Science and Magick "Everything we don't understand is magic, until we understand it. Until we understand it, and master it." -- Peter Cushing as Baron Frankenstein in 'Frankenstein Created Woman'.
Blogs are dead? I've heard a number of times that "blogs are dead," and "nobody reads them." First of all, who ever said that quantity is always the desired result? Someone may only be attempting to reach a very specific audience. This blog has received 81,293 page views. Recently on Red Ice Radio, Stephen McNallen said in regards to the constant urging by the mainstream--to him or any of us--to read some celebrity "tweat." He said that he doesn't know them, care about them, and probably wouldn't even like them... and vice-versa. If you think about it, are they even remotely part of your community? Perhaps someone who has a blog for the expressed purpose of their own "fandom"... those blogs may be dead. However, just the idea that someone thinks that quantity is better than quality says something just in of itself. I remember some years ago when "Ysabella Brave" was one of the new stars of YouTube, and she had all of this fame including a record contract. Then she became ill, had most of her videos pulled by YouTube for copyright infringement, and couldn't take advantage of her record deal... most of her "fans" forgot about her overnight. There are still many people who aren't very interested in hipsters, fads, and fleeting things. I recall Hengest of the Odinic Rite saying "fast food, fast values." I think we all need to search ourselves in order to find our true self. Most people even censor their own thoughts, in their own mind! Whose approval are you really seeking? We need to look at our own behavior. Is this who we really are? If you asked me if I think it's strange to see a line of middle aged men seeking the autograph of a star college athlete... yeah I think that's strange.
Childhood's End With a mini-series based on the Arthur C. Clarke novel coming to Syfy next month, I remembered the strange quote at the beginning of the John Keel book 'The Mothman Prophecies'.... "There was no mistake. The leathery wings, the little horns, the barbed tail--all were there. The most terrible of all legends had come to life, out of the unknown past. Yet now it stood smiling, in ebon majesty, with the sunlight gleaming upon its tremendous body, and with a human child resting trustfully on either arm." -- Arthur C. Clarke, 'Childhood's End, 1953
"A Christian country"... yes or no? Some people have it down that America's Founding Fathers were Christian fundamentalists who founded a "Christian Republic"; while others are totally convinced that they were actually Deists who only loosely adhered to a "God" at all. Unfortunately, there isn't a simple answer, and the closed-minded Hegelian determination of Christian fundamentalists and Atheists only add to the confusion. It is true that the country was to be Republic... a Democratic-Republic. Not a despotic pure-Republic, nor a totalitarian pure-Democracy. We can't even get that down pat, never mind the religious question. From its Puritanical roots, Christianity grew powerful in America after the Founding Fathers were gone. For example, the Scottish and Scotch-Irish origin of the Bible Belt was different than that of the English Puritans. They may have both been Protestants and Americans, but their journey was different. The Founding Fathers did seem to have been mostly Deists, who realized the importance of the concept of "freedom of religion." The concept of American colonists with a musket in one hand and a Bible in the other is at least partly fiction I think; although it was probably more-or-less true during the nineteenth century. The Treaty of Tripoli was a 1796 treaty between the United States of America and the Ottoman-ruled Tripolitania along the North African coast. It was in regards to the piracy of American trading vessels in the Mediterranean Sea. The legal formation of the USA occurred during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, therefore the government of 1796 would have had a very clear idea of what the intent of this Republic really was all about. Probably in an effort to diffuse any religious tension, the following words were put within this treaty from the American side.... "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
I wouldn't hang my hat on that quote with absolutism, but it is pretty clear. It probably said more about "separation of church and state" than about the general culture of the USA. However, it is very strong evidence against the idea of a "Christian Republic." The word "God" doesn't appear in the Constitution. My guess is that the Founding Fathers wouldn't recognize Christian fundamentalism, cultural Marxism, monopoly Capitalism, radical Atheism, the military-industrial complex, Globalism, the United Nations, treaties overriding American laws and sovereignty, or any foreign entanglements as having anything to do with freedom or a Democratic Republic from the standpoint of their collective intent. When willful movements with monetary backing grow, so does their imagination of who and what they are. They alter history as it suits them.
Adopt a forest I've brought up this idea in different forms, but to finally be more explicit, a small group of people (family, clan, or coven) could just adopt an open area near them as a sacred place. A location of spiritual centering. A hub where you can serve as part-caretakers of the land and animals. One time at one of the gated openings to one such location, I saw where someone had broken some beer bottles. Green glass was everywhere. The next morning I came back with latex gloves, a small shovel, and a bucket. I spent about an hour cleaning up the mess. Thankfully, it didn't happen again. If I had just left it, then it would have eventually been stomped and kicked into the soil. Almost always, people who hike the trails are good about not dropping garbage. Actually, hikers at large are among the better class of people period. The cool crisp air of November really suits me. The days tend to have a dark shadowy tint to them, whether dark and cloudy.. or even sunny. The nights are clearer, darker, and with more stars visible. I love that I live near a sizable county park. Just last night I could hear coyotes howling again as I gazed out the open window... into the wonderful black abyss.. .
In Alchemy - Sacred Secrets Revealed we take an in-depth look at this most Sacred Science, what are some of the myths, and how it relates to consciousness and spirituality. Alchemy has been shrouded in mystery and kept out of new adepts hands by secret societies, hermetic and fraternal orders for centuries.
Hermeticism Hermeticism,
also called Hermetism, is a religious and philosophical tradition based
primarily upon writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus ("Thrice
Great"). These writings have greatly influenced the Western esoteric
tradition and were considered to be of great importance during both the
Renaissance and the Reformation. The tradition claims descent from a
prisca theologia, a doctrine which affirms that a single, true theology
exists which is present in all religions and was given by God to man in
antiquity.
Greek God Hermes
Hermetica (including Corpus Hermeticum) The
Hermetica are Egyptian-Greek wisdom texts from the 2nd and 3rd
centuries CE, which are mostly presented as dialogues in which a
teacher, generally identified as Hermes Trismegistus ("thrice-greatest
Hermes"), enlightens a disciple. The texts form the basis of
Hermeticism. They discuss the divine, the cosmos, mind, and nature. Some
touch upon alchemy, astrology, and related concepts.
Alchemy Alchemy
is an influential tradition whose practitioners have, from antiquity,
claimed it to be the precursor to profound powers. The defining
objectives of alchemy are varied but historically have typically
included one or more of the following goals: the creation of the fabled
philosopher's stone; the ability to transmute base metals into the noble
metals (gold or silver); and development of an elixir of life, which
would confer youth and longevity.
Hermes Trismegistus Hermes
Trismegistus ("thrice-greatest Hermes"; Latin: Mercurius ter Maximus)
is the purported author of the Hermetic Corpus, a series of sacred texts
that are the basis of Hermeticism.
Hermeticism and Alchemy
Alchemy is one of three areas of wisdom within Hermeticism (along with Astrology and Theurgy). The misused concept of Medieval Alchemists as having “turned lead into gold” has become a type of quick belittling stereotype. Even Wikipedia plays that angle, or someone like the physicist Michio Kaku who admits that "the noble pursuit of science has humble origins" based on the quick and intellectually lazy perception of "lead to gold"... despite clear evidence to the contrary!
Just for the record, it has been demonstrated that lead can literally be turned into gold; however, it far too expensive and time consuming to be practical. In reality, this concept was merely an allegory for the transformation of the spirit; the “Alchemical marriage” (“Philosopher’s Stone”) in which the sacred feminine and the sacred masculine in all of us can be united in spirit. The spiritual unity of this ever-present “duality” as the perfect spiritual union of the soul; achieving pure balance and harmony.
Allegoric “lead to gold” (from the above video) In Alchemy, we have a very sacred science for bringing the lead of an undeveloped consciousness up to the level of a fully developed consciousness of gold. Magnificent and incorruptable.
Alchemical marriage
When you make the two into one, and make the outer like the inner. and the inner like the outer, and the upper like the lower, and when you make the male and the female a single one. Than you may enter. --From the lost gospel of Thomas
Quick facts and observations Alchemy apparently is mostly drawn from ancient Egyptian culture and spirituality, and as they had later contact with the ancient Greeks. The larger spiritual tradition of Hermeticism arose later within Greek culture; named after the author of the ‘Hermetic Corpus’ Hermes Trismegistus, who himself was named or nicknamed after the Greek god Hermes.
A list of historical Alchemists shows that this spiritual tradition spread as far as China, India, and the Islamic world, and certainly throughout Europe during the Middle Ages. Famous Alchemists range from Pythagorus to Fibonacci and Giordano Bruno to Isaac Newton and Carl Jung. I don’t know about Islam, which at times was very open to new scientific ideas, but Alchemists were persecuted by the Church in Europe. Giordano Bruno was literally burned to death for the crime of stating that the stars in the sky may each be individual “suns.”
Alchemy recognizes a complex “Tree of Life,” which is present in many spiritual traditions. I think the Tree of Life from the Hebrew Kabbalah has an Alchemical origin; however, It think that other traditions mostly developed on their own. In Alchemy, we are not humans having a spiritual experience, but spirits having a human experience.
I wonder if certain spiritual concepts which I recognized, originated from the pre-Olympian Greek/European pagan traditions? For example, the concept of “as above, so below,” or the Alchemical concept of a male Sun god and female Moon goddess (red king and white queen, Sol and Luna), and the recognition of “the five elements” (Earth, Air, Fire, Water, and Spirit).
The ancient drug DMT was used in ancient Egypt as a method of opening up the “Third Eye,” which is the pineal gland at the base of the brain. David Wilcock referred to the pineal gland as our “built in stargate.”
From Deus Ex McKenna ~ Terence McKenna Archive YouTube channel and recorded during a 1992 Workshop in New York. WOW! Just.... WOW! --DisplayName, YouTube user I thought that the first hour or so of this lecture was dynamite. Then he started showing signs of his own flirtation with part of mainstream politics and quirks revolving around drug use. However, I think that if many dogmatic, despotic, mind-is-made-up, judgement-before-fact Atheists and Christians were forced to intellectualize about the information in the first hour, they were have much to answer for. Lecture transcript (an excellent reference) http://alchemicalarchives.blogspot.com/
"The Earth is round" in the 2nd century? “Would
were it possible for you to grow wings and soar into the air, poised
between earth and heaven, you may see the solid earth, the fluid sea,
the streaming rivers, the wandering air, the penetrating fire, the
courses of the stars and the swiftness with the movement heaven
encompasses all. What happiness were that my son, to see all these born
along with one impulse and to behold him who is unmoved, moving in all
that moves, and him who is hidden, made manifest through his works.” --From the 'Hermetic Corpus' (Book of 'Asclepius') Highly
poetic celebration of nature without sin, rings with confidence joy.
Glories in the exercise of the mind, not doctrinal, not pietistic,
magical, expansive." --Terence McKenna Alchemy and Superstition People
think that the further back in time, the more superstitious people are,
but this isn’t the case. 10-12th century were periods of piety and
intellectual cohesion. They stamped out paganism. That stuff came in the
16th century. Alchemy, conjuration, talismanic magic, sympathetic
magic, all of this flourished not as throwback but as a prelude to
modern science. --Terence McKenna
Terence McKenna Terence
Kemp McKenna (November 16, 1946 – April 3, 2000) was an American
philosopher, psychonaut, ethnobotanist, lecturer, and author. He spoke
and wrote about a variety of subjects, including psychedelic drugs,
plant-based entheogens, shamanism, metaphysics, alchemy, language,
culture, technology, and the theoretical origins of human consciousness.
Exposing the elusive "shame on you, MY mind is already made up" Atheist mindset
One comment under the YouTube video 'Findings of Unusual Human Remains' by YouTube user WachdByBigBrother, gave a pretty good account of the rush-to-judgement that many people have when presented with anything which refuses the mainstream view:
"No other theories allowed." There may be resistance. In the end, as the evidence overwhelm the skeptics, the theory is backed. Continental drift is a classic example. Rock types, their ages, the same matching layers and their magnetic fields matched all the way across the ocean. The outline of the fissures on the bottom of the ocean. Sensitive measuring equipment that can measure the speed of the subsidence etc. All that took time to collect. Sometimes new technology was needed. In fact, scientists and laymen resist change. That doesn't win in the long run.
Same with archeology. Amazingly, measuring isotopes in the teeth can narrow exactly where the person grew up. This helped greatly in locating where the ice man came from and where he travelled. And genetics has located Neanderthal DNA in a small percentage of the population. Even tracking the dispersal of man can be done vs the dating of findings and it's DNA.
Heck, other scientists resisted the discovery that 80% of ulcers are caused by a bacteria. He was derided for years. Truth and victory won in the end. He infected himself so he got very sick then cured himself. He won the Nobel Prize for medicine while bitter competitors and detractors claimed they ignored the discovery for so long because the Nobel Prize winner was an obnoxious person. I think we can pretty much surmise that the scientist became more and more adamant since what he had discovered was important beyond the others' pettiness. The information won in the end despite human foibles.
Same thing is happening with the new discoveries of Europeans in the Americas. There's all sorts of racist knee jerking. Some political based I'm sure. In the end, facts will sort all that out in the end same as before. Interestingly, American Indians have some of that european DNA in their blood so, amazingly, the two groups, entering on each side of the continent ended up meeting and mixing.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is condemnation before investigation." --Edmund Spencer
Abrahamic religions worked like termites for centuries, eating up every spiritual tradition they could, which were based on the Earth, science, metaphysics, and ancient technology... severely retarding development in every area of human endeavor, including the metaphysical. I don’t include Judaism here because they don’t recruit, proselytize, form missionaries, or expand; nor is the religion universalist.
Now, Atheists have burst upon the scene and have quietly made five amazing declarations which for some reason are not part of the public debate.
1) That those traditions, some of which fought the Christians and Muslims in bloody wars, and fought the good fight, are to be placed in the same category as Abrahamic religion.
2) That Metaphysical Science shall not be considered, nor even studied at all. They have a vested interest in that. 3) That "Science" is one single entity, with no political or ideological subdivisions within it. It’s just “one-thing, which makes it so much easier to lay claim to.. like an ugly man who wants to marry a beautiful woman. This is probably the most abhorrent and intellectually dishonest of all.
4) That cultures, over the course of history, do not have any tie-in to spiritual manifestations. Of course, Atheists don't have the burden of defending any "culture"… because they aren't a culture. In fact, they are the only demographic dealing with these issues which does not have any culture of its own. Most Atheists grew up in soft environments and never had to defend or fight for anything. It's ironic that they believe in evolution, yet so many are the result of anti-evolutionary struggle.
5) That all Atheists are "smart." I would guess that at least one-third are average to low-IQ brats who simply don't want to be told what to do, which is fine except that the "brat mentality" has become a dogma and may be why they latched onto Atheism in the first place.
They’re angry at Christianity, so it’s all too easy to lump it in with Islam (or any other spiritual pursuit which they perceive “may tell them what to do"), and just call it all “religion”; and Atheism, under the respectable cloak of “Science,” becomes their champion. It’s all very poorly thought out. An Atheist has dogma, a Free Thinker does not. A “principle” is a value; while “dogma” is a road block. Therefore a person can possess principles, and not dogma.
A Free Thinker can just do what is pragmatic, without any special permission or any need to deal with psychological red tape. This may not all be exactly black-and-white, but an Atheist is not a Free Thinker. .
[8-26-14: I should have mentioned before that the above video is a Polytheists reaction to an Atheist (Richard Dawkins). A point of view which I haven't seen a lot of; from YouTuber OtherGonzo.]
You may have seen them, perhaps on YouTube. Bill Maher, the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Matt Dillahunty, the late George Carlin, "the Amazing Atheist," and others. They seem to have it all figured out, “religion is the problem with the world.” They have an answer for everything. “Christianity is immoral,” “Mother Theresa did more harm than good," etc.; they’ve obviously done a lot of thinking. Denouncing all religion as make-believe, they proclaim that they are “of science,” and that it’s time for mankind to let go of all fairy tales and progress as a species into the future... into "the age of reason." But is it really all just that simple? First off, if the powers-that-be wanted to put the screw to them, they could be marginalized overnight. Therefore they certainly have some degree of system approval. In other words, they are politically-correct. That fact doesn’t intrinsically ruin their argument, but it should at least diminish the smugness of a Sam Harris… who really gets a kick out’ve himself as he bucks the system with his brand of wit, humor, and intellect. In reality, he or Bill Maher are not “bucking the system.” Atheism, if not popular, is system approved… and becoming more so all the time. Because of this approval, they are on the rise. Without this approval, they would be just another small faint marginalized voice trying to be heard, no matter how right or wrong they may be. Atheists often declare that they are “of science.” What science? That’s like someone saying that they are “of religion,” “of politics,” or “of economics.” Because I have not yet heard them clarify this point, I must assume that they are “of mainstream Western science.” The “science” that—upon discovering fossils, ruins, and artifacts which cannot be placed into their established doctrines—hides them away in secret warehouses so nobody can see them. Hidden away by ego-driven careerists so they don’t have to admit that they were wrong all along. At least closed-minded religious zealots don’t hide evidence as a matter of policy!
Is an archeological dig all that different from a crime scene? In both, evidence must be carefully gathered and sifted through to find the truth. The one big difference is that in a crime scene, someone can be arrested and indicted for being caught hiding evidence! In mainstream Western science, however, this practice is considered okay. On top of this undefined “of science” logic problem for Atheists, they do ignore evidence as we will see. In this regard, Sam Harris has a lot in common with John Hagee. Atheists seem to judge all religions or spiritual traditions upon the “Abrahamic standard.” In other words, they’re angry at Christians and Muslims, and they help mask over it by attacking every religion or spiritual tradition in the world. Abrahamic religions are not Earth-based—not “of the world”--and don’t share the scientific compatibility that most Earth-based spiritual traditions do. When Matt Dillahunty wants to express his anger for his father for cutting off all ties with him for not being a Christian… part of that expression is to attack Buddhists. Isn’t there just something inherently wrong about that? To me, that’s even worse than what his father did to him! If these people are “of science,” why do they punish (belittle, mock, humiliate, etc.) ancient spiritual traditions which are highly compatible with “scientific progress?” In fact, these traditions have helped advance it over the ages. Isn’t there something illogical—dare I say evil--about attacking someone who is part of the apparent dynamic that you proclaim to be a proponent of? “Atheism” is often not only a word for people who are “not Theist,” but it can be a cold, blunt, and bloodless way of viewing the world... or science… because the real truth is that we most often don’t know the secrets of the universe! Matt Dillahunty seems to generally be a nicer person than John Hagee, who I just saw on TV the other day standing on top of a building in Jerusalem proclaiming that the Chinese army will be invading Israel from the east in a couple of years in the Battle of Armageddon, etc., etc. However, even Hagee doesn’t resort to the foul-mouthed displays which Dillahunty conducts when he’s frustrated with someone who disagrees with him. Just for the record, Chuck Missler and Michael Newdow are two examples of a Christian and Atheist who are very reasonable. Also, just for the record, the YouTube Atheist "Cult of Dusty" makes some good arguments; however, he would be much more effective if every other word out've his mouth wasn't a four-letter word. Clearly the positive trend of using "alternative f-words" instead of THE F-word hasn't reached him yet. Another problem is that for some peoples around the world, their religion or spiritual tradition IS their culture! I know, that’s a gray area sometimes, but many times they are of a benevolent and folk-based nature. What is “the culture” of Atheists? Ever hear of “Atheist music?” I know, that can also be a gray area, and perhaps we can all at least agree that Atheism is not“a culture.” Still, that brings up another problem… a non-culture attacking a culture? Even with Christianity and Islam aside, the non-culture of Atheism attacking people who actually have a culture… doesn’t that strike you as something based in jealousy? If not, why don’t they only focus on those who actually condemn them? Perhaps if they actually had "a culture" of their own, they might not have so much time on their hands to attack others so much? How can a non-culture have get-togethers? A non-demograhic demographic? As I have stated in other posts, the true purpose of the coming Christian vs. Atheist conflict in our society, is to prevent the scientific study of Metaphysics. There is a Mount Everest of proof of a Metaphysical world! It can be measured, recorded, and tied to clear patterns using scientific method. Personally, I am infinitely more impressed with the American Society for Psychical Research than I am for the Freedom from Religion Foundation. In reality, one conducts non-biased research of Metaphysical science; and the other has an absolute vested interest in opposing any study of this most important science… even though they claim to be “of science.” How can anyone be “of science” if they’re opposing the mere study of a particular branch of science for political purposes? That's intellectual dishonesty as well. Matt Dillahunty likes to say to Christians, “the burden of proof is on you,” yet why don’t Atheists actually look at the huge amount of metaphysical evidence rather than giggle at Christian mythology? No evidence!? Where have you been!!??
Most spiritual traditions don’t operate anything like “organized religion,” yet Atheists treat them the same as the massive Christian or Muslim movements around the world. I would have much more respect for any folk-tradition—dare I say true-diversity—than I do for monocultural organizations like the Atheistic Universal Life Church, which opposes true-diversity. Atheists, like many Christians and Muslims, oppose any true-diversity. A few well-known scientists have given their name to Atheism in recent years. However, virtually none of those individuals ever actually invented anything. They are what I would consider people who have great memorizational ability, but not truly great minds. They’re the types of people who literally hide away archeology in storage rooms because it doesn’t fit their established model of the world… and then call that “science.” Religion is not “the problem with the world.” The cause and effect from the symbiotic-relationship between closed-minded religion and closed-minded science is really the problem. Metaphysical science should be studied without any prejudice—from Deist, Theist, or Atheist—in all scientific, corporate, and academic institutions. Consciously or unconsciously, “organized religion vs. Atheism” is the Hegelian dialect construct which is blocking the advancement of the human species. **************************************************
8-26-14 ADDITION - Recently I left a comment in response to an Atheist to a Christopher Hitchens video which I wanted to add here:
Perhaps a welcome "slant" to counterbalance the slant that we get the
other 99.7% of the time. A "slant" nevertheless. He said a few things
which were not true. He stated at the end that "all religions" placed
shame upon sexuality. Stunningly, wildly, breathtakingly untrue.
Abrahamic religion has spent the last two thousand years stamping out
every earth and fertility based native spiritual tradition.... and now
as an added bonus for centuries of mass murder and genocide, the victims
are expected to be judged by Abrahamic principles? "Abrahamic religion
vs. Atheism" is a Hegelian dialectic by which both sides play as
"thesis" against "antithesis." They're not opposites, but opposames...
both at war with free thought.. and opposing even the mere study of
metaphysical science while at the same time falsely claiming to embrace
science. Atheism is not free thought! A true free thinker is a complex
thinker who continuously listens to all evidence and continuously
integrates new knowledge from all sources without prejudice. Atheists
have a vested interest (aka "DOGMA") to silencing anything to do with
metaphysics. That is absolutely NOT free-thought.
