Advice From a Friend

Do you think I’m arrogant, that I’m all talk, etc.?

Yes and no.

I told you about this before already; about your pride. I didn’t go into it comprehensively, obviously, but you tend towards the judgmental side. You bolster yourself with good ideas, but fail at the basics of regularity and rhythm, which is why you don’t really have joy.

But it’s also a “no” because you are sincere about progressing past all of these things, even if you are a tad misguided on how to achieve it. You have this almost invincible faith in your own ability to find the way, or, when you concede on an external authority, it must only be through the parameters which you have pre-determined. Unfortunately, those parameters were drafted by the same psyche that requires help.

You operate on the animating force of electricity; the positive and the negative in tension forcing an arc, a spark between both. Like Frankenstein’s monster, you’ve hobbled together what knowledge and good flesh you can from the dead and then electrified it with polemics. Polemics: the violence of the positive and the negative.

You find energy in condemning someone who fathers a half-breed, for example. Energy enough to seem final about such a thing. There is no peace there. Part of it, I suspect, is because without this electrifying energy, you would feel flat; uninspired; without much to write or think about. You have trouble sitting still; being at peace — having rhythm and regularity — and you go from one excitement or salve to another like magnetism. Thus, of course you’re prideful and arrogant in one sense. It’s how you generate your electrical charge for your life. You zap your foes like smiting them with lightning — whether they’re ideas or people. These opposites inside of you have not learned to co-exist. They have not reached synthesis. Instead, you — consciously or unconsciously — derive energy from their tension, and then when something interrupts your circuit. When something tries to get you to let go of the poles, you reject it; you grow weary of it; you feel nauseated or just lose all energy. Anything that doesn’t conduct the electricity you are harnessing robs you of that energy that you feel so vitalized by, and like the lightning cloud, you have to build up enough energy and recharge yourself before unleashing another thunderbolt.

You have not learned to burn steadily. You merely wait for the tension to grow and release. You do that with your addictions, your thoughts, your relationships, etc.; and it makes sense that you hold all of these negative ions in attraction to you, all of these people that want to tear you down in your orbit, because that’s what they’re looking for, as well. The thrill of electricity running between, like the sensationalism of someone saying “I don’t talk to those that spawn half-breeds!” — what a current of power! It’s why the sadomasochism on your channel is so enticing to people, because they can feel alive.

The problem is that you’re swimming in a world of polemics and warfare. The problem is that without a solid foundation — without understanding your true self — then you will be lost and will be subject to the whims and fancies of the mob.

There is a reason why, in Christian hermetic circles, they say that, “the Emperor has become Occult.” I interpret that partly to mean that, without a visible emperor, the imperial throne resides hidden in the human person. Without becoming our own imperator, we cannot be at all effective in the outside world, except as kamikaze pilots: in essence, burning-out for a cause. Without your own interior foundation — without maturing first in yourself and finding your center; without resolving, individuating, and coming to terms with your interior self — everything that you do will be tainted or shaky like a house built on sand. As your mind shifts here and there — or as the mob quakes the earth — you will topple like a house of cards every now and then. Your interior palace will be in ruins.


3 thoughts on “Advice From a Friend”

  1. “The thrill of electricity running between, like the sensationalism of someone saying “I don’t talk to those that spawn half-breeds!” — what a current of power! It’s why the sadomasochism on your channel is so enticing to people, because they can feel alive.” The rejection of power aside, very odd psychologising! I’ve only ever observed Adam stating things in a matter of fact way. There is a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing; yes? It’s no sin to refrain from associating with those you see as unworthy of your time. It would be “sadomasochism” to force yourself to linger in the company of those you despise. It would not be sadistic or masochistic to relieve yourself from their bad company. (Common response: But everyone is worthy/you don’t have the right to judge people, treat everyone equally, with compassion and forgiveness etc, ho hum…)

    Poor argument to attribute an absence of joy to judgemental behaviour *and* the failure to individuate. It is poor because, according to Jung, it is impossible to begin self development until after individuation. This means leaving the mother, and becoming self-sufficient. A man could be ambivalent to others and nonjudgmental, and he would still be unable to unify himself until after completing the process of individuation. If you use Jung then surely you have to follow him though? Adam could become nonjudgmental overnight and by your own reasoning feel no better than before.

    Thirdly, the entire post seems to rest on: “judgemental” is the same as “prideful”, and being “prideful” is “sinful”, and so being “judgemental” is a “sinful”. Well, lets assume that judgements can be just or unjust. And then I’ll throw a bone and say that “judgemental” means an unjust judgement. It cannot be said that: a judgement is unjust because of the person passing judgement. A judgement is just or unjust regardless of the person passing the judgement. The same just sentence can be passed by two different judges for example. The just sentence does not suddenly become unjust because it is uttered by an unjust judge. If we imagine a certain level of experience of knowledge required to judge, p, then would any individual below p not be able to judge, and any one above p could? Unless this can be quantified, the qualitative observation that those with more “wisdom” or with a greater “ability to judge” make better judgements than the unwise. This would have to be taken to its extreme so that the only perfectly just judgement can be made by he that is all wise, God. All secular judgements, then, would be repealed or subordinated to that of God’s. In effect, every secular judgement cannot be perfectly just, and so we should refrain from justice. Secular justice is little more than necessity and expediency. iirc those that are “judgemental” are sent to purgatory or something like that.

    I often hear that “God’s justice is just, and human beings do not have the wisdom to make judgements”. Some have said to me that this is because: [what we perceive to be unjust is actually a part of the “incomprehensible and resplendent whole”. To analyse one piece of this whole is impossible without reference to the whole, and so the piece on its own is immune from judgement. Or did I hear that from a Marxist? I don’t remember].

    There seem to be two options: The Christian option is to refrain from judgement entirely, and to let anger or spite blow over you like the air. Forgive your wife’s rapist, or your child’s murderer, etc., which is a feat of human will in and of itself, and a rather grotesque mutilation of a person’s humanity — certainly not healthy behaviour. The second option is to specify, with sound logic and reasoning, the prohibited judgements. Specific reasons for, and limitations to, our ability to judge — not word salad.

    The “bee” in my bonnet is this pathetic wetness in almost every section of society about being “judgemental”. It’s not possible to assert good taste, or to say that “my taste is better than yours” because passing judgement is “elitist” and “judgemental”. So too in the religious world, humility and docility, forgiving those that have harmed you rather than taking revenge, have all become commonplace. I suppose one of the ways around it is to kill them out of kindness and that seems to the most common defence. “We are hanging you for your own good”, and not “we are hanging you because we can”. I would like clear and precise specifications of what is and what isn’t objectively judgemental.

  2. Oh and that point about tension: I thought that we all had Jungian shadows, that the opposite of our outward personality is latent, if not controlled it can consume you and take you the other way. Isn’t the only way to achieve inner peace is to bring together opposites in the unified whole?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s