My Blog

I would like to spend this time to describe the format of my blog. The topics will be whatever thought happens to grab my attention, and then being able to build upon that thought to such a degree that it will in the end be a sufficiently elaborated topic. I will also try to maintain a schedule of one posting per week on every Friday, unless conditions dictate otherwise. For example, I am starting a paper on the Paticca Sammupada of Buddhism and Transcendental Idealism. This will force me to spend the next two weeks on this paper, so I will be unable to post on my blog. This is an unfinished project of mine, and it is time that I finish it. I am also going to edit some of my previous posts so that they are worded better. I appreciate all of readers, especially the return visitors who I see spent good time reading my postings. It is because of you, I will post my paper on my blog, and hope that you find it great reading.

Erromenon Se Hoi Theoi Diaphulattoien

300

I must say that I am very excited about the movie 300. It is a movie based upon the novel 300 by Frank Miller, which in turn is based upon the historical event at the Battle of Thermopylae in which an army of Greeks, mainly Spartans held off the massive Persian army to such an extent that Xerxes was unable to conquer the Greek states. At first glance this movie seems to have elements of both history and fantasy. There was the Battle of Thermopylae, Emperor Xerxes, and King Leonidas. Also some of the characters in the movie look like they belong in a fantasy movie; the previews have shown certain forces in the Persian army to look monstrous. I applaud this use of historical facts with fantastical elaboration. The reason is because this event is best described by what Nietzsche called the monumental method, since the antiquarian and critical doesn’t do full justice in describing this historical event. The monumental method shows that the greatness that surrounds that event was possible, and thus can be possible again. It affirms the greatness of the human spirit. The antiquarian method lacks the ability to generate new life and will new things, since it doesn’t stress the relevance of this event in history relative to the condition of humanity in the present. The critical method with its focus on over-analyzing details will tend to miss the forest for the trees. The message that this movie sends with its focus on the small number of Spartans battling the immense Persian army is that it is not numbers that ultimately matter, but strength of will, force of intellect, and a spirit of artistic reverence. The human condition today is very sad, we are treading the path of the last man, and we need a role model like King Leonidas to show us what we as humans are capable of accomplishing. I only hope that this theme for a movie is developed again and again. I would love to see a movie about the Emperor Julian in which he is portrayed as a sage and warrior who has scenes in which mystery and magic surround him and other pagan sages, and which the opposing Christians are seen portrayed very mechanistically eroding the mystery and magic in the world. It could end with his death being the death of something greater, the death of the mystical worldview which gave birth to centuries of darkness.

Epistemology and Metaphysics

I just got done reading about both epistemology and metaphysics and I really believe that I have gained an insight into how to think about certain aspects of philosophy better. The main issue that was brought up was whether epistemology should be based upon metaphysics or should metaphysics based upon epistemology. After I get done giving an explanation of what I read, many will say, “but isn’t that obvious”. I will agree that it is something that those with a philosophical background know (including me), but it is not a philosophical tool that we actively apply to understand philosophical issues that it would be relevant towards, and I believe that it should be.

The reading was mostly about the nature of words being able to give truthful statements about the Brahman; this book is about Advaita Vedanta and its application to religious discourse. The part that I really cogitated upon was the beginning in which it was stated that certain philosophers and philosophies have based metaphysics on epistemology, and certain philosophers have based epistemology upon metaphysics. The philosophers that based metaphysics on epistemology were Descartes, Locke, and Kant, whereas the philosophers that based epistemology on metaphysics were Spinoza, Hegel, and Whitehead. The philosophies that based metaphysics on epistemology were the Carvakas, Baudhas, and Vaisheshika, whereas it stated that almost all other philosophies of India based epistemology on metaphysics. It was stated almost exactly like this, with no explanation of their philosophies. Fortunately, I am familiar with all of these philosophers and schools of thought with the exception of Whitehead; therefore I was able to understand what was meant. What was instantly aroused was a mental activity that put a lot into perspective.

The common classification of these above philosophers does not fit into the mold of basing epistemology upon metaphysics or vice versa, with the exception of the Indian philosophical schools. It seems that the nastika schools seem to base metaphysics on epistemology whereas the astika schools base epistemology on metaphysics, I know that Vaisheshika is an astika darshana and it listed as the former, but besides this anomaly the above point still stands. The reason is obvious, if the Vedas and its derivatives (Upanishads, Aryanakas, and Brahmanas) are the highest source of knowledge then whatever metaphysical principles derived from these texts would clearly have veracity. The astika schools have their name from the fact that they don’t see the Vedas as giving ultimate knowledge; therefore they must get their knowledge from another source. This is my personal opinion on the difference between Buddhism and Vedanta, the Buddha relied mostly on his phenomenology, whereas the Vedantists relied mostly on Shruti and the Vedanta Sutra. I do believe that the Buddha understood his experience using the religious language of India, which included Vedanta, and that the Vedantists like Shankara meditated and reflected on what is real, but I am only saying what I believe to be their foundation, what I believe to be their starting point. I apologize if I am going on a tangent now, but there is so much that I want to say, but I promise to stick to my point now, and not deviate from it.

When Descartes, Locke, and Kant are classified in the history of philosophy, they are not grouped together, except under that title of Modern Philosophy. Descartes is labeled as a rationalist, Locke is labeled as an empiricist, and Kant is labeled as a transcendental idealist. The same goes for Spinoza, Hegel, and Whitehead. Spinoza is labeled as a rationalist, Hegel is labeled as a German Idealist, and Whitehead’s system as process philosophy. Anyone understanding their philosophy will see that these labels make sense, and I am not trying to redefine how Modern Philosophy is articulated, I will just try to give an additional insight. The method of Descartes was to use methodological doubt to question everything until he could find that one certain bit of knowledge that could not be doubted, and build his system from there. For Descartes this was the cogito, the fact that he thinks. Even if one was to doubt consciousness, they have just affirmed it through the conscious act of doubting. Then Descartes attempts to build a system based upon what he “proves” to be true using reason. The reason I placed the quotes around proves was his fallacious attempt at proving God via the ontological argument. Locke started from our experience of sensory ideas as knowledge, and then analyzes them into primary and secondary qualities, and builds a system based upon this. Kant sought out to determine what the necessary conditions of experience were and then determine based upon this epistemic condition what is the extent of out knowledge. Spinoza started from the metaphysical premise of substance as that which exists which has infinite attributes and then elaborates upon it. Hegel’s Absolute from which his system rested upon was a meta-consciousness which proceeds to lose itself in nature and then regain itself in spirit. I am unfamiliar with the philosophy of Whitehead, but I should start to study him, because from the little that I gleaned, his system could probably answer the dilemma that arose in the previous post.

The reason that I write this is because if one starts from epistemological premises, then having an actual metaphysics is problematic. Descartes’ insight has been the foundation of phenomenology, and Husserl has taken shown most metaphysical positions that he held to be in doubt, though his cogito as a phenomenological foundation is bedrock. Locke’s empiricism was used against him by Berkeley to destroy his materialism, and then later by Hume in which any metaphysics is impossible. Kant’s system divided reality, or aspects of reality, into both phenomena and noumena, leaving the ultimate nature of existence unknown. The problem with the rationalists tends to be of a different sort. Since they start with a metaphysical principle that has no ground of correspondence outside of their reason, and use reason beyond its scope to construct how this principle develops, they are accused of speculative metaphysics. The main problem is that if we start with what we know we are unable to get to knowing what is, but if we start from what is we really having now way of knowing that this is what is. I have methods that I use to try to solve this problem; it is a synthesis of transcendental idealism, phenomenology, and mysticism, which is for a later date. I leave you to do your own cogitations upon this.

Note: I will try to maintain a structure and life for this blog, and rather than having 40 posts the first month, and 1 or 2 in the sixth (I have seen this in other blogs), I will post one article every Friday, possibly two. I know that seems much less activity that its inception, but I do have other projects.

The book in question was Problems and Perspectives in Religious Discourse: Advaita Vedanta Implications by John Grimes

I am in the process of editing this post

This is the Immortal, The fearless. This is Brahman

The title is taken from the Chandogya Upanishad in which a very insightful sermon on the nature of the Brahman and Atman are expounded. This article will deal with these two notions central to the Vaidika Dharma. To get things started, I will comment on the writings of Julius Evola from Revolt Against The Modern World, in which he describes the historical development of the Brahman from the original Aryan view to the pantheistic interpretation of later Vedanta.

Julius Evola asserts the spiritual Weltanschauung of the Aryan declined when the Brahman and the Atman were conceived in pantheistic terms as the primordial principle from which all life proceeds and into which all life is reabsorbed. This he sees as lamentable due to the corollaries of this position which erode at the foundation of the noble path. These include the loss of spiritual personality, and the doctrine of the equality of all creatures rooted in this pantheistic interpretation. Also, asceticism now is seen as a method of escapism rather than true transcendental fulfillment. This is contrasted to the original Aryan view in which the Brahman is seen as a magical force or power described in the Atharva Veda and Brahmanas that the Aryan directs through his rites. Also the original doctrine of the Atman is reaffirmed in original Buddhism when the atman is seen as nirvana, which is the state to be ultimately achieved. What was promoted was a heroic theme in which the attainment of immortality was to be won.

I have two perspectives on this, and I will use Kantian philosophical language for the purpose of elucidation, not for the purpose of expounding an actual doctrine. From a practical perspective, I find the original Aryan Vedic view to be ideal. The original ideas of the Brahman and Atman are very affirmative. The Brahman as the ultimate force or magical power that is so strongly tied into the Dharma of the Aryans lays the foundation of a religion in which power, mystery, beauty, and wisdom achieve their crowning glory. It also confers an ontological status based upon what conditions of existence attract the Brahman. Therefore conditions of Aryan birth, male birth, and attachment to the Eternal Way allow us to be conduits for this Brahman. The Atman as the highest goal to be attained gives us the psychology of striving to further and further perfection. These doctrines should be core to the traditional Indo-European perspective.

The problem is from a theoretical perspective. From a theoretical perspective, I have a strong desire to posit a first cause. This first cause will be seen as the necessary being through which all contingent beings have their being. There is this strong desire to see the Brahman as both the necessary being and how the Brahman was described in the previous paragraph. The dilemma that arises is if I posit the Brahman as a necessary being then I create a metaphysics that leads to one that Julius Evola was critical of for practical reasons, and if I retain the Brahman in the manner that I want, and also posit a necessary being, then this necessary being will overshadow the Braham, because there can only be one necessary being, and the Brahman must be contingent upon it, therefore lowering the power of the Brahman.

The way that I am thinking about proceeding is to take these original ideas of the Brahman and Atman and work them into a phenomenological description of reality, and thus interpret other phenomenological experiences around these to get to a greater insight of what is, and how it is, and why it is. I would like to end with a war hymn in the Atharva Veda which is a battle charm for confusing the enemy.

Agni shall skillfully march against our opponents, burning against their schemes and hostile plans; Gâtavedas shall confuse the army of our opponents and deprive them (of the use) of their hands! Ye Maruts are mighty in such matters: advance ye, crush ye, conquer ye (the enemy)! These Vasus when implored did crush (them). Agni, verily, as their vanguard shall skilfully attack! O Maghavan, the hostile army which contends against us--do ye, O Indra, Vritra's slayer, and Agni, burn against them! Thy thunderbolt, O Indra, who hast been driven forward swiftly by thy two bay steeds, shall advance, crushing the enemies. Slay them that resist, pursue, or flee, deprive their schemes of fulfillment! O Indra, confuse the army of the enemy; with the impact of the fire and the wind scatter them to either side! Indra shall confuse the army, the Maruts shall slay it with might! Agni shall rob it of its sight; vanquished it shall turn about!

The State - What is its Foundation

I was reading a compendium of Kant’s political philosophy, and though I have issues with his morality, both his rabid deontology, and the fact that he asserts that duties are universal to all of humanity and not based upon the qualities inherent in the person himself, I do find many healthy ideas in his political philosophy. This is basically set around nature of the state. To elaborate upon this I will have to explain the more perverse ideas of the state that are contained in the philosophies of Locke and Rousseau. For Locke the right to property was prior to the state, and the justification for having property came from the original act of appropriation. Since I have mixed my labor into the world, the object created through this labor becomes mine. The next issue is how to coordinate the entirety of the individual wills of the members of society. This is where Rousseau comes into play with his notion of the general will, which is the collective will of all the members of society. For me to take part in this social contract, I must place my individual will under the authority of the collective will. Since this social contract is based upon a historical fact rather than an unassailable principle, it creates a condition of members in this society being obliged to follow the state’s laws rather than obligated to do so. We now see how the state is justified. It is through property rights in and of themselves with no corresponding responsibility and duty, and with a contract based on set of historical circumstances which do not create conditions of obligation. For Kant, it is not a historical fact that justifies a social contract, but a regulative idea of reason. For all of us unfamiliar with Kantian philosophy, what he could not prove using epistemological means, which were ideas of God and the soul, were affirmed based upon moral reasons. God is postulated as the synthetic a priori between justice and happiness, and the soul is postulated as allowing us to achieve the summum bonum of virtue. The idea of the state will be seen as a requirement of reason to establish a government based upon the notion of the universal will. This universal will is not the will of the collective, but an idea of practical reason. It is this state based upon the universal will which creates the necessity of property for members of this society to be free.

The main problem with a government based upon these principles of Locke and Rousseau is that they tend to reduce government to the lowest common denominator. Basing a state upon property just creates a state that serves the interest of those with more wealth. Also basing a social contract upon the will of the majority tends to reduce agreement to the lowest common denominator as well. The leaders will just pander to whoever controls the majority viewpoint. If we start with the idea that it is the state that justifies property, then property seems to be based upon an ethical ideal. Property now has a moral burden in that those with more property have a stronger duty to promote this ethical ideal and aesthetic ideal of the state. This can be seen in the notion of the aristocracy who felt it was their duty to fund the arts and other forms of high culture. If one has received a lot, much is expected. The notion of a universal will based upon a regulative idea of reason rather than the whims of the masses will create a bedrock from which intelligent policy can follow, rather than appealing to the whims of the masses.

To put all of this into a more layman’s perspective, think of lowering oneself into the depths or rising up into the mountain. The excessive focus on purely economic interests and plebian desires is tantamount to going deeper and deeper into the swamp, whereas higher ideas and the notion of the universal will seem like a sacred object on top of a mountain. To develop these ideas further and better we will have to pass beyond Kant to the German Idealists and Traditionalists. The Hegelian notion of the State as the Divine Idea on earth will unite both the regulative ideas of God and the State. This object spirit is delineated thoroughly in law, morality, and social ethics. The ideal development of this is in the book Men Among the Ruins by Julius Evola in which many principles of the Traditional State are explicated. To quote Julius Evola, “The Idea is our Fatherland”.

Proper behavior and method of arguing

I can’t help but watch the news and be bombarded with details of this petty argument between Donald Trump and Rosie O’Donnell. Out of curiosity I decided to do a search for the video clips of their argument, and then determine who is at fault. I have come to the conclusion that both of them are acting juvenile, and should be publicly chastised as terrible examples on how one should argue. The major problem in this specific case involving prominent members of society is indicative of a larger problem, and that larger problem is people trying to win an argument through a force of their personality rather than the substance of their argument. The truly sad part is that this confrontation goes far beyond the bullying tactics of a Bill O’Reilly to the level that one would expect at a middle school playground.

It has been stated that Rosie O’Donnell is a comedian therefore she is permitted to argue in this fashion, whereas Donald Trump is a CEO of a major corporation and should behave in a much more dignified manner. This view is entirely plausible if Rosie O’Donnell was to say what she did at a comedy nightclub entertaining customers, but the View is supposed to be serious, and therefore she should act in the manner of a proper host and try to foster good discussion. I will outline the basics of their conversation, and then respond with what and how they should have stated their points.

It started on the View with Rosie O’Donnell commenting on the situation of Tara Conner and her “lewd” behavior, and whether she should retain her crown as Miss USA. She started by putting this in a proper perspective, albeit her tone was rather condescending, by stating that this girl is acting like a normal 20 year girl, and "partying like Paris or Lindsay". She then started to belittle the Miss USA pageant by stating in a dismissive manner “her crown”. She then made fun of her acts of contrition by stating what Tara Conner said by making weeping sounds. Then we get to the main part of her diatribe, which included her making fun of Donald Trump by flipping her hair to one side of her head, and then repeating his statements about people deserving a second chance by speaking in a tone that a dullard would use. The only substantive comment in the whole argument was whether Donald Trump is capable of being a moral authority. She states that he is not able to be a moral compass because of his prior acts of marital infidelity which she believed were more vicious because he had kids with both of these women. Then she ends with a verbal attack.

Now Donald Trump responds. Rather than dealing with the issue of the morality of giving Tara a second chance, he calls Rosie names like “disgusting”, “a slob”. He then takes a perverse pleasure in her bad fate by gloating over her failed ventures. He insults her again by calling her fat and unattractive, and ends by stating that he will have his friend steal her girlfriend.

This whole situation has been a circus. The fact that adults have behaved in this manner is atrocious. The way this should have been handled was by Rosie describing her behavior in a manner that is not condescending. She should then have stated respectfully that she does not believe he is qualified to be a moral authority due to his vices. That still doesn’t address the morality of his decision; it is true that immoral people can make moral choices. If she believed that he made a bad decision she should have given reasons why. Donald Trump should have responded by stating I am not going to respond to these ad hominems, but I will defend my judgment in allowing her to retain her crown. His reasoning seems to be utilitarian in that if she keeps her crown she will be a role model to other young girls in similar circumstances, and these other girls will have a person they can identify with, and thus have a motivating factor to overcome their adversity. This is what he should have said, not spouting childish insults.

Again, I wish to state that this specific situation is indicative of a larger issue, and that is people winning arguments through strength of personality rather than the substance of their arguments. Take a look at "the number one rated television show on cable news", and look at the host of it. This is a man who sees reality in a degree so black and white that it reminds me of 1980’s professional wrestling. He also leads the discussion to areas and phrases things in such a manner that anyone disagreeing with him will seem wicked. Case in point, he one time asked David Letterman if he wished that America would lose the war in Iraq, and David Letterman was hesitant with an answer. He stated that it is an easy question, just answer with a “yes or no”. David Letterman responded that he is not a simple person, and that things are inherently complex. Bear in mind, that I am stating this all from memory, so I could be unintentionally altering the details a bit. A valid response could have been that I have different motivating factors which I both believe to be based upon good reasons, but which conflict as far as the final decision is concerned. From the perspective of world civilization, I wish that Iraq will become a stable democracy which will then cause a ripple effect throughout the Middle East. Though from the perspective of Bush's hubris, a loss will only serve as good punishment.

Planet Fitness - A Celebration of Mediocrity

Planet Fitness claims to be a gym that is a “judgment free zone” and also free of the “irritations” they believe to be commonplace in hard core gyms like grunting, heavy breathing, and the sounds of heavy weights making contact with the ground. I assert that this ideology is a front for their real intentions, which is a profit making venture based upon the celebration of mediocrity.

Planet Fitness purports to have a “judgment free zone”. The policies that Planet Fitness sets to create this “judgment free zone” are to ban certain activities. These activities range from the banning of large compound exercises like squats and deadlifts, to the banning of grunting, heavy breathing, and other activities that a lifter may do to get psyched up. They do this for the reason that a novice lifter might feel intimidated by this behavior. If these activities intimidate a novice lifter it is only based upon his or her insecurity. Intense lifting does not equate to the degrading and insulting of novice lifters. The opposite is actually the case. From my experience, serious lifters have the mindset of wanting to give their knowledge and expertise to novice lifters, thus helping them. They see it as an affirmation of their accomplishments. The problem is that the policies to protect members from being judged by serious lifters are based upon a spurious assessment of the behavior of the serious lifter. The irony is that Planet Fitness is judging serious lifters based upon ridiculous stereotypes, and they claim to create a judgment free zone. Just go to their site, and listen to the commercials they have. These are silly parodies of the serious lifter (http://www.planetfitness.com/pffun.asp).

Planet Fitness also creates these policies with the supposed intent of removing irritations that are detrimental to exercise. One of the methods that they use is to sound an alarm that sounds like a siren during an air raid (http://www.planetfitness.com/lunk.htm). The reality is that a gym is not a library; the sound of heavy breathing is in no way detrimental to the other people performing their exercises properly. If this activity was a detriment, then serious lifters would not have achieved the physique that they did, considering they exercise in conditions of other people breathing heavy. I cannot say the same of an alarm that sounds like an air raid siren, that would be extremely distracting.

I have shown the policies of Planet Fitness to be absurd. Planet Fitness attempts to create a “judgment free zone”, by using means that portray ridiculous stereotypes of serious lifters, thus being horribly judgmental. Planet Fitness also creates a circus atmosphere by sounding an alarm that sounds like a siren. I and others will question what their real agenda is. I believe it is a profit making venture based upon the celebration of mediocrity. For this consumerist society that we live in, a good deal of people will want a gym that is more of a social outlet that will not challenge them, and will promote their mediocrity by making their insecurities look like virtues. A perfect example of this is the commercial that caricatures a serious lifter by stating that he spends an inordinate amount of money on supplements (http://www.planetfitness.com/sound/Pf1.mp3). This is a clear distortion of the truth. To put this in a more realistic perspective, the need for supplements is very important. Supplements will both facilitate weightlifting goals and allow one to cross physical barriers through the promotion of muscle recovery, fat loss, post workout nutrition, pre workout boosts, etc.. I know people who will spend 300 - 400 dollars on a Friday or Saturday night. By going to less expensive places on the weekends you can easily afford the costs of supplements. It is all a matter of priorities, and to excel at something, you must set activities around that as a higher priority. To ridicule the choices of those that excel is clearly a celebration of mediocrity, a vice that Planet Fitness has capitalized upon for profit.

Where the Runes Still Speak

In the Apology, Socrates makes this assertion about the poets of ancient Greece. “For after the politicians I went to the poets both tragic and dithyrambic, and also others, expecting that I should here immediately find myself to be less wise than these. Taking up, therefore, some of their poems which appeared to me to be the most elaborately written, I asked them what was their meaning, that at the same time I might learn something from them. I am ashamed indeed, O Athenians, to tell you the truth; but at the same time it must be told. For, as I may say, all that were present would have spoken better about the things which they had composed. I discovered this, therefore, in a short time concerning the poets, that they did not effect by wisdom that which they did, but by a certain genius and from enthusiastic energy, like prophets and those that utter oracles.”

This above statement can appear to be somewhat critical of poets. One must remember the context in which this statement of Socrates was spoken. He was accused of corrupting the youth and altering the state religion. This criticism of the poet’s lack of wisdom was part of a larger dialogue in which he was showing that he was the wisest because he knows that he knows nothing, whereas all of the other members of society believed themselves to be wise (politicians, poets, artisans). This is all part of Socratic irony. Instead I would like to focus on the positive comment about the poets for the sake of this posting. A good poem or set of lyrics does seem to have been inspired by a certain genius. The poet or lyricist is like a prophet, oracle, or seer. This being said, there is a song by Candlemass which I believe to have been inspired by a genius or daemon. The words speak to my soul.

Where The Runes Still Speak

Rain and thunder, fire and wind
Come with me, I leave with the tide
I wrap my cloak closer 'round my shoulders
To keep me warm from the raging storm

The spirits are here to guide my journey
Over the edge of the world
A thousand wounds cry in my soul
Love and pain, a bleeding heart

Where the runes still speak
I 'm coming home
Where the runes still speak

Alone I stand on this stony coast
Winds of spring whisper through the trees
The grey horizon gives me life again
Ice and stone, the voices of the gods

No woman can show me where the fire burns
No preacher can tell me who I am
My blood is calling me from Asaland
I'm on my way home in the end

A homeward son will claim his heritage
walk the soil of this earth
The pen will be his mighty sword
And the truth his defense

I've traveled roads that lead to wonder
I've seen cities rise and fall
The burden, the cross of a pilgrim
I bear no more, the son is coming home

You closed the door, but I won't give
Somewhere my new life will begin
Countless treasures I shared with you
The only one left is my solitude

I would like to end by giving my interpretation of the first and second verse after the first chorus. A stony coast represents the angst that one feels due to this world seeming alien. Stone as inorganic matter and the expansiveness of the coast create the mental images that articulate this angst. Now the image goes to winds, spring, and trees which all center on life. The wind has been associated with breath or life, and the spring with a new life, being reborn, and finally the trees as forces of life that grows upwards that overpowers the mechanistic laws of gravity pulling downwards. The mental image of the “grey horizon giving life again” alters the perception of the world retreating into nothingness to an approaching numen of a god, which is now heard in the ice and stone. Then the focus is on the essential nature of the person, which can not be realized from the present religious institutions, “No preacher can tell me who I am”, to the perfection and realization which cannot be found in woman, “No woman can show me where the fire burns”. There is the passion and eros found in the flame of romantic love, but this is weak compared to the divine fire of the gods, which is illustrated in “My blood is calling me from Asaland”. If one takes the etymology of Asaland it is broken into asa and land, the word asa comes from Aesir, which are a race of gods in Norse mythology. I see this as saying that my whole being (blood) is calling me from the land of the Gods (Asaland). I am no longer in angst from being in a world which is devoid of meaning, but on the path to my eternal home. The question is when I will be able to say with assurance and a truthful realization, “cursum perficio”.

Human Sacrifice

I have always been intrigued by human sacrifice. Let me state from the start that I have always found gore movies to be disgusting and serial killers to be vile and deserving a cruel death. So why do I find human sacrifice so aesthetic, when I see a meaningless murder as so offensive. I remember when I was younger, when a movie or TV show depicted a monstrous villain that kills because it is in this villain's nature; I hoped that this villain would meet his just demise. But when a human sacrifice was the scene, there was something mysterious and sublime. I am reminded of two such scenes. One is an episode of Friday the 13th the series in which a Satanic witch has this “good witch” on the altar ready for the sacrifice, and the "good witch" that is ready to be sacrificed cries out, "but you made a pact". She then responded, "but I made a higher pact", and then proceeded to stab him in the heart. I am basing this all on memory, so the exact words might not be right, but even in a partially incorrect representation of the abovementioned scene; I still have presented what I believe to be a paradigm case of human sacrifice. I also remember a scene in the Highlander series when a Viking called Kanwulf is ready to perform the Blood Eagle on a victim. This character had a piety to Odin that spoke of passion, devotion, and heroic action.

This is the key to these sacrifice scenes. There is a sense of piety and sublimity that speaks of a transcendent realm. The sacrifice seems to connect us to the more primal principles of our cosmos. The sacrifice seems to open the door to something greater. What I am reminded of here is Kierkegaard’s interpretation of the biblical story of Abraham and Isaac, when Abraham is ready to sacrifice Isaac on the altar. According to Kierkegaard, Abraham will be committing a murder. From the ethical sphere, he is in the wrong, and what his deity asks him to do is wrong. Though from the religious sphere, Abraham is a knight of faith. He suspends his ethical obligation not to murder, but for a higher act of faith. This activity is named by Kierkegaard as the teleological suspension of the ethical.

This brings up a question of metaethics. What is right and wrong based upon the convention of society has its uses, but the ethical codes that have practical value for a functioning society, do not necessarily correspond to the inner workings of the universe. There is the belief that the universe came into being through sacrifice, and the performing of sacrifices maintain and preserve our universe. These sacrifices are dealing with a different set of standards that transcend common moral dictates. Therefore when I watch the sacrifice scenes of Apocalypto, it is not horror and disgust that fill my soul, but a sense of mystery and fascination. Please click on this link for a visual of what I mean. http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/mf/frame?theme=minfo&lid=wmv-56-p.1528961-179912,wmv-100-p.1528962-179912,wmv-300-p.1528963-179912,wmv-700-p.1528965-179912,wmv-1000-p.1528966-179912,wmv-28-p.1528961-179912&id=1809249345&f=1809249345&mspid=1809798308&type=c&a=0,15

Hasan ibn Sabah

Nietzsche in the 24th section of the third essay in the Genealogy of Morals states, “When the Christian crusaders in the Orient encountered the invincible order of the Assassins, that order of free spirits par excellence, whose lowest ranks followed a rule of obedience the like of which no order of monks ever attained, they obtained in some way or other a hint concerning that symbol and watchword reserved for the highest ranks alone in their secretum: “Nothing is true, everything is permitted.” – Very well, that was freedom of spirit; in that way the faith in truth itself was abrogated.”

After reading The Militia of Heaven by James Wasserman, I have developed a deep admiration for Hasan ibn Sabah. His missionary or dai was a person well versed in philosophy, theology, and mysticism who saw potential converts as unique individuals for whom a deep level of communication resulting in the gnosis of the person was needed for conversion. There were no mass attempts at conversion like we see in modern Christianity, in which the Christian proselytizer asks you to mumble a few lines. His assassin or fidai was a dreaded hunter who saw murder as a religious sacrament. Both the religious and political leaders, who were a threat to the Nizari Ismailis, would soon find a dagger in their heart. I am also fond of his denial of a positivistic religion and the establishment of a religion in which philosophy and mysticism formed the core.

I hope that a man like Hasan ibn Sabah and an organization like the Assassins will be the vanguard of a new Pagan Arya Dharma. A band of pagan sages who bestow a gnosis on those of the right heart and mind, who are also like dreaded wolves who roam the earth slaying all those who oppose this Way is a dream of mine. They will form an Objective Spirit with a force of Will that will change the world.

The time will come when Odin will give his mead of inspiration and divine madness to the select in the world. Then these wolves of Odin will roam the earth bestowing wisdom on those with a heathen heart. These wolves will understand the runes and mysteries of old. They will also be a force of terror in the world for all the enemies of the Eternal Way. Every time a great soul receives the gnosis, and dedicates his life to this Eternal Dharma, and every time an enemy of this Dharma is slain, the Earth, Sea, and Sky will rejoice.