Truth vs. Presentation

Putting together ones life with the modern world.
User avatar
Insanus
Frater
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Truth vs. Presentation

Postby Insanus » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:42 pm

Nefastos wrote:
Jiva wrote:On the other hand, postmodernism unceasingly seeks to reveal and dismantle any underlying assumptions we may have – conscious or otherwise – that cloud our interpretive faculties.


Do you think it is possible that unlike in Perennialism, in the postmodern philosophy/culture of language, narrative has been penetrated or transcended in such a way that it seeks to actually approach the "Truth" in the word's occult sense of archetypical or divine, that is, with the capital letter? I've got a feeling that it is extremely sceptical about such an ideological axiom, and thus, builds even more upon "narrative" (as a mind's fundamental model of structuring) than Traditionalists, even though on the very different meaning of the word. Like, culturally constructed language being our golden cage hanging over a bottomless pit of semi-individual experience.

I am mostly ignorant of the postmodern thinking, but I have been in an understanding that the occult doctrine of transcendental & yet reachable Truth is mostly seen as an object of archeology rather than serious possibility. Isn't postmodernism quite proud of its despair, that building upon unfathomable abyss? In case there are post-narrativists who have actually merged their thought with transcendental, the occult approach to Truth, please let me know.
Gilles Deleuze might be interesting to you. He tried to be a transcendental empirist - and even more interestingly, believed that the philosophies of Nietzsche and Spinoza formed a unity. I haven't yet studied much of his works, but I have a gut feeling that Deleuze's and Guattari's schizoanalysis could be very fruitful in trying to approach occultism in a modern way.
Myrkky sattuu siihen jolla on haava.
User avatar
Insanus
Frater
Posts: 926
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 7:06 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Truth vs. Presentation

Postby Insanus » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:47 pm

Myrkky sattuu siihen jolla on haava.
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Truth vs. Presentation

Postby Nefastos » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:30 pm

Thank you brother. Deleuze's name has come up so often in so many different talks of friends & other intelligent people that I am eager to check out his ideas finally. Nietzsche-Spinozan unity sounds quite possible from the occult viewpoint, although flammable. (Isn't that like putting âtma upon âtma of a different kind, creating a hyperfocus?)
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"
User avatar
Nefastos
Frater
Posts: 3437
Joined: Mon May 24, 2010 10:05 am
Location: Helsinki

Re: Truth vs. Presentation

Postby Nefastos » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:59 pm



The article's starting with the "temenos of sight" actually brings us once again closer to the other pole, Traditionalism, for this was something that Lubicz discussed in his "Symbol and the Symbolic".

Deleuze article wrote:Is sight the disease of all Idealisms?


Evolution of the outer sight (the sight of the two eyes and not the third) is taught by Blavatsky to be equal to the Fall of humankind. In the ancient times of the third humankind (third root race) – the first physical one actually – begun its evolution, it only had the spiritual eye to look inwards. This inner eye atrophied little by little when the two eyes came to being, slowly severing man's perception from the inner plane, that "unitary plane of immanence", as the article called it. This gradual process of losing from one's sight his gods became a vicious, even though at that time needed, circle of separation. (All the first three and half humankinds, the involutionary arch of emanation, had separatism as a virtue, since we had to grow to be individual beings.) The third eye, the "Eye of Dangma", holds no such "temenos of sight", or rather, it itself becomes, and makes a man, his own temenos.

Deleuze article wrote:Thus the Idea is not a cognitive mechanism of finite rational beings, but the genetic principle of all being. The infinite determinability of the Idea is not with respect just to the ‘concepts of experience’ but to every actual thing that exists. Hence Deleuze’s monistic claim that being is univocal

This is indeed in accordance to the esoteric teaching of the actuality of the archetypical.

Deleuze article wrote:What this all comes to is Deleuze’s conception of the univocity of Being as a two-aspect theory of virtual/actual, the actual being the outer manifestation of the virtual intensive intensity. There is no dichotomy or split but a univocal relation between the intensive and extensive aspects of ontic. As our historians claim “virtual intensities are genetically pre-individual, pre-objective, but ontologically rather than temporally. The virtual is always immanent to the actual; it is the latter’s immanent genetic element” (Idealism, 288-289).

Even better, this is quite simply the exact tantric approach. The virtual part is Maya or the magical illusion, Devî (Magna Mater matrix), while the actual is the pure consciousness of Shiva. These two are never apart; the whole universe (multiverse) is their dance where either She or He takes a seeming emphasis of an aspectual kind.

Deleuze article wrote:Actual entities stand out against this background of intensity. There is no total system, no Absolute. There is instead a “chaotic intensive maelstrom” which is productive of actual entities that arise out of this maelstrom for a short span then vanish back into its intensities.

This also is a very Shaivite concept, just a different choice of words for sanskrit Spanda or existence's absolute vibration or tremor.

All this has gone quite far from what I had in mind when starting this thread. But no matter, this might be even better course for discussion, and keeps well in the thread's name.
Faust: "Lo contempla. / Ei muove in tortuosa spire / e s'avvicina lento alla nostra volta. / Oh! se non erro, / orme di foco imprime al suol!"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest