Fragment 28

In this "Fragment" I have some add ons to some previous "Fragments". So in this "Fragment" we shall tade a short break from the Search for the Self. As I have said before, these "Fragments" are not Systematic or to be taken as eternal truths, instead they are meant to be dynamic; to change and be built upon. To start with I have some further thoughts on our first ancestors, and how they evolved. To supplement my theory that humans were originally scavengers. The fact that humans are bipedal and with an upright posture seems to add weight to this theory. Walking on two instead of four legs and sg.. standing upright would be of great benefit to scavengers. To begin with an upright posture would allow individuals to see further ahead which would facilitate looking for food. Having the hands free would also have allowed humans to carry or drag things back to any sort of temporary camp the humans had set up. Another fact that I think supports that early humans were scavengers is that humans to this day have a penchant for collecting. Humans love to have collections. We do not find this trait in predators or in other apes. Like I said before I believe that humans were to the primates as rats are to rodents. Before moving to Jaynes's theory, I have an add on to my interpretation of the Set myth. I just recently finished reading C.G. Jung's book "Aion" where Jung investigates the fish as a symbol. Jung holds that the fish is a symbol of consciousness, or the self. The water is the unconsciousness that consciousness (the fish) swims around in. Thus the fish eating Osiris's phallus would be consciousness destroying the vitality of Egregores in the bicameral paradigm. I also have some add ons to Jaynes's theory of consciousness. When I said the left brain interprets the voices from the right brain, I should have said "messages". It would be the left brain that would add the words to the feelings, emotions, or images from the right brain. l must also state here that I am not convinced of a lot of Jaynes's right-left brain theory.But i shall leave the neuroanatomy to those more qualified than myself. Al I think of the Egregores as having an existence outside of the human brain. The other thought I want to add to Jaynes's theory is Jaynes offers us a solution to the problem of why many ancient and mesoamerican cultures would suddenly desert their cities and civilizations to return to tribal life. It was because the Egregores were condemning them. From reading the Old Testament we find the Egregore Yahweh several times thought of killing Moses. I bring this up to draw a parallel with today. Much the same thing is happening with the demon Egregore Hoggg. Hoggg is the patron demon of the social justice movement. Hogg is using guilt to condemn Western Civilization. This is why we can not solve problems today that were solvable in the past. Thus leading us back to barbarism. I will say a few words on Hogg, since he is so active today. Examples being cancel culture, the suggestion of re-education camps,and some sort of secret police that the Democratic progressives are calling for to monitor and destroy "domestic terrorism", you can be sure they shall not invetigate any violent leftist movements (Antifa, B.L.M. etc,) In simple terms Hoggg wants to destroy all those that are not serving him. Hoggg has had several internal conflicts over his life. Of course, with Egregores internal conflicts are worked out as real conflict between its human followers. One of Hoggg's most important internal conflicts happened in the Weimar Republic in Germany post W.W.1. It was the fight between the Nazis, and the Communists (Marxists). In that conflict the Nazis won, then to be defeated in W.W.2, and never rise again. I know there are several neo-Nazi movements around today, but they are just maggots feeding off the rotting corpse of the Third Reich. What is happening today is that the latent Nazism is resurfacing in Hoggg in the Progressive left. I know Progressives are always calling their opponents Nazis, but this is also a Nazi propoganda techinique of the orginal Nazis of accusing your opponets of doing what you are doing. A good example of this is when the Progresseve Democrats accused President Trump of corruption in the Ukraine, while all the time it was their candidate that was leveraging taxpayer money to help himself and his family. Let me explain. Today's Progressives are not really classical Marxists. The trouble with Marxism is it was based on a stupid economic theory. An economic system that did not work. Today's Progressives have instead turned to a Fascist economic system. Big government controls big business through regulation, instead of nationalizing production. In return the government cushes big business, big tech., and the big bankers competition with laws and regulations. In this way they can keep the population subject to Hoggg. Also because Marxism had an economic system as its heart, the messianic class was factory workers, supposedly the most oppressed class. It was factory workers that were supposed to lead us to Utopia. This absurd theory was dropped, instead today's Progressives have substituted a racial (Nazi) theory in its place. Although, they have inverted it in several ways.Now it is whiteness instead of jewishness that is the problem. (Progressives still hate Jews. The Democratic party is rife with antisemitism from top to bottom.) So instead of "Jewishness" it is "Whiteness" that is the problem. The Nazis used to talk of Jewish science, Jewish history, etc. in a pejorative way, now the Progresseve left speaks of White science, history, civilization in the same way. It should not be hard to observe that Progressive of today owe more intellectual debt to Adof Hitler than Karl Marx. Although Hogg has kept some Marxist traits. The international character of the movement. which is now called globalism. The other prominent trait is that people living under the Progressives of today must keep up a steady stream of affirmations of the Progresseve value system, to constantly confirm their allegiance to Hoggg. When I was young, I was able to meet some people that had lived under both the Nazis and the Communists. I asked them what was the difference? They told me under the Nazis you could keep quiet, and they would not bother you. Under the Communists you had to keep up a steady stream of talk affirming how great Communism was. This is of course, a technique of mind control; to gain control of the voices in your head. Like when a popular song gets stuck in your head; Hoggg wants his voice to get stuck in people's heads. There are many parallels between modern America and the Weimar Republic. But do not lose hope, there are also many differences. The most important difference is the quality of Hoggg's tools.Today's Progressives are weak, stupid, soft cowards, a far cry frome the cunning, battle hardened veterans returning frome W.W.1. I would advise everyone to stay clear of the warring Egregores to today. So in parting I shall relate a story from the life of Gurdjieff. When Gurdjieff was leading his followers out of Revolutionary Russia, he had a piece of paper, on one side was a pass to get through the Red Army checkpoints and on the other side was a pass to get through the White Army checkpoints.

Fragment 27 continued

The box symbolizes the triumph of the subjective over the objective. Set has freed himself from the tyranny of the Egregores. The water of the Nile is also a chthonic symbol of the subjective swallowing up the objective. Then Isis and Nephthys rescue the box and hide Osires's body. When confronted by Set, Nephthys breaks and tells Set the location of the body. Set then cuts the body up into fourteen pieces. Remember Osires is the god of the outside order. The cutting up of the body represents turning the outside order into a number of abstractions, instead of a living whole. It is no longer the voice of the living god that rules people.but a number of dead abstractions. Isis and Nephthys now go on a search for the pieces of the body. They find all the pieces but the phallus (penis) which was eaten by a fish. The fish is another chthonic symbol of the subjective swallowing up the life of the objective order. Isis and Nephthys assemble Osiris and bring him back to life, but Osiris decides to stay dead becoming kthre judge of the dead. Osiris represents the outside order as and experience of abstractions or laws. The law is no longer a living, creative voice guiding people's lives, but a series of laws that people are judged by. To continue the story Isis uses her magic to become pregnant and give birth to Horus. Horus then defears his uncle Set and becomes Pharaoh. Horus rules by following the dead abstract voice of Osiris. This is of course the subjective self suppressing and repressing its own individuality to conform to the laws of the outside collective order. This probably also represents how every new Pharaoh had to suppress his individuality to become Horus. And so again the outside order rules over the land in Horus. I believe we are in an analogous time today of the breakdown of the Bicameral mind of the Bronze age. The R.H.P. paradigm is falling apart. The modern Crisis. It is time to create a left hand paradigm. The Aeon of Set is upon us.

Fragment 27

The last "Fragment" was inspired in part by "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris. In this "Fragment" some of the inspiration shall come from Julean Jaynes's book "The Origins of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind", Do we shall continue with observing the development of consciousness. I will try to give a brief summary of Jaynes's theory of consciousness. Jaynes posits that the humans of the Bronze Age had a far different conscious mind than we do today. That instead of a conscious self reflective thought to guide their actions, that they were grided by audio hallucinations. In simpler terms, instead of thinking about a course of action, a voice identified with a god would tell them what to do. This was an age ruled by the Egrergores. It seems in the early Bronze Age humans and regularly gods conversed face to face. One only has to look at the arts and myths of the age to observe humans and gods talking. This dramatically changed around 1230 B.C. In the year 1230 B.C. the Assyrian King Tukulti-Ninurta had an alter made that is dramatically different than anything that had come before, Jaynes describes it thus: "In the carving on its face Tukulti is shown twice first as he approaches the throne of his god, and as he kneels before it. The very double image fairly shouts aloud this beggarly posture unheard of in a King before in history. As our eyes descend from the standing King to the kneeling King, just in front of him. it is emphatic as a moving picture in itself a quite remarkable artistic discovery. But far more remarkable is the fact that the throne before which this first cruel Assyrian conquers grovels is empty." So what happened to the gods? There are three theories of what happened to the gods. That the gods left gor reasons only known to them: the theological theory. That the gods were ancient alien astronauts, and left for reasons only known by them: The alien theory. And the third theory, that there was a change in human consciousness: Jaynes's theory. Jaynes goes on to describe brain anatomy, and the symptoms of schizophrenia to bolster his theory. Basically what he is saying is that the left brain hemisphere interprets the voices from the right brain hemisphere as the voices of external gods. That instead of consciously thinking humans were directed by the voice of their gods, and this only changed with the introduction of writing and larger and more complex social structures. Some of the evidence Jaynes produces to support this theory is" quite illuminating. Most human thinking to this day is done unconsciously. That is why solutions to problems often come about as inspiration; out of seeming nowhere. Like when suddenly a solution to a problem pops into our heads when we are doing something unrelated to the problem. As I said before most of our thinking is still done unconsciously. What Jaynes is saying is that Bronze Age humanity did not know how to think out their problems consciously. Instead they heard the voice of a god when the unconscious mind had come up with a solution. Another interesting theory of Jaynes's is that for the ancients reading was a psychedelic experience. That they hallucinated as they read. What Jaynes is saying is that by our standards Bronze Age people were unconscious. I do not think Jaynes needed to make his theory as strong as he did. I think most humans act and think unconsciously. The difference is now we have moved the voices we hear from outside to inside our heads. That except in exceptional cases, and mental illness we regard the voices of the Egregores as internal instead of external. And reading is still a hallucinatory experience. A primate staring at a page of printed symbols has nothing to do with the images and thoughts in the primates' mind. Of course, as I have said before our seperation of inside (subjective) and outside (objective) is a construct. All our experience is inside (subjective) experience. The difference is we have developed tools, like the law of noncontradiction to create the outside or the objective world. In the ancients there was only the external world, all emotions,and voices were all thought to be in the external world. As late as Empedocles we can observe that psychology and physics had not yet been separated. As I have said before it was Protagoras that separated inside (subject) from outside (objective).The thing with humans is that they gain competence before comprehension. And sometimes we never gain comprehension. We start doing or believing something long before we understand the 'why' and the 'how' . So humans were using the law of noncontradiction long before Paramenides and Protagoras explained what we were doing. Philosophers are more discovers than inventors. The other key part of Jaynes's theory, that the subjective self or "I" is created I am in total agreement with.The subjective self is a creation, and was first developed in the Bronze Age. Child psychologists tell us that humans develop a "Me" before an "I". The "Me" is when we view ourselves the third person. An example is when the mind's eye I see myself hunched over my desk writhing, as if from above. The "I" is the first person way of looking from the inside out, instead of the "Me" which is looking from the outside in. Ancient humans did not distinguish between inside and outside, emotions, voices, etc. were all thought to have an external source. Ancient humans found the crocodile scary, they were not scared of the crocodile. Scary was an external quality possessed by objects. Of course , they had not consciously, it is the default way that humans experience the world. This can be observed in children. Children often look to adults on how to interpret an experience. I have observed children looking to adults after a joke was told to figure out if they should laugh. During the Bronze Age humans were property of the gods. One can still observe this in Islam. Many muslims still today talk about being owned by Allah. Humans are the tools which the Egregores use to achieve their goals. It is interesting to note that almost all Bronze Age names are theophoric. they contain the name of a god. The names of the Egyptian Pharaohs are good examples. It is also during the Bronze Age that humans developed the quality of treachery. Many animals use deception. Examples would be birds mimicking the calls of other animals to trick them out of their food. Jaynes gives the charming example of a female chimp assuming a seductive pose in order to trick a male out of a banana. Treachery is different, to be treacherous one needs a more sophisticated form of consciousness, namely a subjective "I". A self that can pretend to like someone while plotting against them. One must have a subjective self to make such decisions, instead of a "Me" that is told what to do by the gods. I will have a lot more to say about this in future "Fragments". I know the reader is asking how do I bridge the gap between the last "Fragment" where I discussed our early hominid ancestors and the much more sophisticated consciousness of the Bronze Age. What happened that led to the new state of consciousness? The answer is that early humans started using audio signs to stand for things or actions. So when an instinct or desire called for a course of action. humans would hear the audio sign for the action as if from an external source. So if one felt thirsty the audio sign for drink would be heard. In the early Bronze Age the gods (Egregores) ruled humans undisturbed by the rebellious subjective selfs. The gods were masters and the humans were their slaves and property. Even to this day there is a great longing to recapture this state of affairs, Jaynes calls this state of affairs the Bicameral paradigm. This is of course, the origin of the modern Utopia psychoses. Where everyone would be united by hearing the same voice. There would be no need of a coercive government. No one would have to take any responsibility, everyone would be the collective property of the god. Modern progressives have of course substituted government for god. Progressives are always saying we are all owned by the government. This is why Jung claimed that the consciousness of early humans was held in thrall by the gods. I will have more on this in future "Fragments". I shall try to make this more clear by concluding with a myth that had its first development in the Bronze Age. The Osiris-Set-Isis-Nephthys-Horus myth. I will be following the Plutarch Version of the story. So let us begin with Osiris. In the ancient world Osiris was often identified with Jupitar. Both were Kingsthat ruled over humanity; they were the archetype of the god-king that ruled over a golden age. J. Bohme when discussing astrology says that Jupitar represents the outside order. According to the myth, Osiris and his fabulous wife Isis brought civilization to humans. They taught humans all the arts and sciences from writing to agriculture. Osiris had a younger brother, Set who was jealous of his older brother. So what is Set the god of? What does he represent? Set seems to be the god of many things thunder, the other, the Red lands, etc. His name is often associated with the destroyer,but destroyer of what? Maybe we could call him the god of alienation. This would seem to tie all the other things together. But more accurately Set is the god of the subjective self, or the "I'. Set is the destroyer of the outside order and the domination of the Egregores over humanity. He is also the god of freedom. It is interesting to note Set's connection with the Christian Devil, Both Set and the Devil walked out of Utopia.They refused to renounce their individuality for the collective. To go on with our story, Osiris is seduced by Nephthys (Set's wife) and becomes pregnant with Anubis. This was the last straw for Set. He vows revenge and becomes treacherous. He talks kindly to Osires while plotting against him. Remember to practice treachery one must have a subjective self. To move on with the story Set has a beautiful golden box or casket made, Set brings the box to a party that is being held to honor Osiris.Set tells everyone at the party that he shall give the box to anyone who fits in the box. Of course, Set had the made only to fit Osiris. Everyone at the party tries and fails to fit into the box. Finally Set gets Osiris to try the box, Osiris eits in perfectly. Then Set and his retainers close the box and nail it shut. And throw the box into the Nile. The box represents the distinction between the inside (subjective) and outside (objective) worlds. As I said humans do things and use techniques long before they understand what they are doing. It would not be till centuries later that Greek philosophers would rationally explain the distinctions and techniques. Lood how long Christianity was around until Agustine explained it to us. Myth was the highest form of consciousness at the time. As reasons uses abstractions, myth uses symbols. To be continued

Fragment 26

In this series of "Fragments" I want to discuss the topic of the "True Self". This has been viewed by many as the completion of the Great Work. I am not one of those, but it is an important part of the Great Work. Gurdjieff is a prime example of this attitude. This can also be observed in the more mystical systems, where it is called the creation of the light body. The "True Self" and the "Light Body" are the same thing. To understand how this is done, we must first look at rhe raw materials that we use to build the "True Self". To do this we must go back to our first ancestors, the first hominids. This is also the time of the first Great Magical working, where humans transformed themselves. I shall be using the term "humans" instead of "hominids" for two reasons. The first is for the sake of brevity, and the second is that I do not think that we are that much different from our ancient ancestors. In this series of "Fragments" I shall be relying on two books: "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris and "The Origin of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. Both these books are dated in some ways, but it does not affect their central theses.In some instances the new findings have only helped to straighten the central theses. I can commend both books to all students of the Occult and human nature. Both are very controversial books, although written by mainline academics. The purpose of this "Fragment" is to examine the Beast. I am using the term "Beast" to refer to our animal nature orninheretence from our ancient ancestors. It is the deepest level of the unconscious. We are descendents of Beasts not Angels. At this point I shall offer a diversion by way of a theory of mine, of which I am not totally convinced of; that the unconscious of humans is the unconscious of previous humans. That consciousness has many overlapping layers. The example being that of Classical mythology. Classical mythology was the conscious mind of the early Greeks and Romans and is in many ways the unconscious mind of modern humans. After all much of S. Freud's psychology is an interpretation of Classical mythology. As I said I am not convinced of this theory. I can be talked out of all my theories, but some would take more talking than others, this one would not take much talking for me to give it up. So let us examine the Beast. The Beast is not an amorphous entity of desires, like Freud's Id. The Beast has definite outlines, although there are some ambiguities. As we shall see these ambiguities are the product of humans first Great Magical working. The Beast is the default setting of human nature, it is what takes over which civilization falls apart. To get a glimpse of what happened we must go back to the end of the Miocene age when humans and chimpanzees split. So why the split between humans, and chimps? I have a theory that is all my own, so no one else should be blamed for it, and it has no scientific backup. It is my speculation. The theory is that before the split there were apes that were good at being apes, and apes that were not good at being apes. The apes that were good at being apes became the chimps, and the apes that were not good at being apes became the humans. A parallel would be the split between domestic dogs, and wolves The wolves that were not good at being wolves became domestic dogs. To stretch the parallel further, I think humans and chimps split for a similar reason. That the first humans were scavenger apes. Humans were the weaker apes. This is why when the forests receded; it was humans that got pushed out into the grasslands. They did not decide to leave the safety of the forest. Being a scavenger ape did give humans some advantages. Even today humans will eat almost anything that does not kill them or make them sick. Of course there were also great disadvantages to being pushed out of the forests. The main one being is becoming prey to the apex predators: the big cats. Although in a strange way this also worked to humans advantage, humans were forced to innovate. This is the time of the first Great Magical working. Humans transformed from typical primates into predators. Of course, all mistakes were severely punished. This kept the human population small. This is the reason that humans evolved so fast. The first Great Magical working was paid for in blood and death. The primate became a predator. This is what led to the ambiguous nature of the Beast. The ambiguity in the Beast is between typical primate and predator. These are the two aspects of human nature that cannot be ignored: the hierarchical imperative and the territorial imperative. Any political theory that does not allow for these two aspects is doomed to failure. The dual nature of the Beast as primate and predator has affected these two aspects. So let us return to our earliest ancestors and our cousins the chimps to see what we can learn about the Beast. We shall first examine the hierarchical imperative. Both humans and chimps are obsessed with status. Both groups have a well defined pecking order. For chimps status is defined by accessibility to females. This should sound familiar. We are never surprised when a powerful man has a mistress or many mistresses. The King Kong ape can have any female in the group; Polygamy is the natural state of the primate. And here arises one of the ambiguities in the nature of the Beast. This was modified into pair bonding when humans became predators. Monogamy is the result of humans becoming predators. Thus we can observe one of the ambiguities in the Hierarchical imperative. The other imperative is the territorial imperative. Even though chimps move about not having any fixed camp, they still move only within the troop's territory. Chimps regularly go to war with other chimp troops to expand or defend their territory. When humans became predators this changed into humans having fixed camps or lairs. The territorial imperative is mental as well as physical. This can be easily observed in academics. Even though our present day academics are always preaching equality, inclusiveness, and diversity. Just watch how viciously they defend their fields, when it is suggested someone outside their comments on their theories. Diversity and inclusiveness are resisted like a wild beast would resit an invader into their territory. To sum up their are two different natures in the Beast, sometimes they conflict, and sometimes they compliment each other. Here we have the raw material of the Self.

Fragment25

I have some odds, and ends on Magical thinking That I wish to tie up this "Fragment". So let us begin with some terminology. When one practices Magical thinking one is building the Magical mind. This is often called the Astral temple. A better term than "Astral Temple" would be "Astral Mill" . The reason being is that the Magical mind is always active, trying to fit in each new experience, new pieces of knowledge into the chains of correspondences. As Crowley said it becomes a habit after a while. When this happens you have built the Astral Temple. The Magical mind is the ability to think in long chains of correspondences. This is also connected to the Occult teaching of the Long Body. The long body is your mind and body extended through time. It is the history of all the changes your body and mind has gone through from birth to death. An easy way to think about the Long Body is to use the Light Motorcycles in the film "Tron". The Light Motorcycles in the film leave a trail of light or force behind them. As I said the Long Body contains all the changes of mind, body, and place in one's life. When one sets up a system of correspondences (Tarot, Astrology, etc.) one gains access to the Long Body. The Magos gains access to his-her past, and sometimes the future. This is the basis of divination. Magical thinking gives one access to the energies that shape our future. This is also why Magical thinking is so helpful in finding one's true self and true will. It also gives the aspirant protection from the people that are trying to manipulate him-her. The Magos views the energies that have shaped him-her. Thus giving the Magos insight on the way these energies shall affect the future. Remember the future is not determined or one who knows the active energies in their life. This does not mean the Magos never makes mistakes. Even if one has a presentiment of the future, there are all kinds of practical ways to go wrong. The future is the interplay of energies, all is process. There are no nouns, only verbs. The Long Body is the physical, and mental history of the individual extended through time. The teaching of the Long Body is a good way to remind ourselves that we are a process and not a thing at rest. We are always becoming, never finished. When one gains access to the Long Body he-she is powered by one's own energies, instead of relying on energies from outside to power one's thinking. I do not want anyone to think this is easy. It can be terrifying. The Astral Mill releases energies that have been long repressed. It also makes one realize all the lies we tell ourselves. This is why many people get scared when meditating or practicing Magic. The sigils are opened and the energies rise into consciousness. This is the esoteric meaning behind the myth of the Genie in the bottle. The myth of the Genie in the bottle seems to have originated with an old myth about King Solomon. That Solomon summoned demons to help him build the Great Temple. After the Temple was built Solomon imprisoned the demons in containers sealed with a sigil. And when the sigil is broken the Genie or demon is set free.The demons or Genies were imprisoned with a sigil because these energies can be extremely dangerous. This story is an analogy of the repressed and hidden material in our psyche which is also sealed with a sigil. This is of course. why we normally stay away from subjects can open the sigils. Like the myth of the Genie in the bottle these energies can bring great power. Whether they bring great pain, great power, or both the Magos is forced to confront the repressed energies and lies he-she has told them selves. The Magos gains energy in two ways, the first way is access to the repressed energies, and also by freeing up the energy that was used to maintain the regression. When the repressed energies are set free they come forth much like a Genie out of the bottle. The trouble is the freed energies more often resemble the Genie in the film "Wishmaster" than the Genie in "The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad". The goal is to integrate these energies into consciousness. Don't expect to come out unscathed. This is also the origin of the Magical trope of trading sanity for knowledge. To conclude I shall offer some practical advice, which can be safely ignored. The purpose of the Magical Mind is to gain content. Only when your spells or ritual have content can they work. In simpler terms to make more and powerful associations. This practical advice shall also be a good example of what I mean by content. We all have our magical tools, the basic four being; the wand, chalice. the pentacle, and the athame (dagger). One can get all to these items from one of the many Occult supply stores. The trouble is most of these items from an occult supply store have no content, and they are not individualized. So what I am suggesting is to pick an Occult tool that has some content for you. An example would be the athame, instead of buying an ornamental athame from a store consider picking a dagger that has some content built in. This can be done in a number of ways. One can pick a knife that has been in his-her family for a long time. Bayonets make great athames. They already have associations with attack and defense. Another suggestion is consider buying a reproduction of a historical dagger. The Roman Pugio would be a good example as it already comes with content. The Pugio was the dagger that was used to assassinate Caesar. And the Pugio has associations with the Roman gods. If one is working with the Egyptian gods, a sickle sword would be a good pick. And for the Greek gods, a Spatha, the Celtic gods,a dirk, and so on. Next "Fragment"shall be a change of subject. Blessed Be!!

Fragment 24

I want to continue the discussion of the two types of thinking. I thinking that a very brief historical perspective may help to make illustrate the difference between the two types of thinking. Magical thinking is humans' natural way to thinking. It is the thinking of the unconscious. The unconscious does not use Logical thinking. If there is any doubt, about this, all one has to do is observe their dreams. Humans became conscious by using Magical thinking. The ancient myths are proof of this. For early humans there were no voices in the head, instead the voices had an external source. There was no inside-outside (no subject-object) distinction. The Egregores were all identified with external sources. The voices of the Gods and Goddess were humans first conscious experience. The emotions , and feelings were given a voice. Literacy of course, accelerated the change to modern consciousness. The idea of Logical thinking first appeared with the figure of Ankenaten (c. 1335 B.C.), along with his dream of unifying everything into an all encompassing One. The Law on Non-contradiction first broke into consciousness. Although it had a long way to go. It was not until Parmenides that the Law of Non-contradiction achieved the form we know today. It should come as no surprise, that this is when polytheism started to decline, (remember Aten is a jealous God) and atheism was born. We know that both Plato and Aristotle argued for the use of reason. Which of course would not have been necessary if everyone was already using reason, This is also the time Occult or Hermetic philosophy began to appear. This was the very beginning of the split between exoteric and esoteric philosophy. The Stoics and were working on grammar, and logic; the exoteric philosophers. Hermetic philosophy was being developed in the mystery cults and schools. Christianity tried to heal this split, between mystics and Scholastics, but it seemed to only make things worse. I do not want to spend much time here on the ancient or medieval world. Maybe I shall tackle it in upcoming "Fragments". Human thinking is always a combination of both, but one side predominates when it comes to truth.The battle was on between Mgocal and Logical thinking. So now let us moI believe these six thinkers were the most important. Descartes, Spinoza, and Locke had already dismissed magical thinking in their philosophies, and only regarded Magical thinking as a source of errors. They regarded Magical thinking as superstition. The victory had already been won when they wrote. Calvin was the great foe of superstition, and thought society should be run by Logical thinking. Note, Logical thinking does not imply tolerance. Calvin is the archetype of the reformer in Western history. Make no mistake, all social reformers, activists, social justice warriors have Calvin as their ideal, whether they know it or not. Calvin's vision was of a Christian republic, composed of autonomous citizens. Yes, Calvin could have written the U.S. Constitution. Calvin realized education was the key to realizing his vision. To impose Logical thinking on young children. so much so, that they would think there is no other type of thinking. But, Calvin could not do everything. This is where Peter Ramus entes our story. Ramus was the great educational reformer. He succeeded so well, that we take his works for granted, and so they are seldom read anymore. When Ramus discovered that he and Calvin had the same vision, he converted from Catholicism to Calvinism. Ramus in his books draws up the blueprint on how to teach Logical thinking. With Ramus Logical thinking became compartmentalized thinking. All subjects are to have strong boundaries, and not be allowed to bleed into other subjects. Everything must be kept separate and distinct. In his writings Ramus is constantly warning about subjects bleeding into each other, This can still be observed in academia, where no one is allowed to interfere in another field of study. Every subject, and idea has to be sharply defined with rigid borders. In simple terms, the world was reduced to discrete bits of data, that are combined or classified by function and origin. All relations and definitions must be universalized, the only true knowledge is objective knowledge. Although like Calvin he does make exceptions for religion. As I said before Ramus's triumph was so great that no one reads his books today. His philosophy of education is taken as a given. Mersenne is a little different than the first two members of the triad. He is a cross between the gossip columnist that everyone reads, and the intellectual clearing house of the early 17rh, century. Mersenne was also a fierce advocate for Logical and compartmentalized thinking. Mersenne was a precursor of The " Royal Society." He corresponded with all the major thinkers, and most of the minor thinkers of his time. So when he launched his attack on Magical thinking everyone listened. Let us now turn to the other side of the dispute. Everyone knows the tragic story of Bruno, as a martyr, but few know that he was no martyr for science. Bruno was not burned at the stade because he held the Copernican theory of the Planetary system. Somehow the rumor got started that Bruno had something to do with astronomy, which he did not. Bruno was burned because of his Hermetic philosophy, not because of anything to do with astronomy. Bruno saw himself as a Hermetic messiah, that was going to unify Europe with a new Hermetic religion. Bruno was burned for heresy. not science. We must move along. Bohme is one of the greatest thinkers in history, and the first psychonaut in modern Western history. He voyaged deep into inner space, trying to put the scorched fragments of his psyche back together. He did not come back unscathed. Bohmw proposed a Magical system that is both a reformation of the Kabbalah and the Hermetic philosophy up to his time. A system of chains of correspondences held together in an emotional-informational nexus of his Source Spirits or natural properties. The first five of his Source Spirits are Egregores: the council in the head. Bohme states unequivocally that the only way to understand reality is through Magical thinking. He was also a fierce critic of Calvin, and Calvinism. He compares Calvin and his followers to logic chopping lawyers for the Devil. And now we come to our final champion of Magical thinking: Robert Fludd. The saga of Fludd is the decisive victory of Logical thinking in Western history. When Mersenne launched his attack on Magical thinking, Fludd was the target. It was Mersenne that landed the decisive blow against Magical thinking. Mersenne did not just argue Magical thinking was wrong, but that it was insane. And the world listened. From then on Magical thinking really did become Occult philosophy. Magical thinking was driven underground, and written out of the official history of ideas. This is not to say Occult philosophy, and practice disappeared, the tradition lives under the radar of the official education and history that is taught in academia. Breaking through during times of crisis; like today.

Fragment 23

A strange thing has happened to me, since I started writing the "Fragments" that being people are asking me for advice on magic. Most of the questions boil down to two questions: "Why is my Magic not working?" and "How can I feel closer to my God or Goddess?". There is an answer, probably not the answer that a lot of people are going to like, because it involves work. An analogy with chess should prove illustrative here. Most coffee house players , and club players want to get good enough to challenge Masters and Grandmasters. The problem being they are looking for an easy fix. So they read books on openings, and middle game tactics (Stock sacrifices and such). This will help some, but is not the answer, if one wants to become an elite player. To be in the upper echelons of chess, one must be able to calculate many moves in advance. This of course, involves hard work, much like doing math homework. This is why the great chess teacher. S.Tarrasch and the Russian school of chess start with the endgame. For most people there least favorite part of the game. The endgame is all calculation. Back to magic. The aspirant in magic has to change or develop a way of thinking. This is what J. Bohme calls magical thinking. So what is magical thinking? Humans use predominantly two types of thinking. I will call these types: logical thinking and magical thinking. (In my philosophical writings I refer to "magical thinking" as "mythological thinking". So what is the difference? The short answer is that Logical thinking depends on the Law of noncontradiction (Aten), it connects events, objects, etc. by origin and function. The second type of thinking (Magical thinking) which is also the older way of thinking connects events, objects, etc. by chains of correspondence. We of course use a mixture of the two types of thinking throughout our days. When we are involved in standardized activities such as: driving, working, taking tests, etc. we are using logical thinking. We follow rules that are universalized, and have clarity. Driving is a good example. The rules of the road are the same for everyone, and the connections are made by function. The function of driving is to get safely from one place to another. This is what determines the rules of driving, everything is objective. Biology would be another example, and also shows the contradiction in logical thinking. Animals can be grouped either by function or origin (genetic closeness); producing different sets of categories using the same animals or species depending on whether one used function or origin. So how does one decide which category to use? Well it all comes down to which one works for the goal one wants to achieve. It should be easy to see that Logical thinking depends on pragmatic thinking. The trouble is the pragmatic theory of truth is not logical. Objective thinking is supposed to lead to one absolute Truth. Not a contingent truth based on the goal of an individual. In simpler terms there is no one absolute Truth. Only truths based on the goals of an agent. This is not to say logical thinking is not useful, it is incredibly useful, but does not lead to Truth. The only reliable judge of theories and actions is whether they work.Both types of thinking are subject to the Pragmatic theory of truth. To reiterate the point one more time logical thinking is incredibly useful, but does not have any monopoly on truth. So let us move to Magical thinking. Magical thinking is connecting objects, people, places, events, etc. in chains of correspondences. Instead of using origin, and function to connect things, things are connected by emotional, and physical resemblances. This was the purpose of all those elaborate memory systems from the Renaissance, the Quabblah, Tarot, and Astrology, the system of wheels in Raymond Lull. As I said before in magical thinking things are classified and combined by physical and emotional resemblances. A quote from Aleister Crowley should make this clear:(from Letter F in "Magick without Tears": As I walked about, I made a point of attributing everything I saw to its appropriate idea. I would walk out of the door of my house and reflect that the door is Daleth, and the house Beth; now the word "dob" is Hebrew for "bear", and has the number 6, which refers to the Sun. Then you come to the fence of your property and that is Ceth-number 8, number of Tarot trumps 7, which is the Chariot, so you begin to look about for your car. Then you come to the street and the first house you see is number 86 and that Elohim, and is built of red brick which reminds you of Mars and the Blasted Tower, and so on. As soon as this sort of work which can be done in a quite light hearted spirit, becomes habitual, you will find your mind running naturally in this direction, and will be surprised at your progress. Never let your mind wander from the fact that your Quabalah is not my Quabalah: a good many things which I have noted may be useful to you, but you must construct your own system so that it is a living weapon in your hand." The above quote should clear up what it is to think Magically. I know the next question is "Why does it work?" To be successful one must have both content and visualization. Magical thinking develops these talents. like calculation improves one's chess. I must explain what I mean by content. F. H. Bradley, one of the most subtle thinkers in history, drew a distinction between content and clarity. Logical thinking has clarity; to achieve clarity one must get rid of content. In other words when ideas have strong borderline qualities they keep the thing thought about discrete.(Strong separation of ideas) For Logical thinking knowledge is a series of discrete data. Mathematics is a perfect example. Numbers have almost no content. This is why they can be applied to almost anything.,making math so useful. On the other hand, content is identified with emotion; remember physical and emotional resemblences. These physical and emotional resemblences shoul come together in long chains of correspondences. There should have been no problem in observing this in the above quote from Crowley. Logecal thinking is a search for clearly defined discreet ideas. One should have no problem recognizing this in Descartes' and Spinoza's search for adequate ideas. (For those interested Descartes makes this very clear in "The Objections and Replys") Relation and identification of ideas with emotions is Magical thinking. One sacrifices clarity for content. This type of thinking gives one the feeling and emotional commitment that is needed to practice Magic. In Magic one must feel an object or event, not just know it. This is why women have an initial advantage in Magic; , probably explains why there are so many witches. As Novalis said: "Women demand the intellectual be sensualized, Men demand the sensual be intellectualized." I will offer some advice that can safely be disregarded; start with one system and build on it before adding more. Build on it as you feel ready, don't overwhelm yourself. And you will find like the chess player that learns to calculate your Magic shall get better. To use the chess analogy one more time learn how to calculate 3 moves ahead before trying 10. Next "Fragment I shall continue to examine the two types of thinking.