Bitscape

December 10

Divine Possession

But the divine and the terrible are so close to each other. Nommo and Yurugu are partners; both are necessary. Osiris and Seth, too. In the Book of Job, Yahweh and Satan form a partnership. For us to live, however, these partners must be split. The behind-the-scenes partnership must end as soon as time and space and all the creatures come into being.

It is not God nor the gods which must previal; it is wisdom, Holy Wisdom. ...

God can be good and terrible -- not in succession -- but at the same time. This is why we seek a mediator between us and him; we approach him through the mediating priest and attenuate and enclose him through the sacraments. It is for our own safety: to trap him within confines which render him safe. But now, God had escaped the confines and was transubstatiating the world; God had become free.

The gentle sounds of the choir singing "Amen, amen" are not to calm the congregation but to pacify the god.

When you know this you have penetrated to the innermost core of religion. And the worst part is that the god can thrust himself outward and into the congregation until he becomes them. You worship a god and then he pays you back by taking you over. This is called "enthousiasmos" in Greek, literally "to be possessed by the god." Of all the Greek gods the one most likely to do this was Dionysos. And, unfortunately, Dionysos was insane.

Put another way -- stated backward -- if your god takes you over, it is likely that no matter what name he goes by he is actually a form of the mad god Dionysos. He was also the god of intoxication, which may mean, literally, to take in toxins; that is to say, to take a poison. The danger is there.

If you sense this, you try to run. But if you run he has you anyhow, for the demigod Pan was the basis of panic which is the uncontrollable urge to flee, and Pan is a subform of Dionysos. So in trying to flee from Dionysos you are taken over anyhow.

... You must be taken over by the mad god to understand this, that once it happens there is no way out, because the mad god is everywhere.

[Dick, Philip K. VALIS. 1981. p178-179.]

I can only guess that this book was misclassified as science fiction because they didn't know where else to put it. It may also be that since so much of his previous work was indeed scifi, it seemed natural to lump it in there too. But the label doesn't make much sense in this case. If I were deciding where to place it, I'm not even sure whether I'd put it in the "fiction" or "non-fiction" section. Maybe sorting all books by color isn't such a bad idea!

Apropos to this, Zac on Alchemical Braindamage has written another brilliant post, this one about the role of spirit possession.

I'm sure you've probably recognized, or had it pointed to you, that while you think of yourself as a coherent entity, you in fact play a number of different roles, in a number of different contexts, and they may be radically different. Even contradictory.

You probably know this already, but you probably don't think about it very much. Part of the reason is we tend to have one or two core roles that we think of as us, and the rest are deliberate 'acting', to fit into a certain situation.

What I mean is, when you're with your parents, that probably is still 'you', just a you that maybe you don't identify with very much anymore, but you slip into when you're with your folks because you have so much practice with that role. It's no more or less 'real' than the persona you assume with your significant other, or your best friends. They may all be very different, but you recognize them all as authentic or true reflections of you as a person, whereas in work or school or public places, there is more of an impetus to present a contrived or forced appearance that is so antithetical to your usual set of references that it's impossible to lose your self-consciousness in those contexts. You always are aware of acting. You're always holding an aspect of yourself outside the experience.

Sidenote: One thing I've been thinking about a fair bit lately is the possibility of pulling all these divergent 'roles' back together to form a more coherent, integrated 'self'. I want to add more of what I conceive as my "true self" into the "artificial roles" I play, so as to more effectively evince my will in the world. But zac is taking us in another direction in this post, so let's get back on track with his lesson.

What you likely don't pay much attention to is the mechanism whereby you switch from one role to another, or the mechanism whereby you lose yourself in certain roles and not others. Deep in all of us is the need for a kind of internal stability and consistency and this leads us to adopt certain behaviors as helpful to that goal, and reject others as contrary.

But if you were to participate in the theatre for instance, that creates a context where you can theoretically lose yourself in a role that has nothing whatsoever to do with your inner compass, and not feel threatened. You adopt another identity, sometimes profoundly, and then you drop it.

So then, isn't it possible to transplant that focus, that ability to adopt different persona, and bring it into everyday life? To craft a new identity, and inhabit it fully?

And why exactly would we want to do that you might ask? Well, regardless of how different your various personal roles might be, they share certain common traits, and more importantly, a common range of experience. If you think of joy on a scale for instance, you may have a bunch of roles that go to 5 or 6 on the joy scale, and one that goes to ten occasionally, but none of them go past ten. That 1-10 scale itself is one of those core principles, one of those unifying modalities like we discussed last time, that your roles cluster around. You can push against that ceiling really hard, and you may well get to a new place from time to time, but all that does is establish a new ceiling to bang up against. That ceiling is a reference point for all your various personality roles.

Now we get into the part about spirit possession. It's not as spooky or outlandish as you might normally think when hearing that phrase. Then again, maybe it is...

So what happens if you want to totally step outside of that old scale. What if you don't want to bust your ass to reach 11, you want 20 or 30 or 100 instead? How the hell do you do that, with no roles of your own that use a completely different range of experience?

The short answer is you steal them. Some cultures call this possession, in ritual magick this is known as invocation.

Now, ancient practitioners understood this concept, but to conceptualize entirely different orders of experience and understanding they felt the need to attribute them to autonomous complexes of energy and intentionality, ie; spirits, demons, gods whathaveyou.

The reason this works is that you already have a whole bunch of different scales for experience in your head, but you divide them into two types: ones that are possible for you, and ones that are not. In order to keep your internal continuity you sort experiences and sensations you have no persona structure to support into the category of 'other' and save them for fantasy, fiction and entertainment.

Deep down, you've got a pretty good idea of what 20, 30, 100 on the joy scale is, and how it feels, because you attribute that possibility to other people and other beings, but you diligently keep the door shut on stepping into that yourself, to keep your identity from falling into complete disorder.

How much harder then to tap into the ecstasy of a deity or archetype? You've got a whole lifetime of behaviors, beliefs and experiences saying that the 'best' you can do is a ten on the joe/jane blow scale and you fought damn hard to do that. To admit you can instantly step into ten thousand on the bliss scale requires you to let go of your whole invested life experience. To adopt a whole new view of the world requires letting go of your prior investment, at least temporarily, in what you think you already see and know about the world.

I would add, based on first-hand knowledge, that this does not come without a price. One of Tim's sources (original quote from here) put it very succinctly in a discussion about achetypical possession:

Just so, "archetypal possession" is like that -- the conscious mind is set aside (or falls into a fugue state) and the unconscious archetype comes forth and freely expresses itself, essentially overwhelming the conscious mind.

What happens to the ego (or the ordinary consciousness) in these cases? Quite often the ego is pushed to a place apart, where it sits and enjoys the spectacle of being invaded by a "power". The ego will suffer greatly, for having allowed itself to be "ridden" by an archetype... but for the moment there may be a feeling of superiority -- and thus "inflation".

In other words: You have to be willing to sacrifice your "self" as you know it. And that "self" will suffer, not now, but later. This is because it literally rips apart your conception of what you are. (Which I speculate is the reason why ancients classified such experiences as literally being taken over by spirits: their ego could theoretically come back into "normal" operation afterwards, the whole episode dismissed as an invasion by one diety or another. But these days, most people prefer to simply refer to possession by the more scientifically biased term, "mental illness.") Getting right back into zac's post....

It's tempting to think of ego or self as some kind of object or indwelling essence that needs to be dropped or exorcised, but it's nothing of the sort. We go into tailspins of confusion and dismay when we think of what might happen if we lost our egos. So lets be clear about what it is, and then we can start making it work for us. First off, ego is not a thing. It is a process. It is the process of referencing one's self through thoughts, speech and behavior. The problem with this is that you don't have a self. So it would be better to say that ego is the whole complex of mental programs chasing it's own tail in the effort to affirm the existence of a non existent thing, ie; this hypothetical 'self'. All the problems arise from trying to make a dynamic process into a static object.

'You' are a plurality, a complex of interchangeable modules. The only thing holding you back is the ignorant assertion of a core identity. Treat that core identity as what it is: a stepping stone. A set of markers for your next reconstruction. It'll always be there if you want to play with it again.

To the extent the self can be considered an object at all, it is a designed object, and you are the designer.

Anyone wanting to get deeper into it should check out the homework assignment near the bottom of zac's post, as well as previous installments of his series.

December 8

Visit to a Masonic Lodge

Tonight, in a spur of the moment decision, I paid a visit to the local Masonic Temple. This came about due to a surprise twist from Humblik, who recently announced that he was applying to become a Freemason. He told us he would have his first meeting with the lodge tonight at a potluck, and friends were invited to join him. Being curious and inquisitive, I decided to come along.

When I arrived at the Temple, I found two men in the kitchen talking. I introduced myself and stated my purpose, and they greeted me warmly. Before long, Humblik showed up, as did several other men. They were all very friendly, gave us a tour of the building, we ate supper, and those more knowledgable in the tradition proceeded to explain what this whole "Freemason" thing was all about.

Before we left, they showed us the rooms upstairs where they conduct their meetings and ceremonies. Tonight's rite would involve initiating a member to the rank of Master. Since only those who have attained the rank of Master Mason (plus the initiate) are allowed to attend such an event, this would conclude our visit.

Thoughts and observations...

Before I continue, I'll link to this url from Humblik that briefly explains what Masonry is about.

The purpose of the Freemasons, as explained by one of them, was stated roughly as "a group of men who get together so we can help and look out for one another." It's an ancient tradition that goes back "thousands" of years. It is a "brotherhood" seeking to find and associate with others who also have "good morals and character".

There are multiple levels of advancement within the masonic society. One achieves greater levels by learning the secrets and attaining the rites of passage. There are secret handshakes. There are codes. There are ciphers. There are signals. According to one of the men, in a crowd of the general populace, an experienced mason could silently find and identify other masons in the room, and gather them all together in one corner discreetly if needed.

Masons provide shelter and aid to other traveling masons. According to one of the members, masonic lodges can be found in virtually any city in the world; local people of differing cultures welcome the building of masonic temples because masons are known for their upright and peaceful nature. Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were Masons.

The rooms and halls are filled with elaborate symbols, sculptures, and artwork. Some of it is obviously Christian in nature, such as the Last Supper, pictures of Moses, and other Biblical figures. Other symbols are less specific and more cryptic. The thrones on differing numbers of stair steps where members bearing different titles and ranks sit during ceremonies; pillars with globes on top; a book of masonic secrets that that initiates must memorize, written in ciphered text known only to Master Masons. Lights hidden behind etchings on the walls whose radiance reflects off the ceiling.

During our tour, one of them commented that masonic symbolism -- imagery whose true meanings are not well-known outside the lodges -- pervades not only the government, but also other societal institutions such as the medical industry. "America was founded by Masons. We keep this country running. We don't necessarily control it, but we do try to guide it, and work toward making it better."

On our way out, we passed the new initiate, who was waiting on a bench outside the big upstairs room for the ceremony to begin. He had no shirt, and was clad only in a white cloth that resembled a greek costume. He would be attaining a higher rank within the society, a ritual only observable by Master Masons.

Conclusions?

"Good" or "Evil"? These are shallow and blunt terms, neither of which are sufficient to describe my reaction to what I experienced during this brief introduction. I sensed the men I met to have honorable and noble intentions, and a welcoming and friendly spirit. A fellowship. Very much like the Secret Society of the Bookhouse Boys were portrayed in Twin Peaks; banding together to stand against evil forces and protect the town.

However, at this point, I consider myself unlikely to seek further association with the Lodge. Simply put, the chauvinistic overtones were off-putting to my egalitarian sensibilities. The emphasis on secret codes, passwords, and advancement of rank, while intriguing, isn't really an area I want to delve into right now, at least not in that capacity. (I'll take the Tim Boucher approach, thank you very much.)

I am glad I went along though. Every time I rode my bike past the Masonic Temple last summer, I felt a tingle of curiosity about what was inside. Now I know, at least to a degree. I do believe The Masons employ some fairly sophisticated and potentially fascinating (and powerful) sorcery; I'll admit there is some attraction there. It just doesn't quite fit with my alignment right now.

While there is more I could add, for now I'll just say that I consider myself to be on friendly terms with the Masons, but I am not, nor do I desire to be, one of them.

Behold, The Kingdom of Heaven is At Hand!

...

Let us say, just for fun, that alternate universes exist. Then, if they do, how are they linked to each other, if in fact they are (or would be) linked? If you drew a map of them, showing their locations, what would the map look like? For instance (and I think this is a very important question), are they absolutely separate one from another, or do they overlap? Because if they overlap, then such problems as "Where do they exist?" and "How do you get from one to the next?" admit to a possible solution. I am saying, simply, if they do indeed exist, and if they do indeed overlap, then we may in some literal, very real sense inhabit several of them to various degrees at any given time. And although we all see one another as living humans walking about and talking and acting, some of us may inhabit relatively greater amounts of, say, Universe One than the other people do; and some of us may inhabit relatively greater amounts of Universe Two, Track Two, instead, and so on. It may not merely be that our subjective impressions of the world differ, but there may be an overlapping, a superimposition, of a number of worlds so that objectively, not subjectively, our worlds may differ. Our perceptions differ as a result of this.

Contemplating this possibility of a lateral arrangement of worlds, a plurality of overlapping Earths along whose linking axis a person can somehow move -- can travel in a mysterious way from worst to fair to good to excellent -- contemplating this in theological terms, perhaps we could say that herewith we suddenly decipher the elliptical utterances that Christ expressed regarding the Kingdom of God, specifically where it is located. He seems to have given contradictory and puzzling answers. But suppose, just suppose for an instant, that the cause of the perplexity lay not in any desire on his part to baffle or to hide, but in the inadequacy of the question. "My Kingdom is not of this world," he is reported to have said. "The Kingdom is within you." Or possibly, "It is among you."

I put before you now the notion, which I personally find exciting, that he may have had in mind that which I speak of as the lateral axis of overlapping realms that contain among them a spectrum of aspects ranging from the unspeakably malignant to the beautiful. And Christ was saying over and over again that there really are many objective realms, somehow related, and somehow bridgeable by living -- not dead -- men, and that the most wondrous of these worlds was a just kingdom in which either He Himself or God Himself or both of them ruled. And he did not merely speak of a variety of ways of subjectively viewing one world; the Kingdom was and is an actual different place, at the opposite end of continua starting with slavery and utter pain. It was his mission to teach his disciples the secret of crossing along this orthogonal path. He did not merely report what lay there; He taught the method of getting there. But, tragically, the secret was lost. The enemy, the Roman authority, crushed it. And so we do not have it. But perhaps we can refind it, since we know that such a secret exists.

We are enjoined repeatedly in the New Testament to be vigilant, that for the Christian it is always day, there is always light, by which he can see this event when it comes. See this event. Does that imply that many persons who are somehow asleep or blind or not vigilant -- they will not see it, even though it occurs? Consider the significance that can be assigned to these notions. The Kingdom will come here, unexpectedly (this is always stressed); the rightful faithful shall see it, because for them it is always daytime, but for the others ... what seems expressed here is the paradoxical but enthralling thought that -- and hear this and ponder -- the Kingdom, were it established here, would not be visible to those outside it. I offer the idea that, in more modern terms, what is meant is that some of us will travel laterally to that best world and some will not; they will remain stuck along the lateral axis, which means that for them the Kingdom did not come, not in their alternate world. And yet meantime it did come in ours. So it comes and yet does not come. Amazing.

If You Find This World Bad, You Should See Some of the Others

Profound truth, or the ravings of a madman lost in the world of scifi?

There is a direct causal relationship between karma and the Black Iron Prison. You are released from karma (heimarmene) and see the world as you have been in as it is, as the Black Iron Prison the basic conditions of which are ignorance (involvement in delusion) and slavery (domination by causality). This karma extends over a series of lifetimes. When released from it, ignorance gives way to enlightenment and you see the world as illusory and yet at the same time it has been the Prison. Then the Prison departs, karma having been burned up, and the Absolute is visible, which seems to be a cosmic being (perhaps the Dharmakaya Buddha). After that you are in the Palm Tree Garden which I suppose to be Nirvana. This all seems to be Sankara-Buddhism.

So the twin conditions of karma are: enslavement and ignorance; i.e. the Prison and delusion. The opposite of this is freedom and waking up (enlightenment) and an abolition of the delusional. There is a communion with a cosmic being which is neither matter nor mind but something else. All reality -- the totality of everything -- is contained in this cosmic being.

Correction: "It is neither mind or matter -- nor something different from them both" (The Dharmakaya Buddha or Diamond Body of the Trikaya bodies).

Exegesis