Thursday, February 07, 2008

The Role of Eso-Terrorist Vs. Role of Philanthropist

I just listened to Daniel Pinchbeck arguing with Whitley Strieber, which I may discuss in depth later (since I am currently working on an article about Strieber). Pinchbeck mentioned David Lynch and his transcendental meditation techique for reducing crime in high crime areas by sending out positive waves; by a curious synchronicity, minutes later i recieved an email about the same subject, from a reader who wanted to know what I thought of the idea of "philanthropic sorcery." I am trusting he won't object to my mentioning this, and citing my response here, as it seems also to pertain directly to the argument between Strieber and Pinchbeck, in which Pinchbeck took the side of the "positive" (arguing that humanity could adapt and survive in the coming years and create a new, more enlightened society), while Strieber took the "negative" position, insisting that a "dieback" was inevitable and that we just needed to get ready for it. To my surprise, altho i agreed with Strieber about the facts of the situation, my sympathy was almost entirely with Pinchbeck, who kept his head throughout (and even had the dignity to apologize) while poor Whitley wound up sounding like a petulant teenager (even telling Pinchbeck he wouldn't be his friend anymore!).

My question is, however, why is a dieback necessarily such a “negative” thing anyway? This is basically a humancentric POV, and unworthy of a supposed cosmic culture prophet such as PB. We are all going to die anyway, so why not en masse, especially if it is necessary for the Earth and other species to survive? And surely it is better, wiser, to predict a dieback and get people psyched for it, and then to be wrong, than the reverse, to be optimistic and give people a false sense of hope? Pinchbeck argues for a visionary's job to imagine the best-case scenario. I guess I am more old-fashioned, and stand by the Koran on this one: "a prophet's job is to give warning."

But Whitley certainly lost a whole lot of my respect. You would think he had never heard of the Blakean principle that "friendship is opposition." The best way we can "help" our fellow men is to oppose them, and Pinchbeck certainly acted in that spirit. But his insistence on saving humanity, and even civilization, struck me as narrow-minded, cosmically speaking.

I am not a philanthropist and i doubt i ever will be. My interest is simply in those to whom I am personally connected; beyond that, i do not consider it any more worthwhile, and probably considerably less so, to connect to the "masses" than to insects or other life forms. Frankly, they deserve our attention far more than most people do, and they are better company too. I also think we can benefit far more by "serving" Nature than by aspiring to any kind of social function. I feel absolutely no loyalty to my species. The idea of philanthropy is probably the most fundamental, and also the most dangerous, trap a sorcerer can fall into.

In my estimation of the situation, the best we can do for most people is to help them prepare for their deaths. And since they won't be open to any direct counsel there, really all that means is being considerate and kind to everyone we meet, and trying to see them as they are, as individuals. The mass does not exist at a higher level. It is by definition soulless, a mechanism, an automaton.

Nor am I particularly inclined to want to enhance the atmosphere in any way that will make it more "comfortable." On the contrary. People need to confront their shadows, to be hurled into conditions of terror and duress under which they can overcome their complacency and self-importance, and open to other modes of perception. This is why I chose to call myself an eso-terrorist.

In the words of Jung: “The modern world is desacralized, that is why it is in a crisis. Modern man must rediscover a deeper source of his own spiritual life. To do this, he is obliged to struggle with evil, to confront his shadow, to integrate the devil. There is no other choice.”

This is why I feel as sure as Whitley that dark, dark times are coming, and yet why I feel deeply optimistic: not despite this, but because of it. We have summoned the shadow, and now we must confront the shadow. Only so - under conditions of direst necessity - can we discover the true source of light within us.

What is good for the individual - the Soul of Man - in the long term, is evil for humanity as a collective, in the short. We must make our choice as to which we consider more worthy of our attention. Are you going to try and save the human race, or rescue your own soul?



Sounder said...

I disagree and agree in so many ways Aeolus, we could be friends. I am visiting here, from over at RI to get a better sense of your stance, and you have rewarded me well. I liked this piece right till the end when you said...

“What is good for the individual - the Soul of Man - in the long term, is evil for humanity as a collective, in the short. We must make our choice as to which we consider more worthy of our attention. Are you going to try and save the human race, or rescue your own soul?"

I think I do know what you are trying to get at, that is, breaking down our conditioning will break down the collective. I choose to focus on the next stage of flowering within human consciousness, rather than shaping my psyche around responses toward our apparent doom.

With a new set of forms or criteria for understanding we may be mightily amazed by the resilience and potentials that the human life impulse has yet to display.

Anonymous said...

I think you should take into account that humanity is not just one species, but a mixture of at least two (although still genetically compatible), the h. sapiens presapiens (who prematurely called himself h. sapiens sapiens), and the h. sapientissimus spiritualis.

I'm sure any member of the latter would consider himself philantropic to all his species, just as many of the other homini consider themselves philantropic to their tribe or family.

The problem you seem to have is that many h. presapiens are just not worth the effort of saving them, prolonging their existence would even be bad for the universe since they might cause some harm to the system, from ignorance, impatience, instinctdrivenness, and other shortcomings our fellows so often surprise us with. (Well, I usually forget the tendency to criminal activity since it's ununderstandable for me that people care so little for others that they don't mind their rights.)

If you see these people who don't deserve any philantropy as members of a different species, not yet humans in the higher sense, then it might be easier to get a feeling for what philantropy actually is, a caring for those who are your kin. (I honestly believe this feeling would be a wonderful thing, if humanity as a whole will ever get that far that they're totally lovable per se.)

Until then, being an esoterrorist sounds fine. Wake them up and shake them. Kill those who don't deserve the freedom of a life without the body by telling them the Christian heaven really works. Convert those whom we don't want around in the other reality into rational skeptics who are afraid of the unknown. Do so by feigning to believe in the daily horoscope. Found a cult that in the inside is a project of practical investigation, on the outside looks like worshipping gods and devils. Be a guru and earn as much money and have as much women as you can. Tell the others sex without procreation is the highest level of human evolution. Finally convince them that living in the big cities is the best way to be, leave them, take over the countryside, and slowly spread over the whole earth.

Jasun said...

BM, that is quite some advice/encouragement, whether your tongue is in cheek or not, it sounds pretty good to me.

You are correct about the guise of misanthrope merely hiding a form of unformed elitism. I love my fellows greatly, one on one: if they have come into my circle, chances are they are of my kind. It is the mass that I despise, and the mass-mind in myself most of all (aka, the "underman")
"h. sapientissimus spiritualis" is what I call homo serpiens. He is a scary dude, but loveable once you get to know him.

your response is certaonly refreshing after the drubbing i got at daily grail, see: if you feel like a laugh or a growl

this will teach me to try and convert the "enemy"
best to just love 'em instead, and stick the knife in

Anonymous said...

This post just brightened my day! I may not agree with every word but there was more than enough to get my teeth into! Thanks and keep it up!

(I'm going to post a link if I may, I could do with more folks who think like this)