that is, by experts who came after the Scientific Revolution. The magus, in Evola's sense, may agree with some Hindus and other Eastern mystics that inner improvement somehow goes hand in hand with outer mastery of the world, because Atman is the same as Brahman: there's only one ultimate substance, and the Self is the same as the essence of outer, material reality. <br /><br />But I think it's evident that technological progress has outpaced the social kind. Science has allowed us to master the material world even while we still often behave like animals. If the Great Work is about deciding what we ought to do, given our increasing powers over nature, I'd agree that scientists and engineers, as such, would have no business dictating answers. What tends to happen instead is that in technologically-advanced societies, a liberal marketplace is established that's supposed to allow individuals to decide what to be for themselves, even though their choices are constrained by the materialistic propaganda that floods the culture through mass media channels. <br /><br />I'd also agree with you and Evola regarding the phony spirituality of what you call "counter-initiation." When I said that cognitive therapy and the like have largely superseded the classical, spiritual ideal of self-improvement, I didn't mean to imply that that's for the best. I've criticized the norms of personhood espoused by cognitive therapists and psychiatrists, for example, in my articles under Mental Health in the Map of the Rants.<br /><br />http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2013/02/map-of-rants.htmlBenjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-70833963799965781452016-07-20T16:57:27.847-04:002016-07-20T16:57:27.847-04:00Apart from Friedrich Nietzsche to Evola had a stro...Apart from Friedrich Nietzsche to Evola had a strong influence another author named Rene Guenon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-47798184419024656382016-07-20T03:24:39.253-04:002016-07-20T03:24:39.253-04:00I've always thought that the 'Great Work&#...I've always thought that the 'Great Work' was a symbolic process too, though you'd really, really need to be on that trip not to feel silly participating in some of the rituals as a modern. It's religion, but by definition the mystical expression. I find it fascinating to read about (some of the authors, who aren't peddling exoteric wish fulfillment). Evola always struck me as trying to enact a Nietzchean change, calling for Uber-men to transform through the rites. I only read a little long ago, though. He wrote about a lot of interesting areas.guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17921348890452371324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-76329640101096214272016-07-20T03:16:49.929-04:002016-07-20T03:16:49.929-04:00I laughed when I read this though it is an interes...I laughed when I read this though it is an interesting biographical question. "Ben, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?!"guthriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17921348890452371324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-73171790914760399792016-07-19T17:15:00.711-04:002016-07-19T17:15:00.711-04:00Ben, is your family aware of your philosophy? Do t...Ben, is your family aware of your philosophy? Do they know about your worldview? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-27121948600106121112016-07-19T13:40:52.793-04:002016-07-19T13:40:52.793-04:00I would not agree with you that the achievements o...I would not agree with you that the achievements of cognitive science,therapy,propaganda and so on pushed the need for achieving a hermetic Great Work in our modern times.This first thing mentioned has a distinctly secular purpose while the Great Work facing metaphysical dimension of human expirience.The Great Work is synonymous for process of Initiation,while on other side instant spirituality of the New Age ideology represent the product of what Julius Evola called counter-initiation.Counter-initiation is sophisticated form of self-deception where most ordinary hallucination and delusions is declared for top spiritual achievements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-23732676968519486982016-07-18T19:19:30.033-04:002016-07-18T19:19:30.033-04:00Thanks for the recommendation. I've actually b...Thanks for the recommendation. I've actually been slowly reading Evola's Revolt Against the Modern World. <br /><br />I've had a look at "knowledge of the Waters." The metaphysical premises sound a lot like Schopenhauer's, but whereas Schopenhauer agrees with Buddhists that we should resist the universal Will/Energy, by means of ascetic renunciation, Evola's group hold out the possibility of mastering the fundamental Force by esoteric means.<br /><br />As far as I can see, there's no need for mystification here. Plainly, human mastery of reality has been happening through history in social processes, particularly those relating to science and technology. Why suppose that we can magically control both subjects and objects, when science and technology provide these powers before our eyes? I appreciate that the magic in question isn't supposed to be spiritualist, but practical, but cognitive science, therapy, propaganda, and so on have superseded the hermetic "Great Work," at least to a large extent. I've argued on this blog against scientism, so I agree that scientific objectification is bound to be insufficient as a means of explaining qualia and other features of our inner life. But I do think scientific progress steals much of Evola's thunder.<br /><br />Also, I don't follow the step from assuming our personal selves are ephemeral to inferring that the deeper Force blurs the line between subject and object. Anyway, didn't Einstein already do this by showing that energy is equivalent to matter? When we take into account quantum physics and the like, it seems to me there's more than enough magic and mystery right in hardcore science, without the need to invent something that's arguably pseudoscience, such as you find in much of the occult. <br /><br />But it is interesting reading. I'll have to take it into account as I continue to formulate these eldritch revelations...Benjamin Cainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00661999592897690031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6320802302155582419.post-4342073848028393322016-07-18T07:37:18.505-04:002016-07-18T07:37:18.505-04:00Read Abraxas-"Knowledge of the Waters".Read Abraxas-"Knowledge of the Waters".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com