Ezra Pound: Religio or, The Child’s Guide to Knowledge (1918)

What is a god?
      A god is an eternal state of mind.
What is a faun?
      A faun is an elemental creature.
What is a nymph?
      A nymph is an elemental creature.
When is a god manifest?
      When the states of mind take form.
When does a man become a god?
      When he enters one of these states of mind.
What is the nature of the forms whereby a god is manifest?
      They are variable but retain certain distinguishing characteristics.
Are all eternal states of mind gods?
      We consider them to be so.
Are all durable states of mind gods?
      They are not.
By what characteristic may we know the divine forms?
      By beauty.
And if the presented forms are unbeautiful?
      They are demons.
If they are grotesque?
      They may be well-minded genii.
What are the kinds of knowledge?
      There are immediate knowledge and hearsay.
Is hearsay of any value?
      Of some.
What is the greatest hearsay?
      The greatest hearsay is the tradition of the gods.
Of what use is this tradition?
      It tells us to be ready to look.
In what manner do gods appear?
      Formed and formlessly.
To what do they appear when formed?
      To the sense of vision.
And when formless?
      To the sense of knowledge.
May they when formed appear to anything save the sense of vision?
      We may gain a sense of their presence as if they were standing behind us.
And in this case they may possess form?
      We may feel that they do possess form.
Are there names for the gods?
      The gods have many names. It is by names that they are handled in the tradition.
Is there harm in using these names?
      There is no harm in thinking of the gods by their names.
How should one perceive a god, by his name?
      It is better to perceive a god by form, or by the sense of knowledge, and after perceiving him thus, to consider his name or to “think what god it may be.”
Do we know the number of the gods?
      It would be rash to say that we do. A man should be content with a reasonable number.
What are the gods of this rite?
      Apollo, and in some sense Helios, Diana in some of her phases, also the Cytherean goddess.
To what other gods is it fitting, in harmony or in adjunction with these rites, to give incense?
      To Kore and to Demeter, also to lares and to oreiads and to certain elemental creatures.
How is it fitting to please these lares and other creatures?
      It is fitting to please and to nourish them with flowers.
Do they have need of such nutriment?
      It would be foolish to believe that they have, nevertheless it bodes well for us that they should be pleased to appear.
Are these things so in the east?
      This rite is made for the West.

Minor editing/formatting by Nexist Xendaths.
Source 1: Pavannes and Divisions (eBook in which it originally appeared)
Source 2: Pagan Reveries (Mainly because I hate typing)

Ezra Pound: Axiomata (1921)

I

1. The intimate essence of the universe is not of the same nature as our own consciousness.
2. Our own consciousness is incapable of having produced the universe.
3. God, therefore, exists. That is to say, there is no reason for not applying the term God, Theos, to the intimate essence.
4. The universe exists. By exists we mean normally: is perceptible to our consciousness or deducible by human reason from data perceptible to our consciousness.
5. Concerning the intimate essence of the universe we are utterly ignorant. We have no proof that this God, Theos, is one, or is many, or is divisible or indivisible, or is an ordered hierarchy culminating, or not culminating, in a unity.
6. Not only is our consciousness, or any concentration or coagulation of such consciousness or consciousnesses, incapable of having produced the universe, it is incapable of accounting for how said universe has been and is.
7. Dogma is bluff based upon ignorance.
8. There is benevolent and malevolent dogma. Benevolent dogma is an attempt to “save the world” by instigating it to accept certain propositions. Malevolent dogma is an attempt to gain control over others by persuading them to accept certain propositions.
   There is also nolent,¹ un-volent² dogma, a sort of automatic reaction in the mind of the dogmatiser, who may have come to disaster by following certain propositions, and who, from this, becomes crampedly convinced that contrary propositions are true.
9. Belief is a cramp, a paralysis, an atrophy of the mind in certain positions.

II

1. It is as foolish to try to contain the Theos in consciousness as to try to manage electricity according to the physics of water. It is as non-workable as to think not only of our consciousness managing electricity according to the physics of water, but as to think of the water understanding the physics of electricity.
2. All systems of philosophy fail when they attempt to set down axioms of the Theos in terms of consciousness and of logic; similiter³ by the same figure that electricity escapes the physics of water.
3. The selection of monotheism, polytheism, pluralism, dual, trinitarian god or gods, or hierarchies, is pure matter of individual temperament (in free minds), and of tradition in environment of discipular,⁴ bound minds.
4. Historically the organisation of religions has usually been for some ulterior purpose, exploitation, control of the masses, etc.

III

1. This is not to deny that the consciousness may be affected by the Theos (remembering that we ascribe to this Theos neither singular nor plural number).
2. The Theos may affect and may have affected the consciousness of individuals, but the consciousness, is incapable of knowing why this occurs, or even in what manner it occurs, or whether it be the Theos; though the consciousness may experience pleasant and possibly unpleasant sensations, or sensations partaking neither of pleasure or its opposite. Hence mysticism. If the consciousness receives or has received such effects from the Theos, or from something not the Theos yet which the consciousness has been incapable of understanding or classifying either as Theos or a-Theos, it is incapable of reducing these sensations to coherent sequence of cause and effect. The effects remain, so far as the consciousness is concerned, in the domain of experience, not differing intellectually from the taste of a lemon or the fragrance of violets or the aroma of dunghills, or the feel of a stone or of tree-bark, or any other direct perception. As the consciousness observes the results of the senses, it observes also the mirage of the senses, or what may be a mirage of the senses, or an affect from the Theos, the non-comprehensible.
3. This is not to deny any of the visions or auditions or sensations of the mystics, Dante’s rose or Theresa’s walnut; but it is to affirm the propositions in Section I.

IV

1. The consciousness may be aware of the effects of the unknown and of the non-knowable on the consciousness, but this does not affect the proposition that our consciousness is utterly ignorant of the nature of the intimate essence. For instance: a man may be hit by a bullet and not know its composition, nor the cause of its having been fired, nor its direction, nor that it is a bullet. He may die almost instantly, knowing only the sensation of shock. Thus consciousness may perfectly well register certain results, as sensation, without comprehending their nature (see I, 1). He may even die of a long-considered disease without comprehending its bacillus.⁵
2. The thought here becomes clouded, and we see the tendency of logic to move in a circle. Confusion between a possibly discoverable bacillus and a non-knowable Theos. Concerning the ultimate nature of the bacillus, however, no knowledge exists; but the consciousness may learn to deal with superficial effects of the bacillus, as with the directing of bullets. confusion enters argument the moment one calls in analogy. We return to clarity of Section I (1-9).
3. The introduction of analogy has not affected our proposition that the “intimate essence” exists. It has muddied our conception of the non-knowability of the intimate essence.
   
   [Speculation.—Religions have introduced analogy? Philosophies have attempted sometimes to do without it. This does not prove that religions have muddied all our concepts. There is no end to the variants one may draw out of the logical trick-hat.]

V

1. It is, however, impossible to prove whether the Theos be one or many.
2. The greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the Theos is one, or that there is a unity above various strata of Theos which imposes its will upon the sub-strata, and thence upon human individuals.
3. Certain beauties of fancy and of concept have arisen both from the proposition of many gods and from that of one god, or of an orderly arrangement of the Theos.
4. A choice of these fancies of the Theos is a matter of taste; as the preference of Durer or Velasquez, or the Moscophorus, or Amenhotep’s effigy, or the marbles of Phidias.
5. Religion usually holds that the Theos can be, by its patent system, exploited.
6. It is not known whether the Theos may be or may not be exploited.
7. Most religions offer a system or a few tips for exploiting the Theos.
8. Men often enjoy the feeling that they are performing this exploitation, or that they are on good terms with the Theos.
9. There is no harm in this, so long as they do not incommode anyone else.
10. The reason why they should not incommode anyone else is not demonstrable; it belongs to that part of the concepts of consciousness which we call common decency.
11. We do not quite know how we have come by these concepts of common decency, but one supposes it is our heritage from superior individuals of the past; that it is the treasure of tradition. Savages and professed believers in religion do not possess this concept of common decency. They usually wish to interfere with us, and to get us to believe something “for our good”.
12. A belief is, as we have said, a cramp, and thence progressively a paralysis or atrophy of the mind in a given position.

Note

This terse statement of his philosophy was Pound’s farewell to London. Having made it, he went to Paris, and then to Rapallo.

First published in The New Age, Vol. XXVIII, No. 11, 13 January, 1921, pp. 125-6.
Proofread and annotated by Fergus Cullen (2016-7).
Further proofreading and annotation by Nexist Xenda’ths.
Source: https://philosophylibrary.wordpress.com/2017/07/11/axiomata-ezra-pound-1921/ (2018 August 21)

-------

1: Nōlent: third-person plural future active indicative of nolō. Nōlō: I am unwilling, I wish not, I want not, I refuse. 

2: Volent: exercising volition 

3: Similiter: a reply by which the pleader in a common law pleading concurs with the other party in requesting trial by jury. (I think it is saying that both agree they are not bound by the laws which bind the other). 

4: Discipular: of, relating to, or befitting a disciple. 

5: Bacillus: (generally) all cylindrical or rodlike bacteria.

All footnotes are Nexist Xenda'ths. If I had to look it up to make sure I understood the word/context, I added a footnote. Also, Blogger hated the hyperlinked footnotes, so they were removed.

Anime As Prophecy, the Case of Armitage III

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

I know many of you will be surprised by this, but someone on the Internet likes anime. Now there are several broad categories of anime. The broadest, of course is (1) “What I  Like”, and (2) Crap. However, that isn’t very useful for most discussions, so I will divide the “What I Like” category up a bit. I like anime that makes you think without being preachy. Anime that makes you think is further divided into two categories, Light and Dark. Light, thoughtful anime would include a large swathe of Studio Ghibli (notable exception is Grave of the Fireflies). The other category includes Akira, Ghost In the Shell, Jin-Roh, and Armitage III.

The thing about thoughtful anime is that it brings up questions that retain their relevance over time. The recurring idea of humanity’s relationship to nature, what does it mean to be human, etc, etc.

Armitage III Intro Clip

Armitage III was an OVA put out in 1995. Thankfully, a movie of hacked together scenes was dubbed and released to Americans. This is when I first saw it. This caused me to pick up The Complete Saga, which contains the Original OVA (far superior), the pieced together Poly-Matrix, and the sequel Dual-Matrix.

There are going to be some spoilers here, however, the anime is over two decades old. While I hope you will still watch it, most people won’t.

So, the set-up involves the Human Ross Syllibus and the Android Naomi Armitage. Whenever I see the name Naomi, I have to do a check to see if it's a reference to Jun'ichirō Tanizaki. In this case, it isn't, or at least I don't believe it is. Ross flees to Mars in hopes of dealing with various issues. His partner was killed by cyborgs (or androids) leaving him with a lingering prejudice against both. This is combined with his increasing reliance on various prosthetics as various body parts have a tendency to get blown up in his line of work. This is one of the questions asked by this movie, where is the line between human and non-human. Naomi is the titular character. She is a secret android of a previously unknown type, the Type III (or Thirds). There existence is revealed rather early in the series.

The type III is an android developed with the mental faculties of a human. Actually, from the examples in the Anime, they are actually better than most humans. Their bodies are (ala terminator) flesh and metal. The primary conflict of the series is that someone is killing off the type III androids. These androids had been embedded within society without anyone being the wiser. Those who knew the deceased were shocked to find out that they were androids.

As the story unfolds, we find that a shadowy cabal is doing the killing, Ross gets over his hangups. Armitage gets over hers (”If humans don’t want me, why did they create me?”). They fall in love and they change their names and go into hiding. This sets up things for the sequel.

The shadowy cabal is where it gets interesting. Mars, being a colony, was settled by (mostly) men. Earth had finally achieved the Feminist dream and Feminists were in control. This led to obvious friction between the two planets. Earth had the upper hand however, as without women, there would be no one to bear the next generation of Martians. Shades of "Mars Needs Women", perhaps. Thus the third was invented. Fully sentient gynoids capable of bearing children. It should be noted that they were not ‘enslaved’ nor ‘coerced’. Many were prominent in various artistic and social circles. It seems that none had found mates or produced children (though one of the murdered thirds was pregnant).

As happens with long term projects, things change before they come to fruition. The Martian government came to an accord with the Terran government. The requirement for this reconciliation was the elimination of the threat to the Terran Feminist, the III. The data dump of this is about midway through the fourth and final episode, in case you missed the foreshadowing in the prior three episodes.

Now, I really enjoy the Armitage III anime. As I said, I bought the DVD set. However, what really got me thinking about it was the various diatribes of Feminist anti-Sex Robot rhetoric. A simple Google search will find various opinions on Sexbots and their impact on feminism. MGTOW types view them as detrimental to (latter-stage) feminism, and, given their opposition, later-stage feminism seems to agree.

Now, it has long been recognized that sex is the primary weapon women have over men. It’s been true for centuries. It forms the premise of the Greek play Lysistrada, circa 411 BC. Frankly, men will put up with a lot if the end result is sex. A lot of selfish, self-destructive behavior has been tolerated purely because women decide who they will or will not have sex with. As is common with most socio-political activity, the extreme tends to mobilize the center. Even women who aren’t radical feminists like the idea of more power and authority, so they act in solidarity with the more extreme elements. This has led to an ever increasing set of laws and regulations designed to give more and more agency to women by regulating the one thing men really care about and which they cannot get from anyone else.

Enter the sexbot. Now I remember seeing Real Dolls in the mid/late-90s. I’ve also kept an eye on android research in East Asia. It is rather fascinating, and it was inevitable that these two things would meet. As long as it could be stigmatized as a pet project by low market males that confirms their undesirability, Sexbots could be ignored. However, dissatisfaction with the subjugation of men by women (often codified into law), certain movements (of varying levels of repute) have arisen that called into question whether the refusal to engage in the modern dating game was actually a signifier of low market value. Either way, it seems that, for many men, the limit of what they will put up with for decreasingly satisfying sexual activity has been reached.

"Sex is Boring" clip from Sid & Nancy

So yeah, I don’t really think that an Armitage III scenario will occur within my lifetime, and I doubt that androids capable of reproduction will occur, but I do think that, should the sexbot gain enough traction before the feminists can squash it, it will lead to a radical re-evaluation of male-female relationships. If all a woman offers is sex, sex which can be satisfactorily filled by sexbots, women will have to come up with something else in order to entice men. This may lead to a world where women revert to more traditional roles, or some new expression may be carved out. We may enter a world where high-value men have multiple high value women, and everyone else has sex robots to reduce tensions. Who knows?

To be fair I should probably mention the doomsday scenario. This is the current trend anyway, with sex often being an inadequate substitute for masturbation and the demands of Modernist society (which rates motherhood and children as undesirable) leading to lowered birth rates. There is a concern that sexbots (both male and female) will lead to a world were reproductive needs are sublimated and a viable population is no longer available, in which case, we would stop breeding and the human race will die out. I suppose the question here is how many people are really necessary for a viable population.

Second part of Armitage III intro clip

I Hope you enjoyed these musings.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood
Love is the law, love under will

Not really a citation, but this site came to my attention before recording this:
https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/

Armitage III

The Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law

This essay came about from a discussion on another forum. It dates from about a year and a half ago. Some Edits have been made to (hopefully) clarify the text.

All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself. (AL: Comment)

In the Tunis Comment, which is often used by the OTO and other self-identified Thelemites to stifle/avoid open discussion on what it means to be a Thelemite, we are instructed to look to Crowley’s writings. It strikes me as strange that his full commentaries are not in print. We were promised them back in the 1990s, but they have not materialized.

While the commentaries, which I understand to be abridged, are available online, the only published commentaries are out of print. This includes the “new” version of The Law is for All (1996) [Priced 26 May 2018 at $118 used]. The gold standard for commentaries has always been the Magical and Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law (1974). This book has been out of print for some time. I almost had a heart attack when I realized that replacing it would cost about a $1000  [Priced 26 May 2018 at $765 used].

This book contains the Old and New Commentaries interspersed with the verses, and the Djeridensis Comment at the end. The old and new comments are differently edited than those of the original Law is for All (1983) [26 May Only $75 used]. Reading them all is probably the best option available to us. I will continue to wish for a complete, faithful edition of Crowley’s commentary, preferably with footnotes explaining any references, people, or places alluded to by the text.

Anyway, the commentary is important. It elaborates on the metaphysics underpinning the new Æon as understood by Crowley--who is enjoined in the text to do this. Accepting the Law means accepting the spiritual authority of Crowley as the prophet of the new Æon, and this text tells you what that means.

The text must be read carefully and repeatedly. There are many things that will upset modern readers, entrenched as they are in the modern worldview. Then again, I am very amused by how long passages of the most objectionable type (e.g. on women) are then followed by a “but we of Thelema reverse all of this”.

While writing this, I noticed that The Hermetic Library has a Magical & Philosophical Commentaries on the Book of the Law section under Liber AL vel Legis. I do not know if this is an actual transcription of the book or merely the old and new comments combined. I also spied the Djeridensis Comment, but the formatting of Chapter I is odd (it is in two columns in the book). (While checking to see if it is a faithful reproduction, I found that it is incomplete) [Note: As of 26 May 2018, it seems to be complete].

Further reading can be found at the bottom of The Hermetic Library’s Liber AL vel Legis page (Additional Reading is at the bottom).

#thelema #liberal #crowley #outofprintbookspissmeoff

Sargon/Spencer/Styx Video and the Liberalist Movement (with unrelated montage of pretty women)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law

This was originally in my Video Blog notes, but since it grew too long, I split it out.

Over on Minds, I’ve been commenting on the Sargon/Spencer/Styx video.

• I knew Sargon was popular, but I never realized how much.
• Let me preface by stating that, while I watched Sargon’s commentary on his performance, and some other related videos, I did not watch the original video which clocks in at about 4 and a half hours..
• I made it to 20 minutes before I had to stop
• I should mention that Sargon was late, so I only really watched about five minutes with him in it.
• Styx, Spencer, and Tara were having a discussion that might have become interesting.
• Now I should point out that Spencer was hostile and rude.
• However, Sargon has made a name for himself by being rude.
• And if he can’t handle people being rude back, he should stop 
• However, Sargon pretty much lost it.
• He descended into emotionalism
• He kept trying to parrot his talking points even though they weren’t relevant
• In short, he acted just like your typical SJW.
• Now, I am subscribed to Sargon and I will watch some of his shorter videos.
• I don’t find his longer videos to be a good return on my investment.
• In the 80s/90s, I spent a fair amount of time in coffee shops in and around various campuses.
• We spent a lot of time high as a kite theorizing about things.
• I often feel like I am at a table next to some people doing this when I listen to Sargon.
• To put it another way, I don’t feel that Sargon has a very deep understanding of the material he espouses.
• He can easily overcome your typical SJW, leftist, or progressive.
• However, anyone who has studied history, philosophy, etc, etc will beat him as handily as he beats the SJWs
• This was demonstrated in the video where he debated Spencer.
• Spencer is by no means the most informed member of the alt-right.
• However, he is rather informed in his area. People who I know, who are rather knowledgeable and who are on the alt-right, criticize Spencer’s capabilities as a debater.
• Now let me preface that I cringed at the usage of the term “Rights “ being used for the state.
• While a state may have certain rights granted to it by other states
• What they were discussing was power, the states power over the individual for the express purpose of maintaining the society.
• While we can quibble over the coercive nature of the “Social Contract” for subsequent generations, the idea is that the state protects its citizens and its citizens give it power over them.
• When Sargon trotted out Locke’s definition of a society, he was quoting an ideal.
• I.e., it doesn’t exist and is (likely) impossible to implement in its pure form.
• We can hold an ideal as a yardstick for evaluating the acceptability of the practice
• However, we should not conflate the two.
• When Spencer, admittedly rudely, pointed out the irrelevance of the quote as an answer to the question
• Sargon lost it
• This, to me, indicates that Sargon has not thought about the issue and its ramifications
• He should have considered how what he desires, the ideal, differs from what is.
• He should have thought about why this discrepancy is and whether it needs to be rectified or not, and how he would go about rectifying it.

What saddens me the most about this is that I really wanted to know what the various people thought on the issue(s).

• What do Spencer, Styx, and Sargon mean when they use the term “Race Realism”.
• I know what I mean, but what do they mean?
• Likewise, the nuances of State, ethnic or otherwise, economics, etc
• The only way to correctly counter an error (if such errors exist) is to accurately define the error
• Otherwise we fall into the fallacy of straw man.

I don’t really want to get to deeply into the whole “Liberalist” thing, but

• I think that Sargon is seriously underestimating the amount of work required to run a group &/or movement.
• As much as you may dislike Spencer or Falarca, you have to admit they spend a lot of time running their groups.
• People who have little organizational experience often underestimate the amount of work required.
• Take it from someone who has started four groups, co-founded another, and been an officer in several others
• Just as a side note, I ended two of the four groups as I was (as I feel Sargon is) unprepared to manage them
• The other two were passed onto others & I believe they are also no more.
• I am no longer affiliated with the group I co-founded.
• Trust me, it will either get taken over by someone who knows what they are doing or collapse.
• If it gets taken over by someone else it will probably go in a direction Sargon does not desire
• I expect even more drama if this even gets off the ground.

I really wish there was a transcript of the debate, so I could read the whole thing rather than suffering through 4 plus hours.

If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe.

Truth is found in the Rubble of Falsehood

Love is the law, love under will

Citations and Notes

The Sargon/Spencer/Styx video

Sargon’s response video

Some articles on Counter Currents:

An Identitarian, a Civic Nationalist, & a Classical Liberal Walk into a Stream (the Third One Cucks)

The Skeptic War

Articles on Minds.Com

Sargon and the liberalist movement

The Problem with Sargon of Akkad and the Liberalists

Opening:

Kai Engel

Chant Of Night Blades

Deathless: The Renaissance

Download: http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kai_Engel/Deathless_The_Renaissance

License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Ending:

Coil

The Hellbound Heart

Hellraiser Themes

https://www.discogs.com/Coil-Hellraiser-Themes/release/130646