Style Elements of Negative Tendencies

The following text is entirely written by Karlo Z. Valois and is used by permission.

For the superior, style is the crystallization of the intellect. For the inferior style is the manifestation of negative tendencies.

1. The War
In the current era there’s a constant war between the superior and the inferior.
Peace is achieved only by intellectual dominance, where hierarchical integration is perfect and the inferior, according to its degree of distance from the pure (formless) intellect is positioned appropriately.
We can only talk about inferiority from the stand point of the superior. The superior, realizing a range of potentials unavailable to the inferior does not in any way depend on the inferior.
The saying that you can become whatever you want is only true when it comes to inferior positions; the inferior however can never become superior and the superior wanting to become inferior is a logical impossibility. Today inferiority is pervasive and positions in life and especially at work do not enable the realization of potentials, instead they purposefully prevent any chance of realization: their purpose is degradation and destruction on all levels.
War is necessary because today even the superior person “contains” negative potentials, the nature of which is disintegration. Thus a superior person focuses on integration, which is in itself a direct opposition to disintegrating tendencies. War is unavoidable, necessary and constant. Focus on integration therefore is the principle of the fight. The inferior’s focus is not conscious and always aims at disintegration thus he rightfully experiences the focus of the superior as a threat to his existence. The superior observes the weakening of (his own) integration in the inferior, through the actions of the inferior. Once the strength of integration is reinstated, the superior doesn’t see the inferior around him, a battle is won.
The inferior, unaware of his dependence on the superior fights senselessly, following a pattern/tendency of deterioration. A decisive step of this negative tendency was the spread of rationalism, hand in hand with the rise of the inferior individual. Today we may assume that this tendency has almost run its course, all the way to sub-rational (irrational) levels together with the emergence of completely degraded, subhuman individuals, who increasingly occupy positions of power.
From the standpoint of the inferior, who experiences an emotional drive towards disintegration, fight is against “somebody else”. Since the inferior doesn’t exercise any control, he is blindly and “unconsciously” serving tendencies that he is a part of, being controlled by “them”. Essentially the negative tendency(ies) fights through the mass of inferior people against a few superior ones.
The superior is aware of these tendencies, recognizes their effect on his individual self, consciously controls them and eventually eliminates them. The superior (man) is able to accomplish this to the degree he has actualized the principle of One in himself.
The weakening of integration originates from the very first attempt at disintegration, which took place in the realm of existence: when One actualized Two (recreating the first act beyond existence, when the metaphysical zero created it’s own negative image, -2, the pure potential), and Two, positioned opposite to One, attempted to achieve complete separation. For this to happen Two had to deny One (and the “integrating” part of itself, thereby creating a void: lack of centre) to such a degree, that it had to purposefully “forget” One (the first lie and the woman’s forgotten secret). This is the first attempt of the Negative for self realization (which is of course not fully possible, thus the war is lost at the outset). Negative tendencies essentially prevent the realization of potentials, which means that existence is a fight that One fights against his projected self (two) to eliminate doubt and denial (the manifestation of the negative in two) to regain control over integration (actualize the center) then reintegration (unity in 3:freedom), then retraction to the MZ. One question arises here: how come that if One is the undivided whole, which means absolute integration, a weakening in integration may occur? Or more precisely: how is it possible that the relationship between One and Two could give birth to doubt, fear and rationalism, while it also contains the potential of integration by differentiation? The key is that negative two (prima materia) contains all potentials, positive and negative. There is a particular quality in the relationship between MZ and negative 2, and MZ and One. The relationship between MZ and -2 is analogous with the relationship between One and Two in that the relationship between One and Two is the symbol of the relationship between MZ and -2. The relationship between MZ and One is analogous with One and Three: One is the connection between MZ and Freedom. So the War between the superior and the inferior takes place in the realm of the Two, in the epoch of Two, when all of the negative potentials of negative 2 dominate existence. The War will end when One realized all potentials between itself and 2, and will be ready to manifest the principle of it’s relationship with MZ in Three, which is the time of peace: freedom.
On the human plane of existence One is analogous with the principle of the absolute man, Two is analogous with Sofia. Woman is a mystery: she contains the potential to become Sofia but also contains the negative tendencies, which in Christian mythology is represented by the snake. She is Eva. Adam talks to God (One, the principle of the absolute man). This means that he no longer sees himself as God. Duality and negative potentials are present, symbolized by the tree of knowledge (fragmentation, quantity), the snake (negative potential, doubt) and Eva (manifest duality, 2). So at this stage in Eden, man already forgot his divine origin and the woman (mystery) is by his side. However in Eden the range of potentials for man includes that of becoming God again, or more precisely, to return to his original state. Fragmentation/disintegration and even existential hierarchy are already present, but for the potentially divine man, they only present potentials. In Eden the range of potentials are narrow, because fragmentation and disintegration (the reign of quantity) hadn’t escalated yet. There are two potentials available to him: to rise and become God or to sink into matter and multiply, increase the range of potentials, which eventually lead to inflation which is peaking in our age (of Two). Eden is at the borderline between life and existence. The potential of once again becoming God is represented by the voice of God. Not visible but more certain than anything in man’s realm of existence. The potential of not becoming god (negative potential) is represented by his visible reality, which without the voice of God (direct knowledge and certainty) is just an illusion, since it lacks foundation/context. Not having certainty means having doubts. Doubt, which is already the result of rationalism, is the root cause of fear, which, so close to man, is his perceivably biggest obstacle of realizing his divine principle.
So fear, doubt and rationalism are analogous: if one is present, the other two are present as well. When it comes to the elimination of any or all of these, it must start at the root cause: rationalism. Once rationalism is transcended, both doubt and fear disappears. If one focuses only on the elimination of fear he’ll fight a losing battle: he’ll be tortured by doubts and will rationalize the irrational. His attention will remain focused on fear, which will eventually overtake him completely and in the ultimate moment, he’ll succumb to a maddening panic. When focusing only on the elimination of doubt, one becomes irrational (subrational). They start to think they have control over “things” they don’t understand. They devise idiotic methods and techniques like self affirmation, Neuro Linguistic Programming, etc. They program themselves not to have any doubts, by believing in some half truth or lie, eventually ending up in a modern crisis, whereas “they don’t believe what they know and don’t know what they believe” (Bela Hamvas).
To illustrate the relationship between rationalism and doubt Adam’s choice provides a simple example.
He had divine certainty about right and wrong (not in a moral sense but in the sense of that “right” enables actualization of potentials, while “wrong” disables those). He knew that the apple represented inferior (visible) knowledge because although he no longer possessed direct knowledge (in that case there wouldn’t have been a tree) he still possessed the potential of direct knowledge (symbolized by the voice of God). The snake offered him the “chance” to become rational (analogous with multiplication, fragmentation, life, mortality). He could only propose this in a primitive, inferior style: here’s knowledge, I can give it to you, you can get it. From the higher perspective this knowledge is worthless, since the superior already possesses the context of the visible, or from a different angle the cause or principle of the manifest. Inferior knowledge is being offered by an inferior being in an inferior style. Eva, offering the apple to Adam represents doubt. In the moment of the decision to accept inferior knowledge, Adam turned a blind ear on divine certainty, his supra rational, direct knowledge about right and wrong (wisdom: differentiation), and chose to realize the negative, instead of the positive potential, essentially choosing duality instead of the absolute, the lower (life) instead of the higher (existence), the woman instead of himself.

, by victor This entry was posted in Basic Concepts. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*
*

  • How could I possibly prove facts. Facts can only be indicated.

    - Otto Weininger