In the On Going Discussion With Geoffrey

I would like to start by saying thank you for responding to my blog (in response to your blog). I was reading through my bolded texts in your response and couldn't help feeling how pompous an ass the critic in ourselves can be even when we try to shut him out. In many areas you clarified to me what was going on in the rude mechanics of your brainstorming and in still others I have a slight disagreeance with certain ideas and concepts you put out. let us begin with those.

The fact that Turner is writing in prose (anything other than verse) has no bearing on the fact that he asserts objective generalizations with the explicit purpose of forcibly justifying his own connections.

While I do agree with the idea that prose is anything other then verse, countless writers believe all literature is poetry. It is an often abstract term. I was merely saying that instead of reading it as a non-fiction theory, or critical work, read it as a treasure map where you need to solve the clues (objective generalizations) in order to find the gold at the end. Geoff, Turner is a Leprechaun, and we want his gold. This is the relevance I was referring to.

Reason and logic are everywhere, including in the work of the school, my critique had nothing to do with this profoundly progressive group, nothing to do with Shakespeare,and it has nothing to do with the knowledge Turner wishes to share, my issue lies in the fact that Turner tries to justify the teachings as if they directly translate to modern discourse as opposed to appreciating the profound impact they have had on modern ideology. 

 I do believe that these teachings do translate to modern discourse, most especially T.S. Eliot's poetry. Everything put out by Turner is in fact heavily influential upon Eliot's Ideology. Eliot's work  "The WasteLand" is considered the most prominent poem of the last century (and it even bridges the American London gap). It has influenced heavily the literature of our age. I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Eliot, Wordsworth, Beckett, Joyce, and Pound all have dealings with the conceptions going on in the school of night. (pretty sure I missed the explanation)

By saying the microcosm can control its own macrocosm (universe) rather then the collective macrocosm you are empowering the individual rather than reaching for an abstract idea (the universe).

Who is to say that our own macrocosm isn't also the collective macrocosm? What I am saying is that they are (or can become) one and the same thing. This is the mysterious mental maneuver involved within placing "the world" within you head. It is an "opening" of the mind that the "school of Night" was doing. (Look into Gnosis)

"one of these philosophies, the one which deems the I as separate 

and alone from everything else, just happens to be based on a meditation using "nothingness."

If you use “nothingness” you have contextualized the term, now, all of a sudden, it contradicts the original idea! See there is no such thing as “nothing,” the word exists, but the idea is too abstract to grasp, like that of “the universe.” 

Look into the Hermetic Principle of Polarity.

Saying it is possible to fit the universe into your mind is saying that its possible to own and control the universe, that humans can effectively become “Gods,” a scary thought regardless of your beliefs.

This is exactly what they wanted to do. If they were reading the Hermmetica they understood they could become gods. And this isn't just a random thing of the Egyptians, Pythagoras stole it from them and introduced it into Greek Mythology. And perhaps my favorite thing ever, Cabalahists (Jewish Mystics) believe that that is what we are here for on earth. But it isn't Gods, it's gods.

However, I imagine you nor I would try to justify age-old wisdom in direct relation to modern science.

 On the contrary, I do believe that age-old wisdom has a very, very direct influence on modern science. In fact we didn't exit the dark age until we discovered  all the old wisdom texts from a 1000-5000 years before that we thought were burnt. I believe that to say modern science has little to no influence on modern science is to forget from where we came and thus fall back into an ignorance that no one wants.  Get back to me Geoffrey and I hope I've been more helpful then not.