Knots.

Knots

... a knot for one's destiny to cling to.
[Zarathustra's Prologue]

The Valknut as the highest symbol of the knot.

The valknut (Old Norse: valr, slain warriors + knut, knot).

The Valknut can also be seen as a bind-rune: a binding of three (stylised) Uruz runes [resembling triangles], emphasising the meaning of urd/wyrd.

The three triangles could represent the three Nornir [or the Wyrd Sisters, fate]; Urd, Verdandi and Skuld.

Seafarers evolve a whole culture of different types of knots.


This could be allied to the concepts of binding and unbinding found in Norse culture [Fenris wolf etc.] as well as to Odinist ritual hanging. Could the valknut also refer to the type of rope-knot used in hanging victims by the neck, sometimes referred to as the deathknot or hangman's knot?


[It could also relate to the later Vehmgericht whose knife was engraved with the initials of the words stone, rope, grass, green. Guido von List claims that these were originally engraved in runes.]


Tollund Man - note rope around neck. Victims of ritual hangings [hanging being sacred to Odin] in the Viking period have nooses which are tied with a special triple knot which can be related to the valknut.


Symbolism of Knots: "Ambivalent since all powers of binding also imply those of loosing, of restraining but also uniting; the harder it is pulled, the firmer it becomes & the greater the union.
Knots also represent continuity, connection, a covenant; a link;
Fate; that which binds man to his destiny; determinism; the inescapable.
Knots can also be the instrument of the magician in which case the tying of knots is the power & weaving of spells".
[Encyclopedia of Symbolism, Cooper]

That latter certainly applies to Odin and would seem to make the Valknut firmly His.

"Knots can be apotropaic [i.e., having power to avert evil influence or bad luck]. Loosening knots is freedom; salvation; the solving of problems. Cutting a knot denotes the taking of the short, steep path to salvation & realisation ... In Witchcraft the knot symbolises Obstruction; 'hitches'; ill-wishing".

Again, this negative aspect certainly is part of the Odinist outlook;

"To wear a Valknutr is to make the conscious decision to join Odin in the mighty battle of consciousness over the Thurs forces ... the wearing of the Knot is something not to be lightly done ..."
[Valgard in Runa #5]

The Valknut as the supreme symbol of fate;

"No Conqueror believes in Chance".
[Nietzsche, GS 258]

Everything is charged with meaning - even the smallest event is crucial to the Now.

Divination ['to make divine'] entails the search for meaning behind so-called "chance events".

In my world there are no 'chance events'.

The toss of the Runes and their upshot is as much part of this world of meaning and its web of wyrd as anything else.

This is how we are able to Read the Runes.

__________________


Knotting is also used in computation and communication;

The Knot as Number

The Nine Worlds

"Nine worlds I know, the nine abodes
Of the glorious world-tree the ground beneath".
[Voluspa, from stanza 2]


Edred Thorsson is fairly clear on what he thinks these 'nine abodes' are [and many writers on the subject agree with him];

"The Eddas teach us that ... the multiverse consisted of nine worlds, contained in & supported by the world-tree Yggdrasil.
These worlds, contain countless abodes & dwellings.
In the centre is Midgardhr, with the other worlds arranged around, above & below it.
In the north is Nifelheimr; in the east, Jotunheimr; in the south, Muspellheimr; in the west Vanaheimr.
In the middle, above Midgardhr, is Ljossalfheimr & above that Asgardhr, the enclosure of the Aesir, which houses many dwellings.
Below Midgardhr is Svartalfheimr & below that, Hel, the silent, still & sleepy realm of the dead".
[Futhark, Edred, page 72]


So to list the 9 worlds;

1) Ljossalfheimr: The World of the Light Elves

2) Muspellsheimr: The World of Fire

3) Asgardhr: The Enclosure of the Aesir Gods

4) Vanaheimr: The World of the Vanir Gods

5) Midgardhr: The Middle Enclosure [of man]

6) Jotunheimr: The World of the Giants

7) Svartalfheimr: The World of the Black Elves

8) Helheimr: The World of Death

9) Niflheimr: The World of Mist


It is said that the beings are able to traverse the 9 worlds, so the interlocked triangles of the Valknut would seem to suggest the 9 worlds.

In the Valknut there are 7 triangles in total... surrounding the center triangle ... there is a three-armed swastika/sauwistika...

The Power of Seven

"Magic: There are seven knots in a cord for spellbinding, & incantations are sevenfold".
[Encyclopedia of Symbolism, Cooper]

This is very important; seven knots, and we have seven triangles in the Val-knot!
And 'spellbinding' - the references to spells of binding etc., abound in the Odinist mythology.
Guido von List describes how rune-spells used to bind [i.e., paralyse] developed from the hunter's art of hypnotising an animal he sought to ensnare.
Likewise, incanatations are used in rune-magic as supposedly practiced by Odin.

The general symbolism of Seven:" 7 is the number of the Universe, the macrocosm. Completeness; a totality ..."
[ib.,]

This would make sense if the Valknut represents the whole nine worlds, while the seven triangles could relate to the seven planets as aforesaid.

According to the general symbolism there are also: "7 cosmic stages, 7 heavens, 7 hells, 7 metals of the planets, 7 circles of the universe, 7 rays of the sun, 7 ages of man, 7 lunar divisions of the rainbow" [this could relate to Bifrost], "7 pillars of wisdom" etc., etc.,

"The seventh ray of the sun is the path by which man passes from this world to the next. 7 was sacred to Apollo, and the cave of Mithras had 7 doors and altars & a ladder of 7 rungs depicting the 7 grades of initiation into the Mysteries".
[ib.,]

I have seen it said that many Germanic soldiers in the Roman army worshipped Mithras, so it is possible that there is a distant connection here.




The three extant examples of strict valknots are;

an Anglo-Saxon chieftain's ring [found in the River Nene, England, and so possibly thrown there as an offering];
the Stora Hammars stone from Labro in Gotland [features a scene of human sacrifice], and;
the Oseberg ship, Stagen, Norway [burial of Queen Asa - valknut carved on death-bed].

As aforesaid, these three are from the period 0700-800 AD.

They all relate to death.

History is Bunkum

History is Bunkum.


World History is redundant.

Only 'original history' matters - the set of Amor Fati.

Eternal recurrence destroys all history beyond 'my life' and 'my struggle'.

It clears the way for Amor Fati.

It enables forgetting.

Light another cigarette,

Learn to forget,

Learn to forget ...


III

History is replaced by a telling [mythos].

As Foucault had it, before the paradigm of 'History' [which is shattered by the Eternal Recurrence], there was the paradigm of Order.

The Return of Order.

And as 'man' was the invention of the Historical paradigm, so too is man shattered.

The new man of the next paradigm is the Uebermenschen, the creature of The New Order.



IV

'The Eternal Recurrence of the Same' - and yet there is no 'sameness' in things
to Nietzsche.

Logic is founded on this false perspective, i.e. that things can be the same.

Does it follow from the assumption that 'matter is limited and time infinite'
that sameness in terms of matter would recur?

It seems not - for if matter is infinitely divisible - as Nietzsche thought -
and there are no ultimate atoms, then matter is infinitely transformable.

Even a finite amount of matter would have infinite depths of change that would
resist any 'sameness'.

The discourse of similarity in history is shattered.

V

The doctrine of the eternal recurrence should be seen as a destructor - we have to pass through its blood-soaked jaws in order to understand what it means to view things as being ahistorical and asimilar.

And overhuman.

Like all things related to knowledge it is self-refuting.

And as the will of power is behind the will to knowledge, then the eternal recurrence is a highpoint of the will of power.

Knowledge as the great destructive force.

Dionysian.

The man in who the will to knowledge is the strongest is the most dangerous, most evil man.

Like Heraclitus he will cover himself in shit and give himself to be devoured by shit-eating dogs.

Difference between the priest and the philosopher, the former covers himself in perfume and avoids the deepest knowledge by giving himself over to God.

Zarathustra the godless.


VI

The etrnal recurrence does not 'rid' us of belief in the soul, but it rather transforms such superstitions.

Of course, those things which are overvalued or devalued may be ridded, but other things of intrinsic worth will be revalued, transvalued.

Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad - the mad god was then such a revaluation.

Similarly, do we have soul enough to make a holocaust of all our superstitions, to blacken every sun?

Aporia is good for the soul.

And is a final solution itself a superstition?


VII

Thinking is a limitation ...

Think the unthinkable - that is the birth of philosophy.

Think what hasn't been thought before ...

The Jewish prophet says that there is nothing new under the sun, but the Aryan philosopher says that there have been many suns, and many suns that have yet to flame into existence ...

The overhuman itself is an invitation to think the unthinkable ...

Consciousness is continually evolving too ... thinking continually changes ... ancient Greek consciousness was very different to present day consciousness ...

Nietzsche's interest in science has been downplayed by commentators; from his earliest days he had an avid interest in science [such as chemistry and physics] and kept himself abrest of the very latest developments.

Indeed, his interest in the Pre-Platonics was due to their being physicists - a huge gap in Nietzsche appreciation has been filled by Whitlock's translation and commentary on Nietzsche's lectures on the Pre-platonic philosophers [not to be confused with 'Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks'].
I believe that not until one has read the tenth lecture on Heraclitus in that series can one really understand the foundations of Nietzsche's theories of the will to power and the eternal recurrence.

The belief in an end-time [finite time] is typical of Christianity etc.,

Concepts of time [as Kant pointed out] are merely a part of the necessary perceptual apparatus used by humans to comprehend what they think is the world.

Time does not exist as such - hence the continual use of metaphors to describe it [as lines, circles, elipses, zig-zags etc.,]

Finitude, like time is the natural result of finite human reasoning.

If time does not exist then nor does finitude.
If Nietzsche allows the so-called unthinkable concept of infinity as regards time, then he should allow such for matter ... as there is no real distinction between time and matter.

If matter, like time, is purely a product of the mind, as claimed, then matter itself does not exist as such and cannot be finite.

We must think the unthinkable - no doubt at one stage to think a soul was unthinkable. But then the concept was gradually debased .... Christianised ... 'Platonism for the people'.

Let us think the unthinkable again ... let us think the eternal return in an unthinkable fashion ... as we are doing, if I am not "mistaken!"

VIII

At the dawn of philosophy we have the apeiron of Anaximander ...

The empire of the unthinkable [and the unthought] is far larger than the empire of the thinkable [and the thought]. Philosophy aims to make constant inroads into that vast 'empire of the senseless'.

This is not to say that any empty conjecture has value - indeed, a conjecture is often merely the thinkable. God has become a mere conjecture [although it began as an unthinkable, I would wager].

We must think the unthinkable as being conceivable as being real: hence the eternal recurrence being presented as a scientific doctrine!

We only learn as we speak - thank you Socrates, you were ugly but we are indebted to you too.

The unthinkable has to begin as poetry [and before that music]: only then does it enter philosophy - ah! we are the endebted to the muses!

The eternal recurrence is an attempt to make such an inroad into the unthinkable - note that it is Zarathustra's ape who takes the doctrine only literally. This is not to deny the unthinkable possibility that the doctrine may be literally true, but that is not its raison d'etre. It is proffered rather as a destructive, transformative and therefore Dionysian doctrine.

The unsayable and the unthinkable - those are my two ravens!

Some say that "existence is the will to power"; and yet doesn't the word existence imply something other than 'life'? Isn't ex-istence a standing-out? Does all life have this quality?

Does a stone exist in this sense - i.e. is it imbued with force [Kraft]?

If so there is a soul in all things - how unthinkable!

How I love those who adhere to that doctrine!

To say "existence as a whole" - how unthinkable is that! Where does that existence end?

Isn't that rather impish, the idea that a mere human can impose a soul on a stone? Surely it is soul which emanated matter and made the man - it was soul that imposed Being upon the human, vegetable, mineral and animal!

Lo, the soul doctrine is reversing itself as it was taught my brethren!

Falsity implies truth ... what is truth?

Runosophy

Thoughts on the Runiverse - or questions to Odin


The runes describe an external world - an enviroment; whether
the realms of middle-earth or the realms of the heavens.

But what about the inner realms of the soul?

What runes deal with the soul, the mind, the subconscious, the body,
the muscles, the sinews the organs, the blood and the flesh?

If each rune carries a negative meaning, then isn't
the runic system inherently wicked and dangerous?

Some belief systems relegate the negative, or even cast out the
negative [as 'evil' or as 'satan' etc.,] and claim to be concerned
only with the Good or with Love.
The runes seem to be different from this.

Are the runes just another 'alphabet' like that used in
the "English language" ?
Surely they are more than just a "system of communication" !

The runic Futhark is also a very specific body of symbols.

Indeed it is the latter aspect which makes them magical, not the
former.

So my question is related to the symbolism which is very close to
the darkside, particularly when reversed runes are used.

Also bind-runes can produce some unwanted reversals which 'lurk,' as
it were, and so do wickedness despite good intentions.

The Runes to Hel are paved with God intentions.


The runes do not deal with relative values but rather with absolute ones.

They affirm the values of a traditional tribal society which emphasised the nobility of war and masculine values in general.

Now, by modern standards, these absolutes would be considered 'negative'.

Not only that, but each of these traditional runes has a reversed value which is purely negative.

So 'on balance', are not the runes 'negative' by modern relativistic standards?
All communication implies meaning.

Symbols are used where ordinary communication is inadequate.

Symbols, as well as representing more than themselves [and far more than words], also stand for themselves.

A symbol then has a silent aspect, where it is itself, and is completely autonomous to itself.

Take a symbol like the swastika.

It has been used to communicate many different things throughout the ages, whther by the Trojans, the Greeks, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Vikings or the Third Reich.

But these various 'communications' do not exhaust the symbol.

The swastika qua symbol still has its own integrity which goes beyond any meaning. It stands for something which cannot be communicated.

There is the very 'isness' of the symbol.

When all the meanings have been forgotten and all the empires have fallen the swastika symbol will still have its own selfhood which defies communication.

Now the same is true of all the runes [the swastika being a bind-rune, and therefore prey to contrary forces].

Each rune, no matter what meaning has been attributed to it by various cultures stands alone in its integrity.


This brings me to the 'negativity' [or to use a theologically loaded term, 'evil'] of the runes.

I say that runes, in their very symbolic essence are more suited to communicate with the dark forces [of evil or negativity if you like] than are other systems.

Compare them to Ogham in this respect.


I want to ask the question [once I have convinced of the primise of my argument] why the runes are so close to the Dark-Side?

Some runemasters using the German 18 Futharkh in divination actually make 36 runes with 18 reversed runes in their own right.

This embracing of the evil is unknown in many other spiritual disciplines in my view.

The runes must have their own philosophy which has yet to be enunciated or 'communicated' .

Rune reversals bring out certain philosophical questions which rune-masters must address themselves to if they are to have any depth to their craft.

For example, is a reversal of a rune a completely different rune to the
non-reversed rune?

Or does the non-reversed rune 'contain' its own reversal at all times
[and is therefore ambiguous]?

Is there a reversal for the Ice rune?
Some say that there isn't, but are they not ignoring the reality of the
Poles?
In other words, 'Ice' ['I'] is orientated North in its first aspect and
orientated South in its reversal.

Two questions which need addressing by Vitkis.

Some belief systems relegate the negative, or even cast out the
negative [as 'evil' or as 'satan' etc.,] and claim to be concerned
only with the Good or with Love.
The runes seem to be different from this.

Also, if you say we should be somewhere in the "middle", isn't that
tantamount to advocating mediocrity?

Surely the world is made by those who are a force for Good [and by
those who are a force for Bad].

And aren't those in the middle merely carried along by the greater
forces, listing in the wind?

But are the runes just another alphabet like that used in
the "English language" you speak of?
Surely they are more than just a "system of communication" !

The runic Futhark is also a very specific body of symbols.

Indeed it is the latter aspect which makes them magical, not the
former.

So my question is related to the symbolism which is very close to
the darkside, particularly when reversed runes are used.

Also bind-runes can produce some unwanted reversals which 'lurk,' as
it were, and so do wickedness despite good intentions.

I seem to recall a recent book by Karlsson [I think?] which dwelt on
this 'Nightside of the Runes'(?)

Willow, in my defence, I merely asked the question: "if you say that we should be somewhere in the middle"; - wondering by implication whether you thought that this was desirable [your previous tone gave me the impression that you might have thought that it was].

'Balance' itself is problematic if we have only a relative notion of "good" and "bad", for what do we balance between?

Balance itself then becomes a relative question; what may seem 'balanced' to one person may seem 'imbalanced' to another.

However, it seems that the runes do not deal with relative values but rather with absolute ones.
They affirm the values of a traditional tribal society which emphasised the nobility of war and masculine values in general.

Now, by modern standards, these absolutes would be considered 'negative'.

Not only that, but each of these traditional runes has a reversed value which is purely negative.

So 'on balance', are not the runes 'negative' by modern relativistic standards?

All communication implies meaning.

Symbols are used where ordinary communication is inadequate.

Symbols, as well as representing more than themselves [and far more than words], also stand for themselves.

A symbol then has a silent aspect, where it is itself, and is completely autonomous to itself.

Take a symbol like the swastika.

It has been used to communicate many different things throughout the ages, whther by the Trojans, the Greeks, the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Vikings of the Third Reich.
But these various 'communications' do not exhaust the symbol.

The swastika qua symbol still has its own integrity which goes beyond any meaning. It stands for something which cannot be communicated.

There is the very 'isness' of the symbol.

When all the meanings have been forgotten and all the empires have fallen the swastika symbol will still have its own selfhood which defies communication.

Now the same is true of all the runes [the swastika being a bind-rune, and therefore prey to contrary forces].

Each rune, no matter what meaning has been attributed to it by various cultures stands alone in its integrity.


This brings me to the 'negativity' [or to use a theologically loaded term, 'evil'] of the runes.

I say that runes, in their very symbolic essence are more suited to communicate with the dark forces [of evil or negativity if you like] than are other systems.

Compare them to Ogham in this respect.


I want to ask the question [once I have convinced of the primise of my argument] why the runes are so close to the Dark-Side?

Some runemasters using the German 18 Futharkh (sic) in divination actually make 36 runes with 18 reversed runes in their own right.

This embracing of the evil is unknown in many other spiritual disciplines in my view.

The runes must have their own philosophy which has yet to be enunciated or 'communicated' .

Further to recent discussions, rune reversals must be a topic in its
own right.

They bring out certain philosophical questions which rune-masters must
address themselves to if they are to have any depth to their craft.

For example, is a reversal of a rune a completely different rune to the
non-reversed rune?

Or does the non-reversed rune 'contain' its own reversal at all times
[and is therefore ambiguous]?

Is there a reversal for the Ice rune?
Some say that there isn't, but are they not ignoring the reality of the
Poles?
In other words, 'Ice' ['I'] is orientated North in its first aspect and
orientated South in its reversal.

Two questions which need addressing by Vitkis.

Can Runes be dangerous?

'Can runes be dangerous'?

I sure hope so!

There is nothing 'safe' about the Runes - why else did the Church outlaw them?


Runes are the tools of Noble Aryan Paganism.


The dangerous term 'Aryan' is full-blooded and 'beyond good & evil', and so captures the atmosphere I want. It is also used without excuse by my favourite philosopher,
Nietzsche, and by my favourite runologist, Guido von List.

As Nietzsche said; 'Live dangerously! - build your cities on Vesuvius!'
The Germanic Folk invented the runic Futhark.
That's what the runes are -
the script of the Germanic Folk.
The Futhark word order is *unique*
Many have tried to destroy them, from the hordes in the East in the
past, to todays anti-racist fanatics of the West.
But the Folk survives, as do the runes.

This story never ends, it is an Eternal Return.
Danger is a Calling.
Svartrunir - ON: ("Black Runes") Necromantic characters; runes used to communicate with departed spirits.
Troll Rune - 1)The troll-rune is Thurisaz, and its use was thought to evoke demons from the nether-world. The cutting of three Thurisaz staves perverts or inverts the meanings of those runes which follow it.
2) Troll runes are runes that can be used for divination. This name comes from an old belief that prophecy comes from Trolls, who have knowledge of the future.

Ulcer is fatal to children
Death makes a corpse pale
[The Norwegian Rune Poem verse (trans: Dickins)]


Ulcer = disease fatal to children
and painful spot
and abode of mortification
[The Icelandic Rune poem verse (trans: Dickins)]

Beowulf. II
There came unhidden tidings
TRUE to the tribes of men, in sorrowful songs,
how ceaselessly Grendel harassed Hrothgar,
what *HATE HE BORE* him,
what murder and massacre, many a year,
feud unfading,'refused consent
to deal with any of Daneland's EARLS,
make pact of peace, or compound for gold:
still less did the wise men ween to get
great fee for the feud from his fiendish hands.
But the evil one ambushed old and young,
death-shadow dark, and dogged them still,
lured, or lurked in the livelong night
of misty moorlands: *men may say not*
*where the haunts of these Hell-RUNES be* .
Such heaping of horrors the hater of men,
lonely roamer, wrought unceasing,
harassings heavy. o'er Heorot he lorded,
gold-bright hall, in gloomy nights;
*and ne'er could the prince approach his throne*
'twas judgment of God,?or have JOY in his hall.
.
. Beowulf. VIII
.
UNFERTH spake, the son of Ecglaf,
who sat at the feet of the Scyldings' lord,
unbound the *battle-RUNES* . 'Beowulf's quest,
sturdy seafarer's, sorely galled him;
ever he envied that other men
should more achieve in middle-earth
of fame under heaven than he himself.'
'Art thou that Beowulf, Breca's rival,
who emulous swam on the open sea,
when for pride the pair of you proved the floods,
and wantonly dared in waters deep
to risk your lives?