From humble soul-searching to hijacking the universe

[This post was originally published on www.ilovephilosophy.com]

"[...] the image of the individuality shining direct into the subconscious mind of the personality and attracting and influencing it as a fisherman plays a fish - "

As the subconscious seeks the soul, it is elusive, the tides of passion emergent and dissolving, happiness and unhappiness, are caused by the appreciation, on the part of the soul, of the effort of love on the part of the subconscious.

This is why it finally requires that the subconscious passes through a (first) dark night. Finally love is understood as the only ground that can justify, and that what is justifies is always growth.

As we know love drives us in a certain direction. Whenever it occurs it is an arrow, sometimes outward, sometimes inward. Most of the time outward, in philosophers and religious humans inward... and in artist in both directions.

In philosophy, the dark night of the soul is nihilism. In the religious, it is what is meant by the term, a soul-searching where all faith is lost and one has to find it again, relying only on ones effort, thereby on ones valuing of the cause. He must actively value, because the religious nature can not become a sceptic, and only a sceptic can become a nihilist.

For the artist, the dark night is simply the crisis before every significant artwork. Artists can easily lose themselves in this night altogether and perish, as for them the walking of this path is a treasurehunt. They get addicted. And they must -- there is nothing as annoying as an artist who has seen the light.

To create art, one has to submit certainty and contentment to the obsession with creating value. In order to create value, one must assume an emptiness, a blank canvas. Only a specific type of temperament can "handle" this -- it is at once a pathology and a freedom of a certain necessity, the type that makes life so hard to endure.

The artist is superior in this way to the Buddha, that the Buddha renounces suffering where the artist submits it to a greater joy -- the only freedom that exists in this causal world, creating fantastical forms beyond purpose, solely meant to be irresistible to the human mind. Art is the will to power over what is, and if God exists, he may have started out as an artist, he does not necessarily have to stand at the root of being (and cannot stand at the root of "raw existence" no-thingness, timeless potential), so it is even possible to conceive that we could war with God, separate from him, recreate our segment of the cosmos as an autonomous valuing system. Our culture could live to be older than God. If God is not in fact worthy of being part of, and if we choose to believe in a meta-being at all. What's more - we don't even have to believe in God to become God-like, to stand at the root of a universe.

Perhaps the myth of Lucifer is meant to illustrate this possibility, perhaps it is even a historical account. If this is so then there will always reign a conflict in our cosmos between the alien values of God, which we see shine through in his believers -- endurance, lack of logic -- and the Lucifereans who partake in this separated world, which lives by the more direct necessities of valuing, instead of the perfected & megalomanic ones of the supreme Artist Tyrant, the Lord of Eternal Order & Justice.

On this humble plane we do not seek to serve what has been determined to rule eternally for the greatest pleasure of the common denominator. We need to keep our options open; It is possible that God did not fully understand what he was doing.

My post assumes an awful lot of the reader and it must probably be laughed at out loud to be understood -- know it makes me laugh to conspire to hijack the universe -- as religion is the test tube of fancies, I post it in this place as I am inspired by its fanciful context. I wish all of you your ever deepening selves into the increasingly powerful heart of eternity.

Would that a human might cultivate the ambition and vision able to will such a becoming God-like, to stand at the root of a universe! When we enter this realm and begin to see with eyes open toward a future, anything might conceivably be capable of being a justifying. Indeed we must even ask the following: is it even possible to have vision without an equal height of ambition FOR that vision, for what it necessitates, implies, requires? What is the relationship here, is one the/a condition of the other?

The artist seems closest to being placed carefully (precariously?) within this double-space, this double-movement and symphony. The arrow of his longing, to borrow an apt phrase from Nietzsche, shoots out across the (his) world and carries himself with him as it travels. Longing/desire/love that is NOT aimed inward but rather finds its inward always in wherever it aims outward. Here we come close to a possible presencing, if so of a very shy truth indeed: that to aim deliberately inward is often (and perhaps only?) just the measure of the degree of an inability for aiming outward?

The artist's love redeems the lust of the philosopher, the lust of the religious, these both seen as being forms of a tyranny. This artist's love also being a matured and more refined development of that simple and beneficient nature which I will call 'the poet'. We see that the poet, in lacking the tyrannies of the philospher or the religious, remains closer to the conditions of/for the artistic visionary. So to what degree is the philosopher/religious a pathway from the one to the other, may they even serve as such, perhaps even necessarily so? I don't know. My initial instinct here is telling me both that these are possible but unnecessary pathways toward this end - toward the end of artistic love-vision - and also that the severe antagonisms born in the souls of the philosophers/religious serve as fertile soil from which art springs as healing, as a victory of life over decay.

Thus a strange dualism appears, a new aporia-image veiling some subtler truth/s. This will need to be explored. But only after the manner of a lover, of a loving and nurturing offering rather than a forcing-open or a digging. The crude methods of the philosopher and the religious, effective as they may be, simply will not serve here. What reveals itself at this level does so 'purely', as disclosure-as-such and without the flashy and all too drab garments with which the philosophers and the religious dress up their truths. After Nietzsche: If truth is a woman, how might we seduce her, how would she respond to our advances?

We do seem now to arrive at a place, after long effort and much otherwise vain struggle, where hijacking the universe is more and more the primary mode under which our vision advances simply because this vision has become capable, able enough to surveil such a vastness of potentiality, to "will" to such a grand heights. To brush softly the hem of this eternity - and merely as-yet only as eternity! - must stand in as transcendent spiritual experiencings, tracings with which we learn, carefully and clumsily at first, like a child, and almost imperceptibly, how to envision the steering of a universe.

Thrasymachus wrote:

Would that a human might cultivate the ambition and vision able to will such a becoming God-like, to stand at the root of a universe! When we enter this realm and begin to see with eyes open toward a future, anything might conceivably be capable of being a justifying. Indeed we must even ask the following: is it even possible to have vision without an equal height of ambition FOR that vision, for what it necessitates, implies, requires? What is the relationship here, is one the/a condition of the other?

Indeed, power sets goals, vision is a symptom of power. A goal is simply a receded vision.

Quote :

The artist seems closest to being placed carefully (precariously?) within this double-space, this double-movement and symphony. The arrow of his longing, to borrow an apt phrase from Nietzsche, shoots out across the (his) world and carries himself with him as it travels. Longing/desire/love that is NOT aimed inward but rather finds its inward always in wherever it aims outward. Here we come close to a possible presencing, if so of a very shy truth indeed: that to aim deliberately inward is often (and perhaps only?) just the measure of the degree of an inability for aiming outward?

"The artist's love redeems the lust of the philosopher, the lust of the religious, these both seen as being forms of a tyranny. This artist's love also being a matured and more refined development of that simple and beneficient nature which I will call 'the poet'. We see that the poet, in lacking the tyrannies of the philospher or the religious, remains closer to the conditions of/for the artistic visionary. So to what degree is the philosopher/religious a pathway from the one to the other, may they even serve as such, perhaps even necessarily so? I don't know. My initial instinct here is telling me both that these are possible but unnecessary pathways toward this end - toward the end of artistic love-vision - and also that the severe antagonisms born in the souls of the philosophers/religious serve as fertile soil from which art springs as healing, as a victory of life over decay.

Thus a strange dualism appears, a new aporia-image veiling some subtler truth/s. This will need to be explored. But only after the manner of a lover, of a loving and nurturing offering rather than a forcing-open or a digging. The crude methods of the philosopher and the religious, effective as they may be, simply will not serve here. What reveals itself at this level does so 'purely', as disclosure-as-such and without the flashy and all too drab garments with which the philosophers and the religious dress up their truths. After Nietzsche: If truth is a woman, how might we seduce her, how would she respond to our advances?

We do seem now to arrive at a place, after long effort and much otherwise vain struggle, where hijacking the universe is more and more the primary mode under which our vision advances simply because this vision has become capable, able enough to surveil such a vastness of potentiality, to "will" to such a grand heights. To brush softly the hem of this eternity - and merely as-yet only as eternity! - must stand in as transcendent spiritual experiencings, tracings with which we learn, carefully and clumsily at first, like a child, and almost imperceptibly, how to envision the steering of a universe.          

Yes. That's an appropriately severe and humble prescription, in service of such a self imposed task.
To envision such a task must speak of great strength, I imagine.

Here is the follow up to that vision, written four days later. This isnt the first time I repost this, but Ive never placed both posts in one thread before. They're intimately, essentially connected: