The Star of Azazel - Azazelin Tähti

Memory is often discussed in relation to thought. On the one hand, thought could be considered meaningless without the capacity for memory. On the other, thought and any resultant gnostic knowledge could be considered the ultimate memory.

At least terrestrially, human memory typically decays over time and can be corrupted. This can be a problem, especially for academic endeavours, but also a positive in an artistic or Platonic sense; when words and definitions are forgotten while the underlying meaning remains. A personal example of this is a bindrune tattoo I have that essentially means unity/disunity. However, I deliberately used quite a convoluted method to design it: I used words from different languages and the final design contains every letter of the Futhark alphabet. I believe Austin Osman Spare has written about this subject in the context of the occult, but I must confess I haven't yet read any of his work.

So, how do members and guests view the general importance of memory? Does anyone actively cultivate their ability to remember things, or are others more fatalistic? On what level do you accept or question your memory? What role does note-taking or drawing play, especially when consulted later after developments/corruptions have taken place?

I might even claim that Memory = Manas. It takes some artistic intuition to dodge all possible misinterpretations, but I think it's quite accurate actually.
To "remember things" is mostly the wrong way to use memory in my opinion, because that kind of practice keeps the mind busy with "things" that is, concentrated on separatedness of "things", which paradoxically makes it a lot harder to remember the thing you are trying to remember.
Not necessarily, but often times.

I've noticed that whenever I try to form a new thought, (an abstract one, to deepen my understanding on some topic, not just daydreaming or wondering about what to eat), the process is very much alike when I try hard to remember something. I think that thinking is more like a mechanical process, you don't have to use too much skill nor strenght of any kind when you think: you just think. Forming the ground for that process is the job of higher/more abstract intellect. Or memory.

A little unlike fra Insanus, I'd say the memory in its everyday meaning is kâma manas' or rational mind's basis, and focus is the basis of manas. But when it comes to macrocosmic scale, this is inverted and it's precisely this mysterious thing of collective or deeper "memory" that is our manas (Platonic argument here...), and focus is kâma manasic or personal process. I think that this kind of inversion between microcosm & macrocosm is more like a law than an exception.

Let's also remember how Satan is connected to kâma manas, which joins him to the collective subconscious of reason, melancholic temperament, &c. He's "heavy with thought", this hermit-like Mephistopheles who can seem even bitter and sardonic with all his knowledge of human folly.

Insanus wrote:I've noticed that whenever I try to form a new thought, (an abstract one, to deepen my understanding on some topic, not just daydreaming or wondering about what to eat), the process is very much alike when I try hard to remember something. I think that thinking is more like a mechanical process, you don't have to use too much skill nor strenght of any kind when you think: you just think.

Indeed. It's like scoping water from the well: first it's there unseen, in blackness; then it's in this bucket (viz. our mind), ready to use. I think all people would have this manasic ability to reach for the archetypal ideas, but in our modern culture, people are afraid or unable to unlock it. When intuition is used, it's mostly used via emotion and not intellect, e.g. in New Age spirituality. I am convinced that pure intellect is just another kind of intuition - like all ways of straight perception. It doesn't have any "parts" which it would consist of. The "parts" we see in the process are kama manasic, but the process itself is manasic.

Manas is a focus which by its very nature brings forth vortices in mental space. To these vortices cling memories, thus helping the process to manifest. Thus the memory-kâma manas-manifestation is the lower form of spontaneous manasic thought that is like a force of nature, independent in itself.

It would even be said that it's this memory per se that is the "rainbow bridge" of Self (Sanskrit ahamkâra), and in its ends sit the lawful and chaotic divinities of manas, in constant if unseen interaction. In the Voice of Silence it is spoken of destroying this bridge of self, and likewise the bringing together these two minds and "letting them cancel out each other" is a process one must go through as an initiate who's ascending once more to the celestial spheres of thought. Thus, in a certain grade of the path, even memory must be killed.

Nefastos wrote:I think that this kind of inversion between microcosm & macrocosm is more like a law than an exception.

Thank you. From now on, discussions about esotericism with my friends will be a bit more comphrehensible and my thought-processes will become clearer. You see, when you don't have a simple way to express a complex thought (like "inversion between microcosm & macrocosm") discussions turn almost into trying to invent a new language. Like "you know about this meta-irony which is not really irony, but sort of two-headed in the aspect x in "THAT "sense of a word which has multiple meanings". It's one thing to have that kind of a problem speaking Finnish with people I know, but with very limited English skills, in a satanist forum, trying to talk philosophy & esotericism with contradicting thoughts which I might be unable to express anyway, and understanding that their essence is unexpressable. Sardonic? Me?
"Haggard am I, a hyena, I hunger and howl. Men think it laughter: ha! ha! ha!"

Both of your replies contains a lot of what I was going to state. I actually think you basically agree with each other .

Effortless everyday thinking is a product of certain types of training, both of an ingrained biological evolutionary nature, but also a psychological one. For example, our eyesight is firstly limited by our biology, yet I have known people who didn't realise they were colour-blind and instead recognised some colours by association. They'd basically memorised the majority's conventions (e.g. the colour of traffic lights) until the associations of colours was automatic. This allows a completely different type of effortless thinking that I, as someone who isn't colour-blind, find difficult to understand.

This is a relatively superficial example, but one that's also understandable by looking at optical illusions which occur due to our biology or psychologically trained memory.

However, I ultimately don't see any justification in treating memory and the categorisation of things as if they were bound by scientific logic and therefore improvable in any meaningful way. While being able to use Deconstruction to analyse other people and history, I think using it on oneself is futile as there will always be an automatic effortless thinking.

Thus, abstract thinking, dreams, meditation and spontaneous thought are massively important to me and, like Insanus stated, these often feel like memories. But there is also an inherent problem with this: their source. Some are obviously mundane, others occult, and others somewhere in the middle. Then there is the issue of any subsequent interpretation, which naturally takes one back to the construct of established patterns of thinking based on memory.


An extremely worthwhile book to read if anyone's interested in this sort of philosophical discussion is Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. It's different to most academic philosophy in that it's basically a series of thought experiments rather then a text that seeks to prove a theory. I'm not sure if some of the examples would translate into Finnish as they are often based on language, but then everyone here speaks excellent English (despite arguments to the contrary ) so maybe it doesn't matter that much.

I mentioned Wittgenstein as I am re-reading Philosophical Investigations for the Eye aspect project mentioned in the members' area. I consider some of these investigations to be very relevant for this topic:. To pick two I recently read:

• 126. …The name “philosophy” might also be given to what is possible before all new discoveries and inventions.
• 127. The work of the philosopher consists in marshalling recollections for a particular purpose.