the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

posted 27 Dec 2004, 09:12 by Fell, Peralogue

[quote="Cu'jara Cinmoi":1konmu6z]Thanks EE! You've piqued my interest Fell! I'm very curious to see what you think of the metaphysics as they unfold in TTT. I'm just worried that it's too damn complicated... What is it that's grabbed your attention so far?[/quote:1konmu6z] People that appreciate Herbert and Asimov never complained about it being too complicated. I think the proper term is multi-layered. There are levels to interpretation, thus someone reading Prince of Nothing with a basic association to the more "pop" references — warfare, sexuality, violence, conspiracy, intrigue, et cetera — can always take from the work something that can help build a bridge to more complicated associations, such as rhetoric, conundrum, contradiction, perceptual and social gestalsts, and then move on into where you are heading with the metaphysics of such: emotions, ego, the lack of self, illusion, metamorphosis. These are the powers that writers hold over their readership: the gift of growth via assocation. My interest started with Kellhus's observation of the vulgar ways of everyday people. This lack of individual, of empathy with the manifest realm, of the social experience. Then onto the term "gnosis," as it's what my meditations and workings are referred to in chaos magic. Whether the gnosic which I practise is relative to that of [i:1konmu6z]Prince of Nothing[/i:1konmu6z] has yet to be seen, but I tend to believe it's taken on a more fictional metaphysics than contemporary occultism. The fact that your characters are [i:1konmu6z]real[/i:1konmu6z]. The works of Jung and Campbell are embodied by the modern occult community in that they represent the fashion by which we can all learn transformation and growth. What you've done is craft characters that hold their faiths and that is what drives them to define themselves over the story. Faith in whatever ultimately defines, in the end, faith in oneself. Kellhus is my favourite in that he is such a esoteric conundrum, concrete in his knowledge of the Logos (another one of my favourite subjects, especially under the auspices of Italian occultist [url=http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id736/pg1/:1konmu6z]Julius Evola[/url:1konmu6z]), but becoming aware of the reflection of the Logos in Man as through the looking glass. That we are a refracted image of divinity makes it very difficult for us to understand wholeness, oneness, and ultimately Zen — nothingness — all while accepting that this is all a unified whole, broken down by billions upon billions of cracks in the programme, which is God shattered in shards of us. I am still in the process of reading [i:1konmu6z]The Warrior-Prophet[/i:1konmu6z] (work keeps me too busy, unfortunately, but I am a third done). I think your writing has the power to affectively sow inspiration, à la [i:1konmu6z]Dune[/i:1konmu6z]. You are exploring realms of thought that everyone is aware of. Do not become sidetracked or disappointed if you don't see everyone jumping on-board all at once. It takes some time. The most important thing is that those that you [u:1konmu6z]do[/u:1konmu6z] touch will ultimately be the important ones. When I lecture, I am fully aware that some kids are there wasting their parents coin, some don't care, and whats inspires me is if there is at least one person I can touch. All it takes is one mosquito in your tent to fuck up an entire night. So anyone that says one can't make any different obviously hasn't been camping in Canada. I admire your work because, in the end, you are here to touch the Few. As you very accurately put it. view post

  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.