Fragmet 40

I always seem to be discussing the collapse of the existing mental paradigm. So in this "Fragment" and future "Fragments" I want to give some ideas for the coming paradigm. This "Fragment" shall be an introduction to some of my ideas for the coming paradigm. And to conclude this "Fragment" I shall add a note on St.Irenaeus, who recently became a Doctor of the Church. The current monotheistic paradigm is collapsing. In the West it is the Christian paradigm that is collapsing and the attempts to patch it up are failing. The attempts to patch it up includes Marxism and Progressivism, which are attempts to keep the altruistic ethics. and provide a secular metaphysics (theology). At this time we have myriad new cults and new religions that are competing to provide the new paradigm of civilization. I am going to draw the line for the beginning of these new religions and cults in the year 1830. This was the year that the Mormon Church was founded, and the year that Auguste Comte tried to establish his new humanistic religion, which provided the prototype of the Progressive movements. The reason I decided to include Mormonism is because it seems to be a transitional religion from mainline Protestantism and U.F.O. cult. It is an odd combination of past influences and future influences. Before we begin to examine any of the material we need to do some epistemological work. In simpler terms, we need a method to judge the material. The method I have chosen is based on Aleister Crowley's method. LIke Descates who gave philosophy a new method for philosophy (reverse engineering), Crowley gave Occultism a new method which I have coined the term "Magickal Pragmatism" as a name for the new method. I know Crowley called his method "empiricism" but I think the term "empiricism" has too many associations with materialism, and certain philosophies. So to understand Crowley's new method let us go to Crowley's words from the beginning of "Book 4": "Being more or less bankrupt, the best thing we can do is to attack the problem afresh without preconceived ideas. Let us find a way of subjecting every statement to the test of experiment. Is there any truth at all in the claims of various religions? Let us examine the question." Again to Crowley's words "Book 4": "To sum up, we assert a secret source of energy which explains the phenomenon of Genius. We do not believe in any supernatural explanations, but insist that his source may be reached by the following out definite rules, the degree of success depending upon the capacity of the seeker, and not upon the favour of any Divine Being. We assert that the critical phenomenon which determines success is an occurence in the brain characterizes essentially by the uniting of subject and object. We discuss phenomenon, analyse its nature determine accurately the physical, mental, and moral conditions which are favourable to it, to ascertain its cause, and thus produce it in ourselves so we may adequately study its effects" Let me say a few words to explain my revisions to Crowley's theory. When Crowley says "Genius" I say "Gnosis". I think Crowley avoided the term "Pragmatism" because he did not want to be associated with the philosophy of Willam James. Crowley is much closer to the founder of Pragmatism C.S. Peirce than to James, of Dewey. The systems, or spiritual exercises must provide the results that are promised. In simple terms the systems have to work. This is the fundamental question of the new religions and cults: can they bring us to the secret and sacred source of energy that produces Gnosis. To do so, one must try out magical systems or spiritual exercises to find out the result, so we can compare it to other magical systems or religious practices. This is what I call "Magickal Pragmatism". I shall now turn to some of the things that have to be done to bring in the new paradigm. We have to investigate the new religions and cults to understand what they have to offer, again Crowley is important, since he was a big influence on many of the new religions: examples would be Thelema and Scientology. And of course, we must understand the current paradigm and why it is failing. One of the most important issues that has to be taken is to what a new paradigm of the self would look like. This is a crucial and central issue. Central because it affects almost everything we believe about the world and ourselves. In my philosophical writings (@processidealism.blogspot.com) I have stated that the central issue of metaphysics is the place of consciousness in the cosmos. It determines whether one is a materialistic atheist or a theist, and everything in between. To understand what I am talking about let us revisit the old doctrine of the microcosm and the macrocosm. I am going to offer a new interpretation of the ancient doctrine. The way humans understand the cosmos is to project their categories onto the cosmos. In this Kant was right, but he was wrong in asserting that the categories are innate and immutable. The beliefs and sense of self of an agent determine his-her view of the cosmos and his-her place in the cosmos. What kind of a self we posit affects our view of everything. I will save my ideas on how to rebuild the self for future "Fragments". I shall only remark that the falling apart of the current paradigm is causing increasing insanity. We live in the Age of Insanity. This will of course involve the two types of thinking and how to achieve a new balance of the two. Before moving to Irenaeus I want to point out that everything I say are only preliminary statements, and must be taken up by other minds if they have any value. This is the 'Great Work'. St Irenaeus was made a Doctor of the Church on January 21, 2022. He was given the title "Doctor Unitas" (Doctor of Unity). It may puzzle some readers why I would want to discuss a second century Christian theologian. The reason is because Irenaeus lived in an age with a lot of similarities to our age. Irenaeus was flourishing around 170A.D. a time of competing religions and cults (world views) He was in fact a member of one such cult, that of what would become Orthodox Christianity. Irenaeus helped his side win in the competition of late antiquity. Irenaeus by arguing against the Gnostics was helping to define Christian Doctrine, this is why he was finally made a Doctor of the Church. I recently finished reading Irenaeus's book "Against the Heresies", and was very impressed by what made it into Orthodox Christianity and what did not. One of the reasons that Irenaeus is so interesting is that he was so early in the history of Christianity. Even more amazing is that Irenaeus was born into a Christian family. So he was very familiar with what was going on in the early Jesus movement. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp ( 69 A.D.-155 A.D.) who was a student of the apostle John. I want to draw attention to two of his ideas that did not make it into approved Christianity. The first is his doctrine of the Atonement. Irenaeus claims that the way Jesus saved humanity is by sanctifying every stage of human life. To do this Irenaeus asserts that Jesus's crucifixion did not happen until Jesus was in his fifties. He even hints that Jesus was not crucified until the reign of Trajan (reign 98-117 A.D). He quotes authorities and scripture to back up his assertion that Jesus lived until his fifties. So he could sanctify maturity and old age. Of course, it was not until Anselm that the doctrine of the Atonement achieved its final and accepted form. (Even Mormons believe in the Satisfaction Theory). It seems guilt did not play the big role in Christianity that it would have later. In fact in Irenaeus's writings guilt is rarely mentioned. It was not until St. Augustine that guilt got supercharged in Christian doctrine. Of course, guilt is still popular in our so-called secular age. That is because guilt is such a powerful way to control people. I may have to revisit my investigation of guilt that I have done in previous "Fragments". I believe in the new paradigm guilt should not be given a metaphysical status as it has in the current paradigm. We observe even in the present day how metaphysically powerful guilt has become. There are so many groups competing for victim status. It seems everyone today wants to claim victim status of some great historical or present wrong. Even so-called secular thinkers are talking about new original sins. This all goes back to Jesus sanctifying guilt in the West. Victimhood gives a group or an individual privileged status. It makes the victimized group morally superior thus deserving of special privileges. The other idea I want to discuss is his ideas on Mary, Mother of God, and Eve. Christian literature is full of references and even big books on how Jesus was the new Adam. That it was Jesus that redeemed Adam's sin. Yet the literature is largely silent on how Mary redeemed Eve's sin,as Irenaeus taught. When I read this I wondered, why did not think of this? It is so obvious. Back in the late twentieth century there was a lot of interest in "The Sacred Feminine", but the interest centered around Mary Magdalene instead of Mother Mary. But it is Mary, Mother of God that is the femine aspect of deity. She is the feminine counterpart of Jesus. This Oedipal relationship deeply influenced the psyche of Western humanity. This Oedipal complex goes a lot further back than the Classical Greeks. The formulation of the Great Mother Goddess and the young male god is common in ancient mythology. (Aphrodite and Adonis) It may be that the Great Mother Goddess got broken into three parts: Mary, Mother of God, Mary Magdalene, and Mary of Bethany; the Mother, the lover and the sister-daughter. The myth of the Great Mother Goddess and a younger male god consort that gets killed and resurrected is a common motif in ancient religion. It seems Mary deserves to take her place with the other great Mother Goddess, like Ishtar. It seems in Christianity that the old consort of Yahweh, Asherah is reborn.