Personal Note XXXVIII

Yahweh in (יהוה‎):
Moses and the Burning Bush

What are my convictions?
Friday – February 27, 2026

In my earlier posts from this series (Personal notes series), I have noted that I don't generally tend to share information about myself and I intend to keep it this way, because I do not regard myself as a person of interest; the information relayed by this page is what matters to me. On the other hand I do believe that it would be better for me to share some of my convictions beyond the metaphysical, mostly in order to engage in a kind of "strategic discourse", for I, just like anyone else, am shaped by certain preconceptions about the world. If you are interested in the political side of this page, I direct you to my posts under the "Politics & Ideology" label or to my "Political Notes" page.

    I do believe that sharing certain convictions that I hold is important because it seems rather silly to claim to be "neutral". Is there really such a thing as neutrality? I don't think so, and in fact I believe that neutrality is really another modern and particularly individualistic confusion; as if you may just compartmentalize away the world. That stated I do not believe in taking sides, but refusing to defend one of two sides in a conflict, metaphysical or material, is not the same thing as being simply neutral, since neutrality implies some kind of inability to engage with the world as it is manifested, a kind of blindness; no, I choose to not take the side of either party in a conflict because it is simply not for me to engage in physical or metaphysical warfare – such a role simply do not belong to me or indeed most men. My last point when it comes to neutrality is of course that this entire notion implies again that two distinct and discernible manifestations somehow exist in some kind of qualitative "equality", as if they somehow equally occupy the same metaphysical volume – another expression of egalitarianism and this particular expression is perhaps best labeled "moral relativism". My choice to simply not engage has nothing to do with moral relativism; again, it is simply not for me to "engage", but this assumption that every man has a duty to engage, to act, is a particularly Western conception that again derives from the humanist notion of egalitarianism and the Western inclination towards action, as opposed to contemplation. Also, I should clarify that my emphasis on contemplation is not a mere "preference" – it's a knowing and a profound truth that has nothing to do with individualistic "comfort".

    I should also clarify that the point of this post is not for me to list and describe each of my convictions, mostly because this would simply be too tedious and also because I don't want to allow my own individual side to appear too salient, something most moderns have a very hard time understanding, and this is because they lack a proper station in the metaphysical order of things. This fact, the social breakdown of civilization, is not a mere conviction based on ideological notions; the social chaos of the modern world is more than a fact, it's truly something that goes beyond "factual" in the material sense for it can truly penetrate beyond what is immediate, and I believe that most people can sense this. This is why I describe my own convictions as the materialism around me, or really as the quantitative expression of my own quality, and indeed this is how most people still are, yet of course most moderns fail to understand this because again, convictions are merely treated as programs or schemes that can be installed and uninstalled, all to appease and better manipulate the material order. No, I view my own convictions as something derived from the higher and merely manifested in the lowest degree, here in the modern world during the times of the Kali Yuga. I do NOT believe that I am special in this regard, and generally I believe it to be the case that most people function in similar ways, but because most people exist so remotely from their own nature and because they have been turned into formless units, they mostly lack a sense of self anchored in the primordial truth, and therefore it is quite easy for me to dismiss the supposed "conviction" of my fellow men, since again most of them are not truly convinced, they are merely adopting the latest trend, the latest fad, and whatever their "convictions" are anchored in, it is mostly the sentimentalism and hysteria of our times, and quite frequently it must be noted that many men simply adopt whatever conviction they believe makes them somehow "superior" to other men, really this is a quite striking example of the histrionics and the antics that goes on in the political arena. Therefore, it must be noted in passing that politics and religion, religion in the sense of the moderns, are mostly about the modern concept of "faith"; most moderns do not hold convictions, they hold faith; and on the point of faith I must also, again, clarify that in traditional societies there was really no such thing as faith, but further points must be made about this at another time. Lastly, while on the subject of convictions in general: is it then not contradictory to the entire outlook of the modern world that most moderns should be faithful? Not at all, because in the religious sense a distinction must be made, and such a distinction always existed in the past, between the pious and the faithful: that is to say, there is a qualitative difference between someone who is devout (convicted) and someone who simply holds faith; more to the point, the person of conviction knows a certain part of that great primordial tradition, whereas the person of simple faith only would like certain aspects of their religious doctrine to be true, while they at the same time lack any real conviction, often because these people only concern themselves with the immediate and corporeal manifestation of the temporal domain, and furthermore the faithful is seldom faithful, since most of these people do not mind bending their doctrine to adopt to the "times", another true monstrosity of "progress". In light of this it should be stated that very few people in the modern world are truly pious.

    This is why I simply must dismiss the confused beliefs and "faiths" of the moderns, because modern men are simply not serious; in fact, the modern world is profoundly void of seriousness, a result of the quantification of the world into "theories" that can calculate and predict the future, really the ideological future, read "Navigating the informational landscape". Between the fantasies of ideology and reality you find faith, an attempt to rationalize the future: why are we fighting? Indeed, why are we fighting? Well, that question is not for me to answer, but I hold convictions, for the most part, and whether they are fashionable or not, is of no importance to me – this is my paramount conviction. Yes, you can know the world, but understand that modern civilization relies on you simply knowing nothing, and this is why doubt is so highly praised in the modern world, particularly within the profane sciences. Of course, doubt is nothing but the diametrical opposite of conviction – the inability to know.

Reginald Drax – February 27, 2026.