Saturday, December 10, 2016

The Religion of the Open Door

A six day cycle contained inside a seven day period ensures every day is a holiday. A mandated day of rest condemns at least one day to misery, possibly all seven.

A cycle of rest and engagement based on a six day pattern (indulge, fast, cleanse, indulge, fast, cleanse, for example; or ascend, peak, descend, descend, dip, ascend) within a seven day period (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, ...) ensures that every day within the seven day period will have an opportunity to become a "favorite" day for itself. The "Day of Rest" in one religion is every Saturday and only Saturdays. For some non-religious ceremonies, Friday night is the only Day of Rest, and only Friday nights.

For this reason, the deliberate invocation of opposition to an established order must contain within itself the deed of its own destruction. The ratios cannot easily align with one another. The pattern and periodicity cannot remain the same. Thus, alter pattern and period to find greater, more complex harmonies of pattern and period. The doing, the deed, must undermine the power of sameness within resonance.

Seven is a magical number. It forces equality to take into consideration higher senses of balances. This is the lesson of "Four in the morning, three in the afternoon." 🐵

When is it better to sleep in? How many hours are worth raising a fuss for? The three in the morning or the four in the afternoon?

Seven, being an odd number, cannot achieve balance the way the even do. Eight is easy to balance. Four in the morning, four in the afternoon. Four is also easy to balance.

But three and five are not our concern here, since they have their own inherent stabilities that make them appealing for other, specific uses.

It is seven, the number of days in a "week." There is no easy way to balance seven. It's either lop-sided and unfair for one side, or lop-sided and unfair for another side. So, if you try to "balance" the number of days in a week between two oppositions within a cycle, there is no way to equalize them within the context of a week of seven days.


Seven days is deeply related to the pattern observed in the moon cycle.

The balance in the higher cycle equalizes the seeming imbalance in the lower cycle.

🐵 When the monkeys choose to have more in the morning and less in the afternoon, they don't see that there is no difference to have less in the morning and more in the afternoon. It just feels like there's a difference.

The monkeys cannot understand how action results. They value the present over the future. But the wise man must resist valuing the future over the present. It is just the same problem of seeing only what's there in front of you, as though the future is as near to you as the present, rather than both being just as far.

The point is to act from a position where temperance minds justice, inequality balances compassion, gravity guides the flow, power reclines within and commands without, and the ghosts fall into the heavens in the Judgement afterwards. 🃏

They were your cards, Colleen, the wakeful says to the sleepful, the Dreamer listening to the dream.


I call it the religion of the open door because I was taught by myself how to become a believer in nothing in particular but the belief in believing itself. It begins with a dark meditation on the irrelevancy of trying to resolve justice and fairness "once and for all." I learned this through a long study of Pascal's response to another troubled believer, Descartes, whose own dark meditation resolved the issue of justice by appealing to the nothing outside of us as making its way into the nothing within us, so that there is no room for nothing in anything. Pascal makes room for nothing as a conceptual possibility, only to attempt to believe this is true of the human soul. The soul with a vacuum is a void waiting to happen, because what must fill the soul is not substance nor any "stuff" but God. But 'God' is just a name for the spirit of our environment. A name we sometimes use so similar to 'Spirit'.


It's there in Christianity. It is no longer the Paul who lives but the Christ in him. It's there in the Jesus religion. He knows that anything, actually anything, is possible, so he knows his Father can do things differently, but still, it is no longer his will but His. Look at other religions, even the erotic conceits of de Sade's false religion or the practical rigor of Crowley's false religion, the very way they want to be false is crucial here: the opposition cannot speak itself openly without submitting itself to the apparent dominion of another's false religion, and so doing, prove that the essence of religion must be the form of submission itself.


All religions function off this principle. Even the anti-religions of the Party in Orwell's novel, the Social in liberalism, the Worker in socialism, the Church in evangelicalism. The false proudly state they are the Deeper Truth, the Hidden Truth.

The Higher Power moves inside, takes possession, owns and inpires: by becoming the vessel, the person becomes a dervish, an oracle, a servant, an animal. The Spirit moves. But which one? Is it the right one? Is it the dangerous one? Which spirit?

The question plagues the mind, the heart, because it is a question of love, attraction, permanency, but also truth. Truth is exact or it is not. Exact truth requires an exact answer. An exact answer cannot have imbalances, biases, slightly unequal gravity. Otherwise, it is false. A false reading can be consistent, but still be false. The pull has to be the same, or the scales do not give accurate and exact answers. In matters of the heart, there is no exact balance. Love fades and grows, learns and evolves, withers and dies, then grows even more intense until you learn to let it go. Love has its own moods, and you have your biases. But then Truth is exact, and thus you cannot love the false, the unbalanced. You must only ever love the true. The exact. The balanced. The equal. The one. There is only one Higher Power, when there is only one Love.

In matters of love, it is three in the morning, four in the afternoon. Other times, in matters of love, it is four in the morning, three in the afternoon.


The paradox is that I understand this, I understand the illusion. It does not always mean I cannot see past the illusion. It does mean that sometimes I do. I have to understand all the times I see past the illusion as contributing to the potency of the illusion. I do this through understanding how the illusion produces truth. Thus, I move through the illusion to arrive at the truth, because the truth, no matter how true, cannot be so obvious as this: there is no justice. There are, instead, higher patterns of mornings and afternoons.

The particular solution to the open door does not matter.

Every person needs to begin understanding this.

The particular solution to the open door does not matter.

What matters is that we can step through them.

What matters is that, once stepped through, we begin to split into our own "mornings" and "afternoons."

Once we assemble on the other side, we must begin to see our new mornings and afternoons, anew. Every day gets longer the more we experience larger and larger Days.

If you believe you see past the illusion, you do not see how you are still under illusion.

Step through any door. If you do not, you will likely be pushed through a door of another's choosing. It happens. If you pay attention, you will be prepared better. Pay attention to people who stepped through doors and left their illusions behind. Understand how they handle the next set of illusions containing the earlier set of illusions. 🎒

People say you must find the balance between light and dark, good and evil. They say that this is important to do, because otherwise, you are imbalanced. Being imbalanced produces problems. Health, spiritual nature, legal problems, crime, economic inequality: imbalances somewhere along the way. We have to balance them, so I am told. ⚖️

But what balances balance? Could it be possible we need to balance the relationship between balance and imbalance, and thus need to find the imbalance within balance that keeps it balanced?

But then, if I focus on the imbalance that's important to keep balanced balance, then how to balance my imbalance from focusing on an imbalance to keep balance balanced? Because if I am imbalanced in this way, I will miss out on all the other ways I can imbalance balance in such a way as to keep balance balanced.

Maybe this sounds like nonsense to you, but then that's exactly the problem. It's still four in the morning with these people.


It takes little imbalances to create huge imbalances, but the huge imbalances balance the Great Balance, eventually. It all depends on how far out to seek justice or how soon to seek temperance. The Great Balance restores all the little imbalances as they create the huge imbalances restoring the balance of the Great Balance.


Maybe. Or maybe the Great Imbalance, in being itself, cannot ever reconcile itself to itself, not without ruining its own being by becoming no longer itself: by becoming, instead, balanced. But to be itself, to be named and have the name, it must never be what's named, or else by being balanced long enough to be itself 'Great Imbalance', it no longer ceases to be imbalanced but balanced long enough. It defies its own name when having such a name. Thus it cannot be named as such. This is why that which can be named as Chaos is not chaos, that which can be named as Tao is not tao.
Yet, this is why it must exist all the moreso, because there is nothing more imbalanced than the nothing itself, in light of all the seeming Something showing us its own imbalanced mode through our being within it. I'm saying, it seems as though we're not alone, not even alone with ourselves, and the more we are not alone, the less it appears there is nothing. So long as the seeming stays with us, something unsettles the balance between being and nothing, long enough for us to not yet collapse into nothing as it seems we must. The horror is in this unsettling of the balance that keeps us here, unbecoming.

Otherwise, how are we right in saying "There is no Justice?"

Either we are liars, or there is justice. Thus,
🙉  or  ⌘

{Kołakowski ends on a similar note in Metaphysical Horror. Harley is saying something similar in her writing, her poetry. Does she know this?}

This is how I combined the Wager with the Monty Hall Problem. This is why I speak in terms of doors and religion, doors and worlds, doors and realities, one of the whys among many. I discussed this earlier (small example: here), and my dissertation was moving in this direction before my unconsciousness recoiled at its own disclosure.

Or her own disclosure.

It's complicated.

But I see why I told myself that I am the Thing. Why I have tiny tendrils. Why I do not play chess but people. Why I love so weirdly. 🐙

Why it was I concluded that I was forming a new religion. It's not a new religion. It's not a religion. It's not even a doorway to other religions. It is one attempt at making a procedure for forming religions. It is one attempt to see into belief and how thought creates reality. It is both dangerous and beckoning, beautiful and evil, good and ugly, receiving and transforming.

It's all here. It's all her.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Is this wise?
Is this yours?
Is this love?

Real Time Web Analytics