Oeaohoo

Sounds about right to me! In all seriousness, maybe that is what America needs…

I mean egotistical in a more complex way. With women it is generally just narcissism and entitlement.

Men tend to be more egotistical. It is more of an assault on a man’s ego when his relationship goes wrong — go and watch Eyes Wide Shut for an illustration of this… Women are more loving so they can heal more quickly. Also, men tend to have higher priorities in life. We can go on neglecting more basic, primal and emotional concerns for a long time. It all catches up to you eventually though…

Fair point. Politics is irrational, though… My supporting argument would be civilisational theory: in our time, this is best represented by Joseph Tainter (Collapse of Complex Societies) and Peter Turchin; more interesting to me are the theories of Spengler, Toynbee, Vico, and especially the criticism of the modern West laid out by René Guénon in his two books The Crisis of the Modern World and The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times. I imagine you would be most interested in Tainter or Turchin, assuming you haven’t read them already.

The only legitimate pro-Trump argument is accelerationism: the American system is doomed and the sooner it is all over the better. That is the positive function of the Devil in the world, to destroy what is no longer worth preserving. There are also explanations for his success which aren’t necessarily justifications. For example, a number of people on here have made the valid case that the Left are losing in the West because of their obnoxious self-righteousness and moral busy-bodying. It’s hard to claim to be “liberal” when you have the demeanour of Nurse Ratched…

That is just as true of this forum. Here’s a script for you: ”Trump is the devil. Anyone who supports Trump is a demonic monster, there are no exceptions. Nothing could be further from our Work than his message of hateful bigotry. This work is about Truth, Love, Consciousness and furthering the development of mankind. Trump is the anathema of everything we stand for. He is a delusional, egotistical maniac, and so is anyone who supports him.”

One morning, during Yong Maeng Jong Jin at the Providence Zen Center, a student walked into the interview room and bowed to Seung Sahn Soen-sa. Soen-sa said, “Do you have any questions?” The student said, “Yes. What is death?” Soen-sa said, “You are already dead.” The student said, “I’m only dying. I haven’t really experienced death yet. I don’t even understand what that would mean.” Soen-sa hit him. The student became confused and couldn’t answer. After a few moments, Soen-sa said, “When you think death, you make death. When you think life, you make life. When you are not thinking, there is no life and no death. In empty mind, is there a you? Is there an I?” “No.” ”You say No. You must understand No. This No is no self, no other, no body, no mind, no world. So it is no life and no death. This is true emptiness. True emptiness is before thinking. Before thinking is just like this. So life is only life; death is only death. You must not be attached to names and forms. It is like a clear mirror. In a clear mirror, all is nothing; there is only the clear mirror. Red comes, the mirror is red. Yellow comes, there is yellow. A woman comes, there is a woman. A man comes, there is a man. Death comes, there is death. Life comes, there is life. But all of these do not exist. The mirror does not hold on to anything. There is only the coming and the going. This is before thinking: all things are just as they are. The name for this mind is original pure mind. You must find your original face. Then you will not make life or death.” The student bowed, and the interview continued. The next morning, the same student walked into the interview room and bowed. Soen-sa said, ”Do you have any questions?” “Yes. What is death?” “You are already dead.” “Thank you very much. Now I understand.’ Soen-sa said, “You understand? Then what is death?” The student said, “You are already dead.” Soen-sa smiled and bowed.

That’s because it’s worthless drivel.

I meant more the source of a given religion, in other words the Revelation bestowed upon a particular mystic. This is one reason why, contrary to progressivism, Mohammed says: “Be patient, for an era will not come upon you but that what comes after is worse, until you meet your Lord.” Since this Revelation comes from a timeless place, though, if one managed to plunge the same depths oneself then I suppose it might be equivalent. However, it is unlikely that one would thereby become the source of a religion, especially nowadays… For example, whatever genuine mystical experiences the founder of this forum has had, there is never going to be a religion of Actualized.org.

The proof is in the pudding: if I started a religion on a whim, based on nothing, it would never catch on because it would lack depth and profundity; on the other hand, when somebody speaks from mystical (anagogic) insight, their words are susceptible of an indefinite development, and that is what a religion is. Naturally, the further one falls away from the source, the more distorted this insight becomes — hence the decrepitude of all organised religion in our time.

I’m sure you have heard a million explanations like this but I recently heard Shunyamurti say that thyroid problems often come from a disconnect between the mind and heart. I have a lot of neck pain and I think it comes from this.

I’ve been digging this guy recently:

Nietzsche said: “There is little manliness here, therefore the women make themselves manly. Only he who is sufficiently a man will redeem the woman in woman.” I think that rape fantasies are a degraded version of this: women who have been artificially masculinised will crave extreme forms of submission to compensate.

Interesting point.

I could tell you but I’d have to kill you! Isn’t this outside of the domain of ego-development?

I reject it in principle. In practice, it is just the world we live in, and postmodern philosophy is an accurate assessment of that world — though Nietzsche had already said most of it. Trite as it might be to quote Tolkien: “I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” I wonder how much these really contradict each other…

The difference is that New-Age Spirituality is intellectually woolly, communal, and passive, whereas your approach is intellectually rigorous, highly individualistic and active (“the work”, “personal development”). This can be jokingly summed up as autism…

Autism. Also, this needs a joke punchline…

He embodies a vulgar egotism which is anathema to the Left’s narcissism and self-righteousness. He is also a very symbolic figure.

Do you have any thoughts on how to avoid using spiritual work for self-deception?

Reflecting on it, I relate to this explanation quite a lot. It’s why I’ve come to love The Smiths — especially their song I Know It’s Over, which is about accepting the childish part of yourself which needed to be loved unconditionally. All that I don’t agree with is the idea that this is exclusively a negative phenomenon. To a degree, I think it is a healthy reaction against an unhealthily feminised culture. Though I doubt you’ll agree with that…

They can’t, because history is a manifestation of metaphysical principles. The connection between history and metaphysics is much older than Hegel. It is found in every spiritual tradition. Hegel just secularised the Christian idea of providence. Like Nietzsche said, especially in Beyond Good and Evil, most of Western philosophy since Descartes is just secularised Christianity. Maybe it is just some irrational English ancestral memory, but I have always detested this pretentious French style, which says so little with so much. All of these writers just make the same point over and over: namely, that our concepts aren’t accurate because they imply a falsely fixed reality — a point which Nietzsche had already made in a much more exciting way. Why not just make that point and be done with it? Like Marxism, it is the kind of philosophy which is designed to be attractive to women. This makes sense since, as I understand it, philosophers in France are treated like celebrities. Tolstoy said: “For the French a woman comes before anything else. They are a weak, degraded people. Doctors say that all consumptives are sensual." I believe that women are rarely interested in the truth, in the spirit of this aphorism of Nietzsche:

This made me laugh. I expect it will be a psychosis of extreme, ant-like conformity. On that note, I saw a close up of an ant’s face recently. It was horrifying. Very devilish… I bet you he is a Trump voter!

Don’t we all? Hard drugs are required to survive through the Spenglerian, civilisational winter! This reminds me of the poem by Baudelaire:

Strange coincidence — you have a very similar energy to a friend of mine, who sent me the song “Holy, Holy” from this album the other day. Who could fail to love this beautiful version of I Know It’s Over?