SPOOKY!

‘it’s not a sign of good spiritual health to be well adjusted to a sick society and or prison construct‘…AMM

In a recent post I suggested Schopenhauer was a Spook! I’ll unpack why I suggested that here. He lived in a time that was an in-between: an era where technology and the scientific method were challenging the speculative metaphysics of the premodern age. It was also a time in Europe wherein the Money-Lending-Cartels had complete control of society. Previous projects (religion) were being deconstructed (to be reconstructed after Sept. 11, 2001) and the academies, just like today, were under the full control of the Kabal.

So what was Schopenhauer’s take on metaphysics, then? Well, he was riffing off of Plato and Kant and trying to dissect the material/consciousness dichotomy that Descartes espoused. But he wanted to frame his project within the boundaries of empiricism and reason (rather than dogmatic religiosity). His primary theses was that what we experience is a mediated representation of things– what he called phenomenon. Basically saying something similar to what’s known as The Myth Of The Given; that is, what we perceive ‘isn’t real’ (or accurately known) in the way our sense data tells us. The foundation or template for our existence he termed Will. That everything strives to existence and survival. He equated his foundational WILL as synonymous with Kant’s ‘thing in itself’, and I’ve consistently said he was wrong about that naming; although right if one is willing to concede that this place is what I call a ‘demiurgic construct’…So this was a dissection of the IDEAL and the REAL (spirituality and materialism) studied and thought about within early modern epistemology.

No other western philosopher has presented the idea of the demiurge more than Schopenhauer and I use the word demiurge to mean that which created our material existence. Yet he did so without specifically addressing the idea of the demiurge. In fact, he seems to have omitted the idea completely from his oeuvre (I’m not sure about this). Curious, as the idea was in no way unknown, Plato talks about the demiurge, and it was certainly known to the Egyptian schools and understood as Ptah. And certainly he couldn’t have missed Descartes theorizing on the Evil Demon. We then have this schism portrayed between Schopenhauer and the other German Idealists, but I’m wondering if it was another complex false dichotomy? Students were corralled into choosing between two false cosmologies–both essentially material in nature–one arguing for a *brutal and blind meaninglessness, and one for a progressive teleology aiming for a future utopia (think of Marx’s flipping of Hegel, too)…Neither is true, in my opinion. We see the same thing on Youtube today (more or less) endless and pointless debates between atheism and religion. And more precise, Integral Theory, juxtaposed to Idealists like Kastrup; although they play for the same team. Did Schopenhauer and Hegel?

Somewhat more curious is his view on the Vedas. But first it’s worth noting that the Vedas all but omit the idea of the demiurge. I hear the cries screaming I’ve hit a foul. But the statement is much more true than not. The malevolent demiurge is simply not a primary focus in any of the Vedas. I’ve also pointed out the very curious omission of The Jewish Question in the Vedas. At any rate, Schopenhauer had lots of wiggle room in his study of the Vedas and didn’t find anything compelling enough to alter his atheism. I’ll assume he understood the basics of Samkyha and likely assessed this construct, in part, from the ideas within that school. Some of the sects within that teaching were non-theistic so that also aligns with his views. It’s here where his negative view of the cosmos seems to align with his idea of WILL as WILL is instantiated into the cosmos within this school. One might read my, Manas Biddhi and Siddhi blog, where I cover some of this ground. Perhaps Schopenhauer asked the same question I did, ‘where are the Siddhis?’ But he did agree that what I call ‘the demiurgic mind’ (his will) is a foundational aspect of the material cosmos (prakiti).

NOTE*: this is what bothers me about Schopenhauer. Certainly from the perspective of the Christian Gnostics this isn’t the case. The demiurge actually loves us in the same way that an abuser loves his wife. And Chaos isn’t synonymous with blind but it might be if speaking about spirituality. But his reference likely has more to do with a non-theistic chance as a driving force of nature.

Liked it? Take a second to support 326061 on Patreon!