A collection of things
A collection of things
When the sinner dies, he is gone, but the sin lives on forever
- paraphrase of a quote from Noir
When you recognize your sin, then that sin is gone. This is the circle of sin.
- paraphrase of a quote from Haibane Renmei
This seems to be a reoccurring theme of late. I also received a copy of the The Bhagavad Gita as a spontaneous Christmas present.
Is the world trying to tell me something?
It is definitely time to reevaluate and redefine.
On the cusp of a move. Longer, larger plans in the wings.
Here we go again.
From Beth at The North Carolina Experiment:
I talked with the crazy girl in the cube next to mine over a Cuban sandwich about our generation. This girl has really big ideas, the kind of ideas that make you dizzy at first until you see straight, a different kind of straight. Basically, our generation is small and sandwiched between two large generations. Every generation is good at something special, and our generation is supposed to be good at care taking, motivating, and setting fires. We are the screamers and the whisperers. We talk and talk and talk. We have to figure out how to communicate our ideas so that the larger generations can make them real, make something out of nothing. I guess what I am saying is that I have this really, really big idea. I want to make a snowman out of fog. I want to stop fighting over not fighting. I want to do it with a pen. I’m so small that I just don’t know how to make it happen
I can't fully process this right now. To busy at work. I'm saving it for later.
I just sent the following email to a few friends of mine.
Just stumbled across an interesting little link.http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
I haven't had a chance to dig to deep, but from glancing around, it
looks to be as advertised. But, the fun thing is a link at the bottom.
I've been thinking now and then, over the past couple of months that I
need to pick up my studies of the historical jesus again. But, I've
been lost in exactly how to go about it. Which researchers may prove
fruitful and which won't. This is basically the problem that I had
when I put this research down. And there, at the bottom of the page is
this linkhttp://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
After I had a chance to glance through the second link, and do a quick glance on the first two writers I was struck by my reactions. The first two writers mention in the link are both members of the Jesus Seminar. A very liberal group of researchers, who have been acccused of forcing scripture to meet thier needs. Now, of course the arguement can be made that all such research is subject to this same problem. And any attempt at pure objectivity is fruitless in this search. But, what I found most interesting was my reaction to this knowledge, and my reaction to other people I have come across.
I was raised Irish Catholic. And while I do not attend services with any kind of regularity, I don't object to going with my parent's when I happen to be visiting them on Sunday morning. Over the past couple of years I have fashioned myself as a heritic of sorts. But, the degree to which this is true is suspect.
I would not consider myself orthodox, I openly question Papal authority, and have no misgivings about finding a personal relationship with god. But, at the same time, I am instincively suspicious of the Jesus Seminar. This, in and of itself is not much, since even liberal scholars are suspect of them. But, my instinctive suspect also extends to Protestant scholars. And I am instincevly accepting of John P. Meier, a Catholic priest.
A portion of this is knee jerk reaction. Catholicism is familiar to me. And I feel more comfortable in my ability to weed through Catholic research. But, I wonder how much is dogmatism in my belief structures.
I have adopted elements of other religions into the way in which I deal with the world, but if I'm honest with myself, my acctual spiritual belief structure is still very Catholic in nature.
A thought that just occured to me. How much of my reluctance to get back into historical Jesus research is fear of purchasing useless books or falling prey to well written, but dodgey theories. And how much of that reluctance, is a fear to challenge my beliefs? How much is fear at what I may find? Obviously, with this question proposed, it must now be addressed. I must now go forward and test my beliefs. But, what will I find? And how will it change things?
From the booklet that comes with RahXephon Orchestration 3:
One day about sunset, Zhuangi dozed off and dreamed that he turned into a butterfly. He flapped his wings and sure enough, he was a butterfly... What a joyful feeling as he fluttered about, he completly forgot that he was Zhuangi. Soon though, he realized that that proud butterfly was really Zhuangi who dreamed he was a butterfly, or was it a butterfly who dreamed he was Zhuangi! Maybe Zhuangi was the butterfly, and maybe the butterfly was Zhuangi?"I Dreamt I Was A Butterfly"
Zhuang Zi
A piece I wrote last night when I couldn't sleep. The original discussion that I had in my head was much better, but I guess this will do.
Audience: Am I to take it then that you feel heresey has an inherent higher power then orthodoxy?
Speaker: Not in the sense that you mean.
Audience: How so then?
Speaker: Do you agree that god is beyond the understanding of the human mind?
Audience: Yes
Speaker: Do you also agree that we can only perceive god through the use of metaphore, and that these metaphores constitute the entiriety of religion? That the various religions are simply different perceptions of this unknown universe?
Audience: Yes
Speaker: Then why should we follow the metaphores of the past? Is it even possible that we can understand these metaphores?
Audience: To a certain degree, yes we can.
Speaker: How so? Meanings have changed. The average Christian does not see the blaphious meaning of comparing the kingdom of god to a mustard seed. They do not even perceive the inherent paradox of the story. With out this understanding, how are they supposed to come to a true understanding of what is meant by the words?
Audience: Through study and meditation.
Speaker: But, by not living in the time that the metaphore was created, in most cases, not even in the region, how are they to understand the metaphore even through study and meditation? A person who has lived their whole life in the desert can not even begin to understand the ocean. No amount of study and meditation can bring the same understanding of what an ocean is, as standing on the shore and seeing it for themselves. And even that does not compare to the understanding of that of a seasoned sailor, who has spent years of their life living on the ocean.
No, it is impossible to fully understand a metaphore that was not created for you. And so we are left grasping at straws. Blindly moving from one path to the next searching for something that we can never find with in the walls of orthodoxy.
Audience: Well, how does heresy solve this problem? Does it not contain the same walls? What about these metaphores provides some universal metaphore?
Speaker: Heresy as an instance is of no more use then orthodoxy. That is not the point. Heresey as a movement though, contains the neccisary freedom. It allows the individual to approach god on their terms. To design their own metaphore and approach god themselves, instead of through another.
When the day of judgement comes, we will not be able to simply justify our actions by saying that we were doing what we were told to do. We must justify the actions by saying that this is how we beleaved we were supposed to act. And this understanding can only be accomplished through heresy.
Audience: But doesn't this theory allow for racism and murder to be justified in the eyes of god? Do all these monsters have to do is to tell god that they were doing what they felt was right, and that makes it good?
Speaker: There is a difference between doing just works because you beleave that is what god wanted you to do, and justifying your actions by saying that that is what you thought god wanted you to do. You can not approach the metaphore and go looking for justification. You must approach it with, what Zen calls, Beginer's Mind. You must approach it with no expectations. Only by coming to it with no expectations of answer, will you be able to truely understand the meaning. And once you have found your own metaphore, then it you simply must follow it. If you approach the metaphore with no expectations, and you still find justification for reprehensable actions, then your actions are just. But, I imagine that these cases are rare. Most, I feel, are simply justifying previous decisions with a metaphore. Here the metaphore is created after the fact. And this is wroung. The metaphore must predate the actions. The actions must come from the metaphore.
Audience: Does orthodoxy serve no purpose then? Are all who follow it, doomed?
Speaker: Orthodoxy provides a vocabulary for discussion. It allows people to compare metaphores, with out spending all their time defining terms. Where their metaphore follows othodoxy, then they can simply refer to orthodoxy.
Whether practitioners of orthodoxy are doomed, is not a statement I can make in a generalized fashion. If the individual truely beleaves that orthodoxy is the correct path for them. If it is their metaphore. Then it is just. If it is simply a crutch that they latch on to, so they do not have to go through the trouble of creating their oown metaphore, and deciding how to see the world on thier own. Then they are misguided, but they are not doomed. The line here, between doomed and misguided is a fine one. The line between misguided and justified in orthodoxy, is also a fine line. It must be approached on a per case basis, and it must be approached by the individual. Anything else is simply one individual imposing their metaphore on others. And this could be seen as the highest of sins.
Audience: So, if orthodoxy can be a justified solution, then why should people bother with heresy? Why walk the hard road, when the easy is right in front of you?
Speaker: Why should a person yern to be free, when they can still draw breath as a slave? Heresy, the defining of a personal metaphore, is the freeest form of spirituality. It is the person making the choice to live their life as they see fit. It is the person deciding that they wish to see god themselves. Instead of simply listening to other people's stories of god. This is why heresy must be followed, and why it is a valid choice before the traveller.
Shava is talking about a ritual in the Philippines where Catholics nail themselves to a cross. She talks about how this practise relates to other rituals concerned with the death of the ego. Things like the Sun Dance ritual. (BTW, I think it's Discovery Channel or TLC that has a show on the history of body modification. In the second half there is a short scene where they film and talk to a guy who goes through the suspension ritual. It's an interesting experience to watch, but not reccomended for the weak of stomach.)
Her writings struck a chord with me. It's still to early (both after reading the post and after I consumed my first cup of coffee) for me to really get into my thoughts on the matter, but I wanted to write something before it all just completly left my head.
Like a lot of dissatisfied teens, I played with the roles of pain when I was younger. There's a purity in pain, or there seemed to be. Perhaps it was just my own mind trying to justify my "tortured soul." As I got older my pain fetish moved from physical to psychological, as I started to just abuse the hell out of myself mentally. In the end, it reached a level where I felt more comfortable in my skin if I was in mental anguish. I once remarked to a friend that what I really needed was some woman to come into my life, let me fall in love with her, and then have her rip my heart out. I imagen that I'm not completly alone in this little ritual.
I also can't help wonder about the similarities between these rituals and the rituals that Shava discusses. Both seem to be concerned with the death and rebirth of the ego, though I doubt many "tortured souls" understand this. If you look at it though, it makes sense. Most of these souls are teenagers. Alienated from thier peers and those around them. They tend to yern for an escape, to either be normal or find a place where they fit in. Most find that they were in a transition phase, slipping from the narrow strata of social groups at that age, into the more complex world that awaits them. It is as if, on some subconcious level they understand that they are about to be reborn into a new world. The "tortured soul" routine is a form of exorcism. Leaving behind the trappings of their youthful existence and trying desperetly to find their place in the world. As if they beleave that to move forward their past must be destroyed. That they can not assimilate what they were with what they will become. Though most are probably just searching for a chance to burn off the dead wood of their pain.
On a more personal side of things, the thought that popped in my head while reading the article was of John Zorn's Leng Tch'e piece. Leng Tch'e was inspired by pictures that Zorn saw of the last public execution in Bejing, which imployed the Leng Tch'e style. Leng Tch'e involves giving the victim a small bit of morphine to keep them from dieing of shock and then litterally cutting them into a 100 pieces. The album includes a few dark photos of the execution. None of them are clear enough to be gory, but they are clear enough to convey what is being done and leave an unsettling feeling in the viewers soul. The music itself doesn't help matters. A dark piece of music that occupies the space that has been created by the experiments between jazz/fusion musicians and metal/punk/noise musicians. The piece is interesting, and can be handled in a cerebal fashion that allows for understanding, but lets the listener retain some distance between the sounds and the subject. That is untill about the 16th or 17th minute of the 35ish minute piece. It's at this point that Eye from The Boredoms comes in on vocals. This is before The Boredoms did Super AE so Eye's vocal style is still a series of blood curtling screams. It immedietly puts the listener in a bad place. Detachment is no longer possible as you are forced to imagen the screams of the victim as they are being cut. It's as if the morphine has worn off, and the victim suddenly is fully aware of what is being done to him. And you, the observer are suddenly fully aware that this is a living person. Zorn's alto sax squeels, which sound like a screaming woman, do not help alieviate the situation and serve to only pull you deeper into the mix. I've made it through the piece on two occasions, needless to say, it is not extremely easy to do so. Both times I made it through, I spent the last 10 mins trying to suspress the urge to pull my headphones off and throw them across the room.
The reason that I mention this is that one day we were chatting at work about music. One of my coworkers was very into metal when he was younger and since I was passingly into it (I hopped over to punk pretty quickly) we occasionally reminecse about old bands. After chatting a bit we headed off to lunch. On the way back, I played him a portion of the begining of Leng Tch'e. I then fast forwarded to Eye's intro. He spent the rest of the day commenting about the experience, and how it had disturbed him on a very base level. Now, to give context, this is a guy who spent part of his youth very much into things like death metal, he's not a light weight.
What I found interesting, after reading Shava's post, was that for him the experience immedietly became an initiation. There are three of us who work in the office, A, the coworker, is my age, while M. is a bit younger. A. immedietly started talking about initiating M. by making him look at the photos and listen to the music. I just find it interesting that a piece that was inspired by pain and torture and leaves such a strong impression on the mind that it can still be felt a day or two later, immedietly took on that kind of role in the mind of someone who would not have been aware of the implications of what he was saying.
In other news, I think I will spend the day listening to noise and drone.
In a previous entry I talked about the apropriation of religion/culture to form a new mode of thought. Before I go off to sleep tonight, I'd like to get some more ideas on this out.
The idea of this comes from an interview with Peter L. Wilson. What sparked my thought was the following quote:
"The first incursions of Zen into America were from Japanese of dubious orthodoxy and I would even included D.T. Suzuki in that category. Then you had a lot of Americans who 'didn't understand it,' and they made their own thing out of their fortuitous mistranslation. Something about Zen filled the bill. In terms of Japanese scholarship, they were wrong. But in terms of the spirit, it seems they were right.
"What was happening was precisely what Zen itself calls 'beginner's mind.' After centuries, something radically new was happening to Zen, and unfortunately Zen was not able to appreciate it, because Zen soon moved in the Roshis. 'Fine, fine, you're into Zen? Here's the real Zen.' And the real Zen turned out to be just another fucking despotism. Even giving orthodoxy it's due, they shouldn't have stamped out those embers. Because it had that benefit of beginner's mind, that sweetheart situation, Beat Zen made Buddhism what it is today: the biggest Oriental religion in America. That's how you get things like the TV show Kung Fu. A lot of Oriental stuff seeped into that stupid show, and created a whole generation of people for whom it was part of their universe of discourse."
This is what I'm really getting at. It's not that I think orthodox ideas are not important. With out the original ideas to give context to the latter creations, the later creations are useless. Instead what I find myself moving towards is a form of thought that takes bits and pieces of various schools of thought and strings them together into something that more closely represents my own thoughts.
I was raised Irish Catholic, but I had a slightly different upbringing, that lead me into areas that one might not expect from such an upbringing. My mother is a very religious person, and has only gotten more so as she has aged. Early on though, she taught my brother's and I that the most important element of religion is the relationship between the individual and god. That nothing should stand in the way of this relationship. This obviously goes against traditional Catholic thought, which dictates that a member of the church must act as an intermediary between the individual and god. Needless to say, I prefer my mother's beliefs.
When I was 20 years old I found myself in a situation where it was neccisary to discover my "real" relationship with god. I went through a process where I examined my belief structure and did away with those things that did not seem neccisary to me. Instead concentrating on those things that I felt in my heart were true. During this process, I found it extremely helpful to view the question of god through the eyes of other belief structures. And so I started to integrate ideas from Taoism into my belief structure. Later, I introduced elements of Discordianism and Buddhism into the picture. I have a feeling in the near future I will start introducing elements of Sufism and Islam into that picture as well.
My relationship with god is just that, my relationship. I find it counter productive to view that relationship through a single narrow belief structure. It seems obvious to me that the entity that I am trying to make contact with is a complex entitiy, and it seems counter productive to me to limit my tool set in trying to make contact. Another way of saying it would be to say that it seems counter productive to me to try and understand how best I can become one with god, while using the narrow belief structure of a single religion. Instead, I rummage through the various belief structures, take the tools and ideas that I find and compare them to what I know. Or, more precisely, think I know. When these tools strike a chord in my heart, and ring true for me, I use them to try and further my understanding. When they don't, I make a mental note of them, in case I may find them useful later on in my travels, but ultimetly, discard them.
For me the search for god is an individual search. Groups can provide much needed help and support, but ultimetly, the trip must be made by the individual. Because the trip is an individual one, it does not make sense to me, to use a belief structure that is meant for group use. These belief structures can be a great help when discussing matters with other people. And knowing how to approach the subject of belief with other individuals. When I know the relgion(s) that an individual subscribes to, I know what matters I can discuss with that individual, and what matters are best left unsaid. I also know what vocabulary I should use when discussing certain topics. For the individual search though, I do not feel that a single belief structure is useful, in fact I believe that it is detrimenal to the sought after goal.
So, when I talk about appropriating other beliefs, with out bothering to make sure that you understand the authentic use of those beliefs, what I am advocating is the personalization of the belief structure. Making the belief structure your own and defining it on your terms. I am not advocating ignoring authentic teachings as useless. They may provide great insight that can be of great help, at the very least, they provide you with the vocabulary that you will need to approach someone who subscribes to that belief structure so that you can compare notes and glean knowledge from their own lessons learned.
I guess that about sums up what it was that I was trying to get at. At least in the realm of religion. There is a culture angle, which is similiar. This is also concerned with personalizing the culture to fit your own skin, instead of locking yourself into a group mind set that may ultimetly limit your growth as an individual. People must always be on the look out for the hive mind, which seeks to limit individualism. Just because a culture or religion is not mainstream, does not mean that it is immune to the hive mind set. Human beings are pack animals, and difference is suspect when running in packs.
As I alluded to in an earlier post I've taken the two posts to Scraps of the Fringe and moved them over to this blog. I'll link to the two posts in the near future, with some added links that I've found recently. The Scraps blog will be dissapearing. I'm not sure what's going to happen to the idea behind it though. I'm planning on learning php and mySQL in the near future, and am thinking about creating a database for various little things that cross my path.
If I don't end up creating the database, I will be linking to such things here in this blog. Things that are already on the web, will be linked to their site, things that come through email will either be quoted here, or put on a page of their own and linked to here. Ultimetly, we'll see where this all goes.
Wandering Bishops post
Incunabula Catalog post
It is interesting to note the difference between science as we see it today, and as it was seen by one of it's pioneers. Roger Bacon, considered to be the wonder of the middle ages and one of humanity's greatest thinkers, was the pioneer of the method of knowledge gained through experience. This Franciscan monk learned from the Sufi's of the illuminist school that there is a difference between the collection of information and the knowing of things through actual experiment. In his Opus Maius, in which he quotes Sufi authority, he says:Idries Shah, from the Author's Preface to The Sufi'sThere are two modes of knowledge, through argument and experience. Argument brings conclusions and compels us to concede them, but it does not cause certainty nor remove doubts in order that the mind may remain at rest in truth, unless this is provided by experience.This Sufi doctrine is known in the west as the scientific method of inductive proceeding, and subsequent Western knowledge is largely based upon it.
Modern science, however, instead of accepting the idea that experience was necessary in all branches of human thought, took the word in its sense of "experiment," in which the experimenter remained as far as possible outside the experience.
From the Sufi point of view, therefore, Bacon, when he wrote these words in 1268, both launched modern science and also transmitted only a portion of the wisdom upon which it could have been based.
"Scientific" thinking worked continuously and heroically with this partial tradition ever since. In spite of its roots in the work of the Sufi's, the impairment of the tradition has prevented the scientific researcher from approaching knowledge by means of itself -- by "experience," not merely by "experiment"
I've picked this book up again. Last time I read it, I got a few chapters in before getting side tracked by something else. We'll see how far I get this time.
I bought the book used, and the above quote is underlined, but I think I was the one who underlined it. Something about this passage strikes me. The reliance on experience as the higher truth. But, also the idea that arguement is specifically mentioned as not being above experience. This idea will surface again. I'm sure of it.
Today is Easter, a time of renewal. A good time to start a new path, or pick on where an old one left off.
For instance, last weekend I was thinking about a coworker of mine. He bought an iPod several months ago, but barely uses the thing. For some reason on Saturday I was thinking about this fact and decided to tell him on Monday that the next time he gets a car, he should get one with a tape deck in the stereo. Then, he could do what i do, and use his iPod to hold his CDs, instead of having to figure out what he's going to be listening to that day (a big problem for me). Then, later in the day, I went to the local Pakistani restaurant for lunch and ran into the owner's son. He'd talked to my coworker before about Lexus's (he owns one, the coworker has considered buying one). He mentioned that he'd gotten the new catalog thingy that Lexus sends it's customers and that my coworker should come by to have a look at it, since there was some new car that they've got out or something like that (I've never been big on cars).
So, where does all this lead? Monday, I get in and damn if the coworker hadn't bought a car that weekend.
In another instance, I was reading an article at Game Girl Advance on gender in gaming, and Will Wright of Sim City fame was mentioned. Later in the day, with no prompting what so ever, the same coworker suddenly mentions, out of the blue, that he's thinking about picking up Sim City.
The big one though happened on Monday. A different coworker was looking to buy a Darrel Green jersey for his brother-in-law's birthday this weekend, but was having trouble tracking one down that didn't cost a fortune. Later that day, as I'm leaving work, I pull out onto the parkway and what do I see in front of me? A motorcycle rider wearing a Darrel Green jersey.
Like I said, none of these things are big. They're just the ones that kind of make you smile when they happen. For me though, it makes me smile a little wider. After a couple years now of living a boringly normal life. I now have some hope, that may be things will get a little strange again. May be I will be saved from this mind numbing sanity.
Seriously, I have no idea of how people deal with this stuff.
Posted by Matt at 05:06 PM
The more I found myself thinking along these lines the more I realized that this is how I have been living my life. I have spent most of my life trying to find somewhere where I belong and can feel at home. In this time I've slipped from one culture to another. But, since I have not found a culture that I could dedicate myself to, I have never been able to learn about authenticity. I've never been around long enough to really get into the specifics. This is sometimes an issue of attention span, other times though it's a matter of teachers. My learning style requires that I be able to discuss matters with people to fully internalize it. I have to be able to bounce ideas off of other people to fully understand, not only the facts, but the implications of those facts. Since the large majority of my explorations have been solitary, I have not had the opportunity to do this crucial step in understanding. The result is that I never really see the culture from the inside. I'm perpetually looking from the outside and trying to understand with out reference.
Obviously, this leads to misunderstandings and miscommunications. In the end, I routinely end up with a view that gets the major issues but misses some of the subtleties of these cultures that I'm looking at. This incomplete understanding leads to the creation of a new culture that exists purely in my head and only contains some similarities to the real cultures that they are based on. Combined with these major concepts, or at least, my interpretation of these major concepts is the little bits and pieces that I've created and slid into the holes. In short, a new creation using pieces of other cultures that I've appropriated.
I used to feel bad about this habit. I would get discouraged because I never seemed to "get it." I am now starting to reassess this idea. Why should I be concerned with authenticity? Why should I be so concerned with making sure that my views are in line with the status quo? Even if the status quo is that of fringe culture? The only problem that could arise is if I confused my interpretations with the real thing. But, I am painfully aware that I do not "get it." If I did, then I'd be a part of that culture, and I've never been apart of any culture. So what stands between me and inventing my own world to live in?
That last line, combined with my theories on subjective reality makes me wonder if I've got a asylum somewhere in my future. I seem to be moving further and further into abandoning consensus reality for a world of my own creation. Will a time come when I stop being able to function outside of my own creation?
Something about this catalog just gets to me. Whenever I do research on it. To find just another little scrap of the story, I always seem to come away from the experience feeling completly out of touch and "uncool." I just revert back to the kid I was in high school feeling like I'm living on the outside. The problem is that the catalog reminds me of all the people that know so much more then me, and the whole thing seems futile. I don't know. May be it's the burbon talking.
As of now, I'm scraping the idea. It just seems pointless.
Shit, I don't feel like writing.
If you want to see the pathetic start, go here. I may incorporate the two posts into this blog. I may just kill them. We'll see.
UPDATE: See what happens when I get drunk? I did ultimetly decide to end the Scraps blog. For the time being the blog is still available on the server, but that's only untill I get around to killing it completly. For the full run down on things, read this post.
One of the oldest and most twisted of the scraps that one can find on the web is the story of the Incunabula Catalog. I'm not sure exactly how old it is, but the catalog is reported to date back to BBS's back in the early 90's. And I've found, what look to be, logs from old BBS's that are now on the web, and sure enough the catalog is listed in some of these.
One of the first summaries of the story that I came across is at Technoccult.net. A quick look through there shows that the story is long and twisted, and makes the Illuminatus Trilogy look like a children's tale.
On 8/9/01 the following message appeared:
Open letter to conspiracy community
Nick and I decided today to publicly announce in the near future that the Ong's Hat Project has now concluded. We will be contacting Peter L. Wilson as well and see if he'd like to make a statement. I think it would still make a good book from a cultural anthropology perspective, your call.
My program has finished running and I am being recalled from duty. I think we were successful in laying the groundwork for the coming change. The gateways are open now.
I am glad to finally be myself again: 7:37 PM PST.
PS: This is not a joke.
The Real Joe Matheny
AKA/ Michael Kelly
Ong's Hat Tantric Egg Research Center
was a necessary ruse for deflecting
attention from our real project--
to open up your conduits, brother and sisters,
to rip off the confining condom of language and
to Fuck Nature Unprotected.
Doctor Jabir
Public Relations
Quantum Tantra
Huh? I think I was mind controlled...
What eBook?
Joseph Matheny
Incunabula Research Center
Fuck Off!
Peter L. Wilson
AKA
Hakim Bey
Don't, don't!
Don't unplug me!
EmoryBot 3.0
(unplugged)
Permission to repost
Copyleft 2001
Personally, I found the catalog right before the end. I didn't even know that the story had ended until a year or so later. Through the catalog I found the MST/MOCA, quantum theory, chaos theory, chaos magick, and all kinds of other little headfucks. I never took the story completely seriously. I knew it was a joke, or at least I told myself it was. At the time though I was experimenting a lot with reality and belief systems. And now and then I would believe in the catalog. I would believe that it did exist and that the travel cults were real. It was a fun excersise that expanded my mind in new directions.
I do not think the catalog's meme will ever fully die. I think it will bop around the fringe, occasionally being picked up by new comers who's eyes are wide and are willing to experiment with anything. What I'm afraid of is the jadedness of the fringe. The feeling of "you're still playing with that old meme?" May be it's just me, but as I turned things around in my head it was a feeling that I couldn't shake. I still can't. May be it's just in my head though.
Links:
The Eggroom at Dark Planet. There are some links in there that may keep the story alive. I need to hunt through them.
Frequency Edition 2001-2012. It's probably just best to hunt through this on your own.
Stare: incuBLOGula. The new life of the old incunabula.org. A site started by Joseph Matheny to document the catalog. This was the original vortex of this mad little story. I need to poke through the site and see how much of the old documents are still available on the site.
Some Interesting pictures. The site appears to be DW Cooper's.
In the History and Catechism of the Moorish Orthodox Church of America there is this odd reference to the early stages of the MOCA:
At that early stage, the M.O.C. was seen as partly Moorish and partly Eastern Orthodox, and there existed certain ties with "Errant Bishops" of the Old Catholic Church, Syrian Orthodoxy, etc.
In the 1950s some white jazz musicians and poets who held "passports" in the M.S.T. founded the Moorish Orthodox Church, which also traced its spiritual ancestry to various "Wandering Bishops" loosely affiliated with the Old Catholic Church and schisms of Syrian Orthodoxy.
Actually, I just looked around found this message that I posted to the MOCA list I'm on in response to someone else asking about the Bishops:
Actually, this goes along my own interests. Can anyone recommend any good books? I've been looking for a copy of Bishops At Large, by Peter F. Anson, which Peter Wilson sites in his essay on MST in Sacred Drift, but I'm assuming the book's now out of print (even the publisher, Faber and Faber, doesn't have a listing for the book). If anyone can recommend another book, or knows of some place where I could get a copy of Bishops At Large, I'd be grateful.
I did see this when I was looking through the MOCA list:
also, the Wandering Bishops and the autocephalous churches movement, which played a major role in the original formation of the M.O.C. (hence the term "orthodox" and our title of "Metropolitan", for example)
Crap! I just went looking for my book on Orthodox Christianity, and I couldn't find it. Where the hell did I put that thing? I checked Mircia Eliade's A History of Religious Ideas, but it isn't listed in the index of the two volumes I have. Could be in volume three. Let me get bills paid and we'll see if I can afford the third volume. Till then, I've got to track down that Orthodoxy book.
Before I post this. I looked again and found my book on Orthodox Christianity. (The Orthodox Church, by Timothy Ware) He mentions autocephalous, but only in as much as this term means self governing, and is how orthodox churches are run. There are two references to Syrian Churches. One is part of the "Church of the East" and is labeled as the "East Syrian Church." The other reference is to the Non-Chalcedonian Churches and here we have the Syrian Church of Antioch and the Syrian Church of India. Both of these groups are part of the "Oriental Churches" which split from the main body of Christianity in the fifth and sixth century.
I probably need to look into what "Syrian Orthodoxy" is. I assumed the reference was to the country, but I'm guessing now it's more an idea. By the way, Antioch appears to be on the border of modern day Turkey and Syria. Though it's not listed on the atlas I have. It's not a great atlas for these kind of things though.
So the questions for now are:
1) Who were the Wondering Bishops?
2) What was the the autocephalous churches movement?
3) What is Syrian Orthodoxy?
By the very nature of the fringe, it is rarely documented in any perminant sense. Books are written, but soon go out of print. And even they rarely collect all the information that revolves around the various mysteries that live on the fringe of society. And it seems the more complete the book, the quicker it goes out of print.
Web pages are even worse. They throw up just enough to tantalize and ussually promise more, when the author "has more time." Invariably though, a check of these sites will ussualy find that they were abandoned years ago.
Then there are the slips of information that are passed in email. Enigmatic references to things you were unaware even existed. Requests for more information either go unanswered or only serve to point you to a dead end, ussually an abandoned web page or out of print book. But always resulting in more questions then answers.
I started wondering about this. About those little scraps of information that float around the 'net. Wondering if there was some grand hidden Alexandria, where all the answers could be found, perhaps hidden in the shadows of the corporate culture that the fringe lives outside of. But, more then likely such a place, real or virtual, has never existed. As I said, the very nature of the fringe is what causes these scraps to float around, with no home to be tucked away into.
I then made the bold decision to try and build such a home. A list of links to long forgotten, or little known, web pages. Copies of articles from long out of print zines and magazines. Essays and scraps of writings that were "leaked" to the fringe, but who's promised printed companions never materialized. Basically, anything and everything that I can get my hands on. Every little scrap of the fringe that I can find.
Why?
Because I need a hobby and because I have feel that others probably wonder where this road goes and where it has been. But mostly, because I want to know where this road goes and where it has been. There are to many questions that I've had go unanswered. To many lingering threads that I wish I could, if not tie up, at least enlongate a little more.
So in short, as with this blog, the site will mostly be for me. In case others find it of interest, I'll make it available to the public. In the end though, I want to see it exist. And instead of waiting for someone else to bring it into existence, I will do it.
If anyone wishes to donate artifacts to the collection, please let me know. Otherwise, I will simply scour the net and used bookstores picking up assorted odds and ends, and little scraps of the fringe.
How long will this project last? I'd love to see it continue forever. Turn into a project to document the present as much as document the past. In the end, I will probably fall victim to the same curse that all those before me have fallen victim to. And the page will ultimetly be abandoned. Another marker of what has come before for future generations to wonder about. A marker that, like all the rest, leads to more questions then answers.
Cartoon Logic Law #1: If you run/walk/etc. off the edge of a cliff you will continue to run/walk/etc. as if running/walking/etc. on solid ground until such a time that you realize that you have in fact run/walk/etc. off a cliff.This works off the consensus/subjective nature of reality. This shows that consensus reality is the natural state of reality. And that subjective reality can be obtained when the entity is unaware of their state (i.e. that they have just run off a cliff). This raises the question though if one can refute consensus reality in any way and actively turn their back on it. This would obviously require the individual to completely purge themselves of any doubt as to the the falseness of consensus reality.Cartoon Logic Law #2: A entity can move through solid matter if an artwork that is painted on that solid matter that depicts some kind of hole through that matter. i.e. a tunnel being painted on a rock. This same feat is not available to the entity that created this artwork knowing full well that it is simply an artwork.
This second theory is supported by the exception of Cartoon Logic Law #2:
In special occasions, given certain deliberate circumstances, it is possible for the creator of said artwork to use that artwork as a way to travel through solid matter. This ability is directly related to the ability to manipulate reality in other ways and is given to the same laws of circumstancesGiven this exception, it could be said that these circumstances involve the rejection, if only temporarily, of the laws of consensus reality.
In one of my previous blogs I said, while reading a Rucker book on higher dimensions, that no drug could screw up your mind as much as high level mathmatics. I'm still standing by that statement.
One of the things that I'm doing as I read the book, is trying to "see" the descriptions in my head. From a fourth dimensional view of three dimensional space. To a fourth dimensional view of fourth dimensional space. It's a bit disoreinting. Just a few minutes ago I stopped reading and reached over for a smoke. My head swam with different perceptions for a moment as my mind was locked in trying to decipher the descriptions that Rudy was giving me in the book.
The most interesting bit though was last night. I love that period of time just before sleep when your rational mind just shuts off. That's when I experience some of my best... "concepts" so to speak. Not thoughts, not images, just jumbles of input that don't make any real sense, but still feel like some kind of sense. Like how things make sense in dreams, but don't in the real world. But, these things are occuring to me in the real world. If we do filter out the majority of the sensory input we receive, because we are unable to process it. It is these times that I allow these inputs to just wash over me.
Last night was the second time that I remember this happening. I don't remember what I was thinking about but suddenly there was this wash of extra perception that I could only interpret at the time, because of the book, as 4d information. To be honest the information is a little harrowing. It doesn't feel natural and puts me on edge.
In the end though I soon drifted off the sleep. At this point, I don't remember my dreams, but I think they were interesting. And this "4d" information mmight have shown up again. I'll have to run my head throuugh the ringer again before I go to bed tonight and see what happens.
Gotta love math!
So, I've been getting used to this new laptop and the Mac OS. On the subject of the laptop itself, I'm enjoying the freedom that I have now. This has become my primary computer period. I'm using it at work and at home. This is nice since it gives me more freedom in what I do and where I do it. In short, I just feel more connected since I'm seeing the same interface no matter where I am. No issues of being at my "work" PC or my "home" PC. Now I'm just using my laptop.
Mac OS X is another little treat. I'm still learning the ins and outs of the OS, but I'm pretty happy with what I see so far. I'd forgotten how much I like the multi window interface. I haven't used it since college when I had access to UNIX workstations running X Windows. The touchpad is a little annoying since it makes getting around the screen a little more involved then it should be, but that's an issue with laptops period. And I think as I become more accustomed to a touch pad and start to learn all the keyboard commands for everything, this will become less of an issue.
In other news, about a week ago I was randomly going through porchparty.com and I came across an interesting profile in the Freaks Down Here section. I emailed the woman in question and got a responce from her earlier this week. One of the things that I found interesting about her responce was the mention of the 4th and 5th dimension and it's interactions with this dimension and our lives. This struck me because it's something I've given a lot of thought to over to last couple of years.
The idea that I've been playing with is that the 3rd dimension that we live in, does not exist in a bubble. Instead it is being acted on by dimensions above and below it. I'm not sure of the exact nature of this interation. I figure there are two possibilitiies.
1) Dimensions exist in different realms, but that actions in one realm can be a factor in actions in the realm. I guess to easiest way to explain this would be to say that a cause in another dimension, while having an effect in that dimension can also have an effect in this dimension. Another way of looking at this would be to apply a new vector to chaos theory. Not only can the butterfly wings in one part of the world have an effect in another part of the world, but it can also have an effect in another dimension.
2) This dimension is only a 3rd dimensional manifestation of a multidimensional world. We are not aware of high dimensions because we are unable to perceive things in the correct manner. Just how A. Square is only able to perceive A. Sphere in 2-d terms in the novel Flatland. Now, there are two sub thoughts that go with this theory.
a) 3-d entities (us) are completly seperate from entities that exist in other dimensions. Meaning that a 3-d entity is completly distinct from a 2-d or 4-d entity.
b) 3-d entities are simply 3-d manifestations of multidimensional entities. We are just unaware of the fact that we are in fact multidimensional beings.
While I'm not sure exactly what theory is correct, I'm currently leaning towards 2.a as the most likely of senarios. The reason for this is because the theory works on many levels.
1) The subject of magick. And yes, that k is in there for a reason. I use that spelling to differentiate stage magic from occult magic. Anyways. The metaphor that I have found most interesting for magick is that it is finding a way to tap into elements outside of this dimension and effect those elements in some way that causes a particular effect in this world.
2) Aliens. I can't remember the name of the person who came up with the theory, but there is a theory that extraterristrial entites are in fact extradimensional. Instead of being from another planet, they are beings from a higher dimension. This makes even more sense if you go with the one universe, multiple dimensions theory. The reason being that these entities can then have two causes/purposes for existing in our dimension.
a) They are exploring lower dimensions, in a similiar maner to Grant Morrison's experiments. The common look to these beings simply being fiction suits that they have constructed.
b) They are in fact a leak between the dimensions. The result of a faulty filter in certain people's subconcious. This would account for the disorenting effect of contact. These people are litterally coming into contact with something they are unable to comprehend.
The other interesting thing about the alien idea is the physics. Much has been made of flying saucers that defy the laws of physics. If these crafts are in fact bleed through from a higher dimension, then this is a step in explaining how these craft can move against the laws of nature. Simply put, they are not goverened by our laws.
The idea is that different dimensions have different sets of rules. What's the purpose of gravity in a dimension that does not have depth? Obviously as you move into higher dimensions new laws will come into play. And those new laws could look to break our laws when applied in our dimension. For instance, the right angle turns that some craft have been reported to make could be caused by a manipulation in time that does now allow us to see the full movement of the craft. Many sceintists theorize that the 4th dimension is time. That these entities will experience time in the same manner that we experience depth. In short, they experience the entirety of time in a moment. Time is not a series of individual points to them, as it is to us.
There's another idea in here about religion and god, but it's just not coming to me right now. I'll have to wait on that for another time. Hope you enjoyed. I've got a feeling that there will be more of this type of writing in the future.
Shortly after my first ecstatic experience I felt compelled to reevaluate my belief structure. Not a true crisis of faith, just seperating the things that I felt in my heart from all the stuff that had been tossed on by other people.
By my 22nd birthday (6/17/97), almost two years after my first exstatic experience (8/25/95), I had become fixated on a section of the Gospel of Luke that seemed to connect with something very deep in me. The section reads:
" 27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again."
(Luke 6:27-38)
In the fall of '97, I had my second exstatic experience. This one was much more spiritual then the first. I was left with the feeling that God had told me that this passage was the key. Following those two rules; love all and judge none, was the heart of what was important.
Further thought lead me to the conclusion that those rules are the heart of most of the world's religions. And with this knowledge I explored what the world had to offer, both spiritually and philosophically.
I'm not sure exactly when I lost my way. But, I know by the time I had recovered from my breakdown, I had lost the love that had guided me.
At first, I thought it was just a shift in my path, from spiritual to intellectual. I had made this jump in the past. Whenever one grew faster then the other. Later, I decided that perhaps my spiritual growth had just been completed and I had gone as far as I had to (talk about arogance). In the last couple of months thought I have realized what I am missing.
In her book Christian Mysticism, East and West; which I am now reading, Maria Jaoudi says the following:
"Mere emotional reactions have the capability to engulf us in their virulence of anger, hatred, and judgemental narrowmindness. Indeed, we often become so attached to our emotional blocks that the reaction itself becomes reality to us."
I doubt the last few years of my life could be summed up better.
Last night I made the decision that it was time to reconnect and repair the damage that I have done. I started reading Christian Mysticism last night. I'm going to try and track down some books on the early Christian church (circa 1st century) and then may be move in to Sufism and Eastern religions.
So i spent about 2-3 hours today completly immersed in the recent news of Google's purchase of Pyra Labs. It's an interesting sensation to just allow the information to flow through you for that long. Not trying to process anything, but instead allowing everything to accumulate in my subconcious so that it can be processed later after several days/weeks/months/years of chewing and evaluating.
I think I need to do more work on this. See what happens when different types of music are played (today it was Rush). I think tomorrow I'm going to go for some Asian dance music, that should allow for a more complete immersion. Though, I'm also wondering what effect something that is information dense would do. Perhaps some Boredoms or the Saul Williams CD.
Another though occured to me as I drove home. Am I ramping up again? It's getting close to three years since my dealings with theories on subjective reality resulted in a minor nervous breakdown. Have I been recouping from that experience? Licking my mental wounds, assimulating the knowledge gleaned, and preparing for the next step? Am I entering the next step? This could prove interesting if so. Judging by current interests it would be something that's extremely dense with information. Hmmm...
But, how will such a thing unfold in the new situation? Previously there has been some kind of community (real or virtual) for me to at least spew thoughts, at most to pull me back from going over the edge to fast. The blog provides a perfect place to spew, but what about pulling me back? Perhaps the relative isolation that I've been in since the last time was not the best of circumstances to heal? Oh well, to late to second guess now.