"World of Flying Fish and Falling Birds"

[obnoxion]

I've been reading Tine Luk Meganck's fascinating book "Pieter Bruegel the Elder - Fall of the Rebel Angels". The writer spends about 200 pages in describing the details of Bruegels "Boschian" Renaissance masterpiece, "Fall of the Rebel Angels". There was one point in the book I would like to elaborate on. The writer says, that the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch and Bruegel the Elder depict "the world upside down, a world of falling birds and flying fish".

One of the most ancient depictions of the Spiritual Realm is an upside down world. For example, one of the early pagan concepts of the Otherworld held here in Finland is, that it is a land of plenty, where people live literally head down. Inversion and widershins ritual are perhaps the most fundamental shared element in Western and Eastern LHP. In corresponding fashion, going against the ways of the world is a universal and fundamental character of the RHP, where Maslow's Hierarchy of Need's is often found turned upside down. Just recently I was listening a Christian radio station on my way to work, and there was a discussion about why is it that so often a Christian finds it more tolerable to live the life of Faith in circumstances of lack or oppression, compared to living a life where one's basic needs are met, but practice of Faith denied. So, in a sense, the turning things upside down is also a meeting point of the LHP and the RHP.

This made me think about how accurate pair our two Argarizims are - one depicts the mystery of the falling bird (Fall of the winged Lucifer), and the other depicts the mystery of the elevated fish (ICHTYS on the Mountain). Together they seem to attempt the unification of the two paths where they both meet in the most common spiritual terms, both horizontally and vertically; that is, where not only Earth and Heaven come together, but, also, where East and West embrace.

[Nefastos]

Bruegels "Boschian" Renaissance masterpiece, "Fall of the Rebel Angels".

This one?

So, in a sense, the turning things upside down is also a meeting point of the LHP and the RHP.

One of the first revelatory understandings I got from the Left Hand Path after (not exactly during) I studied it from orthodoxical theosophical viewpoint was, that the supposed baseness of this path of personality & bodily substance is (or should I say, should be) actually a form of advancedly elevated spirituality in matter. That "true" LHP thus transcends spirit into matter (or matter into spirit) rather than giving up spirit for matter. Thus it continues the ascending Fohatic spiral of our spirit-matter manifestation. The problem or challenge of the "brothers of darkness" was not their bodily focus (as Blavatskian or Neoplatonist doctrines would have us to believe) but that that focus was adopted too early. The problem does not derive from any dualistic form of cosmos itself, but from the lack of equilibrium – often working through advanced morals or seeing reality through forms of love made lucid.

This means that the extremes actually do touch, and every summit of the Right Hand Path is a starting point of some categorically unseen form of Left Hand Path, and vice versa. The truly esoterical paradigm shifts always turn the world 180 degrees, making the rock out of sky's vault, or finding celestial powers in a rock found within the bowels of the earth. When Dante's path was turned upwards even while going deeper from Lucifer's presence is one of such tremendous magical changes, at the same time logical and transcending human logic.

And so, when we see an angel, how can we tell if he's flying or falling? In order to do that we should already be idolaters, who fail to see their God above or below. That is, who think that God is above or God is below, which is heresy since it denies the One God. The Emerald Tablet itself, the most fundamental of the esotericist doctrines, denies such a possibility.

I also notice this same seeming controversy all the time in my own spiritual life. My fallings are my ascensions, where my tedious upward strife only leads to the deep sepulcher. Yet the latter is the only way to the former. Only if we have gravity to start with, it can be reverted. Modern LHP loses its esoteric possibilities so easily to frivolity... or the lack of it.

This made me think about how accurate pair our two Argarizims are - one depicts the mystery of the falling bird (Fall of the winged Lucifer), and the other depicts the mystery of the elevated fish (ICHTYS on the Mountain).

I am very glad to hear that as your opinion, dear brother.

both horizontally and vertically; that is, where not only Earth and Heaven come together, but, also, where East and West embrace.

Accidentally (sure...) this is exactly where I am going in my re-writing of Argarizim's RHP part, the Sermon on the Mount's commentary, right now. After a pause, I came back to edit my alpha text of this new version, but despaired whem I noticed that I had used very poorly some Eastern corresponding texts where they the only result was the one of slackening. So, in order to strengthen this in a way very Occidental commentary of mine, I'll have to dissolve those Oriental doctrines into it, instead of them being placed on the top of it. And this demands some more energetical work than I have been able to do lately. I hope this will be accomplished before long, though - and your words just gave me some extra vigor to carry on.

[obnoxion]

Yes, that is the right painting. Quite Boschian, but wheras Bosch's perspective is that of an elevated high being, Brugels' is underneath this terrible horde falling down on us. The painting forms a sort of trinity with two others - Dulle Griet (which reminds me of an oriental myth of Kali intoxicated with bloodlust) & Triumph of Death.

I am very happy that the translation of the first part of Argarizim is getting your attention. I've said it before, but it has been huge influence on me, and I hope it will reach a wide audience in translation.

[Yinlong]

I'll just quickly need to chime in that, dear brothers, you're dropping true gems in this short exchange

Only related to art there (from the point of view somebody just studying it and being inspired by it). I wanted to study and understand these classical master pieces like, for example, above mentioned Bosch better. To do this, I even ordered two books on antique and medieval symbolism in the beginning of the summer which I almost devoured in eagerness. Heh. I thought that I just need to plant the imagery and explanations to my head like learning a foreign language. Well, guess what, it kind of didn't work that quick and I found myself from square one again. Then, just few days ago, I found Emma Ainala, who uses, let's say, more contemporary symbolism, which draws more from pop culture and video games, among other things. While viewing her work, I suddenly found some weird kind of Jungian connection to her work, almost like a little revelation of sort. So, it seemed to work or resonate on a totally different level. Must admit here, that I'm not a person who has devoted a lot time to study art or art history.

This made me think, is it absolutely necessary to think - or to be able to think in (completely) medieval or antique symbolism. What I mean is this: of course my head is full of more contemporary stuff, even on subconscious level, so why on Earth I would be looking necessarily things that made sense for somebody living in the early 14th century France? Just as an example. Or is this thinking too much "Do whatever works, chaos boy, and post it on Instragram with hashtag #ilovechaosmagix (because of course as an occultist hipster I want to avoid being accused of being frivolous, which is the most important thing on my path - not )

With above, I'm of course probably talking more about personal entry points. Sure, classics are fantastic, because there are so much literature, and other people have spent so much time studying those, so it's a wonderful dive to join those other people in books like the one fra Obnoxion mentioned. They are not classics for nothing. Furthermore, naturally I'm able to link things in more modern art to more classical themes. Like for example, it's probably clear where the Netherworld in Netflix's Stranger Things draws from. Ok, a bit bad example, but what I'm kind of trying to say, I often find something personally truly experienced lacking in these classics. Like, it would be mostly some sort of bookishness for me. Maybe it's just also how everybody's or I'm currently wired (so, the tiny little superficial things I have experienced this far), and I mean also, my knowledge of medieval works is almost non-existent, so of course it cannot have much personal reference points. And yet, of course some things seem to me truly universal and timeless, like sea, snake and dragon symbolism which I have studied to some degree.

Edit 2: What I'm asking - I think - from older brothers from the brotherhood - is that can more modern examples be of equivalent value - like if a video game makes you realize something - and should I worry not for not yet being that enthusiastic about everything antique or with a stamp of a classic masterpiece, if it doesn't just resonate, at least yet. (?)

[obnoxion]

First of all, could you mention those books by name? Because I am quite sure I want to buy them for my self... When it comes to art, I am an enthusiast, and will most likely remain that way. I have seriously considered studying art history or comparative religion, but I have been too worried about turning a passion into work, and I would find myself in situation with a profession tha pays less than I make now, and has relatively poor employment prospects. And worst of all, I might loose my passion in the academic world.

If I do not enjoy a known masterpiece, I have learnt that the problem is me, because I have learnt that they are called masterpieces for a reason. So it isually pays to study the work, because otherwise you will be missing out. I only got Vincent van Gogh when I read some passages from his diaries, and now I consider him a geniis. But on the other hand, Baudelaire's "Flowers of Evil" made me fall in love, and I needed noone to interpret it for me before it did. Yet the Flowers of Evil was not widely liked or understood before Baudelaire's diaries were published, and Baudelaire's depth was understood.

I also consider the Disney movie Mary Poppins a masterpiece. I've seen it dozens of times, and it never goes old. I think it is one of the best introductions to the Black Aspect available. And though the writer of Mary Poppins was known for her spirituality, it is also well known that she disliked the Disney movie.

I enjoy all art, but most of all I enjoy symbolist art in the context of continuation of romanticism's idea of artist as a priest. In symbolist art I find my most fundamental philosophic stances expressed - pantheism, monism and solipsism. The world is, for me, a work of symbolist art, and much of my occultism comes down to interpreting the world like I would interpret a work of symbolist art - although there is a purity of symbol in traditional art that is almost unreachable in modern times, romanticism and symbolism brought intimacy to the remoteness of the subtle ideas, and as such have made possible spiritual syncretism as a serious way to true individuation. And that is one of the major revelations that make the concept of an adult LHP spirituality in modern West a real possibility.

[Yinlong]

Thank you for your answer, fra Obnoxion! GeneIly, I think I need to just progress more slowly and combine in some good balance works that immediately resonate more and works that I find that require me to study. I guess this is something like getting to know wines. Once you are old and master the subject better, then it's just nice to sit back in your comfortable chair and taste that vintage chianti you brought from the cellar. So, (saying to myself) patience, young padawan.

First of all, could you mention those books by name?

I wanted to purchase something from Western and Eastern (Chinese) symbolism, and preferably in Finnish because I wanted to support "the local academic".
So, I ordered these:
Western: Väisänen, Liisa: Mitä symbolit kertovat & Kristilliset symbolit. The books are very nicely illustrated, but perhaps didn't go as deep as I hoped. In any case, I found answers to many things that I've been wondering. Perhaps I need also to order some day something more encyclopedia like.
Eastern (I haven't ordered yet, because I'm looking to find these at good price, but I will order soon):
C.A.S. Williams, Outlines of Chinese Symbolism & Art Motives (Dover Publications, New York)
Wolfram Eberhard: A Dictionary of Chinese Symbols - Hidden Symbols in Chinese Life and Thought (Routledge, London)
The above two are quite old, but still considered the corner stones of books available for us Westerners. I also heard rumors that Pertti Seppälä is preparing some book about the subject in Finnish, which would be an insta buy, but it's not available yet in any format.

I would find myself in situation with a profession tha pays less than I make now, and has relatively poor employment prospects. And worst of all, I might loose my passion in the academic world.

This is something I've been thinking lately a lot. I'm in good position in that sense (as a data visualist, interface designer) that I can combine a bit mathematics, design etc. but of course I suffer a bit for working in such large multinational companies with strict processes etc. Though, research and development department has some freedom compared to other departments I've worked in. In any case, I often wonder should I just go to academic world and study more human cognition and semiotics, which would allow me to go way deeper in what I do. I have hesitated so far for similar reasons you mention.

If I do not enjoy a known masterpiece, I have learnt that the problem is me, because I have learnt that they are called masterpieces for a reason. So it isually pays to study the work, because otherwise you will be missing out.

Yes, this is exactly the part why I find myself worrying for not understanding (at least as much as I hoped).

I enjoy all art, but most of all I enjoy symbolist art in the context of continuation of romanticism's idea of artist as a priest. In symbolist art I find my most fundamental philosophic stances expressed - pantheism, monism and solipsism. The world is, for me, a work of symbolist art, and much of my occultism comes down to interpreting the world like I would interpret a work of symbolist art - although there is a purity of symbol in traditional art that is almost unreachable in modern times, romanticism and symbolism brought intimacy to the remoteness of the subtle ideas, and as such have made possible spiritual syncretism as a serious way to true individuation. And that is one of the major revelations that make the concept of an adult LHP spirituality in modern West a real possibility.

I guess it's this remoteness also I'm talking about (or was trying to). I kind of feel that I often find some wall that I cannot penetrate. I believe (like I tried to describe in my previous message) it's partly perhaps my lack of experience, whether in this world or in the "upside down worlds" if you will. Partly, because I cannot translate the symbols somebody else uses to symbols and symbolism I found in my own head etc. But I guess this is something I just need to very gradually build and something that also builds up with other things, like my yet small library of thick books ordered from abroad

[Nefastos]

What started with world inverted has rapidly escalated into a deep discussion about modern and classic. Maybe because our modern world is, and has been for a long time, in a process of not only upheaval, but also inversion? Some thoughts on this subject of finding esoteric in the former also...

What I'm asking - I think - from older brothers from the brotherhood - is that can more modern examples be of equivalent value - like if a video game makes you realize something - and should I worry not for not yet being that enthusiastic about everything antique or with a stamp of a classic masterpiece, if it doesn't just resonate, at least yet. (?)

There certainly is no problem at all, most definitely! But in order to be free from that "chaos magick problem" – namely, everything becoming more and more shallow and person-centered instead of more and more sacred and centered on the divine – I think it is important to see these two as two fields that can meet, but which are not the same. In the older forms there often is something purer, something that has penetrated time more than our contemporary forms usually do. Let us remember that what we now see as classics have once been part of the giant flowerbed of their own time's differing forms, and most of those old flowerings have now almost completely withered and become to us almost incomprehensible. The same will happen with our own time: when this cultural epoch is over, only a handful of our art will become "classics" for those who come after us, and those will be the pieces which at the same time tell something of our own individual time but yet manage to join it to the timeless spirit.

Like there are more personal and more archetypical dreams, likewise there is literature, art and culture which is more personal (and thus mortal) and the minority which is more common to all ages, something less formal and more spiritual (and thus immortal). No hard line can or should be drawn between these two, but I think it is very important to see that there are two fields. This is an idea that our modern philosophy of aesthetics is not very fond of, because the idea is so far from our contemporary secularistic view. The more one understand of those deeper, time-transcending symbols (Jung which you mentioned is a very good teacher to point the way to those), the more one also can get from those videogames and so forth. I think that quite a large part of theoretical occultism is de facto mapping that labyrinth of symbols, in order not to get lost in its temporal side, even in cases where one can find crumbs of real spirit there. There is a labyrinth within that labyrinth, the esoterical paradigm that seems to work similarly to the exoterical symbolism, but is actually something very different to it. That maze inside the maze is not often found by those modern Left Hand Path (or Right Hand Path!) workers who work limiting their occultism with certain aesthetics; claiming to be profound they actually become even more bound to the shallow side of things.

I have seriously considered studying art history or comparative religion, but I have been too worried about turning a passion into work, and I would find myself in situation with a profession tha pays less than I make now, and has relatively poor employment prospects. And worst of all, I might loose my passion in the academic world.

Of course there are some perks in the academical world that might be helpful to you (new essays are easier to come across and old ones to access freely, &c.), and how much that world affects the occultist is necessarily very much bound to temperament... but as a rule of thumb, I must say that at least here in Finland – most likely everywhere, if a bit lesser degree – the academical world brings an awful pressure to how one should see things. The contemporary scientific mindset is, after all, a paradigm; and when such an anti-occult paradigm also connects to personalities (teacher-student relationships) and larger societal structures (universities, money), things can become ugly or at least psychologically heavy pretty quickly.

Personally I had my strong reservations about academical world before I started my own studies in my early thirties. Even though I tried very hard to cultivate a positive and optimistic mindset, the problems in the academical world were all that I had expected and more. So, the fear that it might make you "lose your passion" is not wholly ungrounded; and what is worse, it might twist that passion into something that is no longer completely beautiful and free, but is shaped by the outer pressure into something more profane and less liquid, as real love should be.

I also consider the Disney movie Mary Poppins a masterpiece. I've seen it dozens of times, and it never goes old. I think it is one of the best introductions to the Black Aspect available. And though the writer of Mary Poppins was known for her spirituality, it is also well known that she disliked the Disney movie.

Very interesting, I haven't seen that, but now I definitely will. As you know, I too try – if from a bit different angle – bring the modern, everyday and light aspects as the parts of the Great Work. It started as a practice of humility for me long ago, but in the later years became more like a practice of positive pride. In both these aspects of such work, there is that vital energy, spiritual life-force of wider and deeper meanings (necessarily paradoxical and anti-orthodox, thus also seemingly frivolous or even "shallow" in the profane eyes), which might be the only reason for you - since I think your process is so much more grounded than mine that the challenges of one-pointedness and hubris do not touch it very much.

It is also a bit funny how, giving how far Disney studios are from almost everything we stand for, a spiritual avatar for both the Black and White esoteric aspects has been found from their films. For me, it was the White Queen Mirana from the Disney's version of Alice in Wonderland that seemed to be a perfect model for the White esotericism, and brought just the right challenge for the hubris of the solemn occultists in many ways. To see real (deep) in fake (shallow) is an important part of my approach, and our modern world gives tremendous possibilities for that. Of course, all workings have their dangers, and this kind of work can easily draw too much attention to the above mentioned personal side. I think the mortification stages should be already gone through before an occultist can try to empower himself with these esotericisms hidden within profanity. (The same goes with tantra, for example. As I said with black magic, it should only be built upon white, and not vice versa.)

[Yinlong]

What started with world inverted has rapidly escalated into a deep discussion about modern and classic. Maybe because our modern world is, and has been for a long time, in a process of not only upheaval, but also inversion? Some thoughts on this subject of finding esoteric in the former also...

Yes, I knew that I was a bit hijacking this thread, but since I edited my slightly hasty and messy message already two times, editing it third time for apologies for possible hijack would have made it perhaps even messier...

Regarding this inversion (and upheaval) - and modern times - I remember when in one of the first lodge Lucifer meetings I attended there was a debate whether (or not) certain (or overall) esoteric / occultist movements and interest are on the rise. As examples, I myself remember giving these already mentioned and increasingly popular #witchesofinstagram and #chaosmagic activites and related stuff found on social media, and argued that at least some kind of interest in these topics are on the rise. And yes, for large part I also feel that most these movements and activities feel "new-agey" - the spirituality is shallow in many aspects... But maybe for a cause? So, in other words, would the upheaval and inversion cause tiny little sparkles (random, short-lived but still having weird kind of connection to the core of things, like fireflies from the stomach of something recently awakened - or reflections from bits of a shattered mirror) with its gravity, energies, friction (however the mechanism should be described, I'm not so knowledgeable of these things - cycles of time)? Meaning, when something is in upheaval - something becoming more active before changing a form or course - could this kind of #chaosmagic activity be a kind of natural side effect? Without any better words, maybe something that I have in mind is like a stellar object that cyclically goes from one state to other, with overly active period before each morphosis. Or - am I already mixing too many things together and didn't get the point?

I think it is important to see these two as two fields that can meet, but which are not the same. In the older forms there often is something purer, something that has penetrated time more than our contemporary forms usually do ...

Perhaps my thoughs are - again - too much a product of my time. I will adopt this "two-fielded" approach in my thinking, since it feels intuitive already. Yet, I hadn't thought it myself at all, at least it would have taken me possibly years to realize this, I believe. Exactly like you described, I think I tried to see everything through the same lens. Sincere thanks for opening up this topic and for advice!

...and I guess it's soon time to dwell deeper to Jung's thoughts and works.

[Yinlong]

Just encountered this:


Doesn't this kind of "double ouroboros" (or however it should be called) capture the whole "cycle" of flying fish and falling bird(s)?

[Jiva]

Where does that image come from? The image below of the two figures standing on the sun and moon comes from The Chemical Wedding, but the two images don’t seem particularly related to each other.

I don’t know a huge amount regarding the complexities of alchemical imagery, but the questions they pose are fascinating.

Firstly though, the following is from Martin Ruland’s Lexicon of Alchemy (which I would recommend to anyone who attempts to decipher alchemical symbolism):

• Dragon with wings – Mercury or Feminine Sperm, the Volatile part of the Matter, which strives with the fixed part, and must subsequently become fixed like that.
• Dragon without wings – The Masculine Sperm, the Sulphur or fixed part.

This might be nonsense – and I don’t particularly understand Latin grammar – but I would guess the word “abyss” being stated three times in the normal manner (“Abyssus”) and then once as the accusative (“Abyssum”) after the invocation (“invo” and “cat”) has been completed refers to the nature of Mercury and its four stages in the alchemical process. Quoting Ruland again:

• The Mercury of the Philosophers may be considered under four aspects. The Mercury of Bodies, which is the Hidden Seed; the Mercury of Nature, which is the Bath or Vase of the Philosophers, otherwise called the Radical Moisture; the Mercury of the Philosophers, because it is found in their laboratory and in their mineral storehouse. It is the Sphere of Saturn; it is their Diana; it is the true Salt of Metals. After its acquisition, the philosophical work begins. In the fourth place, it is called Common Mercury, not the vulgar Mercury, but the true air of the Philosophers; the true middle substance, the true, secret, hidden Fire, called Common Fire because it is common to all minerals, since the substance of metals consists of it, and their quantity and quality are drawn from it.

The words “Inferior” and “Superior” might seem to inherently prefer the former over the latter, but both are stated as being required to purify (or fix) Mercury. It would take it out of context, but I think it’s easy enough to apply this to fish and birds, RHP and LHP etc.