The Liminalist # 145.5: The Geometrics of Pain (with Guido Preparata)

Part two of a conversation with Guido Preparata, on what the ruling class get up to in secret, making the masses comfortable and soft, Masonic Lodges of articulation, a close connection to carnal laceration, MKULTRA and traumagenesis, looking at Whitley Strieber, confusion between enlightenment and empowerment, the politics of shock & awe, matrix revolution, Carl Jung: where’s the damage, Rudolph Steiner mishmash, Guido’s Catholicism, what’s the appeal of Crowley, Carlos Castaneda, empowerment narratives, the world of adults, the Gnostic heresy, origins of evil, Lucifer & Ahriman, rejecting the notion of evil, a template of trauma, who forged this world of pain, Lucifer’s day of creation, the realm of the psyche, a split in God, the technocratic structure of Ahriman, Christ the apex, Chronicles of a False Awakening, reaching the dead-end of sorcery.

Guido’s website

Songs: “Ivory” by Amanita Dodola; “Nebo” by Mizar.

8 thoughts on “The Liminalist # 145.5: The Geometrics of Pain (with Guido Preparata)”

  1. Dear Jasun-
    My comment is mainly directed to Guido whose interview with you was one of your best.
    Graduating from catholic nursing college, married to an ordained Pres. minister, authoring a book based on Steiners Waldorf philosophy, embracing Buddhism and the many facets of non-western beliefs ( even tough Alan Watts cautions Westerners about trying to fit in their consciousness into Eastern patterns ) the spiritual journey finally landed me in Taoism, as both a lifestyle and belief system. By the day, I was also interviewed by Jasun in April 2017.
    Once again in your stride, Jasun.

  2. Fantastic interview. Thanks to the bankroller and to Jasun and Guido.

    Regarding Rene Guenon and Jung, I found this on a forum (link below):

    I found this criticism by Rene Guenon of the Jungian (and more broadly the New Age) interpretation of the origin of symbols in his book “Symbols of Sacred Science” and thought I would share it here because it’s something I hadn’t really considered before and it explains to a degree some of the troubles I had during a particularly chaotic period in my life when I was quite obsessed with dreams and visions etc, troubles that could be relevant to others with an interest in psychedelics.

    From chapter 5 of Symbols of Sacred Science:
    in order to explain what purely individual factors cannot account for, Jung is led to formulate the hypothesis of a so-called ‘collective unconscious’, existing in some way in or below the psychism of all human individuals, to which he believed he could attribute the origin both of symbols themselves and of their pathological parodies indiscriminately.

    this term ‘unconscious’ is altogether inappropriate, and what it serves to designate, to the degree that it can be said to have any reality, comes from what the psychologists call more commonly the ‘subconscious’, that is, the totality of the inferior prolongations of consciousness.

    by its very nature the ‘superconscious’ completely escapes the domain investigated by the psychologists, when these latter happen upon some of its manifestations, they never fail to attribute them to the ‘subconscious’.

    but everything that is of the traditional order, especially symbolism, can only be linked to the ‘superconscious’, that is, to that by which communication is established with the supra-human, while the ‘subconscious’ tends on the contrary toward the infra-human. Here in fact we have a veritable inversion.

    it is thought that the theory of the ‘collective unconscious’is able to explain the fact that the symbol is ‘prior to individual thought’ and goes beyond it; the real question, which never even seems to be asked, would be to know in which direction it goes beyond it, whether downward, as this appeal to the so-called ‘unconscious’ would seem to indicate, or upwards, as, on the contrary, all traditional doctrines expressly affirm.

    unfortunately, there is a good danger that in going astray in these ‘dark recesses’ one will reach something completely different from ‘total light’. Let us also take note of the dangerous ambiguity of the ‘Great All’, which, like the ‘cosmic consciousness’ into which some aspire to be dissolved, can here only be the diffuse psychism of the lowest regions of the subtle world; and so it is that in reality the psychoanalytic and the traditional interpretations of symbols lead to diametrically opposed ends.

    The poster also ends with a quote of Upton’s. I’m excited by this as Rene articulates well something I’ve always felt that was off about Jung’s work and that contradicted with my own experience of life. It has something to do even with the archaic worldview of an upper, middle, and lower model of world and self.

  3. You guys do know that Jung was visiting with J. Foster Dulles towards the end of the war for postwar myth and propaganda tips. Extrapolate accordingly….

  4. Hey Jasun,
    Boy did I study a lot of Gnosticism, I learned Coptic to study it better, I read the original texts and much of the scholarly commentary (not so much the popular), and when I heard you say that Gnostics hate God and worship Satan, it struck me as a total misreading, maybe that you picked up from some popular books. Maybe some Satanists have coopted Gnosticism. That is not Gnosticism as I understand it. That is not it at all. It is true that the serpent in the Garden of Eden is not seen to be a malign figure, and that Ialdaboath, the Demiurge, who wants to be worshipped as God, is a nasty piece of work. But there is a very positive Godhead in Gnosticism (unfortunately Ialdaboath tries to keep us from reaching any of the emanations of this force) and there is no worship of Satan or Lucifer involved anywhere in the primary texts. This is actually an old slander against the Gnostics who are not only chronically misunderstood, but who have been known through many centuries only through the writings of heresiologists. All I’m saying is, if that’s what someone told you Gnosticism was, maybe you don’t care anymore, but it’s really just wrong. But then again what do I know. If some Satanists are calling themselves Gnostics, who can stop them, right? I recently saw a scholarly article in which a historian was calling Protestants who believed in the Gospel of Prosperity Gnostics. That seemed ridiculously wrong to me too, but I didn’t bother to write them. I just resign myself to watching the words get driven off the cliff into meaning nothing.

    • hi Gary,

      I was heavily into Gnosticism too for two decades & wrote two books from that POV (as Aeolus).

      I still see that perspective as having some validity, as a counter-balance to the orthodox version, but not as an alternative to it. It’s complex, but for sure I never said “Gnostics hate God and worship Satan”; that’s just not how I talk.


Leave a Reply to MR Cancel reply