21st Century is the age of the New Occult. Here is some required reading.
Excerpts from inteviews
“Jacob Boehme took for granted the existence of an Universal Principle; he was persuaded that everything is connected in the immense chain of truths, and that the Eternal Nature reposed on seven principles or bases, which he sometimes calls powers, forms, spiritual wheels, sources, and fountains, and that those seven bases exist also in this disordered material nature, under constraint. His nomenclature, adopted for these fundamental relations, ran thus: The first astringency, the second gall or bitterness, the third anguish, the fourth fire, the fifth light, the sixth sound, and the seventh he called BEING or the thing itself.” – Count Saint Martin
The dawn of the creative religious epoch also means a most profound crisis in man’s creativity. The creative act will create new being rather than values of differentiated culture; in the creative act life will not be quenched. Creativity will continue creation; it will reveal the resemblance of human nature to the Creator. In creativity the way will be found for subject to pass into object, the identity of subject with object will be restored. All the great creators have foreseen this turning-point. Today, in the depths of culture itself and in all its separate spheres, this crisis of creativity is ripening. – Nikolay Berdyaev
Lyotard’s critique of techno-science and the inhuman can be applied to accelerationism quite appropriately… In that since we know that what techno-science is aiming for is (complete) control stretching into the far-future and that this requires not just the elimination of difference but as Lyotard says the elimination of time (and the end of history) “…if one wants to control a process, the best way of doing so is to subordinate the present to what is still called the future, since in these conditions the future will be completely predetermined and the present itself will cease opening onto an uncertain and contingent afterwards….” (Lyotard – p 65 the inhuman) .
This might seem to be a ridiculous thing to do, but what I’m aiming for here is to work with nothing and no matter: to have a self education or a didactic education without matter. There is plenty out there without having more. So this is dangerous talk – I’m talking heresy! I mean here you are representing the world of architecture and your talking to a heretic who’s basically advocating that, to be in the world, with the world, and of the world, matter is a secondary concern. If I’m taken to the mat, I will say, at this present time, matter is still the best way to think of architecture, but I’m not so sure for very long. The computer is radicalizing the way we think about our world. I look at my kids and they’re not interested in playing with Lego! They play with
Lego, but they played with Lego after having played video games. They were reenacting video games with Lego. It’s totally different, but they’re all still playing. The great Victor Hugo line from his great novel (The Hunchback of Notre Dame ) where the book kills the cathedral is a reoccurring theme throughout culture. We are now in another phase of this. We are right in the midst of it, and you and I are taking part in it.
Well you know satire is fascinating stuff. It’s deadly serious, and when politics begin to breakdown, generally there is a drift towards satire, because it’s the only thing that makes any sense. The Irish and British, they love satire, it’s a large part of our culture. The World Who Wants It? is a vision of how the world could fit together, and it’s absurd, completely out of lock step! The tragedy of the book is it probably works, that’s the tragedy of it, and the horror. The book is written to show that any ideal system is it’s own worst enemy, and as soon as you start to implement these visions of grandeur, they just fall apart and turn into a complete tyranny.
The bit that I feel most strongly about is the part on Jerusalem, because architects, they ultimately have to address that city. If you’re into thinking about architecture and you’re from the West, everything is hors d’oeuvres for working to rebuild the Temple. Ultimately you’re led there whether you like it or not, and ultimately empires are led there whether they like it or not. You can’t escape it. You can just drift unhappily towards this vision of heaven on earth, and ultimately that is what architecture is a vision of: Heaven on earth, at it’s best. So it’s not really satire for me. It’s a way of dealing with something that is too difficult to bear.
The beast for me is greed. Whether you read Dante, Swift, or any of these guys, it always boils down to the same thing: the corruption of the soul. And for me the corruption of the American soul is consumerism – I sure believe it. The project in the book is to not knock the system, but to adjust whole attitudes towards the way we live, so we’re not always thinking about accumulating massive amounts of stuff, but instead to, just stop and think, for just for one second about what is of importance.
Exactly, there is no such thing as conscious scapegoating. Conscious scapegoating is a modern parody of this scapegoating which is of the order of propaganda, because it implies prior representation. But for me the first representation is really the sacred because if scapegoating works, that is, if you are not aware of the projection against the victim and if the scapegoating is unanimous, if the mimetic impulse is rigorous enough to make it unanimous, which may happen only after a great deal of violence and after a phase of what I would call partial scapegoatings… I think that Shakespeare has something to say about that in Julius Caesar. You know there is the phase of the conspiracy against Caesar and the various factions fighting each other that culminates in civil war. It’s only at the end that you have a complete and unanimous scapegoating. To make a long story short, the first representations to me would be false representations of scapegoating, which are the sacred. And scapegoating really means that we are genuinely reconciled. We are reconciled by what or by whom? The only possible answer, if you do understand scapegoating as genuine, is that we must be reconciled by that same victim that divided us. Therefore this victim is both extremely bad and extremely good. The sacred is right there as a powerful experience that precedes representation but constantly moves towards representation. And at a certain stage which of course cannot be defined it must become a kind of representation.
Ritual and the archaic are the deferral of violence; religion is the main deferral of violence but the means of this deferral, prohibition and ritual, are not inexhaustible; they tend to wear out, they become useless because they lose their power. This is, by the way, the reason why anthropologists almost never discover the power of ritual; they observed ritual mostly in situations where ritual had lost its power, if only by the fact of their very presence. The few exceptions to this would be situations that we cannot appraise very well, like the very few people who were in a position to observe the Aztec culture such as the Spaniard Bernardino de Sahagún, for example, who wrote a full account of their rituals.
But let me return to the initial question of external mediation. External mediation is a function of society in religious terms, a society in which ritual and prohibition still effectively defer violence. Later on more and more mimetic rivalry comes in and people become more and more disenchanted with their religion and tend to move back into a mimetic crisis, into what I call an internal mediation, the doubles and so forth, but there is always a historical process there. So, archaic religions have a tendency to lose their power and then to renew themselves in a new crisis and a new scapegoat mechanism. In modern history, we can see some of that, but very little, because modern history is influenced by religious systems which move against or disintegrate the scapegoat mechanism for good. For me, these religious systems are primarily Judaism and Christianity. But to a certain extent all religions move against the sacrificial system, and it can be seen very clearly in India in the great mystical period, or in Buddhism, but the process is always less complete, I think, than it is in Judaism and Christianity.
This idea reveals Shakespeare’s awareness that all great historical forms are rooted in a founding violence.