Lon Milo DuQuette: The Man We Want to Hang With

[devin]

Talking of insanity, surely we have to differentiate between transcendent experiences that are integrative and those of a dis-integrative and destructive nature. Huxley, in Heaven and Hell, noticed the line to be, on the one hand, rather thin, yet, at the same time, of vast, day and night, importance.

I don't know if there is a "line" so much as an infinite continuum. One man's dis-integrative experience might be relatively integrative for someone else. A worm would transform himself positively if he evolved to the stage where he could feel, say, hate. I think that idea of a line is precisely the distinction between Heaven and Hell that I object to. (I always liked that William Blake aphorism, "The cut worm forgives the plough". But it kind of explodes my worm analogy.)

For many years I maintained a vegetable plot and always felt terrible whenever I accidently cut a worm in two while turning over the soil. It's nice to know they forgive me. Anyway, you do, I begrudgingly suppose, make a fair point. Still, despite our limited perception and perspective, I reckon it's worth keeping categories going - for practical reasons, if nothing else. And since our own perspective is all we have to work with, we can still, at least provisionally, categorize some things as nasty or unhealthy and others as not. By their fruits and all that.

[Diana]

Fascinating, thanks. Tell me, is that from Enoch or is it a part of wider Judaism? Do you know? Thanks again!

It's from the Enoch tradition, and the Book of Jubilees and the Qumran Book of Giants (the latter I'd never heard of). The Second Temple Period was from 516 BCE and 70 CE. But I just copied all that from wiki. You can read about it there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_angel

Sorry, I should have explained myself. It's a standard position of much mystical theology that we can never know the essence of God. Being transcendent, this knowledge lies beyond the capacity of human thought, vision, etc. Following from this, to achieve the highest levels of contemplation involves entering into a divine darkness. This darkness is the realm beyond the ability of the intellect or human sense perception to know or see.

One cannot know what God is. No description is possible. Lao Tseu described this beautifully when he said : "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; the name that can be named is not the eternal name." However, through mystical practices, one can know the NATURE of God. But that's all one can know. One can for instance know that God is omnipresent, or omniscient, or omnipotent (each one of these implies the other actually). Or one can know that its nature is infinite. Or that its nature is Love. Or that it's nature is Law. But beyond that, we cannot fathom. One of the reasons mystics don't pray to God to ask for things (like healing one's sick child or getting a new car) is because there's no point in asking God for anything, because as it's omniscient and omnipresent, God would surely know what we have need of. In fact, it's written in scriptures in black and white that God knows what we need and that it's his good pleasure to give us the kingdom. It doesn't say we are to pray for it. It's already given - we're apparently joint heirs to the kingdom by default. So asking It to do more than It's done is sort of a waste of time. When he'd finished creating the universe, he was quite satisfied apparently. So much so that he took a day off.

When Dante reaches the summit of his journey, he lapses into the most beautifully suggestive and ethereal poetry, explicitly stating his failure of vision:

O the abundant Grace, whereby I dared
to pierce the Light Eternal with my gaze,
until I had therein exhausted sight!

And the failure of speech (and, by inference, intellect):

Ev’n as to what I do remember, mine
will now be shorter than an infant’s speech,
...
Oh, how, to my conception, short and weak
is speech! And this, to what I saw, is such,
that it is not enough to call it small.

Source: Paradiso Canto 33

Absolutely charming !! Thanks so much. I really should read Dante but I've been saying this for the last few decades and still haven't got round to it.

As for Moses: Climbing mount Sinai, he enters into the cloud in which God is dwelling (Exodus 24:15-18). Here is St. Gregory's mystical interpretation:

Since Moses was alone, by having been stripped as it were of the people’s fear, he boldly approached the very darkness itself and entered the invisible things where he was no longer seen by those watching. After he entered the inner sanctuary of the divine and mystical doctrine, there, while not being seen, he was in company with the Invisible. He teaches, I think, by the things that he did; that the one who is going to associate intimately with God must go beyond all that is visible and (lifting up his own mind, as to a mountaintop, to the invisible and incomprehensible) believe that the divine is there where the understanding does not reach.

Oh, one of my favourite verses ever from the biblical scripture is Genesis 20:2: " And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was." In mystical practice, one has to go into the darkness first. One must not fear the darkness because it is only in darkness that the light can be revealed.

Sorry to retread the general mystical stuff, but I thought someone reading this might find it interesting.

Are you apologising for providing such great insights ? Please don't.

[devin]

One cannot know what God is. No description is possible. Lao Tseu described this beautifully when he said : "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; the name that can be named is not the eternal name." However, through mystical practices, one can know the NATURE of God. But that's all one can know. One can for instance know that God is omnipresent, or omniscient, or omnipotent (each one of these implies the other actually). Or one can know that its nature is infinite. Or that its nature is Love. Or that it's nature is Law. But beyond that, we cannot fathom. One of the reasons mystics don't pray to God to ask for things (like healing one's sick child or getting a new car) is because there's no point in asking God for anything, because as it's omniscient and omnipresent, God would surely know what we have need of. In fact, it's written in scriptures in black and white that God knows what we need and that it's his good pleasure to give us the kingdom. It doesn't say we are to pray for it. It's already given - we're apparently joint heirs to the kingdom by default. So asking It to do more than It's done is sort of a waste of time. When he'd finished creating the universe, he was quite satisfied apparently. So much so that he took a day off.

Yet many of the great mystics were (or are?) also great healers. So maybe prayers of intercession have their place. I don't know. Regards the restful satisfaction of a Godly job well done: Yes, but if we are taking a Christian view of things, then the world as it currently stands is not as God made it.... but fallen. I think Islam also has this view. Judaism, I'm not sure. And I know this stands in contrast to other world religions and philosophies.

Absolutely charming !! Thanks so much. I really should read Dante but I've been saying this for the last few decades and still haven't got round to it.

Yeah, viewing the Divine Comedy as an analogy for contemplation was doorway in for me. Not that it's only about that, of course.

Oh, one of my favourite verses ever from the biblical scripture is Genesis 20:2: " And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God was." In mystical practice, one has to go into the darkness first. One must not fear the darkness because it is only in darkness that the light can be revealed.

That's the difference between darkness as mystery and darkness as lingo for bad, right? That being said, I know some people see a lot of overlap between the two. Myself, I see a difference. Or are you talking more in the realm of 'dark nights of the soul?'

[Diana]

Yet many of the great mystics were (or are?) also great healers. So maybe prayers of intercession have their place. I don't know. Regards the restful satisfaction of a Godly job well done: Yes, but if we are taking a Christian view of things, then the world as it currently stands is not as God made it.... but fallen. I think Islam also has this view. Judaism, I'm not sure. And I know this stands in contrast to other world religions and philosophies.

Nope, no need for intercession for healing. I swear. Just a conscious realisation of God is sufficient. "What did hinder you, take up your bed and walk" is a command, not a prayer of intercession. My mother was a spiritual healer and I've known quite a few. No prayers, no statements of truth, no pleading. Just a grateful recognition that there is only one Law and that Law is infinite and all powerful and that there is no power to oppose it as there's nothing to oppose Omnipotence.

I'm busy studying the Qur'an in more depth than I've ever done. Absolutely fascinating book. I can't wait to see what will happen next - it's very suspenseful. I'll be able to answer your observation when I've finished it. It's taking a long time, because I do a lot of research while I'm reading it.

That's the difference between darkness as mystery and darkness as lingo for bad, right? That being said, I know some people see a lot of overlap between the two. Myself, I see a difference. Or are you talking more in the realm of 'dark nights of the soul?'

No, the darkness is not bad. Nor is the light good for that matter. The darkness is the stillness. And in that stillness one can hear the Still Small Voice that thunders like a lion roaring in the night. The darkness is where the carnal mind has no entry. It's a place of absolute peace. And then if one dares to remain there, the light reveals itself. It's never an entry of the light. The light flows from within. Strange things happen in the darkness - things one cannot explain in human terms, because the things of God are folly to man, and the things of man are folly to God.

That's the way I see things. And how I've experienced things. Because God is an experience - not a theory.

I'm not belittling anyone else's beliefs though who prefer to ask God for things. I've just noticed it never works. The God that people pray to normally doesn't exist so it's like talking to a brick wall. Or like standing in front of a blackboard and asking the Principle of Mathematics to solve the problem for you.

[devin]

Nope, no need for intercession for healing. I swear.

I didn't say intercession was needed. Just that it has its place.

No, the darkness is not bad. Nor is the light good for that matter. The darkness is the stillness. And in that stillness one can hear the Still Small Voice that thunders like a lion roaring in the night. The darkness is where the carnal mind has no entry. It's a place of absolute peace. And then if one dares to remain there, the light reveals itself. It's never an entry of the light. The light flows from within. Strange things happen in the darkness - things one cannot explain in human terms, because the things of God are folly to man, and the things of man are folly to God.
That's the way I see things. And how I've experienced things. Because God is an experience - not a theory.

Sure.

[Joan Marie]

Man. My interview with a friendly satanist thread sure got derailed.

[Diana]

Man. My interview with a friendly satanist thread sure got derailed.

You should see some of the threads in Plato's Cave (although you've probably seen them) which take the strangest and winding roads. And refuse stubbornly to get anywhere back on track even if gently coaxed. Nope, they just refuse to follow the railway tracks to use your railway metaphor.

[chiscotheque]

Nope, no need for intercession for healing. I swear.

I didn't say intercession was needed. Just that it has its place.

what would be it's place? in ritual? perhaps the question is: who would it serve? if not god, then it must be there for the one interceding, for the people outside to witness, or for the evil spirit if one believes in such things. as far as prayer goes, i've always felt it's not a prescription for god exactly - what god would want that? - but rather it serves the one praying. it puts one in a frame of mind concerned with otherworldly things (ideally) and if done with regularity and solemnity, it puts one into a "worldly" trance, a stillness akin to meditation, where one can either receive guidance or simply quell the incessant chatter of the brain.

the question of satan and dualism is key to all religious thought (Nietzsche claimed the Judeo religions were born directly from this question, ie "since our god is the one and only true god, why are we as a people enslaved and oppressed in this world?"). if god is in everything, is he not in evil? if god created everything, did he not create evil? if he is all-powerful, why does he not eradicate evil? on this point, many religions (especially Judeo religions) attempt to have their cake and eat it too - sure god created evil and satan etc. but he isn't responsible for it and he'll destroy it all in good time. to me, this is a sign of spiritual weakness and ignorance, a proof the religion in question isn't up to the task of representing the god they purport to. putting aside theologies wherein the god of love is but one of many gods or that there is only one god but he's fallible, god created the darkness for a reason. lucifer, recall, is the "light-bearer". animals can't commit so-called evil because they can't choose to (viz. free will). man has choice between good and evil, as the garden of eden illustrates (although how man chose to choose in the first place is confusing). suffice it to say, arguably at least, god wanted man to "fall"; adam and eve were patsies. by falling. man moved away from animals, which is why adam gave names to them - to mark their difference from man and to mark their own differences, which is the very nature of the movement away from god. naming is a way of saying a thing is a thing, like this and not like that. this division is itself what could be called "evil". because if we look at evil a different way, where do we find it? outside of us, in others, in "the other". it is said the devil will be the person you notice least, and who is that? oneself. to find god, where do you look? within. to find satan, where do you look? without. or, more precisely, without really looking. because, just like god, satan is actually inside. in psychological terms, we merely project him and his evil outwards. this is why the humans on the devil card are on either side of the card - satan divides them; he convinces them they are separate and, manacled to him, can never be a proper part of anything. they are in darkness. conversely, on the lovers' card, the angel unites them. the good news is, if these humans on the devil card look inside, they will see they are choosing to be separated, just as the chains around their necks are loose, and that what they believe in are their own monstrous projections and not "real". in order to achieve this reintegration, one has to break with the barriers one has constructed for oneself - this is what the tower indicates. for many, it is too painful a notion - our tower protects us! as Dodalisque said,

We are afraid of death and of pain and of insanity because they all represent states not governed by our ego, but that fear comes from the ego. Those depths - or heights - in the spiritual world they are the same thing - are part of our total self, so we should work to transform restricting fears into liberating power, and work to embrace our total self.

the ego doesn't want to relinquish power - he is like our own poorly cobbled together satan sitting on our internal throne. but the ego isn't all bad, his job is to protect us from things, to figure out what's best for us - in short, he's way overworked. he's at the end of his own tether. in this way, to paraphrase the rolling stones, we might afford him some sympathy. not to give ignorance the name wisdom or darkness the name light, but to loosen the nooses that manacle things to what we name them, setting things as separate from ourselves and thereby fearing what is within us, and preventing the light to infiltrate the blackness.

sometimes, to topple the tower, what's needed is an act of god, like a lightning bolt. sometimes it's a little obstacle, like a broken shoelace at a crucial moment. early on, lucifer was such an angel, putting obstacles in our way for our own good (in Hinduism, Ganesha has a similar MO). zen koans are miniature versions of these schisms of entrenched perspectives. the ego sets about fortifying itself against the fear of death and ends up afraid of living.



.

[devin]

Nope, no need for intercession for healing. I swear.

I didn't say intercession was needed. Just that it has its place.

what would be it's place? in ritual? perhaps the question is: who would it serve? if not god, then it must be there for the one interceding, for the people outside to witness, or for the evil spirit if one believes in such things. as far as prayer goes, i've always felt it's not a prescription for god exactly - what god would want that? - but rather it serves the one praying. it puts one in a frame of mind concerned with otherworldly things (ideally) ...
.

For various reasons, I've decided to take a break from forums. But this deserves an answer! And it shall get one, but in a few days.... very interesting.

[devin]

what would be it's place? in ritual? perhaps the question is: who would it serve? if not god, then it must be there for the one interceding, for the people outside to witness, or for the evil spirit if one believes in such things. as far as prayer goes, i've always felt it's not a prescription for god exactly - what god would want that? - but rather it serves the one praying. it puts one in a frame of mind concerned with otherworldly things (ideally) and if done with regularity and solemnity, it puts one into a "worldly" trance, a stillness akin to meditation, where one can either receive guidance or simply quell the incessant chatter of the brain.

Agree, completely.

the question of satan and dualism is key to all religious thought ... if god is in everything, is he not in evil? if god created everything, did he not create evil? if he is all-powerful, why does he not eradicate evil? on this point, many religions (especially Judeo religions) attempt to have their cake and eat it too - sure god created evil and satan etc. but he isn't responsible for it and he'll destroy it all in good time. to me, this is a sign of spiritual weakness and ignorance, a proof the religion in question isn't up to the task of representing the god they purport to. putting aside theologies wherein the god of love is but one of many gods or that there is only one god but he's fallible, god created the darkness for a reason. lucifer, recall, is the "light-bearer". animals can't commit so-called evil because they can't choose to (viz. free will). man has choice between good and evil, as the garden of eden illustrates (although how man chose to choose in the first place is confusing). suffice it to say, arguably at least, god wanted man to "fall"; adam and eve were patsies. by falling. man moved away from animals, which is why adam gave names to them - to mark their difference from man and to mark their own differences, which is the very nature of the movement away from god. naming is a way of saying a thing is a thing, like this and not like that. this division is itself what could be called "evil".

... not to give ignorance the name wisdom or darkness the name light, but to loosen the nooses that manacle things to what we name them, setting things as separate from ourselves and thereby fearing what is within us, and preventing the light to infiltrate the blackness.

... zen koans are miniature versions of these schisms of entrenched perspectives. the ego sets about fortifying itself against the fear of death and ends up afraid of living.

It's interesting that you put so much emphasis on demolishing entrenched perspectives and categories. At its best and in non-scholastic mode, the thrust of orthodox Christian theology is an extended zen koan: God is said to be both immanent and transcendent, a unity in separation, a divided indivisibility, etc. Thus, and in stark opposition to Plato, Christian theology does not hold that the workings of human logic necessarily correspond to metaphysical truths and or non-material levels of reality. Even the stubborn insistence on such an absurdity as an ultimate Trinitarian God is an admission that a contradiction may better demonstrate the truth than a soundly logical proposition.

So here, in orthodox Christianity, we have an outright rejection of the ultimate use and application of logic, and, by extension, the sharp divisions between categories - a foundation of classical logic.

If we hold that metaphysical truths are supra-logical, then we have overcome such errors as dualism and problems like the ultimate source of evil. A unity in separation is entirely capable of creating something that, while being connected to the ground of being, is autonomous and thus capable of evil without this necessarily implying that evil is intrinsic to the ground of being. Similarly, immanence and transcendence, a divided indivisibility, implies that a world may indeed fall without implying that the potential for this fall had to pre-exist within the Godhead.

Still, despite its protests to the contrary, Christianity has picked up an unhealthy dose of dualism. Whether it came from Plato, Mani, or Gnosticism, I am not qualified to say, but it has poisoned much Christian theology and practice since almost the beginning. I think Nietzsche was correct, if over the top in his execution, to criticize this influence. However, I would also say that this strain of dualism is fundamentally opposed to Christian orthodoxy and certainly opposed to non-heretical Christian mysticism.

And I don't hold ignorance to be an ideal but an inescapable fact - one that engenders caution and humility.

Also, your exposition on the Devil and Tower was wonderful, thank you!

[chiscotheque]

It's interesting that you put so much emphasis on demolishing entrenched perspectives and categories.

as a boy, i attended a catholic school, but my family was not religious. this afforded me both an inside and outside view of catholicism. and one of the things that stood out repeatedly was the disconnect between what the catholic church purported and what the catholic church did, and that travelled down the line to what a catholic believed or thought s/he believed and what s/he did. now, on the one hand, an argument can be made that one shouldn't judge a set of ideas or indeed a religion by its adherents. of course, it could be said that one simply shouldn't judge. but seen from a certain angle, what better way to judge the abstract than by how it manifests in the actual? that is, in biblical terms, judging a tree by its fruit. the result was admittedly some criticism of the individuals involved, but my over-riding feeling was of empathy, whereas my critical perspective on the church itself, its history, teachings, and structure, left me feeling the opposite of empathy. over and over, despite and directly in spite of its preachings, the catholic church undertook what i consider wrong-headed actions, actions which, to summarize, were the result of a calculated power move which benefited those making the decision and which simultaneously flew in the face of sometimes the law and more often the spirit of christ himself. This kind of mundane, antispiritual, self-protectionism is replete not only in the structure of the church but it permeates its theology. by its own criteria, then, it has corrupted its soteriology for its own material ends.

but this is my point of view. and it is shaped by my own self-protectionism, chemistry, and "manifest destiny". for instance, although brought into the catholic fold as it were, i was also always an outsider; similarly, in the secular world, my experience with antediluvian concerns such as religion made me an outsider there too. this may have predisposed me to being critical, to siding with the outsider, to never being a member of a group who would have someone like me as a member.

So here, in orthodox Christianity, we have an outright rejection of the ultimate use and application of logic, and, by extension, the sharp divisions between categories - a foundation of classical logic.

If we hold that metaphysical truths are supra-logical, then we have overcome such errors as dualism and problems like the ultimate source of evil. A unity in separation is entirely capable of creating something that, while being connected to the ground of being, is autonomous and thus capable of evil without this necessarily implying that evil is intrinsic to the ground of being. Similarly, immanence and transcendence, a divided indivisibility, implies that a world may indeed fall without implying that the potential for this fall had to pre-exist within the Godhead.

i've lost the thread, here - how is the problem of the source of evil overcome, exactly? it sounds a little ex-cathedra - 1) god is not logical, therefor our logic will never understand his ways, therefore he is incomprehensible to us and so we either believe or we don't - why? because i said so. 2) this perfect unknowable god can create a world wherein he is imminent and yet transcendent, and that world can err without it reflecting on said god - how? that's for god to know and us to never find out. in what ways? don't ask. does god want us to err, then? yes and no.

Still, despite its protests to the contrary, Christianity has picked up an unhealthy dose of dualism.

did it pick it up, or is it autochthonous? that is: intrinsic (intrinsick?) to human thought/perception? i would argue that a large part of the unhealthy dualism it has picked up is the result of human nature, but as a true instrument of god's teaching, the church should be an antidote to it. instead, it is a perpetra(i)tor of it themselves, because of their own self-interest i mentioned at the outset. this in part fuels my interest in the gnostics, since this schism between the individual and the holy spirit versus the institution and Machiavellianism is its (the schism's) raison d'etre (or in the case of the gnostics, its raison n'etre pas).


.

[devin]

Sorry to leave this wonderful reply hanging for so long. I've been busy digging a bunker, whittling crossbow bolts and stocking up on baked beans.

i've lost the thread, here - how is the problem of the source of evil overcome, exactly? it sounds a little ex-cathedra - 1) god is not logical, therefor our logic will never understand his ways, therefore he is incomprehensible to us and so we either believe or we don't - why? because i said so. 2) this perfect unknowable god can create a world wherein he is imminent and yet transcendent, and that world can err without it reflecting on said god - how? that's for god to know and us to never find out. in what ways? don't ask. does god want us to err, then? yes and no.

Well, I suppose the literalness of the metaphysical symbol (immanent, transcendent, indivisible division, etc.) is less important than its insistence on mystery and its efforts against rational explanation. It is a symbol designed to preserve and underline the inevitability of mystery.

After all, as you mention, our cognition is very much a direct result of our circumstances and earthly life. We conform to reality, reality doesn't conform to us. Thus I doubt the need for the ultimate nature of existence to shape itself to the idiosyncratic and parochial workings of the human mind.

So there's a certain symbolic honesty there, no?

Again, it's not that ignorance is a virtue (it isn't) but it is inescapable.

Thy life's a miracle!

[HOLMES]

i found my life with spirits to be an incredible read..
it was full of humour and amazing things which based on what i think of him,, must be true i hope..

his chicken qabbalah as good,, as well , helping understand the tarot and qabbalah..
gee i forgot about the son of chicke qabbalah..

i sure hope he makes a sequel to life with spirits !!

[dodalisque]

i sure hope he makes a sequel to life with spirits !!

The last I heard there were plans to make a movie of My Life With the Spirits. With modern special effects it could be a hoot. Son of Chicken Qabalah is not so much a general introduction to the subject as a series of rituals for serious practitioners. A very different sort of book to the first one. Lon is incapable of writing anything dull, so it is worth buying even if, like me, you have no appetite or talent for ceremonial magic.

[Joan Marie]

The last I heard there were plans to make a movie of My Life With the Spirits.

I just finished reading My Life With the Spirits. It would make a really great movie.

I loved the part where he describes being in the midst of conjuring a spirit to help him with his family's desperate financial situation and being overcome with a sense of foolishness and shame that while not knowing how he was going to pay the rent that was due in a couple days and not even having food and there he was with his robe and wand and magic circle hoping that would work. It's a heavy moment he describes.

David Lynch describes something similar in Lynch on Lynch. He was making Eraserhead, and had been working on it for 5 years, supporting his family, barely, with a paper route, a job that allowed him to focus on this truly insane film. One day his father and brother took him aside and said, "You have to stop now. You have a family. It's time to give this up and get real." This hit him in the heart really hard.

I think we can all kind of relate to this. There are times we may feel that what we are doing creatively (the spirit conjuring is a pretty creative endeavour really) and thinking it will pay off at some point, is foolish. Moments of doubt.

How can you continue waving a wand, or making the world's most insane movie (have you ever seen Eraserhead?) when the stakes are so high, so dire?

It's hard and takes courage to trust what's in your heart, to resist walking away and "getting real." But there is a reward to a life lived authentically. It can be hard to keep your loved ones on board. Sometimes the greatest kindness they can show is just to ignore you. Give you your space. And you have to accept and appreciate that.

Well in both cases, the madness did pay off. When Mel Brooks was looking for someone to direct "The Elephant Man" (he was the producer of that film) someone told him to watch Eraserhead. Lynch was flattered but had no hope, in fact he had prepared an apology to Brooks, but Brooks burst out of the screening room, arms wide open and said to Lynch "You're a madman, I love you!" and the rest is cinema history. Lynch went from his homemade, 5 years, poverty project to being in charge of major motion picture that was nominated for every award, including best director. david's dad was wrong.

Duquette's story is a little less dramatic, in a way, but that evening's work resulted in starting a series of events that created a thread that ran through the rest of his life. A life he wanted.

As tarot readers, deck creators, podcasters and bloggers etc. we all have moments when we think (or people tell us) that what we are doing is senseless. But to walk away would be to leave a piece of the self behind, and that is more painful than the occasional bout of doubt.

Yeah, i would go to Lon's movie.

[dodalisque]

I think we can all kind of relate to this. There are times we may feel that what we are doing creatively (the spirit conjuring is a pretty creative endeavour really) and thinking it will pay off at some point, is foolish. Moments of doubt.

How can you continue waving a wand, or making the world's most insane movie (have you ever seen Eraserhead?) when the stakes are so high, so dire?

Oh yeah, we are both Lynch fans. I have that book "Lynch on Lynch" and know Eraserhead very well. I like the story about Lynch running out of funds during the making of the movie, so that there was a three year hiatus between the main character turning a doorknob and actually walking through the door. There are so many things to admire about Lynch but his determination and persistence are almost top of the list for me. The first two episodes of Twin Peaks 3 were about as good as anything I've seen.

[CharlotteK]

I'm 60 pages into "Understanding AC's Thoth Tarot" and have been making lots of notes and drawing lots of diagrams. He has a great writing style and makes what feels like a super complex topic about as understandable as I think it could be. Definitely want to investigate his other work when I have finished Thoth studies (could be a while!).

[sharmaakshay]

it really strikes important words to remember