Kevin's Watch

I am currently reading a book by Trevor Ravenscroft called The Spear of Destiny. In it, the author outlines his idea that Adolph Hitler in his early years became entranced by the putative Spear of Longinus, held in Vienna's Hofburg Museum and that, fired by messianic fervour, used it's occult powers to drive himself upward to the pinacle of power in Germany and to the brink of world domination. (The lance was said by legend to be the spear that was driven into the side of the crucified Christ by the centurian Longinus and to render it's future bearers with the power to alter the destiny of the world. These future bearers were said to include Constantine the great, Charlemagne and Frederick Barbarosa amongst others.) In the course of Ravenscroft's book we learn of the occult background of the Nazi Party, including Deitrich Echart's atempt to bring forth the anti-christ in the form of a baby conceived in occult ritual ceremonies. Also we hear of the Thule Gesselshaft's role in preparing Adolph Hitler as the vessel to bear the Luciferian spirit which would lead Germany to world domination and the spears ongoing role in directing the course of events as they unfolded in WWII.

Now - all good conspiracy theory stuff we say and easily scoffed at and forgotten about, except lets dig a little deeper. There is much here that can be discounted straight away (eg russian peasant mediums that extrude ectoplasmic heads from their bodily orrifices) and wether one believes in the 'power of the Occult' for real or just in it's ability to influence the thinking of those who do, is a matter of choice - but the fact remains that the events Ravenscroft describes must be viewed against the background of the prevailing ethos of the day. Take for example the 'Satans Baby' thing. Like a bad horror movie script this could be laughed at were it not known that across the chanell Arthur Balfour, the foriegn minister of the day, and other members of the upper echolons of society were, under the influence of such organisations as the Theosophical Society and The Golden Dawn, attempting to do just the same, but in the opposit direction, by attempting to bring about the conception of the second messiah. (The baby thus produced grew into an eminantly sensible young man who , when confronted with who he was supposed to be, said he wanted nothing to do with it and went on to live the normal everyday life that was his right.) An account of these events and others is given by Oxford University historian Gavid Gray in his starteling book The Immortalisation Commission.

To trace the origin of this pervading atmosphere of mysticism and heightened spiritual belief we must go back to the enlightenment/rationalism of the 18C. and consider it's effects n removing the certanties that people had taken for granted for millenia. In effect the very foundations had been swept from under peoples feet in that God was no longer secure in his heaven, death would bring oblivion and not the previousely promised salvation and you were in reality an inconsequence in a Universe destined for anhialation. As a reaction to this nihilism was born the Romantic Movement in which Goethe et al drew on the spirituality of older pre-enlightenment stories (Faust, Parsival, King Arthur etc) to reintroduce the mystical spark into the arts (and thought in general) that it seemed that the rationalist enlightenment had quenched forever. Neither was this spiritual re-awakening found wanting on the British side of the channell either. The Golden Dawn, The Theosophical Society, the spiritualist movement were all in their way reactinary reflexes to the hard materealism of the enlightenment. Blake's Arts and Craft Movement, the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, Crowly and his quasi-satanic teachings - all have their roots in the same reactionary movement. In Russia of course the feared Occrana were well aware of the coercive potential of the occult - for real or otherwise - in swaying peoples behavior (who cared whether the power was real or not as long as the results were concrete). Here we see Rasputin, Gurdijeff, Ouspensky and Rudolph Steiner all exercising great influence and power by claiming to have acess to oesoteric knowledge which they would dispense - for a price. The quasi-occult rituals of International Freemasonary were easily taken and distorted into less benign practices and into this already heady brew of already highly receptive and (to a degree at least) gullible thinking, was added the poisoned chalice of nationalism and anti-semitism. It is from this cabal-obsessed cloak and dagger world that the notorious 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' emerged, to find fertile ground later in the broken world of a post-war Germany desparate to find a scapegoat to account for its defeat and equally desparate to free itself from the punitive shackles of Versailles that were killing its recovery by the day. Viewed against this background does it seem impossible that a fragile and receptive mind, a mind that could be transported into very paroxisms of ecstatic pleasure by the music and imagery of Wagners Ring Cycle, should not be captivated by the legend surrounding the spear reputed to have pierced the side of the Christ.

Careful. These sort of theories are based on what is presumed to be common knowledge... which is actually not based on fact at all. Hitler was never interested in the occult. A lot of his beliefs were actually based on "twisted" interpretations of the science of his day, such as eugenics, and a strong nationalist fervor.

I am never quite sure how much influence the occult have ever had in modern society. When they are not being secretive to avoid being executed, their actual systems tend to be so bizarre as to appeal to only those with the time and interest to 'seek out deep mysteries'. It's like the 'beatnik' movement. Sure, Timothy Leary had SOME influence on SOME people, but to most, I think he was just a sometimes entertaining freak side show.

Point taken and absolutely agreed with Orlion. What amazes me is the ability of clever writers who clearly identify a potential market to take real events - the facts of history if you like - and weave a thread of alternative spin through the fabric of what is 'known' and accepted by rthe main stream. I've said in another thread that all history is to a degree interpretation of facts rather than the facts themselves and the clever conspiracy writer can make great use of his knowledge of these to run up alternative explanations for the same set of facts. Ravenscroft is such an author and his book is no mean feat in respect of it's erudite knowledge of the events of the period it describes.

That said, the above post did not come solely from a reading of his book. The four books I had in mind when writing this (well, three and a script of sorts) were Ravenscroft's, David Gray's The immortalisation Comission, Umberto Eco's latest novel The Prague Cemetary and lastly the infamous Protocols themselves. There is no question that things got a bit strange around the time period in question and a back to back reading of the books above starts to throw up some rather odd threads of similarity irrespective of whether they are of any historical significance or not.

One of the common threads that tends to come out of a reading of these types of book (Johnathen Black's Secret History of the World is another one) is the suggestion that human conciousness is not now as it has been in the past. ie That the way we actually think, experience the world we live in, interact with each other has changed, and significantly so, even over the era of recorded history. The implications these works make is that there are levels of conciousness, of alternate states of conciouss, that are not now available to us, that were so in the past befor our minds became 'trapped' by materealism and rationalised enlightenment. Now I'm way to simple a person to know if this stuff is for real or not - is there any truth in it; could people in the past acess a higher 'knowledge' through meditation and ascetic tecniques, through initiatin into secret doctrines of belief and behaviour as found in the mystery cults of the past? Is there a grain of truth hereor is it all bollocks - what would Freud or perhaps more significantly Jeung have had to say here.

As I say - I'm way to simple in my approach to the world (meditation for me is no more than a chance to catch a bit of quiet time - I don't even know if it's for real) to be able to pick the bones out of it - but there is a coherence to this stuff that is quite suprising if it's all without exeption just rubbish.

peter the barsteward wrote:
One of the common threads that tends to come out of a reading of these types of book (Johnathen Black's Secret History of the World is another one) is the suggestion that human conciousness is not now as it has been in the past. ie That the way we actually think, experience the world we live in, interact with each other has changed, and significantly so, even over the era of recorded history. The implications these works make is that there are levels of conciousness, of alternate states of conciouss, that are not now available to us, that were so in the past befor our minds became 'trapped' by materealism and rationalised enlightenment. Now I'm way to simple a person to know if this stuff is for real or not - is there any truth in it; could people in the past acess a higher 'knowledge' through meditation and ascetic tecniques, through initiatin into secret doctrines of belief and behaviour as found in the mystery cults of the past? Is there a grain of truth hereor is it all bollocks - what would Freud or perhaps more significantly Jeung have had to say here.

Just to keep this in the realm of general literature so that I don't have to move this thread I've read some similar books, such as Little, Big by John Crowley where only a select few were able to see, say, faeries and even then only females of a certain age bracket. Then, to be more down to Earth, I just finished reading The Storyteller by Mario Vargas LLosa which deals directly with the idea of a primitive Amazonian tribe being more in tune with nature and with their sense of obligations and how by "civilizing" them, you would end up with empty husks (I think the term used in the book was "Westernized capitalist zombies").

Such leads me to believe that different cultures, different belief systems will lead to different views on how the world works around us. I believe also, with Dostoevsky, in Notes from the Underground

I cannot help thinking, gentlemen, that you look upon me with pity; you go on telling me over and over again that an enlightened and mentally developed man, such a man, in short, as the future man can be expected to be, cannot possibly desire deliberately something which is not a real "good", and that, you say, is mathematics. I quite agree. It is mathematics. But I repeat for the hundredth time that here is one case, one case only, when man can deliberately and consciously desire something that is injurious, stupid, even outrageously stupid, just because he wants to have the right to desire for himself even what is very stupid and not to be bound by an obligation to desire only what is sensible.

In other words, people will always fight against reason, because more importantly they want choice. The ability to choose one's destiny is much more important to the vast majority of people than to be the mere result of some sociological table. "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

"Tis Dream to think that Reason can govern the reasoning creature Man."

James Herbert wrote a novel called The Spear which is based on a similar premise.

And yes, like Orlion says, I think that the link between nazism and the occult (and even mysticism) has been exaggerated, and certainly dramatised to a great extent over the years.

--A

I don't know if the nazism link to the occult has been dramatized, yet I don't think it's correct to really...care...about it very much.

And I certainly don't think that there's much of a higher thought going on in a more materialistic world, except perhaps people feel dissatisfied because some things feel hollow or off, and assume that's a symptom of our current time. And it could be that they're right. But I don't think we would be wise to intentionally and willfully take anyone or anything we have for granted if we want some sort of endured approach (mystic or material or whatever) towards that nebulous better that everyone conceives of differently.

As far as the things I've seen from late 19th and early 20th c. mysticism in general, I do like some of the stuff from this:

I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along a particular path. ... This is no magnificent deed, because I do not want followers, and I mean this. The moment you follow someone you cease to follow Truth. I am not concerned whether you pay attention to what I say or not. I want to do a certain thing in the world and I am going to do it with unwavering concentration. I am concerning myself with only one essential thing: to set man free. I desire to free him from all cages, from all fears, and not to found religions, new sects, nor to establish new theories and new philosophies.

It's funny, though, absolutely prone to the "well gee if truth can't be organized, why are you talking about it?" sorta thing, and "why do you have to do this thing with unwavering concentration, wouldn't it be not true to do something like that, isn't concentration like organization." But I still do like this sort of approach.

In other words, people will always fight against reason, because more importantly they want choice. The ability to choose one's destiny is much more important to the vast majority of people than to be the mere result of some sociological table. "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven."

Hah, you think they want choice? Or do they just not trust reason, or the people doing the reasoning. But it's not just about the ability to choose a destiny; it's also (for me at least, or so it feels - in the argumentative sense) about hating the idea that I would let the door close behind me.

For my part, I'm servile enough that I sometimes enjoy being disgraced, but if I willfully pursue an animal hatred - literally without reason - it's a vicious and ruthless, even murderous, feeling towards someone when I sense they'd like to stop someone from doing something I never will, but yet figure I would "in that person's shoes" (not just if I was facing the same difficulty, but mood, background, physical attributes, the works - yet it's not always "no shit" that at that level, I would do the same thing). I don't think this is so much about wanting choice, but about enjoying the freedom emotion offers. I mean, when you come right down to it, it allows (though certainly not always is) hatred of good - and I mean good, because I believe in it - for daring to impose on someone else's freedom in a world where bad, wrong, evil, etc., is to be allowed. Just fueling one's opposition to one's own interests, and even interests of society or w/e, in a way that feels as though it staunches one's ability to think about them in an efficient manner, is evil, but I enjoy the ride a bit and take my hands off the wheel sometimes, because things like that don't come along very often.

"Tis Dream to think that Reason can govern the reasoning creature Man."

But the ultimate question has to be "Is reason really the only pathway to truth in this world?" There is this irrational voice in me that, when I see a beautiful sunset or whatever that cries 'No - there's more out there. Your heart can take you to places your head can never go." I don't want to waste my time here chasing phantoms - but even less do I want to miss something that is really there because I buiried my head in a materealist bucket of my own making. Maybe it's better to chase rainbows that you can never catch than to chain yourself in fetters that run contrary to your spirit.

Why does it have to be an either / or scenario?

--A

[deleted]
---
But then there's also a more literal response to the opening of your question.

But the ultimate question has to be "Is reason really the only pathway to truth in this world?"

It might be better if the gears in my head were not so self-centered, but I still feel it's wise to address something one spends quite some time pondering.

"Is reason really the only pathway to truth" for me?

For me, it seems like reason is an important way of determining whether to tell a truth or a lie, not for actually determining what truth and lies are. Determining truth and lies is always about paring things down, telling stories, and the like, but speaking truth is about trying to be honest.

And to think that the scrollbar for this box was once a tenth of its current size - to think of all the lies I must be telling by not posting all the content I backspaced.

EDIT-But, I will say, I don't think it's untrue for me to say that honesty has a value far beyond being the best policy, and is very truthful. This does involve reason, I think it is a statement that's experiential but internalized.

Yes Holesty that 'for me' is of great significance - but one assumes that truths are truths irrespective of the means by which they are arrived at. For example Fritjof Capra in his book 'The Tao of Physics' outlines 'truths' about the nature of existance that seem to have been arrived at both by advanced spiritual/mystical tecniques and by the study of physics at it's farthest edges. Is this true or not - or is he assuming a sameness where in fact there is only a coincidental similarity. And what of the trancendental 'mystical' experience. The experience has been described - this feeling of oneness, of centeredness within a Universe that has meaning and unity - is this for real, or is it not. I can accept the duality of being both a rationalist by the cold light of day and 'but mad north-north west', but it is not a position I think, that would command much respect generally. I did however like Johnathen Black's request at the start of his afore mentioned book just to 'pretend for a bit that it was true'.

An Irish poet I once heard being interviewed on the radio was questioned about his having said that to see Leprachauns, one must go to an Irish peat-bog at 3am in the morning. "But this is all nonsense!" cried the exaspeated interviewer. "And tell me, when was the last time you were on an Irish peat-bog at 3 'o' clock in the morning?" said the poet

peter the barsteward wrote:But the ultimate question has to be "Is reason really the only pathway to truth in this world?" There is this irrational voice in me that, when I see a beautiful sunset or whatever that cries 'No - there's more out there.

I don't think that's the ultimate question...but it may be the most often repeated question [maybe second, behind the related one "Why ME?!"]

Not only is reason not the only path to truth, it isn't a path to truth at all. It IS a path to facts [part of that path, anyway]...and just as importantly, to recognize and eliminate the objectively false.

It isn't worthless to be irrational about the sunset...nor about its meaning because at minimum you have just created that "something more."
It is completely worthFULL to engage sunsets irrationally in many contexts.

But it is not only worthless but quite often downright dangerous to irrationally adhere to the factually false.

Admittedly there has not yet been, AFAICT, anyone who knows every fact and falsehood...or even a significant percentage of the grand total...and probably never will be.

Peeps, including myself, get caught up in the conflicts between rational/irrational all the time. But when we do that too often, favor one or the other too much, attempt to crush one with the power of the other, it would be faster and have much the same result to tie ourselves to a log heading for the buzz-saw. They're complementary...they're synergistic. Equally important they're anti-synergistic...the remainder is lesser than the subtraction of its parts.

And, just a side riff on Av "why either/or" there exists the question of "why just 2?" Why not 3 or dozens? If, for arguments sake, there is 1 and only 1 kind/definition of "reason," [which at some point there must be IF it is "true" that "Reason is the path to 'the truth.'" does that necessarily mean that there is only 1 kind of "irrational?"

peter the barsteward wrote:An Irish poet I once heard being interviewed on the radio was questioned about his having said that to see Leprachauns, one must go to an Irish peat-bog at 3am in the morning. "But this is all nonsense!" cried the exaspeated interviewer. "And tell me, when was the last time you were on an Irish peat-bog at 3 'o' clock in the morning?" said the poet

Amusing as it is though, the comment is just a variation on "prove it doesn't exist."

I mean, technically you can't prove something doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean it does.

--A

Avatar wrote:Amusing as it is though, the comment is just a variation on "prove it doesn't exist."

Mmmm Av. I think it means just what it says; "Have you made any attempt to ascertain the truth for yourself (or do you accept the fact [just] because you are told it is so). No I don't believe in leprachauns (yet ) but what I am talking about here is not that simple. There are major themes/threads (?) running through human history that have been and probably are still influenced by belief in the trancendant, the mystical. Many people in the East and Middle-East (and the West too) are happy to accept these beliefs as valid in terms of how/what decisions are made (eg sharia law or the rights and wrongs of gay marriage etc), yet others (in the west more so than perhaps other parts of the world) are comfortable to turn their backs on this side of human history - they are true enlightenment beings for whom the logical and rational suffices; they have no need of a level of being beyond that which the material world provides and little understanding of those who would look for more. And then there are those of us who don't know - but who feel a need to establish (if it can be done) whether (true or not) there is value in the search for more even if the end point is a fata morgana, a beautiful mirage that can never be reached. And so yes, I concede that to fly in the face of facts is folly of the highest order, but also think a quick peek between the covers salted with a sprinkle of suspension of disbelief might not occasionally be a bad idea. I'm not going to dance naked in a circle under the light of the full moon but I am interested in a little bit of background knowledge of what it is all supposed to be about.

Well sure, if you believe that something is true, and you act as if it were true, (your actions are influenced by that belief), then it might as well be true, because your actions are what they would be if it were.

--A

So from the point of view I was expressing above it makes no difference if the mystical experience (and the 'knowledge' it purports to impart) is a 'true' reflection of how the world really is - just whether it is believed to be so or not. In a sense this could be seen as a bit sad, but in reality this is probably pretty much the motor that drives the world forward from day to day - the 'effective' actions of people in responding to the 'cause' of what they believe to be true. Which in a round about way brings me back to the starting point of 'it doesn't really matter about the truth/falsity of occult belief (and this in reality is just the 'applied' branch of the mystical belief set) - just that it's influence in late 19thC/early 20thC could have had an input into the rise of national socialism in the 30's.

I think I've beat this subject to death guy's so I'm going to sign off on it (sigh of relief all round). Thanks for your patience and responses to a thread that was, well .....perhaps not best cocieved on my part, but is a period of history I find fascinating. I expect you all have pages and pages more you want to say on it so feel free to carry on ........

peter the barsteward wrote: I'm not going to dance naked in a circle under the light of the full moon

Well, why the heck NOT?!?
It might not answer/resolve anything, but what a great chapter/experience for your life narrative!
[and don't forget to report back to us.
maybe post it on youtube [with appropriate blurries.]
you could end up famous]

Haven't read everything, but to clarify something peter said in the first post: Aleister Crowley wasn't a satanist. He more or less invented ceremonial magic for his Order of the Golden Dawn. Ceremonial magic is considered a forerunner of Neopaganism.

aliantha wrote:Haven't read everything, but to clarify something peter said in the first post: Aleister Crowley wasn't a satanist. He more or less invented ceremonial magic for his Order of the Golden Dawn. Ceremonial magic is considered a forerunner of Neopaganism.

Oh, just marvelous...next thing you'll be dancing on a table, both filled and covered with "Love My Goat" red wine [to symbolize sacrificial blood, of course] chanting loudly:
"Those who know me Foul-ly
Call me Croul-ly
Those who know me Holy
Call me Crow-ley."