Rot_Schwarz_Odian, posted 06/10/10 18:18:49
So, isolate intelligence is like observing "I".
Vargr, posted 03/16/10 06:51:22
To tell the truth, I haven't read this whole thread, though I am questioning the supposed link between Wodan and Set.
Throughout my personal comparative religious studies, it has always seemed to me that the ancient Germanic religion has been the only one that doesn't necessarily have any connection or correspondences to the Egyptian mysteries. Though, I must admit I've always been strongly attracted to those mysteries and remain interested in their construct and philosophies, I've found that the Germanic mysteries have always somehow stood out on their own.
Of course, through any "knuckling of the machine" correspondences can be drawn from any one religion to another, it seems quite a stretch to connect Wodan to another deity from an unrelated culture as easily as the correspondences between say Hermes-Thoth, Apophis-Set-Typhon, the Sumerian deities to the stories of the old testament concerning Nephilim or "Watchers" etc. etc., which all seem to speak of the lost knowledge of "meddling" outsiders or "praeterhuman intelligences" in the evolution of man. This, as we all know, continues to this day with the "received" texts of modern magicians since Crowley and Blavatsky up until the present texts received by anyone from Ouija board mystics/channelers to the very serious Book of Coming Forth by Night and Liber Pennae Praenumbrum.
In studying the Northern Traditions, I don't see anything like that (so far), so I question the connexions between what seems like a tradition that stands on its own to comparisons of what most Hermetic magicians can easily link together through obvious correspondences to "gods" of other intrinsic occult interests.
Nevertheless, there seems to be an obvious "intercession" concerning arcane knowledge and the spiritual and technological growth of Homo Sapiens by "those from outside", however I debate, with myself, whether or not the Nordic traditions evolved from contact with the "contactees" or solely on its own. There is no doubt that civilizations all over the world experienced a sudden "burst" of knowledge from somewhere, however, lacking the documentation of strange visitations and human "gods" from the North (besides the creation myths, which don't seem to pan out, e.g. Thule, though tales of little ppl, giants, elves, monsters and heroes do prevail). It seems as though the Northern Traditions kind of evolved on their own, almost in a vacuum, through collective archetypes or similar situations.
My apologies for rambling in what may seem a disjointed reply to this post, but I have many questions of our development that only seem to get more complicated with acquired knowledge. I am only a seeker and have no intentions of inflaming anyone's personal beliefs.
Reyn til Runa!
Vargr
The Northern mysteries seem completely
disintigry, posted 12/31/09 05:05:36
Here is the link to that article by Ipsissimus Webb, for some reason the hyperlink didn't post properly : http://www.balanone.info/isolint.html
More related to mythology :
Geoff - the text I was thinking of concerning the "Children of Set" et al. was the Bremner-Rhind papyrus (or one of them? I'm not sure how many there are). It is reproduced in the 'Notes from Neheh' section in Uncle Setnakt's "Inner Teachings...". Re-reading this, it seems almost like an early example of psychological personality types, not sure how literal it is intended to be taken from the myths or the papyrus itself. Just wanted to follow up on that non-sequitor.
disintigry, posted 12/31/09 04:59:58
Recently I discovered an interesting article regarding the evolution of the term 'Isolate Intelligence' itself. Random file on Balanone's ToS page which mentions the history of the term and its evolution.
Hopefully posting this here will not 'give away' too much for others without discovering it themselves.
Isolate Intelligence, by Don Webb
I have been meaning to pick up a copy of Dr. Flowers' "Lords..." as it were, this definitely added to bumping it up on my reading list.
Along with that I just finished reading the pdf versions of "The Church of Satan" and "The Temple of Set" by Dr. Aquino, regarding the history of the former, and the progress of the latter. These have added some interesting insights from this point of view as well.
Apologies I do not have much more to offer in the way of myths relating to such t the moment, however I did feel these to be pertinent.
:RtR:
d.G.
saundor999, posted 12/19/09 07:20:27
Yeah, -what Disintigry said- the Self, the core self is that which perceives. I don't think that there is anything that can break it down, and I think that it is "human" and the product of the Principle of Isolate Intelligence in us. It is adamantine. It is like a cut diamond, and it is particular to each who are it. Many things are tacked onto it, but that- self, is more or less like the eternally "uncut wood". Realizing this, we accept that we have a responsibility to ourselves to help this self. The processes of death and rebirth and what have you aren't necessarily comfy. Like any journey, one must pay for first class transit, and prepare things in many ways to make these processes luxurient, efficacious, smooth in transitioning. Any fool can throw themselves into the cogs, but with This work, we don't have to be stowaways on the barge. A person could call this preparation for death, but it's not really that. The nomad knows how to travel, and how to do so comfortably and with all of his tapestries, and so it's just having things in perspective in relation to a time that is not limited to Midgard.
disintigry, posted 12/12/09 00:56:31
Dave - Definitely interesting points. Personally, I'm not sure if the core/center of awareness is illusory itself. I definitely think I see what you are saying about the rest, however to me the core/center seems to be the bit of continuity that is the core of consciousness, which then self-identifies with other concepts in the way you have said.
Of course then we would need to define just how much needs to be 'peeled back' so to say before just the core self is actually reached, and then can be nourished and grown to replace the misidentification to become a complete and growing Self. But there must be some bit of continuity which is our core which we are able to develop, which we then are able to look out from as we realize that we aren't what we thought we were, and to grow as we truly are and decide what we truly want ourSelf to become at that moment on our journey. This is the difference between the active 'shaping' principle rather than the passive 'being-shaped-by' principle, at least in my thoughts on the matter at this moment.
Your explanation reminded me of Assagioli's 'Disidentification' exercise, though on a bit of a grander scale (both in scope and permanence, though such an exercise as he describes could be good practice for further refinement and development; a tool to taking such steps). His concept of psychosynthesis also seems to reflect this, with moving he core of our consciousness as we desire to by which we may redefine ourselves by our directed Will.
Regarding your last comment : "This begs the question of what the crown of this process is…", I believe (from where I stand at the moment and what I have seen so far of the world, myself, etc.) that the best understanding of this at the moment is the 'crown' of this process is the process itself. That it is in some ways a 'Grail' quest, an 'alchemical' quest for a 'philosopher's stone'. The quest for the 'crown' of the quest is actually the process of endlessly working on the process to achieve better ends. I don't think this would be a pointless circling or running over old ground, just the same spirit of the process applied to wherever we may be at the time (the concept of 'Mastery' as described by George Leonard in some ways). At the same time we must not be lost to our world only being inward turning to the point of not functioning in the Objective world, which could be seen as a hazard of this process if not kept in check, I am sure. As to whether or not there is an actual 'crown' to be achieved eventually, I do not think we can properly answer that at this time, only speculate.
Also, regarding your first response to Jon and Ormsond, Dr Aquino had an interview which explains much from his perspective on many matters on the KHPR podcast show. I saw that it was mentioned in the replies to the 'Dialectic of Consciousness', however did not see it referenced here. It can be found at http://khpr.xeper.org, for those interested.
Since this conversation has started, and the research and pondering since the beginning of it and even since my previous post here, I have come to a new understanding of a certain matter. Regarding Set existing before, and creating, all other gods, this would be necessary based on the concept of Isolate Intelligence. One entity would have to acquire this state before others could be shaped in the same way. This can be seen in the first action of the Sons of Bor, when they slay Ymir and re-order the world in a willed and intelligent order rather than just the continuing pattern mindlessly moving onward. The other gods do not exist before Odin/Villi/Ve acting in this way, after this they come about through the acting of the Indivuated Intelligence of Odin/Villi/Ve acting on the natural matrix of the Objective universe. A synthesis thus is needed to produce further 'islands' of Individuals and expanding the concept of Isolate Intelligence within the Objective worlds. In Egyptian myths I am not sure how this would be seen, however in what I have read regarding Ahura Mazda this seems to resonate as well. Perhaps reflected also in Kronus/Saturn (rebellion against the primal Ouranus) and in the Asura's of Hindu mythology. These latter, including the Hellenic myths, Zorastrian myths, and Hindic myths, I need further references on and may be misinterpreting some matters.
saundor999, posted 12/10/09 17:57:50
all of this mythology and philosophy circulating around this must be understood as ways of apprehending a reality. To know something like Odhinn, perhaps we must stand on great stilts of words, but in the end it doesn't matter to Odhinn what we say about- Odhinn. I know less every day, but one thing I can say about Aquino's method and about all of this magic business in general, is that, all that is really required is the "audacity" to cut through the red tape and ask oneself clear questions. The more of oneself that one can bring into something like saying to oneself, "I want to know what Set is", the more that one will know about it. The finding is the same as the act of asking really.
Dave, posted 12/10/09 17:25:05
Hail all,
I'd like to get into how we experience the effects of Isolate Intelligence, and what that means about what it 'is'.
disintigry – I agree, the process of initiation seems recursive to me. The 'self' (as mentioned by Jon Sharp), seems to be made and remade again and again by some deeper faculty. When, as someone noted in an earlier post, the young child starts to develop a sense of self, that self is hurriedly assembled from materials to hand, ie the child's experience so far. Gurdjieff (I forget where) sketches a sudden jump in which the child crystallizes a self around some archetypal social role, which is in itself just a phase of a larger alchemical process in which one way-station of identity turns into another, represented by the cycles of the enneagram. The self we grab off the shelf at that stage of development is a set of relatively illusory identifications, nothing more to it than a set of habitual roles. This is our starting-point.
This starting point, this naïve self, is projected onto experience by our capacity for reflexive consciousness - 'I am I', a sense of continuity of experience, a constant centre to awareness, which is illusory but suits our survival needs (or should) and enables us to organize our memories. (Of course, we organize them to uphold the illusory identification).
However, the process of initiation starts when we get a vision or idea of how much better in some way we can become. This is a glimpse, I think, of what Jon Sharp refers to as Self. And this is where we start to Become, in the Setian sense. This is where the recursiveness comes in – we do something to change the self-identification (ie we do some magic), and a result of this (we hope) a new self emerges. This leads to a new envisaging of Self, of how we can now do better, now seen more clearly.
This recursive process is outlined unequivocally in Havamal, 140-141:
I had a drink of the dear mead
that was drawn from Othroerir.
Then I began to grow
and waxed well in wisdom.
One word led me to another,
one work led me to another.
We have glimpsed the Mystery, and She has opened up to us, but then another phase of Runa appears, glimpsed behind the one we just attained, and so we approach the Mystery, forever.
So what is it that is doing this creation of selves? I mentioned that it's connected to our reflexive consciousness, the experience of duality right at the heart of conscious awareness, the way in which we look at ourselves and assemble an identity from moment to moment – 'Oh, I had eggs for breakfast, a got a new job last year, etc etc' – the I is always present, and yet it is identifying with something that doesn't exist as a discrete and stable entity, but rather is cobbled together from a ceaseless flux of neural impulses embedded in a ceaseless flux of atoms. Though the faculty itself produces illusory identifications at first, those identifications get more useful to us, as we Become, as we grow in line with an ideal, the vision of the Self. Could it be that this self-creating faculty is the god-creating Isolate Intelligence?
One of the paradoxical effects of this series of shifts in identity is to make us realise how illusory and fragile the mundane selves always are, however apparently well-integrated and functional they seemed at the time. The idea of self always hangs above an abyss, because it is not based on anything real.
This begs the question of what the crown of this process is…
Dave, posted 12/09/09 17:27:39
I've come to this very interesting discussion rather late on, but here goes:
I agree with Ormsond when he says:
'philosophy can be an alternative to mythology, but I think a study of both is most true from a Polarian perspective. In that context philosophy would coincide with the objective precision aspect of the work, whereas mythology would coincide with the subjective passionate aspect.'
We progress by alternating subjective experiences of higher consciousness (the magical part of the Work) with objective analysis of those experiences, what led to them and what they mean to us. The latter is the philosophical part of the Work.
It seems to me that in subjective, magical experience Odin and Set will be quite distinct. I resonate with Odin, and not with Set. However, in philosophical enquiry, we view them as principles, and the principles appear to be identical – the consciousness by which we create all the other gods (whether 'Lego' type gods or more 'stable', less variable assemblages of sacredness). The uniqueness of this position underlines that there is some special quality in common between them.
Jon Sharpe's point underlines this aspect of the Polarian method:
'My own take on this is that we fare best when we approach the Mystery through the framework and with the tools of our folk, but that in apprehending Mystery or glimpsing it we are on the edge of something trans-cultural. In that sense we can see Odhin both as a conceptual construct in a particular culture and as a representation of a philosophical position, but also as a state of being to be sought. In this latter sense we are aiming at something Universal but journeying through our own inherited Tradition.'
I would also be interested to know how Michael Aquino distilled his experience of Set into the concept of 'isolate intelligence', so as soon as I've caught up and am on the same page, I look forward to joining in that discussion.
waldozwaiter, posted 12/09/09 04:13:00
I don't recall if it was a Woodharrow or RfR talk. I'll try and find it and make it available, or at least the relevant section.
Geoff, posted 12/09/09 04:05:16
Waldo,
Which talk is it with the Sistine Chapel/Auschwitz quote?
saundor999, posted 12/08/09 22:57:13
How does the principle demonstrate what it is through actions in the universe, and how does this specifically relate to humanity?
Obviously, we each have a personal psyche, and a personal subconscious. All of the cultural artifacts and systems that we work with and find around us have their origin there. To say that this is personal is to say that it is enclosed, and thus isolate. There we synthesize things and then materialize them within an objective enclosure through external actions. I agree that creation seems to be a kind of synthesis. When Nikola Tesla was asked how he came up with all of these inventions and so on that he created, he said that he would think about the need in question. He would then experience a flash of light within his mind, and would perceive there a machine of some sort. He would then have to figure out what sort of a machine it was and how it worked. He would then draw up the blue prints and so on and it would be made. Of course, usually we do more working with these kind of things within our psyches before we put them into an objective form.
waldozwaiter, posted 12/08/09 17:17:31
Speaking of the Isolate Intelligence, Edred asked:
“How does this principle demonstrate what it is through actions taken in the universe? How does it specifically relate to humanity?”
In a recent talk Edred said something like (I’m working from memeory):
“The horrors of Auschwitz and the Sistine Chapel both arise from the same source: the divinity in man.”
To me this latter statement deals directly with the two previous questions.
I think it’s time someone started a new thread discussing these questions. Any takers?
Lothar, posted 12/08/09 04:12:10
I'm a Gilder, not a member of the TOS, so the following is an exercise in understanding what my Setian *cousins'* understanding is.
Maybe the question then is, was it Set (the mythological Egyptian Neter) who gave rise to the other gods or was it Set (in the form of a Platonic ideal - i.e., the Principle of Isolate Intelligence) who, by manifesting in human consciousness and cultural expression(s) 'gave rise to the other gods' by allowing for us to conceive of them in the first place?
While Set is Gelded (see some of Waldo's links in the other comment thread) in some mythological accounts this doesn't truly effect *or* negate the philosophical understanding as expressed in pertinent (to this discussion) texts.
Similar arguments could be made regarding Odhinn, the inspiration he is the master of, and how that inspiration is shared among his chosen. When you are inspired by the mead of poetry are you drinking or pouring the mead?
saundor999, posted 12/03/09 14:06:21
I've wondered about this Gelding matter. If Set were "sterile", there wouldn't be this idea of Set giving rise to the other Gods, much less the objective universe. The only thing that I can think of at the moment in regard to the Gelding name is that maybe it has something to do with non-ejaculation during sex, or internal orgasm. My approach to sexuality, etc. has certainly changed since I stopped having the orgasm. I don't know.
Geoff, posted 12/02/09 19:07:50
Yes, well maybe someone else can "set" us straight on that.
My point was that Odhinn as Allfather has an actual genetic relationship, not only with other Gods but with humans, and therefore feels some sort of obligation...
Set feels more Loki-like with no obligations, but, of course as Edred has said in Runelore (pg.180-1) that Loki/Hodhr is another aspect of Odhinn, with the Lokasenna identifying them as blood brothers...
Either way, I think it's a way to describe the indescribable depth of this God. Don't behave casually with this Being, full of terror, love and power...
:RtR:
Geoff
disintigry, posted 12/02/09 03:53:18
I have not been able to find the resource I was looking for mentioning the "Children of Set", will continue because now I am curious where I did read that. Pretty certain if it wasn't in "Typhonian Magic" it was one of Uncle Setnakt's other books.
Geoff - you made an interesting observation that I probably wouldn't have considered if you hadn't. Your comment regarding Set being possibly sterile reminded me that when reading "Typhonian Magic" Webb points out that at various times in the past Set was thought to have been castrated. If I remember correctly he mentions that this was a misconception regarding certain symbols, however I don't remember enough to be sure. I will be re-reading "Typhonian Magic" as I am able to.
This reminded me of Jalg/Jalk and some of Odhinn's other names which allude to geldings. Interesting connection there.
And as an aside, I've noticed that Lugh, Set, and Odhinn all seem to be connected with spears.
I'm going to be looking into more on Lugh, Ahura Mazda, Odhinn, Set, Mercury, and others over the next week or two.
:RtR:
d.G.
disintigry, posted 12/01/09 18:26:39
Geoff - Briefly I tried to look and find the reference I am speaking of, however I'll have to post it later.
There is a discussion somewhere in Egyptian myth about the Children of Set, as well as, if I remember correctly, the Children of Osiris, and Children of Horus.
If memory serves correctly I read about this in Don Webb's 'Seven Faces of Darkness' which is from what I can tell a great study on Egyptian, Greek, Coptic, etc. sources dealing with Set in myth. Also a great bibliography of places to continue further research if one so desires.
I'll see what I can find later on today about that, but it is an interesting matter to look in.
:RtR:
d.G.
Geoff, posted 12/01/09 16:33:58
Thanks everyone for much insight. The keen writing of Mr. Keane (Set as Dark Self) and the recent "Grow Like a Tree" postings here by Einhverfr worked together helpfully for me...
This idea seems simple but is subtly complex. Not trained in philosophy and somewhat "visual", I keep returning to the part of the talk where Edred speaks on the seals of Set and Runa. To me the names alone say something as Set's seal is named for himself while Odhinn's seal is named for the thing he seeks. Further echoes of that idea are found in the iconography. Set's pentagram is self-contained but Odhinn's, though identical, intersects a trapezoid which Edred calls "useful for from a magical perspective". Further, on the seal of Runa, "the pentagram...separate from the world of nature, but...(is) connected to the trapezoid (which) acts as a link between the subjective universe and the principle of isolate intelligence and the world of nature, a very handy link to have if you want to affect the world from consciousness..."
That's what I pick up from the mythology too. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but Set doesn't seem to give a damn about the world. He wants what he wants and mostly does what he wants. His role in the world may or may not be beneficial (as a "disrupter" he seems to have been much needed in an slow-changing Egypt, something Edred spoke about in a RfR episode, don't ask me which!), but either way it doesn't seem to matter much to him. Odhinn is similarly disruptive, unpredictable, unfair, etc., yet you get the feeling he's acting with a higher purpose. In a violent act, and for the greater good, he constructed it all. Then he acts to preserve it, and though he knows his power is limited, he still fights for that. Unjustly he causes "noble kings" to die in battle because Asgard needs them for protection ("The grey wolf watches the abodes of the gods"- Hakonarmal, as cited by Davidson).
Thinking poetically, these may two sides of the same coin. Two aspects of *being*, much as Lothar gave a "real-life" human example of isolate intelligence at work. Odinn (and Set) is and ever will be self-contained, initiated, actualized, separate, isolate. He doesn't need anything/one. At the same time he chooses to, at least in the case of Odhinn, as we are his blood kin (Set has no children and is sterile? - more reflections of the seal?). As the story of Balder story illustrates, sometimes Odhinn also has a heart.
Paradoxically, too, these aspects work together. On a human level how can one ever hope to affect much around him if he has not experienced the psychic change of initiation?
Does that work or am I all wet?
:RtR:
Geoff
saundor999, posted 11/30/09 22:45:37
I may be the least qualified person here to discuss Germanic myth, much less Egyptian myth, so maybe it's appropriate for me to break the ice. Our laboratory is the subjective universe. We exist in Midgard, a cozy place in comparison to many other states, still there is something missing, why, because we are descended from and linked to Odhinn, who exists within Asgard, another "enclosure". Isolate implies an enclosure, and Isolate Intelligence implies that this kind of an enclosure is found within- that is, the domain of the psyche. (I have a hard time imagining the subjective universe as being an opposite of the objective universe, does the center have an opposite point?) The awareness of Asgard, because we are linked with it, and because we are not- there requires that we act. Coming to terms with Asgard is then the same thing as "gaining" this enclosure of intelligence or consciousness. Odhinn's self-sacrifice is one of the psyche, not of the body. Odhinn sacrifices an inferior subjective or psychological state to one that is enclosed as an autonomous entity. The mold for such an enclosure for us lies within what we call Asgard. He also achieves this in the creation of Asgard, he must know the state in creating it, again in bringing the mead to Asgard, again when he is able to exist through and re-manifest after the Ragnarok, etc.
disintigry, posted 11/30/09 04:39:44
Lothar - I'd be more than happy to. I'll try to expand on my ideas (a bit less stream of consciousness this time) from the Germanic perspective, and what little I've learned of the Egyptian and Greek myths from 'Seven Faces of Darkness' and a few other assorted sources.
Just a warning that my writing on Greek and Egyptian related myths will be me learning while exploring and writing.
:RtR:
d.G.
Lothar, posted 11/30/09 00:19:48
There have been some wonderful explications on the meaning of isolate intelligence. These in conjunction with the fundamental texts of Dr. Aquino and Edred (which really should be essential to this discussion) should give us enough to move onto the next set of suggested questions that Edred posed. Namely:
"how it can be observed in the mythologies of the Germanic and Egyptian peoples?"
"Is such a principle discernible in these mythologies? If so how and in what specific texts and passages?"
"How does this principle demonstrate what it is through actions taken in the universe?"
"How does it specifically relate to humanity?"
Are we ready to move onto the next stage of the discussion?
saundor999, posted 11/29/09 10:34:42
What Disintigry said in describing Isolate Intelligence seems to the point, and he brings the discussion back to the topic of Germanic and Egyptian myth. In Germanic myth, Isolate Intelligence seems ubiquitous. Disintigry mentioned two instances of this. When I read the Eddas, not too long ago really, I noticed that various stories seem to intentionally be repetitions of what could be called the principle of coming into being, into an autonomous state. It was for this reason impossible for me to imagine the stories as being chronological. Attempting to do so then makes the whole structure paradoxical. This particular autonomous state seems to me to be the state of true humanness, as Disintigry said, the achievement of the state of the Ubermensch, and is residence within Valhall. It is strange to me that while animals begin to function as members of their species immediately, we must jump through all of these hoops to become what we are. how many people are even close to this, and what does this mean. What the hecks goin on? Proper initiatory societies are obviously sorely needed. Thank Odhinn/Set for the Rune Gild and the TOS, etc. Finally institutions are being re-established to help people to take their first steps as human beings.
disintigry, posted 11/28/09 22:40:33
These are my own thoughts, synthesized from reading various sources and from the thoughts inspired by them. I would definitely be interested in seeing how my idea compares to the understanding of members of the Dr. Aquino, Edred, Don Webb, or other members of the ToS or RG. Hoping to have my ideas challenged and new ideas found.
Regarding the Principle of Isolate Intelligence, for a description of my own understanding I tend to look at the words separately and then as a gestalt.
'Isolate' I see as insular, independent, separate, defined apart from the rest.
'Intelligence' in this case as 'an intelligence', a consciousness of a sort.
So the Principle of Isolate Intelligence being that of a self-defining, self-circumscribing, self-ruling and self-limiting, independent “Self”/”I”. A consciousness which is unto itself and by itself 'whole'. This does not mean static or unchanging, merely fully integrated with itself and therefore able to add or subtract from itself as needed and desired. Such would have to be constantly dynamic to remain in such a state, however a controlled dynamism.
I see echoes of this concept in places such as Jung's idea of “Individuation”[1][2], Maslow's “Self-Actualization”, the techniques of Will[3] and Psychosynthesis[4] refined by Assagiolli and his description of the problems preceding and accompanying Self-Realization[5], in some ways even in Nietzsche's concept of «der Ubermensch» , and many other places.
The principle appears quite recursive in some ways. A consciousness defines itself apart from the rest, explores itself fully, integrates all aspects which it finds – discarding or making use of all aspects as needed and nurturing the aspects which are not developed to suitable ideals of the self, tests itself, then redefines itself to begin the process again. This time at a more 'refined' starting point, however still the same process. (Please not this is vastly oversimplified for brevity). The consciousness is independent and self-owning because it has glimpsed this state in some way, and has after realizing this in some way decided to continue forward rather than seek abnegation by returning to the state whence it came.
The recursion can be seen in the Xepera Xeper Xeperu formula[6]. Coming into being creating the possibility of coming into being. Without the first event it would not be possible, however the first event creates itself by occuring.
Regarding this concept in Myth :
I do see Wuotan/Woden/Odhinn as representing this principle in the myths of the Germanic people. This first occurred to me in some form years ago while re-reading Hollander's translation of the Poetic Edda, 6 or 7 years before I would read anything regarding the philosophies of the ToS or the directly related to the LHP.
The Sons of Bor slay Ymir and shape the world [Völuspá:3-4; Grímnismál:41-42; VafÞrúðnismál:20-21; etc.]. This appeared to me as the first act of independent consciousness shaping the raw materials at its disposal rather than being shaped by them.
With poetic license and my own view, this can be viewed as a 'Greater Black Magic' working since the desired result is affected upon the objective world by the ones causing the change.
Later we are told of Odhinn/Villi/Ve discovering Askr and Embla on the banks of a river. As their names suggest they are already alive, however the gifts given to them cause them to become more than they were. Thus they have the potential to seek further and to evolve further, as Odhinn himself had done before to be able to give that gift to them.
Further, Odhinn's constant questing seems to elude to someone who is searching everywhere, internally and externally, for the secrets of the Universe and the mind/body/soul complex. His searching thus leads him more to himself than to concern himself just with the structured concerns of Ziu/Tiw/Tyr and Donar/Thunarr/Thorr. I do not see this as being antagonistic to the rest, as he does do what is best for all in many cases, however he never loses himself for the functioning of the gestalt.
Apart from Don Webb's books on the matter, resources at the ToS website, and various other sources (from Crowley to some introductory bits of Greek and Egyption mythology) I am not that familiar with the Hellenic or Egyptian myths. I will leave those matters to thosewh have explored them more, and am always interested in learning more and discussing more.
These are my own concepts based on reading the Eddas, the Volsungasaga, several of Edred's books on runes and heathenry, works by Magnus Magnusson, Hilda-Davidson, Crossley-Holland, and others. I do not claim any special knowledge of Odhinn nor do I claim to be a definitive source on such matters. I will be expounding these ideas in several articles I will post here and in some future blog posts.
1 Jung, C.G. “The Meaning of Individuation” CG Jung Page, 18 Jan. 2004. Web. 11 Nov. 2009. http://www.cgjungpage.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=526&Itemid=40&limit=1&limitstart=0
2 “Individuation: The Process of a Liftetime” Jungian Analytical Praxis, Inc., n.d.. Web. 11 Nov. 2009. http://www.jungiananalyticpraxis.com/individuation_lecture.htm
3 Assagioli, Roberto. The Act of Will
4 ---. Psychosynthesis: A Collection of Basic Writings. New York: Viking Compass, 1965
5 ---. “Self-Actualization and Psychological Disturbances” Psychosynthesis: A Collection of Basic Writings. New York: Viking Compass, 1965. 35-59
6 “I have Come Into being and by my Coming Into Being the way of Coming Into being has Come Into being!” Webb, Don http://www.xeper.org/setne/pages/osk14.htm
jon sharp, posted 11/28/09 12:28:33
My approach to the concept of 'isolate intelligence' is to see it as the state of consciousness in which we are sufficient to ourselves, in which there is a complete self identification between self and Self and in which the sum of the contents of consciousness are under the authority, so to speak, of that consciousness.
This is of course influenced by own phliosophical bias towards phenomenology and could be understood as taking Husserl's notion of eidetic perception where we become conscious of the 'thing in itself' and applying it to consciousness itself rather than objects given to consciousness. Thus, consciousness becomes that which is. In much simpler terms it relates to the Old English, 'In On Is Al'.
There always seems to be a paradoxical element to such states and here I think that the Isolate Intelligence is both a unitary consciousness that exists to and for itself, but at the same time is capable of encontering the Universal consciousness without being absorbed or negated by that Universality. It is therefore an absolutely liminal state oscillating between total union with all that is (Truth) and standing apart from the Universal in a permanent state of Self-becoming (Will).
I don't think it can be approached by defining 'isolate' and then 'intelligence' since the root of the concept lies in the combination of these terms, in the same way that we couldn't understand the term 'sweet bread' by considering the terms 'sweet' and 'bread' separately.
An interesting question for me is whether teh achiveemnt of Isolate Intelligence marks a boundary line between self-becoming and self-creating or whether it represents a state in which Self-becoming is achieved.
:RtR:
Jon
