Occult And Sanctioned Reality

Occult and Sanctioned Reality

Since the enlightenment, supernatural or indeed, spiritual belief has been attacked as nebulous superstitions propagated by irrationality. Philosophers of the time looked at supernatural belief as something to be discarded in favor of reason and logic. This attitude prevails even today as mainstream academia and science strive for secular supremacy in modern culture. Hufford makes this point when he states that “the conventional view assumes that there is no distinctively “spiritual” set of experiences, that there are, rather spiritual interpretations of ordinary experiences that vie with secular interpretations of the same things” (27). By this viewpoint, one person’s demonic attack is another’s undiagnosed ‘night terror’ and so on. Although this view is persuasive, if doesn’t work in reference to the occult because the occult actively seeks to be part of the folk process. Unlike a UFO abduction narrative or an Old Hag attack, the occult practitioner willfully uses his belief to shape the experience. That’s not to say that somebody who wakes up aboard an alien craft or paralyzed by a ghostly hag doesn’t draw upon belief to interpret their experiences, only that the occultists uses belief to sanction his chosen interpretation of the experience.

Another way in which occult-lore differs from other forms of supernatural narratives is in the legitimacy granted to it by consensus reality. Unlike a ghostly haunting or UFO abduction, society at large believes in the power of the occult. And always has. Whether it be the fear of diabolic ritualization or abduction of our children, the occult is accepted as a tangible or at least feasible institution. Often times, supernatural elements of the occult are set aside and the belief in brainwashing misguided or marginalized members of society becomes a catalyst for rumor panic. For those who believe in the magic and mysticism of the occult, rationalization of their belief parallels that of the church. Belief in the occult is analogous to belief in the power of prayer, holy relics, or communion. Although the occult is largely tabooed belief, it negotiates the same beliefs as any religious institution. Because of this, faith in the occult is no different in principle than faith in Pentecostal snake-handling or charismatic Christian revivals.

            

In fact, the snake-handling practices of southern Appalachia is so similar to supernatural experience that the two are intrinsically connected. For example, when author Dennis Covington asked a member of ‘The Church of Jesus with Signs Following’:

           

“What’s it like to take up a serpent?”

“It’s hard to explain,” Uncle Ully had said. “You’re in a prayerful state. You can’t have your mind on other things. The spirit tells you what to do.”

“But why do people get bit?”

He thought about it a minute. “In that situation, somebody must have misjudged the spirit.”

This misjudging of the spirit is no different in principle than the occult belief of misjudging a demonic entity. Both negotiate the supernatural and make use of folk belief to interpret the experience. Also, consensus reality accepts that there are dangers associated with both experiences. Although the snakes are a very real, physical danger to the handler, the occult ritual carries the threat of psychological manipulation or damage.

            

By assigning the modern occultist the designation of ‘folk’, we reaffirm the need to take into consideration the actions and ritualization of the occult as part of the academic mainstream. Occultists are held together by their similarity in narratives and in their performance. Occult-lore also makes use of traditional folkloric forms in its commercialization and dissemination. When we read of modern demonic invocations, we are implicitly reminded of ancient Egyptian, Grecian, and Roman motifs. As survivals from the past, these rituals have adapted to fit the needs of modern belief. The occult is the agent provocateur of past mythos and ritual. In it lays the secrecy and mysticism of symbols long thought dead. As a cabal of supernatural thought, the occult folklorist protects the mirth and magic of ancient mysteries only to find their symbolic and psychological correspondences in everyday experiences. It is these perceptions of belief that make the study of occult-lore viable for academia. The narratives are simultaneously informative and entertaining.     

Pre-Islam, ISIS and Idolatry: A Mimetic Rivalry

Pre-Islam, ISIS and Idolatry: A Mimetic Rivalry by Jack Vates

“You sat that a good cause makes a good war, but I say that a good war makes a good cause.” Nietzsche-Zarathustra

It’s not often that current events demand a response from occult milieus. Sure, we get the occasional Satanic Church espousing a Black Mass in Oklahoma. Or there’s always a possession just waiting to happen in the ranks of the West Baptist Church. These things happen. But rarely do what we see in the News pertain directly to the trajectory of occult thought. This has happened just recently with the advent of the terrorist group ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Modern media is quick to blame Islam for actions of the arguably secular group known as ISIS. That’s not to say there are no socio-religious nuances in ISIS but perhaps it’s not Islam that’s being invoked. As a matter of fact, the actions of this group seem more aligned with a pre-Islamic pantheon still practiced in large areas by indigenous peoples. As Emile Savage-Smith remarked, “this assumption of the existence of evil beings including a pantheon of demons, was inherited from pre-Islamic societies as were many of the methods of counteracting them”.[1] Entities such as Jinn and other tribal spirits are very much ontologically relevant to this day by groups of Iraqis and Syrians. It is these beliefs that ISIS has sought to manipulate in their onslaught.

It’s important to know that Muslims accept the existence of demons such as Jinn as part of their faith. In fact, Muhammad shared his contemporaries’ beliefs concerning Jinn and integrated them into the Koran without qualms insofar as they did not endanger God’s uniqueness.[2] So what are these demonic entities known to Islam and still interacted with or ritualized in modern times? According to Wellhausen, “while the Jinn are not made of flesh and blood but are mysterious and generally invisible, they are, in some way, physical beings”.[3] Jinn can eat, drink, marry and even be killed. They are in some way corporeal and on the same ontological level as humanity. Is it so hard to believe that ISIS may be attempting to re-embody this entity in their exploits?

Although this may seem like the ranting of a paranoid occultist, the evidence comes from ISIS themselves. Sacrifices are not unheard of in areas that ISIS inhabits. Sacrifices to spirits are most important, and are still found, sometimes very clearly, sometimes only in a weakened form.[4] No clearer example of ritual sacrifice can be found than what has happened in the past few weeks concerning two American journalists and a British aid worker. For those of us who watched these videos, it was clear that what was occurring was a ritual. Think about it. Each murder was filmed in the exact way by probably the same murderer. The backdrop was identical as was the process of the killing. After all, a simple beheading could be accomplished without the exactness of the event. No, what occurred was ritual. It was a ritualized beheading. Whether this was a deliberate invocation to a pre-Islamic entity or way of embodying the Jinn as a way of securing Mana, either way is certainly un-Islamic. The local Iraqi and Syrian population know this. This is the reason for local parodies and dissent by large groups in the area. These people inherently know that something is very awry with how ISIS is attempting to gain political power. And perhaps the ISIS goal of performing horrifying atrocities is to enrage the U.S. so that the Western powers will invade Syria and finally remove Assad from power. Then ISIS can claim ‘moderate’, and instill their own chosen leader in power. In essence, let the U.S. do the work for them and still accomplish their bid for control. In either case, what they are perpetuating is a form of idolatry.

And this is only the proverbial tip of the idolatry iceberg in regards to ISIS. Rene Girard’s idea on sacred violence and mimesis lends itself perfectly to the action of this terrorist group.[5] In Girard’s theory, all desire in mimetic. In other words, desire and mimicry of another’s prestige or goods go hand in hand. Because of this, all conflict originates in a mimetic rivalry. The other person is the model or mediator between what is desired and the status quo. In the case of ISIS, they desire the prestige, power, and respect that come with ‘statehood’. They desire the recognition of ontological relevancy and yearn to be accepted. Through the object (statehood), they are drawn to the mediator (The Western World). They want to mimic the West’s success as a powerful socio-political and religious entity and project superhuman virtues while depreciating themselves.

This is made perfectly clear in their ritual sacrifice of American and British citizens. In their desire for statehood, they are aroused by the mediator and it’s not long before that desire is perverted or re-located into hatred. Elimination of the mediator by beheading appeased the group. But again it’s the mediator (sacrificial victim) that is responsible for renewed peace within the group. He becomes sacred. As Hamerton-Kelly remarks, the “state of a mimetic rivalry is the pathology of a “deviated transcendence”, of a desire that should be aroused from a truly transcendent spiritual source but instead is aroused by the immanent neighbor. The biblical name for this is idolatry”.[6] The bondage of sin is where the idolater falls in their perversion of mimesis. This is how ISIS fell by making beheading a ritual sacrifice. They became idolaters in the eyes of Islam and criminals in the eyes of the world. No longer relevant to Islam, they cannot claim Muhammad as progenitor. At best, they are attempting a pre-Islamic interaction with Jinn, and at worst they are a purely secular and petty gang of idolaters. They can take their pick.

---

[1] Magic and Divination in Early Islam. Ed. By Emile Savage-Smith. Ashgate Variorum. 2004. Burlington. Xvii.

[2] Ibid. Pg 40. See Surat al-Ahqaf 4b vs 28-31; Suarat al-Jinn 72 vs 1-19- Muhammad even preached to the jinn.

[3] Wellhausen, Reste arabischen Heidentums. 148-49.

[4] Belief in Spirits Among The Pre-Islamic Arabs. Joseph Henningen. In Magic and Divination in Early Islam. pp. 21.

[5] See Sacred Violence by Robert G. Hamerton-Kelly. Fortress Press. Minneapolis. 1992. –For a detailed analysis of Girard’s thought..

[6] Ibid pp. 21.

Imagery and the Occult: Sandman as Articulation of Occult Agency.

Imagery and the Occult: Sandman as Articulation of Occult Agency. by Jack Vates

“For the paths are long, and even in death there is no ending to them.” – Sandman #21

It’s not farfetched to assert that imagery is the most important aspect of occult representation.  Art and iconography have always been an essential way to re-present the occult in pictorial form. In fact, modern occult art is a living enterprise designed for inter-action. It is meant to remain anew. However, it can only remain new by being continually re-interpreted, re-translated, and re-conditioned to meet current needs. This idea presupposes the assertion that the occult is a socio-religious network of correspondences and associative artifacts. Like any religious group, the occult is in negotiation with the numinous. This appeal for the sacred to remain anew isn’t exactly a “new” concept. Bruno Latour has done extensive work on articulating religious speech in modern times. (See Latour- “Thou Shalt Not Take The Lord’s Name In Vain”: Being a Sort of Sermon on the Hesitations of Religious Speech. 2001.) However, the occult is even more in need of a continual testing of conceptual re-applicability because it is completely entwined with all areas of popular culture. Sure, religion has important connections to the media, internet, and society but still can afford a demarcation that allows it exclusivity among cultural milieus. The occult could use the same invisible boundary between profane and sacred but chooses not to. The occult is the product of everything from myth and folklore to religious ideology to Goth horror and the sexual revolution of the 1960s. And it has been continually made anew to meet the spiritual needs of adherents. The occult of 2014  is different from the occult of 1960 which is different still from the occult of 1904. In some cases, there is barely a resemblance. Thank every god and goddess in every pantheon for that! In its continual re-definition, the occult enjoys constant epistemic relocation. In other words, what gives it meaning is in constant flux. It moves according to where it is needed and where it can remain a fresh archetypal model.

A good way to explore this concept of epistemic relocation is in the Sandman comic book. Written predominantly by Neil Gaimon, Sandman is a comic that ran from 1988 until 1996. The narratives showcase an atypical comic hero. Sandman doesn’t solve crimes or foil capers. He is the incarnation of dreaming and his power comes from the dream world. Gaimon reasoned that, “If there was a being who embodied dreaming, he would not be alone, but would be joined by other supernaturals who would represent the diversity of human conditions…his pantheon would include Dream and his six siblings: Death, Destruction, Destiny, Desire, Delirium, and Despair” (Stephen Weiner 2004). The story arc of Sandman issues 20-25 asks: What if the Lord of the Dreamworld entered Hell to release a lost soul? In the narrative, Dream informs Lucifer that he will require a parley for the soul of a loved one. He ventures into the void just to discover that his beloved is no longer there and that Lucifer has quit as overseer of Hell. There begins the action that encompasses Bible mythos, dreaming, demonology, and an intertwining of mythological and archetypal associations. The plot turn occurs when a host of deities and demons come to claim the real estate that was once Hell. Everybody from Odin and Loki to Choronzon and Azazel arrive in the Dream to make an argument for ownership. The occult connotations are rampant! As is the cross-pollination of religious, mystical, and mythological personas forming a clear network of mediators all serving to re-present or present anew occult thoughts and processes.

Art and iconography are an integral aspect of occult representation. The career of an occult symbol depends very much on its trajectory as provocateur of meaning. Because it will change. All symbols are born, grow, and are replaced as their need shifts in the network. In this way, each symbolic presentation is incommensurable from any of its past incarnations. They cannot be compared in any way because the entire network has changed. And these changes or shifts in occupation, do not occur gradually or in gradated steps but cataclysmically. Revolution occurs in which a symbol's previous meaning is usurped by a new agenda. An example can be found in 1624 Kotter etching that holds Rosicrucian connotations and motifs. Entitled 'Vision of a Lion with Angels and Roses', three angels sit reverently at a table with roses and a lion. The image of the lion is both a focal point and abstract symbol of the arcane. However, there is more. The form of the lion is an articulate of meaning. In other words, something is encoded or implicitly hidden in its shape. Obviously, the lion sits in the form of the Hebraic letter Alef. A rose-cross image that conceals subtle Judaic mysticism is certainly not surprising given the wealth of cultural traditions that influenced early Rosicrucianism. However, the “A ha!”- moment occurs when realizing the form of the lion is a sudden shift in the viewer's awareness. The image takes on a whole new meaning and cannot even be compared to its previous interpretation. Not because it is so much more profound or esoteric now but because the symbol has re-located. What the symbol means has moved with reference to Judaic mysticism. Now its network comprises of Rosicrucian allegory as well as Gematria.

We also see movement occurring in the Sandman 'Season of the Mists' story arc. Although Lucifer leaves and ultimately ends up on a beach thanking god for the beautiful sunset, Hell isn't left vacant for long. Dream holds a conference with all interested parties seeking to occupy the domain. Ultimately, God decrees that Hell must remain a contrast to Heaven because the latter is given definition by the former. Subsequently, the two observer angels that were charged with watching the conference proceedings are tasked with being the new rulers of Hell. Slowly, the demons and the damned file back into Hell to resume their previous roles. However, a depth of meaning is also achieved by Gaimon in the narrative. Whereas our etching is encoded with Judaic and Rosicrucian mysticism, Sandman explicitly explores the interactions of various pantheons. Gaimon asks: What if Azazel was allowed to mingle at a party with Thor and Fae folk? By allowing a network of various religious traditions to interconnect, Sandman has created a pluriverse of occult thought and illustrated the many locations where meaning can be found. For example, Dream could have given Hell to the Norse and Loki would now be sovereign ruler. Or, he could have bequeathed it to Choronzon and the demons would be running amok. The point being that the many possibilities is indicative of the various epistemological nuances that are implied in the narrative. Each of these possibilities are equally true and equally valid. As Goodman once remarked, "there is no one correct way of describing or picturing or perceiving the world, but rather that there are many equally right but conflicting ways-and thus, in effect, many actual worlds" (14). Although Goodman's Worldmaking goes well beyond comic book narratives, the principle remains the same: The trajectory of an occult symbol must include a re-locating of meaning as it moves from one world or world-version to another.

Magus Magazine: Tearing Asunder The Veil: Information Disseminatio...

Magus Magazine: Tearing Asunder The Veil: Information Disseminatio...:  Tearing Asunder The Veil: Information Dissemination In The Modern Age. By Preston Copeland “Our own Middle Age, it has been said, will...

Tearing Asunder The Veil: Information Dissemination In The Modern Age

 Tearing Asunder The Veil: Information Dissemination In The Modern Age. By Preston Copeland

“Our own Middle Age, it has been said, will be an age of “permanent transition”, for which new methods of adjustment will have to be employed…an immense work of bricolage, balanced among hope, nostalgia and despair.”  - Umberto Eco, “Living In The New Middle Ages.”

There is a secret that only a small percentage of modern society is privy to. It has been concealed from the public. Deliberately unsaid or unaddressed, this discretion has kept the multitude grossly uninformed. The occultists know what it is. They’ve been teaching this particular secret for thousands of years. It is the irony of the Modern Age that what is considered defunct, fringe or heretical is also one of the few platforms for uncovering this truth. Clues to the nature of this great secret lay in reality itself. In the narratives that shape our world-the interpretations of information and how it is disseminated, reality is sculpted. In effect, the world is “made” through knowledge exchange. The particular nuances of this worldmaking is lost on much of the public. They exist with a veil that covers up the true nature of reality. This secret may sound paranoid or an exaggeration but much of the world’s population is blissfully unaware of the mechanisms that shape their own reality. They are like the neophyte still existing in the darkness of the profane. The hope of this article is to initiate those ready to come to the fore. Our goal is to slip the veil off of our initiate and clear the cataract that clouds his version of reality.

INFORMATION IS A THREAT

Processing and distributing information has always been wrought with complications. Those that produce the interpretations of information have always had a preferred point of view based on socio-religious and political associations. As Paul Feyerabend stated, “there are many ways to silence people apart from forbidding them to speak-and all of them are being used today. The process of knowledge production and knowledge distribution was never the free, ‘objective’, and purely intellectual exchange rationalists make it out to be.”[1]  Information has always been the most important economic commodity. More valuable than gold or silver, it is the control of information that is truly bought, sold, and traded on the social stock market. And this knowledge control begins at a young age. Children’s minds are shaped from the moment they begin public schooling to fit into the ‘norm’. Children are fed-like their lunchroom meals- the information they are to accept and/or believe. Some of this is innocuous. Certain social cues and group bonding are essential in childhood development. But as Neill remarked, “the publishing of textbooks have always reflected the political and social values of the dominant groups in their respective countries, leaving out variant, deviant, unacceptable, and critical views of the culture’s norms.”[2] This is no surprise to anyone. It’s clear that grade-school books from different countries reflect a favorable light on that particular country. This is just the beginning of the social conditioning that occurs when information is manipulated to shape a certain viewpoint.

What the shapers of reality don’t seem to understand is that information is a very peculiar commodity. It is not a thing or object but an event or process. Information is a social conjuring-an entity that once created- becomes something autonomous and fluidic. It moves and shapes of its own accord as new information filters in. Because of this, information can never really be controlled. If the revelations of Assange and Snowden are any indication, information as a social entity will surface eventually .It is not possible to control all or even nearly all social relations because with every new control of social relations we create a host of new social relations to be controlled. The impossibility is a logical impossibility.[3] This is why debating the treason or merit of ‘leaking’ information is now irrelevant. The cat is out of the bag so to speak. The revelations that accompanied this information are part of the public domain. And more will come. Those howling that the release ‘put people’s life in danger’ is beside the point. The floodgates are open and the levee broke. These leaks will continue and hackers will find their way into classified files. This is our new reality shaped by information itself. The entity took on a life of its own and now our only recourse is to find a way to coexist with the constant stream of information that is available at any given second. Nowadays, the traditionally shaped narratives that were presented as ‘truth’ are being undermined by an underground society of erudites. Now there are competing versions of reality and it’s in the raw data- the data not yet shaped by narrative- that truth really lays. Welcome to the new paradigm.

THE POPULATION IS IN THE DARK

It’s not society’s fault. We’re only now venturing into the digital age and even television is still a relatively new invention. And because of the sheer amount of data coming from television and the web, much of society is uninformed in the extreme. As Mitroff and Bennis succinctly state, “when no 15 to 30 second blip need bear any logical or coherent relation to any other blip, and when blips follow one another faster than anyone can make sense of them, the inevitable result not only is a society that is uninformed about anything, but one that has lost the even more fundamental ability to know that it is uninformed. In short, it is ignorant of the fact that it is ignorant. It doesn’t know that it doesn’t know.”[4] There was a time when news was localized. It was a communal affair and it took time to traverse vast distances. This is no longer the case. Now, the volume of accessible data has made presenting opposing truth versions almost incongruent. Aside from the obvious socio-political and corporate tendencies to shape a narrative in a way as to favor the expedience of a particular point of view, data is now so abundant that it’s easy to lose sight of the shore. The amount of information and disinformation coming from every possible angle has made it difficult to distinguish the subtleties and different nuances between truth versions. Mainstream news outlets try to get on the same page. They try to corroborate one another if only to present continuity in the News institution. However, there are times-especially when including the web-that networks contradict one another. This is a good thing! It shows the plasticity of the information cycle. It’s actually possible to watch reality be sculpted as a News event breaks, and anchors, and bloggers, and reporters, and journalists dash around shaping the narrative that will eventually take form. What blows your mind later is in ultimately identifying the unseen contributors that help shape those truth versions.

WORLD 3 AND MEDIATORS OF THE PAST   

Information has always been a valuable commodity. But there have been times in history when knowledge has led to revolutionary changes in the human psyche. Specifically, the symbolic power of books has always been a catalyst for social and political change. As Wright details, “the violent history of libraries is a mirror of empire building: hierarchal systems emerging from violent political upheavals, only to collapse, disintegrate, and give rise to new emergent systems.”[5] We see this in countless civilizations through history. Immediately the Mayan and Aztec libraries come to mind. Chinese Emperor Shi Huangdi in 213BC destroyed every book in the kingdom when he took power. The Wei Dynasty did the same. The reason is because documents hold the truth versions of their respective creators. They are a symbolic record of reality. By destroying a culture’s books, you try to erase the knowledge they presented as reality. It is our documents that shape the versions of truth we hold. Karl Popper understood this world of symbolic power. He called the physical world ‘World 1’, the world of our conscious experiences ‘World 2’, and the world of the logical ‘contents’ of books, libraries, computer memories, and such, ‘World 3’.[6] World 3 and everything that makes it up is a shared experience that is necessary for both a culture’s and an individual’s body of knowledge. In our day and age, like the empires of the past, World 3 is what is used to create reality. As a society, we consider raw data and use it to form a consensus reality. And as Popper stated, the “autonomy of World 3 leads to new creations or constructions…and may thus add new objects to the third world. And every such step will create new unintended facts; new unexpected problems; and often also new refutations. The new emergent problems stimulate us to new creations.”[7] Our new additions to World 3 lead us to new constructions of reality. In other words, information that is disseminated into the public domain leads to evaluate and re-evaluate the current truth version to which we adhere. Given new data, we are then able to construct or modify a given reality. So clearly, having as much data as possible is essential to the construction process. Otherwise, we are either doing ourselves a disservice or remain grossly uninformed to the true nature of our sculpted reality.

WHAT IS TRULY TRAITOROUS?

The tragedy in our reality versions is in the knowledge that those in power often withhold, cover-up, or shape knowledge production in order to shape a certain reality. This has always been the case. The Courts of the Inquisition punished crimes concerning the production and the use of knowledge. This can be explained by their origin: they were supposed to exterminate ‘heresy’, i.e. complexes consisting of actions, assumptions, and talk making people inclined towards certain beliefs.[8] These actions are still done today. It’s no secret that making people believe certain things is the whole idea behind commercialization. But there are still beliefs today that are considered ‘heresy’. The belief of government ‘full-disclosure’ being the prime example. To many in leadership, the idea of full governmental transparency is repugnant. It’s supposedly in our national interest to keep the population uninformed of their government’s actions. These inquisitors howl that it puts other American lives in jeopardy to give the public full access to raw data. And this might be the case in .01% of the circumstances. However, the gross majority of information that is denied to the public has nothing at all to do with overseas CIA agents or contacts. The reality is that those in power can only keep their power if a certain reality is presented and maintained. The blue-collar factory worker in Virginia cannot know that his Senator voted to provide guns in Syria to perpetuate a regional coup and now those same guns are being aimed at American interests in the area…All at the cost of the tax-payer…while cities like Detroit are in ruins…and families starve by the millions. It would be unacceptable in the extreme.

What those in leadership don’t seem to understand is that it’s too late to keep a choke hold on information dissemination. As I stated before, the floodgates are open. The truth is that those who controlled the flow of information got caught off guard. Information technology jumped forward so sharply, and the status quo shifted so dramatically that it was a rude awakening for many to realize that their prosaic mode of governing knowledge got expertly out-maneuvered. Who’d have thought that sites like 4chan would lead to a worldwide movement of peer to peer information sharing?  And the response by the world’s leaders: create martyrs of the Information Wars. Whether wrong or right, figures like Assange, Snowden, and Manning have been made scapegoats by the powers that be. They are the modern equivalent of Galileo or Giordano Bruno. They transgressed the inquisitors and now, like the libraries of the past, are being burned at the stake. The fact of the matter is if it hadn’t been them it would be somebody else. Technology itself provided the means to enter into classified territory and it was only a matter of time before human ingenuity finished the process. The only solution now is to find a way forward in this new terrain.

THE AGE OF AQUARIUS

Interestingly, there are those who prophesied the emergence of a vast digital network interconnecting every human being on the planet. Mystic philosopher Teilhard de Chardin once described an “extraordinary network of radio and television communication which already links us all in a sort of ‘etherised’ human consciousness that would metamorphize into a single, organized, unbroken membrane over the earth.”[9] And sci-fi legend H.G. Wells predicted in 1938 that “the whole memory can be, and probably in a short time will be, made accessible to every individual, forming a so-called World Brain that would eventually give birth to a widespread world intelligence conscious of itself.”[10] This new age of information was glimpsed by great minds of the past. And it is still evolving. We are now bearing witness to the greatest library in the history of civilization. An infinite ever-changing entity birthed by the mind of Man. So where do we go from here? How can we reconcile the fluidity and accessibility of information with its dissemination? Clearly, building more elaborate firewalls is an option for keeping some information restricted. But I believe that this is really only a stop-gap. The wall will be broken. The information will be made available. Perhaps the key lays in who is appointed to disseminate information.  Peter Drucker elucidated the sentiment when he stated that “knowledge workers are rulers and leaders that require ethos, values, and morality. They have to learn to take responsibility.”[11] This includes the homeland espionage programs the U.S. Government has perpetuated on its own citizens. It’s no surprise that the general public really isn’t losing much sleep concerning Julian Assange or Edward Snowden in light of all their phone calls, emails, and internet usage being tracked by the NSA. Moreover, we have yet to see a mainstream media outlet suggest that perhaps Assange is the most qualified person in the world to discuss the intricacies and nuances of information dissemination. As it is, knowledge creators and reality makers have truly changed things. This revolution is taking place on our PC’s, tablets, and phones. In the legions of bloggers, artists, politicians, journalists, and everyday citizens taking advantage of the Internet’s ease of communication, we are witnessing the rise of vast populist networks threatening the power of old institutional hierarchies.[12] The beauty of the information age is that everybody is contributing to the construction of reality. Ironically, the News outlets are often the last to receive the most accurate of News information. Now, News is reported faster and more accurately on internet websites, youtube, and even twitter. And sure, the News networks will try to spin a story in order to shape a version of reality. And sure, in many cases, that construction will be accepted by the majority. But there will always be an underground current that will be present. There will always be a vessel just beneath the surface that could shape a truth version the world will alternatively embrace. It is these nuances in reality formation that make the spread of information so important in modern times.

---

[1] Paul Feyerabend. Against Method. Verso Books. London. 2010. pp. 127.

[2] S.D. Neill. Dilemmas In The Study Of Information. Praeger Publications. New York. 1992. pp. 46.

[3] John Gray. Liberalism: Essays in Political Philosophy. Routledge Publications. London. 1989. pp. 16-17.

[4] Ian I. Mitroff and Warren Bennis.”The Unreality Industry: The Deliberate Manufacturing Of Falsehood And What It Is Doing To Our Lives. Birch Lane Press. New York. 1989. pp. 178-79.

[5] Alex Wright. Glut: Mastering Information Through The Ages. Joseph Henry Press. New York. 2007. pp. 57.

[6] Karl Popper. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford Univ. Press. London. 1972. pp. 74.

[7] Ibid. pp. 118-119.

[8] Paul Feyerabend. Ibid.

[9] Teilhard de Chardin. The Future of Man. Trans. Norman Denny. Image Books. New York. 2004. pp. 162.

[10] H.G. Wells. “World Brain: The Idea Of A Permanent World Encyclopedia.” In Encyclopedie Francaise. August 1937, http://sherlock.berkeley.edu/wells/world_brain.html

[11] Peter Drucker. The New Realities. Harper & Row. New York. 1989. pp. 238.

[12] Glut: Mastering Information Through The Ages. Ibid. pp. 230.

Magus Magazine: Shrugging The Supernatural: Ayn Rand And Occultism...

Magus Magazine: Shrugging The Supernatural: Ayn Rand And Occultism...: Shrugging The Supernatural: Ayn Rand And Occultism                  When one thinks of Ayn Rand, immediately concepts of reaso...

Shrugging The Supernatural: Ayn Rand And Occultism

       

        

When one thinks of Ayn Rand, immediately concepts of reason, rationality, and heroism come to mind. A champion of laissez faire capitalism, Rand was a beacon of logical thought. Certainly an area one would not think to place the author/philosopher would be occultism. A precursory glance at any of Rand’s books makes it clear that mysticism wasn't in the repertoire of subjects tackled. At least not overtly. Could it be that Ayn Rand was an occult figure in her own way?

                

The inherent problem with Rand’s diatribe against mysticism is that she really didn't approach the subject in any critical way. What she did was distance herself from it so as to be taken seriously in philosophical milieus. Like today, occult thought must be wary in academic and/or philosophical circles. Although nowadays much more welcomed by social scientists, occult still has a dark shroud of irrelevancy hovering over it. Rand wanted no part of the perceived illegitimacy so she used the word ‘mystic’ for all forms of spiritual technique and made the issue one of control. Nathaniel Branden sums up her ideas toward mysticism when he states, “No control is possible in a universe which, by one’s own concession, contains the supernatural, the miraculous and the causeless, a universe in which one is at the mercy of ghosts and demons, in which one must deal, not with the unknown but the unknowable”.[1]

                

The misconception that Rand falls into was in relegating all of mysticism to the traditional Judeo-Christian ethos she grew to abhor. Concepts such as Original Sin and the ‘rich not getting into heaven’ is where she focused her criticisms. But clearly true mystic thought has little or nothing to do with Original Sin or a circle in hell devoted to moneymakers. The problem aside from Ayn’s laziness to actually familiarize herself with the subject is in her assertion that occultists ‘deal with the unknowable’. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Or to be fair, the occult experience is ‘unknowable’ but not in the way Rand suggests.

                

When occultists interact or ritualize with the Other they grant the entity a metaphysics of presence. They sculpt reality in such a way as to re-embody the entity with ontological relevancy. They renew the entity. In so doing, they create a bond; an empathetic correspondence that can be worked in any number of ways. However, there is an incommensurable aspect to the autonomous mystic entity. Because of its experiential nature, interactions with deities are necessarily incommensurable and must be examined as autonomous but non-comparable events. It’s like comparing an entheogenic psilocybin experience with the visitation at Fatima by the Virgin Mary. Both are numinous events but they cannot be compared in any way due to the subjective experience or ‘what it feels like’ when it is occurring. After all, we’re not comparing the experience of going to a baseball game or a movie. A true numinous event is extra-ordinary. It may be wholly beautiful or an inconsolable nightmare. It is these qualities that are renewed through occult ritual. Although the experiences are incommensurable, they can be re-embodied via ritual to foster a change in ontological state. So Rand wasn't all wrong. It’s not that mysticism is ‘unknowable’ but that it’s ‘incomparable’.  

                

But why? With all her brilliance and passion, why would Rand discount mystic thought without even considering it philosophically? She had to have intuited that there are huge areas of potential in considering esoteric thought processes. I believe it stems from her own personal experiences growing up in Soviet Russia. In 1917, when Ayn was a little girl, the Russian revolution under Lenin wreaked havoc on Bourgeois life. Her father’s business was confiscated and her family nearly starved. She herself stated that “Socialism has brought economic paralysis and/or collapse to every country that tried it. The degree of socialism has been the degree of disaster”.[2] During this upheaval, many religions simply left Russia. Most churches were destroyed and the occult arts fled underground. We see the struggle between the individual and the State in Ayn’s first novel, “We The Living”. Semi-autobiographical, this work showcases her personal sentiments about socialism. But how does this relate to mysticism? Rand bore witness to the inefficacy of religion when socialism took over. Two things happened when Lenin’s power solidified. Either the church fled or was destroyed. This must have been powerful on the young Russian Jew. Rand must have felt abandoned. Also, the power of the church was swept wholly away when Socialism became the norm. It showed the inefficacy and irrelevancy of religious institutions in compared to other ideological processes. It was at this moment that young Ayn Rand would refuse to broach the subject.

                

Or did she? It is uncanny the amount of religious and mythological symbolism in her major works. She describes her men and women like gods and goddesses. One of the major themes in ‘The Fountainhead’ is that of the ‘Heroic Man’. The man who stays true to his ideals and triumphs in the face of adversity.  Howard Roark himself states during the climactic courtroom scene of ‘The Fountainhead’ that, “Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures-because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer-because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knows that its glory began with one and that one paid for his courage.”[3] Could it be any more clear that Roark is identifying with these mythological personages? Any Rand imbues her heroes with god and goddess-like qualities. Her characters are larger than life and even say mystical things. Again Roark states that, “The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power-that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generating. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover.”[4] This statement is so blatantly occult that it could have been written by Blavatsky or Crowley. Roark is the creator. The sculptor or worldmaker who-like his creations- are self-sufficient, self-motivated, and self-generating. Just like the occultist who grants presence to a deity thus making them autonomous and self-determining, Roark understands the ontology of his buildings.

                

John Galt also has occult-like qualities. Except Galt is a cautionary tale. He is the quintessential bogeyman. A terrifying unseen entity that makes producers disappear. Also known as The Destroyer, ‘Who is John Galt’ is a phrase that inspires fear and trepidation. However, Galt- as champion of Rand’s philosophy also contradicts himself in terms of Being. On the one hand, he states that, “Whether it’s a symphony or a coal mine, all work is an act of creating and comes from the same source: from an inviolate capacity to see through one’s own eyes.”[5] Like Roark, the creator grants ontological presence through the ‘self’ and a worldmaking process. This statement suggests that all worldmakers or sculptors of reality would be welcome in Galt’s Gulch. However, he then remarks that, “The Good, say the mystics of spirit is god, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s  power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullified his concepts of existence.”[6] Galt falls back on the tired argument that ‘god is that which cannot be conceived’. I beg to differ.  In the shift from potentiality to actuality, gods can absolutely be conceived. The only thing that could invalidate man’s consciousness or nullify his existence would be to sculpt a reality where consciousness and existence are denied in piecemeal manner to entities that may not be empirically verified.  Moreover, Galt also said that “the alleged shortcut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short circuit destroying the mind”. I would venture that perhaps it is absolutism that is the true short-circuit of knowledge.

                

As it stands, Ayn Rand is an occult curiosity. I don’t think she understood occult processes or its methodology. But I think she was attracted to it. She wanted her Howards and Dagnys, and Johns, and Hanks and Dominiques to be deity-like. She wanted them to create and provide and sustain existence. She was a natural occultist. But Ayn was more interested in economics and strict rationalist thought to get caught up in this occult business. That is why she relegated all esoteric thought and method to ‘mysticism’.  But the occult seeped into her works and made her characters extra-ordinary. And why wouldn't they? They are a part of their creator as well. Ayn once said that mysticism teaches that women should be worshiped but not desired. Anybody who has read ‘The Fountainhead’ and ‘Atlas Shrugged’ knows that her women are the sexiest in literary history. And they’re all blessed with occult-like characteristics. Perhaps their creator was simply perfecting a conjuration to ensure that mysticism also contributed to the birthing of her narrative.

---

[1] Nathaniel Branden. “Mental Health Versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice.” In Ayn Rand-The Virtue Of Selfishness. Signet Publishing. 1964. New York. Pp. 43.

[2] Ayn Rand. “The Monument Builders”. In The Virtue Of Selfishness. Signet Publishing. 1964. New York. Pp. 101.

[3] Ayn Rand. The Fountainhead. Signet Books. New York. 1992. Pp. 678.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged. Signet Books. New York. 1992. Pp. 722.

[6] Ibid. Pp. 944.