Oeaohoo

Yes I agree. Just look at how willingly people follow whatever the latest political trend is: “I support the current thing“! This raises another question though: people are already being led. How do you (or any leader) make them want to follow you? I think that non-duality is often mis- and over-applied. Of course you are right that internal conflicts can manifest themselves externally, but my experience is that there is a relative duality between the body and the soul, material and spiritual, physical and metaphysical. I am aware that all distinctions vanish in God, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t distinctions from our current human perspective. I’m not sure where this came from. I never said anything about ability or awareness. The people who rule aren’t necessarily those with either of those qualities, it will depend on the regime. Yes, the village elders or the council were at the top of the pyramid! You would struggle to find a civilisation in history that has not had a hierarchical structure with few (nobility) at the top and many at the bottom. Of course, since the Renaissance and the collapse of the feudal world into mercantilism, this hierarchy is today largely determined by money. In the medieval world it was determined by heroism, courage and valour on the one hand (feudalism), and faithfulness, devotion and holiness on the other. Yes, I accept there doesn’t always have to be a leader! I agree with all of this except that I don’t think the people often initiate change all by themselves, particularly as you approach the modern day. Almost all of the successful revolutions of recent times have had top-down backing, whether internal or external. Your last point is very true: do you think there’s anything that can be done about this? Sorry, I only care about the big picture. Maybe that’s why I see everything as top-down! Yes, nowadays this is probably the best we can manage. Even in Aristotle’s day the age of great monarchs was over. It certainly is today!

@BlueOak If you’re interested, here is an extremely illuminating passage in which Aristotle describes how a tyrannical regime can survive without popular support: Written two-and-a-half thousand years ago, but there are many striking resemblances to our own time!

I was talking about the ones that were or will be successful. I know you didn’t, that’s the point! I didn’t say every revolution had a leader, but for a revolution to be successful it must almost always have organised support from above. Like I said, in very rare cases the mass can organise itself (though it is more likely to be an “organised disorder” which is in itself only destructive), but for this to have any lasting effect a new elite will then have to be established. Yes, and you are doing that work with your soul and your spirit! The body is just a vehicle. I like the word for the body in the phrase “chit-jada-granthi” (the knot between consciousness and the body): jada, it means “one who is dull, inert”. In this analogy, the rulers are the consciousness and the people are the inert and inanimate mass who need to be given direction. They will generally only kick up a fuss for banal material reasons. This is generally true, though some regimes can survive for a time without popular support. It is besides the point though: it is difficult for the soul to violate the needs and wants of the body but the soul still commands it. “This just in”! I agree with you here and I have already said this. You cannot just rouse the rabble today to overturn the global world order. Like you have pointed out, feudal lords and barons had to keep on relatively good terms with their serfs because they could prove a real threat. But! What will happen if they manage to overthrow the old baron? A new baron will be nominated who will hopefully treat them better! The people are only useful for the destructive part of change; the constructive part is always top-down. However, even revolutions like the French Revolution had support from elite groups like the Philosophes. They were not just “grass-roots revolutions”. Yes, absolutely. The worst tyrants of ancient times couldn’t have dreamed of such manipulative power as is readily available today.

Absolutely. This is only half of the problem though: what if the majority of people don’t want to be lead, but would rather serve themselves? Maybe history is just a cherry blossom! This is not exactly the point. Let me be clearer: Of course there have been revolutions but the idea that they are just mass movements is absurd. There is almost always guidance from a rival set of elites or a leader of some sort. In the extreme case in which there isn’t (like the Revolution in Haiti), a new elite will immediately be created to establish the order of the new regime. The “common people” are able to change the trajectory of the regime but only because their demonstrations can influence the motives and actions of the powerful. In certain extreme cases, a leader (generally a corrupt and exploitative demagogue playing them for his own ends) will use the people to clear out the old regime so that they can take all the power for themselves. Effective change is always top-down. To think otherwise is like thinking that the body could effectively change the soul or even the spirit.

Since no one picked up on this I’ll share my thoughts. In context, earlier in this book Nietzsche has called into question the very possibility of simply caring about the truth for the truth’s sake. Nietzsche is thus forced to consider the “objective man” because he could be used as an example of this pure pursuit of truth (when in fact he is exactly the opposite). There is a funny way in which modern science represents a sort of inverted ascesis. Plato and Pythagoras, for example, showed how mathematics could be used as a discipline to overcome attachment to the animal body and the ego. Today, however, it is not an ascesis towards transcendence but towards nothingness, mere abstraction and “depersonalisation”. You do also notice how often miserable people say they are just “facing the cold hard facts” of reality. Yes, he is a passive creature fit only to serve those with real vision. Of course, society needs such people, but today we have a mass infestation of them (and they have eaten their way up the walls!) Here and for most of the rest of the passage you have quoted, Nietzsche just seems to be poking fun at the aridity and mediocrity of modern academic types. I agree with him but so what? They are just doing what they can. I doubt Leo would want to waste his time wading through this rather contrived and occasionally petty passage. I’m not sure what this has to do with the conflict between awakening and being a philosopher. After all, philosophy is the “love of wisdom” and God is ultimate wisdom. There is only a conflict because modern philosophy is rootless and profane. The duality that has been set up today between the “objectivity” fit for cosmopolitan insects that Nietzsche describes above and the new cult of subjective identity (and individual self-expression) is a completely false one which you will of course have to transcend if you want to awaken.

I don’t believe in progress. America is the Frankenstein’s monster (and a true “modern Prometheus” at that!) of decadent Europe. It will die and so will Europe - my crystal ball says so! But yes, if there was any hope it would be something like this, without the emphasis on the common folk. This whole myth of the common people rising up and sticking truth to power is just romantic make-believe. Serious organised action by serious people with a vision and a plan of action is the only thing that can have any lasting effect. Anything less is just chimps flinging shit at the wall. Naturally, I’m not talking about anything like a Trump-style insurrection: that is just replacing one form of corruption with an even worse one. When I spoke of the regime being rotten I was talking about the French ancien regime. Like I said, the present situation is different, society was much smaller then. I was just pointing out that protests haven’t always been effective.

Society has always been a pyramid. The present system is a globalised pyramid with largely unaccountable multi-national corporations at the top of it. You can’t exactly rouse all the peasants to charge at that with pitchforks, can you? Even if you could, what would be the point? They don’t have to give up but like you said yourself their protests will have little to no effect. They might even have a negative one. Like Aristotle showed above, the only way to preserve the present kind of situation is by dividing the population among themselves, and protest movements are actually very useful for this purpose. Besides, most protests today lack any higher animating principle. It is pointless to fight hyperreality with more hyperreality: you have to fight it with reality. If you want to fight it at all, that is.

I don’t have a crystal ball I’m afraid. I must confess that to me the US (along with my country, the UK) seem irremediably doomed. The last American election was between the multi-year candidate for stupidest man on Earth and a senile old fart with signs of early-stage Alzheimer’s… Not that our country is any better. If it will be ready for change it will be when the people who control it decide that it is, or when a new group of people take control, or when something external forces them to change their trajectory. You can protest all you like but if you don’t have top-down backing it is all just a lot of hot air, particularly nowadays. The current ruling class seem more or less happy to continue along the current trajectory whilst doing everything they can to prevent the onslaught of a populist uprising. After all, Aristotle saw very clearly that democracy is basically just a slow path to the establishment of a demagogic tyranny, which is essentially what such a populist uprising will produce. Here is a relevant passage: Isn’t that more or less the present predicament? The “last and worst form of democracy” desperately hanging on to control? Not that I think the alternative is any better. Like I said, it is doomed.

You have completely missed the point of Pythagoras’ teaching. When he says that God is a number he does not mean a number in the same sense that we moderns do. Mathematics itself has changed over the centuries. The ancient Greeks didn’t even have a zero! Pythagoras teaches that there is an original Monad which contains All. It is the One and it is also God. This Monad then splits into a Dyad. This is Two or duality. This then splits further and so is God made manifest. The Tetractys was used as a symbol by the Pythagoreans for the full manifestation of God as the world. It has Ten numbers like the Tree of Life of the Kabbalah has ten Sephiroth. Mathematics in those days was not just a profane science. It was a path back to the One, God. Hahaha. A lot of philosophers tend to be completely out of whack, except the ones who deny that there is even any “wisdom” to “love”! Postmodernism is just nihilism. It looks like the Truth but that is only because it is a total inversion of it.

That’s all I really meant by transcribe. Whatever works for you. Haha, 0:48 of the the song you sent is very over the top. It reminds me of the other option, which would be to record something slowly and then speed it up. I used to do this sometimes with guitar things, it can sound quite interesting!

I don’t see why you would have to go through infinite hell but you will have to go through the hell of self-annihilation and of burning up your remaining karma. You can console yourself that you are in good company, as the journey into hell is a common theme in many initiatory texts and rites: Dante’s descent into Inferno followed by the ascension through purgatory to Paradise, Christ’s descent into hell followed by his resurrection, Muhammad’s nocturnal journey to the infernal regions (isrâ) followed by the ascension to the paradises or celestial spheres (mirâj), Ulysses’ journey to the Cimmerians, Orpheus’ descent into the underworld, and so on. Infinite madness (in the sense of chaos and formlessness, and thus infinite potential to be formed) is just the feminine, passive and substantial aspect of the fundamental polarity of existence. It only seems like madness from our limited frame of reference. You will have to go through it but of course there is also infinite sanity and order. Like Zarathustra said: “Where then is the lightning to like you with its tongue? Where then is the madness with which you must be cleansed? Behold, I teach to you the Overman: it is this lightning, it is this madness!”

Of course but you have to start somewhere. Once you have the increased virtuosity, you should be able to apply it to new patterns. Both of those ways out sound like they would be effective. Maybe you should transcribe a little segment of the inhuman stuff you imagine and try your best to play it. Repeat that enough times and maybe you would learn to improvise it? Also, your post reminded me to listen to this again: Great fun!

The more you improvise the more you should be able to immediately identify the notes you want to play. I mostly play piano so this is a little bit easier (as it is easier to visualise and conceptualise intervals and scales) but it should be true for guitar too. Obviously improvisation will always be limited by the degree of technical virtuosity that you currently have. I don’t think there’s anything that can be done for that except unfortunately mechanical practice routines. Time to dust off the inner robot! I don’t quite agree with you about the boredom and impenetrability thing. I can see why you would feel those things listening to someone like Holdsworth but only during his weaker performances. Like you said, good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise, and Holdsworth made some great music. I never really liked Guthrie Govan, but Holdsworth has an excellent album called I.O.U. I also like his songs “Funnels”, and the improvisation on “Non-Brewed Condiment” is phenomenal. Now I understand your description: “To balance beauty and complexity so perfectly is a divine mystery”!

‘Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.’ - Opening stanza of The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats. With these evocative lines, Yeats describes the progress of time as a centrifugal spiralling outwards from an original source or principle. Once this process of manifestation has reached the point at which the original principle can no longer sustain it, the centre cannot hold and everything collapses back into its source. This is more or less exactly the testimony that all of the world’s traditions laid down regarding the anatomy of time, history and becoming. These testimonies were described not by crusty dogmatic theologians clinging to a distant and unretrievable past but by those who were known as: rishi (“seer”), druid (dru-wid- "strong seer”), völva (“seeress”), to name but a few. They were not expressions of stale conformity and banality but were essentially visions: the vision may be described in terms that are more or less vague or precise, poetical or analytical, but the story is always the same. A myth common to Greco-Roman antiquity, Vedic India and many other ancient civilisations describes history in terms of cycles of Four Ages: Golden Age (Satya Yuga), Silver Age (Treta Yuga), Bronze Age (Dvapara Yuga) , Iron Age (Kali Yuga). Here are some descriptions of the Kali Yuga from the Vishnu Purāna: You can decide whether any of this is recognisable today. Of course, it is also noted that the Dark Age may provide unique opportunities for liberation from all conditioned existence, which is after all the ultimate goal of all life down here. One might even grow a little too comfortable in the “Golden Age”! Some other traditions do not describe the process in such detail, but the trajectory remains the same. They speak of an original purity, nobility and divinity which is gradually corrupted by covetous identification and material attachment. I will assume that one or another of the Abrahamic expressions of this truth are known to anybody reading this - Original Sin, the Fall, the Messiah, Revelations - and so offer an example from a lesser-known civilisation. In the Nordic Voluspa we find the following descriptions from a female priestess of Ragnarök (Twilight of the Gods): This post could be indefinitely multiplied with further examples, but there is no need to belabour the point. Original sin; the fall of man into duality; the primordial sacrifice of Being for the sake of becoming; the cycles of time and the four ages of man; the ubiquitous motif of the messiah and the eschaton. Everywhere we find the same theme and the same pattern, to such an extent that most definitions of religion require that an eschatology (literally “last-ology”, an account of the end of the present cycle of time) be present. How is it then, that a theory which claims to “integrate” all of these traditions and religions, denies a fundamental aspect of all of them?

@AtheisticNonduality It is only unhealthy to the body that exists in this fallen world. That doesn’t bother me. Ascetic practices have generally been unhealthy. Like I said, “life is a journey in the nighttime hours”. Regarding Nietzsche, I know this but the point stands. His life was an ascetic one, and I agree with you that he overcompensated with his exaltation of “life” and “the instincts”. There is a good book on this called Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle by an early postmodern author if you are interested. Yes, I was just showing how the idea of holons could be used as a proof of the cyclical view of time I have described. I know you will just keep saying that things are getting more complex so we had best leave it at that. I find your conception of God a little peculiar but we have already discussed it quite a lot. It seems to be rather limited, for example: Can God see it? What do you mean by this?

Yes you are right. At least, I despise the present world because I view it as corrupted and fallen. I have reached a point in life where more or less everything I do is simply to remind me of this fact, an asceticism of sorts. Naturally, this despising must not be allowed to contaminate the tranquility and blissfulness of Being, for this would be to buy into the illusion. In another time, I might agree with you that there is no reason to be detached from it. Given the present world situation, however, I believe that love and happiness can in almost all cases only be a delusion based on comfort and inertia or false promises of the future, like the happiness that Nietzsche ascribed to the “last man”: A prophecy which could happily be appended to the others that I have mentioned. Nietzsche was a despiser of life at heart too. His life was clearly an ascetic one. I mean, come on, a 40-year old virgin! He could have found himself a nice Victorian lady if he had wanted to, but he was more occupied with the (anti-)metaphysical. Yes, that is a good argument. A projection of the destruction of their own civilisation onto the world itself. Then again, you have spoken a lot about holons, and as I have pointed out this idea was known to the ancient world as “man as a microcosm” and “as above, so below”. Therefore, if you concede that every civilisation, as a holon, has an ascending and descending phase and therefore a cyclical pattern, doesn’t it logically proceed that this world, as a greater holon, has the same cyclic pattern? I didn’t mean to imply this. Of course there is no going backwards. When I say that the past was better and when I use the word “involution”, I am only talking about within this cycle of time. There is also the matter of initiation and inwardly following the thread of the process that has lead to your manifestation (like the Buddhist “Twelve Links of Interdependent Origination”), but this is not about going back into the past as such. It is more about retrieving what has been lost. Don’t you believe that God must have lost something to become a puny little human? Maybe even, lost everything? We have already stated our positions on this. “Everything is perishing except His Face”, so to me there can be no defying of entropy. As a question, what do you believe will happen at the “ascension” or omega point that is depicted in the picture you sent? Is it unknowable to us present humans? Is it knowable to God? Wow, “fucking disgusting”! Of course all of those things have their place, but the point is that Lucifer celebrates them over all else. Just like people do today. The whole should be greater than its parts. It seems to me that the purpose of religions like Christianity was as a last opportunity for men to attain liberation before the end of this cycle of time. That is why they can seem very one-sidedly stuffy and puritanical, and why everything that has emerged out of them is so one-sidedly Luciferian. I know you will disagree with this.

If you think it is absurd to mention Lucifer, here is a description of Lucifer’s vainglory from the Danish composer Rued Langgaard’s opera Antikrist: Sound familiar? This opera has a beautiful finale when God finally banishes Lucifer: https://youtu.be/gLWa7DSEYZE

@AtheisticNonduality I am only returning dismissal with dismissal. What else can you do? Even “Stage Red” is necessary sometimes, but Lucifer is “Stage Blue”! After all, how can you be free if you don’t have access to every “stage”? Maybe you are just being smug because you don’t want to address my arguments which threaten your worldview.

What a smug and self-satisfied answer. “Men of all degrees will conceit themselves to be equal with Brahmans.” Then again, what could I except from a forum run by a guy who thinks he’s the most awakened man on the planet whilst spending most of his time chasing “pussy”! Go to hell. After all, Lucifer didn’t need tradition. Lucifer didn’t need order or truth. “Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven!” Lucifer was a progressive just like you.

A lot of what I have said above is largely irrelevant so let me distill it down to a few essential points. Like I originally said, it was not just eastern seers: Hinduism testifies to it; Zoroastrianism testifies to it; the Chaldean oracles testify to it; Egyptian mythology testifies to it; Greco-Roman antiquity testifies to it; Nordic and Germanic paganism testifies to it; even Judaism, Christianity and Islam testify to it. It is not just that I view these civilisations as having been in every truly important way more significant (I know this will annoy you but: if less fundamental!) than our own, and if you don’t agree we can even forget about that altogether. The important point is that I see this mass convergence of vision across time and space as evidence, or at least as something which has to be explained in a sophisticated way. “That was just primitive superstition” is a very weak response for such a universal phenomenon, and sticking a colour-coded spiral badge on it like a good five-year-old is surely no better, for reasons I have described in my second comment in this thread. But, in terms of empirical evidence, I would ask you this: when has there ever been a civilisation that is so one-sidedly materialistic as the post-renaissance European one? Every time I mention this you just say “matter is for the lower holons” and so on but let us look at the evidence: St. Augustine wrote that everything natural contained an “admixtio diaboli fraudis”, an “admixture of devilish fraud” (Note: I am NOT using St. Augustine as an authority here. He might have been a total moron. I am simply using him and others below as examples of attitudes towards matter in the major civilisations of the past); of course the older Vedic texts are absolutely steeped in anti-materialism (a further refutation of your claims), for example: “That which transcends hunger and thirst, grief, delusion, decay and death is your innermost Self. Knowing this very Self the Brahmans renounce the desire for sons, for wealth and for the worlds, and lead a mendicant life”; Buddha said to his disciples, “Look at your body. A painted puppet, a poor toy of jointed parts ready to collapse, a diseased and suffering thing with a head full of false imaginings”; and so on. Now, let us turn to the typical confessions of a modern “thinker”: “Body I am and body entirely”, “Do not believe those who talk to you of over-earthly hopes”, “We know better, we have put man back among the animals” (Nietzsche). If I had the time to wade through the trash-heap that is modern “philosophy” I could likely produce many more examples (the absolute amateurishness of the “new atheists” and the postmodern anti-Platonic war against transcendence in the name of “pure immanence” being notable ones), but I don’t. Anyway, Nietzsche was one of the less materialistic of the modern “thinkers”! I will repeat again, I am not appealing to any authority here. I am just providing evidence for a change in worldview. Of course I am not denying that anyone in the past was materialistic. Materialism in the past, however, was an aberrant oddity. Today it is the norm. It could be said that so-called paganism was somewhat naturalistic, along with certain cults of Hinduism, but the “pagan” conception of nature was heavily suffused with spirit. Yggdrasil was not just a tree! Given the spiritual dearth of western modernity new “spiritual” movements have emerged - Theosophy, Spiritualism, Cat-lady astrology right up to Teal Swan, Law of Attraction and mindfulness - but even these are generally heavily influenced by the materialism of the present degenerate (in the literal sense of having lost connection to the original animating principle) age. I think the best proof I have given of the absurdity of the spiral progressivism view is this: How do you explain this? I see this is as evidence that the progress you speak of must terminate. Do you imagine a future in which every day is a new spiral stage? Every minute? Every second? That is the only other alternative because each stage is clearly - empirically, no superstition required, as you demand! - getting shorter. I think the basic disagreement here is that I see the world as the unfoldment of God whereas you see it as the evolution of God. To me the idea that God itself could evolve is a metaphysical absurdity. What evidence is there that “the purer forms of God require evolution”? You have made many assertions for which there is no evidence whatsoever yet accuse me of empty appeals to authority. For example, you say that the pattern you describe is one “that is physically, vitally, mentally, supra-mentally, and spiritually unfolding as a knowable process”. This is only true because you are relying on modern thinkers and theories. If it is a knowable process, why did practically nobody know of it it until the modern progressivised world emerged? You say that this is because we have access to “more advanced systems” but this is just an appeal to the same authorities.

Hyperreality. The progressive disconnection between the signifier and the signified, the cause and the effect. Real protest: to call for change. Hyperreal protest: to protest for media coverage, corporate sponsorship, virtue signalling, social media, just because everyone else is, and so on. Even when the motivations are sincere, most protests today are hyperreal so they have no impact on reality. This is exacerbated by the hyperreality of postmodern society itself. Also, what some will call “late capitalism” has gotten very good at consuming the various ideologies that exist today into itself, wearing them like a pretty dress and make-up to conceal its inner vacuity and ugliness. What makes you think it used to work in the older days? Generally, a protest only works when the general situation is ready for change. The French Revolution only worked because the old regime was totally rotten to the core. There had been many peasant uprisings before but none of them had much of an impact because the ancient regime was still sufficiently stable. For example, do you think Rosa Parks was the first black women ever to refuse to comply with the rules of racist America? Of course not, but the time at which she did it was ripe for change. Many people who did similar things to her in the earlier days of post-slavery America are probably totally forgotten. Also, most of the successful protests of the past had a leader that everybody was more or less willing to follow. Today most people are too “entitled to their opinion” to follow anybody but themselves. Most protests are therefore bound to be a “conference of the hedgehogs”. Not like there are many great leaders around today, anyway. Maybe Leo’s upcoming conscious leadership video can change this!

@AtheisticNonduality Ok. Enjoy your progress to spiral infinity and beyond!

@AtheisticNonduality They are both based on actual patterns. I’ve given plenty of evidence and you have generally just called it ignorance and superstition. Never mind! What is “the one entry to a truth”? The truth itself?

There is no point in us just stating our own experience, axioms and sources of authority back at each other. Like I said to Barna, if you want to take people like Teilhard de Chardin and Ken Wilber and the optimistic euphoria of "New World" America (or the Soviet version of this in the case of Vernadsky) as your guides and authorities in this world, that is your choice. There is also no point in us getting into a non-duality war and they are apparently not allowed on this forum. You can respond to what I say here but I probably won't go any further with this particular line of argument. Yes, but the "unity of the world as Brahman and Brahman as transcendent to the world" is itself transcendent of either of those. Otherwise, what are Parinirvana and Mahasamadhi? I never said there is no world in God. All worlds are in God. We aren't tied to the world of form. The world of form only exists within God! I think you have changed what you mean by "the world", but otherwise I agree with everything you have said here. God is eternally itself without having been created except through self-existence, but that is not true of the "world of form" which we presently inhabit. It has been created by God, it is preserved in God and it will be destroyed by God. The problem with your analysis is that you conflate God with the present world only, thus this world has to evolve forever otherwise God would be finite. I like the phrase "more fundamental but less significant". I find it peculiar that you insist simultaneously that everything will continue to evolve onwards and upwards for all eternity but yet that it will culminate in the non-dual realisation of Spirit. That sounds like the end of evolution to me. There are no cycles? Isn't every civilisation is a cycle with an ascending phase and a descending phase? Rome ascended, Rome descended; Egypt ascended, Egypt descended; Christianity ascended, Christianity descended. These are all cycles. Now just extend this pattern to history itself. Time manifesting in cycles is not the same as history repeating itself. I agree, "history repeating itself" is at best an imprecise phrase. It would be pointless to repeat the exact same thing over and over again like Nietzsche's Eternal Recurrence of the Same. I never said there was any going back. Sorry for "staining your mind"! I have repeatedly stated that I am not just appealing to empty authority. Do you have any relevant examples of Plotinus' teaching that refute the cyclic and involutional view of history? Greek culture was saturated in the teaching of the Four Ages. I think his idea of the One fits very much with what I have been saying. I can see how he fits into your love of "holons" though, but this is just the traditional doctrine of man as a microcosm. The Corpus Hermeticum, one of the most influential texts to survive from ancient times, is full of this idea. "As above, so below". Nobody needed Wilber to come up with "holons" (besides, he probably borrowed it from someone else like he always does). There is no decay? Your body is decaying! Your house is decaying! Your country is decaying! The Earth is decaying! Everything is decaying! Buddho-Wilberism will have to discard the Fire Sermon as a heretical treatise of "evil"! Chaos is always lurking behind Cosmos. When Cosmos fails, Chaos rises to consume everything back into itself. If all you have to say to any of this is "that is just not true" then we might as well simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. I only mentioned Nietzsche because he is a good case study in the inadequacies of the modern mentality, particularly the Darwinian and “vitalist” aspect of it. His madness is a testament to the dead ends and vicious circles that the modern mentality entails. Many of the greatest thinkers of recent centuries went mad because secular society was unable to guide them towards true transcendence, yet a “stage purple” society doesn’t seem to have struggled with doing this. Strange, almost as if things haven’t progressed at all... You might say that things have changed now and that there is presently a resurgence in spirituality. On that note, I can do no better than to quote the master of modern times René Guénon from the preface to his book The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times: That is why you always get a perceived resurgence of mystic sects and spirituality during the end of any civilisation. It is the near-complete absence of God masquerading as God. Just read about the decadence of Rome or any other collapsing civilisation, heresies and false cults of every description always abound. This is just another appeal to the modern myth. When I say it is a myth, I don't even mean that isn't true. It is the story that animates modern life and society, hence it is the modern myth. "Stage Purple" India had a very sophisticated social structure in which every aspect of life and transcendence was taken into account. Our "society" is a sick joke in comparison. So what? How does that refute what I said about the modern cult of materialism? The people who worship matter are Descenders, and there are a lot of them today! More than ever, methinks...

That’s true. The developments of modern science are like an ever closer approximation to something which itself could never be fully captured by science. Thinking about it, this is probably true of any attempt to capture reality symbolically. In a certain sense, you could even call this progress, except that it has all ended in the self-destruction of science itself thanks to the dead end inherent in most academic scientific disciplines and the inevitable emergence of postmodern deconstruction.