Disciples of the Mysterium

13 Guests, 0 Users

Washington is the only place where sound travels faster than light. ~ C. V. R. Thompson

Advanced search

Dilber MulticolorMarley TPSMF Default Theme -

[jimtzu]

this is M. Tsarion's foray into the world of philosophy.. an interesting read.
http://www.taroscopes.com/miscellanous-pages/disciples.html

[Jana]

Very good, I am halfway thru it. The guy can think.
The Story of a General Myopia of Being
We reproduce catastrophe because we ourselves are the embodiment of millions of years of trauma. Then through the veils of confusion and obscuration we further estrange ourselves. Misdiagnosis of dysfunction as some kind of moral failing generates punitive control systems that further traumatizes humanity. The traumatized fractionated brain creates fictitious versions of reality to try and reconcile antagonistic perspectives and concoct a sense of integration. The phantasms concocted by our own minds lead to changes in the world, which then further create a mind and worldview that sees reality through a broken lens. Through “unreal” programming humanity’s consciousness is hindered from direct rapport with Nature and the natural continuum through which we evolve. With fixed paradigms and limits of our field of vision, we make the world conform to our own psychic content and so become “separated”…unnatural and existentially inauthentic. As a result of hubris and defense mechanisms we eventually cease learning from the world, and learning is synonymous with life itself.

Guilt generated by our separation produces a subconscious rivalry toward Nature along with the need to bring Nature into submission. This split in the psyche between the human noosphere and Nature causes inner violence that leads to our defensive and threatening orientation to the world and Other. Thus we see this primary schism between mind and Nature is the root of the power-over civilization and our misguided need to create hierarchies of domination instead of hierarchies of husbandry and care.  This primary schism perpetuates itself through time by the mechanisms of so called civilization itself…in that the churches, state and corporations play on the separation-guilt, loss of the core Self and the general weakness of inauthenticity in order to increase the flow of power and agency toward the top of the pyramid. And thus the “partial” presovereign man continues, because we fail to see the historical context of our present condition and behavior to gain the meta-subjectivity of the transpersonal, transanthropomorphic worldview.

[Nickeson]

Hey,

Interesting stuff, indeed. The beginning was a bit rocky and off-putting. I wrote the following three notes early on in the piece:

1) I am not really fond of preachers and this guy, M Tsarion, reads wondrously like a preacher if only because he uses the smarmy "We" marketing technique as in this passage:

"We never entertain the idea that the self is identical to Nature, or that what we think of as Nature is the self. On the contrary, the ego serves as our identity. Strangely, we don't find it contradictory that everyone else on earth entertains the same idea."

It is a lazy, presumptuous, condescending, fifth-rate rhetorical style that shows he is content to proselytize among the lemmings and sheep because it is a style that will lose him 97 per cent of his potential credibility with any critical thinker worth consideration; a category that will not include Mr. Tsarion because a true critical thinker will put their own thinking to exactly the same rigorous tests they exact on the thinking of others. And if they cannot see their style...an essential element in any rhetorical presentation...shows them to be satisfied in just picking up a couple of lemmings and two or three sheep for their efforts then they come in as third, forth, fifth rates. So who is this "We" that is contrived by Mr. Tsarion and various other tin horn evangelists: The Author and her Eagle Scout troop? The Author and his step-mother? The Author and the neighbor's Great Dane?

About the only things I read on the net these days are various news sites...BBC, Al Jazeera, the only two that pay attention to SA...and the chat box here at Heartmind because I am so tired and disgusted with the mediocrity everywhere else; the leveling of intelligence through the leveling of linguistic craftsmanship. And this "We" stuff is not just leveling, it is debasing. I am not writing a mini-polemic in favor of elitism, but one in favor of excellence. Rhetoric demands more than just good ideas. It demands a thoroughly insightful, self-examined and willfully skillful style, a demonstration of excellent craftsmanship. Imagination leads to artistry but artistry alone is insufficient. Intelligence, a sense of aesthetics, a little self-respect and respect for the sensibilities of the generalized Other lead to excellence of craftsmanship. If a writer does not respect enough the value of their own ideas...or the intelligence of their readers...to craft those ideas into the finest linguistic form of which they are capable, then they deserve nothing but to be dismissed: third rate, forth rate, fifth rate hacks...the hacks of: "we eventually cease learning from the world, and learning is synonymous with life itself." I have never read a "We" declaration yet in which I sensed the smallest modicum of self-respect on the part of the author and thus a respect for the reader and, hence, all others. No respect shown, no respect granted.

2) I've been reading this kind of stuff since before the New Age was born (1982, the publication date of The Starseed Transmissions). It is Taoism 101, Jung 101. I just happen to be a little older than what Mr. Tsarion assumes his readers to be. But I'll cut him a little slack because as in #1 above, the poor man has not done all his homework.

3) Mr Tsarion writes: "This is because there is no such thing as Oneness. Oneness is an abstraction. It exists as an idea in man's mind, but not in reality. The world does not have only one stone, oak, river, sea, star, or mountain. There is not only a single deer, eagle, woman, or man. Things may certainly have unique qualities, such as the snowflake and tree leaf, but Oneness does not exist in the world of Nature."

This might be true, but it is only true in the context of Junk Metaphysics.  In either a context of mathematics (1 + 1 = 2) or Pragmatism ("I'll trade you one horse for two cows.") it is patently ridiculous.

But if you, fond reader, can get through this kind of crap...(if you are still yet half-way through the essay and still thinking this is a man who can think, may God have mercy on your brain)...but if you make it to Heidegger in this essay, and you have the slightest idea what meditation is about, can be about, then you can slide on through. And you will come out at a place where you know everything Mr. Tsarion knows and you can congratulate yourself for knowing all that without having done all the work that he did in order to write this long and labored foregoing and silly piece.

[Francis]

I have to defer to Steve on this, since I couldn't even get past the first paragraph. Does he really say there's no such thing as oneness? What a bozo

[Jana]

As a forceful masculine penetration of the cocoon there are few better than MT. He is better than all the pussy eating snake charmers that come out of the East. I like his anger...which is in fact reducing now as he comes into his own. I read him like a correction of metaphysical pap. He was infact bringing up the very problem with abstract metaphysical philosophy and at least pointing the direction back to Nature as God. It is only man's truncated view of Nature that makes him dream up schemas apart from Nature.

Once we get that Nature is all that is and all that will ever be, then we begin to get smart and Taoist like Viktor Schauberger. It is then that we begin to get holy and everyday is a holyday. Until then we are basically unsane as Michael Tsarion says. It is only the broken, power-lusting false self that can even dream up abstractions apart from Nature in order to try and "get on top." This is the hubris that will bring about the downfall of the human species if we do not make the crucial leap into cosmic lucidity.

The only problem with that piece is that he uses the small s for Self. But politically I can see why he does that.

"We never entertain the idea that the self is identical to Nature, or that what we think of as Nature is the self. On the contrary, the ego serves as our identity. Strangely, we don't find it contradictory that everyone else on earth entertains the same idea."


There is obviously a problem with abstract metaphysical philosophy that justifies rape, plunder, killing and invasion. To regain cosmic rehabilitation humanity must at least start pointing the direction back to Nature as God. And to say that Nature is all about killing and being eaten is to belie the fact that we don’t really need to do that anymore, and that if we do it is a conscious choice to go against our better nature…hence morally corrupt or devolutionary.

If you listen to this 2.30 hour video you will see how the idea of Oneness and the anticritical fuzzy thinking of the new age and modern spiritualist movement could morph into exactly the type of homogenous 1984 scenario that the Club of Rome imagines...there are forces at play that are as diabolical as the Nazi movement...we are in a holocaust, but it is a slow death process by terror and free radical inflammation and poison. However if you can see it, you do not have to go down that stock runner into the pits with the rest of the folk whom have failed to educate themselves.
 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6759022809518563654#
Jim Condit - The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler

Oneness is better understood as nonlocal, superluminal interference and interconnectivity. Nassim and Dan Winter do this side of things best.

[Michael]

So who is this "We" that is contrived by Mr. Tsarion and various other tin horn evangelists: The Author and her Eagle Scout troop? The Author and his step-mother? The Author and the neighbor's Great Dane?

Thanks for the critique Steven.  We expect to like it more than the piece being critiqued, which we unfortunately don't have time to read at present...

The "lazy, presumptuous, condescending, fifth-rate rhetorical "WE"" that so many pop-psych and such authors abuse regularly irks us too, but perhaps not to the extent it does you... we often find ourselves pondering its intended meaning.

And these thoughts occur to us:

1. We is a collection of different personality aspects, or "parts" within the author, as he/she internally dialogs - projected upon the world as the imagined audience.

2. We is the hoped for communion of the resonant.

3. We is the marketing technique you alluded to.  -Roping in the easily roped.  In fact now that we think of it, it's nothing less than the disparagement of personal sovereignty 

 

[henry]

time for a little uncle henry story ? Tsarion is the grandson of Tara Singh, krishnamurti clone and purveyor of "a course in miracles" at the end of his life. In 1979 Tara was affiliated with the Fellowship of Inner Light that wanted to establish their New Jerusalem adjacent to my farm in Burkes Garden Virginia. The founder was Paul Solomon, a sleeping prophet in the Edgar Cayce mold, and the group included Alan Chadwick (bio-dynamic shakespearean gardener), Keith Critchlow(sacred architect), Barbara Marx Hubbard, kundalini researcher George Tomkins and an eclectic host of gifted nice interesting people. There was a Findhorn connection, we exchanged a few visits, and to make a long ridiculous Forrest henry story short, things didn't pan out for them. A difficult memory is singing the doxology holding hands around a tree, trespassing with pendulums on my neighbors land . Anyway, these folks were formative in m. Tsarion's development, for whatever that's worth

[marianthi]

Oh, Henry - how did you escape to tell the tale?!

 
M.

[henry]

love to mr. Steven and M. I'm struggling with the Pema Chodron thingy: "the wisdom of no escape"

[Jana]

Regardless of the apparently offending "we" I still think that statement itself holds water as a general statement about the state of things as far as general statements themselves hold any water at all considering the nature of the spoken word and it being not the thing it itself which cannot be spoken about anyway so I think it picking up nits to be overly concerned about any use of "we" in that humanity is not ever one thing so then neither are our "we's" one thing.

That being said.

Michael Tsarion's heart is in the right place, he speaks with appropriate fire-rosity considering the differential between the sleeping and the awakened and that it is either a case of beat them M*Fuckers around the metaphysical cheeks some or we will all go matching happily toward the gas chambers having manifested this destiny via the secret law of attraction as to the magnetic power of ignorance for the grave.

[Nickeson]

Hey, hey, hey,
But me & Cinderella
We put it all together
We can drive it home
With one headlight

I had hoped that once home we would leave all this behind but Jana's defense of Mr. Tsarion beckons me back.

As a forceful masculine penetration of the cocoon there are few better than MT. He is better than all the pussy eating snake charmers that come out of the East.

If Tsarion is the best your reformation has to offer then I'm not holding out much hope that you will stave off the downfall of the species. Who listens to this man who isn't one of his choir? He's fringe and fringe is ineffective. He's just words and just words are ineffective. What does he do? Doing is what counts. And after one spends 30 years doing it is okay to penetrate the cocoon and slip away (slipping away is a doing) with an understated, but effectively forceful,  "Fuck you, Jack! Me and Cinderella, we have ours and we can drive it home...." And mean it and live that way. There is, after a point, no need to engage for engagement is more like the stuck, codependent, adolescent little rebel who can fall back on nothing but words and an absolutely useless sense of moral superiority.

So what have you done other than words? How have you risen above the rug-munching snake charmers?

"We never entertain the idea that the self is identical to Nature, or that what we think of as Nature is the self. On the contrary, the ego serves as our identity. Strangely, we don't find it contradictory that everyone else on earth entertains the same idea."

So we come back a forth time to this line, and this part of it: "We never entertain the idea that the self is identical to Nature..." I want a direct answer on this one Jana (and if you can't give me a good one I see no reason why I shouldn't try to hound you off this site for being an impediment to the evolution of the species and a formidable block to personal sovereignty): Who gave this man, or who gave you, the right to include me, Me, in the We of M. Tsarion or Jana Dixon? Tsarion has no idea of what I have entertained or how long I have known that my self, and all others, and nature are one and the same. He just puts this stuff out there...hubris, it is called hubris...never knowing the millions his ignorance and the lazy expedience of his unexamined and tacitly elitist style insults and alienates.

And then we have this bit: "On the contrary, the ego serves as our identity. Strangely, we don't find it contradictory that everyone else on earth entertains the same idea."

Does this mean Mr. Tsarion believes that somehow "ego" is not a creation of, and an inextricable part, of the Nature he lionizes? Is he trying to tell us about some mythical Fall of Man?

Shortly thereafter we have another sentence: "To regain cosmic rehabilitation humanity must at least start pointing the direction back to Nature as God."

This is an interesting line given the assumption that it was written with clarity, consciousness, due research and a solid knowing of all circumstances and exigencies of our times. If "we" are to "regain" rehabilitation this means we were rehabilitated once (Rehab 1) but we (who is this We we are talking about? Is Henry in here with us? Where's Henry?) and now are trying to regain that admirable status. But this means that we were once Rehabilitated, which means that We were once totally habilitated...Oh God! What joy! "We" were once in total control of our full faculties. But, alas, we lost them...

But we were, thankfully, rehabilitated.

So I want to know when that happened. When did we have "It." When did we lose "It?" When did we go into "Rehab I"?

Jana, help me out here...you seem to know. You wrote the words...

And then "We" came out of "Rehab I" and then we lost it again...dates, do we have dates for this the second fall...? And now we have to "regain rehabilitation..."


Jesus H Christ! There is nothing I love more in the morning than an excellently thought through sentence in the English language. Please give it up for:

"To regain cosmic rehabilitation humanity must at least...(etc.)"

George Orwell once wrote an essay, one of the finest essays ever written in the English Language, in which he showed that the quality of intelligence is always fully reflected in the quality of the language used to express it.  If we are truly in a slow-mo holocaust and it appears to those who would feel "We" are worth saving then there is a lot of cleaning up to be done on a hell of a lot of shabby acts.

And there might be more in the morning.

[Francis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=I9mw492VXvE

[Jana]

Still reading http://www.taroscopes.com/miscellanous-pages/disciples.html

It appears to be the most comprehensive disclosure of our human condition yet...in that it is the most jnannic and honest and most recent...drawing as it does from a long history of critical self observation.

The tone is non-aggressive, it is not even masculine...it is "objective."
A critique, or bare bones observation is a critique, it is not supposed to be a pep talk.

As I finish up the article I wonder if he will flesh out a taoist way of Being that would show us the way out of the hall of mirrored abstraction

Awesome

[Francis]

Ancient sages believed that humanity had been cut off from the source and meaning of life. There is not a single ancient race or aboriginal culture that did not speak of a prehistoric age of gold, wise magi, dragon-slaying heroes, and high civilizations that eventually fell into oblivion due to moral declination and misuse of technological power. The elders and shaman make no bones about it. In their estimation man has fallen from a great height and lost his way morally and spiritually. The world's many myths and legends even go so far as to tell us why man became disconnected and unsane. They preserve information that speaks of terrible celestial and terrestrial cataclysms that devastated the Earth and shook the consciousness of human beings to its foundations.

This is the paragraph that I still can't get past.  From a Jungian perspective this myth is a metaphorical expression of the loss of connection with the mother-imago. This sentiment is merely the infantile longing for reunion with the mother-imago.  This story is about an individual's human history, not the history of civilization. Indeed civilization, such as it is, would not be possible if all the adults were still fixated on infantile regressions. The few that had the courage to break out of mom's stranglehold on their psyches are, for good and evil, the ones that build our cities and inform our cultures. The rest are stuck in the past. 

[Jana]

Mother dependency or desire for the lost Eden is not where Tsarion is coming from.
He is alluding to the successive rises and falls of past civilizations...some of the technology of which we cannot even replicate today, such as the Baalbeck stones in Lebanon, the pyramids, the carving of stone amphora etc. We appear to have lost touch with our past through a massive break in civilization which may have occurred with a geological flipping of the poles 15,000 ya and/or an atmospheric comet hit over the Great Lakes 12,500 ya as well as the general melt upheaval associated with the end of the last ice age.

Today we are like the fast food version of humanoid compared to certain breeds that have gone before us.

Part of the problem with the current hubris that is complexing our problems beyond our capacity to understand them...is that we have lost touch with our species roots...the power, glory and struggle of our ancestors.

MT is not an example of infantilism...at least HE would have a wife and family of his own.