#but atheism was just part of the mystic journey

[angstydevil]

Christ is the population of the world,

and every object as well. There is no room

for hypocrisy. Why use bitter soup for healing

when sweet water is everywhere?

originally by Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī, quoted from The Essential Rumi translated by Coleman Barks

[givemearmstopraywith]

I'm not catholic but my fav saint is maria goretti, tell me why yours is joan of arc :0

content warning: non-explicit mentions of sexual assault, possibly transphobia. 

i am not catholic either, ive never been confirmed or even baptized although i attended the catholic church when i was a teenager and it sparked a very spicy little journey into atheism. my road here has been.....weird. we won’t dwell on it. ah, maria...such a sad and beautiful story, i can see why she’s your favourite.

i’ve thought about this a lot since you sent it trying to come up with an answer. joan of arc has been my favourite saint since i was very young. i was raised jewish and i was still obsessed with her (granted my mom comes from a catholic family, so it’s an easy jump to make, but still- i don’t even remember really hearing about her or learning about her, she’s just sort of been there all my life). she’s well known, yes, and with good reason: but perhaps, for me, it always felt a little deeper, as if she were my patron or something. which sounds ridiculous and a little self-aggrandizing, i understand this, but perhaps it really comes down to being an afab non-binary person and there very genuinely being a saint who i see myself in. 

joan of arc was, yes, charged with heresy. but heresy was only a capital crime if it was a second offence: the reality is that joan was executed for cross-dressing. this is a complex issue, given how she dressed during her trials and the way it both implicated and absolved her; for the most part she wore male clothing, and many historians theorize that it was because it prevented her from being assaulted by guards. in her trial she even mentioned that an english lord attempted to assault her, and given that she was held in the castle of rouen, then under the control of the earl of warwick, and not an in ecclesiastical prison as would have been customary for a heretic, this is particularly disturbing and telling. of course, the real issue was not that she was crossdressing. the real issue was that she had power: over men, over kings, over the tide of warfare, and she was given this power from the divine. they simply wanted her dead. but i often think about this part of her trial:

Asked if she wanted a woman's dress, she answered: "Give me one. I will take it and go: otherwise I will not have it, and am content with this, since it pleases God that I wear it."

reading the transcripts of her trial its like....this is someone to whom gender did not matter, because there was only God. her body, whatever gender was ascribed to it by people, was simply a vessel filled with divine power. the fact that she was considered a woman by those around her did not matter to her. she was not encumbered by her sex. like this:

The said Jeanne unashamedly walked with men, refusing to have the company or care of womenfolk, and wished to employ only men whom she made serve in the private offices of her room and in her secret affairs, a thing unseen and unheard of in a modest or devout woman."

To this fifty-fourth article, Jeanne answers that her government was through men; as for where she lodged or slept at night, she usually had a woman with her; when she was fighting, she would lie fully dressed and armed, if there was no woman to be found. 

and again, when asked what voice forbade her from sharing certain aspects of her mysticism with her inquisitors:

Believe me, it was not men who forbade me.

i spent two years doing a history degree before switching to literature, and i know better than to ascribe modern standards and values to historic figures. but i am genuinely, and have always been, fascinated by the relationship joan has with patriarchy, with womanhood- or lack of it. because i think that for joan....she wasn’t a woman. she wasn’t a man either. she had no gender- she had all genders- because she was simply a vessel for the will of God. again, this excerpt from her trial, i think sums it up best, and i think about this all the time:

Again we required her to swear, precisely and absolutely. Then she answered that she would willingly say what she knew, but not all. She said also that she came from God, and that there is nothing for her to do here, and asked to be sent back to God, from whom she came.

so does it come down to a gender experience? it does. and it comes down to the fact that i’ve always wanted a sword. and it comes down to the fact that i, too, have been ridiculed and misunderstood for my faith. it comes down to her suffering greatly, for the great enigma of who she was and how, exactly, a peasant girl changes the tide of a war, and what exactly the relationship she had with God was, all things i cannot speculate on because it isn’t my place- i know only what is in my heart. it also comes down to the fact that joan regularly appears to me in visions, which i’m not going to get into, and my fascination over her relationship with gilles de rais, who was in her coterie and later become one of history’s most prolific serial killers (which i’ve spoken about before). there’s a lot going on with it and i’m sure this is a lot more than you bargained for in terms of a reply, and i’m very sorry!!!

(source for her trial)

[tinyshe]

Witchcraft 101

by Michelle Arnold  • 7/1/2008 Catholic Answers

What springs to mind when someone mentions “witchcraft“? Three hags sitting about a cauldron chanting “Double, double, toil and trouble”? A pretty housewife turning someone into a toad at the twitch of her nose? Or perhaps you think of Wicca and figure that it is witchcraft hidden beneath a politically correct neologism.

Witchcraft has become a hot topic in recent years. From J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books to self-described witches agitating for political and social parity with mainstream religious traditions, Christians have had to re-examine witchcraft and formulate a modern apologetic approach to it.

In an age of science and skepticism, it may be difficult to understand why intelligent people would be drawn to witchcraft, which encompasses both a methodology of casting spells and invoking spirits and an ideology that encourages finding gods and goddesses both in nature and within the self. In her “conversion story,” self-described Wiccan high priestess Phyllis Curott, an Ivy League-educated lawyer who was raised by agnostics, describes her journey from secular materialism to Wicca as a rejection of the idea that humans are made for mammon alone:

I discovered the answers . . . to questions buried at the center of my soul . . . How are we to find our lost souls? How can we rediscover the sacred from which we have been separated for thousands of years? How can we live free of fear and filled with divine love and compassion? . . . How can we restore and protect this Eden, which is our fragile planet? (Curott, Book of Shadows, xii)

These are indeed important questions that deserve answers, answers that can be found in their fullness in Christ and in his Church. In a homily then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave at the Mass just before his election to the papacy, he famously observed:

How many winds of doctrine have we known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of the thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves—flung from one extreme to another: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism and so forth.

Witchcraft has been around for centuries, perhaps even millennia, but is emerging once more from the shadows as one answer to skepticism, to materialism, even to self-absorption. It is, so to speak, the wrong answer to the right questions; it is, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “gravely contrary to the virtue of religion” (CCC 2117). Catholics should not discourage these questions but must be prepared to offer the only answer: Christ and his Church.

Witchcraft’s apologists like to claim that they are the misunderstood victims of centuries of religious prejudice. Unfortunately, all too many Christians make such claims credible when they misunderstand witchcraft and craft their rebuttals of it based upon those misconceptions. If someone you know is dabbling in witchcraft, here are five things you should know before starting a conversation with him.

Witches do not believe in Satan.

If there is one belief common to witches everywhere, it is that they do not believe in Satan and that they do not practice Satanism. Witchcraft’s apologists are quick to point this out.

Denise Zimmermann and her co-authors of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Wicca and Witchcraft emphasize, “Witches don’t believe in Satan! . . . The all-evil Satan is a Christian concept that plays no part in the Wiccan religion . . . Witches do not believe that negativity or evil is an organized force. . . . Neither do Wiccans believe there is a place (hell) where the damned or the evil languish and suffer” (13).

Christian apologists should acknowledge that witches do not consciously worship Satan and that they do not believe he exists. But this does not mean that Satan needs to be left entirely out of the conversation. A Christian apologist should point out that belief in someone does not determine that person’s actual reality.

One way to demonstrate this is to ask the witch if she believes in the pope. “No,” she’s likely to answer. “The pope is a Christian figure.” True, you concede. But there is a man in Rome who holds the office of the papacy, right? Your belief or disbelief in the papacy does not determine whether or not the papacy exists. Put that way, a person will have to acknowledge that something or someone can exist independently of belief in its reality. That’s when you can make the case that Satan exists and that he does not require belief to determine his reality or his action in someone’s life. In fact, disbelief in him can make it easier for him to accomplish his ends.

In the preface to The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis notes that “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.”

While it is true that witches do not directly worship Satan or practice Satanism, their occult practices, such as divination, and their worship of false gods and of each other and themselves—which they explain as worshipping the “goddess within”—can open them to demonic activity. To make the case though, it is imperative to present it in a manner that won’t be dismissed out of hand.

Witchcraft and Wicca are not synonyms.

Wicca, originally spelled Wica, is the name given to a subset of witchcraft by its founder Gerald Gardner in the 1950s. Although some claim the word Wicca means “wise,” in her book Drawing Down the Moon, Margot Adler states that it “derive[s] from a root wic, or weik, which has to do with religion and magic” (40). Adler also says that the word witch originates with wicce and wicca. Marian Singer explains the difference between Wicca and witchcraft this way: “Witchcraft implies a methodology . . . whereas the word Wiccan refers to a person who has adopted a specific religious philosophy” (The Everything Wicca and Witchcraft Book, 4).

Because witchcraft is often defined as a methodology and Wicca as an ideology, a person who considers himself a witch but not a Wiccan may participate in many of the same practices as a Wiccan, such as casting spells, divining the future, perhaps even banding together with others to form a coven. This can make it easy for an outsider to presume that both the witch and the Wiccan share the same beliefs. But, if someone tells you he is not a Wiccan, it is only courteous to accept that. The Christian case against witchcraft does not depend on a witch identifying himself as a Wiccan. (There are also Wiccans who reject the label “witch,” but this is often a distinction without a difference. Even so, use the preferred term to avoid alienating the person with whom you are speaking.)

Several strands of Wicca attract followings, including: Gardnerian, Alexandrian, and Georgian, which are named for their founders; Seax, which patterns itself on Saxon folklore; Black Forest, which is an eclectic hodgepodge of Wiccan traditions; and the feminist branch known as Dianic Wicca after the Roman goddess Diana. Knowing the distinctions among these traditions may not be important for the Christian apologist, but he should keep in mind that there are distinctions and that he should not make statements that start out with “Wiccans believe . . .” Rather, allow the other person to explain what he believes and then build a Christian apologetic tailored to that person’s needs.

Witches question authority.

When dealing with self-identified witches, remember that no two witches will agree with each other on just about anything. Witches are non-dogmatic to the extreme, with one witch apologist suggesting “[s]ending dogma to the doghouse” and claiming that “[r]eligious dogma and authority relieve a person of the responsibility of deciding on his or her own actions” (Diane Smith, Wicca & Witchcraft for Dummies, 32).

Generally speaking, witches prefer to give authority to their own personal experiences. Phyllis Curott, author of a book titled Witch Crafting, puts it this way: “Witches, whether we are women or men, experience the Goddess within us and in the world all around us. I love what Starhawk [witch and popular speaker and writer] said about this: ‘People often ask me if I believe in the Goddess. I reply, Do you believe in rocks?’” (121, emphasis in original). In other words, witches know “the Goddess” exists because they can experience her by at least one of their five senses. Faith in such a material deity calls to mind the demon Screwtape’s longing for hell’s “perfect work—the Materialist Magician” (Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, 31).

Throwing a bucket of cold water on a witch’s “personal experiences” will not be easy, particularly since one of the frightening.aspects of witchcraft is that some witches do have, and blithely report, extraordinary preternatural experiences. Incidents that could and should scare away many dabblers from playing with forces beyond their control are recounted by witchcraft’s apologists as affirmative of their path. Curott tells of a man who once dreamed of “being prey” of a monstrous creature; ultimately, in the dream, he was captured by the creature. Rather than taking this as a sign he should reconsider the path down which he was heading, he awoke “deeply transformed” by the dream’s ending because he believed “tremendous love” was felt for him by the creature. He eventually became a Wiccan priest (Witch Crafting, 154–155).

How can a Christian argue against a belief like that?

Ultimately, it may be that a Damascus-road moment might be necessary to sway someone that deeply entrenched in traffic with preternatural creatures. To those who are not as enmeshed, a Christian can point out that sometimes apologists for the occult have warned their readers not to be taken in by their experiences with spirits.

In a section of his book titled “Practicing Safe Spirituality,” author Carl McColman gives a checklist of “some common-sense precautions” occultists should be aware of “while meditating, doing ritual, reflecting on your dreams, or doing any other spiritual work that may involve contact with spirits.” The first item on the list is “Don’t automatically believe everything you hear. Just because a spirit says something doesn’t make it so” (The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Paganism, 129).

Witchcraft is an inversion of Catholicism.

Observers of witchcraft have claimed that it is remarkably similar to Catholicism. Catholic journalist and medievalist Sandra Miesel called it “Catholicism without Christ” (“The Witches Next Door,” Crisis, June 2002). Writer and editor Charlotte Allen noted that “Practicing Wicca is a way to have Christianity without, well, the burdens of Christianity” (“The Scholars and the Goddess,” The Atlantic, January 2001).

It’s easy to see why the assertion is made. Allen notes that as witchcraft cycles through its “liturgical year,” many of its adherents honor a goddess who births a god believed to live, die, and rise again. Fraternization with apparently friendly preternatural spirits is encouraged and eagerly sought. The rituals of witchcraft call to mind Catholic liturgies, particularly the libation and blessing ritual alternately known as “Cakes and Wine” and “Cakes and Ale.” Like Catholics collecting rosaries, scapulars, statues, and prayer books, witches have their own “potions, notions, and tools” as Curott calls them —some of which include jewelry, statues and dolls, and spell books and journals.

But to say that witchcraft has uncanny similarities to Catholicism is to understate the matter. Witchcraft is an inversion of Catholicism: Catholicism emptied of Christ and stood on its head. This is most readily seen in witchcraft’s approach to authority.

In his book Rome Sweet Home, Scott Hahn compares authority in the Church to a hierarchical pyramid with the pope at the top, with all of the members, including the pope, reaching upward toward God (46–47). With its antipathy to authority and its reach inward to the self and downward to preternatural spirits, witchcraft could also be illustrated with a triangle—every adherent poised at the top as his own authority and pointed down in the sort of “Lower Command” structure envisioned by Lewis’s Screwtape.

Witchcraft is dangerous.

In my work as an apologist, I have read a number of introductory books to various non-Catholic and non-Christian religions. Never before my investigation into witchcraft had I seen introductory books on a religion that warn you about the dangers involved in practicing it. The dangers that witch apologists warn newcomers about are both corporal and spiritual.

In her book, Diane Smith includes a chapter titled “Ten Warning Signs of a Scam or Inappropriate Behavior” (Wicca & Witchcraft for Dummies, chapter 23). Her top-10 list includes “Inflicting Harm,” “Charging Inappropriate Fees or Demanding Undue Money,” “Engaging in Sexual Manipulation,” “Using Illicit Drugs or Excessive Amounts of Alcohol in Spiritual Practice,” and “Breeding Paranoia.” Smith claims that such a need to be wary is common to religion: “[U]nscrupulous or unstable people sometimes perpetrate scams or other manipulations under the guise of religion, and this situation is as true for Wicca as for other religious groups” (317).

However true it may be that there can be “unscrupulous or unstable people” involved in traditional religions, most practitioners—Christian or otherwise—do not experience problems with these behaviors to such an extent that religious apologists see the need to issue caveats to proselytes. That Smith does so suggests that these problems are far more widespread in witchcraft than in traditional religion.

We noted one paganism apologist who warned his readers to “practice safe spirituality.” McColman goes on to caution that the “advice” of spirits “must be in accordance with your own intuition for it to be truly useful.” He goes on to say, “You remain responsible for your own decisions. Remember that spirit guides make mistakes like everybody else!” (Paganism, 128).

Catholics concerned about loved ones involved with witchcraft may not be attracted to witchcraft themselves, but there is danger for them in pursuing dabblers down the road to the occult in hopes of drawing them back. In preparing themselves to answer the claims of witchcraft, they may feel the need to read books like those mentioned in this article. If they are not fully educated and firm in their own faith, such Catholics may find their own faith under attack. Three suggestions are in order.

Not all are called to be apologists. If you are not intellectually and spiritually prepared to answer the claims of witchcraft, leave such work to others. Search out knowledgeable Catholics with whom your loved one can speak.

Prepare yourself. Common sense indicates that if you are about to rappel down a cliff, you do so with safety ropes firmly attached and in the presence of someone you trust who can help you if you are in danger. Don’t even think of rappelling down a spiritual cliff without seeking to fortify yourself intellectually and spiritually—particularly spiritually. Inform your confessor or spiritual director of your plans to study and answer the claims of witchcraft. Ask trusted Catholic friends to pray for your work. Regularly receive the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist. If you need to stop or take a break from this area of apologetics, by all means do so. And, most importantly:

Pray. Whether or not you are called to personally minister to those involved in witchcraft, the most fundamental thing you can do to help witches and other dabblers in the occult is to pray.

Saints whose intercession you can seek include Bl. Bartholomew Longo, the repentant former satanic priest who returned to the Church and spent the rest of his life promoting the rosary; St. Benedict, who battled pagans and whose medal is often worn in protection against the devil; St. Michael the Archangel (Jude 1:9), invoked especially by the prayer for his intercession commonly attributed to Pope Leo XIII. And, of course, there’s St. Paul, who reminds us: “For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39).

SIDEBARS

The Catechism on Witchcraft

There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: “Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” (CCC 1852)

God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. Improvidence, however, can constitute a lack of responsibility. (CCC 2115)

All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. (CCC 2116)

All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others—even if this were for the sake of restoring their health—are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity. (CCC 2117)

Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Further Reading

Charlotte Allen, “The Scholars and the Goddess,” The Atlantic, January 2001 (Available online: www.theatlantic.com)

C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (HarperCollins)

Sandra Miesel, “Who Burned the Witches?” Crisis, October 2001 (Available online: www.catholiceducation.org)

Sandra Miesel, “The Witches Next Door,” Crisis, June 2002

Catherine Edwards Sanders, Wicca’s Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality (Shaw Books, 2005)

Donna Steichen, Ungodly Rage: The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism (Ignatius, 1991)

Alois Wiesinger, O.C.S.O, Occult Phenomena in the Light of Theology (Roman Catholic Books)

[theloobrush]

The Sea of Faith

In Matthew Arnold’s poem ‘Dover Beach’, one verse opines sadly::

“The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled. But now I only hear Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, Retreating, to the breath Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear And naked shingles of the world.”

Arnold’s poem is said to be about his own loss of faith and the decline of religion generally. But when he wrote this back in the 19th Century most people were, outwardly at least, very religious, except perhaps the intellectual classes*. During our current social crisis, the like of which we have not seen since World War 2, and perhaps facing my own, imminent demise, I sometimes wish I could still cling to the buoyancy aid of religion. By that I mean, a full bodied, robust faith in a real, personal objective God, a deity that is provident, benevolent and wishes the salvation of all mankind.  A faith like my father had, and my mother still has. They had a very active faith and my childhood revolved around religion to an unusual degree. Their faith gave a very clear set of values and goals and moulded how you lived in a way best expressed by the Evangelical dictum: “God First, Other’s Second, Self Last”. This didn’t prevent me growing up as egoistic and self obsessed as the next person but it did thickly spread a layer of guilt, shame and existential sense of personal inadequacy into my mental make up.

Over 30 plus years the traditional religious faith into which I was birthed and, in no uncertain terms, indoctrinated (albeit lovingly, rather than harshly) has been whittled away in my mind by numerous educative and social influences and my own reasoning. There have been instances, even recently, when my faith in the Big G,  has  appeared to revive somewhat. Looking back I seem to follow a regular cycle over a period of a few years, to apply Matthew Arnold’s metaphor, my faith has certainly ebbed and flowed over three decades. From time to time something spurs me to build theological castle in the air that I’m momentarily intellectually satisfied with, then some idea, argument or painful newstory or circumstance causes my new fangle set of beliefs to crash into pieces again.. And after some weeks or months of dry atheism, something entices me to go all mystical again. Some song, some movie, the beauty of some flower in the garden, and I try to find ways to be spiritual without being religious. Then my intellect demands that I justify my mystical feelings with some proper propositions. The theological castles get built again. But they are always sand castles.

Currently I’m definitely in an ‘ebb’ period, with the tide having gone out as far as it goes out at Whitmore Bay, leaving a flat expanse of wet mud, some seaweed intermixed with plastic litter. For nigh on 15 years I have been pretty much convinced Christian orthodoxy is not true. Lately I feel even more convinced. Down to my bones. I’m entirely convinced that the Bible is largely mythology and reflection upon mythological stories, and only a lack of knowledge of other world traditions and literature, would make anyone think it is uniquely profound. I also believe the unbelief that Jesus, was not as portrayed in the gospels, if he existed at all. The acute issue for me at the moment is that theism doesn’t explain why there is a God rather than nothing at all. God, at least as understood by Christian tradition is too complex an entity to be a brute fact of necessary being. The theologians final answer to an endless string of ‘why?’ questions about life and the universe is extremely unsatisfying, indeed incredible. There is nil evidence of divine intervention.There is zilch evidence of divine providence. The multi-verse concept and the sheer size of the universe means even extremely improbable  possible things happen, our existence is one such. These facts cut the feet from under the theist’s best modern argument - the strong anthropomorphic principle.

Despite the above, I am currently in one of my  ‘mystical’ periods. To the non-mystically inclined, to those who don’t rely on intuition as much as I do, and who think the notion of personal gnosis is hookum, there is no way to convey that woo-woo mystical feeling. However I can trace the roots of my intellectual justifications. For instance I’ve been a convinced monist  ever since my University Professor John Drane (an erstwhile Evangelical and New Testament scholar of some repute) introduced me, almost accidentally, to a certain Mr Plotinus of late antiquity and his theories of Neo-Platonism. But I was attracted to the more arcane, non theistic aspects of Hindu philosophy even before that, probably because I read some dodgy New Age stuff as a teenager at a time when my reading habits should have been on evangelical lock down. It would have made a far simpler life journey if I’d just given up on religion in my youth - like most people.  However my mind seems to abhor the atheist vacuum. Or, if you like, spiritually seems to be my emotional crutch (along with snacking and my snack demi deity, cheese). 

How to make this mystical ‘tick’ of mine intelligible? I can’t really. However, I would try to explain that despite my loss of faith, I don’t have a problem with the ‘mono’ part of monotheism. The universe is self evidently a unity, and, obviously, began in a singular singularity. Most people leave it there, and really, really don’t care to look any further. But  I blur logic, and extrapolate hard scientific concepts like quantum non locality into forbidden territory. I’m one of those snake oil consumers who are prone to take basic scientific datum in a semi New Age direction. That said, I have read a lot, albeit variations on a theme. My other heavy weight intellectual influences are in historical succession Plotinus, Spinoza Schleiermacher, Hegel, and,especially, Jung. I have been marinaded in the arguments presented in Dummies Guides to Taoism, Advaita Vedanta, and followed other minds who bang on  about a ‘perennial philosophy’ or versions thereof. My recent indoctrination has come from the writings of Ken Wilber and Eckhart Tolle, and recordings of Alan Watts and Jordan Peterson. 

So you see, I used to play, with bucket and spade by the Sea of Faith, now I swim in an ocean of woo-woo. However is woo-woo a suitable substitute for a heavenly father we can pray to in times of trouble? A loving personal God who offers us a ticket to heaven. However incredulous the idea, however ‘deluded’, I’m talking here about the efficacy and utility of belief.  For instance my woo-woo doesn’t provide a personal afterlife. I’m not woo because I fear death, but neither does dialectical monism provide any solid hope. Actually my evangelical forebears would be horrified with the whole ‘Sea of Faith’ metaphor. For them, their faith was a ‘rock’, a ‘sure foundation’, an ‘anchor’ and a port in all life’s storms. Actually the maritime metaphors were endless. I have weak tea spirituality, I embrace the nonpersonal cosmic flux, but I don’t (more’s the pity?) have faith like that. 

Athlete’s Foot Note

* The cultural rot always begins with intellectuals

[thanksjro]

Polyhex Wars, Book 2 Part 2: The Role of the Waifu This Evening Will Be Played by Ammo

Previously, on The Polyhex Wars…

Hound and company have found themselves at a docking station simply awash with Decepticons and their pods, having just arrived on Cybertron from Autobot City, all of them complaining about how Optimus’ new powers totally kicked their keisters. Some of them are wondering just where Starscream got to.

Hound's eyeing a big ol’ ship, but if he wants it, he’s going to need to come up with some sort of plan. He comes up with one, and it involves Ammo because of course it does.

Hound has a small holographic projector built into his wrist, which can do small-scale holographs- nothing too crazy, but he can disguise himself long enough to get to that ship. From there, he’ll overload the power systems for this area, creating a distraction.

You betcha, Buster Brown. Ammo’s role in this will require the use of his alt-mode. If you guessed that Ammo turns into a gun, congratulations! You’d be right.

Carrying straps don’t exist on Cybertron, and it’s solely so folks like Hound can slap their crushes to their thighs.

Hound’s about to head off, when he realizes that Fistfight isn’t in his direct line of sight. Blaster, when asked why he isn’t doing the one thing he’s been asked to do, brushes it off, saying that Courier is watching him. Any way you slice it, this sounds like a horrible arrangement: either Fistfight’s about to get offed, or you just left a dangerous killer with one of the smallest members of your team. Blaster, what the hell?

While Hound and Blaster are hashing it out, Courier points out an alarm system. I give it five minutes before that thing gets pulled like a fire alarm in a middle school on a snow day.

Meanwhile, up above on the surface of the planet, the Autobots have landed and are currently faced with the enemy swarming up from underground in the thousands.

Hmm, yes, I remember you.

Roberts really enjoys massacring the polity of Polyhex. It’s probably because so much shit is just happening there all the time.

Obviously, Optimus isn’t having any issue in this fight, going so far as to save Trailbreaker’s hide via eye lasers.

Wonder how Red Alert’s team is doing.

Not great, if that delightfully purple prose is anything to go by.

The Autobots are being loaded into those electric chairs we saw in Part 1, And Red Alert’s wondering how it all got to this point. Like, why the hell would Megatron had set up a throne in the underground pseudo-grave of their creator god? How was he supposed to figure that one out?

There’s this odd feeling of pride as nobody begs for their lives as they’re prepared to be electrocuted- at least they’ll still have their dignity, even if they won’t have their lives for too much longer.

Sideswipe, Sunstreaker, and Red Alert trade some Shakespeare-level insults with Megatron, up until he gives the order to kill the Autobots.

Red Alert, why do you even know what sputum is?

Back over with Hound, he’s just made it past the guard at the ship, all decked out in a disguise that makes him look like the mid-90s punk scene chewed him up and spat him out. As he’s doing his thing, the sounds of the battle above start trickling down into earshot. Hound aims Ammo and gets ready to blast the ship’s generator.

Back where the Autobots are hiding, Blaster is once again not paying attention, not realizing that Bumblebee’s being held at gunpoint by Shockwave until the guy notices that he’s not being answered. Fantastic work, Blaster.

Blaster’s communicator goes off, which, really, is just too bad, because it alerts Shockwave to Hound’s location. He points his gun-hand at the ship and fires, blowing the whole thing sky high, probably taking a few of the nearby Decepticon guards along with it.

Apparently having seen too much shit today to even process the very probable chance that Hound and Ammo are now dead, Blaster snarks at Shockwave, ignoring the gun now being put to his head to get in kissing distance so he can punch the guy in the gut. Cover blown, Blaster orders his team to start kicking ass.

Back with Red Alert, the execution’s been postponed, because Starscream’s decided to crash the party. Red Alert manages to break free of his bonds as complete and utter chaos unfolds. Seeing as the two Decepticons are currently busy trying to kill each other, the Autobots decide to take their leave. Too bad reinforcements have arrived, shimmying down ropes in the hallway- and they’re not the kind they were hoping for.

Returning to the scene with Blaster, it’s real revenge hours, as the Autobots use the rage they’ve been saving up for the last several hour on the hordes of Decepticons that are just pouring into the room at this point. They’re so mad, when Blaster gets ahold of Skywarp he immediately goes NOPE and pops out of there.

Suddenly, the flaming crater that once was the ship reveals that the ship is fine, actually, with Hound and Ammo posing all badass on the hood as Hound starts shooting for the generator up in the ceiling. This turns the lights out, and when the emergency lighting kicks on, the Autobots book it to that ship and climb aboard. They’re leaving.

Up with Optimus, it’s Hot Rod time. After almost being blown up, Hot Rod reports that the Decepticons have deployed all of their troops- and he does mean all of them- and suggests that the Autobots do the same. Optimus says that they already HAVE everyone deployed, then in the same breath annihilates a group of ‘Cons with the wave of a finger. Do you really need more troops at this point?

Guess Swindle’s inexplicable plot-armor didn’t grow in until 2001.

Hot Rod reminds Optimus that Red Alert and Hound’s teams aren’t currently up here fighting, as if they’re just sitting around twiddling their thumbs while all this nonsense is going on. Again, do you really need more troops at this point?

Skystalker has a ship floating above Optimus currently, and is about to try and bomb him out, when he too explodes. Then Snapdragon and Sky Quake explode.

Optimus likes exploding people. Nobody tell Hound, because I’m pretty sure that kills them, and that’s just NOT the Autobot way.

Hot Rod, much like everyone else, wants to know how he does it. Optimus reiterates that he doesn’t know, only that he’s been able to do it since he got back from Limbo. Saying it out loud gives him pause.

Optimus orders Hot Rod to go do a search and rescue for the missing teams, then disappears from this mortal plane. Hot Rod, having decided he’s got going to be the one to try and parse the mystical bullshit that Optimus seems to be dealing with currently, runs off to pull together a search party, only to be crushed under Skystalker’s ship.

Hopping back a whole two minutes in time, Hound’s firing the ship’s weapons through the Decepticon forces, being an absolute terror. Blaster’s trying to figure out just how they’re going to leave, seeing as their ship’s been damaged enough to not be able to go up. After a bit of banter, the Autobots notice something standing in the port menacingly. It’s a Decepticon Imperial Guard. The last time we saw one of these guys, it thought it was god and had to get smacked around by Nightbeat’s atheism.

Figuring the worst that could happen is that they all die, Hound whips the ship around and heads for one of the massive holes in the floor that connect to the thrusters stuck into Cybertron at present. They fall in, and since that explosion destroyed the windshield, they’re subjected to all the detriments of terminal velocity. Hound unstraps from his chair and floats up to the back of the ship to see if anyone can make forcefields.

Luckily there is a guy, and his name is Blocker. Blocker does his thing, and everyone braces for impact.

Blocker’s name was recycled in the IDW prose story Out of Bullets, which was a sort of deleted-scene story that connected to Bullets. In it, he was a member of the Wreckers, and ultimately was removed from the team after he was found chewing on a dead friend’s transformation cog. Hopefully he gets a little less of a gruesome characterization here.

Over in the Primus chamber, it’s 30 seconds earlier. Whether this means it’s 30 seconds before Hound’s thing, or 30 seconds before the two minutes we went back earlier isn’t clear. What is clear is that the Decepticon reinforcements are here for Starscream, who immediately shreds them like wet tissue paper. Even Megatron’s afraid!

Screaming for help as he’s pinned by Starscream, he immediately appeals to the Autobots’ better nature, saying that he’ll abort the Juggernaut plans if they stop him from being killed. Everyone is completely on-board to just let Megatron eat it.

Everyone except Slapdash, for some fucking reason. The Autobots run after the little idiot, all of them jumping onto Starscream, instead of just grabbing their wayward moron and bolting for the exit. Predictably, this does nothing to stop the guy, who proceeds to throw all of them, along with Megatron, so hard off of him that they imbed into the wall.

That’s about the time that Hound’s ship crashes through the ceiling and crushes Starscream. Is it blasphemy or heresy when you destroy a religious monument? Because the Primus chamber’s been through the wringer at this point.

While all this is happening, Optimus seems to be having a spiritual journey of some sort, as he finds himself in Iacon, facing the Last Autobot, a guardian of sorts put in place by Primus himself to guide the Cybertronian race if needed. Optimus is kind of annoyed to have been pulled away from the battle, but hears the guy out, seeing as he seems to know what’s going on with these powers. Also, because he’s very large and intimidating, and brushing him off is probably a one-way ticket to robot hell.

So, because Optimus somehow became the storehouse for an entire not-dimension, he’s going to die if he doesn’t pawn off these powers to someone even more powerful than himself. Which, you know, is probably going to be a little difficult, seeing as he’s Optimus friggin’ Prime. Optimus brushes this off, ready to get back to the fight he’d been so rudely removed from.

Back at the crash site, it’s time to count the dead bodies. We’ve got Flanker, Dipshot, Counterblast and Transit. Megatron peels himself off the wall and quickly returns with his reinforcements, who I guess were just kind of standing around waiting for their boss to give the okay. Maybe they’re vampires and have to be invited in.

Starscream digs himself out from under the ship, mad as a hornet. His face is missing, which is a fun thing. Megatron orders his men to fire on him, and Starscream just wipes the floor with them immediately. Megatron then attempts to ally himself with the Autobots, just as Starscream throws a girder and pins Hound and Courier, promptly knocking them out.

Up on the surface, Optimus Prime is posing on a mountain very dramatically as he summons his troops- quite literally. All those in the Primus chamber are immediately transported to the mountain, and with that all the Autobots are gathered in one spot.

And that’s the end of Book 2.

[the-amazigh-witch-blog]

Please tell us about Sufism ! What are the differences with other muslim sects ? How is witchcraft perceived by Sufis ? How do you beliefs impact your craft ?

Hi Habibi! This is going to be a long post, so bear with me. Also, at the very bottom are some links to articles, videos, and some recommended books related to this post’s topic. Disclaimer: Also, to mention, I personally believe that Sufism is something that can be part of any belief system, including wicca/atheism/paganism because it deals more with our hearts rather than doctrine; but today I’ll be talking a lot about Islamic Sufism, because that is my personal experience. I am NOT trying to preach Islam or even Sufism at anybody, only trying to explain it, my practice, and how it relates to my craft. 

    Sufism is a mystical order (not necessarily) of Islam. Sufi isn’t necessarily a sect as much as it is a way of spirituality. A person could be Sunni, Shi’a, khawarij, etc and be Sufi.I’ve heard of Christian and atheists who are also Sufi. Idries Shah, a sufi, published books on witchcraft and the occult and was also good friends with Gerald Gardner, the father of wicca. A quote from The forty rules of love (a fictional account of Shams and Rumi’s spiritual journey which everyone should read) has a quote that I feel best defines Sufism:

“Each and every reader comprehends the Holy Qu’ran on a different level in tandem with the deoth of his understanding. There are four levels of insight. The first level is the outer meaning and it is the one that the majority of people content with. Next is the Batim- the inner level. Third, there is the inner of the inner. And the fourth level is so deep it cannot be put into words and is therefore bound to remain indescribable.”“Scholars who focus on the sharia (religious doctrine) know the outer meaning. Sufis know the inner meaning. Saints know the inner of the inner. And as for the fourth level, that is known only by prophets and those closest to God.”

Basically, doctrine isn’t as important as what is in you and how you personally connect to your god/deity/the universe.  Many Sufis express their love and try to connect to the universe/their deity through some sort of art. Sufi dervishes join official orders, dancing, and get lost in a lovely trance with the universe. Rumi, Hafez, and others have poured their hearts out and reached out to the universe through their writings (poetry). There is art, music, and all sort of ways this love and connection is done.

How is witchcraft perceived by Sufis? Let me first answer this question by saying there are certain extremists (crazy “muslim” scholars) who have persecuted Sufis and denounced Sufism as blasphemous witchcraft to this day. It is literally the first result when you search “Sufi witchcraft”. First, I would like to speak on a personal level; because for me, witchcraft is a form of “art” that I use to express love and connect to the universe and the God I personally believe in. Secondly, there was in anecdote about blasphemy in the book I mentioned earlier, and I’m not going to include the whole 3 paragraphs because it is something beautiful that should be read with that book, but here is the last line: “So you see, don’t judge the way other people connect to God... To each his own way and his own prayer God does not take us at our word, He looks deep into our hearts. It is not the (specific) ceremonies or rituals that make a difference, but whether our hearts are sufficiently pure or not.” To summarize, in Sufism people understand that connecting with the universe, your deity/deities is done in all sorts of ways, and every single way, no matter how “blasphemous” or individualistic, is accepted and loved by the universe/God/personal deities.

How do your beliefs affect your craft? Many muslims/religions/belief systems, without realizing, practice magick from a young age. When I was younger I would recite certain surahs before bed to keep bad djinns/spirits away as well as nightmares, I would cleanse myself in wu’du, and I would fast during holidays and partake in certain rituals. Now that I’m an overgrown child (not an adult) who practices witchcraft, I incorporate my religions and beliefs into my craft. I will recite certain quotes from surahs that I feel pertain to my spell, use religious symbolism and calligraphy, do wu’du before casting circles, by losing myself in entrancing dances/music/art making/witchcraft/rituals, use the Qu’ran for spells and making my grimoire, but most importantly, Sufism has affected me craft by allowing me to better spiritually connect in an indescribable way to not just my personal God, but this universe and all it embodies.

If you made it this far, I’ve put some links below with videos/article links as well as book recommendations if you’re interested in Sufism. Also Know that best of these resources are Sufi poems by people like Rumi and Hafez, or watching Sufi artists/dancers, because Sufism cannot be best embodied or understood in a formal article or video made by people who don’t feel it, but the heart-pourings of other Sufis.

ArticlesBBC’s Intro to SufismPractical Sufism and Philosophical Sufism

VideosHow Rumi’s Teachings Saved Karen Cavanagh’s LifeA Dervish DanceAnother Dervish Dance

BooksAny (well-translated) book by RumiThe Forty Rules of LoveThe Gift by HafezThe Sufi Book of Life: 99 Pathways of the Heart for the Modern DervishThe Sufis by Idries Shah (who was a friend of Gerald Gardner btw)

[dacullojonie-blog]

The Western and Eastern Concept of Self

The term ‘self’ refers to an individual human being, along with their body, mind, and in some cases, the concept of a ‘soul’. The western view of the self refers to the notion that “you are the same person you were earlier in your life. In other words, it assumes that we humans are selves that endure through time” (Velasquez 96).

So, despite the many mental and physical changes that may occur during our life, we are essentially the same ‘self’ throughout our many developments. While western traditional has, for the most part, accepted and championed the idea of an enduring self, the exact definition and characteristics of the self are diverse. In this post, I intend to examine the two different views and state my own thoughts on which viewpoint is more compelling.

The European philosophers Plato, Descartes, and Locke all believed in an ‘enduring self’, however what exactly constituted this ‘self’ was varied. The concept of a ‘soul’ is often the most popular representation of an enduring self, because according to western belief, a soul is “immaterial or spiritual” (Velasquez 100), thus a ‘soul’ is beyond the physical realm and not subject to change like material objects. Plato was one of the first philosophers to state that the soul is eternal, so it is the soul of a man that makes him an enduring self, because even after death the soul continues to exist. Many years later, the philosopher Descartes stated that “thinking is an attribute of the soul” and that “the continuity of his thinking mind [is what] makes him remain the same person” (Velasquez 100). In other words, our consciousness is a result of our ‘soul’, or of our ‘enduring self’. Descartes basically believed that, if we could not think, then we could not exist, and thus ‘thinking’ in and of itself was what constituted an enduring self. Locke had a similar view, though his idea was the ‘enduring self’ is a person’s memory. In other words, it is our memory that allows us to identify ourselves, and it is the process of identifying ourselves that allows us to formulate the idea of a ‘self’.

While the western tradition may make some fairly significant justifications for an ‘enduring self’, the Buddhist philosophy completely rejects the notion of a ‘self’ in general, viewing it as an illusion. Buddhist philosophy believes that everything in life is ephemeral, or that nothing lasts forever. Everything is in a constant flux of change and impermanence, thus, the ‘enduring self’ cannot exist, because an enduring self would imply something that is permanent or unchanging. The Buddha taught that the idea of a ‘self’ is an illusion, and that this illusion leads to pain and suffering. By renouncing the ‘self’ and transcending the ego, one can obtain release from suffering (nirvana) and finally be at peace.

Personally, I find the Eastern tradition to be more compelling. Like Buddha , confucious and Hindu's, I too believe that everything is impermanent, including ourselves. For example, right now I’m typing this essay, but the thoughts in my mind at this very moment are different from the thoughts in my mind a few seconds ago. Thus, how could I be an enduring self when every few seconds the thoughts in my head are changing? In order to be an enduring self, wouldn’t that imply that I am unchanging, permanent and stagnant? Mentally and physically we are constantly changing, so I think that the idea of an self is nothing more than a mystical, idealistic concept.

I would say that the idea of a ‘self’ is just a notion that has been mentally created in order to give ourselves a feeling of identity and purpose. The self is really only a product of our evolved consciousness.I personally don’t believe that it exists on any metaphysical, material or spiritual level. ‘The self’ may exist as a product of the mind, in other words, on a psychological level, but in all honesty I think even that definition might be stretching it. I agree with eastern in their reasoning that “we have no real knowledge of a self and so we have no justification for claiming that we have a self. What we perceive within ourselves is nothing more than a changing bundle of disconnected sensations”. In the end, I feel that Buddha’s,the eastern views on illusionary nature of ‘the self’ are more rational and realistic

East:

If we assume that the religious tradition was the mainstream in the east, accepting the concept of a superior being (Allah, Nibbana, Ha Shem, Lord, etc) was a necessity for being religious. As a follower, you should live in a way that God demands. Every single aspect of a follower's life will be defined by the concepts of obedience, submission, and dedication. They should surround their will to the Lord’s irresistible one. The ultimate aim of a worshiper is the contentment and the satisfaction of the worshiped. How? By eliminating their will and following His commandments. Denial of their personal self and becoming a God-oriented self is the first step toward His eternal and glorious kingdom. As an eastern, the concept of the "self" stands for something which always exists somewhere out of you. You are not an individual person anymore, but a servant who serves along with His other servants. So in the east, the community of the followers is always more important than individuals. The Ummah of Islam, the nation of the Jehovah, the Church of Christianity, the Sangha of Buddhism are some of these communities which their interests always come first, so the followers need sometimes even sacrifice themselves to protect it. In one word, "self" direction in the east is outward.

West:

Let's assume that we can associate the west with the concept of rational atheism. By this, I mean the religious tradition like what we have in the east, is not dominant as a school of thought in the west, and also I don't mean the eastern theism is irrational. Well if we put the age of mythology away, which we can't actually categorize it as religious ideology in the eastern sense then we have a bunch of the philosophers who they generally didn't believe in kind of personal god(s) or at least not a god who be able to change our human ways of life. Their approach to the world was formed around a materialistic view with a rational realism that seeks the reality of the nature of everything by studying their attributes and properties. The human being was part of this world, the only difference about human was his cognition and awareness. The human is the only creature who can be studied by very him/herself. The journey of the western  into the depth of their most inner labyrinth of "self" started right here. Looking to the ancient Greek and its political system based on a kind of democracy Although slaves, women, and a majority of low-level citizens couldn't vote, shows the importance of the concept of individuality. Even the aristocracy of Plato had a kind of self-oriented approach to governing over the political system, however, it wasn't based on the people votes but it is highly depended on elite individual's opinions over the issues. While in the east the vote only belongs to the God or His messengers or a council of his chosen servants which decided based on His will which interpreted through His revealed message, not based on worshipper's opinion. We can see the sparks of what we call humanism in the enlightenment era back in ancient Greek. The well-being and joyful life of the individuals not the society unless we consider society a gathering of the individuals are the main priority of western societies. We should make ourself happy in this world, It's the ultimate goal of life. In one word, "self" direction in the west is inward.

[templeofulchtar]

My Starscream Initiation, Part 1

I was asked to share my Starscream initiation story, so here's my attempt. It got long, so I'm going to split it into at least three posts. The first two deal with the pre-history of my journey, including some childhood recollections that seem relevant. I don't want to bore people, though, so if you're looking for information that could relate to your own initiation process (with Starscream, or any other guide), you might want to wait for Part 3. On the other hand, if you're curious about the deep background of how I came to this path, read on!

Above: A painting of my Eagle guide, done when I was four or five. They came flying from far away, Now I'm under their spell; I love hearing the stories that they tell. They've seen places beyond our land, And found new horizons; They speak strangely, but I understand. ~ Abba, Eagle

One of my earliest memories is of opening my bedroom window one night, leaning out, and whispering into the darkness. I was whispering to God, and I thought he'd hear me better with the window open. I didn't know how to pray, so I said the holiest words that I knew at the time: "thee," and "thou." I didn't know what they meant, but I knew they were sacred words because I'd only ever heard them used in readings from the Bible. I'm not sure how old I was. Maybe four? But I do remember how strongly I felt the impulse to reach out and make something beyond myself.

I've never truly doubted the existence of God, though my later religious training made me want to doubt. At one point, I remember trying to be an atheist. It would be easier, I thought, to simply not believe in God than to believe in that God, the one who seemed to consider me inferior due to the female body he had created me with, who had created animals without giving them souls, who turned people into salt pillars as punishment for minor infractions, and would cast his beloved children into a pit of eternal damnation simply for believing the wrong things. I was told that this God loved me, and I was supposed to love him back, but I couldn't; I didn't even like him!

Yet I soon discovered that I couldn't not believe. God was always just there. Maybe not exactly the God I'd learned about in Bible, but an unseen presence that hovered just beyond the limits of my senses; ineffable, yet undeniable. My experiment with atheism lasted about three days before I called it quits. I can still remember the feeling of relief that swept over me when I stopped forcing myself to disbelieve. Denying the presence that I felt took more energy out of me than trying to reconcile it with my religious training. I believe it was at that moment that I became a seeker - of the small "s" variety, of course.

Eagle Encounters

Around the same age that I was leaning out my window and whispering shy prayers into the darkness, I was given a magical kite. It was shaped like a Golden Eagle, and he was magnificently realistic. I named him Aeola - or really, Ayola, since I got the name by removing the "c" and the "r" from "Crayola." I thought it made a fine name for an Eagle, and he seemed to agree. I remember as I was falling asleep one night I had a clear mental image of my Aeola as a real eagle. He was circling above a mountain range, wings spread majestically against the sunset sky. Looking back, I think this was my first awareness of having a totem animal, or spirit guide.

Several years later, I had another brief vision involving a bird. I was a student in Catholic school by then, and was struggling with my doubts about religion versus my indelible faith in an unseen divine presence that I could only think of as God. As best as I can remember, I asked for an image of what my ideal relationship with God could look like, and the image that came to me was of a boy and a bird. The boy was shirtless, with brown skin and curly black hair that fell halfway to his shoulders, and I somehow knew that he was me. He was walking through the world with the bird flying above him, his steps guided by its unseen presence, and I have often wondered if he represents one of my past lives.

Perhaps this imagery was influenced by depictions of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, but the image really didn't feel very Christian, and the bird was definitely of the raptor variety, a hawk or an eagle. The image held such a deep sense of trust, belonging and partnership that I immediately knew that *that* was the relationship I wanted with the divine. I wanted to move through life with that same sense of divine guidance. I just didn't know how to get there, particularly under the auspices of religion as I then knew it, which emphasized dogma, rote ritual and obedience to church authority over anything that could be considered mystical.

In my late teens, another Eagle soared into my life, namely Starscream, an F-15 Eagle from Cybertron, and I fell hopelessly in love with him. It wasn't just that he was tall (25 feet tall, as a rough estimate), or handsome (though he definitely is, even if he does say so himself!), or that he's the proverbial "bad boy" that teenaged girls are known for falling for. I mean sure, it *was* all those things, but it was so much more. I identified with Starscream so intensely that even to this day, I struggle to put the feeling into words. My feelings for him have grown and deepened over time, which adds a further layer of complexity, but if it could have been summed up in a single word, that word might have been rebellion.

Above: Starscream perched on Bruticus’ shoulder, in one of my all-time favorite moments of rebellion. From “Starscream’s Brigade.”

My Rebel Seeker

Starscream was everything I wasn't. And no, I'm not referring to his abilities to shapeshift or fly, as enviable as those are. I'm talking about his courage. Yeah, I know. He's continually ridiculed for his supposed cowardice, but Starscream is brave. He speaks his mind; he questions authority - and we're talking, here, about an authority figure with a very short temper and a very large fusion cannon. He values himself. He's not afraid to dream big or to go after what he wants, even though he gets knocked down again and again. He gets punished, degraded and humiliated, yet he never gives up. He loves his life and is unafraid to live it, even in the face of death. That's courage.

That's a heroism that I could believe in, far more than the pious acts of self-sacrifice that were generally sold as heroism within the show's narrative. Starscream's struggle against Megatron was my struggle with the authoritarian forces in my own life, starting with the coldly judgmental version of God I'd been taught to believe in, all the way down through bullying teachers, bosses, and kids at school. In Starscream, I saw all the times I'd been bullied, silenced, threatened or humiliated for daring to ask questions or defy some arbitrary rule, and I wanted him to win. For both of us.

I wanted to see him break free, to find clear skies in which to soar without limits. I wanted him to be respected, appreciated, and listened to (I mean after all, he was usually right). Most of all, I wanted him to be loved. Still, this might never have become more than a particularly intense character crush if it weren't for a singular, galvanizing event that struck me, like a bolt from the blue, in the summer of 1986. That event was Transformers: The Movie.

Until that point, my love for Starscream had been a cherished indulgence, a last romp in the fields of childhood before I was forced to go out into what seemed like the cold, inhospitable and frankly boring world of adult-ness. Loving Starscream should have been safe, or so I believed. He was a character in a cartoon, and nothing truly bad ever happens in a cartoon. Sure, there might be explosions and all that, but you always see the little parachutes right after, so you know that everyone's safe. Right?

Well… not right. And if you've ever seen the '86 TF movie, you already know why.

This Ain't The Summer of Love

The truth is, I'd never realized how much Starscream meant to me. Not until that moment when I watched him die on-screen. I probably should have been expecting it. The movie had featured deaths aplenty up until that point, yet it somehow never quite occurred to me that Starscream - my Starscream - could actually die. Or that the makers of the series would be foolish enough to imagine that the show could possibly do without him (take your pick). And also that other thing: that cartoon characters you adore aren't supposed to be violently disintegrated before your very eyes.

I remember staring at the screen in numb shock. Had that really just happened? I sat through the rest of the movie in a stupor. There was something about Quintessons, the planet Junk, and a whole lot of Sharkticons being jumped, but I couldn't tell you much about the plot. I didn't bother paying attention, because in my heart I was still back on Cybertron, staring at the smoking pile of embers that had been Starscream. I had lost my ability to care about anything else, and somewhere in the midst of all this, a profound sense of grief and betrayal started to bubble up.

In some indefinable way, the rules had been rewritten. My understanding of reality - of how things were "supposed" to be - had been challenged at its very core. I now believe that was the true start of my initiatory journey, though of course I had no idea at the time. I was just crushed. And yeah, I can imagine what some people might say about all this. My grief wasn't real, because Starscream wasn't a real person.

Well, it was real. It felt as if a part of me had died with him. The subconscious mind doesn’t differentiate between "real" experiences and ones that take place in one's mind or imagination. It’s the vividness and emotional intensity of an experience which makes it seem real to the subconscious mind, not whether it meets some objective standard of reality. That’s why creative visualization works. As far as my subconscious was concerned, I had just witnessed the murder of a loved one, and my emotions responded accordingly.

My Year of Rage

Unlike someone who had *actually* witnessed a traumatizing event, though, there was no one I could talk to about it. I didn't even try with anyone who wasn't a fan, but the reactions I got from other fans were mostly unsympathetic. Starscream got what he deserved, I was told, because he was a villain. He was too ambitious, having overstepped his appointed role in life. He was a traitor. His voice was irritating. Yes, I heard 'em all. One person even compared him, memorably, to the Christian devil. (I might get back to that incident in another post - we'll see.)

Besides being heartbroken over Starscream's death, I was stung by its underlying message. It felt intensely personal. It seemed to be saying that if I spoke out, questioned authority, got too "uppity," I would be shot down. Crushed flat. And that people might even laugh and cheer over my destruction, as some members of the audience had done when Starscream was killed.

I also knew, on some level, that Starscream had been killed because of capitalism. Somebody had decided that his toy, as well as those of the other characters who died in the Movie, were obsolete. They clearly thought they could make more money by emphasizing the newer toy lines, and somehow found it necessary - or perhaps fun - to kill off all the older characters in order to do so. That was the world I was about to enter. A world in which absolutely nothing was sacred except the bottom line, and I had no idea how I would survive in such a heartless place.

I got angry. And I don't mean a garden variety fit of temper. I mean a seething, boiling pit of rage opened up in the pit of my belly and spilled over in a tidal wave of unstoppable fury. It was a lifetime of anger that I'd stored up out of guilt, and fear, and the notion that girls aren't "supposed" to get angry. Well I'd had it with that. Starscream was never shy about expressing his temper, and somehow that made it possible for me to express mine. I raged for a year.

I drove angry. I listened to angry music on my car stereo, and screamed along with the lyrics. I no longer stuffed my feelings, and did not hesitate to go off on anyone who dared to cross me. I was an absolute nightmare to be around, and my family must have wondered what had gotten into me. The truth was, I just needed to get all that out of me. I needed to let go of the bitter, toxic emotional sludge I'd been carrying, and Starscream gave me the courage to do that. It wasn't pretty, but it was needed.

For the first time in my life, I felt moderately empowered. I had a job and a car, both of which left much to be desired, but they did give me a degree of independence I'd never had before. I changed my name, choosing to go by my middle name instead of my first, and I started writing.

Naturally, I wrote about Starscream. (Continued in Part 2....)

[sagebodisattva]

Overcoming Absurdism

So this is an interesting testimonial, and not very uncommon, as it might seem. Some may say that this situation is like a classic case of a Nietzsche type struggle to overcome nihilism… but I would clarify it more precisely and say that it is a struggle to overcome absurdism, not nihilism; as, one only struggles with nihilism when one doesn’t want to let go of falsehoods in the face of the truth, and stubbornly clings to outmoded world attachments despite the resounding implications of aspiring to the contrary.

I composed a video covering this type of subject last year, entitled “Absurdism, Existentialism and Nihilism”, but it seems many recipients either couldn’t follow the plot, or just completely lost the script: as, many of the comments and questions that followed seemed to be placing way too much emphasis on all the wrong areas of concern. A common point of contention raised repeatedly was regarding atheism; of, what exactly is and isn’t the position of an atheist… but that contention is mostly irrelevant, as the video is a narrative involving a quintessential journey: the potential progression of an existential explorer through philosophy into deeper positions, such as nihilism and existentialism, AFTER rejecting theism, of which, is a mandatory prerequisite. Hence, “the atheist position” wasn’t being claimed to be something it’s not. I was merely positing it as a possible starting point into deeper inquiry; you know, a chance to leave the crowded lobby where most end their inquiry before the journey as even begun.

Now, why is the rejection of theism a required precondition of transition into deeper philosophical explorations? Well, I’m glad you asked! Until one is able to cast off the oppressive mind conditioning of conformist ideology, one will remain continually isolated from the truth, and thus ignorant to the fact that more complex philosophical conflicts even exist. The idea of a god takes care of all such concerns, and acts as both a pacifier, and a safeguard against any possible philosophical existential crisis. God is the original objective truth, and provides to all the special needs of an advanced thinking creature that will naturally seek value, meaning, purpose and narrative in existence. All this comes exclusively from the very lips of god HIMSELF.

This is why objectivity stinks of religion, even when the idea is attempted in application with more scientific paradigms, like in conjunction with objectivist concepts, such as “determinism”… and of course this where they will object, and scream that, ‘No! The context of objectivity is different in science and religion!’, but it really isn’t… Objectivity demands that you assign power and responsibility elsewhere, onto an extrinsic aspect… and whether that extrinsic aspect is a supreme deity, or some fundamental elementary particle, makes no difference in what it accomplishes, in terms of the process of enslaving the mind… and with a god, there’s no need to even question these aspects, as they are conveniently supplied to a subject, with incentives, or threats of punishment, as the case may be, making everything so much more easier to sort out. No bigger ideological bullseye could be contrived then that of religion. It’s moth to a burning flame. No thought is required. It’s literally a no- brainer, and the ignorance is surely pure bliss. That is, until some holy man comes along and sticks a bony finger in your anus, and calls that "God sanctified love"... THEN the wake up call arrives, yes? THEN the thoughts starts racing, no? But by this time, it’s usually too late; as, the mind is completely brainwashed, despite the cognitive dissonance created by the holy man’s finger probing deep in your anus… this situation will hopefully set the stage for the negation of religion. What makes the separation from religion an existential crises is the suffering one will endure overcoming their conditioning. But it’s a rite of passage… and the way out of the crowded lobby. What’s important is that there is a trigger that leads to the rejection of theism.

I hate to disappoint many of you, but it’s not always gonna be a holy man’s finger, sorry to say. Sometimes it’ll be other events, as is the case with our existential explorer in the beginning of the video: a family crises… the breakdown of a personal relationship… becoming a victim of an injustice… the loss of something significant in one’s life… the shattering of one’s stability bubble may play out in a variety of different circumstances… but when the shattering comes, the existential explorer will find himself naked and alone, forsaken by an abstraction of a non-existent god, facing now a vast expanse of a seemingly impersonal objective universe that doesn’t provide a subject with any objective value, meaning, purpose or narrative; a cognitive dissonance unto itself!

Next stop: Absurdism. This is where Nietzsche had the opportunity to recognize the truth of awareness and was tasked to let go of his attachments to concepts about materialism, but instead, failed dismally. For, you see, part of Nietzsche’s problem, despite his survival through the death of god, and his subsequent passage into the fray of absurdism, going on to confront the implications of nihilism, and ultimately reject it’s utility, was that Nietzsche stubbornly clung to abstractions… in this case, abstractions involving materialism; hence, his entire investigative approach, to the whole of philosophy and science, was taken predicated entirely upon an erroneous premise. This is why Nietzsche was unable to succeed on his path, and finally suffered a catastrophic breakdown into mental illness. In hindsight, examining his trajectory, in the light of the truth that Nietzsche himself so thoroughly rejected, we can appreciate how his voyage, while resonant and definitely a necessary stepping stone, was finally in vain; as, Nietzsche didn’t awaken, and refused to move past his own subjectivism… thus, fell into darkness. There’s absolutely no need for an existential plight to become so bleak and despondent, or degenerate into such ruin.

Nietzsche seemed to recognize the mystical phantasm that is the idea of objectivity, yet still, nevertheless, resisted introspective affirmation; choosing instead to criticize the philosophy of Kant, Descartes and Plato, attacking “thing in itself” and “cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”), as unfalsifiable beliefs based on naive acceptance of previous notions and fallacies. And while his criticisms may have had partial validity, I would still rate the findings of said philosophers higher then of Nietzsche’s observations. When a truth is falsifiable it means that it, in fact, it isn’t a fundamental truth, but that it is only a truth relative to the discrimination of a personality, which of course means, instead, it is, in fact, a falsehood, even if conditionally true. So falsifiability is only applicable to illusion, which can’t be said to represent the truth, due it’s illusory nature. To falsify is to point outwards, and just by pointing outwards, the game is already lost. Falsifiability is reserved for contextual bullshit. It doesn’t apply towards anything that could actually be true. The actual truth renders falsification impotent. One cannot falsify that which cannot be denied under any circumstances. And arguments based in abstraction soup are not legitimate as denials of reality.

Then there’s Nietzsche’s 'Perspectivism’, which is basically his own brand of relativism, and is hardly profound; as, this mindset leads one to form identifiers with the persona, instead of that which gives a persona it’s context. And what, may I ask, was Nietzsche’s assertion that: 'what makes a person great is the very act of valuing itself rather then the content of any value’, based on?… other then his own naive acceptance of his own previous notions and fallacies concerning materialism? So, it doesn’t wash...

It can’t be avoided, if lucid awareness is to set the mind free from it’s bondage: Your true nature is empty. Point blank. The essence of what you are is not represented in any manifestation of form. It’s an impact that shatters your delusion… and that may turn your world upside down… but you are expected to get through the existential crisis as a rite of passage. A master does not earn his robes by crying over the loss of his attachments. A master sacrifices his attachments for the sake of the truth… and then takes possession of nothing when the abundance becomes overflowing.

The circumstances of absurdism can be perilous if not navigated with caution. Set the course to the heart of the truth and refuse any distractions. This is where nihilism can be employed for survival. Nihilism isn’t pessimism… nor a detrimental negation of a positive value for the sake of destruction. Nihilism is there to be used as a TOOL by an existential explorer. It is a mighty sword that cuts down lies and falsehoods, liberating the mind by cutting it free from the many ropes that have previously always kept it tied down. By doing this we make room for solipsism, finally creating the space necessary to facilitate intimacy with the truth. The truth of the empty self. If the implications of the empty self are a source of anxiety, it means there is still work to be done in lucidity. Accepting the empty self unconditionally does not mean the end of value, purpose, meaning or narrative. Accepting the empty self unconditionally opens the doorway towards authentic existentialism.

Existentialism is the peace after the existential crises. It’s a newfound liberation after the burden has become lifted. Having survived this battle, you come to eventually see that this wasn’t the end of value, purpose, meaning and narrative, but really only just the beginning! That in fact, value, purpose, meaning and narrative have really only just begun, but are now intrinsic: with a fresh understanding that the author of all these aspects is not objective… and that the source of all these applications is the ultimate emptiness within. So the real question that should be asked at this point is: why is the fact that these aspects are subjective, a source of anxiety? Embrace it, as it is, unconditionally. There’s no shame in the fact that you are making this whole fucking thing up as you go along. Run with it. Let go of the stigma you have associated with the interconnectivity of illusion and the mind.