Fragment 36

In this "Fragment" I want to discuss two books that I have recently read, and some of the insights and problems with the books. They do not pertain directly to the topic of Crossing the Abyss, but they are about thinking , so they indirectly apply to the topic of Crossing the Abyss. I also have a few things to say about working with the Excellent Goddess Nephthys. Yes, it is going to be a rambling "Fragment". The two books are: "The Alphabet versus the Goddess" by L. Shlain, and "The Master and his Emissary" by I. McGilchrist. Both books are about the Right-Left hemisphere split in the human brain, and how it has affected the history of Western Civilization. The first of the two books (also this is the order I read them in) "The Alphabet versus the Goddess" tries to identify the difference in the two hemispheres with gender. The right hemisphere is identified with the feminine thinking, and the left hemisphere with masculine thinking. To begin with this seems very problematic. How are we supposed to differentiate between "feminine" thinking and "masculine" thinking? This seems to be an overly simplistic model. This does not mean that the book is not entertaining, and does not have insights into the two types of thinking. It is the label that I do not like. So let us begin with an examination of the two types of thinking. According to split brain theories, the right brain looks at the big picture, uses context, can accept ambiguity, and is more pessimistic. The right brain is also more concerned with images and metaphor and other non-linear thinking. The left brain in contrast is adverse to metaphor, and images, is absurdly optimistic, and prefers language and logic to metaphor, images, and context. The right brain also does not like ambiguity or uncertainty. While Shlain tries to identify the two types of thinking with gender, McGilchrist does not, but on the two types of thinking he agrees in general with the above outline of the two types of thinking. It took me a while to understand the two types of thinking, and what they represent. As a matter of fact it was not until I was reading the last chapter of the last book that everything fell into place. The two types of thinking are what I have identified in past "Fragments" with magical thinking (right hemisphere), and compartmentalized thinking (left hemisphere). Right hemisphere thinking, I have identified with Bruno, J. Bohme, and the Renaissance Magi. Left hemisphere thinking with J. Calvin, P. Ramus, and M. Mersenne. So let us get back to Shlain's book: "The Alphabet versus the Goddess". Shlain does ask some very profound questions. Why do societies that forbid images are women denigrated, and treated as property? Islam is of course, the modern day example of this. Is there some connection to the alphabet and the forbidding of images? The ancient Israelites and Cannanites were the first people to use an alphabet. Second Commandment forbids all images, not just those of the divine. Shlain points out that there is no distinctive ancient Israelite art. How could there be in a society that bans images and ornamentation. Shlain's thesis is that societies that become literate and adopt an alphabet usually treat their women as inferiors. We all remember Moses being thankful that he was not born a woman. Shlain has collected an impressive amount of evidence for his theory. The trouble is he does not have a good reason why the suppression of images leads to the inferior status of women. He argues that somehow when the left brain suppresses the thinking of the right brain that women become inferior to men this answer seems too simplistic to me.While the Greeks did not treat their women that well, the Romans did more than anyone to strengthen monogamous marriage. This brings me to a fact Shlain did not address that it is polygamy that leads to treating women like property. Also the classical Greeks and Romans never forbid images, even though they had an alphabet. That being said, Shlain's book is worth reading and pondering. Let us now turn to McGilchrist, and his bood "The Master and his Emissary". McGilchrist does not make the mistake of identifying the split brain with gender, instead he uses the philosophy of Heidegger and the phenomenologists for the framework of his thesis on split brain theory. The part of Heidegger's philosophy that he uses the most is the Hermeneutic circle. That we go from subjectivity to objectivity to subjectivity. In simpler terms, We first experience the presented world as a whole, then we cut it into parts abstracting some features in which we then return to the presented world. An example should make this clear, I am using Heideggers' example of Newton's physics. Humans did not learn to build bridges by studying Newton's physics, instead they used trial and error. they then abstracted what works out of the trial and error, this becomes Newton's physics. Which then is returned to the world for use. The right brain would be the initial presented world, the left brain would be the abstraction of physics, and then the right brain would take over the abstraction and put them into context in the presented world. McGilchrist thinks that the left brain has usurped the place of the right brain as master. Instead of being a servant of the right brain the left brain has become the master. Again like Shlain, McGilchrist uses Western history to explain his theses. And again like Shlain I think McGilchrist's theory is too simplistic. In that he does not acknowledge outside influences on human activity. Of course, I am referring to my theory of the Egregores. That being said, McGilchrist's book is full of insights, especially when it comes to the modern world. That the left brain would turn society into a closed system. An overly optimistic closed system this type of thinking leads to Utopian thinking. As the twentieth century has shown Utopian thinking is a plague on the human race. So let us go to some quotes by McGilchrist; on how a left brain society would function. (all quotes taken from "The Master and the Emissary"): There would be an increase in both abstraction and reification, whereby the human body itself, and we ourselves, as well as the material world, and the works of art we made to understand it, would become simultaneously conceptual and seen as things"MGilchrist points out that the left hemisphere prefers to see things as mechanical or machines than living beings. This of course sounds familiar to the present day. Back to McGilchrist: "There is a complete loss of the sense of uniqueness. All of these features are identifiable as facilitated by the left hemisphere." Back to McGilchrist: "Philosophically, the world would be marked by fragmentation, appearing to its inhabitants as if a collection of bits and pieces apparently randomly thrown together: its organization, and therefore meaning,would come only through what we add to it, through systems designed to maximise utility, Because the mechanical world would the model by which everything including ourselves and and the natural would be understood, people in such a society would find it hard to understand the higher values in Schelers hierarchy of values, except by utility..." Let us now take a look at what such a government would look like: "Such a government would seek total control-it is an essential feature of the left hemisphere's take on the world that it can grasp it and control it." And of course the people governing would get very angry if it met with resistance. This would lead to a paranoid society. Like the one the progressives are trying to build. This is the direction the progressive left wants to lead us. To a society ruled by fear, and paranoia; where anything one says can cause them to get cancelled. This is one of the strong points of McGilchrist's analysis. That in a schizoid type society , schizoid type individuals would succeed, and become the leaders. The present day is of course proof of this claim. The Progressive ruling class is always paranoid, always virtue signalling living is fear that they shall become victims of the society they created. This should come as no surprise that in a sick society the sick would be the leaders. McGilchrist also has a lot of interesting insights on art. The trouble with McGilchrist is that it is too simplistic. Although he has diagnosed our present society, he does not seem to have a prescription. He does have some ideas of a solution coming from art. It is unfortunate that neither Shlain or McGilchrist were deeply read in Occultism. If they had been, they would have recognized that the two types of thinking they are examining were known for centuries: compartmentalized thinking, and magical thinking. And that the only way to restore the balance is through magical practice. Magical practice leads to magical thinking. So to conclude this part let me make some random remarks on the two books. To begin with "The Alphabet versus the Goddess" is an inferior book to "The Master and his Emissary". Shlain does ask a lot of interesting questions, about the use of imagery and the place of women in society. Shlain and McGilchrist believe that the left hemisphere has taken control of modern society. And that is why modern culture is so ugly and barren. McGilchrist makes the interesting point that not even art critics no longer talk about the beautiful. I have written elsewhere that flat ugly (schizophrenic) art is a reflection of the sterile inner state of modern humanity. I am suspicious of split brain theories. The trouble with split brain theories is that we do not have enough data. Research on split brain theories only goes back a few decades; less than a century. We have no data, or idea how an ancient, or a medieval individual's brain functioned. The other problem is of course, if a theory gets expanded too much, it explains nothing. I believe in a magical view of consciousness. Not that these theories are not valuable or interesting, but they are a product of their times. Humans have been telling stories of how things work since before recorded history, and in the centuries to come our theories (stories) shall look as outdated and quaint as theories from past centuries. The main insight I gained from McGilchrist's book is that modern societies are of a schizotypy nature. That the reason that many of the Western nations have chosen Progressive politicians is because compartmentalized thinking has led to a schizotypy form of society. And it is easy to observe the anger of the schizotypy personalities that inhabit the ruling and chattering class when events do not go their way. Cancel culture, the smearing of innocent individuals for political motives are all too common in the present day West. It should be easy to see how this anger could easily become political violence. Hoggg is the demon of the age, denigrating everything he touches, taking everything he can, and always asking for more. One last insight I got from the two books is the importance of history for a person. Both Shlain and McGilchrist used history to try out their theories. If an individual is deprived of a history they become an invalid, not having the vast panorama human experience to compare and test their theories and actions against. And of course this is another ambition of Hoggg and the Progressives is to wipe out history. I shall conclude with a few remarks of working with the Goddess Nephthys. I have made no secret that I have special devotion to Nephthys the Excellent Goddess. I have found Nephthys to be a gentle goddess, after all she is the goddess that leads the dead by the hand to the happy Isle of the Dead. The insight I gained was that I was wrong to call Nepthys a blind goddess. This is an insight I gained from reading McGilchrist, I am hoping this insight shall help when calling Nephthys, so let me conclude this "Fragment" with a quote from "The Master and the Emissary": "A thousand insights are not sufficient to prevent the living form being reduced to sight , when unaided by the other senses to a two dimensional diagram, what Herder calls a "pitiful polygon" This fate is avoided when the viewer's eye becomes his hand,"

Fragment 35

Before I get back to the topic of some of the people who I believe crossed the abyss, I would like to examine my aims for writing the "Fragments". I know in "Fragment 1" I stated my aims, but I have learned a lot since then. I am guilty of conducting my education in public. as Hegel said about Schelling. So let us get to what I have learned. All of us involved in the Great Work are involved in a project we largely do not understand. I think the reason for the misunderstanding is that the Great Work has no determined end point. That we who are involved influence the goal. The older Occultists and alchemists were mostly practitioners of the R.H.P. using Christianity as a model. (I will have a lot more to say about this in future "Fragments"). So they believed that the goal was merging with the One (Aten). I hold that this is a mistake. They were so blinded by the "light' of Aten, that they forgot to turn around to look at the deep shadows they left. This is the freedom to change and control the aims of The Great Work. The R.H.P. along with wanting to merge with the One believes in creating a perfect society. (Utopia) This has been the aim of political philosophers and theologians for a millenium. The building of the New Jerusalem. Of course, it has masqueraded under many names, Utopia, the workers Paradise, the Just Society, etc. It is time to acknowledge this goal has been a total failure. If after all this time that they came up with Marxism show what a failure this project has been. It is hard to believe that there are still Marxists after the disaster of the twentieth century. When Marxism killed over a hundred million people. (Hoggg has a powerful hold on people) This also goes to show how irrational people are, any rational person would have concluded that Marxist experiment was a failure. One of my aims is changing the goal of humanity from building the perfect society to self-deification. Once the goal has changed everything else will change. At last the Christian ethic shall be abandoned. We shall not have to tolerate frauds like Peter Singer. and John Rawls; who just try to out-christen the Christen ethic. Instead, an ethics of self-deification shall arise. Both Nietzsche and Aleister Crowley have made a start, but the L.H.P. is still in its infancy, there is much more work to be done.This is one of the aims of the "Fragments". To provide the materials for a new paradigm for humanity. Now let us turn to another person I believe crossed the abyss: the icy philosopher Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677). Spinoza meets my two criteria for having crossed the abyss. His outward life was destroyed and he seemed to know things he should not have known. Spinoza was excommunicated and banished from the Jewish community in Holland. His outward life was destroyed, he left family, friends, and his business. The other criteria of knowing things he should not know, can be easily observed in his writings. I shall take his book "Theological-Political Treatise" for an example. In this work Spinoza anticipates modern Biblical criticism, and much of modern scholarship on the Bible. Many people at the time believed the book was "forged in Hell', because Spinoza debunks the myths and superstitions of the Jews, and Christians by implication. Of course, it is "The Ethics" that is his masterpiece. A work that still fascinates modern philosophers. Spinoza was ahead of his time. Unfortunately, we know very little about the inner life of Spinoza, or what happened to him before he was banished from the Jewish community. My speculation is that as a young man, he had a vision of eternity, and the One. And he spent the rest of his life working out this vision. Spinoza was a man with a message. What little we do know about Spinoza's inner life comes from his book "The Emendation of the Intellect", where he tells us how he got started on the path as a seeker of wisdom. I am using the Edwin Curley translations of Spinoza. A quote from the book: "Whether there was something which, once found and acquired, would continuously give me the greatest joy. to eternity" Spinoza dismissed all the usual pursuits of humanity: wealth, fame, and sensual pleasure. Instead Spinoza pursued wisdom and knowledge, no matter what the consequences. In person he was always polite, but seemed to have a preternatural self confidence. This alo seems to be a characteristic of those that have found their True Self. I want to examine the last part (5) of his book "The Ethics" titled "Of the Power of the Intellect on Human Freedom" This is the most controversial part to "The Ethics". Many modern scholars and philosophers dismiss it as rubbish. But I believe it is the most important part of the book, and the whole reason he wrote the book. The reason it is dismissed is the logical, rational Spinoza seems to have become a mystic. I have often heard him compared to Gurdjieff. So let us try to make some sense of the message of Spinoza, and how to obtain eternal blessedness. Before jumping into Part 5 we must look at Spinoza's theory of knowledge; his three kinds of knowledge. This is found in Part 2 (P. 40), Schol. 2: "1 from singular things which have been represented to us through the senses in a way mutilated, confused, and without order for the Intellect; for that reason I have accustomed to call such perceptions knowledge form random experience 2 from signs for example from the fact that having heard or read certain words, we recollect things, and form certain ideas of them like these thought which we imagine the things these two ways of regarding things I shall henceforth call knowledge of the first kind, opinion or imagination; 3 finally from the fact that we have common notions and adequate ideas or properties of things. This I shall call reason, and the second kind of knowledge. 4 In addition to these two kinds of knowledge is (as I shall show from what follows) another kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of the formal essence of things. I shall explain all these with one example. Suppose here are three numbers, and the problem is to find a fourth which is to the third as the second is to the first, Merchants do not hesitate to multiply the second by the third and divide the product by the first, because they have not yet forgotten what hey heard from their teacher without any demonstration or because they have often found this in the simplest numbers, or from the force of the demonstration of P.19 in Book VII of Euclid, namely the common property of proportions. But in the simplest numbers none of this is necessary. Given the numbers 1, 2, 3, no one falls to see that the fourth proportional number is 6- and we see this much more clearly because we infer the fourth number from the ration which, in one glance, we see the first number to have the second" I have given this long quotation from Spinoza, for several reasons. So that the reader can get an idea of the icy logic of Spinoza, and to get an idea of Spinoza's third kind of knowledge. The third kind of knowledge plays almost no part in the first four parts of ``The Ethics", only becoming important in the 5th part. There is a lot to unpack in the above quote, and in order to do this we shall have to take a brief diversion for a look at the philosophy of R. Descartes (1596-1650). The reason for the diversion to Descartes is that Spionza chose to describe his vision in Cartesian terms. Everyone has to use the language of their times, and Spinoza chose the best thinking of the time to express his vision of reality. Even though Descartes is considered the Father of modern philosophy, he is also a very misunderstood thinker. Unfortunately, those who followed Descartes chos to concentrate on what Descartes considered the least important aspect of his philosophy. (the Second Meditation) Descartes was much more of a pragmatist and experimentalist than he is given credit for. For our purpose we have to examine Descartes' ideas on freedom. Descartes followed Christianity in separating knowing and doing (Intellect and Will). Im;ole Christianity Descartes had a much broader view of freedom. Freedom was just not the power to make a mistake like in Christianity at that time. Instead freedom for Descartes was the ability to do something new. Descartes did this by separating Intellect and Will. For Descartes the Intellect never makes a mistake, it is the Will that makes mistakes. An example should make this clear. Say you are experiencing a Unicorn. There is no mistake, whether it is a hallucination, a horse with a horn attached, or a real Unicorn. The mistake comes when you act on the experience, lide trying to mount a hallucination. In other words it is only through doing and experimenting that we gain a practical knowledge of the world. The other topic we have to cover relating to Descartes is his dualism and the reason for it. (Thought and Extension) This is why his theory of knowledge works. The mind is not involved in the causality that affects the material world, it is as if the mind hovers over the material world and thus is able to affect it. Descartes knew that getting drunk or dropping a heavy rock on your foot affects your mental state, but you are free to react in different ways to these occurrences. Finally we can get back to Spinoza. Spinoza rejected the separation of Intellect and Will. Spinoza is a determinist. For Spinoza there is only intellect, the different reactions that one has are due to adequate and inadequate ideas. Adequate ideas are ideas that have strict boundaries and one knows the proximate cause. Again I will use an example to illustrate, an example I am sure Spinoza would disapprove of, but he would approve of one part of the example. Let us take the all too common sit-com plot of someone overhearing part of a conversation and misunderstanding the conversation, Then they act like delusional idiots until the whole story is out. Spinoza would agree that most people act like delusional idiots. The whole conversation is context would be an adequate idea. It is bounded and the context would be the proximate causes. Overhearing just part of the conversation out of context is an inadequate idea. For Spinoza the actions that follow an idea are determined. So how can Spinoza speak of human freedom? Let us start with section 4 "On Human Bondage" . When we react to outside affects we are in bondage. That is why the whole example would be dismissed by Spinoza, because it is of the first kind of knowledge. The person who is always reacting to outside stimulus is in bondage and really does not have much existence for Spinoza. When a person has power over how he reacts to outside affects he-she is in control. This should sound familiar to Occultists. It is close to Crowley's finding your true will. How does one gain control of oneself? It is by having adequate ideas. Let us go to Section 5 P.3: "An affect which is a passion ceases to be a passion as soon as we from clear and distinct ideas" For Spinoza every idea is accompanied by an emotion those that enslave one to outside affects are negative emotions those that free you from outside affects are positive emotions. Spinoza "The Ethics" Section 4 Preface:"Man's lack of power to mediate and restrain the affects I call bondage. For the man who is subject to affects is under the control, not of himself, but fortune." Unless a person can form adequate ideas he-she is controlled by outside forces; people who can form adequate ideas are in control of themselves. How is this reconciled with Spinoza's determinism? No matter if you have adequate or inadequate ideas the doing is dictated by the idea. Simply put, those that have adequate ideas act differently than those who do not. Spinoza was not interested in experiments like Descartes. For Spinoza there is a right way to do things, and it is dictated by having adequate ideas. All emotions that cause a person to be subject to outside affects are negative emotions. The emotions that accompany adequate ideas are positive, because they give a person freedom from outside influences. Even though there is much more to say on the topic of freedom in Spinoza's philosophy, I want to move to the most controversial topic of his philosophy: Immortality. Let us begin with a quote from Part 5 P.23: "The human mind cannot be absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it remains." I must break in with some comments about Spinoza's vision. In ethics Spinoza was a combination of R.H.P. and L.H.P., in metaphysics he was all R.H.P. Spinoza had a vision of the One. The One is Spinoza's God. Spinoza, like Descartes, views the mind as hovering over the material world. (I am not going to go into Spinoza's dualism) We directly experience this being a disembodied mind hovering over the material world. The more a person can achieve a state of consciousness of viewing everything from a standpoint of eternity, the more real they become. This should remind everyone of Grudjeff's self remembering. Again let us go to a quote from Spinoza "The Ethics" Part 5 P. 33: "The intellectual love of God, which arises from the third kind of knowledge is eternal" When we identify with eternity, we identify with God therefore becoming more real, since God is the only real thing. Of course, this takes conscious suffering (a lot of work). Those that achieve this state of consciousness are the Blessed. "The Ethics" Part 5 P. 43: " Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself: nor do we enjoy it because we reatrain our lusts, on the contrary, because we enjoy it we are able to restrain it" Like I said, this is only achieved through lots of hard work. I will give the last word to Spinoza, here is the last line of "The Ethics": "But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."

Fragment 34

In this "Fragment" I am going to continue to discuss people who I believe crossed the abyss. I realized before discussing anyone from the Christian tradition, that I needed to examine guilt. There were also two recent incidents that made me realize how important it is to examine guilt. Guilt is a powerful emotion that deserves much more examination than iit has been given. It can be used to control people, and manipulate people both on a social and personal level, it can destroy someone's life, and it can be used for self-transformation. So let us examine the use and abuse of guilt. Let us begin with the present day. To riff off the old saying on the weather, everyone seems to be spreading guilt around, but no one wants to analyze it. I looked around for some modern analysis of guilt, but found little. In the nineteenth century Nietzsche and Marx did some analysis of guilt in philosophy, and Dostoesky in literature. But not much since. The reason guilt is still so important to understand in the present day is that we are still living in the Christian paradigm, and guilt is a very important part of the paradigm. The fires of Hell are a metaphor for guilt. The Christian mystics who are going through the Dark Night of the Soul are consumed in guilt and doubt, and more guilt because of his-her doubt. I know many people think we have moved out of the Christian paradigm, but that is not true. When I came to examine guilt, I realized how close that the modern day Progressive paradigm is to Christianity. Although much inferior as a method for transformation. I shall illustrate by the two examples that inspired me to write about guilt. The first incident example is that of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D. RI). Whitehouse is a progressive Senator who is quick to accuse his opponents of racism. Yet, he belongs to a whites only Yacht Club. When you belong to an organization that has the same membership requirements as the Ku Klux Klan, you are a racist.If there is any doubt about his Whithouse's racism, his wife owns controlling interest in the Yacht club. In simple terms Whithouse could have the membership rules change anytime he wants , and he does not. I am sure if you questioned Whithouse whether he is a racist, he would honestly reply: no. Of course, he is lying to himself, he is a racist. It first seemed to me that Progressives have no integrity. Progressivism has become synonymous with hypocrisy. So much so I am surprised that some prominent Progressive has not claimed that hypocrisy is a racist construct. This also gives us an idea of how close Christianity is to Progressivism. The charge most often levelled against both is hypocrisy. Although Christians usually try to hide their hypocrisy, while Progressives do not. The question becomes why do Progressive not think they are hypocrites? The answer is very subtle. Humans use projection to interact with the world. We are always projecting our categories onto the cosmos. We do this to achieve our goals. This is why the Pragmatic theory of truth is the only theory that holds up. The trouble with the other two main theories (the correspondence and the coherence) is that we are always changing our categories depending on the goal. An easy example to illustrate this is building a house. The technical workers like the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. use a different set of categories than the interior decorator and sometimes each other. (anyone who has been involved in constructions has heard arguments between carpenters and electricians) The interior decorator must understand what is pleasing instead of what is technically the best. The technical crew is only interested in everything working, I must take a slight diversion here to examine the term "perfect" , a most misunderstood word. The word "perfect" is a subjective word. To be "perfect" , it has to be perfect for someone (a subject), nothing is intrinsically perfect. The thinking that there are things that are intrinsically perfect is a holdover from the Platonic paradigm of the divinized realm of the Forms. This misunderstanding has misled countless people throughout history. There is no Utopia. When Utopianism and projected guilt are found together it is disaster, causing genocide, and tyranny. Back to Whithouse is of course, a Utopian. He is projecting his guilt onto other people, and when they do not show any interest in feeling guilty, it makes him angry. Not just angry but that righteous anger that sanctions repression, tyranny, and genocide. Just as socialism uses other people's money to pay for their promises, and programs, they want other people to atone for their guilt. When I say Whitehouse is a racist, I do not mean like members of the Ku Klux Klan, who are honest about their racism. Instead, Whitehouse is like the nineteenth century Imperialists who believed in the doctrine of "White Man's Burden'' The doctrine of "White Man's Burden" was the old name for "White Privilege" denying people of color any agency. Infantilizing non-white people by denying that they have any power to change their lives. I shall now move to the second example. Recently a news report came out about a group of heavily armed men who do not believe that they are subject to the laws of the United States. Which in itself is disturbing. The Progressives thought leaders did not view it that way. Instead it was a chance to virtue signal by projecting their guilt on to the group.They automatically assumed that it was a group of White Supremacists, and took to social media to show their righteous anger. It seems that righteous anger is as addictive as cocaine. Like a crack addict will crawl through broken glass to smoke a rock, Progressives rush to judgement, without evidence to vent their righteous anger. This is what makes righteous anger so dangerous. It turned out the band of heavily armed men were Black Supremacists. At that point Progressives had nothing left to say. Is this hypocrisy? To understand what happened we must understand projected guilt. The reason that Progressives lost interest in the story is because they do not project their guilt onto Black Supremacists. This is also why when the Assad regime is Syria bombed Palestinian refuge camps noting was said. When Israel bombed Palestinian refuge camps jumped on the story. Even though the Israelis tried to minimize casualties while the Assad regime tried to maximize casualties. It is only on the people, and institutions of Western Civilization that Progressives project their guilt on. Let us turn to a historical example of projected guilt onto a people that had no interest in the guilt. The Puritans were guilt ridden Utopians. If anyone has doubts about the Puritans being Utopians, the reason for coming to America was to try to build a Utopian society. The Puritans were of course Calvinists and Christian communists. J. Calvin is of course the founder and father of all progressives movements in the West. Remember F. Engels grew up as a Ca;vinist and J. Bohme detested Calvin and Calvinists. If there is any doubt about the Puritans being communists, just remember the story of Thanksgiving. When the Puritans first arrived they tried collective farming. No one owned the land; the land was held collectively. And of course they starved, this should sound familiar' it is the same as communist countries implementing absurd agricultural reforms that cause mass starvation. Fortunately for the Puritans their adherence to communism was not so dogmatic. They switched to free enterprise where every man owned his plot of land and the fruits of the land. This is what caused the abundance that was the origin of Thanksgiving. Back to the Puritans and the Native Americans. When the Native Americans showed no interest in the guilt that the Puritans had happily informed them of, the Puritans got extremely angry at the godless heathens.( again righteous anger) This is what made the usual primate struggle for territory so vicious, and justified the struggle. This is the same mechanism that causes today's Progressives to put everyone they don't like into the category of White supremacists.The same as fundametalist Christians lump everything they do not like into the category of Satanic.This is what happens when a group puts ideology ahead of people's welfare. This is a characteristic of Utopians. Before returning to the use of guilt let us take one more historical example of communists Utopians . This time a benevolent society of Utopian communists and the most successful and longest lasting experiment in communism: the medieval Franciscan Order. The monks owned nothing, not even their robes according to Ockam. They were poor and starving. Yes, being poor and starving an essential part of communism. Even if a monk had a little something to eat if asked for it he would give it away. This is how an altruistic society looks. We do not live in an altruistic society , instead we live in a cyrenic society. We moderns pursue pleasure, sensual pleasures. The Franciscan monks put ideology over their own well being. They were trying to use guilt for their own self transformation. Which takes to the use of guilt. Time to examine the use of guilt for self-transformation. Guilt is associated with pain, debt, and obligation. This is why it is such an effective way to control and manipulate people. So we must examine how to cause guilt? The old occultists called this the descent into melancholia. It is also the first step in alchemical transformation; the nigredo.The Christian tradition calls it the examination of the conscience. Bohme calls it the descent into the torture chamber. The best way to get people to feel guilty and obligated is to get them to compare themselves against a perfect standard. In the Christian tradition this is of course, Jesus Chriat, the only perfect man. Progressives use a perfect society: Utopia. This is why Utopians feel so free to commit atrocities. To bring about a perfect society is not by any means acceptable even if it kills people. The goal of all guilty people is to redeem themselves; this is of course the obligation, or in Christanity the debt owed to God. The idea is to induce so much self-loathing that one shall do almost anything for redemption; the cessation of guilt. When one keeps one's guilt one's self there is a chance of self-transformation. When one projects one's guilt onto others it is a recipe for genocides and tyranny. Once self-loathing has reached such a pitch the present self and its complex of Egregores is destroyed. This is a similar procedure to the Zen Master and the use of koans. The idea is to overload the system with so much energy that it breaks. The energy of the abyss destroys a person's outer life. This is why monks take vow of poverty and give up their possessions; so they are not distracted by their outer lives being destroyed. Once one has entered the abyss they do not have to worry about renouncing possessions; the energies of the abyss shall take care of that. This is also why many Indian Gurus will not teach Kundalini. especially how to open the chakra above one's head; it opens the abyss. We notice in both Nietzsche and Bohme that their outer lives are destroyed. Even Bohme's kidest biographers admit that Bohme's children and family did not play a prominent part in his life. Bohme withdrew from his family and his business. He experienced a fourteen year depression before he wrote. Nietzsche of course chronicles the destruction of his outer life. Another characteristic of people who have crossed the abyss is that they see, to know things they should not know. This is the result of breaking the hold of the Egregores. It is what many traditions call sleep hypnotism; that people are not in control of their lives, they are controlled by dreams. To sum up the use of guilt. The ideas is to bring the self-loathing to fever pitch until the psychic system breaks, then the self can be rebuilt with a new paradigm.

Fragment 33

In this ¨Fragment¨ I was planning to examine some examples of people who I believe crossed the abyss, but many people have shown an interest in the god, Dionysus. I realized that these themes are not mutually exclusive. I could do both in examining the Philosopher, F. Nietzsche (1844-1900). The others I was going to examine shall have to wait for a future ¨Fragment¨. Dionysus was Nietzsche's god. It was Nietzsche who single handedly brought Deionysus back to the consciousness of the modern world. He is the modern prophet and High Priest of Dionysus. So we shall begin with Dionysus. To begin with Dionysus should not be confused with Bacchus. The Romans replaced Dionysus with Bacchus. They did so because the Romans did not want to deal with the chaotic energies released by the god. Dionysus. The first clue to the difference is the way the two gods are represented; Bacchus is represented as a middle aged drunk. Bacchus is the funny drunk, his literary representative would be Shakespeareś Falstaff. The jolly entertaining drunk. Dionysus is a beautiful youth, seductive, wild, and dangerously reckless. Dionysus never considers consequences to his actions,this is what makes him so dangerous. Dionysus is not evil or sinister, he is seductive, and reckless. The Classical Greeks recognized his dangers. This is why he was confined in time and space, to a festival. After the festival until the next festival he was left alone.The chaotic energies of Dionysus were confined to a yearly festival. While Bacchus is the god of jollity, Dionysus is the god of divine madness, or divine frenzy. This means all the defence mechanisms of the intellect and conventions are overcome in a wild celebration. The devotee of Dionysus is overcome with an emotional frenzy that leads to a cathartic emptiness. That is the repose of Dionysus. Manifestations of Dionysus are easily observed in modern times. Dionysus was the god of the mid to late nineteen sixties Rock and Roll, not Satan. Fundamentalist Christians are not good at drawing subtle distinctions. They have a tendency to put everything into the category of satanic everything they do not like. Satan is a much more deliberate god, Dionysus contains no treachery or planning. So let us briefly examine some of the Rock and Roll figures I believe manifested Dionysus. As a note these figures are not personal favorites of mine, I am an aficionado of Black Metal. Of course, we begin with Jim Morrison of the Doors. Morrison recognized that the Rock and Roll of his times was a manifestation of Dionysus. After viewing concert footage of his shows, he admitted he released energies that he had no control over. The psychedelic orgy of Jimi Hendrix is another good example. Dionysus is about seduction and losing control. It is easy to view the manifestation of Dionysus in the power and ethereal beauty of Mark Bolan of T Rex and Curt Cobain of Nirvana. The last Rock and Roll figure I shall mention is Iggy Pop of the Stooges. The early chaotic show of the Stooges was a nervous breakdown on stage. Of all the above Iggy Pop is the only one of the above figures that survived into old age. Probably because he fell under the Apollonian influence of David Bowie. Dionysus is inviting and seductive, not evil or scary. The corpse painted, bloodstained front man of Black Metal is not Dionysian. Before moving on to Nietzsche I want to mention the reaction against Dionysus in both ancient and modern times. The ancient example would be Plato wanting to ban the poets from his ideal city. (Republic Book X). The modern parallel would be Tipper Gore and the P.M.R.C. who also wanted to censor the poets. Let us now turn to Nietzsche. I believe Nietzsche crossed the abyss in 1889 when he collapsed on the streets of Turin Italy. Nietzsche knew he was involved in the Great Work. In his letters he admits he is seeking the Philosopher's Stone. That he sought to transmute his suffering, and pain into joy, and happiness. Of course, he did not succeed. It was pain that drove Nietzsche into the depths of his psyche. This is what made Nietzsche into the great psychonaut of modern times. At this point we must make a slight diversion to better understand the nature of the abyss. I heard an Indian Guru say that there were three ways to enter the abyss, (he should have mentioned they are also the three ways out of the abyss) they are Faith, Trust, and Madness. The first Faith is the way of the Christian mystic, who goes through the Dark Night of the Soul. (The Dark Night of the Soul is another way of saying crossing the abyss.) The Christian mystic has faith his god shall pull him out of the abyss. The second way Trust is the way of the Eastern Mystic, who trusts his Guru. A good example of this type of thinking is ¨The Tibetian Book of the Dead. The third way is Madness, this was Nietzsche´s way. He went into the abyss to find the source of his suffering, so he could transform into joy. (Lead into Gold) Unlike the other two ways out of the abyss the way of Madness has not been explored or written about much. If Nietzsche had faith that his god, Dionysus would pull him out, he was sorely mistaken. Dionysus is not the flip side of Apollo. They are two distinct gods. Dionysus does not turn into Apollo. Apollo is the god of harmony, sunlight and healing, he is not a chthonic god like Dionysus. Examples of manifestations of Apollo would be a Bach fugue, a beautiful chess game, or the brilliant dialog of a play. These works of art are deliberate, not the work of a divine frenzy. Apollo gives a glimpse of the divine through harmony., not a frenzy that overcomes the intellect, but art that elevates the intellect. Dionysus does not turn into Apollo. Dionysian repose cathartic emptying. The other mistake Nietzsche made was he thought the way out of the abyss was to crawl up. When one enters through madness the way out is through the bottom. (Remember my friend who exited the abyss through the portal of despair.) It is very telling that in his last letters, he mentions that he was experiencing psychic inflation. Claiming he was the Pope, Napoleon, and every name in history. This is the experience of losing oneself in a greater whole. Most commonly it is the feeling of being one with everything, but it does not have to be a positive experience. Again remember my friend who had the vision of Absolute Despair. He became one with despair losing the self. An exquisite experience. After Nietzsche passed through the inflation he collapsed in the streets of Turin Italy. Dionysus did give Nietzsche his gift of a cathartic emptying. The pain was gone.Nietzsche lived the rest of his life in an empty passivity. I know some readers shall question my choice of Nietzsche as a model in occultism. they should remember what a great influence Nietzsche was on early twentieth century occultism. I shall only mention Aleister Crowley. Nietzsche are well worth studying if one realizes they are one man's record of his journey through the abyss.

Fragment 32

In this "Fragment" we shall continue the discussion of Christ as the new Adam. I realized that I had too much material for a single "Fragment", so I decided to break it into parts. We shall use different perspectives, and approaches to make some sense of the material. We shall begin by examining some ideas of Jacob Bohme. The book we shall be concentrating on is Bohme's book: "Incarnation of Christ'', also all quotes in this "Fragment shall be taken from that book. If any of the readers of this "Fragment" are interested in reading "Incarnation of Christ'' both Bohme and I recommend reading his book "Three Principles of the Divine Essence '' first before attempting "Incarnation of Christ''. Bohme is incredibly difficult to read. Hegel even complained he had difficulty reading Bohme. So let us begin with a quote from the book. "The tree Jesus Christ in the light world, who has revealed himself in our soul, as his branches. He has come in Adam's place, who has caused us to decay, and perish, He became Adam in the new birth. Adam brought our souls in the new birth into this world, into death of the fierce wrathfullness; and He brought our soul out of death, through the fire of God, and rekindled it in fire, so that it obtained again the shining light, as otherwise it would necessarily had to remain in the dark death in the source of anguish. The above passage has a lot to unpack. To begin with Bohme had no interest in the historical Jesus. Both Jesus,and Adam are best regarded as states of consciousness.The transmutation of Adam to Christ is a psychic event. Adam represents the fallen state of humans, which is characterized by greed, drunkenness, gluttony, etc. Christ is the new man or better yet the new self; the new self. Christ becomes the homunculus, or the new conscience of humans. Of course, this is not an easy feat to achieve. It involves conscious suffering. Again let us go to a quote from Bohme. "Thus every twig in the soul grows up out of divine wisdom. All must put forth out of the torture chamber, and grow as a branch from the root of the tree: all is generated in anguish. If a man wish to obtain divine knowledge, he must repeatedly enter into the torture chamber, into the center." Bohme was fond of tree metaphors. What Bohme is talking about is in occult terminology called "crossing the abyss". The old self must die and be torn apart , so the new self can be born. This brings us to one of the most misunderstood concepts in Christianity. That of being born again. One does not become born again by praying with some street preacher who is handing out pamphlets on how you are going to Hell. Instead it is like someone who has a life changing accident. The example I will use is having an accident and becoming a quadriplegic (quad). I had a friend who crossed the abyss by passing through the gate of Absolute despair. (When I talk about a friend sometimes I am talking about myself, and sometimes I am talking about a real friend) He could not find any references to the vision of Absolute despair in most literature, so he took up reading autobiographies of quads, anjd he still found no references, The only reference he did find was in Donald Tyson's "Necronomicon". To get back to our discussion. Someone who has had an accident and become a quad experiences his-her self as divided in to two different people. The one before the accident and the one after the accident. Everything they believed or presupposed has been shattered. Their outward and inward life is in ruins. This is the torture chamber Bohme refers to. When one enters the abyss one's outward life crumbles into ruins, as does his-her inward life. Although the inward life takes longer to destroy. A new quad must rebuild their life from the ground up. This is the power of the abyss. I will have a lot more to say about the abyss and the way out in future "Fragments". This is what it means to be born again. That the old self is shattered. and a new self must be created. When I was younger I was baffled by how many people that suffer life changing accidents become Christians. I could not understand how after someone experiences such trauma that they could embrace a god of mercy. (I always had trouble believing in a god of mercy, although I never had much trouble believing in demons and gods of pain and suffering.) The reason that people that have experienced a life changing trauma have a strong need to somehow made sense of what happened to them. Christianity offers them a paradigm to rebuild their self. This also connects to Iamblichus doctrine of exemplarism. I am always surprised when I meet Christians that do not know what exemplarism is. Exemplarism is the opposite of ontologism. Ontologism is the teahing that one can reach the mind of god without the help of a god. Plotinus is good example of ontologism. Exemplarism is the teaching that one must have a god to pull one over the finish line. Christianity of course got rid of every god except for Christ. After shattering ones inward and outward life one must have a paradigm to rebuild ones life. Christ v-becomes the homunculus that directs the rebuilding. Of course, as all Setians know there are other paradigms (gods) that can serve this purpose.

Fragment 31

In this "Fragment" we shall continue the Search for the Self. In my last "Fragment" I used an analytical perspective, for this "Fragment" I shall switch to a historical perspective. The Search for the Self is too big of a topic for only one perspective. And the Self is a historical creation, it is not stable or static. I shall attempt to enlarge our understanding of the Self by interpreting another myth. That of Adam and Eve. Every good myth has many levels of meaning, This is what makes symbols and myths so powerful. Myths and symbols have content, while reason, and abstractions have clarity. So I am not claiming my interpretation of the Adam and Eve myth is the right one or the only one. Most people know the basic storyline of the myth of Adam and Eve. God created Adam and Eve and they live in the Garden of Eden, which is a paradise (Utopia). God has given Adam and Eve one commandment : not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Serpent then enters the Garden and tempts Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve succumb to temptation, and God throws them out of the Garden, After which Adam and Eve experience great regret for their crime. So let us begin our interpretation of the myth. The Garden represents a paradise, a Utopia. Adam and Eve have no responsibilities except the one rule of not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Garden also represents the bicameral paradigm of consciousness. Where people are told what to do by the gods. It should now be clear why disobedience is the primal sin. There were no rebellious subjective selves in the Garden. So what is the knowledge of good and evil? It is the power of judgement, the ability to think for one's self. This makes the punishment the responsibility of thinking for one's self. No longer does the voice of the egregores (gods) seem to come from outside. There is a great longing to return to the bicameral paradigm. This is also the lure of modern Utopian thinking. By giving the Egregore or the State (which is a collection of Egregorers usually with one predominating one controlling the thinking of the people) all power over your life, you give up all your responsibilities. Again the person has only one responsibility or commandment: not to disobey. The modern person acts on the commands of the internalized Egregore. This loss of the bicameral paradigm was a great trauma for humankind. A trauma many are still trying to reverse. Remember in the myth the first thing Adan and Eve realized after eating the fruit is that they were naked and afraid. They had to assume responsibility for their own lives. They had to use their new found power of judgement to think for themselves. They felt helpless in a fallen world.They can now judge for themselves the commands of the gods. As one notices this is also the crime of the Great Set (Lord of the Self) and the Christian devil; wanting to think for one's self. Before continuing with the above conversation I want to take a brief diversion to talk about Original Sin. Original sin is one of Christianites greatist contributions and one of its worst failures. The contribution was that it overthrew the classical Greek ideal that when one knows the good he-she shall follow the good. Instead it acknowledges that one can know the good and not do it. It is to be noticed even in modern Utopian thought there is this child-like faith in education. All the early progressives (like H.G. Wells and G. B. Shaw spent a lot of time trying to deny original sin. Although present day progressives have fallen in love with guilt. They have realized that guilt is one of the greatest mind control devices ever invented. One cannot build a Utopia if the basic building blocks (humans) are flawed.The trouble with original sin is guilt. As my readers know, I regard the end of the world talk and the building of a new Jerusalem (Utopia) as two of the worst things about Chriatianilty. But I think the absolute worst thing about Christianity is guilt. Christanity turned a fundamental insight about human nature into a control mechanism. Back to the discussion. After the bicameral paradigm broke down, humans also noticed that along with the voices of the gods, there were also the voices of demons. There was no overall consent in the conversation that raged in their heads. This is a manifestation of the trauma that humans suffered when the bicameral paradigm collapsed. The hand hold that god provided is now absent. They experience both the pain and the gain of having to decide for themselves. As I said before, humans can now judge for themselves the commands of the gods. This is the transition to the modern paradigm of consciousness. That of a subjective self that must make decisions (even though they are surrounded by the voices of the internalized egregores) for themselves and take responsibility for their decisions. This is the curse of original sin that humans have to make a decision among all the warring voices in their heads. The voices of both gods and demons. The trouble with trying to give back the power of decision to the Egregores is that they may decide to kill or sacrifice their followers for some goal of their own. Examples of this are not hard to find; read the Old Testament. This sacrificing followers still happens in governments that are controlled by collectivist Egregores. Examples would be the absurd agricultural reforms of communist societies that cause mass starvation. Collectivist Egregores will always decide the right thing to do based on their agenda, even if it means killing many of their own followers. Whether you study the actions of modern day Egregores or the actions of ancient Egregores it is the same. Observe how many times the Egregore Yahweh's decisions resulted in mass death of his own. The lack of responsibility is both the lure and the trouble with trying to bring back the bicameral paradigm. One of the lessons we should learn from Adam and Eve is that there is no return to the time before the Fall (the Bicameral collapse). A Cherub guards the gates of Eden with a flaming sword. Next "Fragment" I shall continue the historical perspective, and examine how Christ became the second Adam.

Fragment 30

It is time to get back to the Search for the Self. I have a few preliminaries to get through before resuming the Search for the Self. To begin with I must acknowledge some intellectual debts. Besides the usual cast of characters: Bohme, Paracelsus, Gurdjieff, Crowley. ertc.; I have a special obligation to the philosopher F.W. v. Schelling and the psychologist G.H. Mead for this "Fragment". And I have some practical advice, which shall help us transition into the following discussion. The advice is when you have achieved inspiration go as far as you can with it. I am talking about mentally not doing something stupid. When you get a new theory or insight do not cut it off. Carry the theory or insight as far as you can. Go as far into the weeds as you can, there is always time later to trim back the theory or insight. Most people kill their inspiration in the cradle, that is why most people are not good at practicing Magic. Don't let the voices in your head or the voices of family and friends cut short inspiration. To restart our search for the Self, we must talk about consciousness. What is consciousness? Are higher states of consciousness possible? Can higher states of consciousness reveal hidden knowledge? These are some of the questions that led me to practicing Magic, and studying philosophy. So what is consciousness? The usual answer is awareness, this is undoubtedly true. The trouble is we substituted one vague word for another vague word. So I shall offer an operational definition that can be worked with. A definition that only applies to humans at this particular time. Consciousness is the conversation that goes on in a person's head. Now we can start answering the questions that were posed about higher states of consciousness and whether they can reveal hidden knowledge. We know from talking to people that some conversae divided inottions are better than others. So higher states of consciousness are the better conversations one has in his-her head (the Egregores). Remember Crowley said one of the goals of Magic was to achieve a conversation with one;s Holy Guardian Angel (H.G.A.). I will have more to say on the H.G.A. in future "Fragments". Before discussing the thought entities that dwell in the mental sphere, let me say a few more things about conversations. When we read a book, what are we really doing? We are having a conversation with the author. Books like all our conversations follow the rule that some conversations are better than others. Even when we are studying nature our consciousness still puts the study into the form of a conversation. We ask questions and then try to get an answer. We try to make nature answer our questions. The experiments we devise are questions. Let me take a more common example of looking for a building you have never been to. We look to the street names and numbers for our answers. Our consciousness takes the framework of a conversation. This is why nearly everyone from the ancients says that consciousness implies a duality. To be conscious there must be at least two elements that are interacting. A dialogue is the mark of being conscious. Let us move on to the characters that make up a person's internal dialogue. They are the Egregores. When a person lets in or has an Egregore implanted into his-her consciousness, the Egregore forms a "Me". I must state before moving on that I am using some familiar terminology in an unfamiliar way, but bear with me. I am doing the best I can, like I have said we have not invented the tools or the terminology to properly investigate the Egregores. A "Me" is passiveI response to an Egregore. It is Egregore's beach head into one's mind. "Me"s do what they are told. In the Bronze Age there were "Me"s and only a few proto- "I"s. This is why people were the [ro[erty of the Egregores in the Bronze Age. Usually in the Bronze Age the controlling Egregore could be identified by a person's name. Most names in the Bronze Age were theophoric. The "I" comes about when a person begins to question the Egregore. The resulting "I" can be divided into two types depending on the relation to the Egregore. If the reacting "I" embraces the Egregore, and his-her reaction is to further the reach of the Egregore, this results in a passive "I" or an active "Me". I prefer the term "active Me ", because the person is still under the control to the Egregore, even if she-he thinks that they are controlling the Egregore. We know sometimes rival groups of active "Me"s arise in an Egregore.These internal conflicts in an Egregore manifest as conflicts among the Egregore"s followers. The difference between the active "Me" and what I call the "I" is the active "Me" accepts the Egregore's goals. Religious wars,and conflicts would fit into this paradigm of active "Me"s in conflict. The followers are in conflict about how best to pursue the goals of the Egregore, or about some technical point that is meaningless to any outsiders. When a person accepts the goals and conduct of an Egregore they become active "Me"s, and become the Egregore's collaborators. This active "Me" is the reason most people think theyBronze Age there is now a lot of duplicity. I think it was C.S. Lewis said something like: "The Devil's best trick is to make people think he does not exist." The Egregores have developed an even better trick, they make you think that their voice in your head is your own. Like S. Kierkegaard I miss the honesty of the ancient and medieval worlds.This state of thinking you are free while being controlled by Egregores is what Occultists have called sleep or hypnotism. Most people are sleepwalkers controlled by an Egregore's dreams.The way Egregores control people is by inducing dreams. Egregores also use guilt and flattery to control people. In self loathing the Active "Me" condemns and tortures the "I' that resists. Yes guilt may be the greatest mind control technique ever. This is how self loathing become manifest in an individual. An Egregore may also use flattery to approve when the "I" becomes an active "Me".This also is how an Egregore rewards its followers. It makes them feel like they are better than other people. This should be easy to observe in our virtue signalling society. How an Egrgore puffs up people making them sanctimonious and didactic. To finish this "Fragment" I shall go back to the practical advice I started with. When one calls either a god or a demon they are seeking inspiration. I know the older view is where the god or demon is supposed to fetch the desired object and deliver it to the door. I also know this sometimes happens, but it is usually for small or unimportant things. We can take the example of a love spell. Very seldom does a god or demon act as a pimp. But a god or demon can give the confidence or tools to win the desired love, or show one the desired lover is not really that desirable. This is the gift of inspiration. As the ancients knew and we moderns have forgotten inspiration is th