First sampler single from the new Friends of Design album, “The Divisions of Love”, due for global release early 2013 care of Fernmind Unilectic. The Friends of Design are a Kazakh-Scythian-Malay Suficore rock band, fronted by the Matronita Minor, with Turkestan virtuoso A.L.M. joining the show for the first time on guitar and DJ Tailor handling the programming, representing 90s Melbourne electronica experimentia with his usual finesse.
I wound down the Tailor’s Doctrine, as it was originally defined, two years ago: as a resource that was meant to communicate a precisely defined view of Islam to Muslims/Sufi seekers.
I then spent the next two years gradually trying to explain what went wrong with that communication, why I was wrong to think I had something worth communicating, why what I was communicating was by definition not something that could be received by my audience, etc. 2012’s blog has had that focus primarily: it’s got close to the matter at hand, it’s got close to language’s intimacy with the body, and the resulting disconnect that must hold between different embodiments of a textual truth.
All the same, I find myself in error on a pretty regular basis: violating the principles I set myself, almost out of habit trying to communicate/”teach”/”download” a particular structure to agents whose embodiment is so radically different to mine that the only possible outcome is not communication, but impoliteness and bad karma, with myself as the prime agent delivering it.
The realisation that I am not a teacher has probably meant I’m frustrated: I’ve lost the audience, the possibility of an audience, the possibility for communication — but not the desire to teach. (And I don’t mean that in any elitist, guru-ish kind of way, I just mean it in the sense that Idries Shah talks about the guy who hops about wanting to offload some knowledge, to pass it on so it doesn’t get “stuck” within his own orb, so the river flows onwards in some kind of ideal theo-social dialectic.)
The analysis I’ve performed here has been useful: because it’s an important first step to acknowledge why I was wrong in thinking I was “teaching”. But I guess I can’t continue on with that analysis indefinitely: it’s helpful in moving on, post divorce, but doesn’t satiate the desire, the bad habits of a failed marriage, the warped thinking I developed for myself around “teaching”/communication.
FOr example, if I had to, I could write a book about the “Axiom/Serpent” post below. In the past, I would have done. But what compels me to do that? What would the point of it be? Who would I be trying to explain it to? Do I really understand who that “listener” is meant to be, when I open my mouth to speak? The Axiom is something I meditate on, it’s a Cabbalic Crucifix for me, its the Tengri-Ummai, it’s the Rainbow Connection, it’s Genesis/End of the world, cycles of awakening, the 7 by 4. I guess it’s something that holds between myself and God, just as other things bind others to God.
My teaching is not a philosophy.
It is the result of direct experience.
My teaching is a means of practice,
not something to hold onto or worship.
My teaching is like a raft used to cross the river.
Only a fool would carry the raft around after he
had already reached the other shore of liberation.
Life, unfolding experience. Me (Soul) memories trace My practice, neither maintained nor repeated. Life is an Ark, no river to cross, only unbounded sea and chosen federation of islands, chosen archipelago. The Fool card. The raft. Liberation.
When religious people approach the path, they consider it as either
- a completed road that has been paved by previous teachers, architected by God, whose map is defined in holy documentation, to be followed and not deviated from, leading to the final divine destination, or
- a trajectory, a direction revealed by God to previous teachers, whose vector is enumerated within holy documentation, whose historical/cultural/linguistic context is to be understood and navigated, allowing extrapolation to guide the seeker’s journey in his/her current context.
In Tailorite Cabbalah, there’s the Soul Spectrum of Eyes, bifurcating lines of Me, flowing throughout Time, inhabiting different Earth bodies, voiced through texts, carried by historical/cultural/linguistic context (fetish and totem). There isn’t a completed road nor a trajectory to be extrapolated.
There are maps, there are remnants, paths that have been travelled before: these are texts — they could be memories, implants, archetypes, or physical books. There are degrees of separation and closeness to particular texts, to particular traces, to particular paths. Where there is closeness, there is past life recollection.
Closeness to a path is the result of having travelled it before, in a previous incarnation. Not an intimation that this past life path should be followed again, nor even that it gives any clues as to how to travel now.
The paths travelled before are always good paths: because the Soul flows where Earth wills, and what Earth wills is always good, because Knowledge is always unlocked along the way. And memories of previous lives are important, and assist in calibrating where We have been and what We have learnt, though they never form a basis for where We flow next: the human belief that this is the case can temporarily obstruct. Flow is geologically determined, not intentionally mapped.
If you remember having travelled a path before, don’t confuse it with an obligation to travel the path again. To “become” is often to “recall and calibrate”: what happens next is a wondrously open question, the Brighter New Way.
I was recently explaining to my sister-in-law why I no longer pretend to practice Islam. I’ve documented the issues with my intentions/unconscious wishes extensively here. But the conversation led to a question that I’ve not looked at much recently: of “pure” metaphor (wife beating isn’t really wife beating, war isn’t really war) versus “embodied/religious/literalised” metaphor (avoiding pork is a literalised totemic reflection of the higher order/unseen nature of the sign of “pork” as undesirable psychic consumption).
I can still clearly read Tailorite Cabbala into the Qur’an at points — but it’s easier in places than in others — because I’m conscious of the totemic reflection and the implicit historicity of the author’s voice, his own paranoias and prejudices. And though he’s a part of Me, as we are all a part of Me, I can’t help observing the snakeskin was probably shed a while back.
A case in point:
O you who believe, fear (W-Q-Y) Allah and give up what remains of interest (R-B-W), if you are believers. But if you do it not, then beware of war (H-R-B) from Allah and His Messenger; and if you repent, then you shall have your wealth; thus you shall not wrong nor shall you be wronged. (Quran, 2:278-279)
The Tailorite Cabbala would read this as follows:
- W-Q-Y is consciousness of Allah, Allah consciousness, the Mind itself, evolving, twisting, dispersing itself throughout the body of Man, then fractured as that body is shattered into infinite worlds, infinite souls, life threads — called Time — running back to eventual return.
- This shattering is due to excess (riba): accrual, interest upon the actual wealth of Allah. What’s the wealth? Love. What’s the excess/riba? It’s the perverse aspect of God’s Love: it is boundless and excessive, so it forms a body of man out of the orbs of the Sephirot (it forms these orbs out of Love), then fills them with Love, and then overloads that circuit, so Love explodes these primordial crystallizations. Love’s excess shatters the perfect body, and this yields fragments of Love, fragments of the orbs — called signs/ayat. The signs of Love’s excess are broken shards of the orbs, qlippot, and constitute ursury. God’s riba, God’s excess. The world is made up of signs — excess, crystallized, hardened into fragments. The fragments still contain the wealth of original Love as a residue (being formed of its excess), but the excess has hardened and means that originary residue has been locked into them, and is temporarily trapped or attached to the fragments.
- To “give up” riba, is to give up the possessive aspect of this excess, to release the residue via the act of reading. The qlippot, as a hardening of excess is discarded. The originary Love is released and the process of Tikkun Olam (repair of the world, return of the primordial body to a renewed final state of Love) notches up one further step towards completion. The limiting point of Tikkun Olam is the Return, Buddhahood, Samsara, for everyone: it’s the ultimate “give up” of accrued excess, give up of “ursury”.
- This action of “giving up” is the definition of “the believers”, a code for (God’s) soul spectrum of “I’s” that direct this flow.
- This “give up” of excess does not happen immediately. So instead there is the threat from Allah of H-R-B — which is translated as “war” — but derives from a root that also means “chamber” (as in prayer chamber). This is significant: war-enclosure is the threat. What’s the enclosure? It’s the fractal reflection of the originary orbs, now multiplied across the worlds, witnessed within every sign, the basic structure of every sign, no matter how badly damaged or strange the qlippot, the passage of originary Love is managed through passage into, and out of, the enclosure that underlies it (fractally, microscopically).
- This war-enclosure is the nature of reading. It’s another way of looking at the extraction of residue from the qlippot — you can say “qlippot/disbelief is chaff cast to the fire” — or you can say equivalently “there’s enclosures, driven by threat/anxiety/tension”, passing messages throughout your lifetimes. Essentially we release the residue of Love by means of connecting war-enclosures with each other: by revelatory, prophetic reading. Hence the threat is Allah and his messenger/message. Transmission, not just into one set of war-enclosures, but by literary influence over the course of Time, from one war-enclosure regime to another. From one cycle of gilgul/reincarnation to another. Learning more about who “I” am, by means of the threat/anxiety of influence, that pushes them through.
- This process is described perfectly in the verse: the verse itself embodies the choreography of this circuit. How does it end? “You shall have your wealth” Exactly! You shall return to the wealth, the originary state of Love, the perfect body, Returned, finally. The believer spectrum of “I’s”, repaired Olam.
Anyhow, that’s Tailorite Cabbala, reading that verse. I can still do it, can still see it, as clearly as I can see my own hands typing this into wordpress.
But then I read the following verse and — though I know I can also extract some “residue” from its qlippot — I’m not motivated to do so. Maybe because that life’s been lived, already, in its fundamentally prejudiced and unfair form. That consciousness is out of date, and its message played out. And people still expose themselves to this prejudice, as part of their spiritual practice: when there’s really a Brighter New Way, for you and me, here now, been here forever, been freshly minted. Love’s been released from that form, where Love could be released, because Love was there, Love did its thing, Love has now departed. And Love continues on, into new enclosures, now light years beyond this particular moment of inscription.
So, because of the transgression of the Jews, We forbade them pure things which had been allowed to them, and also because of their hindering many men from Allah’s way. And because of their taking interest although they had been forbidden it, and because of their devouring peoples wealth wrongfully. And We have prepared for those of them, who disbelieve, a painful punishment.
Commentary on Zohar 2:221a
These are the reckonings of the Dwelling, the Dwelling of Testimony, that were reckoned by the mouth of Moses (Exodus 38:21)
The “reckonings of the Dwelling” is the Father, enumerating (calculating) his Love. “The Dwelling of Testimony” is the mother, witnessing the Love of the Father. These are the impossible hidden dimensions that run throughout the cosmos, crystallised as “dwelling”, the orb of conception.
“The mouth of Moses” is the microscopic prophetic portal, the mouthpiece of the orb. There’s an orb, the crystallised mother-father – and it has lips, the son, calculating the calculator.
Wisdom is the father, the beginning. Understanding is the mother, Elohim created. The mouthpiece is heaven.
Rough draft. Performed entirely using Garageband on an iPhone, controlled via iRig by an Akai Ewi 4000s midi wind instrument.
the soul of Me
the body of Me
Pharaoh said, “Who is YHWH, that I should listen to him and let Israel go? I do not know YHWH and I will not let Israel go.”
Demiurge said, “Who [Womb] YHWH [Father] [overflows into] I [as Man] listen [Conduit, joining] him [Upper] Israel [Woman]. I [Man as Demiurge disconnect] YHWH: I will not let Woman escape.”
The Pharoah says this and, in saying, gives birth to himself from the upper realm, and embeds himself ubiquitously within matter via catastrophe.
“Who” is the Womb, “YHWH” is the Father. Their complex forms of generator of light called the Greater Face.
From this generator, there is born the “I”. Both out of surplus of their love, a surplus that spills into catastrophe (or perhaps better, instability, cycles and oscillations, joyful and transient, the cosmic roller coaster routine).
“I” is the Demiurge, the man-god of matter, bound to Israel, Shekhina. He could be the Little Face, Adam, just as she could be Lilith, depending in the season, on the cycle. Right now he’s the Demiurge.
“Listen” is the conduit, that binds that Israel to YHWH. Its more: it’s the shema that unifies the letters of YHWH into one, an incantation that draws the man-woman circuit into resonance with the upper Mother-Father. “Listen” should flow through the “I”, but there’s resistance at this moment.
Resistance is equivalent to enclosure, encasement of the Shekhina potential within the “I” of matter. She’s his wealth, wealth scattered as residue within the shards of his fractured alphabet.
As long as the shards enclose, face downwards, and do not release her: “I do not know YHWH”, the “I” is disconnected from the Mother-Father, though their wealth remains ironically within as his life force, giving him life, her truth feeding him the very will to deny her truth. “I will not let her go.”
There’s a lot of a traditional Rabbi in Saul/Paul, even as he breaks with tradition and goes to the pagan public with his unmimetic religiosity:
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: “Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. “The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’ “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone-an image made by man’s design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead.”
What motivates him to speak like this? Faith. Maybe more than faith: the concluding switch of writing systems. The alphabet’s final thrust of the sword into the heart of the dying hieroglyph.