On the Seperation of Opposites so as to Make Fire

“If you get siddhi ignore them,” say the Wise Men.  Siddhi are self-cancelling say others… to understand a nature is to understand the perfection of that nature and by that refrain.

Magic is a point at subtlety, mixing ignorance with knowledge hiding from your self the totality of things so as to attain a partial view within an understanding of a whole. Understandings well outside the rational, such that—one may just as soon transpose the sun and moon then to move the tip of a pencil from one end of the table to the other.  To the world such an act of translocation is as aberrant as the other, but man thinks in terms of the consequences actions have for himself or his world.

Ritual is only a mnemonic, this body has a intelligence, but most people have allowed their bodies to become stupid.  Ritual reminds the stupid body of what it is capable of, and forces, on occasion, an accidental cooperation of the subtle body with the physical one.

Yeats The Great Wheel

There is only one thing to know—die leere, everything else that is perceived is only a twist in presence.  Partitioning the void further and hiding from that total state, come to an imperfect understanding.  So that by constructing and selecting out certain understandings they partially cancel, permitting action.  A collection of local understandings that conspire to produce a action—this is a spell.  If it is aberrant, it is because it seems to abuse the global understanding.

Understanding the non-duality of duality, the duality of non-duality .  And separate a thing from what it is not.  So that that thing’s not-thing is here and that not-thing’s thing is there and that not-thing thing is here and that thing’s not-thing is there.  And thereby understanding that there is no in here versus out there.  You may produce fire.


5 thoughts on “On the Seperation of Opposites so as to Make Fire

    1. I have in the past and I’m even more certain that the authors I read regularly had read them. I see the non dualistic feel you’re referring to… much of that is to simply say that the division is in you, not the world. As always with these things, that is also misleading because it sets up a divide between yourself and the world. When speaking to many people who’ve explored ideas outside the norm, I’ve run into this common stance that the fault with language is its ineffable quality. That it is an inadequate basis for the space of experience. I don’t see that as a fault in language, that’s just language… the fault in language is presumption. When we speak, it is error prone and plural in an irreducible way… I think there is a way around this. I’ve never been quite convinced that many gurus are talking about the “same thing,” but it is, at this point, an institutional phrasing to speak to about “teachings for the left body” and “teachings for the right body.” Language addresses the right body, while the left body is taught. Many people are too rigid to have a “left body” that can listen.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. i think that ‘division’ is a product of man, which is projected into his works, whatever they may be. i don’t think this division is curable. it may be something to do with left//right brain, or something else, & now, the world being so diverse, each new brain coming into is likely to fall into the same state. that is not to say in this complexity there aren’t balanced people, who balance out the indomitably negative or bat-shit-crazy or whatever. i read an interesting essay by Daniel Kaufman at The Electric Agora recently, on the problem of free will “there isn’t one” Kaufman explains. people have agency, there is no Determinism at work, we are not led on a string of events to where we are; if that were so behaviour would be something mechanical, which can be measured & logically, if science could tap into that Deterministic structure, then we can determine events before they happen, which is simply bogus, nonsense. so because there is agency & will, it doesn’t seem likely anything beyond dualism is possible. there may be peace on earth, but there will still be conflict at some level. nothing is so black & white in humanity, & though you may hear people say “it was a simpler time back the old days” they forget to mention wars, fascism, racism, sexism etc, which they only closed their eyes & ears to.
        so language. well there is failings in language to express the very difficult to express. the sign love, as a sound says nothing about the emotion, but the deep denotations are felt by all if they know the meaning of the word. sometimes just as useful as explaining something, explaining what it is not, or explaining that you cannot understand has just as much relevance. to throw your hands up & say “i haven’t the foggiest” may not aid in our knowing what the sensation is, but it at least gives us something & we can proceed to question or bask in the unknown. it all depends on the importance of knowing. is it that important to explain exactly what you felt on LSD? no. it is enough that it was baffling. & now (blast it) i can’t think of anything that though hard to explain really needs to be explained. so i’ll end there.
        i have recently thought that i’d like two right brains. that’d be cool. maybe i’d be able to express the impossible then. haha.


  1. Wanted to add a bit more here… I read Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation as a young man. A significant text, it acts as the base of the compatibilist position. I reduced that text to a slogan(and it does not seem to resist this reduction) of “you can do what you will, but you cannot will what you will.” Chomsky has another position and an interesting definition of mystery… he defines mystery by comparing it to a rat trying to solve a prime number maze. A rat can be trained to run through a maze with a number of different conditions, but if you tie the patterning of the maze to a property totally outside the rat’s conceptual framework they’ll be hopelessly lost. A human might be able to walk through a prime number maze and realize that he makes progress only when he takes a right after a prime number of lefts, but for a rat this is a “mystery.” Chomsky claims that in the same way free will might be a ‘mystery,’ an activity that might never fit into our cognition. We’ll certainly appercept free will and certain observations about the physical world might seem to countermand that possibility, but ultimately no resolution will possible.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s