Filosofia & Wiccecræft

real 3

“Our human truth is, it seems to me, that it is not right to give names to some things or some deeds or some thoughts; it is un-numinous to try and describe or categorize some experience by some term or some abstraction; it is incorrect to manufacture some theory, in some poor attempt to place such terms in some alleged causal context. In my admittedly fallible view, one of our many human problems – one of the great problems of our modern ways of life – is that there is too much noise, especially the noise of and from words, spoken, read and thought. Far far too many words spoken; far too much speaking, too little silent, interior, reflexion, especially among the natural peace of Nature where we can sense and know again in our stillness the acausal Time of the Cosmos. For wisdom is not to be found in speeches, in political or social manifestos, tracts or books; nor in some political, religious, or social, theory or dogma. And especially not in some abstraction, some ideal. Rather, wisdom is there to be discovered, within ourselves; others can only gently point or guide us toward this self-discovery, toward the necessary interior, quiet, reflexion – perhaps through some work of Art, or some sublime piece of music, some poignant literature; perhaps some poem; or perhaps by some noble deed done or some selfless personal love that needs no words to speak or advertise its wordless name.” -David Myatt (The Love That Needs No Words, April 2010)

As a practitioner and follower of the Seven Fold Way, a years long Occultist and fervent National Socialist, I admit to have comprehended this state of “philosophical serenity” too late perhaps. Indeed, through philosophy I longed to discover a principle that would apply itself to all the spheres of existence, that could explain all things so my sinister journey would have been more productive. Such was never the case and in one way or the other, I was forced to alter my stance with a great deal of anxiety, incapable of admitting certain concepts over the ones I held dear which led to dead end dilemmas. Of course, all of this seems to depict me as a rather frail and naive individual but in reality, these changes were inward, alchemical in nature and took place slowly, comparable to needles that gently pierce the skin until it reaches bones. Of course, these changes will keep occurring and my philosophical stance will alter itself through ordeals and the ever present, quest of knowledge but I finally feel at peace. Not because I discovered the ultimate pinnacle of truth but rather because I understood the limits of those same principles I tried to push further then they could go, so I could try to attain a comfortable piece(s) of absolute(s) to sit on. This, unsurprisingly, happened mostly the same way that it initially condemned me; through further readings and explorations and yet, I feel that my journey only begins. I also feel that this is one of the many natural instincts of man in general, to willingly or unwillingly omit the movement that animates all things. In most of our observations, we seek to discover immobility so we could through a single variable, explain the immensity of the cosmos and have a safe zone to go back to. In all honesty, wherever I look, I see otherwise and I doubt there is even such a thing as immobility. Everything is in constant interactions. Some might be terrified at this relentless movement but it actually is, in this very concept that I was surprised to find peace.

Heraclitus of Ephesus understood this, again, very early.

“Even a soul submerged in sleep is hard at work and helps make something of the world” (Ακόμη και μια ψυχή βυθιστεί στον ύπνο είναι σκληρή στην εργασία και συμβάλλει κάνουν κάτι από τον κόσμο) -Fragments

If we take a logical standpoint, this leads us to a few interesting and metaphysical questions;

  • If we can observe movement everywhere in φύσις (Physis) but also in the processes of the πνεύμα (Spirit), would then, death be just another movement?
  • And if the πνεύμα is similar to an organism, would it means that concepts are also forced to move by the weight of our reason?

These two questions, as fascinating as they are, come with a fair-share of issues. To delve a bit deeper, I will heavily rely on Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) & Nelson Goodman (1906-1998). Of course, my aim is not to answer the questions, since I obviously cannot but rather, to express the importance of σχετικισμός (Relativism) which in turn, will imbue the practice of witchcraft itself for various reasons I will examine soon.

According to Goodman, we tend to select one or a few categories we will settle in (Pluralism). These categories are our pair of glasses that, when put on, allow us to see the world differently. For example, the scientist will try to explain the creation of the universe from a scientifical approach, the christian, through the intervention of the Divine and so on. Of course, there might be various glasses but we all have a favorite pair (a category or ensemble of categories) that we will go back to most of the time.

Problem is as following;

Personal experiences + chosen categorie(s) + Constant movement/changes + External influences = A Proliferation of Worlds within a world. The result of this is, in someway, an inability to truly express to others, the more subjective experiences we are so frequently in relation with; Art, Spiritual experiences, Strong emotions (…) As a side note, it is important to remember that Art has no existence in itself for Goodman but we will touch this point in the future.

“Truth cannot be defined or tested by agreement with ‘the world’, for not only do truths differ for different worlds but the nature of agreement between a world apart from it is notoriously nebulous.” -Nelson Goodman

How do ‘truths’ differ for different worlds? Well simply because our language(s), apart from setting certain criterias for a world, is so imperfect that most of the time, we can bend it to drive a point through and make it look or sound as we please. It is for this very reason that most Sophists considered the art of rhetoric to be beyond all other arts. For them, it meant to be able to convince or deceive. We can also understand why Wittgenstein was so harsh when it came to using proper words to express a certain idea. He knew that even between ourselves, we were hardly clear at all most of the time.

So, if language is limited, it means our understanding of concepts is also limited and this is where I see a perpetual and inspirational movement. Language(s) and concept(s) along with the broadness of our perception are all entwined together, traveling side to side. This is not a linear process but rather, a cyclical one. We keep going back to concepts we already explored to delve deeper and dig a new understanding out of them. A more mature one if you will.

“The meaning of a word is its use in language.  If I say “pick up the red apple,” you know what I mean because the language is functional.  If I say “what is the soul?” then we have philosophical problem on our hands.  Wittgenstein believed that such questions were nonsense. Our approach to understanding the physical world consists in asking questions about the nature of phenomenon that we encounter.  A questions like, what is red?, can be answered somewhat satisfactorily by giving an account of radiation, wavelengths, the way our eyes function and so forth.  We seem to be able to give an explanation.  When we apply similar questions to more abstract objects or concepts or to more fundamental phenomenon we find that no good explanation can be given.  We have reached the limits of language.  Yet philosophers try to reach further by creating grand theoretical frameworks aimed at somehow accessing reality as it really is. The misapplication of questions was something Wittgenstein called the theoretical attitude.  When asking such a question we want the answer to give some new insight into the object.  The best we can do is to give an account of how the word is used in the language, an ostensive definition.  We want something deeper but you simply cannot go beneath language. This view either does away with Platonism (the assertion that abstract objects and concepts like numbers and goodness exist independently of the human mind) or shows that language is limited in its ability to describe the platonic realm. Therefore Wittgenstein’s philosophy dissolves much of philosophy by declaring the questions nonsense.” -(Unknown commentator)

Upon this realization, there is indeed a necessary “comeback” to what Spinoza in his ethic called the “Intuitive knowledge” where reason and imagination are put aside. The same kind of personal knowledge that we cannot fully express since they are too subjective but are part of every rituals, meditations, deep empathic connections or artful creations. After all, it is the job of the philosopher to try and make sens of as much as possible but this ongoing effort, if persued fanatically, will at some point kill the spiritual aspect in your life. Even more so in my situation since I was observing the world from a Nietzschean & Spinozist perspective which make for a very logical and cold plate indeed.

In conclusion;

  • Movement is everywhere. Our opinions and thoughts concerning concepts are also shapeshifting constantly and for numerous reasons.
  • Language is the tool we use to practice philosophy but language is limited and still evolving side by side with our perspective in a cyclic way.
  • This leveled relativism (Not all opinions are viable, some of them are more tangible than others) is actually an occasion to rejoice. It shows how much we are used to define 1 & 2 but not the immensity that lies between 1 & 2, thus some common dilemma are cancelled because our language and perception are too limited to provide an answer. Think about the debate on Altruism & Egoism where most would argue that, logically, everything is done out of egoism. They fail to understand the abyss of interactions that exist between altruism (1) and egoism (2).
  • Which leads us to the assumption that; Empathy, compassion, creative impulses, love and honor (…) are the most important values, like Myatt stated, not because they are objective in nature but because they allow us to express something that is way beyond the limits of language. It is often so powerful it cannot be explained.
  • Thus, the importance to put yourself in situations where these values will come in play which could be perfectly represented by a sentence Nietzsche wrote; “leben gefährlich” or “live dangerously!” These situations are far away from logic and reason. In other words, it is perfect for the practice of witchcraft, the seven Fold Way and the concept of  “Der Übermensch” which I shall write further about in another article.
  • It shall also be noted how important this statement is: οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ἐφ᾽ οἷς γὰρ μὴ φρονῶ σιγᾶν φιλῶ  and to remember that all what is written on this wordpress, all my hypothesis are nothing short of infantile convulsions. Honest research, as scholar as possible on the O9A and also, honest sharings of my practical experiences/interpretations during my quest through the Seven Fold Way (7FW).

Of course, all of this is personal and theoretical. It is now clear that no matter how many pages I could write, it would be impossible for me to truly express the magnitude of the experiences I lived throughout witchcraft and the Order of nine angles. It would also be impossible for me to write a ‘good’ account of what I learned so far through Pathei Mathos (πάθει μάθος) and what it brought me. Still, it is not a waste to try, so maybe others through my fallible perception and interpretation of things, can also find peace on their philosophical journey, passion in their practice of witchcraft and thus, live a wyrdful and daring life.

To conclude, this quote from R Parker, explains perfectly what I tried to theorise here;

“For the truths, the perception and the understanding, which initiates of the O9A mystic (or the ‘sinisterly-numinous’) tradition personally discover are (i) the unity – the mundus, the Being – beyond the apparent opposites of ‘sinister’ and ‘numinous’, of causal/acausal, of masculous/muliebral, a unity indescribable by ordinary language but apprehensible by esoteric languages and a particular manner of living, and (ii) the transient, temporal, nature of human manufactured causal abstractions and ideations, and (iii) of an attainable acausal existence beyond our mortal death.” -R Parker

-Beldam 128 yf


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s