Interview that mentions Surrealism
telicalbook
Gabriel Morales quoting Meister Eckhart:
"We shall find God in everything alike, and find God always alike in
everything."
"Whoever possesses God in their being, has him in a divine manner, and
he shines out to them in all things; for them all things taste of God
and in all things it is God's image that they see."
"It is a fair trade and an equal exchange: to the extent that you
depart from things, thus far, no more and no less, God enters into you
with all that is his, as far as you have stripped yourself of yourself
in all things. It is here that you should begin, whatever the cost, for
it is here that you will find true peace, and nowhere else." -- Meister
Eckhart
G: Explain what it is to "know God" (which does not necessarily mean
just the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God) and how this can be a holistic
spirituality/philosophy as opposed to single-note "comfort"
ideologies such as liberalism, communism, biological racism, social
Darwinism, conservatism, environmentalism, anarchism, so on.
R: I believe that when one "knows God" one is eventually beginning to
understand there is no dichotomy between one's best intention for
oneself and God's intention for oneself . I believe when one knows God,
one knows that all people are of equal value to God, because all people
are created in the image of God. Being created in the image of God
means, all people are thinking, feeling, and though it might not seem
like it, but they can be or were at one point and may be again, caring
and loving individuals. God programmed a certain loving nature into our
souls, into our bodies. When a cat relaxes, and feels secure, it
naturally purrs and seems happy. We are created in the same way. Our
emotions are naturally positive, a type of instinctual purring, that
some people can tune into very easily, when they slow their thinking
and focus on their physical body, and/or their breathing. The emotion
is always there, and if it is not stressed or attached, it is positive.
That is why the Buddha is always blissful, because he is not attached
and he is focused. So, knowing God means knowing all these positive
things about reality, that we are essentially a part of God. Even
though we have no knowledge of creating the world, or of anything
before our birth, when we come to know God, we eventually do not feel
any more dichotomy between ourselves and God. There is no separateness.
This isn't to say that evangelical Christians do not know God in some
respect. The bible said that God is love. That is hard for a lot of
people to understand, because the bible also gave the Mosaic and
Pauline law regarding how people are to be treated when they are
"missing perfection," or that is, when they sin, or "miss the mark."
But negative actions in life produce negative results in life. If you
become addicted to drugs or pornography, you are going to have a pretty
screwed up life. It's just the way it is. So, it's helpful for people
to see a kind of map about what to watch out for. This is also a part
of knowing God. Knowing one's limitations. You have to limit your
definition of God. That is why I am sometimes drawn to Christianity,
because it both says God is so far outside of our comprehension but
that God is also like a loving Father, or a being that would die for
us. The symbol of the death and suffering of the creator for the
creation is pretty advanced. So, all that bad stuff that supposedly the
religion's God say for us to do or don't do are not to be taken so
seriously, as they themselves state, but if we remove the dichotomy, it
is like we ourselves would tell ourselves, about how to live life and
have a good time doing it.
So, the bible basically seems to say God is love and that we should
love each other and then it also seems to tell us how to judge each
other and get stressed out about going to hell. But these warnings are
for the sociological aspect of keeping bad people in line. Most of us
have or can get that bad side. You have to really be smart to figure it
all out. Most fundamentalists obviously haven't yet.
As far as "how this can be a holistic spirituality/philosophy as
opposed to single-note "comfort" ideologies," I believe that
knowing God is an expansive existential benefit whereas having a dogma
or a set system of beliefs can tend to muck things up, as history
pretty well shows. If everyone just knew God then they would know that
God wants us to love each other outside of our differences, and I
believe this includes caring for animals as well. Any time you love
someone or even an animal, you are rewarded for this. When people are
defending an ideology based on psychological or sociological reasons,
they do not often get the spiritual benefit from it. And obvious,
neither does anyone else.
G: Would you suggest that those who wish to know what it is to search
for God turn to the works of Meister Echkart or Arthur Schopenhauer
before reading the Bible (as one must be psychologically healthy when
reading this, lest they misconstrue it to bolster their self-image)?
R: I have read Schopenhauer more that Echkart. Schopenhauer wrote some
very good philosophy as far as the technicality of it. You can learn a
lot about how to think from reading him. But, of course, he made a lot
of statements that classified him as an atheistic philosopher, and a
pessimist. He doesn't believe in the immortality of the soul. He's
still worth reading, if only to find out how you can disagree with him.
As far as Echkart, he wasn't one of the mystics that I've read much of,
so I can't comment on that part of your questions. However, since I
don't think he's that much different than what I was reading, I will
tell you what I was familiar with when I started reading the bible. I
started with reading the Bhagavad Gita, The Dharmapada,, the Tao te
Ching, the Ouspensky/Gurdjieff books, Castanada, an Alan Watts book on
Zen as well as Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and other
popular "hippie books" by the time I was 17, as well as skimming
Blavatsky's Secret Doctrine and Isis Unveiled, which I no longer care
much for. I had read Yogananda's Autobiography, and got his weekly
lessons, starting when I was 15. I had dropped out of school
temporarily at 16 and spent about six months just reading these
philosophy books.
At that time I was also trying to find the most experimental art and
literature, so I had already had a copy of Burroughs and Gysin's "The
Third Mind" which is pretty much Burrough's big book on the cut-up
technique and his ideas about the philosophy of language. I was raised
Catholic, went to Catholic school, was an alter boy, and really enjoyed
the ritual of the mass when I helping it along. So, when I started
reading the bible for myself also at that time with reading all the
other books, I was reading it from a very altered perspective that
didn't have a lot of groundedness in normal culture. I used my
creativity and applied it to religious thinking. I was still pretty
much a child in many ways. If anything, the bible I thought was telling
me to be a radical with life and that life was not set up the way it
could be. My way of thinking at the time was that the bible could have
all these esoteric codes written in them, because Yogananda and
Ouspensky would mystify the world so that such things existed. I lived
in a kind of fairy tale world, which is the exact opposite of a lot of
people who seem to be disadvantaged by racism, or some other kind of
psychologically unhealthy thing.
What I did was a perfectly normal thing, but of course my parents were
not at all happy with this. But the whole idea of self-image is
interesting in religion because often religion can keep you punishing
yourself because you don't measure up. It's almost like you have to
totally lose religion to be free and in God. That is something you hear
Christians say, but I'm not sure that it's really that easy to do. So,
to answer your question fully, it seems like there could be a lot of
really good things one should bring to the bible to understand it
better. One of those things is ecology. The bible says that we should
be the stewards of the earth.
G: There are these two extremes on a scale: hyperreligiosity on one
end, atheism on the other. You've debunked zealotry on your website,
but what do you think of cynics, fatalists, agnostics, and the
proponents of secularity?
R: Well, each side seems to blame the other side. I think neither side
has it totally correct. I'm attracted to religion because I see that it
does a lot of good things for people who have been very hurt.
Alcoholics Anonymous for instance is a religious program. The missions
that house homeless people in downtown urban areas are religion-based.
Secularists sometimes like to think that we came from a glorious past.
Secularists are either thinking that some secularist would come in and
do the job the religious people are doing, or that these unfortunate
people should just essentially disappear somehow. I am very upfront
about the mammalian nature of humankind. The whole physical world has
this basic animalistic nature to it and humankind does as well.
Religion tempers that, and when it works, then it graduates to
spirituality. Secularists don't look at the problem about how will
people get the good results that religion gives to people if religious
influences dry up. I don't know why they avoid talking about the good
things the religions do.
The secularists are often correct about things, however. I believe that
we need both types of people. This goes back to your question about
God, because ultimately, we really can't say that we know what God's
ultimate plan is for us, except that it's something good. We evolved to
the state we are in because some people were able to put down
simplistic worldviews that religion helped create. The problem is, that
people are very often way too simplistic on both sides. Even people who
consider themselves brilliant, as many cynics, fatalists, and aetheists
do, are often very simple minded about most everything. Anyone who
takes a polarity issue is simple minded. Secularists and fundamentalist
religionists take either-or and black-and-white thinking. Perhaps
everyone except maybe about five percent of people take some kind of
extreme polarity position, but statistics tells you that the mean or
the average is what you are after. There is a lot of truth in
moderatism. Why more people are adamant moderates is a good question
because I think that is where the truth lies. But of course a moderate
has to take into account the extremes to really be a moderate. He can't
ignore what environmentalists or nutritional activists are saying and
still really be a moderate.
Religion sometimes can make a bad person good but it can also make a
good person bad. There are many people in the world today who are
living below their education level because they got into some trouble
and found a simplistic answer to their problem. I think this is like a
natural psychological cycle that happens often to people. The problem
with cynics and other effects of secularity is that they totally ignore
the healing affect of religion, or spirituality in general. If you read
the books of the lives of the so called saints in the Catholic church,
you'll see that those people did incredible things for their
communities, like set up hospitals and schools. I've seen many
secularists who are as bad as any kind of zealot.
G: What does it take to maintain a state of temperance as in a steady
Virtuism?
Well, when you say Virtuism, the meaning I would give that word is in
the same subject grouping as the words Surrealism, or Existentialism. I
find by searching through Google that a few people have used it in as
more of a common noun. But Virtuism to me is both a philosophy and art
form that looks at acts of virtue as giving the aesthetic experience.
So, it is a prolonged look at the art form of creating virtue around
you. Philosophically, it says that commonly understood notions of
virtue are important in society, to the self, to aesthetics and to
science. We will always be rewarded if we think in that way, and we
should look at why acts of virtue give us the aesthetic experience. Why
were we created in such a way to feel blissful when we are not
stressing out and when people have gratitude towards us? Why do certain
aspect of virtue sometimes have a physiologically regenerating quality?
Temperance doesn't come naturally to some people, and it's culturally
indicated. That is, Europeans can drink alcohol every day, but if you
drink alcohol every day as an American, some people are going to call
you an alcoholic. But, there is a kind of psychological maturity in
ideas of temperance. For instance, Erik Erikson said that promiscuity
was one of the signs that one hasn't achieved a state of adult
maturity. It is a bit like peeling an onion. There are so many ways
people can become dysfunctional. You know there are actual scientific
psychological reasons why people clutter, and scientific psychological
methods on how one can declutter one's life?
To maintain a state of temperance is a great goal for an artist because
our backgrounds are often those of someone who likes to party, the kind
of artist who smokes and drinks. I realized that I'm hurting my body if
I do that, and I've had to do a lot of work on myself to not smoke.
Obviously, many artists don't live long healthy lives. Often their art
becomes this document of the downward physical spiral. So, when I see
such art, I see what forces in the person created it, and what that
kind of thinking may lead to in myself. I've overcome some of those
negative things in myself, so I'm not pointing a finger. I am prone to
falling into that lifestyle, whereas a lot of people are not prone, and
they come from an outsider perspective.
G: Studies have shown that listening to classical music can develop
one's neuro-pathways, mnemonic skills, mathematical computing,
visualization (artistic abilities). According to the Gnostic Samael Aun
Weor, primarily rhythmic music such as rock stimulates animalistic
regions of the brain (especially when accompanied by aggressive/vulgar
lyrics). You've come to decide that it is futile to "gold mine" rock by
developing experimental rock genres which includes progressive rock,
field recording, art punk, minimalism, metal, etc, since they each have
- as you put it - a limiting "power structure" that is irrelevant to
the real values of music (not to mention that popular rock culture is
often destructive and egotistical).
R: I wouldn't put field recording and minimalism in that experimental
rock genre. I think they are outside it. I don't think it's futile to
develop more progressive sub-genres as long as one can maintain one's
objectivity about it. As far as the experimental rock genre thing, the
cult of personality aspect I was referring to but didn't spell out so
well also dealt with the fact that the verbiage surrounding rock or its
sub-genres isn't anything like the verbiage surrounding classical
music. That verbal history is one thing that can help us mature when we
get into classical more. Also, time has elapsed with so-called
classical music. You can't get stuck in the trend aspect of it like you
can with some rock-based music. Some people are going to think that one
kind of offshoot rock is really more than what it really is. There is a
legion of people all over the world that consider themselves serious
composers because they do musique concrete type music, or field
recording, or "lowercase" sound. These circles are sometimes not based
on anything more than how politically powerful these people are in a
sociological way, how artistically they can package their music, how
often they can afford to tour and promote their music, and so on. The
music press on that level isn't anything different. Classical music is
our salvation because it is outside of that. When one listens to enough
great classical music one can tell when some modern so-called serious
music is useless to one, and one won't feel trapped by the sociological
underpinnings of having to impress one's peers. It can lift one out of
not having the kind of interpersonal political muscle or economic
prowess one needs to get ahead in such genres like that.
Regarding your quote from Samael Aun Weor, my question is: How would
someone who listens to primarily rock music ever come to know that they
were not stimulating their brain in that way? If rock listeners were
stimulated only in an animalistic region of their brain by rock music,
they by nature they would never develop the intelligence or insight to
understand this. So, informing someone of this fact who listens to
primarily or even solely rock music is probably going to be useless. I
see my music as kind of a gateway to classical music.
It's interesting that you raised this question to me, because I was
thinking of writing some kind of essay called something like "My Escape
from Rock." To be in the rock and roll mentality is at the same time an
amazingly attractive and also amazingly limited and pretentious way to
live. I was in the inner circle of the first 100 or so people who were
dedicated to what became the Grunge rock thing in Seattle. An early
experimental band I was in developed into the band Feast, which had the
drummer from Mudhoney in it. So, I hung out with all those guys back in
84-88 before I left the rock and roll mentality completely. To give
myself an out, I was also hanging out with painters who only listened
to classical music, and other people who were very much outside of the
rock and roll thing. But, back then I liked to party and these people
were my friends so I spent a lot of time with them. I guess you could
say I experienced a golden age of rock because the Grunge sound and
bands doing it were all totally developed by 1986. Of course, back
then, it was all the creators of such an "aesthetic," it wasn't
commercialized and there weren't crass people around. I was composing
experimental music at that time, but I seemed to better socialize with
artists who had more of a rock and roll backdrop. I mention this just
so you know that I do not come from an outsider perspective when I talk
about rock. However, around 1984, I went through a period where I
personally only listened to classical music. It was a liberating
experience. I was able to be more scientific in my thinking. My music
and writing took off by leaps and bounds.
It only lasted about six months or so, because I was so conditioned by
rock that I emotionally craved it. And when I say rock, I was a bit of
a connoisseur. I was listening to prog rock and European synthesizer
music such as Synergy and Tangerine Dream as a young teenager, and then
getting into the punk thing from 15-20, in 1978-82, as well as
Industrial bands by age 20, in 1983. After I got out of the rock
lifestyle, by which I mean, when I stopped going to clubs and being a
type of combination groupie/adoring magi to these bands, I was able to
develop professionally. This of course also meant not partying as much,
which was a tremendous help. So, again, I say these things by what I've
experienced personally. I unfortunately still listen to rock, but it's
very varied, and definitely not a part of what the youth subculture
press is telling me is hip. Lately, I've listened a lot to Stereolab,
Kahimi Karie, Yes, Gong and Kevin Ayers. Hawkwind, King's X, Magma, and
Echo and the Bunnymen/Ian McColluch solo material are also favorites.
This definitely doesn't sound like the Grunge sound! I think a lot of
those bands I mentioned evolve their musical structures in a way that
at times is similar to some classical music, or at least have
innovation that shows some artistry. But if I was listening to that
popular music I mentioned soley, I do believe I would be stuck in the
archetype of the power structure of it. As much or more as I listen to
that music as I go about my daily work, I'm working on and listening to
my own music. I went through another period in the last year where I
only listened to classical music outside my music. I had a relapse back
into rock music because I'm so emotionally tied to it. It has a healing
effect on me. But that doesn't mean that I am developing intellectually
from these times of playing this music. It instead means that something
in me is a bit hurt, and this kind of music kind of calms me down.
Another question is, how much do you want to grow and stimulate your
brain? How smart do you want to be? How valuable is it to you that you
become more intelligent? What does being more intelligent mean to you,
and are you willing to listen to mostly classical music to develop this
intelligence?
I look at my music as a type of gateway music into the world of
classical music. If I had a million dollars, I could afford to put all
my music on paper and hire classical musicians to play it. Some of it
is classical music and was meant to be heard that way. Some of it is a
type of post-rock music that it seems a lot of people are making.
Minimalism in classical music seems to be a post-rock classical music.
Rock obviously has a wonderful appeal. I'm going to make a list of the
rock music that has affected me most and put it on my web page, because
I've covered a lot of ground and there is no way that people could
"goldmine" rock that easily without such a reference. Not that I think
it would be the best rock or most progressive rock music, but if people
like what I do they might find this interesting as well. If classical
composers say they like folk music, then it's not wrong to say you like
rock music. I don't think listening to folk music all day would
stimulate your brain any more than rock music, but I could be wrong.
G: Do you think ambient is the only modern music genre still capable of
truly artistic structure, enhancing the mind, and being a think-tank
for transcendent ideals as classical was?
R: I really do not have any preference for ambient music personally. I
will tell you how some of my music took more of an ambient and
sometimes minimalist turn at times recently.
Five years ago I joined a local collective of experimental composers
here in Seattle called The Sonicabal. Some of the people I grew close
to performed a type of "ambient" music. I rely on composing based on
setting up musical environments, like figuring out patches and modes,
creating chord sequences, and thinking through other structures that
for me present an interesting idea. Then I "pray for my music" like
Coltrane said he did. I really try to ask God to work through me
through my music. I then record my music and it looks so far like I
have about a 30% release rate. That is, about 30% of what I do, I can
then say, "this is my music." So, the idea of performing live was a bit
scary for me for a lot of time since I didn't have that selective
methodology I could use in a live setting. I developed a style of
playing live where I could guarantee that I would have a good concert.
All the stuff I mentioned, including a lot of praying, was involved,
but I couldn't be as adventurous and try for as difficult a thing as I
would do recording at home. So, I fell into playing a little bit more
ambiently. I am going to release a few of my concerts on CD next year,
so people can hear how I developed my composing into a live format.
That's the connection I have with ambient music. A lot of the music I
heard around me tried to do those things you've mentioned, such as
Wesley Davis of Entropic Advance, who creates free form music. They
weren't into this redundant noise aesthetic of being harsh or silly,
which most of us older people have seen around now for over 20 years
G: What is special to you about electronic music?
R: What I personally take from electronic music that is special is the
ability to control large numbers of notes and get them to do what I
want them to do without having to actually play each note by hand. The
generative aspect of my sequencer techniques is the most special thing
about my modern electronic music because it allows me the freedom to
say complex things in my music, and to create such in a relatively
short period of time.
I also of course love to create interesting patches, but that is
somewhat displaced by the documenting of notes and progressions. My
electronic music often resembles the orchestral quality of the full
experience of music, I don't mean that in texture, I mean as far as the
busyness of actual notes and their resolutions. I am not often
attracted to electronic music, even academic electronic music, that
sounds like abrasive noise. I think that's some of the most pretentious
music around. I like, a little bit more what's known as lowercase sound
but I do not like it that much. It often has a thin quality to it. It
is electronic music often composed on the computer and it has a heavy
trend-based aspect to it. That is, it is very much, "you are going to
write music within these parameters. In fact, you won't dare to write
anything outside them." Sometimes, one of these composers will create
something interesting and kind of quirky but not that much of it has
the rich organic, or maybe I should say, human, feel that I like in
music. The "lowercase sound" music is kind of the aural equivalent of
modern visual art that isn't always saying much but has an interesting
texture. My electronic music has a more robust feel that is more
similar to classical music, or good rock music. There is a lot of
potential in the lowercase sound field, but those people have to kind
of grow up and become a part of the larger picture of humanity for
their music to gel. They have to realize that you do not need to
recreate why people listen to music. If people try to do that, maybe
they are doing it to look sophisticated and cultured, which I guess is
fine, because the opposite isn't that good either. So, although I love
modern visual art for all it's freedom, I often crave more intense
compositional layouts. Hieronymous Bosch is one of my favorite painters
because his compositional schemas are so intense. There isn't that much
electronic music presently existing that using the complexity of the
great classical symphonists and also has any kind of harmonic richness
to it. I don't buy into the school of "deep listening" either. It's all
such old school stuff to me. It's something I would have found
sophisticated as a 15 year old.
I like the field recording collagists like Michael Northan or Francisco
Lopez more because there is a great richness to some of their music.
You might put that in the electronic music category, but it's really
not electronically generated sound, however it absolutely requires
electronic instruments such as the digital recorder and mixer to
create.
So, personally, outside my music, I do not hear all that much of
interest in electronic music that I am that much interested in. I would
like to find more. Often, I see there are academic composers that are
brilliant technicians of electronic music but they have nothing good to
say to the physiological whole of a person. They seem to think that
music should feel bad to listen to, to be good. Such misguided people
have always roamed the halls of academia and the academic life seems
necessary to create such misguided people. These are people that have
to impress people of their technicality and route knowledge to keep
their jobs.
I am not against academia at all. In fact, I highly respect it. I often
regret that I didn't follow the post-graduate academic path because I
had the opportunity, but then I have gained some good things by not
doing it. Hopefully my work will eventually register more with academia
without me actually having to be employed by a university. I've already
had an academic call me from out of the blue and tell me that what I
was doing in writing had significant impact on "the history of science"
and a philosophy professor praised my Virtuism writing. So far, I
haven't shopped my music around as much as my writing, but it occupies
as much space in my life. I am like many other people: a polyartist --
an artist that has more than one art. I will probably eventually edit a
book on polyartistry because so many people are and we have to go
through some stigmas associated with it.
G: Like Christopher Alexander, creator of "Pattern Language", you
yourself have created a computer tool - "ParaMind Brainstorming
Software" - that helps the common folk expand their ideas thus provides
greater possibility for creation. Theodore Kaczynski made the analysis
of post-industrial society in his FC Manifesto as being essentially
dysgenic. Had we a spiritually healthy outlook for living, do you
suppose humankind would be fine continuing the development of
technology which would then only include mechanisms such as yours that
are useful instead of machines that promote sloth (chat rooms,
television, video games, etc.), or should technology in general be
extremely limited as is wished by eco-fascists?
R: Yes, I do think that having a spiritual outlook changes everything.
One doesn't have to even use that term "spiritual," one can say
virtuous. In reality, being virtuous is pragmatic. One can take or
leave the negative aspects of our societies as they see fit. One can
always mute the commercials, which I always try to do. I can't stand
hearing commercials. They are often extremely insidious to me. Or, one
can just not have a TV at all. Of course, academically, one can say
there is much wrong with how many people live their lives. Look at how
many people are obese in America. I think that comes solely from the
fact that they can't control themselves because they are programmed by
television to think that eating anything is a right. Eating is more
like a carefully monitored responsibility than a sensual indulgence.
People need to follow good eating habits to have a healthy life but
that isn't so easy for a lot of people. What can be done in a situation
like that? People like Kacynski thought that monitoring society would
make people free from evil. But next door to the obese person is
someone who is trim and fit. One has to understand that people tend to
react to the laws of entropy. We are meant to evolve by our own
consciousness and effort. You can't legislate evolution in this way,
although I believe legislation is one of the most important things we
have and the integrity of our court system must be protected at all
costs.
It's interesting to see that so many of our science fiction scenarios
are dystopias. We rarely can create futuristic dreams about more
positive outcomes of this existence of ours. It's hard for people to
have the insight that the alpha males and females are often wrong. The
alpha males and females in our society allow which writers to create
what scenarios in what media. Since the alpha males and females got
there by mostly a type of brute strength, the only kind of science
fiction they allow to pass through is coming from this fear-based or
brutality-based imagination.
5.) Being influenced by Tristan Tzara, are you also familiar with
Julius Evola and therefore Rene Guenon?
As far as Julius Evola, I look at him as a little bit immature and
scary because of his political leanings, but I will say he is the only
author I've ever heard of the idea about an "occult warfare." That's an
interesting topic that I have actually thought about a lot and even
practiced in my own way during a couple periods in my life. When you
think about it, though you can see that the idea is in a lot of
mythologies and spiritual texts including the bible. If change can come
about first on an inner psychological level, such as prayer, and there
aren't enough people praying for the right things, then there is
something wrong which can be fixed.
The Surrealist movement said that their aim was not to create poetry or
painting but to recreate life. The Situationalists tried to further get
art out of the art gallery, and instead created situations in life. At
least this is my primary understanding of Situationalism. I was never
into Marxism or doing overt political activism and the Situationalists
were both, so I haven't gotten into them that much. In 1988, I thought
the ultimate Virtuist art to be a type of fusion of the internal
"magical ritual"/prayer of the magi/religious with the idea of a type
of performance art in my mind. I decided to make this my life, a type
of prayer in action. Since my magical worldview at the time believed
that whatever was done in the mind could have an impact "in the astral
world" or be seen by angels and even the dead, whoever it was who was
telepathic, I thought that it might have some objective merit
I looked at the idea of a golden age to be a type of structure, a type
of performance art. My artwork was taking place in my imagination, but
because of my absolute belief in esotericism at that time, also taking
place in the astral plane. One day, I declared in my "inner plane" to
be the start of a golden age -- not just for me but for those who were
my "invisible audience." Where it might lead anyone out there could
determine, hope for, or even accomplish. This seemed to me at the time
to be the logical conclusion of these esoteric ideas. All this was
heavily influenced by Salvador Dali's "Paranoiac Critical" method, as
he describes it in his book "Diary of a Genius," which was and still is
one of my favorite books.
>From July 29, 1988 to December of that year, I created within my
imagination many mystical experiences that I thought had a higher
significance. I never told anyone about this. On the outside, I mostly
appeared normal, but sometimes I wasn't. Since this was also the bottom
of my substance abuse period, I sometimes acted like the typical drunk,
like doing lewd things in art galleries, and so on. I have no idea if I
wasn't called up to some higher purpose in all this, a part of some
greater prayer that everyone was having at that time about disarmament.
Everyone was so paranoid about disarmament, which is understandable,
and there were many marches, group prayers, and so on. The cold war did
end a few years later, which was the major threat, so relatively, we
moved to more of a golden age for earth. The idea that change is
possible by some strong act that goes on behind closed doors may be a
very powerful idea for good. So, what I've seen from my own experience
is that a lot of people get very delusional with these occult ideas.
Since I have some of the background of Evola and Guenon in
understanding where they are coming from, I can see into much of what
they're saying. They tend to idolize everything except that which they
are naturally born to. The East is better because they are the West. I
did this myself when I was younger but ideas progress as time goes on.
The ideas that men fifty years ago thought were the most innovative and
groundbreaking are understood today by teenagers, and bypassed by those
teenagers when they become adults. This happened with me with the idea
of Deconstructionism. I didn't realize I was being taught basic
principles of Derrida's deconstructionism in college without anyone
ever really mentioning him by name. But when I started to read about
his work much seemed so obvious to me.
I don't really want to get into politics, but for an example of this,
Evola says, in American "Civilisation":
"In a superior civilization (to America), as, for example, that of the
Indo-Aryans, the being who is without a characteristic form or caste
(in the original meaning of the word), not even that of servant or
shudra, would emerge as a pariah. "
Evola is completely anti-American, and if we look at the fascist old
caste system of India, or Soviet Communism, or one-thousand other
regimes that have come up in the last hundred years, we should see by
now that no government is perfect.
The idea of people considering the Indo-Aryan, or Hindu, caste system
as superior to America is a little strange. I don't see him basing it
on anything logical, but of course it sounds exotic. The fact that
Evola's name is tarnished with fascism, and fascism never meaning
anything good, hasn't led me to study his work. Often when people try
to make things better than existing forms, they make it much worse.
This was the history of much of the 20th Century. I think
Post-modernism has understood that, and I'm glad for it. When things
are stable and there aren't bullets being heard in the background, and
your not walking through fresh rubble, and you can pretty much read
what you want to, I think people should be grateful. Agitators, and I'm
not talking about activists, are often guided by political motives than
are less than virtuous.
Regarding Rene Guenon, I feel like I have some similarity to him. I
just published two books called "The Experience of Hallucinations in
Religious Practice, " and "Hyperreligiosity: Identifying and Overcoming
Religious Dysfunction." As one writer put it, Guenon was against the
psuedo-intellectualism of modern esotericisms and favored instead the
traditional approaches to spiritual growth. I am the same way, except I
tend to look also at modern brain science and psychology when
understanding esotericism, brain science which Guenon didn't have.
Theosophy always said it was "Science, Philosophy, and Religion" but if
they knew what modern neurologists understood about hallucination they
would understand their canon, that is the writers such as Leadbeater
and Bailey, a lot better. I was never a Theosophist but I knew an
amazing one who grew up in a New York Theosophical family and who was a
close friend for many years. The Theosophy I was taught by her was
adamantly against talking to spirits and astral travel. It was like
somehow the Holy Spirit was guiding it because this realm of talking to
spirits is where people begin to get really crazy. Her Theosophy was
also extremely academic. My teacher had these large medallions on her
wall of many major figures, such as Ramon Lull, Paracelsus and Agrippa.
And she was totally service based.
I am writing a book that is critical of some of the ideas of the
philosopher Gurdjieff, which maintaining an appreciation for the good
ideas of his which have helped me and I've practiced since a teenager.
But no one else has ever had some of these oddball ideas that Gurdjieff
came up with, and some of them I think are just wrong. But his very
educated followers seem to take them fully as theWord of God. It gets
extremely nefarious in the case of Gurdjieff, because he had ideas that
stated mankind's purpose is to be a type of food for the moon unless
man can escape! You can see what has happened to the pristine idea that
man was created in the image of God. About five years ago there were
two major human philosophical dystopic movies: The Matrix and The
X-files movie, and the very idea that human life was created for
something not so beautiful comes right out of Gurdjieff. His followers
might not want to admit that, but it's in the books, black and white.
I like the reputation of Guenon ironing out some of the flaws of things
like Theosophy, because I see myself doing that with some the
Gurdjieffian ideas and whatever crop of new crazy thinking that has
come up.
I think esotericism can be a mask a person hides behind, to just play
with words. In this way, Gurdjieff had something to say, because people
are meant to balance themselves out, to do things they couldn't do, and
do things that they don't even want to do. But the goal of spirituality
isn't supposed to be some kind of boot camp either, nor provide
obsessive people the means to display their mental disease.
God doesn't requires us to be that sophisticated when it comes to
spirituality. Esotercism is made for man, not for God. I never met
Guenon so I can't tell you what kind of person he was but he may not
have really made a difference to the uneducated or "common" man when he
met that uneducated or "common" man in the course of his life.
Esotercists that are just part of an educated class and bandy about
difficult ideas do not impress most people. They will impress each
other, however. The end point in this is that the universe is obviously
much greater than what we commonly perceive, and if esotericism can
help you see into that, I think that's great. However, there are many
pitfalls, and if people don't realize this, it may because they are in
one.
G: Do you think Radical Traditionalism is a good solution for men and
women today who need a way to expand their intellectual understanding
of cosmic truth, to really see what is inherent in reality?
R: I don't think that Radical Traditionalism is really a good solution
to understand cosmic truth. Cosmic truth seems to operate on two
levels: on the level of science, and on the level of love. I see
Radical Traditionalism being more aligned with politics, and as far as
politics, we've seen how horrific change in that area quickly becomes.
When you say cosmic truth that means to me like not only understanding
the need and importance of love, but the need and importance of
epistemological truth and empowerment. I'm someone who wants a full
life, and, when I'm not doing periods of mostly writing or composing,
lives a full life. It's easy to get into mysticism and just say, well,
I've found God, I don't need sex or much money. Mysticism will fulfill
you totally. But often, most of us want companionship and even things
like travel which usually take money. Companionship as an artist or
thinker often means moving in the educated classes, which has an
element of competitiveness in it, as does mating in those realms. Some
people don't experience this but some people do. So, I think cosmic
truth also means understanding what it takes to get what you want in
this world. I think more unique people are disempowered by normal ideas
of religion against this capacity. I'm someone who can accept things
like the caballa or the tarot cards and also the Judeo-Christian ideas
because I have no contradictions in them. For instance, the bible says
"do not do any divination nor talk to spirits." Well, I do not use the
tarot for divination, but the tarot can be useful as a system of
archetypes of events. Some people do not get to experience all these
events, but seeing the tarot in this way could be a healing modality. I
also see as helpful a type of caballistic system based on the four
elements, as the psychological states of movement (air), expansion
(fire), solidification (earth) and condensation (water). The Gurdjieff
ideas I take only as an esoteric psychology. Since I have a deep belief
in God and prayer, I do not need to have much more than these things. I
do not believe in talking to spirits or conjuring them or using them.
I think what's most important is that people can have a secure base.
These dreams of utopias and major changes in society seem to me
delusional. There are always people who aren't going to understand your
intentions. The world is a fabric of billions of wills all intertwined.
In any country, the idea of national movement can be very scary. The
very nature of living as a mammal is to experience pain and discomfort.
When you collectivize this pain and discomfort, in comes out in bigger
waves. Bloodshed often occurs. Many people are not wise enough to
understand this, even people who may be very intellectual.
I am not fully Post-modernist. I think instead that progress is a real
thing, and more inline with the Judeo-Christian tradition that many
would like to believe. This is my understanding after even a 27 year
exposure to esotericism. What these people who dismiss or even hate the
Judeo-Christian lineage don't realize is that they can not really see
in the mirror. They are often coming from a Judeo-Christian culture and
judging thing based on achievements and advances made by
Judeo-Christian thinkers.
I don't like Traditionalism so much because it tends to downplay the
achievements of the West. If a white person starts to talk about how
the West is superior, of course they are branded a racist, but if a
white person talks about how the East or Middle East is superior, or
even some kind of mythological golden pagan age of the past, then it's
OK. What is at issue here is that the white person in this case is
making a power move to establish that he is on the side with more
power. It doesn't matter that now he is on the so-called other side.
I've heard a white male Gurdjieffian with a Sufi bent tell me that
Muslims were the most spiritual people on earth. It's interesting to
think about the Traditionalist movement now with the rise of Islamic
terrorism. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some causal
relationship involved, but I'm not implying that. That all these things
are tarnished is pretty much in keeping with the ideas and progress
made in Post-modernism philosophy. Maybe in ways we progress beyond
what anyone has any comprehension of right now, and people are just
insecure about that so they try to throw back their thinking to
something old, and probably even imaginary and safe. I'm just trying to
be present now and observe.
G: Is it possible or necessary to have flawless logic?
R: No. Someone wise once said, "it is a very advance stage to
understand that one does not know." One can know however things like
God is love. There is a force that wants our good in this world. We
were created to be loved. Prayer works. Prayer like black magic won't
work. There is a limitation to the physical world, and this might even
apply to things like knowledge. If you pray for getting things in any
easy way, that often means other people are going to have to do things
to serve you. God doesn't favor people that way and the things that the
television preachers teach are partially blasphemy. Being virtuous
makes the universe act more virtuous to you because you become someone
stronger. When the storms hit, you have learned how to remember
yourself, to remember your inner core experience, the Tao in you, the
part of you that was created in the image of God and is not
corruptible. Your essence can be purely you, the you that you really
love and want.
It is possible to live in a state of grace. Knowing that is a type of
flawless logic. Do I believe in the mystics and masters who supposedly
have "flawless logic"? It's interesting. I can give you a link that has
about 200 international headlines of recent crimes that cults have
created. There is murder, child molestation, and every other kind of
crime you can think of. All of these were committed by people who
believed that one leader had flawless logic, or by the leader. We all
have to have a certain degree of humility to keep progressing.
G: If there's anything you'd like to add, please do so
R: Well, stay tuned to my website, www.rspearson.com. A lot of new
things will be coming in over the next year. I have more books
appearing as well as ten new CDs that were recorded over the last 20
years. Thank you for the great questions.
--
--
Robert Pearson
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Creative Virtue Press/Telical Books/Regenerative Music
http://www.rspearson.com