John Lash's Kalika war party

[araucaria]

…/…
Ulysses/Odysseus was a Greek leader who voted against the Trojan War, declared to appease the wrath of the god Apollo – he would have much preferred to stay at home with his wife Penelope and their young son Telemachus, and their new puppy Argus. While the supersoldier Achilles hid among the womenfolk to avoid the draft (as an almost immortal, except for that Achilles heel, he had been warned that it would be the death of him), Ulysses was the smart guy who eventually found a backdoor to put an end to this interminable war: the Wooden Horse of Troy.

The Trojan Horse (which appropriately gave its name to a computer virus working on similar principles) is emblematic of the archontic parasitism we are talking about here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Horse The wooden horse is left by the Greeks pretending to sail away from the war, as a trophy or religious peace offering, but is actually a device to gain entry for a band of men, leading to the destruction of the city. For a military general, it is a camouflaged invasion force; for an epidemiologist it is a foreign body; for a ufologist it might be an unidentified false-flag object or alien craft. In archontic terms, it is a war on war, i.e. an attempt to stop war by fighting to the finish. It is only effective up to a point; it stops this war, but it not war in general.

The war (still ongoing at the end of the Iliad) is over, but there follows a new ten-year war specifically targeting Ulysses and his men, as recounted in the Odyssey, in which every trap is laid to prevent his homecoming. These ‘adventures’ are all archontic traps. Take the one-eyed giant Cyclops, who keeps sheep but eats men. So, after blinding Cyclops, Ulysses and his men escape from his cave by disguising themselves as sheep, clinging under their bellies as the giant feels their backs. Interestingly, these early ‘sheeple’ play out the Trojan Horse scenario in reverse: both involve cunning, but instead of the besiegers getting in through a fake life form, you have the besieged getting out through a real – double – life form.

When Ulysses returns home after twenty years, he comes in for a number of ID checks, naturally enough since the palace is besieged by fifty suitors, in other words ‘pretenders’ – not the genuine article, merely parasites living a life of luxury at Penelope’s expense. The first check is a sniffer-dog: the now 20-year-old hound Argus, which has faithfully held on long enough to welcome his master home (but no longer). Ulysses is also recognized by his old nurse. And he is the only person able to string his bow, with which he kills the 50 suitors. But this is not proof enough for his wife Penelope, who instructs her servant to move her marriage bed to accommodate him. He tells her it can’t be done because he made it himself and one of the legs is a living olive tree. In other words, the sacred marriage is at once immovably grounded and very much alive. The presence of this life as the central force in the house is the true opposite of archontic parasitism, which turns out to be in and of itself the ultimate instance of falsity and fakery, the pale imitation.

The whole Homeric epic is thus about the attempted destruction of that truth by falsity and the ultimate failure of that attempt. This is the historical period on which Julian Jaynes bases his Bicameral Mind theory whereby heroes obeyed voices in their heads, which they called gods. This simple happy end boils down to a restoration of the basic family unit of a man, a woman and their child. The war itself was started over the abduction of Helen and concluded with her return to her husband. There is also of course the alternative unhappy end, where King Agamemnon returns home only to be murdered by his wife Clytemnestra and her lover, this being only the latest instalment of a multi-generational feud. This feud can probably be traced all the way back to the garden of Eden, which is first and foremost a triangular relationship whereby a normal situation of happy marriage with a man is overlaid with a pornographic mindfùk from something envious and snaky tempted by this ‘daughter of men’.
As Jay Weidner puts it:

Solving the Archon problem may very well be the test. The final test of humanity is can you define the Archon problem and solve it? The thing that will solve the Archon dilemma more than anything is to love each other unconditionally. That just drives them out of their minds. They cannot stand familial love or the love between men and women and that’s why they do all these things to destroy the pureness of it. http://www.jayweidner.com/Archons.html

Which brings us back to John Lash: if it wasn’t already, his position is now very clear.

[Selkie]

Because of anthropos's posts, I have been thinking about how John Lash wants to capture the imagination (mind) of humanity. I never thought I would say this, but I think Bill Ryan is correct. I think John Lash is Archontified.

When Lash and I were in a mushroom trance one time, I saw a look on his face that frightened me to my core: the look of evil. It was during a ritual. He and I each had ahold of a mycelium thread. I was to give my thread to him to combine them and then we were to pass our combined threads to the mushroom entities...the Columbians. The Columbians (Lash said) were to take our combined threads into the Underworld, although I do not know what they were going to do with the threads there. The second I opened my fingers to pass my thread to him, so that they would combine, a look of pure evil came over his face. It was the look that Frank (Henry Fonda) has on his face in the hanging scene in Once Upon A Time in the West. And the thing of it is, I am sure that he showed me that look. He wanted me to see it. He wanted me to see it and be frightened. He played abusive mind-games with me for 4 years. Like I said, I came home from Spain with PTSD caused by his mind-games. He stoked my fear for 4 years. He fed on my fear for 4 years. And so I say that Lash is Archontified. Because he fed on my fear, and the Archons feed on fear, I say that John Lash is Archontified.

[Selkie]

Posted by araucaria (here)
...the garden of Eden, which is first and foremost a triangular relationship whereby a normal situation of happy marriage with a man is overlaid with a pornographic mindfùk from something envious and snaky tempted by this ‘daughter of men’...

(my emphasis)

Araucaria, this is very, very important, and I was wondering (hoping, actually) if you would expand upon it?

[Selkie]

Btw, I thought this ought to go here:



If it wasn't for the hard-line fascist doctrine, I'd dismiss Lash and his followers (of whom I used to be one) as falling somewhere in-between "handful of wackos" and "ditto-heads", but their fascist doctrine, intent to cause mayhem (regardless of ability) and intent to kill (also regardless of ability), raises them to the level of "cult".

addition Because, you see, today the target (scapegoat ) is the "Jues, or "Jeuwes" (or other various and wonderfully exculpatory...for Lash...spellings that Lash may have come up with) or the "Zads", (but how can you tell one from the other? Oh, yeah...that's the job of the Tulpa! John Lash doesn't "do" revelation? Please! ); tomorrow it could be the "communists", or the "feminists", or the "gays"**

** But not the lesbians. John Lash has found a rationale for one of his personal preferences to let them survive the general cleansing. Although maybe the feminist lesbians are on his hit list. Probably, because they are feminists.

[araucaria]

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
...the garden of Eden, which is first and foremost a triangular relationship whereby a normal situation of happy marriage with a man is overlaid with a pornographic mindfùk from something envious and snaky tempted by this ‘daughter of men’...

(my emphasis)

Araucaria, this is very, very important, and I was wondering (hoping, actually) if you would expand upon it?

Thank you Silkie; yes I can at least make a start on that. I agree, this is a hugely important subject. The overlay I am talking about is the aura, or rather the veneer of respectability that is currently being stripped away, not only from gurus, but from every class of outwardly upstanding citizens, be it bankers, royalty, politicians, judges, policemen, celebrities: all of them – and all of us as well, to various lesser degrees perhaps. This is in fact the quickest way of summing up everything that is going on right now.

We had a foretaste of this in the world of 19th century fine art. This period began with artist still producing classical nudes of love goddesses, cupids and nymphs, a throwback from ancient Greece, when nudity was as natural and innocent as with Adam and Eve before the Fall. Alternatively, distancing from anything naughty was achieved by exotic settings such as oriental harems, Turkish baths etc. However, something happened with the advent of realism. When Édouard Manet exhibited Olympia, there was total uproar among scandalized art lovers and critics, who screamed, ‘OMG, she’s a common prostitute!’ This was a major scraping away of theirveneer ofrespectability, for when these people weren’t engaged in the highbrow activity of attending museums and art galleries, they would be indulging in the altogether seedier activity of calling in at brothels. Here they were literally caught with their pants down, their public persona caught in the act of lustfully sizing up a whore in a Parisian brothel when they were expecting to be intelligently admiring a fine nude.
http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collect...mpia-7087.html

Of course, Manet himself was simply doing a realistic study of his own situation. You couldn’t ask a modern goddess to strip for a painting: high society women were respectable wives and daughters, and this sort of thing was out of the question. (But of course, being ‘respectable’ did not preclude their being courtesans on the side, and in fact it worked both ways: a duchess could sleep around for cash, and equally a top escort-girl could save up to become a duchess.) The impoverished artist’s nude model was typically some underpaid actress, seamstress or barmaid making ends meet through modelling or… prostitution. In other words, this artist stopped serving up the divine illusion, delivering the sordid truth instead, and in the process saying a whole lot more about the viewer than he (the viewer) was willing to take.

One understands then why this type of disclosure, I use the term advisedly, is so hard to accept for so many people: millions are clinging on to their own respectability, as (very) minor public figures or church-goers, because this is how they get away with all the sordid things they do on the quiet, such as cheating on their spouses, beating their kids, alcoholism or whatever – although a lot of this is sexual in nature or origin. They don’t like it at all, because they must either clean up their act or face the consequences. Because they too fear they will be found out, not just the respectable genocidal warmongers and trillionaire robber bankers.

What I’m saying is that this can be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve. You have the lofty illusion of the creator-god and his sidekick the snake-god with his smooth talk of the tree of knowledge. The sordid reality is somewhat different, and in light of the above, you can see where this is heading. There are two levels of deception: one is at the factual level, the other is at the narrative level. The story, one of deception, is being told deceptively. Giving it the Manet treatment peels away the narrative deception to get to the real story.

Given that biblical knowledge is carnal knowledge (Adam knew Eve and she bore him a son…), the subtext of the tree of knowledge is sexual intercourse – not the natural, healthy, loving Adam-and-Eve variety, but the devilish, parasitical, pornographic kind that leads to sinfulness and shame. This is of course injected by the serpent himself – he is no mere bystander offering information/knowledge whether innocently or temptingly. No, this deceiver is a snake, a symbolic phallus, deceptively flaccid when languidly coiled around the tree, until it pounces with its venomous intromission at the first unguarded moment. When the words he puts in Adam’s mouth are seen to be his own, (‘It’s the woman’s fault, she tempted me’), he is just like any sexual predator claiming ‘she asked for it’. Which is why I deliberately used the vulgar word for ‘head-games’: it is more precise.

In terms of the parasitical interpretation, we come to the same conclusion. Coiled stiflingly round the tree like some poison ivy, no doubt what the humans get to taste is not the forbidden fruit at all, but the poisonous berries. That this forbidden fruit should have become in popular memory as the apple, i.e. the venereal fruit associated with the goddess of love (on account of the 5-pointed star that appears when you cut it in half), speaks volumes. When Aphrodite (Venus) promised Paris the Trojan the hand of Helen, it was an apple he gave her to indicate she had won a beauty contest, and of course this is how Helen’s became ‘the face that launched a thousand ships’ against Troy.

Where do we go from here? Putting personal views to one side, we can see the situation in the usual religious terms of sin and temptation. Temptation as deception leads into sin, a false position that we didn’t really want: we were talked, or forced, into it. We may also leave to one side the degree of personal responsibility one is willing to accept or should accept. There is a very real sense in which we have all been contaminated with original sin, even if the original cause is alien and, long before the sons of god began to lust after the daughters of men, the main perpetrator, the serpent, was showing the way. While we may prefer different terminology to describe this situation, it is a good enough description that we have to accept; no amount of excuses or claims of innocence or diminished responsibility, however justified in individual cases, will cut any ice.

But collective responsibility is not so much about collective guilt as about the level of interconnectedness at which we are experiencing problems and can find a solution to them. If we take this view, we have to follow it to its logical conclusion collectively as well as individually. Sin comes with the remission of sin, two sides of the same coin; all sin is pardonable, except despair, an unsurprising exception since to despair is precisely to see one’s sin as unpardonable. Church and State both recognize that the admission of guilt is halfway down the road to redemption, and of course it is common practice among ordinary decent folk when someone owns up to something to forgive and usually forget. The problem is with two kinds of people, those who from blindness will admit to no wrongdoing, and those who do so out of unpardonable despair. This is how religion gets a bad name for not practicing what it preaches, and hence the correct practice is dismissed as so much preachiness coming from the wrong people.

All this of course is just a fable, an illusion. Do we really need snakes and trees and apples to explain what goes on in the human mind? Apparently we do, or did. Someone like Jung will tell you that externalization is what happens when we fail to internalize (deal with our demons), and that massive failure can lead to personal and even mass destruction. The internalization process therefore involves peeling away layers of illusion – whereas false prophets are intent on piling on further layers of deception. If the correct practice has been so far mostly mere words from unworthy preachers, then the answer is clearly for more and more people increasingly to practice what they preach and become worthier in the process. And if this sounds trite, plain common sense that ordinary people apply without thinking, this is because that is exactly what it is – the much-needed dose of sanity after a lifetime or three in madhouse Earth. If you are disappointed and wanting more drama, then you haven’t got the message.

[Selkie]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by araucaria (here)
...the garden of Eden, which is first and foremost a triangular relationship whereby a normal situation of happy marriage with a man is overlaid with a pornographic mindfùk from something envious and snaky tempted by this ‘daughter of men’...

(my emphasis)

Araucaria, this is very, very important, and I was wondering (hoping, actually) if you would expand upon it?

Thank you Silkie; yes I can at least make a start on that. I agree, this is a hugely important subject. The overlay I am talking about is the aura, or rather the veneer of respectability that is currently being stripped away, not only from gurus, but from every class of outwardly upstanding citizens, be it bankers, royalty, politicians, judges, policemen, celebrities: all of them – and all of us as well, to various lesser degrees perhaps. This is in fact the quickest way of summing up everything that is going on right now.

We had a foretaste of this in the world of 19th century fine art. This period began with artist still producing classical nudes of love goddesses, cupids and nymphs, a throwback from ancient Greece, when nudity was as natural and innocent as with Adam and Eve before the Fall. Alternatively, distancing from anything naughty was achieved by exotic settings such as oriental harems, Turkish baths etc. However, something happened with the advent of realism. When Édouard Manet exhibited Olympia, there was total uproar among scandalized art lovers and critics, who screamed, ‘OMG, she’s a common prostitute!’ This was a major scraping away of theirveneer ofrespectability, for when these people weren’t engaged in the highbrow activity of attending museums and art galleries, they would be indulging in the altogether seedier activity of calling in at brothels. Here they were literally caught with their pants down, their public persona caught in the act of lustfully sizing up a whore in a Parisian brothel when they were expecting to be intelligently admiring a fine nude.
http://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collect...mpia-7087.html

Of course, Manet himself was simply doing a realistic study of his own situation. You couldn’t ask a modern goddess to strip for a painting: high society women were respectable wives and daughters, and this sort of thing was out of the question. (But of course, being ‘respectable’ did not preclude their being courtesans on the side, and in fact it worked both ways: a duchess could sleep around for cash, and equally a top escort-girl could save up to become a duchess.) The impoverished artist’s nude model was typically some underpaid actress, seamstress or barmaid making ends meet through modelling or… prostitution. In other words, this artist stopped serving up the divine illusion, delivering the sordid truth instead, and in the process saying a whole lot more about the viewer than he (the viewer) was willing to take.

One understands then why this type of disclosure, I use the term advisedly, is so hard to accept for so many people: millions are clinging on to their own respectability, as (very) minor public figures or church-goers, because this is how they get away with all the sordid things they do on the quiet, such as cheating on their spouses, beating their kids, alcoholism or whatever – although a lot of this is sexual in nature or origin. They don’t like it at all, because they must either clean up their act or face the consequences. Because they too fear they will be found out, not just the respectable genocidal warmongers and trillionaire robber bankers.

What I’m saying is that this can be traced all the way back to Adam and Eve. You have the lofty illusion of the creator-god and his sidekick the snake-god with his smooth talk of the tree of knowledge. The sordid reality is somewhat different, and in light of the above, you can see where this is heading. There are two levels of deception: one is at the factual level, the other is at the narrative level. The story, one of deception, is being told deceptively. Giving it the Manet treatment peels away the narrative deception to get to the real story.

Given that biblical knowledge is carnal knowledge (Adam knew Eve and she bore him a son…), the subtext of the tree of knowledge is sexual intercourse – not the natural, healthy, loving Adam-and-Eve variety, but the devilish, parasitical, pornographic kind that leads to sinfulness and shame. This is of course injected by the serpent himself – he is no mere bystander offering information/knowledge whether innocently or temptingly. No, this deceiver is a snake, a symbolic phallus, deceptively flaccid when languidly coiled around the tree, until it pounces with its venomous intromission at the first unguarded moment. When the words he puts in Adam’s mouth are seen to be his own, (‘It’s the woman’s fault, she tempted me’), he is just like any sexual predator claiming ‘she asked for it’. Which is why I deliberately used the vulgar word for ‘head-games’: it is more precise.

In terms of the parasitical interpretation, we come to the same conclusion. Coiled stiflingly round the tree like some poison ivy, no doubt what the humans get to taste is not the forbidden fruit at all, but the poisonous berries. That this forbidden fruit should have become in popular memory as the apple, i.e. the venereal fruit associated with the goddess of love (on account of the 5-pointed star that appears when you cut it in half), speaks volumes. When Aphrodite (Venus) promised Paris the Trojan the hand of Helen, it was an apple he gave her to indicate she had won a beauty contest, and of course this is how Helen’s became ‘the face that launched a thousand ships’ against Troy.

Where do we go from here? Putting personal views to one side, we can see the situation in the usual religious terms of sin and temptation. Temptation as deception leads into sin, a false position that we didn’t really want: we were talked, or forced, into it. We may also leave to one side the degree of personal responsibility one is willing to accept or should accept. There is a very real sense in which we have all been contaminated with original sin, even if the original cause is alien and, long before the sons of god began to lust after the daughters of men, the main perpetrator, the serpent, was showing the way. While we may prefer different terminology to describe this situation, it is a good enough description that we have to accept; no amount of excuses or claims of innocence or diminished responsibility, however justified in individual cases, will cut any ice.

But collective responsibility is not so much about collective guilt as about the level of interconnectedness at which we are experiencing problems and can find a solution to them. If we take this view, we have to follow it to its logical conclusion collectively as well as individually. Sin comes with the remission of sin, two sides of the same coin; all sin is pardonable, except despair, an unsurprising exception since to despair is precisely to see one’s sin as unpardonable. Church and State both recognize that the admission of guilt is halfway down the road to redemption, and of course it is common practice among ordinary decent folk when someone owns up to something to forgive and usually forget. The problem is with two kinds of people, those who from blindness will admit to no wrongdoing, and those who do so out of unpardonable despair. This is how religion gets a bad name for not practicing what it preaches, and hence the correct practice is dismissed as so much preachiness coming from the wrong people.

All this of course is just a fable, an illusion. Do we really need snakes and trees and apples to explain what goes on in the human mind? Apparently we do, or did. Someone like Jung will tell you that externalization is what happens when we fail to internalize (deal with our demons), and that massive failure can lead to personal and even mass destruction. The internalization process therefore involves peeling away layers of illusion – whereas false prophets are intent on piling on further layers of deception. If the correct practice has been so far mostly mere words from unworthy preachers, then the answer is clearly for more and more people increasingly to practice what they preach and become worthier in the process. And if this sounds trite, plain common sense that ordinary people apply without thinking, this is because that is exactly what it is – the much-needed dose of sanity after a lifetime or three in madhouse Earth. If you are disappointed and wanting more drama, then you haven’t got the message.

(my emphasis)

Wow!, and thanks so much, Araucaria

Posted by araucaria (here)
...for when these people weren’t engaged in the highbrow activity of attending museums and art galleries, they would be indulging in the altogether seedier activity of calling in at brothels...(But of course, being ‘respectable’ did not preclude their being courtesans on the side, and in fact it worked both ways: a duchess could sleep around for cash, and equally a top escort-girl could save up to become a duchess.)...

(my emphasis)

I think, Araucaria, that you have identified pagan behavior lurking underneath a mask of Christian values. More and more, it is looking to me like the pagans were what today we would call psychopaths, or very psychopathic-like, in their behavior.

Yes, the snake was God's side-kick, just like in the story of Job. As a matter of fact, I think that the God of the Garden and the Serpent were ONE AND THE SAME BEING.

The nature of psychopaths is that they have two faces...they have Jekyll and Hyde personalities...and that they put people in double-binds. They also practice projective identification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projective_identification

so that those they interact with become clones of the psychopath.

The other thing that psychopaths do is lead others into crime, or sub-criminal, unethical behavior. Philip K Dick has said that gnosis is disinhibiting instructions. Well, when people become disinhibited, they often tend to commit crimes or engage in unethical behavior. A disinhibited accountant would embezzle. A cop would commit rape or steal under color of authority. A judge or city commissioner will take bribes. Etcetera.

So it sounds like this God of the Garden was a psychopath. But so was the serpent. I think that maybe the God of Garden and the Serpent were the Jekyll and Hyde faces of one-and-the-same being, and that Adam and Eve were put into a classic, psychopathic double-bind, where they were damned if they did, and damned if they didn't. I am saying that it was all a trap. It did not matter what Adam and Eve did, or didn't do, because the aim of the God/Snake was to punish them. That is what psychopaths do...they put people into double-binds so that they can punish them. What does that prayer say? Oh, yes, "...Lead us not into temptation...but deliver us from evil...". Why would you pray like that unless you were used to being ****ed over by the being you were praying to?

And so I don't think that the Serpent was the deliverer and friend of mankind, like the Gnostics would have us believe. I think the Serpent was our enemy as much as the God of the Garden was our enemy, and what's more, I think that they were one-and-the-same Being.

And all of this (my response to this post of Araucaria's, I mean) is yet another aspect of my argument against John Lash and his bogus KWP.

[Delight]

Posted by araucaria (here)
…/…
Ulysses/Odysseus was a Greek leader who voted against the Trojan War, declared to appease the wrath of the god Apollo – he would have much preferred to stay at home with his wife Penelope and their young son Telemachus, and their new puppy Argus."

Maybe INERTIA and negation as principles are the "reasons" we step forth reluctantly but must move...we journey and in the "trip" (hologram???) discover our perceptions widen so that our "world" gets bigger brighter and we feel our hearts stretch by our "suffering".

I depart from JLL and gnosis type scriptures that split reality up into dual opposing forces.

My Universe is Divinity exploring her own Mind, expanding and changing and I am her hand maid with apparent arms legs, troubles and virtues. I believe we are all able to be in a relationship (whether it is imagined or not) with mystery. I search for meaning. I love my seeking. Thanks be to the Divine order that set this opportunity in motion and who lights the path.

Love, Maggie

As you set out for Ithaka
hope the voyage is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
angry Poseidon—don’t be afraid of them:
you’ll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians and Cyclops,
wild Poseidon—you won’t encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.

Hope the voyage is a long one.
May there be many a summer morning when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you come into harbors seen for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician trading stations
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind—
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to gather stores of knowledge from their scholars.

Keep Ithaka always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you are destined for.
But do not hurry the journey at all.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you are old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you have gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.

Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you would not have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.

And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you will have understood by then what these Ithakas mean.


Translated by Edmund Keeley/Philip Sherrard

(C.P. Cavafy, Collected Poems. Translated by Edmund Keeley and Philip Sherrard. Edited by George Savidis. Revised Edition. Princeton University Press, 1992)

[araucaria]

My last post was far too succinct in every direction. I don’t have much time this week but I do need to add a few things.

Nothing is one-dimensional; of course we cannot do without a good Odyssey before a homecoming, and we need both artistic transformations of form and direct physical contact, the one giving meaning to the other. But that means reconciling the two, without the need for respectability to cover over the crack. What we really need is greater empathy. Empathy is the ability to learn from a situation without experiencing it fully and personally. Whatever you can learn from the vicarious experience, as provided inter alia by art and narrative, you no longer need to experience for yourself (karma). Self-empathy then would be that process applied to one’s own dark side. Dr Jekyll keeps Mr Hyde honest, and Mr Hyde keeps Dr Jekyll on his toes.

If God and the serpent are the two personalities of a Jekyll-and-Hyde deity, then they are the externalization of the internal Jekyll-and-Hyde human mind. If we keep the process external, we fall into victimhood and behave badly because we see ourselves solely or primarily as the creatures of this psychopath. If we internalize it, not only do we empathize with this deity, we grow beyond the need for this lesson. This is how the microcosmic treatment – Jekyll and Hyde learning to live together – radiates out into the macrocosm with no further need to suffer Hyde’s wave of destruction.

In Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf (the wolf of the steppes), the hero suffers from this type of duality, being a wild loner (wolf) who is nonetheless joined at the hip with the bourgeois philosophy he hates (human). The wolf embodies extremes, both potential enlightened saint and potential demon, while the bourgeois signs up for mediocrity in the middle ground reconciling somewhat the two extremes. While the bourgeois is a slow burner designed to live long, the wolf has a death wish, in this case even scheduling a possible suicide for his 50th birthday. (Interestingly, if you transpose this to a collective level, it corresponds to the various Armageddon scenarios for global destruction fomented by the cabal). Hence the fast-living wolf is in many ways the better half of mankind, and certainly not to be rejected, any more than the over-comfortable and complacent bourgeois – but he is dangerous, potentially lethally so, and that tendency has to be curtailed before the human experiment itself is curtailed.

Hence the Bible story has to be taken both ways. The benevolent creator’s garden is all very nice and cosy, but if that’s all there is, it will inevitably end up as a prison; and the sly serpent brings knowledge, opens horizons, along with a degree of risk, which has now grown to unacceptable levels. But humanity is older than these gods; they only represent a period in its existence that can end tomorrow; we can then develop beyond this dichotomy between over-comfortable stagnation and over-risky adventure and create a win-win situation between these two strands.

Hesse’s hero reads an analysis of the Steppenwolf, a book within the book that reads like a case study of himself. This analysis does not condone either the suicidal or the murderous route to resolving the duality into singularity. On the contrary, the author points out that the duality wolf/man is a fiction since a wolf is much more than just the caricature that it suggests to us. And similarly, the notion of man is much more complex than the cardboard cutout that can be readily contrasted with a simplified wolf. Both are much more than dual, and the way forward is to aggravate that complexity and multiplicity, rather than pine for some immature and reactionary back-to-mother response.

We see the ambiguous wolfishness in certain awake and aware people aspiring to a return to source, to oneness; these are the most enlightened people, and yet they are turning their backs on the increasingly big challenge of life. On the other hand, we see greater complexity and multiplicity in such things as the approach of many ET races, taking our notion of humanism and human empathy out of our earthbound sandbox. We see it in things like the idea of many more than two strands of DNA, or free energy and debt relief. These are coming developments that have nothing to do with a direct return to source; they are the Odyssey on the way home to Ithaka.

We see the complacent bourgeois attitude of better-the-devil-you-know-than-the-devil-you-don’t-know, the great inertia of the masses that is holding everything back. Increasingly, we are finding that traditional Christian (or other) charity or goodness is retrograde, and in some ways getting in the way of the forward-looking positive agenda being explored by such people as present company. Organized religion is no longer in a position to lead, nor does it need to; it should not be totally rejected because it can and must keep up by preserving and strengthening the positive values that it has been promoting all along and are now under attack (see Silkie’s other thread).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppenwolf_%28novel%29
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes...er-steppenwolf

[Selkie]

Posted by araucaria (here)
My last post was far too succinct in every direction. I don’t have much time this week but I do need to add a few things.

Nothing is one-dimensional; of course we cannot do without a good Odyssey before a homecoming, and we need both artistic transformations of form and direct physical contact, the one giving meaning to the other. But that means reconciling the two, without the need for respectability to cover over the crack. What we really need is greater empathy. Empathy is the ability to learn from a situation without experiencing it fully and personally. Whatever you can learn from the vicarious experience, as provided inter alia by art and narrative, you no longer need to experience for yourself (karma). Self-empathy then would be that process applied to one’s own dark side. Dr Jekyll keeps Mr Hyde honest, and Mr Hyde keeps Dr Jekyll on his toes.

If God and the serpent are the two personalities of a Jekyll-and-Hyde deity, then they are the externalization of the internal Jekyll-and-Hyde human mind. If we keep the process external, we fall into victimhood and behave badly because we see ourselves solely or primarily as the creatures of this psychopath. If we internalize it, not only do we empathize with this deity, we grow beyond the need for this lesson. This is how the microcosmic treatment – Jekyll and Hyde learning to live together – radiates out into the macrocosm with no further need to suffer Hyde’s wave of destruction.

In Hermann Hesse’s Steppenwolf (the wolf of the steppes), the hero suffers from this type of duality, being a wild loner (wolf) who is nonetheless joined at the hip with the bourgeois philosophy he hates (human). The wolf embodies extremes, both potential enlightened saint and potential demon, while the bourgeois signs up for mediocrity in the middle ground reconciling somewhat the two extremes. While the bourgeois is a slow burner designed to live long, the wolf has a death wish, in this case even scheduling a possible suicide for his 50th birthday. (Interestingly, if you transpose this to a collective level, it corresponds to the various Armageddon scenarios for global destruction fomented by the cabal). Hence the fast-living wolf is in many ways the better half of mankind, and certainly not to be rejected, any more than the over-comfortable and complacent bourgeois – but he is dangerous, potentially lethally so, and that tendency has to be curtailed before the human experiment itself is curtailed.

Hence the Bible story has to be taken both ways. The benevolent creator’s garden is all very nice and cosy, but if that’s all there is, it will inevitably end up as a prison; and the sly serpent brings knowledge, opens horizons, along with a degree of risk, which has now grown to unacceptable levels. But humanity is older than these gods; they only represent a period in its existence that can end tomorrow; we can then develop beyond this dichotomy between over-comfortable stagnation and over-risky adventure and create a win-win situation between these two strands.

Hesse’s hero reads an analysis of the Steppenwolf, a book within the book that reads like a case study of himself. This analysis does not condone either the suicidal or the murderous route to resolving the duality into singularity. On the contrary, the author points out that the duality wolf/man is a fiction since a wolf is much more than just the caricature that it suggests to us. And similarly, the notion of man is much more complex than the cardboard cutout that can be readily contrasted with a simplified wolf. Both are much more than dual, and the way forward is to aggravate that complexity and multiplicity, rather than pine for some immature and reactionary back-to-mother response.

We see the ambiguous wolfishness in certain awake and aware people aspiring to a return to source, to oneness; these are the most enlightened people, and yet they are turning their backs on the increasingly big challenge of life. On the other hand, we see greater complexity and multiplicity in such things as the approach of many ET races, taking our notion of humanism and human empathy out of our earthbound sandbox. We see it in things like the idea of many more than two strands of DNA, or free energy and debt relief. These are coming developments that have nothing to do with a direct return to source; they are the Odyssey on the way home to Ithaka.

We see the complacent bourgeois attitude of better-the-devil-you-know-than-the-devil-you-don’t-know, the great inertia of the masses that is holding everything back. Increasingly, we are finding that traditional Christian (or other) charity or goodness is retrograde, and in some ways getting in the way of the forward-looking positive agenda being explored by such people as present company. Organized religion is no longer in a position to lead, nor does it need to; it should not be totally rejected because it can and must keep up by preserving and strengthening the positive values that it has been promoting all along and are now under attack (see Silkie’s other thread).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steppenwolf_%28novel%29
http://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes...er-steppenwolf

This is wonderful, but there is something I would like to add. Yes, everyone has a dark side as well as a light side. But psychopaths are much, much different. Normal people, do not deliberately and consciously play destructive mind-games with others. Psychopaths do. Normal people do not enjoy seeing others suffer. Psychopaths do. Normal people do not seduce others into committing crimes. Psychopaths do.

In normal people the Jekyll/Hyde dynamic works as you describe. But in psychopaths, Jekyll is a COVER for Hyde. The psychopath is actually ALL HYDE, which he covers with Jekyll in order to lure victims.

Psychopaths have a distinct pattern of behavior that normal people do not display, called Idealize, Devalue and Discard

http://180rule.com/definiciones/idea...e-and-discard/

Psychopathy is a very serious personality disorder...the worst, most serious personality disorder there is. Psychopaths are always "me first". Psychopaths like to make people suffer.

Pagan culture, in spite of worshiping a goddess, showed features that are psychopathic-like. And so I do not think that psychopathy comes to us by way of the Jews at all. I think it comes to us by way of the pagans, with their slavery and human sacrifice and murder-for-entertainment. I think it was the pagans who were Archontically infected, although how, I do not know. And I think that all of the world's major religions are attempts to deal with it (psychopathy), however flawed and unsuccessful they may be.

addition In other words, I am refuting John Lash's theory that psychopathy is an Archontic infection that comes to us by way of the Jews. Archontic infection, yes; by way of the Jews, no.

[ulli]

Perhaps we are playing with words here, but to me the highest truth lies where there is a concept of a creator deity, who made all of creation.
A single, unknowable intelligence.
And some Pagan religions acknowledge that. Worshipping spirits from other dimensions is not all that bad either, as long as one can see that they are still limited when compared to the One who created them.
Who set up the original system which allows individual souls to access the universe with their pleas and decrees and receive miraculous answers.
For the universe to rush to serve anyone who made a wholehearted wish (without muddying such a wish with later doubts) could not have come about without a supreme being.
If one perceives this being as all-knowing, as all-loving, but also as fair and just, and furthermore as merciful, then that perception will become beneficial to one's life.
Where Christian churches have done more harm than good is where there is too much emphasis on Satan and evil and sin.

Where focus goes, energy flows, and each person is responsible of what they wish to direct their focus on.
These days it is getting harder to stay focused on the great advances of the last 100 years, and the dawn of a golden age, as the disintegration process of the older systems are so in our faces.
But it is there, for all of us to be cherished.
We just need to direct our energies towards the betterment of our lives and those of our communities.

[Selkie]

Posted by ulli (here)
Perhaps we are playing with words here, but to me the highest truth lies where there is a concept of a creator deity, who made all of creation.
A single, unknowable intelligence.

Well, let me just say that the God/Serpent of the Garden is not the creator of the Universe. I think the Gnostics were right about that.

Posted by ulli (here)
And some Pagan religions acknowledge that.

Indeed, they do...the Gnostics called it The Originator.

Posted by ulli (here)
...Who set up the original system which allows individual souls to access the universe with their pleas and decrees and receive miraculous answers.
For the universe to rush to serve anyone who made a wholehearted wish (without muddying such a wish with later doubts) could not have come about without a supreme being...

To that I would say that we are not created at all. Rather, we are emanated. Every second that we are alive, we are being emanated by the Originator...by the Universe itself. And so, we have access to it, because it is not separate from ourselves. Btw, I am not trying to start an argument or anything.

Posted by ulli (here)
...Where Christian churches have done more harm than good is where there is too much emphasis on Satan and evil and sin.

Yes, this is true. But remember where they were coming from...most of them had been slaves: infibulated, whipped, raped, owned, branded, bought-and-sold, murdered for entertainment. I am not trying to start an argument. I am just pointing out that when one takes their origins into account, the emphasis on sin, etc., becomes understandable.

Posted by ulli (here)
...We just need to direct our energies towards the betterment of our lives and those of our communities.

This is so true, because we can agitate for a better world all we want, but that does not help to build a better world.

[Selkie]

This subject is a lot to think about, so I'm going do what I do best and make it worse by saying that it helps to know about this stuff:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

[Selkie]

Btw, if there is anyone who approximates the pagans of old, it is the "Satanists"**

** Everyone has known who they (the Satanists) are in bed with since the 60's.

[Selkie]

Btw, I want to add that when I talk about the pagans being slavers, I mean the pagans of old, not the neo-pagans of today**. The pagans of old may have been cultured and erudite, and even quite civilized in a lot of ways. They clearly had a keen appreciation of beauty and were highly refined in many ways. But they held slaves, meaning that they did not see all people as human beings. This must be said about them, because if we are going to build a better world, we have to know the foundation we are building it upon.

** With the exception of John Lash and his absurd KWP.

[Ted]

Btw, I want to add that when I talk about the pagans being slavers, I mean the pagans of old, not the neo-pagans of today.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't pagans pretty much anyone who wasn't a christian? It can be a fairly broad term and I was just wondering what particular group of pagans you were referring to. Just curious.
I read through most of this thread and just wanted to extend my condolences for your experience with Mr. Lash. There are few things more painful (on many levels) than having an intimate trust callously violated. I've been drawn into the sphere of a few cults, and always felt like a fool after realizing what was really going on. Fortunately, all I ever lost was some time, and hopefully some gullibility.

[Selkie]

Posted by Ted (here)

Btw, I want to add that when I talk about the pagans being slavers, I mean the pagans of old, not the neo-pagans of today.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't pagans pretty much anyone who wasn't a christian? It can be a fairly broad term and I was just wondering what particular group of pagans you were referring to. Just curious.

I was thinking about the Greeks and Romans before Christianity because that is where our civilization comes from, but especially Imperial Rome.

So when modern people display the same behavior...of practicing slavery (formally or informally), and generally being savage and barbarous to their fellow man, either at home or abroad...they are acting like the pagans of old, and not Christians@@, or Buddhists, or any other religion. People who act barbarously to their fellow man, like when the United States slaughtered the Native Americans, aren't acting like Christians at all. They are acting like something else, and they give a bad name to religion when they do so.**

So if someone lives peacefully and treats their neighbors well, I don't care if they are Christian or Buddhist or whatever. And if they make trouble and treat their neighbors badly, I still don't care if they call themselves Christian, or Buddhist or whatever. It is the behavior that counts. In the end, it amounts to either pro-social or anti-social behavior, not what label one puts on the behavior.

@@ None of which is intended as a white-wash of the barbarity carried out in the name of ANY religion, Christian or other.

** And when they call themselves Christian, or whatever, but act barbarously, then they are betraying their religious values.

Posted by Ted (here)
...I read through most of this thread and just wanted to extend my condolences for your experience with Mr. Lash. There are few things more painful (on many levels) than having an intimate trust callously violated. I've been drawn into the sphere of a few cults, and always felt like a fool after realizing what was really going on. Fortunately, all I ever lost was some time, and hopefully some gullibility.

(my emphasis)

Thanks, Ted. Yes...the worst part was the cognitive dissonance between what I believed about John Lash and what he actually is. He used me, and he did it knowingly. The long story short about John Lash is that he uses people. He exploits their vulnerabilities and uses their needs to bind them to him, and then he uses them. He keeps them on the string until they aren't useful to him anymore, and when they aren't useful to him anymore, he discards them.

[Ted]

Thanks, Ted. Yes...the worst part was the cognitive dissonance between what I believed about John Lash and what he actually is. He used me, and he did it knowingly. The long story short about John Lash is that he uses people. He exploits their vulnerabilities and uses their needs to bind them to him, and then he uses them. He keeps them on the string until they aren't useful to him anymore, and when they aren't useful to him anymore, he discards them.

Been there, and it's a rude shock indeed. It makes one less trusting and more wary, which is perhaps a good thing in this world. I have a tendency to dive into things heart, mind and soul without watching for rocks beneath the surface (with predictable results). My naivety has been tempered over the years, although certainly not cured. I just don't think with deception in mind, so it takes me off guard when I come across it. I'm probably an easy mark.
They say: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I don't know though, I'm still waiting for the beat-up feeling to pass and the stronger part to kick in.

Cheers,

Ted

[Selkie]

Posted by Ted (here)
...I just don't think with deception in mind, so it takes me off guard when I come across it. I'm probably an easy mark.
They say: What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I don't know though, I'm still waiting for the beat-up feeling to pass and the stronger part to kick in.

Cheers,

Ted

I hear ya.

[Sean]

Hey all.

As the OP of this thread, I thought I'd pop in. glad to see so much debate. clearly this is a discussion that needed to happen. Also, I wanted to say that I believe what Silkie has to say about JLL 100% It's clear, from her posts, that she's being truthful. I'm a bit disappointed in myself for ever considering JLL anything other than hateful. I guess I was looking for a way to "strike back", and KWP appealed to me on that level. We DO have to strike back, but Lash's way isn't the right way. At all.

I honestly can't wrap my head around why anyone thinks Silkie is trying to discredit Lash. she is clearly giving her direct experience, yet, some in this thread want to deny that experience and hold to their IDEA of who they think JLL is from the outside looking in.

I'm smart enough to get it from the horse's mouth, as it were, and let the fantasy go.

I think it's the biggest issue in "new age" circles. so many people just RUSHING to give their power away to someone else..not realizing that power lies within each soul. that, and not believing that humanity has opposition outside of ourselves. we clearly do. That's why I leave the rosicrucians, the theosophists, etc etc alone now..because, although they cover many truths, I feel an infection has taken hold in those organizations as well. They're so ever-****ing PASSIVE. The dynamism that KWP was presented with is what got me looking at it in the first place..but it's a trick. an oke-doke. When you look at KWP objectively..you see(well, I do, anyway)you're really doing the Archon's work for them.

I think that was the plan all along. YMMV.

[Sierra]

Posted by workingactor (here)
I'm smart enough to get it from the horse's mouth, as it were, and let the fantasy go.

Snip...

The dynamism that KWP was presented with is what got me looking at it in the first place..but it's a trick. an oke-doke. When you look at KWP objectively..you see(well, I do, anyway)you're really doing the Archon's work for them.

I think that was the plan all along. YMMV.

I am so grateful Silkie joined Avalon. The horse's mouth is most def the best source.

And kudos to you, working actor, for being willing to listen, and think about the material/implications she presented.

We hear what JLL presents as his persona is from JLL's own words, and then we hear what it is like to actually be with JLL. (Ickypoo.)

I agree, JLL is a generator of Archontic Loosh,

Again, thank you Silkie.