Author: Razorsmile

  • Wormwood

    a Journal about fantasy, supernatural and decadent literature

    Edited by Mark Valentine

    Issue 10, Spring 2008

    The Void Behind the Face of Order:

    Robert Aickman, Anthologist of the Ghost Story by Peter Bell

    No Secret Place: The Haunted Cities of Fritz Leiber by Joel Lane

    Sand in the Machine: The Radio Play Träume (Dreams) by Günter Eich by John Howard

    Kenneth Grant: True Tales, Ancient Grimoires and Magical Fiction by Dave Evans

    Elementals and Others: The Fiction of Michael McDowell by Mike Barrett

    The Decadent World-View by Brian Stableford

    Late Reviews by Douglas A. Anderson

    Camera Obscura

    £8.99 including p&p

    http://www.tartaruspress.com/wormwood10.htm

  • Meditation Group – update

    The Kabbalistic meditation group we started with some fellow majicians last year is still going strong, meeting every Tuesday night for nearly a year now.  We’ve begun a ‘second phase’ of work after a couple of weeks break during the Winter Solstice period.  Last year we concentrated on the bottom four sephiroth, building a strong temple base in Malkuth and exploring the other three sephiroth as part of a process of QShTh (Koph, Shin, Tau) or ‘building the rainbow’.  Once this ‘bow’ is built, the arrow is then drawn and fired towards Tiphareth and that is indeed where we have been heading recently.

    We began by getting a second ‘temple base’ centred and fixed, this time not the temple of Malkuth but the temple of Tiphareth, the walls of the temple no longer in stone but now golden, forming a golden castle on a hill which we entered by drawing the bow, focusing on the tip of the arrow-head and then becoming the arrow as we release the bow, landing inside the golden castle to meet the child of light.  We spent some weeks just going there, spending some time with the child of light, allowing the connection to be made through the solar plexus.  Now, however, we’ve begun to explore the pathways towards Malkuth, notably 24 and 23 – death and the devil respectively.  The last two weeks have been focused on path 24, death.

    Here, on the path of transformation (a vague term if ever there was one and one that might be said to apply to the whole of the tree), the taste of earth is again predominant.  Lions and sparrowhawks and battle cries abound, the clash of metal ringing out in the expanse of the heavens.  The flaming red elemental triangle is strong and there is a connection to Geburah, somewhere, though I am unclear about that as yet – I’m assuming, no doubt incorrectly or only partially, that it’s a reflection from the other side of Tiphareth but more will come about that later.

    Having moved from the first supernal to begin working on the second it is appropriate to change some of the techniques we’ve been using as well.  The Kabbalistic cross, the LBRP and the Middle Pillar still form the beginning, although I’ve been thinking of bringing the Hexagram ritual to the group as well but perhaps towards the end of this period in preparation for the next move up.  Following these openings, however, we had previously been doing a simple 20minute empty mind meditation, primarily because this is a ‘no preconceptions’ form which, whilst difficult to achieve ‘perfection’ in (whoever wants to do that is a Fool, literally), is useful in producing a relatively simple state of ‘sit still, be quiet, allow the sounds of the world and your mind to just pass through’.  It was occasionally added to with the three steps a fellow chaote once suggested – Be Still, Be At Ease, Be Aware, in which you simply go from step 1, to step 2 through to step 3 and repeat the process each time you ‘interrupt’ yourself.  Now, however, we’ve begun using the more traditional ‘single point’ meditation of the Golden Dawn neophyte grade, as found in the First Knowledge Lecture, albeit minus the four-fold breath.  Interestingly there’s an ambiguity in the original, in which the meditation appears to be not on the point itself but on “the ideas to which it gives rise” and so we may not be doing anything similar to the practices of GD neophytes at all.  I find the idea of meditating on ideas far too strange, however, no doubt because of a certain hostility to the latent Platonism that I smell there.  The simple image of the point seems far more powerful and appropriate, not least because it is commonly encountered as dynamic, as an auscultatory phenomenon and thus the focus on the ‘breathing’ point allows the practice of settling the breath to occur.

    The other key notions of the First Knowledge Lecture are things I want to build into this stage of the pathworking as well.  We’ve already begun the process of learning the Hebrew of course as well as the sephiroth themselves and as we do we also learn the planetary and conceptual associations as well.  The practical elemental aspects have been limited so far and these and the astrological associations are probably the next layer on the cake that needs adding.  I’m unsure about the Pillars material, however – some sort of decision will have to be made regarding the whole Egyptian thing…not something I’ve ever resonated with myself but obviously central to any continued work with the GD tradition once we’ve established the basics, as it were.  Perhaps the group is just there to establish the basics…we’ll see.

    It is a strange thing to be working through this material again in a group, having last worked it over a good few years ago and then in a solitary situation.  The whole is very familiar but last time I remember – I might see if I can dig out my diaries about this – that the main lesson that I drew was regarding the whole ‘Judaeo-Christian’ aspect of the work.  I came into pagan and majikal practice with a considerable hostility to religion and in many ways still maintain that, though in general I now conceive the hostility as one directed at Priests and the Priesthood rather than Judaeo-Christians in particular – a kind of anti-authoritarianism, I suppose, partially informed by a general political hostility to authority, partially informed by Nietzsche’s genealogy of the slave revolt and the ascetic ideal.  Asceticism, priestliness and that whole monk thing is both powerful and destructive.  My first moves towards exploring any sort of ‘spirit’ (a word I still find peculiar and not altogether comfortable) was via Buddhism, which I soon found to be as deeply imbued by the Priestly ethic – if not more so – than Judaeo-Christianity.  It was Rae Beth who was the first to offer a path that seemed to somehow be inherently anti-authoritarian and yet still able to handle the sacred.  I soon found, however, that witchcraft and majik had its roots in Judaeo-Christian ideas, at least in terms of the language and symbolism with which it articulated itself if not in its inherent ‘spirit’ and so the Golden Dawn proved to be the way in which there was a coming to terms with this symbolism and history, or at least the beginning of such an accounting.

    Now, however, the  ‘JC religion’ thing is much less important.  The child of light, for example, found in the castle of gold of Tiphareth, might be associated with the Christ figure but is associated with a whole gamut of other sacrifice symbols.  If we understand sacrifice through Christ then we forget that it is only through an understanding of sacrifice that Christ means anything anyway.  Sacrifice is something inherently other than the simple figure of Christ, whilst at the same time incarnated in that figure amongst many others, many of whom I’d probably prefer the tone of.  The Christ figure is bound up with sin, guilt and the appalling trick, as Nietzsche says, of the ‘infinite debt’, a concept so bound into power, authority, capitalism and hate as to be almost inconceivable.  The sacrificial aspect barely remains in the JC religion because of the telos of that particular act.  Distinct from this I would suggest that it’s anathema to a pagan practice to begin from some sin that needs expunging – that is an inherently Judaeo-Christian, perhaps even simply a monotheistic concept (I know little about Islam so wouldn’t comment).  I think the Nimbari’s ‘third principle of sentient life’ – that it is capable of sacrificing itself for the greater whole – is a far more powerful way of understanding what is positive and what is dangerous in the general idea of sacrifice.  The image of sacrifice, however, that symbol, is bound into the body of the Christ figure within the Western majikal and pagan practices and so one way or another needs to be encountered and encountered not just as a danger or as negative.  That, as I say, was the original lesson that I drew from the Golden dawn material – now, however, the question or problem is which other figures might also be bound into that concept, who are these figures and is this in fact the heart of the tree, this notion of sacrifice?

  • Phenomenology and typewriters

    saturntypewriter So today I’m talking to the students in my existentialism class about the phenomenological moment, the encounter with the given which is presupposed in any account of how we encounter the world and which gives us back the world from a skeptical move which might try to doubt it or suggest it’s an illusion.  As part of this I was saying that the world, the self, thinking are all primarily ‘just given’ and then we need to explore on top of that the how of the giving of the world, the self, thinking.  This is to say, the world is, but how it is has still to be described.  On the basis of this, of course, phenomenology offers us descriptions of this how the world is given, and can come up with some strange, some beautiful descriptions – and so here’s an example, the phenomenology of typewriters by Richard Polt.  I’m not going to say anything directly about Polt’s essay in this post, maybe later, but this is for my existentialism and phenomenology students…

    http://staff.xu.edu/~polt/typewriters/typology.html

    Technorati Tags: ,
  • On practices

    On practices

    Todd May, in his book ‘Our practices, our selves – or, what it means to be human’ (OPOS), argues that this question is best understood through the concept of practices and as such one of the first things he does is provide us with a definition of what a practice is. His definition goes as follows:

    “a regularity (or regularities) of behavior, usually goal-directed, that is socially normatively governed.” (OPOS: 8).

    May then cashes out this definition by discussing the three elements of the definition, viz. goal-directedness, socially normative governance and regularities of behaviour. The first of these is discussed briefly and is a vague criteria since it is not a universal but is presented as important nonetheless. May phrases the discussion in terms of ‘most practices’ but allows that some practices will be exceptions to this rule, using Zen meditation as an example since it rests on the paradoxical ‘goal of goal-lessness’. The second aspect of the definition, that of socially normative governance, is distinguished from ‘rule-following’ again through a criteria of vagueness, with the argument that the type of norms involved are not known through explicit thematisation into propositions but rather are known through the mode of skill, or ‘know-how’. This is articulated in the form of the argument that those involved in a practice might not be able to articulate the norms of the practice but they know it when they see it – a practice has ‘norms’ in the form of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways of being done and those who can most clearly distinguish these and show others how to distinguish these are classed as experts. In addition to being normative a practice is also social in that there are roles within a practice, what May describes as “normatively governed places in which people engage in the practice” (OPOS: 10).

    (more…)

  • bordering on coherence

    bordering on coherence

    [NOTE TO ANY READER: this post is a classic example of pinball thought, ricochet rather than writing, a ‘thinking out loud’.  Beware of any apparent seriousness and discussion.]

    In a recent post on his blog Poetix discusses the ‘object oriented’ philosophy of Graham Harman.  I have only recently come across Harmans’ work, primarily because I have only recently returned to work on Heidegger and his various books began appearing in 2002, when I was deeply immersed in Deleuziana.  His approach looks fascinating and is one I hope to more familiar with by the end of the year.

    Poetix begins his post with the claim that an object cannot be fully understood through relationality because it must maintain an unrelatable element.  It must maintain this ‘occult’ aspect of an unrelated element because if it did not then “there would be no object as such, but only the differential field of appearances itself“.  The use of the phrase ‘differential field’ here immediately enables a connection to Deleuze’s philosophy (amongst others perhaps), not least because of his Nietzschean inspired claim that an object is nothing but a conjunction of forces (cf NP).  For Deleuze, then, an object is nothing but that which is produced by a differential field of forces.  It looks like we might have two very different answers to the problem of object-ness at work here, two different answers to a question such as ‘is an object nothing but the relations which constitute it?’  When you can get two clearly different solution vectors to a specific question then there is an opportunity to think a problem (in this case that of the object-ness of objects) through conceptual confrontation, through the tensions of thought.

    (more…)

  • Zizek Omnibus / Lacan dot com

    Zizek Omnibus / Lacan dot com

    DSC01953_33864018(Updated today, 4thFeb 08, so links work)

    An email today brings news of a wealth of Zizek material on Lacan.com, all of which looks interesting.    Zizek was also on Radio4 yesterday – there is this humorous mention in the introduction the presenter gives to Zizek about how he is so ubiquitous within intellectual life that one academic has proposed starting an ‘anti-Zizek league’ (at the mention of which we hear Zizek, in the background, saying ‘give me his name…’ and the presenter deferring on doing so in public…).  My own reaction to Zizek is curious, since on the one hand I think that there is a tension between the Zizekian/Lacanian philosophical analyses and the Deleuzian/Guattarian analysis around the question of lack and the productive ontological forces, a tension in which I find myself trying to draw on D/G against Z/L, whilst at the same time I am encouraged by the simple fact that Zizek is capable in our contemporary de-politicised and in some respects de-racinated intellectual culture of standing explicitly as a Marxist and as oppositional to capitalism.  It reminds me of times during my active political life (by which I mean, when I was an active member of a revolutionary organisation) when there would be a kind of separation of discursive spaces, such that within a specific space a criticism (sometimes quite violent and extensive) might be raised against another political perspective which would, on no account, be expressed outside that particular space, in the ‘everyday’ world as it were.  To do so would be tantamount to a kind of betrayal and such activity is what is often called ‘sectarianism’, a practice in which the criticism and combat against another group (sect) would become more important that any common goals.  This peculiar practice is still one I find myself engaged in at various points, though I increasingly wonder about its efficacy.  More on that another time perhaps…for now, have a listen to the Slovenian and perhaps spend a little time perusing some of the fascinating resources listed below…

    [display_podcast]

    (more…)

  • …and a lot of accidents

    …and a lot of accidents

    I’ve been watching some of the YouTube videos posted by the TED group, including one presentation by Murray Gell-Man (he of The quark and the jaguar).  Most of the presentations at TED seem short and sweet, not a lot of technical detail but a good – if broad – explanation of an interesting concept enabling people to gain something like a ‘lay of the land’ within intellectual life.

    One of the things Gell-Man was saying in his presentation which really struck home, however, was the role of accidents.  “The history of the universe is … co-determined by the basic law and an unimaginably long sequence of accidents (outcomes of chance events)” (Time: 4.59).  He re-emphasises this point at various places during the presentation, that accidents are crucial co-determinants of reality together with any basic law that exists.

    For a long time I’ve been fascinated by a short and simple point made by Deleuze.  “It will be said that the essence is by nature the most important thing. This however, is precisely what is at issue: whether the notions of importance and non-importance are not precisely notions which concern events or accidents, and are much more ‘important’ within accidents than the crude opposition between essence and accident itself.” (DR, P189, Athlone edition)

    (more…)

  • Hearing Touches

    Hearing Touches

    A former undergrad student of mine, now busy in his postgraduate studies, requested a copy of an article I wrote a while ago with a mate and so I’ve scanned this in because it wasn’t previously available in an electronic form. The files are rather large, I’m afraid – I could do with getting a proper copy of Acrobat working on my laptop but in the meantime this is a kind of workaround. The article developed from some discussion I had with Ben regarding deafness, partially resulting from the way in which the ‘worlding’ of Heidegger – and phenomenology generally – takes the sound as something given within an interpretative stance, a position I always found rather difficult to accept, even though the arguments in favour quite often seem strong. My resistance would be framed in a rather different way now, probably by using something like the clear-confused notion of Deleuze, the infinitesimal perceptions of Leibniz and the like, and I think the problem I have with the over-arching interpretative priority that seems central to phenomenology arises from a resistance to idealism. Anyhow, the 2 PDF files are here and here, both of them quite large I’m afraid.

  • Relations and reactions

    Relations and reactions

    dancing+graffiti_40910987In a post on Marx’s dialectical method and Deleuze, Steven Shaviro makes the interesting claim that it is Deleuze’s pluralism that is transcendental.  It is the theory of relations that Deleuze has which underpins his pluralism and this theory of relations, presumably, would be the place to look for a transcendental structure in the sense of a ‘condition of possibility’-type argument (Shaviro makes it explicit he’s referring to a Kantian transcendental when talking of Deleuze’s ‘transcendental pluralism).  Indeed this is plainly the case for Shaviro, since the article begins from the differences and similarities between dialectics and Deleuzian thought in terms of their theory of relations.  He suggests a strong commonality around this area of theory of relations, arguing that:

    There are definite commonalities. (1) Both the Hegelian/dialectical language of negativity, and the James/Bergson/Deleuze language of virtuality, insist that all those things that are omitted by the positivist cataloguing of atomistic facts are altogether real. (2) Both locate this reality by asserting that the relations between things are as real as the things themselves, and that ‘things’ don’t exist first, but only come to be through their multiple relations. (3) Both construct materialist (rather than idealist) accounts of these relations, of how they constitute the real, and of how they continually change (over time) the nature of what is real.  (4) Both offer similar critiques of the tradition of bourgeois thought that leads from Descartes through the British empiricists and on to 20th century scientism and post-positivism. (numbers in brackets inserted)”

    (more…)

  • Mr Kant, wrong on so much

    Thanks to ‘I Cite‘ for pointing to this funny YouTube entry…