Editorial Note: We reproduce here an extract from a comment recently posted on an “anti-O9A” blog and which comment makes excellent points, and echoes what we wrote in an article posted on our blog here:
“There really is nothing I – or any of my sinisterly-numinous kind – can or need to say in impersonal places such as this. What needed to be said, or written, by our kind has been said or written over the past four decades. So what now and in the future remains? Only a personal, a very individual, a real-life, a quite sporadic, limited, guidance; one person to another, and if and only if those needing such a guidance have revealed by their deeds that they in person merit such a real-life interaction with one of those who are of our sinisterly-numinous kind.” Source: https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/point-of-order-mr-speaker/
“Regardless of whether one remains anonymous, engages in pseudonymous inter-course, or attempts to maintain some transparency in their identity, there is an estrangement in this medium of communication that cannot be overcome. I may know who you are, what you look like, your name, and where you live. But until I grace your eyes with the intimacy of a son or daughter of the morning, only then am I able greet you as an enemy or friend and lower the consternation of my brow in joyous exaltation! Estrangement begets the inauthentic, regardless of intent, and honesty in this medium can only conceal so much.
There is a perversity here, one that conditions a certain psychological response and erects an impasse that can only be antagonized. The more I engage, regardless of how honest I may believe myself to be, regardless of how obdurate I am in my resolve, festering this decretum of validation only breeds alienation, one that is usually shaped in two primary directions: voyeurism and exhibitionism. It should not be encouraged. I would say that these are not only abnormal, but can pollute larger collectives when working together in a transformative process, specifically at the levels of the unconscious. There is nothing more mundane than estrangement.
On this note, when one examines the writing of the ONA for many years in isolation; when one attempts to evaluate what is said; and when one’s valuation of what is said is grounded in the virility and vitality of its application, it is strange that the regal pith of this magnificent python is somehow surrogated and undermined by a familiarity with who said this or that, rather than what they said; by the infantilizing infatuation of who one associates with and their associations. These associations of associations are second-cousin to conversations-that-are-not-a-conversation. These can be engaged in until the end days. I, however, despite my brief lapse from solitude, will continue the only thing that matters: ONA work. And it is work, significant work, real work. Music does not write itself. Nor does ontology.
The ONA is a powerful system, one that works and is beautiful. But until one emaciates themselves from these influences, or at least makes a significant effort to do so, to live ascetically and purely, there are few things more arrogant than critiquing the world around them as Magian or mundane. Many critique the mundane as if they weren’t intertwined in abnegation. This is often evidenced by the resistance apparent in their reactions, by a lack of humility, and by a claim to some unique vantage point. Without said emaciation, or a significant attempt to do so, there is not only no view from nowhere; there isn’t even a view, and this alone, on my view, is mundane.
This is my third response on a blog. Ever. I do not have a facebook, I do not have a blog, I do not engage in social media. Such exchanges are a toxic waste of time and energy, and are more pernicious than we realize. They are unhealthy, and this is a perversity that is not befitting of adults. They affect the ONA writ-large through a substratum of various levels of the unconscious, particularly when working together directly. If we do not start redirecting this poisoned trough into a constructive, creative aqueduct – through artistic and serious academic enterprises, for example – our triumph will have no standard to stand on.”
Time therefore to give up “pushing buttons”, writing polemics, and being mischievous and offensive? Perhaps. For there is no escaping the fact that so many who write anti-O9A polemics (whose polemics vastly outnumber “our” polemics) continue to commit the fallacy of illicit transference, taking our personal opinions, our interpretation of matters O9A, and our polemics as representative of the O9A when in reality they are just our non-authoritative personal opinions, our non-authoritative interpretation of matters O9A, and our silly polemics.
No matter how many times we explain the reality – of the O9A authority of individual judgment, of O9A personal pathei mathos – they just don’t, won’t, or can’t, understand.