If you are new to the Band, occult imagery posts are shorter looks at the background and meaning of occult images. For more posts on occult symbolism, click here. For an introduction to the Band and the Dismantling Postmodernism series, click the featured post to the right or check out the archive.
Other links: The Band on Gab; The Band on Oneway
Other links: The Band on Gab; The Band on Oneway
 |
| Part 3 of 3 |
Continuing the occult post review of Jordanetics by Vox Day. Click for Part 1. Click for Part 2.
In the last post we looked at the paradoxical idea of Balance as a path to a higher state. And how do we know what to balance? The answer is the same in reality and in Peterson - we make something up. It built on the gnostic pattern in Peterson's map of meaning uncovered in Part 1 - a spray of incoherent symbols, magic dreams, and wordplay where truth is whatever he wants it to be in the moment. This is the metaphysical lie behind all occult "enlightenment" - that limited, finite human beings can reach truth about absolute, ultimate reality by their own means. But balancing gnosis is a general pattern, and Day highlights one particular strand that runs through Peterson's occult like a diseased taproot:
The last of our three-part review:
1. Gnosis
2. Balance
3. Luciferianism
One thing that is always annoying about looking into the occult is how hard it is to find consistent definitions of terms. This is inevitable, because all forms of occult "knowledge" are based on the basic Satanic inversion of reality - that absolute metaphysical truth is knowable, or even subject to, finite physical humans. We've already seen this pattern in Peterson's subjective, gnostic, notion of "truth" as something that you generate internally. When reality is turned upside down, terms and ideas are by nature false. This means that anyone interested in researching the actual truth has to deal with what occultists claim and what was really going on. Oftentimes, the historical facts are unknown, making it easy for anyone to make up whatever story they want. This is why it is so important to look for the patterns behind the story.
Franz Stuck, Lucifer, 1890, oil on canvas, 152.5 x 161 cm, National Art Gallery, Sofia, Bulgaria
This raises the question of who Lucifer is, and that sends us into the occult world of contradictory definitions, since this figure means different things from different perspectives.
Focus on the pattern.
The relationship between Lucifer and Satan is is a good example of how this works. Many people just assume that they are the same thing - different names for the devil, like Old Scratch. Occultists like to point out that this is likely not the case historically, because it lets them claim not to be worshiping Evil.
2nd century Roman marble altar with the moon-goddess Selene/Luna with Phosphoros (Morning Star) and Hesperos (Evening Star), marble altar, , 1.35 x 0.98 m, Louvre Museum
Lucifer is a Latin word meaning lightbearer. In Roman mythology, it was the name given to a celestial deity associated with the "morning star" or Venus at dawn. The Greeks called him Phosphorus or Eosphoros, seen here on the left with his symbolic torch.
Roman mythology in the late Imperial period was a mixture of different sources, and the concept of "Lucifer" can be connected to ancient Middle Eastern myths around Venus as the Morning Star. The association with Satan is a later development, appearing first in the King James Version of The Bible:
Lucas Emil Vorsterman after Peter Paul Rubens, The Fall of the Rebel Angels, 1621, engraving, National Gallery of Art, Washington DC
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” Isaiah 14:12
The King James passage is an alteration of the Vulgate - the first Latin Bible that was authoritative in Medieval Europe. Here, the original Hebrew word הֵילֵל was translated as the Latin "lucifer" without a capital L, meaning morning star, planet Venus, or light-bringer as a descriptor rather than a character. This tends to be the case in modern translations as well. But the importance of the KJV in forming modern English culture cemented an association between Satan and Lucifer, even if it doesn't hold up as literal history. Click for an overview of the passage from a Christian perspective.
William Blake, Satan in his Original Glory: ‘Thou wast Perfect till Iniquity was Found in Thee’, c.1805, ink and watercolour on paper, 42.9 x 33.9 cm, Tate, London
Blake captures this connection between Lucifer as the bringer of light and Satan in his angelic glory before his fall. The poet John Milton (1608–74) was as influential as anyone in fixing this idea with his portrayal of Lucifer/Satan in Paradise Lost.
The sin of this Lucifer is the Satanic inversion of placing personal desire above reality, whether you define that through Christianity or the Scientific Method. And when the fundamental basis of your belief system is a prideful lie - to set oneself up as master of reality - the path is clear for any depravity to feed personal appetites.
Gnostics inverted the fall of Lucifer from the King James Bible by redefining this world as the creation of an evil divinity, making the light bringer a symbol of freedom through enlightenment. Modern Luciferianism generally takes Lucifer as metaphorical rather than an actual being, but shares the idea that he represents a self-guided path to empowerment through a personalized notion of truth. But the pattern is familiar. Here's a passage from Michael Ford, an Luciferian leader, that captures it nicely:
Looking at the Luciferian "church" logo, we see some familiar symbolism. The big symbol in the middle with crossing lines and a V at the bottom is the standard sign or sigil of Lucifer. The torch was associated with him since his appearance in ancient myths and represents the light of knowledge. The Eye of Horus symbolized the perception of deeper truth in a more general way, and gives the meaning of the torch an occult cast. The chains represent breaking the restrictions of culture and convention to free the will to search for enlightenment.
Gustave Dore, engraving for Milton's Paradise Lost, 1866, "They heard, and were abasht, and up they sprung"
The Luciferian idea of endless "rebellion" as a form of personal liberation contributes to the connection between Lucifer and Satan, with Satan as the archetypal rebel.
This is a good illustration of how occult definitions are slippery. Luciferians explicitly distinguish themselves from Satanists so they can deny devil worship. But on the pattern level, the idea of self-willed rebellion against moral or natural orders for personal aggrandizement is the same.
Gino De' Bini, Title page to Mario Rapisardi's Lucifero, 4th edition, Rome, Edoardo Perino, 1887
The combination of rebellion and enlightenment connects with the attack on culture by the Modernist avant-garde in the arts. Once you invert reality, he can be recast as a brave seeker of truth
Occultists know this - quibbling over superficial definitions is a cloud of squid ink that obscures what these doctrines have in common. This way they can keep recycling the same dyscivic self-absorption behind different masks. Peterson is just the latest iteration, but if you have to see the pattern.
Take a look at Theosophy, another path through occult symbolism with a murky history, but is most strongly associated with the Theosophical Society founded in 1875 in New York.
The Theosophical Society emblem is typical for choosing symbols with clear associations that they pretend are innocent. The connotations of serpent images are overwhelmingly negative to the point that the relatively obscure figure of the oroboros is not sufficient reason for choosing it. They could have opted for any representation of infinity. Picking a clear symbol of evil and pretending it is something different is Satanic inversion.
As for the motto - its meaning depends on how you define truth. Misdirection.
Helena Blavatsky and Henry Olcott in 1888
These pictures of mental health and stability were two of the founders of the Theosophical Society.
Blavatsky was the most prominent Theosophic writer, and was very open that their movement was just the latest of many attempts to reach enlightenment. It's this constant reshuffling of sources from the past that make occult symbolism so murky and inconsistent.
For example, Blavatsky founded and edited this literary gem:
According to a letter to her sister, "...it is not the devil, into which the Catholics have falsified the name of the Morning Star, sacred to all the ancient world, of the ‘bringer of light,’ Phosphoros, as the Romans often called the Mother of God and Christ. And in St. John’s Revelation does it not say, ‘I, Jesus, the morning star’? I wish people would take this to mind, at least. It is possible that the rebellious angel was called Lucifer before his fall, but after his transformation he must not be called so...."
Accepting a Christian account of reality then turning it upside down because you think it should be that way is just another instance of the pattern of Satanic inversion. Is Blavatsky technically Luciferian? Who cares. The pattern is the same.
Even self-identified Luciferians are vague with their terms. This is because it isn't actually a set of "beliefs" as much as attitudes - elevating solipsistic will and desire above external realities and constraints. According to one source, their system can be called different things: "Adversarial Thought, Mercurial Consciousness, Left Hand Path or my personal favorite, The Complete Path." Peterson prefers the term "more perfect order" but the idea is the same. And his "pen of light"? Not too far off the lightbringer himself.
Of course Peterson doesn't call himself a Luciferian, despite presenting his inward-driven search for "truth" as a blend of gnostic balance and solipsism. He prefers psychologist, probably because it hides his deception behind a veneer of "Science!" But this is more definitional squid ink, because there is nothing addressed in Jordanetics that conforms to any system of analysis. He hints at Jung and Freud without engaging or presenting them in a coherent way because he isn't actually Jungian or Freudian. His writing exhibits no real understanding of the names and ideas he drops. These are just pre-existing theories consciousness - absurd ones, but that isn't the point - that he can add to the spray of symbols to make it seem more substantial. It isn't.
Freud wrote hundreds of pages - mostly nonsense, but he did write them - to explain and justify the interpretation of dreams as a path to self-knowledge. But Peterson never addresses this, either to summarize or critique, before using his own magic dreams as a path to meaning. A Freudian might point out that analysis needs an analyst - a second party who can take a more objective look at the patient and contextualize the dream within his overall mental state. Interpreting your own dreams like Peterson does maintains your Luciferian authority over yourself and lets your dreams be whatever you want them to be.
In case it wasn't clear yet - here's a Peterson moneymaker.
Occultists use their symbols openly. You just have to recognize the patterns.
The psychologist most strongly associated with Peterson is mystical fraud Carl Jung, although there is no engagement with his thought either, beyond a general notion of truth as "archetypes" or a "collective unconscious" that can be reached through symbols. Peterson is "Jungian" the way he's "Christian" - he uses bits and pieces that you can recognize, but without any grasp of the system of belief that he is referring to. This is part of how he engages in his tactic of what Day has referred to as "preemptive mirroring", or presenting in a way that lets people see what they want to see in his words. Little tidbits that hint at larger beliefs resonate with listeners that actually hold those beliefs, allowing them to imagine that Peterson must share them as well. He doesn't.
What he actually shares with Jung is a pattern. Jung was himself an occultist, and promoted a similar inward journey towards enlightenment through the gnostic balance of symbols.
Oh look, a serpent in a tree, only this one isn't an evil turn into solipsism and self-aggrandizement. It's the path to higher consciousness!
You know the world is a fallen place when people keep falling for this.
It isn't that Peterson, Jung, or a self-identified Luciferian like Michael Ford have to influence each other directly. Why would they? They're liars, so the details are irrelevant. They make more sense when you think of them as expressions or iterations of the same pattern - your thoughts, your words, your desires, and your will mark the path to truth. Not much place for external reality beyond inert material to speak into existence.
So what's wrong with the Luciferian perspective? Shouldn't everyone strive to be their best? Before continuing, look at those questions. That's the sort of sophistry that occultists love to use - the second "answers" the first with a characterization of Luciferianism that is incomplete to the point of misrepresentation. In classical rhetoric, this is an example of synecdoche - where a part represents the whole - but it is being used to deceive rather than highlight. Striving to be your best isn't the problem with Luciferianism - the problem is elevating your will above natural or moral constraint.
The world of Conan the Barbarian takes do what thou wilt to a violent extreme. The woman's will is uncertain, and we can be sure that the other guys would prefer pretty much any other outcome.
One test of a moral system is whether it can be taken to an extreme without falling apart. For example, every person in a society can follow basic Christian beliefs without coming into conflict with each other. But Luciferianism and other such beliefs don't accept external limits beyond vague blandishments to not harm things. The actual structure places the will over everything, which raises the question: what happens when wills collide?
Day identifies the answer when he observes how Peterson doesn't actually propose Luciferian ascent for his followers. Instead he encourages them to remain in the middle of the lobster pack where their wills can't come into conflict with his own.
Only cabalists and wizards get to craft
"the more perfect order"
Final recommendation: buy Jordanetics and give the Lobster Pope a pass.
Why apple cider vinegar?
ReplyDeleteAs I sit here drinking tea with apple cider vinegar I wonder the same thing...
DeleteSupposedly it triggered one of his,psychotic episodes. The 25 sleepless days culminating in not-meth and a medically induced coma.
DeleteThis guy is not good news.
https://twitter.com/zei_squirrel/status/1331513298194468864?lang=en