David Myatt: Visiting A Catholic Church, 1995

Visiting A Catholic Church, 1995

°°°

A Summer 2022 Interview
(pdf)

The interview was conducted by Rachael Stirling in England in early August 2022.

°°°


orestes_erinyes-3a

Orestes and the Ἐρινύες

°°°

Understanding And Rejecting Extremism
(pdf

°°°

A new pdf of my 2013 text Understanding and Rejecting Extremism has been issued to improve its readability with sub-headings added to the headings of parts two and three to clarify the content, and the Creative Commons license updated. Otherwise, the work is unchanged.

David Myatt
August 2022


David Myatt

Misunderstanding Denotata In Myatt’s Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos
(pdf)


David Myatt

Some Questions For David Myatt
(2022, pdf)


°°°

A Non-Terrestrial View Of Planet Earth
(pdf)

°°°

Image Credit:

NASA: Earth and Moon as seen from the departing Voyager interplanetary spacecraft


orestes_erinyes-3a

Orestes and the Ἐρινύες

°°°

A Personal Uncertitude of Knowing
(pdf)

°°°

Although the above essay was written in 2012 and formed the second part of a text titled Some Notes on The Politics and Ideology of Hate, since it expresses my personal learning and feelings in regard to my extremist past (1968-2008) and in regard to ideology and extremism in general, it perhaps deserves to be republished especially given the recent distribution of the monograph A National-Socialist Ideologist which summarizes those extremist decades of mine.

Other than adding a glossary of terms and slightly amending a footnote to mention the glossary, the essay is as originally published almost ten years ago.

David Myatt
December 2021


David Myatt

°°°

A National-Socialist Ideologist
(pdf)

Although I have some reservations regarding the above 2021 public document, particularly in relation to the last section of Part Three, it does present a reasonably balanced résumé of my various ideological and philosophical peregrinations and errors over the past forty or so years. Peregrinations and errors which absorbed me for years in the practice and the weltanschauungen of what have been termed National Socialism and then in the practices of the Muslim way of life, with such absorption over decades contributing to the pathei-mathos that was the genesis of my own weltanschauung and my rejection of all types of extremism, with – as a result of practical, personal, experience over some forty years – my understanding, as expressed in Understanding and Rejecting Extremism, being that “an extremist is a person who tends toward harshness, or who is harsh, or who supports/incites harshness, in pursuit of some objective, usually of a political or a religious nature. Here, harsh is: rough, severe, a tendency to be unfeeling, unempathic. Hence extremism is considered to be: (i) the result of such harshness, and (ii) the principles, the causes, the characteristics, that promote, incite, or describe the harsh action of extremists. In addition, a fanatic is considered to be someone with a surfeit of zeal or whose enthusiasm for some objective, or for some cause, is intemperate. In the philosophical terms of my weltanschauung, an extremist is someone who commits the error of hubris.”

°°°

Part One 1984-1998
° Preface
° The National Socialist Ideologist
° Polemical And Early National Socialist Writings
° Later NS Writings
° A Change Of Perspective
° Ethical National Socialism
° The Galactic Empire
° Conclusion
° Appendix I  David Myatt: Islam and National Socialism
° Appendix II David Myatt And The Occult

Part Two: 1999-2008
° Prefatory Note
° 1998-1999
° The Mythos Of Vindex
° Islamic Writings
° National Socialism and Islam
° An Inner Struggle
° Appendix: An Open Letter to Martin Amis

Part Three: 2009-2017
° Preface
° Exegesis And The Culture Of Pathei-Mathos
° The Philosopher Of Pathei-Mathos
° A Modern Philosophy
° Criticism Of Hitler And National Socialist Germany
° Kalos Kagathos And Western Culture
° Ethical National Socialism And A Modern Spirituality

°°°

David Myatt

°°°

The Mystic Philosophy Of David Myatt
(Third Edition, pdf)

Contents:
I. A Modern Mystic: David Myatt And The Way of Pathei-Mathos
II. A Modern Pagan Philosophy
III. Honour In The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos
IV. An Overview of The Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos
Part One: Anti-Racism, Extremism, Honour, and Culture
Part Two: Humility, Empathy, and Pathei-Mathos
V. Classical Paganism And A New Metaphysics
Appendix I. A Note On Greek Terms In The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos
Appendix II. Towards Understanding Ancestral Culture
Appendix III. From Mythoi To Empathy: Toward A New Appreciation Of The Numinous
Appendix IV. Preface from ‘One Perceiveration’
Appendix V. Appreciating Classical Literature
Appendix VI. Physis And Being: An Introduction To The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos
Appendix VII. The Concept of Physis

°°°

While there are some similarities between The Numinous Way, and what has come to be called Buddhism, there are also a number of fundamental differences, which differences make the two Ways quite different, and distinct, from each other.

In The Numinous Way there is only living numinously by, for example, valuing empathy, compassion, and honour, and cultivating, in a gentle manner, empathy and compassion, and having that inner balance, that harmony, that personal honour brings. Thus, there are no scriptures, no written or aural Canon, from some Buddha – from some human being who, having arrived, and been enlightened, has departed, leaving works to be reverentially recited and considered as the way to such enlightenment. In addition, there are no prescribed or recommended techniques – such as meditation – whereby it is said that personal understanding, development, or even such enlightenment can or could be obtained.

In The Numinous Way, while there is an appreciation and understanding of compassion, of the need to cease to cause and to alleviate suffering, there is also – unlike in Buddhism – and appreciation and understanding of the need for personal honour; for a Code of Honour, which sets numinous limits for our own personal behaviour and which also allows for and encourages self-defence, including, if necessary, the use of lethal force in such self-defence. Thus, in many ways, The Numinous Way is perhaps more human, more in harmony with our natural, human, character: that innate instinct for nobility, for fairness, that has evolved to become part of many (but, it seems, not all) human beings.

In addition, while honour limits our behaviour in certain ways, there is no asceticism, no rejection of the pleasures of life, of personal love; only an understanding of the need to not be excessive in such things; to not go beyond the bounds set by honour and evident in empathy, and thus not to cause suffering to others by, for example, excessive, uncontrolled, personal desire. For, in The Numinous Way, it is not human desire per se which is regarded as incorrect – as giving rise to samsara – but rather uncontrolled and dishonourable desire and personal behaviour, and a lack of empathy, which are incorrect, which are un-numinous, and thus which are de-evolutionary, and which contribute to or which cause or which can cause, suffering.

In The Numinous Way, while there is an appreciation and understanding of our own individuality, our self, as an illusion – a causal abstraction – this understanding and appreciation, unlike that of Buddhism, derives from a knowledge of our true nature as living beings, which is of us, as individuals (as a distinct living individual entity) being a nexion; a connexion, by and because of the acausal, to all other living beings not only on our planet, Earth, but also in the Cosmos. That is, our usual perception of ourselves as independent beings, possessed of what we term a self, is just a limited, causal, perception, and does not therefore describe our true nature, which is as part of the acausal and causal matrix of Life, of change, of evolution, which is the living Cosmos, and of a living Nature as part of that Cosmos: as the Cosmos presenced on this planet, Earth.

Expressed simply, the illusion of self, for The Numinous Way, is the practical manifestation of a lack of, or the loss of, empathy; the inability (or rather the loss of the ability) to translocate ourselves, our consciousness, into another living-being: an inability to become, if only for an instant, that other living-being. We lack this ability – or have lost this ability – because we have become trapped by or immersed in or allowed ourselves to be controlled by causal Time, by the separation of otherness.

The Numinous Way thus understands our real life as numinous; or rather, as possessing the nature, the character, of the numinous, of The Numen, with our causal, manufactured, abstractions – based on the linearity of causal Time, on a simple cause-and-effect – as obscuring, covering-up, severing, our connexion to the numinous and thus depriving us from being, or becoming, or presencing, the numinous in and through our own lives.

Living numinously is thus a re-discovery of our true nature, as living-beings existing in the Cosmos; a dis-covering; a removal of the causal abstractions, the illusions, that prevent us from knowing and appreciating our true nature, that prevent us or hinder us from knowing and appreciating, and ceasing to harm, all Life (often including ourselves, and other human beings); that prevent us or hinder us from knowing and appreciating, and ceasing to harm, Nature and the Cosmos itself. Living numinously is thus a re-discovery of how and why we are but part of Life itself; a removal of the causal illusion of us-and-them.

Living numinously is thus to discover, to achieve – to-be – the true purpose of our very existence, which is simply to participate, in a numinous manner, in our own change, our own evolution, and thus in the change, the evolution, of all Life, of Nature, and of the Cosmos itself. We thus become balanced, in harmony, with ourselves, with Life, with Nature and the Cosmos, and reconnect ourselves to the matrix, the acausal, The Unity, beyond and within us.

There is thus no Buddhist-type cycle of rebirth, in the realms of the causal, for those human beings who, in their causal lifetime, fail to understand causal abstractions for the Cosmic illusions that they are, and who thus fail to control their own desires, their own behaviour, in such a way that they no longer cause or contribute to the suffering of Life. There is only, for them, a failure to use their one mortal, causal, living to evolve to become part of the change, the evolution, of Life and of the Cosmos itself.

For, by living numinously, by becoming again and then expanding the nexion we are to all Life, to Nature, and to the Cosmos, what we are – our acausal essence presenced in and through our one causal existence – lives-on beyond our mortal, causal, death; not as some illusive, divisive, causal “individual”, but rather as the genesis of the evolution of Life; as the burgeoning, changing, awareness – the consciousness – of Life manifest in the numinous Cosmos itself. And a genesis, a burgeoning, a changing, an awareness, that – being acausal – cannot be adequately described by our limited causal words, our limited language, and our limited, causal, terminology. This living-on is not a pure cessation, not an extinguishing – not nirvana – but rather a simple, a numinous, change of “us”; an evolution to another state-of-noncausal-being, where a causal individuality has no meaning.

David Myatt
2010

The Numinous Way


As referenced in my [2012] effusion Blue Reflected Starlight

“the Voyager 1 interplanetary spacecraft in 1990 (ce) transmitted an image of Earth from a distance of over four billion miles; the most distant image of Earth we human beings have ever seen. The Earth, our home, was a bluish dot; a mere Cosmic speck among the indefinity, visible only because of reflected starlight…”

NASA has now [February 2020] released an “updated version of the iconic Pale Blue Dot image taken by the Voyager 1 spacecraft [which] uses modern image-processing software and techniques” and which image I reproduce above. [1]

That we, our species, our planet, are merely “one speck in one galaxy in a vast Cosmos of billions upon billions of galaxies, and one speck that would most probably appear, to a non-terran, less interesting than the rings of Saturn, just visible from such a distance” [2] apparently still does not resonate with those who – elected by “democratic” means or who by other means rule over and and/or who create policy regarding us – are in positions of power and influence on planet Earth is both interesting and indicative.

Indicative, because – at least in my fallible judgement – it seems that they have no or little perception of, or are dismissive of, and certainly have no empathy regarding, our human history, over millennia: of the suffering, the deaths, the trauma, that abstractions, that ideology, that egoism, that dogma, that patriarchy, causes and has caused.

Interesting, because – at least in my fallible judgement – it seems that they have no or little perception of our Cosmic insignificance and thus have no or little perception of the balancing that a muliebral, an emphatic – a female physis and perspective, a presencing and understanding, and an understanding born of pathei-mathos – would necessitate and involve.

Are those masculous individuals currently in positions of power and influence in many modern terran governments likely or even amiable to such a muliebral physis and perspective; to such a balancing of the muliebral with the masculous; to such an Enantiodromia  – to such a presencing and change?

I have to admit I do not know. If they and we are not amenable to such a change, and if we in our majority do not change, are we as a species then, in terms of Cosmic significance, irrelevant?

Perhaps.

David Myatt
February 2020

[1] https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7593
[2] https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/about/blue-reflected-starlight/


The beginning of tractate XI from the book Mercvrii Trismegisti Pœmandres, published in Paris in 1554

°°°

One Perceiveration
(pdf)

°°°

From the Preface:

Following suggestions from several readers of both my translations of and commentaries on eight tractates of the Corpus Hermeticum [1] and my book The Numinous Way Of Pathei-Mathos, [2] I have collected here several essays of mine, published between 2012 and 2019, concerning my methodology in regard to translating and employing certain Ancient Greek words.

Hopefully this collection will go some way toward revealing to readers the reasoning behind why I, for example, use σωφρονεῖν in preference to σωφρονέω/σωφροσύνη and attribute to that Greek word a particular philosophical meaning – “a fair and balanced personal, individual, judgement” (that is, thoughtful reasoning, or wisdom) – rather than the English meaning now associated with the transliteration sophrosyne which is “soundness of mind, moderation”, thus avoiding the English word “mind” with all its post-classical and modern interpretations philosophical and otherwise.

Another example is pathei mathos – πάθει μάθος – which is used not in accord with Greek grammatical (inflective) usage, but in accord with the English language use of an expression, with my writings thus employing expressions such as “a pathei-mathos”, “that pathei-mathos”, “which pathei-mathos”, “our accumulated pathei-mathos”, “my pathei-mathos”, and of course “the philosophy of pathei-mathos”.

A further example is σοφόν in preference to σοφός, when the sense implied is not the usual “skilled”, or “learned” or “wise” but rather what lies beyond and what was/is the genesis of those denotata: which is the quiddity, the physis, with the denotata (σοφός: skill, learning, wisdom) a presencing [3] in an individual of that wordless quiddity, [4] that physis. [5]

In these and other instances the words are used in an Anglicized, non-inflective, way to suggest a specific philosophical term or concept different from what the original Greek does or might suggest, ancient or modern, as in the matter of σωφρονέω/σωφροσύνη. That is, they are intended to be assimilated into the English language either in their transliterated form (for instance sophronein) or in their Greek form (for instance σωφρονεῖν) and refer not to some supra-personal “idea” or ideation – ἰδέᾳ/εἶδος – or abstraction but rather to individuals.

I attempted to explain the philosophical principles behind my methodology and weltanschauung in my book The Numinous Way Of Pathei-Mathos, and in my two monographs Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos [6] and Tu Es Diaboli Ianua. [7] Which principles are (i) emphasising the individual, the personal, the unique and empathic nature of perceiveration – of apprehending and understanding Being and beings, and our own physis – over and above abstractions and ideations and thus over and above denotata – and (ii) that the classical principles or virtues of τὸ καλόν, ἀρετή, and τὸ ἀγαθὸν related to and were defined by the deeds, the lives, of individuals and not to something supra-personal such as some idea or ideation or dogma or faith or ideology, and were well-expressed in the term καλὸς κἀγαθός, which implies those who conduct themselves in a certain manner and who thus manifest – because of their innate physis or through pathei-mathos or through a certain type of education or learning – a particular personal character.

But as I noted in one of the essays included here: does my idiosyncratic use of Ancient Greek and Latin terms make my philosophy confusing, difficult to understand and difficult to appreciate? Perhaps.

However, in regard to translations such as tractates of the Corpus Hermeticum and the Gospel of John, when I have used an original phrase – for example “quidditas of semblance” in the Pœmandres tractate, and, in the Gospel of John, translated οὐρανός as Empyrean rather than the conventional Heaven, to give just two examples from the many – I have explained my interpretation in the associated commentary.

For reasons which the essays included here may make clear, I have added a slightly revised version of my Glossary of The Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos: Vocabulary, Definitions, and Explanations, and also the Introduction to my translation of and commentary on chapters I-V of the Gospel of John. [8]

David Myatt
2020
Second Edition

[1] Corpus Hermeticum: Eight Tractates. 2017. ISBN 978-1976452369

[2] The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos. ISBN 978-1484096642

[3] Presencing: from the classical Latin praesentia – meaning “having or implying actual presence”, as manifesting (as being presenced) in a locality or an individual. Qv. my commentary on Ιερός Λόγος 2, et sequentia, of the Corpus Hermeticum.

[4] The scholastic term quiddity derives from the 11th/12th century post-classical Latin quidditas, and avoids using the term “essence” (οὐσία) which has post-classical and modern connotations. As I noted in my commentary on tractate XI:2 of the Corpus Hermeticum,

In respect of οὐσία, qv. Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 5, 1015α:

ἐκ δὴ τῶν εἰρημένων ἡ πρώτη φύσις καὶ κυρίως λεγομένη ἐστὶν ἡ οὐσία ἡ τῶν ἐχόντων ἀρχὴν κινήσεως ἐν αὑτοῖς ᾗ αὐτά: ἡ γὰρ ὕλη τῷ ταύτης δεκτικὴ εἶναι λέγεται φύσις, καὶ αἱ γενέσεις καὶ τὸ φύεσθαι τῷ ἀπὸ ταύτης εἶναι κινήσεις. καὶ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κινήσεως τῶν φύσει ὄντων αὕτη ἐστίν, ἐνυπάρχουσά πως ἢ δυνάμει ἢ ἐντελεχείᾳ.

Given the foregoing, then principally – and to be exact – physis denotes the quidditas of beings having changement inherent within them; for substantia has been denoted by physis because it embodies this, as have the becoming that is a coming-into-being, and a burgeoning, because they are changements predicated on it. For physis is inherent changement either manifesting the potentiality of a being or as what a being, complete of itself, is.

See also my Some Notes on Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 5, 1015α, at https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/aristotle-metaphysics-1015α/

[5] In respect of physis, refer to Appendix I: The Concept Of Physis

[6] Classical Paganism And The Christian Ethos. 2017. ISBN 978-1979599023

[7] Tu Es Diaboli Ianua. 2017. ISBN 978-1982010935

[8] The translation and commentary are available at https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/gospel-according-to-john/

°°°

Contents:

Preface.
On Translating Ancient Greek.
A Note On Greek Terms In The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos.
Appreciating Classical Literature.
An Indebtedness To Ancient Greek And Greco-Roman Culture.
Concerning The Gospel Of John.
On Minutiae And The Art Of Revision.
Concerning ἀγαθός and νοῦς in the Corpus Hermeticum.
Glossary of The Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos.
Appendix I – The Concept Of Physis.
Appendix II – Towards Understanding Ancestral Culture.
Appendix III – On Ethos And Interpretation.

°°°

Image credit:

The beginning of tractate XI from the book Mercvrii Trismegisti Pœmandres, published in Paris in 1554.