Comments

9 responses to “Care of the Soul”

1. 

   TeenyTinyTarot

   2016-12-19

   Apropos of the Phaedrus quote– and anticipating an important aspect of the the discussion Force in Letter 11, noted above –it is said of the one who Triumphs that

   “Instinctive forces . . . serve him voluntarily as he is their true master. He trusts them and they trust him — this is mastership according to Hermeticism. For in Hermeticism mastership does not signify the subjugation of the lower by the higher, but rather the alliance of superconsciousness, consciousness and instinctive — or sub-consciouness. This is the Hermetic ideal of peace in the microcosm — the prototype of peace within a humanity divided into races, nations, classes and beliefs. This peace is equilibrium or justice, where each particular force playing its part in the life of the microcosm is assigned its rightful place in the life of the entire psychic and physical organism” (MOTT, Letter 7, page 168).

   This also brings to mind the discussion of “Lost Sheep” in Letter 16:

   “The parable of the lost sheep is well known. One generally understands it as portraying the care of the good pastor for the particular soul — and without doubt it does this. Nevertheless, one can, by analogy, apply it also to the inner life of the soul — its desires, aspirations, vices and virtues. If one does this, if one considers — by analogy — each particular force in the soul as a “sheep”, one arrives at the understanding that the soul’s faults and vices are not, fundamentally, monsters but rather, lost sheep. Thus, the eagerness to dominate, the desire to submit the will of other people to one’s own is, fundamentally, a sheep which is lost. For at the root of the desire to dominate is found the dream of unity, union, the harmony of a choir. It is a “sheep”. But instead of seeking the realisation of the dream of harmony by way of love, the will seeks to realise it by way of compulsion. This is a sheep that has lost its way. In order for it to return to the “flock”, the fundamental will underlying the desire to dominate must be imprinted with the understanding that it is in the domain of love and not in that of commandment that it will find what it is seeking. Here is the return of the lost sheep —the alchemical process of transmutation of a “base metal” into “gold”. As it is the same with all the soul’s faults and vices, we all have the mission of finding and bringing back to the flock (i.e. to the soul’s choral harmony) the lost sheep in ourselves. We are missionaries in the subjective domain of our own soul, charged with the task of the conversion of our desires, ambitions, etc. We have to persuade them that they are seeking the realisation of their dreams in a false way. by showing them the true way. It is not a matter of commandment, but rather of the alchemy of the cross, i.e. making present an alternative way for our desires, ambitions, passions, etc. It is a matter, moreover, of the alchemical “marriage of opposites”. The practical way of doing this is meditation. It is deep meditation which makes present every “lost sheep” in us, with sufficient force to impress on it the alternative concerned. To meditate is to think in the presence of God — just as to pray is to speak in the presence of God. Meditation is therefore the honest and courageous effort of the “lower self to think together with the “higher Self in divine light” (MOTT, Letter 16, pages 455-456).

   Finally, Tomberg also emphasizes that the higher serves the lower even as the lower obeys the higher.

   “The vow of obedience is the practice of silencing personal desires, emotions and imagination in the face of reason and conscience; it is the primacy of the ideal as opposed to the apparent, the nation as opposed to the personal, humanity as opposed to the nation, and God as opposed to humanity. It is the life of cosmic and human hierarchical ordering; it is the meaning and justification of the fact that there are Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones; Dominions, Virtues, Powers; Principalities, Archangels, Angels; Priests, Knights and Commoners. Obedience is order: it is international law; it is the state; it is the Church; it is universal peace. True obedience is the very opposite of tyranny and slavery, since its root is the love which issues from faith and confidence. That which is above serves that which is below and that which is below obeys that which is above. Obedience is the practical conclusion to that which one recognises as the existence of something higher than oneself. Whosoever recognises God, obeys (MOTT, Letter V, page 112).

2. Artists and Intentional Sociopaths | Gornahoor

   2016-02-23

   […] Care of the Soul […]

3. 

   X

   2014-12-20

   I think the term “rational” which was used in Platonism and Neo-Platonism by ancient Greeks does not equal to the same term which was used by Western Rationalists, its original meaning rather should be supra-rationality, in accordance with God, with True Self, with cosmic order.

4. 

   Cologero

   2014-12-19

   Thanks for reminding us of that, Ezra, but keep in mind that this is a book review. I picked out key points from the book. As Mr. Cavarnos points out, there is the virtue of “holiness” which transcends the rational. Mr. Caranovos was the one who reminds us that Platonism (or neoplatonism) is an exoteric teaching. Also keep in mind that the supra-rational is not equivalent to “irrational”; this is important in an era where simply being rational would be an accomplishment. Here, of course, by rational, we mean knowledge of the divine essences, or being. Guenon makes this claim:

   It was only among the neoplatonists that Eastern influences were again to make their appearances, and it is there indeed that certain metaphysical ideas, such as that of the Infinite, are to be met with for the first time among the Greeks.

   Now it may or may not be true that this was the “first” time. I think not, since the Greeks had learned some things from the Egyptians and Persians. Furthermore, in several other places, Guenon compares certain doctrines of Aristotle favorably with Eastern doctrines. So there is some inconsistency there.

   I have also mentioned that Indian writers have often noted points of correspondence with Western philosophers of the rationalist type. Perhaps, then, the Easterners have become just as decadent. That is probably true, since much of contemporary Hindu spirituality is replete with fraud and deception. Hence, we have to start from where we are and from what we know, not from where we would like to end up.

5. 

   Ezra £

   2014-12-19

   According to Guenon, the spiritual caste is supra-rational and a traditional society is based on supra-rational principles. He attributes much of the moderna deviation to rationalism.

6. 

   Matthew Smallwood

   2014-12-19

   Great article: seems to imply that there is a natural degeneration process from father to son, generation to generation, just as cell DNA frays over time, unless (I would think) there is an influx of “power from on high” or vertical influence which sustains this process. So that every generation has to begin the struggle anew, in a sense. Recorded European history bears out the idea of natural devolution, if the appropriate efforts are not made, and success met with.

7. 

   Paulo

   2014-12-18

   The big question is,how can a aristocratic of the soul,make a good fight in a world dominate by the tyrant?Living here in Brazil were,we are ruled by the most disgusting communists pariahs that have ever existed,the call for a action is being born in a lot of decent people!

8. 

   Wayne Ferguson

   2014-12-17

   [“When the soul and the body are united, nature orders the body to serve and be ruled, and the soul to rule and be master. ~ Phaedo “]

   [“•Care of the soul is fundamental, because a person is the soul. Not what a person has, but what he is constitutes his real dignity.”]

   Just before receiving the email notice of this posting, I was looking again at Kant’s “Groundwork” and did a search for the word “persons” and found this section which dovetails rather nicely with this piece, as well. Quoting Kant:

   “The principle: ·Act in relation to every •rational being (whether yourself or another) so that in your maxim •he is an end in himself· is thus basically identical with the principle: Act on a maxim that involves its own universal validity for every rational being. That’s because the statement ‘In my use of means to any end I should restrict my maxim to the condition of its universal validity as a law for every subject’ is equivalent to the statement ‘The subject of ends (i.e. the rational being itself) must be made the basis of every maxim of action and thus be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means—i.e. also as an end.

   “It •follows from this—no-one could question that it follows—that every rational being, as an end in himself, must be able to regard himself as a giver of universal laws that include any laws to which he may be subject. For what marks him off as an end in himself is just this fitness of his maxims for universal law-giving. It also •follows that this dignity that he has, his prerogative over all merely natural beings, involves his having to take his maxims from the point of view of himself and every other rational being as law-givers—which is why they are called ‘persons’. In this way, a world of rational beings. . . .is possible as a realm of ends, through the law-giving activities of all the persons who are its members. Consequently every rational being must act as if his maxims made him at all times a law-giving member of the universal realm of ends” (Groundwork).

   Implicit in these paragraphs is the notion of “autonomy” and “freedom” which are, for Kant, the hallmarks of morality/rationality (in contrast to “heteronomy” and “bondage” which characterize those who pursue the objects of their appetites as the highest good.

   So, ideally, our appetetive natures should serve our rational natures, but in our fallen state, “the mind of the flesh” conceives of itself as an end itself. If we may transition from Plato (and Kant) to Tomberg’s “Meditations on the Tarot”, it is rather like “The Moon” imagining that it is the source of its own light, rather than realizing that it is derivative from and dependent on “The Sun” (which is reminiscent of Plato and the “form of the Good” — “the form of forms” — the form in which all the other form participate — “that which “appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right, parent of light and of the lord of light in this visible world”).

   But with all this praise of “reason” and “law” and the disparagment of ungoverned appetites, there is always the temptation become self-righteous and begin to wax legalistic. But once again, I think Tomberg’s insight is critical:

   “…it is virgin Nature participating actively in the miracles of divine magic which is the subject of the eleventh Arcanum of the Tarot, force, representing a woman victorious over a lion, holding its jaws open with her hands. The woman does so with the same apparent ease—without effort —with which the Magician of the first Arcanum handles his objects. Moreover, she wears a hat similar to that of the Magician —in the form of a lemniscate. One could say that the two stand equally under the sign of rhythm —the respiration of eternity—the sign ?; and that the two manifest two aspects of a single principle, namely that effort signifies the presence of an obstacle, whilst natural integrity on the one hand, and undivided attention on the other hand, exclude inner conflict—and therefore every obstacle, and therefore all effort. Just as perfect concentration takes place effortlessly, so does true force act without effort. Now, the Magician is the Arcanum of the wholeness of consciousness, or concentration without effort; Force is the Arcanum of the natural integrity of being, or power without effort. Because force subdues the lion not by force similar to that of the lion, but rather by force of a higher order and on a higher plane. This is the Arcanum of Force.

   “What, therefore, does the eleventh Arcanum of the Tarot teach? Through the very tableau that it represents, it says: the Virgin tames the lion and thereby invites us to leave the plane, of quantity — for the Virgin is evidently weaker than the lion concerning the quantity of physical force —and to raise ourselves to the plane of quality, for it is evidently there that the superiority of the Virgin over the lion is to be found.

   “What is it, therefore, that the lion obeys? What is it that he spontaneously yields to? Is he hypnotised! He is not, because the Virgin does not even look at him; her gaze is turned elsewhere, far from the lion whose jaws she opens. The lion is subjected to no constraint —either physical or hypnotic — therefore he obeys nothing beyond his own nature, and therefore it is his true nature which acts in him. It is the Lion before which the lion yields; it is holy animality which bestial animality obeys.

   “Now, the Force which the Card invokes is that of natural religion —that of nonfallen Nature. It is the magic of virgin Nature which awakens the virgin nature in the lion, and it is this Force that the eleventh Arcanum is called to reveal.”

   What is needed, then, is for the Moon which imagines itself to be independent to realize its relationship to the Sun. In that light, I contend, the appetites will tend to become more appropriately ordered and goverened (without a legalistic tug of war which is, in my experience, very counterproductive).

9. 

   X

   2014-12-17

   The best article you have posted recently, Mr. Salvo.

   The best of intellectuals of present West are timocrats, there is no aristocrats.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.