Three rivers

(Draft song)

3 rivers on this scene
connect inferno

by the weighty judgement think
full fernmind flow

shown the light by heaven’s choice
inside your disco

land arousal persevere
occulted fusion

when the sun shines down on you
when creatures arise
when ancestral voice within you sounds
and speaks your holy lie

the lady at the gateway’s mouth
she’s holds the ancient sign
breathe her body in and out
totem of the mind

Ramadan reading revisited

I’ve been going over my tafsir. Some of it’s fantastically creative if I do say so myself. Disappointingly, at other moments it becomes clumsy and apologetic. Like in this instance:

… the Christian identification of Christ with God:

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that God is Christ the son of Mary. Say: “Who then has the least power against God, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every – one that is on the earth? For to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He creates what He pleases. For God hath power over all things. (5:17)

How should we take this verse, coming, as it does, from Love? Is it a kind of threat? Love does not threaten, though if we don’t understand it or have trust in it, then it can seem so. The verse is a statement of fact: that Allah precedes the womb and the original form of man (a word said “Be”) as well as the earth itself (the ultimate space of immanence). Allah, as Love, precedes this because it is generated by an impossibility of “differentiated Love” that arises from the overflow or surplus bounty of the Love itself. Love loves so much that the impossible difference emerges: this is the nature of the Power — not a threat but an absolute reality beyond everything, “even” the Christ. (It is not so much a negation of the importance of the womb, the Messiah nor their theomorphic embodiments in Mary and Jesus, rather the verse should be read with their key importance in mind.)

It was a longstanding project of Tailorism to reconcile a very Christian Logos/Man-God/Christ with Islamic monotheism. That Christ-as-Word is beyond Prophecy, and occurs as such in the Prophet’s book.

It’s not convincing: Christ is “just” another man-prophet in the Quran, not a unique pre-fall primordial being. Either the standard Muslim reading (all prophets are simply the most righteous of men) or the standard Sufi reading (prophets are each Logos, theophanic Truth, primordial insan kamils) is easier to maintain.

My motivation? To my western eye, Muhammed seems very pre New Testament, albeit Kabbalic. While Christ seemed distinct: the Adam Kadmon to the fragmented thrownness of prophetic sephirot. When my wife and I were first reading the Quran, she always remarked how un-Christlike Muhammed seemed to be. We put it down to Western conditioning, which was correct.

But why the attempt at rapprochement? That’s the bio-theological crux: being half western, half eastern … Of course both halves ought to be combined.

My mistake? Not to combine. But to think of these figures as more than totems within my own story, my own truth. Totems of east and west: when I, myself, am the Truth of my journey.

Why do we struggle, really?

Because the system forces us to struggle? Do we struggle for family, for the wife and kids, provide them with food and shelter? For self realisation, to show the world what we’re made of? For ego, because it makes us feel big to play the martyr? For ego, because it makes us feel big to play the victor?

Do we struggle because someone commands us to struggle, some supernatural entity?

No. We struggle for no reason. We exist in a state of struggle: there’s no reason for it. We’re completely free to relate to our struggle in any way we see fit. Struggle is struggle: sublimity is freedom that comes from recognising this.

The Fernmind

It’s a coiled snake that unfurls, so that you can see yourself, two years from now, looking back.

It’s the inner cylinder of the Cosmic Drum, beating scientific determinism.

It’s a breath, exhalation, inhalation: the form of the goddess, adorned chariot, marketplace roar.

It’s a coiled snake that unfurls, you think it’s a belly, but belly is back now, fernmind magnification.

Q & A

Tailorite Disciple: What is that shahada about? What is God? How to make namaz to this tree of life, to the sefirot of moving conduits?

The Tailor: I’m not a Muslim so can’t comment legitimately — I learnt about shahada and namaz from internet sites less than a decade ago.

In the past I tried to integrate Islamic signs with the particular trip I was on — with my own throwness, my own life. So I used to argue with Muslims that namaz itself was the tree of life, joints of the skeleton in motion etc embodying the various conduits of Light’s transmission etc: that salat is the proof of God, being unfolding. I read that similar concepts appear in Judaism — but again I only surmise that through internet auto-didacticism.

I had also argued that the shahada’s meaning was that Allah = Love and Muhammed = you (the reciter), and slave/messenger = bestowal/giving, you breathing in/out in mirror of the Allah/Oneness.

Muslims would react angrily to what I was saying: because Muhammed isn’t “you” in traditional Islam — he’s a real person. So the argument falls apart — the signs are the same but the life of my proof (that I attempted to force to inhabit the signs) was genetically insincere with respect to Islam (my deviant proof desired their proofs, not their theorems/signs).

But as a Muslim who is also a friend of Tailorism, you could try to run with something like that — but they are your inherited totems, so you must work to achieve something that comes naturally, not what comes artificially. Of course it’s easy to adopt what I am saying as the “meaning” of your shahada, of your namaz and so on. But I’m not talking about meaning — not an equation of “God = X”. I’m talking about a life-force/proof that naturally inhabits the signage, like flesh beneath a well tailored suit. If what I say doesn’t fit the signs you have been given, if the signs don’t naturally emerge as a product of the life-force I’m exchanging/offering here — if this is not a compatible axiom system, then it would be an artificial proof, a failed proof.

I am not comfortable with reciting shahada myself: it isn’t a natural thing for me as I wasn’t taught it by a teacher or a parent — I learnt about it from the internet. And so, speaking as a foreigner, it seems like a great record of an important person’s life, a record/trace of a particular man’s relationship to God. This man’s relationship to God/Truth has some similarities to mine, but others that I cannot identify with. I can identify with his documenting a relationship to God — but not with his formation of a group/nation/culture to recite and carry the trace of that personal relationship. I’d rather people form their own traces, not carry those of other people — no matter how charismatic/exemplary that trace is. I’d say that the shahada is one man’s own personal trip (a power trip) — and a demonstration of how particularly strong wills can shape entire sections of humanity. He’s a great thought leader, like a Gates or Jobs, able to influence large armies to declare his particular relationship with the Guy in the Sky Who Runs the Whole Show and to redirect the possibility of their having a relationship through his particular imagined theocratic-metaphysical-sign regime.

But books and other people’s traces are not sublime, at best only an echo of sublimity: it’s life, your life alone, your unique trace that can be truly amazing.

The Proof of God’s Existence

Life is a proof-function i that instantiates a type, configurations h of signs,

There’s a tension within this instantiation: the sign configuration is what appears obvious, while the proof is subtle. You can always see where you are, but it’s difficult to recall how you got there. The tension is between the obvious, conscious world of sign configuration and the subtle, unconscious space of proof, movement, reconfiguration. Between product and algorithm. It’s a sexual tension of invisibility and repression, because signs are a manifestation of their underlying proofs that must repress the intensionality of their derivation in order to assert the extensionality of their “Truth”.

Each configuration is a totem, a fetish: a cultural over-valuation, whose libidinous crystalization derives its base currency from the yesod of the colon in the relationship, l:c.

A religious person stand in relation to God/Truth. This standing-in-relation is what is subtle, but is ignored in favour of the “God/Truth”. For example, they can read God’s word within a configuration of signs, within their preferred holy book. What does the religious person believe? They believe there is no h but the h. They have faith in the h. They assert that man is created after the image, from the breath of the h. If they recognize the existence of a proof-function “i” — they consider it unimportant, subordinate — autobiography that perishes in the face of “h“. What’s the nature of their relation? One of believing, i:h, where h is God/Truth and i is life.

The point is: the h is apparition. “God” is a cultural totem, nothing more. An empty sign: but when filled by life, instantiated with proof, breathed through and enunciated — by the composition of the cosmic combinators of the mind, the totem emerges, derives its value.

In place of God and the religious configuration, we (personally) prefer the sublime self-reference, whose form is this:

i(h): h = “i:h”

so that the configuration of signs inhabited, refers to its own instantiation.

In addition, we assert that life feeds signage, via the conduit of the “:“. That crystallization is necessary, life demands excess and solidification into forms, into signs. However, in place of native, indigenous currencies/totem of which we (personally) have no loan, we prefer 1) meta-currencies, derivative transactions, futures and options, fetishized speculation upon the desires of the nations and 2) the base currency of the USD (Western Enlightenment’s conclusion).

And so our (personal) primal forms are those that are the excess and solidification into forms of self-reference, into the meta-totem “i:h”.

In place of faith in a divine being, we propose faith in the living proof, faith in the breath, faith in being, unfolding. A deprecation of “Truth” (“h”) in favour of being-as-process (“i”) and fetishization (“:”).

“i : h”

“i am truth”

“truth/pleasure am/fetishization i/being/process/libido”

The entities that emerge as a result of the process of living the proof, of breathing — these entities are essential to the process — but must emerge as secondary manifestations, authentically, culturally appropriate in their connection to the proof. We do not want a conflict between i and h — we need an authentic instantiation, not a mismatch (we don’t want the yesod to become inverted).

The proof of h/God’s existence is seen as something subordinate to God, to serve the religious man in his faith, his conversion agenda. When in fact the proof is the prime aspect — God/Truth is a manifestation of it.

And, personally, the proof that instantiates the nature of proofs: that meta-proof is our sublime.