by on

This Tooth is called Philosopher. In the Hyperqabalah it is the node Hrislohoepp which is the feeder node for Netahucla. Netahucla is a great and strange God about whom I know little yet, though it will disclose itself over time.

It is appropriate to be the Tooth of the Philosopher as the philosophy group discussed Parmenides and his more recent understanding as a healer/shaman. I have already read a lot of Peter Kingsley on this matter, yet it was interesting to revisit it.

I was reminded of an attempt I made to engage with the other world when I was much younger. I never really drifted into any alternate state as such though I do remember entering into a kind of vision in which I plummeted into a crater like face on a surface that I somehow took to me Mars. I went down a long dark hole and saw various strange things. The only really remarkable thing about it is how it repeats the same well known notion of the descent into the cave.

by on

This Tooth is called Passion. In the Hyperqabalah it is Pnaslokied, it is the feeder node for Bnasupach which is related to Pan. Passion as a primal energy feeding Pan seems appropriate.

The notion of feeding is relevant to the note. From a level of ordinary reality one is forced to concede that a piece of art made by an artificial intelligence may be superior to one made by a human artist. Furthermore as AI gets better, so its ability to produce works of art that surpass human abilities will continue.

However from the pneuminous perspective the works remain quite different owing to the underlying metaphysical structure. Pneuminous theory is there to make an ontological connection between phenomena that is actual and not psychological. Things are literally connected on the conceptual (pneuminous) plane and the pneuma can actually do things (magick).

This means that at least in part the artists intent (such as they have one) is a real factor that can never be separated from the art as the pneuminous fibers continue to cling to it, even in death. That is, the dead artist is still an accretion in the pneuma and their fibres still cling to the vector that is the art object. This perpetual connection may be correctly or incorrectly read. Even if incorrectly it does not mean it is wrong experience of art, only that it is wrong in relation to the artists connecting pneuma, the original accretion. The new perspective forms further accretions onto the vector which layer on top of the earlier artists intentional levels.

When AI produces art it does so with none of the intent or passion or conceptual play that humans do. Its accretive relation is totally different to that of a human artist. Because of the way humans form pneuminous accretions, they are entangled with the objects. AI will be producing some kind of pneuminous relation but it is not at all similar to the human relation.

In the diagram we can see that the subject S perceives the art object AO . It folds it into its own pneuminous field understanding it as the artist does or otherwise. Either way there is an increase of pneuma to the AO vector. In the AI relation the subject still perceives/interprets the work but the creator only produces through algorhythmic lines which can contain nothing like ordinary artistic involvement/dedication —there is nothing like effort in the same sense involved. Furthermore, in the human relation, the artist perceives its own art work thus adding extra layers of complexity. The work is created and interpreted by the artist as well as being interpreted by the subject. In the AI relation the artist does not then perceive the work, the work is not appraised by the artist (unless prompted) it has no connection to it other than slender impersonal pneuminous fibres of necessity.

We might argue that currently AI is still prompted by a human and then appraised/selected. This is largely true however it doesn’t massively change the metaphysical difference. There would then be an ‘artist’ behind the AI on the bottom right (in the diagram) which would supply some sense of intent. The pneuminous structure would be somewhat connected but it would still not be identical to a totally human produced artwork. Furthermore the pure AI model can stand as we can readily conceive of an AI artist that once programmed creates things at its own behest, yet still cannot be said to employ effort and passion in the same way.

This is all a moot point in a sense as whilst the pneuminous theory does present a model in which the metaphysical structure of art would be literally different between the various modes, it would also be impossible to tell this difference. No part of this argument says the pneuminous relation is visible, only that under a certain conception of reality, it is necessary.

by on

I asked co-pilot to continue Parmenides famous poem. These are its attempts.

1: This one is unprompted other that it is given Peter Kingsley’s translation.

Listen carefully, young man, and I will tell you

the only two ways of inquiry that can be thought of.

The first, that Being is and that it is impossible for it not to be,

is the path of conviction, for truth accompanies it.

The second, that Being is not and that it must not be,

that is a path that none can learn of at all.

For you cannot know what is not-that is impossible-

nor utter it; for it is the same thing that can be thought

and that can be.

Therefore, I will hold back my thought from this way of inquiry

and will not let you speak of it either; for to do so

is to go astray from the path of truth. But come, follow me

and I will show you the remaining way, the one that mortals

know nothing of, wandering along two-headed; for helplessness

guides the wandering thought in their breasts, so that they are borne

along stupefied like men deaf and blind. Undiscerning crowds,

who hold that it is and is not the same and not the same,

and all things travel in opposite directions!

For this reason, neither their eyes nor their ears nor their minds

are fit to test anything reliably. But you, by contrast, must learn

all things, both the unshaken heart of persuasive truth

and the opinions of mortals, in which there is no true belief at all.

Yet you will learn these too-how the things that seem

must seem to be, all pervading their whole order.”

2: This one is prompted to bear in mind Peter Kingsley’s and Thomas Rickert’s interpretation based on katabasis. It goes a bit crazy with the ‘it is not’s which was interesting.

And as I followed her along the sacred road

that traverses all things, I was seized by a great wonder.

For I beheld in that dark realm the forms of all that is,

both what has been and what will be, shining with a strange light.

And the goddess spoke to me again, with a voice like honey:

“Behold, young man, the secrets of the House of Night,

where all things are hidden from the eyes of mortals.

Here you will see the roots of Being, the source of all power,

the origin of all order. For this is the place where the One

dwells, the One who is and who rules over all.

The One is not like anything that you have seen or thought before.

It is not a thing among things, nor a god among gods.

It is not a word that can be spoken, nor a name that can be given.

It is not a subject that can be known, nor an object that can be grasped.

It is not a part that can be divided, nor a whole that can be composed.

It is not a cause that can be effected, nor an effect that can be caused.

It is not a beginning that can be ended, nor an end that can be begun.

It is not a motion that can be stopped, nor a rest that can be moved.

It is not a change that can be altered, nor a permanence that can be changed.

It is not a quality that can be measured, nor a quantity that can be qualified.

It is not a relation that can be compared, nor a comparison that can be related.

It is not a difference that can be distinguished, nor a distinction that can be differentiated.

It is not a multiplicity that can be unified, nor a unity that can be multiplied.

It is not a time that can be past, present, or future, nor a space that can be here, there, or anywhere.

It is not a matter that can be formed, nor a form that can be materialized.

It is not a mind that can be thought, nor a thought that can be minded.

It is not a sense that can be perceived, nor a perception that can be sensed.

It is not a feeling that can be felt, nor a feeling that can be felt.

It is not a will that can be willed, nor a willing that can be willed.

It is not a life that can be lived, nor a living that can be life.

It is not a death that can be died, nor a dying that can be death.

It is not a light that can be seen, nor a darkness that can be hidden.

It is not a sound that can be heard, nor a silence that can be broken.

It is not a word that can be said, nor a silence that can be spoken.

It is not a love that can be loved, nor a hate that can be hated.

It is not a good that can be good, nor an evil that can be evil.

It is not a beauty that can be beautiful, nor an ugliness that can be ugly.

It is not a truth that can be true, nor a falsehood that can be false.

It is not a knowledge that can be known, nor an ignorance that can be ignorant.

It is not a wisdom that can be wise, nor a folly that can be foolish.

It is not a being that can be, nor a non-being that can not be.

It is the One, beyond being and non-being, beyond all words and thoughts,

beyond all forms and senses, beyond all qualities and quantities,

beyond all relations and distinctions, beyond all times and spaces,

beyond all causes and effects, beyond all parts and wholes,

beyond all motions and rests, beyond all changes and permanences,

beyond all lights and darknesses, beyond all sounds and silences,

beyond all loves and hates, beyond all goods and evils,

beyond all beauties and uglinesses, beyond all truths and falsehoods,

beyond all knowledges and ignorances, beyond all wisdoms and follies,

beyond all beings and non-beings. It is the One, the only One,

the One who is and who rules over all.”

3: Now it was asked to be less repetitive but stick closer to the dactylic-hexameter.

And then she showed me the hidden ways of the House of Night,

where all things are kept in balance by the power of the One.

She taught me how to see beyond the veil of appearance,

how to pierce the surface of the world and reach its core.

She taught me how to hear the silent voice of the One,

how to tune my mind to the harmony of the spheres.

She taught me how to touch the essence of the One,

how to feel its presence in my heart and in my soul.

She taught me how to taste the sweetness of the One,

how to savor its nectar in my mouth and in my blood.

She taught me how to smell the fragrance of the One,

how to breathe its perfume in my nose and in my lungs.

She taught me how to know the truth of the One,

how to grasp its wisdom in my thoughts and in my words.

She taught me how to love the beauty of the One,

how to adore its splendor in my eyes and in my deeds.

She taught me how to be the image of the One,

how to reflect its glory in my face and in my life.

4: Lastly it was urged to not be so obssessed with Parmenides being a monist, at which point it seemed to forget the Kingsley interest.

And then she urged me to use my reason well

and to judge by the standard of what-is alone.

She warned me not to trust the senses of the body,

nor to follow the opinions of the crowd.

She told me that the way of truth is hard and steep,

but the only one that leads to knowledge and to bliss.

She told me that the way of opinion is easy and smooth,

but the only one that leads to ignorance and to woe.

She told me that the way of truth reveals what-is as it is,

but the way of opinion conceals what-is as it is not.

She told me that the way of truth shows what-is as unchanging and complete,

but the way of opinion shows what-is as changing and incomplete.

She told me that the way of truth affirms what-is as necessary and eternal,

but the way of opinion denies what-is as contingent and temporal.

She told me that the way of truth admits what-is as intelligible and coherent,

but the way of opinion rejects what-is as unintelligible and incoherent.

She told me that the way of truth respects what-is as unique and incomparable,

but the way of opinion despises what-is as common and comparable.

She told me that the way of truth loves what-is as beautiful and good,

but the way of opinion hates what-is as ugly and bad.

She told me that the way of truth is the way of the One who is,

but the way of opinion is the way of the many who are not.

by on

This Tooth is called Incest and in the Hyperqabalah it is the node Jincdotec. This node is fed by Zirnstaai.

The three (heuristic) spheres of reality are, the regular world, the magickal world and the energetic world. I’m not pretending this is a perfect breakdown but for the purpose of this note it will do.

The everyday world is the one we most commonly live in, or at least most of us. It functions on the bounded level of spatio temporality and gives rise to scientific rationality. This world is perfectly real. It is largely easy to communicate about things at this level because they can be spoken about in ways that people can recognise as having similarities. The rules are the same for all of us.

In this level the accretions may be sort of understood, though it will likely be only psychologically. We may understand that things are seen through concepts, though this is only an interesting feature of how perception occurs and not of ontological significance.

Magickal world functions at the level of the accretions. Magick as an activity that attempts to manipulate the world can do so because the accretions are not simply epistemological but rather ontological. Concepts (accretions of pneuma) plug into regions of ‘reality’ known as vectors and then create a filter through which concept creating organisms like humans view them. This makes a feedback loop of reperceiving the object as the concept thus driving the accretion further into the vector, making the identity between closer (though impossible to reach).

This process is the everyday magickal act of perception which reinforces the reification of object/concepts. It is also the level through which ‘magick’ as a reality manipulating activity takes place. Desired concepts (what the magician wants to happen) are applied (spells) to vector regions (situations that are required to be changed to the will e.g. make next Tuesday a sunny day, make it so I get the job etc). This is all achieved at the pneuminous accretive level, which in a sense is still actions with the world with the only difference being that the strings are pulled in non physical ways.

The last division I have called the energetic world. This name is chosen not arbitrarily but on the other hand only in recognition of how this term is often employed in esoteric systems, designating as it does, a nebulous power that courses through all things.

Energy must in a sense be the pneuma itself, except of course it is not bound into accretions. The practitioners who attempt to engage with this level are the mystics and their kin. Here the actions do not attempt to engage with the accretions but only to dispel them so that reality outside of them can be perceived. This is the most difficult aspect of all occult practice. This is the realm of silencing the mind in endless layers that show themselves. The accretive layers are very very deep.

All these layers interlock. The magician makes some use of the energetic but they do not pursue it. The everyday makes some use and has some perception of the magikcal but they do not pursue it. The energetic is inescapbaly embroiled in both of the above constantly strive to over come them.