Magic, Yoga, and the Mystery of Nature

The politics of liberation represent the prayer of the universe, understood through the psychotherapies of the east and west as they respond to the dissolution of the social contract and the rise of inequality, addressed in play-therapy.

Words structure mental concepts so that books monkeywrench oppressive paradigms of imperial ideals that co-opt the american dream. Revolution is a redistribution of primacy for potency in a phenomenal world. Evil/Disconnection/Ignorance is unholy in a phenomenal world.

Symbiosis, partnership, nothing dissolves in an evolving history. We are both part and whole. Through the deconstruction of prejudice, the dependent interelation of life grows. Small--no insignificant--microcosms are self propagating organisms- complex constitutents of specialization. Consciousness reflects evolution. Bacteria are smallest unit of life. Intelligence is a property of microcosms--> what about cosmic intellegence?--> reconsider the cultural narrative and author active folklore. Land reform and the industrial worker networked in a political economy--> terro in an empire, occult science of magic, energy powers systemic change through empatheitic communication.

Effect of massive bodies on human bodies relating/emerging from earth. Conditions for complexity, trelating to surroundings. Ecology = environment. Existence of subjects in relation.

Yoga seeks to arrive at Reality by
undermining the foundations of the ordinary waking consciousness,
so that upon the tranquil sea of mentality which follows upon the
cessation of all thought, the inner eternal Sun of spiritual splendour
could shine to shed an irradiation of light and life and immortality,
to enhance the whole worth of man. All the practices and exercises
in the Yoga systems are so many scientific steps, having as their
one objective the complete abeyance of all thought at will. The
mind must be thoroughly emptied at will of its content. Magic, on
the other hand, is a mnemonic system of psychology in which the
almost interminable ceremonial details, the circumambulations,
conjurations, and suffumigations are deliberately intended for the
exaltation of the imagination and soul, with the utter transcending
of the normal plane of thought. In the one case, the spiritual axe is
laid to the root of the tree, and the effort made consciously to under-
mine the whole structure of consciousness in order to reveal the soul
below. The Magical method, as opposed to this, endeavours to rise
altogether beyond the plane where trees and roots and axes exist.
The result in both cases-ecstasy and a marvellous outpouring of
gladness, wildly rapturous and incomparably holy-is identical...
In any event, Magic proves more efficacious and
puissant when combined with the control of the mind which it is the
object of Yoga to achieve. And likewise the ecstasies of Yoga I
acquire a certain rosy hue of romantiI
when associated with the art of Magic.


Oningness and E.A.A.O.

i don't really believe that what is going on is what really exists. I would like to know what really is going on and maybe even contribute to what goes on. Where is on? What is on? What it what is on on? What if what was going on isn't the only thing on? What else is on? Why is what's on going on? Where is it on? All these questions characterize the innate character on oningness--that is, the state of being on. perhaps the very nature of the state of being on categorically assumes itself to be on, but that seems like it would be inherently ongoing in the first place.

what goes on implies a subject, verb, and preposition, implying a coordinate occupying space for a given period of time, exercising some sort of quality of being on as what is previously occurring from one moment until it stops. time develops, subjects react to environments, environments are affected by reactions.

a symbiotic relationship sustains life, turning its self on. off is never on. on negates off. does off exist if embedded within it is the potential for difference--oningness? Everything All At Once.


#OWS is Anarchy. Deal with it. Love it. Be it.

In response to the response that Occupy Wall Street is NOT anarchistic...

I would like to argue the point that yes, this movement is indeed anarchistic and that no, that shouldn't be problematic at all. Emphasis on DIY and anti-authoritarian culture is common to both anarchism and #OWS, so that the decentralized organizational structure characteristic to both seeks to break with a hierarchic form of government that is declared to be non-viable and non-sustainable.

Further, bringing up MLK Jr. and Gandhi, while both may not have declared themselves outright anarchists, both were seeking to subvert the power institutions that oppressed them, and did so through non-violent direct action--a tenet fundamental to the "Christian Anarchy" movement, which is focused on Love as the ordering principle structuring society. (see Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You, which actually influenced Gandhi)

As in the Seattle Protests, Occupy Wall Street may not have explicitly declare themselves to be Anarchists--even while "soft-anarchists" had a huge role in actually organizing the events--but rather a movement of "Global Justice." However, the message seems to be that Global Justice is simply incompatible with a system based on coercion, force, manipulation, and authority. Anarchy, on the other hand, is a (non)government based on the common good for ALL (not a majority, minority, or the 1%) which seeks a perpetual open exchange. Of course, people will naturally flock to groups they see as representing the vehicle by which they can achieve their own interests, which has a diluting effect, but it doesn't mean that #OWS is not anarchistic by nature.

Finally, I would like to point out 2 specific points that I think should establish the fact that at its core, #OWS is in fact anarchistic--the general assembly, i.e. building consensus, with the Oakland (and others) Commune as distinct example on the one hand, and the use of the General Strike on the other. Whereas the sense of Mutual Aid (Kropotkin) is very much prevalent in the former, the revolutionary tactic of halting the flow of capital MUST be seen as an attack on the 1% and the system that facilitates their incessant accumulation of wealth. The IWW saw the General Strike as a strategy with which to ultimately abolish the wage-system itself, so that workers could appropriate the means of production for themselves so as to create their own wealth, not have it sold for profits by capitalists who would keep the majority and give back decreasing wages to them in the name of "competitive markets".

It may be frightening to embrace anarchy (with all its "negative connotations") as a legitimate political alternative, but unless something radical--striking the ROOT of the problem--comes into existence we're screwed. As it is, capitalism is by definition incompatible with ecology, so that the planet is being converted into commodities and sold off, destroying the life-systems we depend on. The OWS protesters may not in fact be anarchists themselves, but they are certainly engaging in anarchism, eroding the power institutions that oppress them and doing it through the methods that have been expanded on by decades of Anarchist (and others) Theory. And god bless them--it may be the only slight glimmer of hope we have left.

On what Anarchy may REALLY be: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW7nnLNANtQ


On 2012 politics

One month from tomorrow, it will be exactly one year before the 2012 elections, and it's already a shit-show. Everyone is selling their opinion on what should be done, and yes--it's what makes the economy. And law becomes order and projects are planned out. Everything is important and something needs to be done.

Is the word "niggerhead" really that offensive? Is the system that exploits us really that bad? Yes? What does it feel like? What does it look like and smell like. How does it make itself known to you, that it's even happening...?



such, such are the days
limitations of abstractions,
life is more complicated than ideas.
change your behavior and it will change your mind,
the mental ABC's of pitching,
honing your unconscious process.


Leadership, Communication, and Magic

For magicians, vision is a powerful weapon that lets individuals manifest potentialities through direct action. Once resources are mobilized for leaders to develop communities of high impact, difference can be communicated through technology and media to reorient perceptions and process new worldviews. This facilitates a reconsideration of self-conception, attitudes, beliefs and values to be expressed--the individual disclosing their self by manifesting cognitive dissonance while translating that perception through language and symbols to classify abstract maps of behavior.

Since intended meaning is often polluted through the medium of language, with semantic traps like stereotyping, labeling, superficial evaluations and criticism, or incorrect inferences and assumptions hindering effective communication, the perversion of real content can be avoided through scientific testing, active listening, and effective feedback that gives attention to identified problems. In this way, interpersonal conflict can be overcome through interpersonal transaction and skill. Societies will have more agency in their decisions to collapse or flourish, while individuals can develop more realistic understandings regarding the nature of their relationships within and towards shared ecosystems.

David Abram tells us, "the magician--whether an indigenous sorcerer or a modern sleight-of-hand conjuror--is someone who is adept at altering the perceptual field, adept at shifting others' senses, or at altering his or her own senses in order to make contact with another shape of awareness, another entity that perceives the world very differently than we do--with a coyote, perhaps, or a frog. Or a whole forest, for that matter." Jensen, pg. 214, How Shall I Live My Life?

Whereas our alienation from ecology and the natural world destroys a fundamental understanding of ourselves, which likewise contributes to the foundational contradiction in how society emerges to destroy the world it depends on, structures of connection necessarily build new awareness, new experience, new reciprocity, new relations, new truths, and new social content. As consciousness is restructured accordingly, developing more mature ethics to motivate action, the illusions we have all but solidified for ourselves can be dissolved accordingly, so that magicians reconceptualize their roles in participating, influencing, and changing the world around them via mastery of magical techniques:

"If we analyze the principles of thought on which magic is based, they will probably be found to resolve themselves into two: first, that like produces like, or that an effect resembles its cause; and, second, that things which have once been in contact with each other continue to act on each other at a distance after the physical contact has been severed. The former principle may be called the Law of Similarity, the latter the Law of Contact or Contagion. From the first of these principles, namely the Law of Similarity, the magician infers that he can produce any effect he desires merely by imitating it: from the second he infers that whatever he does to a material object will affect equally the person with whom the object was once in contact, whether it formed part of his body or not." Frazer


Absorbing Intent

Communicating the Structure of Desire

One of the basic truths of life seems to be that individuals organize in larger and larger social groups and networks, i.e. families, neighborhoods and friends, cities, states, nations, international organizations, trade alliances, etc, with the future of these social units driving the focus of their members’ intent. So, when Islamic extremists attacked several buildings, the entire country went through the proper channels needed to declare war on a defined enemy, namely “terrorism.” Similarly, when radical environmentalists perpetrated illegal actions against corporate enterprises, hindering profits and damaging property, business interests lobbied lawmakers to prosecute these individuals under “Ecoterrorism” charges, placing militant environmentalists alongside religious fundamentalism in their invocation of ideologically motivated violence.

What is important to note is that while these “radical terrorists” may differ in perceived motivation or endgames, both chose to attack what are perhaps considered the most blatant institutions of the capitalist paradigm—shutting down Seattle in 1999 in protest of the WTO meetings and driving planes into the World Trade Center two years later in protest of international government and economic policies negatively affecting indigenous peoples in a globalized world. In either case, the response taken by the police and military was to simply “put down” the uprisings so authorities could, aided by a non-critical media that failed to connect the illegal actions taken by radicals to a historical basis, eliminate an outside threat to the marketplace’s “business as usual.”

Disregarding any justification for militant opposition, one can clearly see the divisions between in-groups and out-groups that fuel the basis for active dissidence, leading these actors to consider their place in a global uprising against corrupt institutions of control. Yet each individual is assuredly unique, conditioned to understand reality as constructed by specific forces. In this way, subjective interpretations of one’s respective environment is constantly defined and redefined by common symbols and represented archetypes, e.g. freedom, liberty, oppression, and truth. Due to the division between separate communities inherent in competing localities, clear articulations of personal intent are therefore needed to align specific motivations with the external demands of “other” social and environmental relationships. This essentially mandates a perpetual attempt to rectify discrepancies between definitions and terminologies if communities are to know and understand one another in full.

The problem arises however, when one in-group is simply unable to coexist with another. When (subjective) ideology wholly disallows (objective) scientific revelation from factoring into the decision making process, how can other communities find any space left that is undefined by a coercive influence? Unless groups collaborate to encompass and incorporate the maximum available capital, binding themselves together by common cause, those oppressed by intolerant power structures will remain in bondage to a non-representative entity governing their life course. Here, they must visibly separate and contribute nothing to the social hierarchies they are assumed to make up, dismantling external power as thoroughly as possible to defuse its effect through conceived oppositional apparatuses.