Ascension

Song of the day: Amnesty “Mister President”

I’m finding it really hard to really capture how I’m feeling about Barack Obama’s win last night. I think there was a part of me somewhere that didn’t believe it could happen, no matter what all the polls were saying, that after eight years of the worst administration in my lifetime, corruption and greed was something we were going to have to accept and live with. That the status quo of old school politicians who carried forward the prejudices and biases of the past would remain entrenched. This is a victory for the “other,” not only everyone outside the normal demographic that has always been in the White House, but for those of us who recognized the world is broken and feel that the status quo is largely responsible for it. For those of us who feel that not only was there a huge difference between conservative and liberal but who feel there’s a huge difference between the conservative of today and the conservative of the Reagan area and earlier. Who feel that there is a huge difference between the increasingly fringe Evangelical movement and the Christian mainstream. Who feel that the Palin segment of the modern Republican party have adopted such a Manichean view of the world that everyone who doesn’t mark in lockstep is somehow the Shadow. This is the moment where those of us who have found science abased, spirituality diminished and humanity divided are finally seeing the possibility of a true paradigm change, where unity is a real, if temporary possibility.

And as such feelings go, it’s going to take me a while to believe it’s happening. I’ve been following this election by the footnote since Barack Obama’s sophistication, intelligence, unflappability and poise convinced me that for the first time in my entire life, I wasn’t just voting for the lesser of two evils, but for someone who is actually my voice. Someone who was clearly introspective and self-critical, who realized that healing is not accomplished by the type of divisiveness our country has seen. Who doesn’t pander to the extremes of either party, a man who would calmly try to explain to Bill O’Reilly his vision of the future over constant interruptions, but would also try to temper Rachel Maddow’s implication that Obama’s campaign is an actual condemnation of conservatism. Over and over, I pinched my arm until I bruised, a part of me still not convinced this was actually happening.

I’m not sure when I knew it was over. Part of me was convinced very early on it was a done deal, especially after Hilary Clinton was ousted in the primaries. It had all the hallmarks of history in the making. I was even more convinced it was over when McCain picked Sarah Palin, a move I saw as shoring up the base rather than aiming for the moderates who decide these things. If it wasn’t for the close elections in 2000 and 2004, one or both that always looked shifty, and the constant worries over election fraud, one might have looked at what were rather obvious poll numbers. I kept reminding myself about the dangers and pitfalls of conspiracy theories, most of which never pan out. Last night they had no chance.

Pennsylvania was the first huge moment. After that only one big state was needed and when Ohio went blue, it was virtually over. The next hour was like a dream. I was watching MS-NBC talking to friend and it all seemed to happen in slow motion. Chris Matthews started giving a big speech about the implications of the Obama win and like a climax, the entire west coast lit up blue. As a California voter talking to an Oregon voter on the phone, this was a hell of a moment, it was as if our states clinched the win. And it felt like a huge weight disappeared, like 1000 banishing rituals ending all at once.

Obviously a moment that feels like the grand finale to the best movie of all time is actually only the beginning. But for the moment, the sun is shining.

An image from The Classical Golden Dawn Tarot after the break:

The Rising Sun

I haven’t seen much discussion on the Obama Biden emblem. It’s an insignia that captures one of the most profound and significant symbols of the ages, that of the rising sun. It’s the very basic simple of hope, a new day will rise. This goes all the way back to the Egyptians who originally did not have the certainty modern man does about the sun coming up again the next day.

It’s also a significant symbol for many esoteric groups, most famously the Golden Dawn (this book shows one example of how it’s used). In the Golden Dawn, this symbol encapsulates quite a bit more than the hope for a new day, in particular it symbolizes an important spiritual concept that has a far reaching effect. If you notice in the symbol, the rising sun is in the center of the Star of David. In the Golden Dawn this star is the combination of the downward pointing triangle that is the blue elemental symbol of water and the red upward pointing triangle that is the elemental symbol of fire. In the form of the Star (or hexagram if you will) it is the fusion and the reconciliation of opposites. In the kabbalah this is Tiphareth, whose planetary association, naturally, is the Sun. Tiphareth is also the sixth sephirah, corresponding nicely with the hexagram. It not only balances the pillars of mercy and severity, but also the divine and earthbound parts of the tree.

Strangely enough this dovetails quite nicely with Barack Obama. Obama’s an August 4th Leo, a sign that the Sun rules. It’s probably worth noting here that Bill Clinton was also a Leo democrat. Leos are known for radiant charisma and leadership abilities, two aspects I can even imagine most of Obama’s detractors are likely to at least grudgingly admit. Having dated an August 4th Leo before, Obama’s chameleon-like way of being able to relate to just about any situation and to be empathetic with nearly everyone he comes into contact with is very familiar to me. The constant refrains of one America, one party, crossing party lines, transformation, “change we need” and all of this imagery is definitively Tiphareth, all of these things smaller ripples and echoes of that greater truth the rising sun represents.

Whether this has all come together in the way chains of unexplained synchroncity tend to or if there was someone in the mix who knows these symbols beyond the Jungian level, I’m sure I’ll never know. After all this isn’t Harry Potter. But the way they’re all lining up speaks of a powerful influence at play here, at the very least there’s an interesting subconscious response at work here.

The Plymouth Brethren

With the “Obama is the Antichrist” rumors swelling up again this morning, I went to refresh my memory over the origins of dispensationalism. Apparently a lot of it starts with John Nelson Darby around 1830 who started the doctrine of the rapture. I found this particularly interesting because he was a member of the Plymouth Brethren, a religious organization the parents of magician Aleister Crowley belonged to. You could almost credit the Brethren not only with the origins of almost the entire fundamentalist movement but with its equal and opposite reaction, via Crowley, whose works were later incorporated into both Wicca and Anton LaVey Satanism, two of the most obvious bugaboos of the literalist movement. It’s an increasing fascination to me the way everything contains its opposite.

Religulous

You always wonder if a controversial movie is going to get picketed or protested and sure enough as we got in the ticket line there were protesters. However, to our surprise it was the blind protesting the movie Blindness. The theater playing Religulous wasn’t full even during prime time on a Friday night opener, but it was close and it was an excellent crowd. Some guy below yelled “I knew I was in the right place” after the entire audience died with laughter at the W. trailer (It really does look like a riot). Well, I shouldn’t say that everyone in the audience thought it was funny, as the people sitting right behind us didn’t laugh even once during the entire movie. I wondered if they were reporting to their own religious organizations.

Religulous is Bill Maher’s scathing documentary on religion, one of the most controversial topics on the planet. I’ll admit, I’m very close to Maher’s views on these things and have always admired his ability to step up to the plate on this very important issue, despite the fact it makes you very unpopular in today’s political and religious climate (not to mention your family, job, etc). Like myself, Maher isn’t an atheist in the sense that he’s making a positive claim there’s no God, but as he says several times, he’s basically a champion of the ultimate agnostic position, “I don’t know.” Personally I think such died in the wool skepticism is particularly a positive when it comes to the spiritual search, which is fraught with symbolism and meaning. It’s all too easy to apply meaning to something when skepticism counsels otherwise. In fact I think one of the particular downfalls of literalism is that ability to create equality on two sides of an equal side that don’t necessarily equate. In math, x = x and y = y; in religion God is good, God is love, three entities are really one, etc. etc.

The most important part of Religulous is that Maher lets the words (and at times even more importantly the facial expressions) of the interviewees speak for themselves. From fundamentalist Christians to Muslims to Mormons to Scientology and even on to a cantheist, a pot religion, Maher realizes that letting the talk speak for itself is the best humor. His interviews with an Arkansas Senator, a creationist and fundamentalist Christian, are among the best, due to the senator’s late realization of what he’d just said and the accompanying eye popping. His visits to a creationist museum and a “Holy Land” theme park where biblical scenes are acted out are priceless. In the latter segment the park director realizes all too late that Maher’s in the park interviewing the man who plays Jesus, again, letting the man’s words speak for themselves (in the current political environment these are being called “gotcha” questions). The Vatican, due to Maher being something of a famous anti-Catholic, wouldn’t even let him have an interview and the crew is also escorted off the grounds of the temple in Salt Lake City. Ironically the only thing I could think of during these segments is that it’s likely one particular religious viewpoint would be all for the skepticism of the others, just not their own.

The funniest segments, however, aren’t so much with the big religions but with the head (?) of the cantheists in Amsterdam. Maher’s no stranger to the sacred herb here even during the interview, yet manages to mess with Chief Pothead terribly, including the movie’s funniest segment as he pretends a fire has caught by the guy’s head. By this point I was crying I was laughing so hard, it was the final belly laugh in a movie with tons of them.

While I do agree with Maher in his closing segment that there’s a danger to many religious teachings, I don’t think I’d go so far as saying religion as an entirety is a bad thing, no matter what evil it releases in the bargain. An equal contradictory movie could easily skew the results the other way and show how the most liberal and tolerant members of religions are responsible for a lot of good in the way of charity and societal advancement. I know several religious people a lot closer to the mainstream and less reactionary members of fundamentalism who probably wouldn’t have a major problem with much of this movie, particularly when it comes to evolution, global warming and other scientific theories where the only reason there’s an argument in the first place is because admitting these things are true tends to destroy the tower by admitting an error in a purportedly inerrant book. But quite frankly even a movie such as Religulous doesn’t redress the balance that over half of this country has upset by sticking to irrational and long disproven forms of belief.

One of the adepts in my tradition once stated that if he was to have heard a voice in his head he’d either check himself into the psych ward or pick up a baseball bat and go looking for intruders. This statement reflects exactly Maher’s position, repeated on shows like The View in the week heading up to the release of Religulous. Through the movie we heard that the little voice was the Holy Spirit, God or something else from people as high up in the political spectrum as George W. Bush. In my tradition this is called ego inflation, this idea that of all people God’s actually decided to speak directly with you. I got news for ya – that ain’t God.

Visualization in Politics

Visualization is one of the great tools of the occultist or mystic. Basically it’s the imagining of something in your mind’s eye and is a practical technique in Yoga. One of the basics of some forms of meditation is to hold/visualize symbols in one’s mind eye, an extraordinarily difficult thing to do and a skill that needs development. It’s important in developing one’s focus and will. However this is more the direction that one’s advancement in visualization takes and the effects of even preliminary practice is found to be useful.

For instance, it’s well know Los Angeles Lakers coach Phil Jackson, as far back as his many championships with the Chicago Bulls, teaches his players to visualize before games, visualizing winning the game, making shots etc. Where it would be too simple to say that visualization is the main reason he won as many championships as he has, I do think it’s certainly an important piece, along with the triangle offense, not being overdominant of his players etc.

Visualization is now a technique being used by the Obama campaign. This started with the recent advertisement where it imagines McCain winning the presidency. It’s a very powerful ad, maybe more so than those with explanatory material. And Michele Obama in Colorado yesterday was also exhorting the crowd to visualize what it would be like if Obama won. There’s no doubt in my mind there’s been a concerted effort to use this technique, one I’m sure the Palin supporters think is witchcraft.

Personally I’ve been getting this feeling that the Obama campaign is a much more powerful unit than it’s even given credit for. There’s a rising hysteria on the right now as the polls in many battleground states are going for Obama and the attacks are getting more fierce. The Obama campaign shows no sign of panic at all and managed to make it out of the first debate countering McCain’s “you just don’t understand” attack by demonstrating how Obama actually does understand, while Obama seems to be successful with the same attack on the trail (”McCain doesn’t get it.”)

Since the 2000 and 2004 elections, Democrats are falling all over themselves worrying about this election being stolen from them, and in the case of an October Surprise it’s true that anything can happen. But I’ve been finding myself on the other side of the argument. I’m really starting to get the impression that the Obama campaign is a lot better than it’s ever given credit for. Democrats want Obama to get fiercer (for example Maher on The Daily Show this week), but I think they know what they’re doing by not going on that direction. Democrats think Bill Clinton isn’t doing enough for the campaign, I think that’s dreadfully overstated. To my eyes there seems to be a concerted effort to try and give the Republicans as much visibility as possible, so that the differences between the two campaigns become clearer and clearer.

And of course the VP debate tonight. Just watch. The expectations game are almost that Palin really has little chance of losing this one due to her opponent and Alaskan debating past. My prediction is the Democrats will manage, yet again, to come out of this one virtually unscathed with the moderate vote (it’ll be a “tie” again). Because Biden doesn’t have to win this debate, he just needs to come out of it without making a major mistake. And I think people will be surprised at the supposed gaffe-ster tonight. I think this campaign is just too smart for that.

Evangelical mojo and the rebound effect

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5976307.html

Last week, Christian evangelical James Dobson prayed for rain at Obama’s speech Thursday at the Democratic National Convention. Hermeticists in general are convinced that using juju for selfish and not spiritual purposes will result in the rebound effect, where you take on all that bad energy you directed at ”the other guy.” Now the RNC are scrambling to reschedule thanks to a hurricane converging on the convention. Day one canceled. Too bad Dobson didn’t pray for the Democratic party to disappear…

Elaine Pagels – The Gnostic Paul

I’ve read a couple of Nag Hammadi scholar Elaine Pagel’s works before, her classic “The Gnostic Gospels” and the later “The Origin of Satan.” Despite the years that have gone by since these were written, the debate still rages around the origins of Christianity. Bruce Chilton’s recent reevaluation of “The Gnostic Gospels” shows a partial refutation of the work, much of which I can’t imagine Pagels disagreeing with, given the work was written over 30 years ago. In “The Gnostic Paul” Pagels even discusses the idea that the debate over the orthodox and various Gnostic exegeses of the Pauline letters often seems to reinterpret first century ideas via the theological issues of the second century. Very few of the issues and ideas in “The Gnostic Gospels” that Chilton incisively criticizes are relevant to ”The Gnostic Paul.”

Generally speaking and before the Nag Hammadi discoveries, much of what we knew about the Gnostics comes from the early Church writers like Origen and Tertullian who were dedicated to stamping out heresy. With the popularity of “The Da Vinci Code” this is an argument that seems even more heated than usual, and Chilton gets this when he says:

“Ms. Pagels is too wise to pretend that the Gnosticism of the historical sources supports the Neo-Gnostic fashions of our time that have thrived in New Age circles. Yet in “The Gnostic Gospels,” she does compare the texts to what existentialists, feminists, and environmentalists have to say. Her habit might be seen as part of the historian’s function, to use today’s language to help explain yesterday’s events and movements. But by impact if not by intent, her book has promoted the view that Gnosticism is a liberal version of Christianity, when in fact liberalism and Gnosticism are radically different phenomena.”

While it’s problematic interpreting the original Pauline letters by second and third century issues, it’s even more so when trying to understand what happened in the first century through the lenses of “The Da Vinci Code” and the idea that Gnosticism is the inverse of orthodoxy. In fact it still seems like the debate seems to exist to disprove orthodoxy, which to my mind confuses what’s a much more complex situation, the idea that there were numerous Christian groups in the second and third centuries all of which developed different, diverging theologies. Even the New Testament makes this clear, that there were groups around Peter and Paul. The Valentinians felt that there were strong disagreements between these two groups, where the orthodox, particularly via Acts, claims the disagreements were generally reconciled.

Pagels’ “The Gnostic Paul” presents what is basically theoretical (if often substantiated by other extracanonical scriptures) Valentinian exegeses on the letters that are generally considered to be written by Paul and were prized as the pivotal scriptures the Valentinians used to support their positions. The most fascinating part of this is the translation of these Pauline letters so that the Gnostic terminology remains. The word fulfillment is the original “pleroma.” The debate between the Hebrew and the Gentile is seen as an intiated metaphor discussing the psychic and the pneumatic, the soul and the spirit, the exoteric and the esoteric.

In many ways this idea of an outer church and an inner church has replayed itself over and over again through the ages. Take for example, Karl von Eckhartshausen’s “The Cloud Upon the Sanctuary,” a classic work of the “Inner Christianity” that was an inspiration for the Golden Dawn and Aleister Crowley. The idea that many are called (the psychics) but few are chosen (the pneumatics) was very much in play with the Rosicrucian documents, particularly the idea that there is a hidden meaning to the scriptures that only an enlightened group fully understood. These are powerful ideas but fairly typical of a religious response versus its detractors, no matter whether a person is orthodox or not, there’s the dominating idea that those who disagree with their beliefs are not enlightened, elect, spiritual or what have you. You can hear “you just don’t get it” all through religious history.

It’s probably quite tempting for those with anti-orthodox views to see books like this as a refutation of these views, but I’ve never read any good scholarship that doesn’t make it clear that this is not what the work is about. It’s extremely unclear from an unbiased view point to have any bearing whatsoever on which one of these young Christian groups was the “correct” one, and such a question really has no merit in these studies, after all it’s a religious and not scientific question.

But in an age where evangelism/fundamentalism via Calvinism and pre-dispensationalism is one of the most dominant modes of Christian thought, the idea of a hidden Gnostic christianity seems to be attractive (as does the idea of Mary Magdalene bringing “the Secret Gospel” to Europe), even if the idea that there was one Gnosis is at least an historical fallacy. I found that “The Gnostic Paul,” despite what is primarily the exegesis of the Valentinians and those they strongly influenced, was aware of this multiplicity of belief.

The prose I found to be quite difficult, which is something I was aware of in all the Pagels books I’ve read, particularly in that in moving from Romans to Ephesians to Hebrews, we’re continually reintroduced to the same ideas, supposedly delivered in varying metaphors that mean something a lot different to orthodoxy. Particularly when discussing Paul’s exhortation that women submit to men, the Valentinian exegesis implies it’s an initiated metaphor for the psychics/Hebrews/those under the influence of the demiurge submitting to the elect, pneumatic and initiated inner group. In fact this was the crux of the arguments the orthodox fathers had against the heretics, that by establishing an inner group within Christian groups, it naturally spread discord among the young groups, fomenting jealousy and infighting. Although it must be said, enough of this exists in orthodoxy through the ages, that forcing the Gnostics underground made little difference.

Essentially, Pagels makes a powerful case for a new interpretation of Pauline literature while not attempting at all to unseat the orthodox interpretation. Instead the implication is that there is indeed Gnostic terminology in the Pauline letters, whether Paul was speaking as one or about one. At the very least the book is successful in theorizing how at least one non-orthodox group of Christians may have seen things. Along with the work of Bart Ehrman and others, it helps add a piece of the puzzle to the emerging first century controversy over the origins of Christianity.

Jack Vance – The Languages of Pao, Rikki Ducornet – Entering Fire, Joe R. Lansdale – Captains Outrageous, Fulcanelli – Le Mystere des Cathedrales, Iain M. Banks – Consider Phlebas

OK so maybe I am voracious.

Pat Zalewski “The Kabbalah of the Golden Dawn;” Nick Farrell “Gathering the Magic;” Ellic Howe – “The Magicians of the Golden Dawn”

Managed to finish off three esoteric books in the last few weeks, all of which are of interest in various ways, none of them in particular, except maybe the last title, would be described as beginning work. Pat Zalewksi’s The Kabbalah of the Golden Dawn is of interest mostly because the lineage of the Golden Dawn in New Zealand through the Whare Ra temple is different than most modern lineages that come through the Stella Matutina and Israel Regardie and in some ways it feels a deeper and richer tradition, certainly one that doesn’t have the struggles the Regardie tradition has these days in terms of who “owns” it. As a book, KotGD has something of a scrapbook feel to it in that it mostly reproduces lectures and diagrams related to the order’s take on the kabbalah, many of which are similar to the Regardie lineage. It’s in those places where it diverges where it becomes interesting, including some comparisons between alchemy and the kabbalah that are of interest. I’d probably still suggest Dion Fortune’s The Mystical Qabalah or even Regardie’s “The Garden of Pomegranates” as a better introduction, but this goes quite a bit deeper than both.

Nick Farrell’s Gathering the Magic has to be read to be believed, it could be one of the funniest books on esoterica on the market, with an almost Python-esque sense of satire and self-deprecation. Not only funny, it strikes me as eminently wise and even if the book is geared towards individuals setting up their own occult groups, something I’m not doing, its look into interpersonal dynamics and the psychology of groups is priceless. Farrell’s clearly been around a long time, in various groups and has seen them both succeed and derail in various ways and provides advice and warnings in full. And never have you read an esoteric author with such a matter-of-fact tone, we’re saddled with so many writers from different eras, that to hear someone so 21st century was a pleasure. An excellent and fun book.

And speaking of matter of fact, Ellic Howe’s documentary history on the Golden Dawn is probably something everyone should read, and particularly esotericists, as it provides the non-occultic side of the story from someone who has done a brilliant bit of research and has come off with a bit of a sneer at the people who were part of this legendary group. Howe’s access to various treasure troves of correspondance helps to tell the story of the Golden Dawn from its fuzzy and apparently forged beginnings to the break up of the group, in fact one wishes we could send the aforementioned Farrell back in time to give this group of squabbling and somewhat insecure adepts a little lesson in gaining some control over the ego. In fact anyone with the Complete book as provided through Regardie might remember the dire warnings of ego inflation that comes along with working the system, one is continually reminded that such warnings were largely there as a reminder of what happened to the originals. Howe ain’t an occultist by any means and often takes easy shots at some of the people in the book, but these do often tend to make the whole thing less dry and more readable. It’s all a serious reminder that those who take these paths are still human beings in every way, not magical floating gurus in meditation asanas throwing lightning bolts at the profane.

So little time…

Incredibly busy of late, too busy to really get any chance to read or think or whatever. Trades, nephews, friends, the works. I wanted to talk a little about Elizabeth Hand’s book(s) Bibliomancy and Saffron & Brimstone, although I’m weeks from having finishing them both. Some fantastic writing though, just beautiful evocative prose and a sense of the intersection between myth/legend/imagination and the real world. It’s the kind of fantastic stuff I like the best these days, where the fantasy elements are light and background or somewhat ambiguous so the concentration is on character.

I read Bibliomancy first, from the story of the woman who can turns her victims into butterflies and who sets out on something of a subtle plan of revenge after she moves to London after being raped. It’s hard to describe how great Hand is with colors, the colors of the butterflies just shine with radiance, it’s as if you can see each unique species as they’re discussed.

My favorite story in Bibiomancy has to be the one about the Chip Crockett’s Christmas Special, a story about a divorced man with a severely autistic child who allows a famous musician friend, well past his prime, to move in with him. The Christmas Special is related to the fact that this musician, an obvious analog for Joey Ramone, is obsessed by this old television show, lost over time, with only small clips remaining who begins insisting a Christmas special will air again at some point. It’s basically a tale of redemption to some extent and all the various threads work to a wonderful ending.

Saffron & Brimstone is the US version of Bibliomancy, it’s not as pretty a book, it’s missing Chip Crockett (which can be found at scifiction anyway iirc), but it adds three (or six depending on how you count) new stories. The most resonant of these is the four part meta-story at the end of the book that deals with Greek myth in various different ways. The one about the woman living on the island off Maine that experiences a somewhat apocalyptic scenario offstage really got to me, the end paragraph in particular was awfully mystery tradition. Absolutely fabulous stuff.

I also finished Michael Swanwick’s Tales of Old Earth a while back. I’d read maybe four or five stories from it already when I used to subscribe to Asimov’s in the 90s, but it was a treat to read the rest. Swanwick deals out concepts like it’s as easy as taking a walk and there are just so many shorts here with great ideas and powerful endings. Not having the book in front of me makes it tough to remember any in particular, but there were few stinkers in it.

Right now I’m concentrating on three books. The first the Pritzker edition of the Zohar, first volume. Like the TARDIS, it’s bigger on the inside than the outside. Coming from the standpoint of a hermetic qabalist, I’m finding a lot of riches in the more traditional side, and there’s so much in these books it’s hard to know where to start. But I can imagine this is where so much of the concept of the qlippoth and the alt side of the tree comes from originally.

The other two books are Jack McDevitt’s Deepsix, a sequel to the Engines of God and similar in some ways, archaeologists trying to salvage relics where they shouldn’t be. Engines was great, this one, well I think I’m not all that much in the mood for SF lately, as I don’t think it’s quite so good so far, but still enjoyable as a romp. The other is Bradley Denton’s “The Calvin Coolidge Home for Dead Comedians” which is a brilliant little collection (and something of a partner to “The Conflagration Artist), I’ve got one story, about a young Mark Twain, to read before I talk about it, but the title story is a doozy.

Other than that, trying to keep up with too many TV shows. Watching Battlestar take a huge nosedive of late to the point where I’m starting to get disgusted with it, ever since they left New Caprica I’ve been irritated with the story lines. Maybe they wanted us to get irritated before they killed off youknowwho so it wouldn’t seem as bad.

In fact one of these days I have to do a TV update as I think Friday Night Lights has probably gone to the head of the pack….