Second Edition

- by -

Michael A. Aquino, Ph.D.

Priest of Set

- 2 -

- 3 -

© 2016, 2018 by Michael A. Aquino

Barony of Rachane

Post Office Box #470307

San Francisco, CA 94147

U.S.A.

http://www.rachane.org

ISBN-13:

978-1522965084

ISBN-10:

1522965084

- 4 -

- 5 -

Books by Michael A. Aquino

[all available in both printed and Kindle ebook editions]

Non-Fiction

The Church of Satan (2 Volumes)

Extreme Prejudice:

The Presidio “Satanic Abuse” Scam

IlluminAnX: Rosicrucianism Reawakened

The Mind Trilogy

MindWar

MindStar

FindFar

The Neutron Bomb

The Temple of Set (2 Volumes)

Fiction

FireForce: A Star Wars Parody

Including: Secret of the Lost Ark

Morlindalë: Song of Illuminate Darkness

- by “The One Ring”

Ode to Esmé: Memoirs of Captain Nemo

We Break the Sword: The Nazi Peace of 1940

Autobiographical

Ghost Rides

Including: Grail Mission

Edited

Pegasus in Pinfeathers: Collected Poems 1919-1928

- by Betty Ford

- 6 -

- 7 -

Lilith and I dedicate MindStar to our fur-, feather-, and

scale-family, to whom we owe more than we can express,

and whom we shall rejoin at the Rainbow Bridge:

Amani (wolf)

Lucifer (iguana)

Seti (black cat)

Arkte (wolf)

Lucky Canyon

Shaman (wolf)

Aslan (red tabby

(bluebird)

Shaolin (cougar)

cat)

Luna (black cat)

Shenandoah

Bandit (Maine

Majick (black

(tiger)

Coon cat)

cat)

Sid & Midge

Basil (black cat)

Nefertum

(pigeons)

Bina (Siberian

(Persian cat)

Siegfried

forest cat)

Nikki (Siberian

(iguana)

Brandy (Irish

forest cat)

Sigmund (wolf)

setter)

Oakey (turtle)

Smoky

Cecil (lion)

Ollie (cream

(Nebelung cat)

Dokey (turtle)

tabby cat)

Spirit (red tabby

Dynamite

Pandora (black

cat)

(Mynah)

cat)

Stormy (wolf)

Esmeralda (seal)

Patch (brown

Tabitha (calico

Fafnir (iguana)

tortie cat)

cat)

Fleur (mouse)

Paul (Scottish

Thurber

Foxy (dog)

terrier)

(Weimaraner)

Honeybear (dog)

Pierre (mouse)

Tsunami (tiger)

Jasmine (brown

Prince (Sheltie)

Tunyan (wolf)

tabby cat)

Rachane (wolf)

Vivian (black

Jesus Christ

Raja (cat)

cat)

(raccoon)

Rofocale (black

Layla (wolf)

cat)

Lorlelei (black

Sekhmet (black

cat)

cat)

- 8 -

- 9 -

- 10 -

- 11 -

Table of Contents

Dedications

7

Dr. Raghavan Iyer

9

Table of Contents

11

Preface

15

Chapters

1: The Universes

25

A. Multiversality

25

B. The Objective Universe

26

C. The Subjective Universe

28

D. Subjective/Objective Interaction

28

E. Collective Subjective Universes

29

F. The Universal Course of MindStar

30

2: Conscious Existence

31

A. Consciousness

31

B. Metaphysics: Consciousness as an Entity

32

C. Physics: Consciousness as an Illusion

32

D. Inconsequence

34

3: Egypt

35

A. Confronting Ancient Egypt

35

B. Egyptian History

37

C. The Neteru

42

D. Set

46

- 12 -

4: Anamnesis from “Soul” to MindStar

55

A. Anamnesis

55

B. Western Religious CSU

57

C. The Judæo-Christian Soul

58

D. Jewish and Christian Afterlifes

60

5: Anamnesis MindStar

65

A. MindStar

66

B. Fields

67

1. Definition

67

2. Life-Fields

68

3. Telos

69

4. Thought-Fields

70

C. Egyptian MindStar Emanations

73

1. Khat

74

2. Ren

76

3. Khabit

77

4. Ab

77

5. Ba

78

6. Ka

79

7. Sekhem

81

8. Akh

81

9. Conventionalist Blinders

82

6: MindStar Activity

83

A. Metaphysical Evidence

83

B. Logos

84

C. The Telos of Logos

86

D. Historical Non- Telos: Free Will

87

1. Sophism

88

2. Skepticism

89

3. Epicureanism

89

4. Stoicism

90

5. Cynicism

92

6. Scholasticism

92

7. Reformation:

- 13 -

Crisis of Theological Determinism

95

8. Secular Negative Free Will

98

9. The Enlightenment:

Secular Positive Free Will

101

10. Secular Emotional Free Will

105

11. Free Will:

Religious Curse to Secular Obliteration

109

E. Historical Non- Telos: Determinism

110

1. Empiricism

112

2. Dialectic Idealism

114

3. Will to Power

118

4. Dialectic Materialism

122

5. “Mind Control” and MindWar

126

7: “Death” Demystified

129

A. From Terror to Transformation

129

B. Who Owns Your Body:

130

1. State?

131

2. Religion?

131

3. Profession?

132

4. Psychiatry?

133

5. Family?

133

6. Familiars?

134

7. Yourself!

134

C. Materialism - “The Big Black Sack”

135

1. The Conceit of Atheism

135

2. The Timidity of Agnosticism

138

3. The Prison of Physics

138

4. The Taboo of Metaphysics

139

5. Inadequate Alphabetics

140

6. Symbolism

140

7. Orwellian UnWords

143

8. Sacking the “Sack”

145

D. Profane Religions

148

1. Extrapolating Ignorance

148

2. Procrustean Prescription

149

- 14 -

3. Sometimes They Come Back

151

a. Reincarnation

151

b. Resurrection

153

(1) Necromancy

154

(2) Zombification

155

E. Posthumous Pageantry

156

F. Monolithic Anamnesis

156

G. Neter-Xertet

160

H. The Two Paths

162

1. The Right-Hand Path

163

2. The Left-Hand Path

164

I. Meta-Morphosis

167

1. Khat-alyst

169

a. Khat-alepsy

169

b. Khat-astrophe

169

2. Ab-solution

169

a. Ab-sense

170

b. Ab-sence

173

J. Prescience

175

1. Prudence

176

2. Practicality

176

3. Pageantry

177

8: Sic Itur Ad Astra

179

A. States of Life

179

B. Sensory Deprivation

185

C. MindStar Visions

188

D. The Emperor of Dreams

193

E. The End of the Beginning

194

Afterwords: The Sphinx and the Chimæra

199

Bibliography

267

Index

281

About the Author

287

- 15 -

Preface

What the dead had no speech for, when

living, they can tell you, being dead:

The communication of the dead is tongued

with fire beyond the language of the living.

- T.S. Eliot1

What is conscious existence? As humans experience

it, what is its significance to them? And does it have a

consequence?

These questions are not only at the core of human

introspection, but dictate both individual and group

beliefs concerning reality. Such beliefs in turn both

encourage and constrain behavior. If, for instance, you

regard your incarnated physical life as the complete

extent of your existence, you will tend to conduct yourself

much differently than an immortal being only

temporarily linked to a physical body.

Closely related to this problem is the question of

purpose: Do humans have one, and if so, whence comes

1 MindStar was written by a dead man, in that I came extremely close

to physical death from cancer during 2015. That lent a special

motivation and urgency to creating this book, in disregard of pain

and exhaustion, in order to make its contents available to suitable

readers within this physical environment. Had it been written by a

living man, it might not have been tongued with fire.

- 16 -

it? Assumptions concerning this also channel thoughts,

statements, and actions of both individuals and groups.

Indeed so fundamental are these two issues that all

else can be seen as mere footnotes to them. Physical

science focuses on discovering and deciphering the

machinery of the Objective Universe (OU), and takes

great pride in its [insistently-claimed] objectivity in doing

so. And yet all such knowledge of external mechanisms is,

in the final analysis, pointless unless related and relevant

to conscious experience of it. If someone is not there to

apprehend and appreciate it, the entire OU can emerge,

exist, and exmerge as mere happenstance. If it is not of

interest to some perspective consciousness, it is irrelevant

whether it exists or not. [My efforts to write this book are

wasted, and the book itself inconsequential unless you

read, understand, and apply it.]

My companion book MindWar includes an

examination of what I term “thought architecture”.

Humans are normally both ignorant of and unconcerned

with how their thoughts originate and are structured.

They “just think”, and that is all there is to it.

But that is not all there is to it. The interface between

the consciousness (alternately “the mind”) and the

physical senses (body mechanisms receiving disturbances

from and changes within the OU) is the brain: an

electromagnetic/chemical machine which processes raw

sensory inputs into either predetermined/recognized

patterns or new experiences modifying existing patterns

or forming the bases of new ones. Overwhelmingly -

about 95% of the time - this is a passive process occurring

in the subconscious. 2

An additional 5% rises to the attention of

consciousness to require active consideration:

2 Cf. Leonard Mlodinow, Ph.D., Subliminal: How Your Unconscious

Mind Rules Your Behavior (New York: Pantheon, 2012).

- 17 -

algorithmic thought. This results in deliberate

decision-making, and also in assignment of the input to

an existing or new pattern into which it did not fit

automatically/subconsciously.

MindWar is a manual for practical applications in the

OU, so concentrates on the identification and control of

pattern and algorithmic thought. It is thus a book about,

and a concept of [OU] science.

There is, however, a third element of thought

architecture, only briefly mentioned in MindWar for the

sake of thoroughness: conceptual thought. Also called

“creative” or “divine”, this identifies thinking which is not

the product of OU externalities and the brain’s sorting,

recognizing, and classifying mechanisms. It comes into

existence in pure uniqueness: what Plato termed nœsis,

or “enlightened intuition”. It is not a construct of the OU;

rather it generates its own “subjective” universe (SU). As

each such thought is discrete, an individual experiencing

such will apprehend consequently numerous/unique

SUs, all of which, in varying degrees of arbitrary

importance, coalesce into a comprehensive SU (CSU).

In addition to serving as the “mirror” of the

individual’s existence and unique identity, the CSU also

functions as an inexorable and inescapable filter through

which interactions with the OU must pass. If input from

the OU is not intelligible to the CSU, it is simply

disregarded [if it is detected at all] as “noise”. 3

Humans are most commonly familiar with this

phenomenon as “not wanting to hear” or “tuning out”

3 The electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) ranges from a theoretical

“long wave” the length of the OU to short, high-frequency waves a

fraction of the size of an atom. While the extremes of the EMS are

theoretically infinite, for practical scientific measurement the range

extends from 0 Hz (hertz = cycles per second) to 10 picometers (a

picometer being a trillionth of a meter). Within this vast range of EM

radiation (EMR), the conscious human senses can detect only the

tiny ranges of visible light, heat, and audible sound.

- 18 -

information in conflict with their accustomed CSUs.

Particularly entrenched and rigidified instances are often

called “sacred cows”, and on a more comprehensive scale,

“religions”.

The academic and scientific community prides itself

on existing intellectually only within the OU, indeed to

the extent of rejecting any SU as an inconvenient and

annoying obstacle of “irrationality” to be overcome,

ridiculed, and ignored. Nevertheless such puritans have

done nothing more than substitute an established-

consensus SU to override individual ones. This becomes

“accepted” science [or as disciples would prefer to say,

“reality”]. Evolution through further OU investigation is

slowed, and occasionally “outlawed” by this consensus-

SU, which in this community serves much the same

function as religion elsewhere.

Also as in religion, scientific/academic-community

“heresies” - individual or group SU concepts inconsistent

with the orthodoxy of the moment - are ignored, and if

necessary actively suppressed and denounced [the

condescending term is “debunked”]. Centuries ago

religious heretics were tortured and executed. Modern

academic/scientific heretics will merely find themselves

Orwell’s “unpersons”: unpublished, unemployed, and

professionally exiled. The more frightening heretics, from

Galileo to Wilhelm Reich, have been denounced as

“insane” and imprisoned or killed.

In the more mundane, proletarian culture of religion,

the approved/collective SU is called “God” and the

inconvenient, annoying ones “Satan”. [The names for

each vary across cultures, but the underlying tension is

the same.] Where religion is taken literally and seriously,

as in medieval Europe and present-day fundamentalist

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, this can result in

individual murder and/or collective war.

- 19 -

Even when one manages to recognize and appreciate

the individual CSU, this is still not the end of the Quest,

not yet the core of conscious existence. The CSU remains

a mechanism, a lens, a means of interpretation used by

the ultimate self - commonly alluded to as the psyche or

“soul”, which is the actual locus of conscious being. Since

this soul is an absolutely unique singularity, it can only be

identified and realized - not defined in terms of anything

external or component. It is ethereal, and it is this

ethereality which has disconcerted many of those

attempting to examine it. As it is sensed to be something

distinct and apart from not just the OU, but even its own/

utility SUs, it has been both revered and feared because

of its mysterious but conspicuous existence.

Most humans who are either voluntary or involuntary

slaves to collective SUs, either secular or religious, shun

confrontation of the soul, which is clearly not a product of

nor controllable by such collective SUs. Materialists who

profess the OU as the only reality customarily deny that

the soul exists at all; they say it is merely an illusion

generated by the individual CSU mechanism to give that

device an artificial sense of consciousness, e.g. of

deliberate direction or purpose.

Conventional religion adherents, also sensing that the

soul is distinct from and beyond the control of “God” (the

OU and religion-dictated common SU), demonize it: It is

either the Devil or an extension of the Devil, by whatever

name(s) he is known. As such, the soul must be forced

into obedience and compliance, so that it is a non-threat

to the common SU. It must be rejected, denied, punished,

and if all of these fail, destroyed by killing the human

body which it is thought to inhabit and depend upon for

its existence. Hence history’s religious wars, pogroms,

persecutions, exterminations, from the social to the

individual level.

- 20 -

A somewhat different approach is that of collective

SUs such as Buddhism, which grapple with the soul by

trying to redefine it as a multiplicity of SU images, either

individual or collective, each of which can then be forced

into harmony with or absorption into those external

images, thus eliminating any sense of separateness. In

actuality this is nothing more than the monotheistic

demonization recast into artificial fragments to make

them seem more tangible and malleable.

Finally, though less prevalent and conspicuous, are

esoteric initiatory efforts to deliberately and intentionally

merge or blend the individual soul with the presumed

“universal soul”, which is vaguely thought to be a

somewhat similar entity for the OU [and collective SUs of

choice] “beyond and behind everything”. This approach

does not require the individual soul to be rejected,

punished, or destroyed, but instead to be “purified” by

any number of disciplines and exercises. When it has

been completely so cleansed, it will [re]join the universal

soul in ecstatic dissolution of its separateness. While a

comforting proposition for those who prefer soothing to

suffering, there is simply nothing to support or

substantiate the existence of a universal soul. Each

individual soul senses itself and can be sensed by other

beings with souls, but on a universal scale there is no

evidence whatever of any consciousness or volition such

as would be necessary to identify such. [In conventional

religions such acts of deliberation and purpose beyond

the static are referred to as “miracles”. But except for the

imaginatively credulous and faithful, no “miracle” has

ever actually occurred.]

As the soul is unique and completely singular, it is

inherently impossible to define or describe it - only to

apprehend and identify it. As noted above, this is

frustrating and even alarming to humans who are

accustomed to be able to regard everything as a “building

- 21 -

block” or combination of such blocks. Thus they can

make everything mechanical and so definable and

practical: the realms of physical and other sciences. The

consequence is to simply ignore or deny the soul.

Nevertheless it exists; it is the “ultimate You” of each

individual. It is not just important, but indeed centrally

so. Absent it, indeed, there would be no perceiver of, no

actor upon “otherness”. Everything beyond it, from the

individual SU to the OU, would be absolutely, utterly

irrelevant. All such external existence and phenomena

would be entirely meaningless. It would make no

difference whether any of it existed or not.

This truth was perhaps first realized by existentialists

such as Jean-Paul Sarte, who in Nausea sought to express

the “horror” of incidental non-self existence. That there

should be such objects and phenomena merely

haphazardly struck him as nothing short of obscene. All

non-self must have meaning and purpose assigned to it to

overcome this primal obscenity.

Such assignment of meaning was assumed by the

ancients to be the province of divine, superuniversal

intelligences: popularly gods/God. Derivative of this

authority was the directed assemblage of various such

components into the physical and phenomenological OU

as humans have come to discover it.

MindStar is a book about the “soul”, specifically

yours: what it is, where to find it, what to do with it [as

you may be so inclined]. Enjoy the adventure!

One more thing: As you proceed through this book,

you may get the uncanny feeling that you know

everything in it already: the text is more a reminder than

a teacher. Quite correct, as MindStar is deliberately

designed as an exercise in anamnesis, about which you

will be specifically reminded in due course.

MindStar is also not merely educational or

entertaining; it is transformative. Reading it, assuming

- 22 -

you have the intelligence and attention to comprehend it,

will set your feet on the path from mortal to immortal,

from human to divinity.

Before reading further, therefore, reflect carefully

upon the consequences of doing so. This is a judgment

with which every Initiate of Set is familiar, but MindStar

does not require that formality. The choice and decision,

however, are no less metamorphic.

This realization and choice have been the subject of

various legends and illustrations throughout humanity’s

many eras and cultures. One of the most poignant was

the story of Ayesha, Priestess of Isis, as related by herself.

Guided throughout her life by the sage Noot to accept her

human discipleship of that neter of the natural order,

Ayesha was finally entrusted with the guardianship of a

Flame which possessed the power to transform anyone

who stepped within it to personal divinity. What was not

evident was the inescapability of creative definition, and

the absolute loneliness in exercising it, which authentic

godhood entails. Warned Noot:

Yonder fire will not destroy the mortal who finds

the courage to stand in its raging path; it will give him

life, and with it such strength, such beauty, and such

wisdom as have never been the lot of man born of

woman. Also it will give him such passions, such

despairs, such unending woes as hitherto no mortal

heart has known.

There is the truth. Ask me not how it comes into my

keeping and what that voice may be which is speaking

it through my lips. A minute gone this truth was mine

alone. Now it is yours also, and being yours, I pray to

that Divine from which we come and whither we return

again, that it may give you strength and the true

wisdom, knowing all, to reject all, and turning aside

from this glittering guerdon of enduring life, patiently

- 23 -

to walk your human path to the end appointed to our

human feet. 4

Ultimately Ayesha heeded the call of the Fire and in

its embrace was transformed into She-Who-Must-Be-

Obeyed, immortal and omnipotent, with a beauty such

that none could look upon her without succumbing to

madness. Veiled, she endured countless centuries among

those whose human dullness enabled them to find the

simple natural pleasures and contentments that were

now intolerable to her.

This is the danger of MindStar: that it will make you

what you envision yourself to become, and empower you

to see through and beyond all human illusions. Also that,

as Ayesha also discovered, once attained, it is not

reversible. Give careful thought to Noot’s warning,

therefore, before you too enter the Flame. Because if you

do, there is no turning back: not just for the span of a

human life, but forever.

If this terrifies you, read no further. Destroy this

book. 5

San Francisco

January 1, 2016 CE

4 Haggard, H. Rider, Wisdom’s Daughter. New York: Random House

(Ballantine), 1922, page #225.

5 “You are perfectly free to return to your school if you wish. Perhaps

it would be wiser.” - Maurice Conchis to Nicholas Urfe, in John

Fowles’ The Magus, responding to Nicholas’ objection upon realizing

his Election to Conchis’ initiatory masque.

- 24 -

- 25 -

Chapter 1: The Universes

We were not, as I have said, in any sense childishly

superstitious, but scientific study and reflection had

taught us that the known universe of three

dimensions embraces the merest fraction of the

whole cosmos of substance and energy. In this case

an overwhelming preponderance of evidence from

numerous authentic sources pointed to the tenacious

existence of certain forces of great power and, so far

as the human point of view is concerned, exceptional

malignancy.

- H.P. Lovecraft

A. Multiversality

The phenomenon of individual consciousness is not

identifiable in a vacuum. For humans to recognize this

facility, they must first become aware of an environment

outside themselves, then realize, if initially only passively,

that they are severally something distinct from it.

This would seem to be a simple and obvious

juxtaposition, and so it is on a subconscious level:

Humans go through their lives differentiating themselves

from their surroundings and other humans in any

number of habitual, stimulus/response contexts.

Nevertheless while these same humans are casually

comfortable apprehending the external environment,

they are far less certain about, and comfortable with

- 26 -

perceiving and describing themselves as conscious

individuals. Indeed it is this confusion which is at the

core of humanity’s greatest discord among its species

throughout its recorded history, as is surveyed herein.

Put simply, until you are clear as to what you are and

what you are not, and what these differentiations are, you

cannot make an intelligent decision concerning your

behavior and its rationale. While this might sound

daunting at first glance - the stuff of turgid theological

puffery or excruciating graduate philosophy courses, it is

actually quite obvious and straightforward. All you have

to do is to confront it openly and honestly, which is

exactly what MindStar seeks to facilitate.

For starters, the odds are that if the ordinary human

were asked “How many universes are there?”, the

confident answer would be “One.”. Actually there are

several, and an appreciation of this is crucial to questions

concerning human identity.

B. The Objective Universe

The Objective Universe (hereafter “OU”) is what most

humans are accustomed to regarding as “the only”

universe, e.g. the totality of matter and energy in

existence [of which these same humans would just

assume themselves to be components].

Humans are aware of the OU because they bump into

it all the time, from stubbing one’s toe to examining

galaxies through telescopes. This surrounding is so

constant and pervasive that they are physically and

physiologically “addicted” to it: Removing such constant

sensory reinforcement normally produces disorientation

followed by panic and “insanity”. For the vast majority of

humanity, ironically, it is thus the impress of the OU

upon them which provides and reinforces their

“individuality”.

- 27 -

Humans have gradually realized that the OU is not

chaotic and haphazard; it exists and functions according

to inflexible regularities, normally known as natural - or,

as they are discovered, “scientific” - laws. In prehistoric

and primitive cultures, before such laws were known to

exist and be thus inflexible, the OU was assumed to be a

variable at the manipulative whim of gods/God, and

considerable effort was devoted to worshipping or

appeasing such entities to prevent natural disasters or

cataclysms. Of course there were/are enough random

interactions of natural laws to lend credence to “divine

intervention” explanations, particularly when preached to

ignorant masses.

Conventional questions concerning the OU include:

(1) How did it come into being? (2) Why is it organized as

it is? (3) Who created natural law? (4) Why is natural law

so completely and permanently enforced? (5) Does the

OU have a purpose, or is it just a gigantic accident? And

of course: (6) What is/should be humanity’s relationship

to the OU?

Obviously humanity has been accustomed to

addressing, if not answering many of these questions by

religious myth. It is easier for the ordinary mind to

visualize a God impulsively snapping the OU into

existence at a chosen point in time, for example, than to

grapple with the fact that it has always existed; no

“creative act” was therefore needed.

As for natural law, human science has no idea

whatever why it is what it is, or what enforces it. Science

contents itself with discovering and codifying such law

“as it is”, period.

Concerning humanity’s relationship to the OU, this is

examined in some historical detail in this book’s

discussion of telos.

- 28 -

C. The Subjective Universe

The Subjective Universe (hereafter “SU”) is each self-

conscious being’s perception of the OU, blended with

personally-generated overlays, selective impressions, and

creative imagination as instinctive, indoctrinated,

inspired, and/or initiated.

Thus not even the most controlled physical scientist

can claim to accurately and completely see the OU. What

he sees is his filtration and distortion of it through his SU,

which he has built up both consciously and

subconsciously from innumerable sources since birth.

More creative, artistic, mystical, etc. personalities may

let their SUs run even more freely, to the point where the

OU is of only occasional and necessary relevance to them.

If some such persons reach a stage where their SUs have

completely replaced the OU, they may be called “insane”;

in this sense “sanity” is a measure of an individual’s

suppression of his SU within socially-sanctioned

boundaries.

D. Subjective/Objective Interaction

Once the simultaneous and permanent existence of

the OU and SU is recognized, much of the mystery of

human history and behavior is no longer mysterious. It

just requires examination of each such individual, group,

and/or event to identify the applicable OU forces and the

various individual SUs through which they are being

perceived and influenced, both subconsciously and

consciously.

At the subconscious level, for instance, an individual

may assume that everyone else “sees the same reality”

that he does, when in fact this is never completely the

case.

- 29 -

At the conscious level the SU can be both easier and

more problematic to handle. Easier to the extent that the

individual is making willful decisions about how much of

his SU he can successfully apply. More problematic

insofar as others with their differing subconscious and

conscious SUs may be present and involved.

E. Collective Subjective Universes

When more than one SU is present and involved in

any society or problem situation, it should be obvious

that no two of them will coincide, both in terms of

subconscious “reality perception” and conscious values,

desires, and actions applied.

Hence both human society and human history is most

accurately understood as attempts by the involved

humans to reconcile their conflicting SUs into one or

more community-approved Collective SUs (hereafter

“CSU”). Sometimes this is possible through peaceful

means such as education, reasoning, or argument. In

other instances where conscious SUs are too passionate,

or when subconscious SUs are too inflexible and

intolerant, the individuals/groups may resort to coercion

- aggressive and intensive indoctrination, conditioning,

and reinforcement, along with the suppression or

extermination of the offending “competitors” - to achieve

the desired “reality”.

In modern society, unsurprisingly, such coercion and

intolerance are invariably attributed to “the enemy”,

domestic outlaws, insurgents, revolutionaries, or other

“alien” individuals or groups. It is assumed, without any

need for argument or justification, that the community

CSU into which its members have been conditioned since

birth, is not just one among many options, but is

“reality”. Questioning it thus goes beyond acceptable

curiosity to “heresy”, “treason”, or “insanity”.

- 30 -

This was most famously caricatured in George

Orwell’s novel 1984, in which failure to accept the Party’s

CSU not just at the conscious but at the subconscious

“reality” level was condemned as the worst of all possible

sins: “thoughtcrime” - correspondingly requiring not just

punishment but “curing” by destroying the offender’s

ability to see “reality” other than through the Party’s CSU.

F. The Universal Course of MindStar

As foretold, the above keys to the age-old “mystery” of

human behavior are not the least bewildering once one

knows to look for and apply them.

MindStar, however, is not merely a guide to the study

of human rational and irrational behavior. It is not

enough [nor is it reassuring!] just to realize that one is

surrounded by a world of humanity which is trapped in a

g e n e r a l l y - u n r e c o g n i z e d p r i s o n o f c o n f l i c t i n g

subconscious and conscious SUs. From the smallest

social unit to worldwide ideologies and wars, helpless and

hapless people are flailing around with the “disease”

without even recognizing it for what it is, much less

treating its symptoms. It was for this reason that I wrote

the companion book to MindStar: MindWar. Unlike

MindStar, MindWar is a practical manual for the

diagnosis and constructive correction of social violence

from the community to the international scale. It is

intentionally exoteric and unintrospective. It does not

seek to expose ordinary minds to the metaphysics of

consciousness. It is a prescription for the many, for the

polis, not the individual.

MindStar is quite the other thing: a guide exclusively

for the individual, which never compromises with group

influences, needs, perceptions, or pressures. It is a map to

the Grail Castle, which journey and adventure are

essentially and inescapably unique to each individual.

- 31 -

Chapter 2: Conscious Existence

We are all wired into a survival trip now. No more of

the speed that fueled that 60s. That was the fatal

flaw in Tim Leary’s trip. He crashed around America

selling “consciousness expansion” without ever

giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that

were lying in wait for all the people who took him

seriously: all those pathetically eager acid freaks who

thought they could buy Peace and Understanding for

three bucks a hit. But their loss and failure is ours

too. What Leary took down with him was the central

illusion of a whole life-style that he helped create: a

generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers,

who never understood the essential old-mystic

fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption

that somebody, or at least some force, is tending the

light at the end of the tunnel. - Hunter S. Thompson

A. Consciousness

Having in Chapter #1 established and defined the

environment in which existence occurs, it is next

necessary to discuss who or what exists to perceive and

interact with this environment. A phenomenon of

distinction from that environment is essential, and it

must be aware of itself to recognize and appreciate that

distinction. It is inherently a function, not a thing,

traditionally called “consciousness”. [The question of the

- 32 -

“thing that is conscious” is addressed in subsequent

chapters.]

Consciousness is both easy and difficult to establish -

easy because its presence is obvious: the mere awareness

[of self and/or anything else] characteristic of a living,

sentient being. Having achieved this realization, the

possessors of consciousness have found its constitution

maddeningly elusive.

Over the centuries theologians, philosophers, and

scientists have sought to portray and advocate

consciousness as something either supporting or refuting

the existence of what is really their concern: the “soul”.

B. Metaphysics: Consciousness as an Entity

Since conventional theology regards consciousness as

“the soul in action”, it has generally been happy to just

blur the two concepts into a single, nothing-further-

needed axiom of religious faith.

Philosophers seeking to escape the label of such mere

faith found that the moment they strayed from the simple

act of self-awareness, they were actually addressing other

issues, such as whether physical sensory input is/was

occurring, whether such input is reliable, and indeed

whether the mental processing of concepts and

information (e.g. “thought”) should somehow be either a

requirement or evidence of awareness. René Descartes’

famous “cogito ergo sum” (= I think, therefore I am) is an

example of such off-the-mark confusion; arguments both

pro and con this maxim have all focused on the act of

thinking rather than mere self-awareness.

C. Physics: Consciousness as an Illusion

Modern physical science is adamantly materialistic;

any hint of a metaphysical presence or activity is

- 33 -

tantamount to heresy. If consciousness exists, therefore,

it must be explainable [away] as the physical brain

generating some form of illusory self-imagery.

In support of this theory, scientists note that if the

brain is anæsthetized, the individual “blacks out”. Also

when the body and brain sleep, consciousness either

blacks out or becomes merely a spectator to hallucination

(e.g. dreaming).

Upon examination both of these scientific claims fail

to be conclusive. As ordinary consciousness is

accustomed to being reactive to physical sensory input,

the sudden muting of all such input by anæsthesia throws

the consciousness into a sudden non-sensory mode with

which it has no experience. The result is temporary

inactivity, though below the level of sensory imagery it

continues to receive stimulus signals from the physical

body.

In certain anæsthesia applications, moreover, the

body’s transmissions to the consciousness are muted

w h i l e t h a t c o n s c i o u s n e s s r e m a i n s a l e r t a n d

communicative. If it were merely a function of the body’s

normal physical sensory processes, this would not occur.

Where sleep and dreaming are concerned, it has

already been established that the quality and coherence

of the act of thinking is an entirely different concern than

self-awareness per se.

Where ordinary sleep and dreaming are concerned,

once again awareness must not be confused with

thinking. In short, the random imagination characteristic

of dreams, or the absence of such experiences if the

resting brain has so lowered its sensory transmissions,

has no relevance to awareness. Being self-aware does not

require this to be continuous.

- 34 -

D. Inconsequence

The phenomenon of self-awareness is as a simple

incident essential to validating the distinction between

the individual and the OU. Beyond this, however, it is not

a component of either a “soul” or the physical brain/body

which can be used to verify either premise. Indeed in the

search for the “soul” awareness is something of a red

herring, being confused with the thinking process by

agenda-advocates.

- 35 -

Chapter 3: Egypt

Poor men, most admirable, most pitiable,

With all their changes all their great Creeds change

For Man, this alien in my family,

Is alien most in this, to cherish dreams

And brood on visions of eternity,

And build religions in his brooding brain

And in the dark depths awe-full of his soul.

My other children live their little lives,

Are born and reach their prime and slowly fail,

And all their little lives are self-fulfilled;

They die and are no more, content with age

And weary with infirmity. But Man

Has fear and hope and phantasy and awe,

And wistful yearnings and unsated loves,

That strain beyond the limits of his life,

And therefore Gods and Demons, Heaven and Hell:

This Man, the admirable, the pitiable.

- James Thomson, A Voice from the Nile

A. Confronting Ancient Egypt

It is impossible to proceed further with this inquiry

without bringing to bear the wisdom of ancient Egypt. By

contrast, the efforts of later cultures have been little more

than ignorant fumbling in the dark.

- 36 -

Before turning to the specifics of Egyptian knowledge

in this area, however, popular modern misperceptions

must be at least briefly corrected.

The topic of ancient Egypt generally has been one of

both exhaustive examination by and contentious debate

between conventional Egyptologists and independent

investigators.

The former group generally agree that Egypt was

simply an agricultural society comparable to that of other

Mediterranean/Near-Eastern cultures of the time-period.

It was notable for its enigmatic hieroglyphic writing

system, odd-looking formalized art, peculiar massive

building projects, and morbid, animal-totem religious

cultism.

The latter group, while differing in the details, see

Egypt rather as a remarkable, indeed startling exception

to its primitive neighbors. It was uniquely a civilization

and repository of great sophistication and wisdom - in

some respects so much so, indeed, that the very ability of

the Egyptians themselves to have generated such utopian

wonders is called into question in favor of Atlanteans,

extraterrestrial visitors, and/or incarnated gods.

Each camp routinely ridicules the other. The

conventionalists denounce the independents as

unscientific dreamers and “pyramidiots”. The latter are

equally contemptuous of the former, considering them as

merely a brittle academic self-protectorate afraid to

violate modern taboos.

And there are two taboos in particular which

institutional academia does not dare to transgress - or

even openly acknowledge as taboos.

First, modern [Western] civilization is assumed to be

at the zenith of human sophistication in all respects. It

has been steadily improving over the last five thousand

years (after recorded history officially began ca. 3000

BCE). Since the passage of time mandates social

- 37 -

evolution and improvement, it is heresy to suggest that

an ancient civilization, particularly one at the very

beginning of this progression, could actually have been

superior to its successors, including those today, in some

if not all respects.

Secondly, the world today is divided into three major

monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

All, even in countries where they have become largely

propaganda devices for the control of the lesser-

intelligent masses, are as exclusive and intolerant as

politically permitted. Despite their doctrinal differences,

however, they are all agreed that there exists but one

God - the Hebraic JHVH. Thus all polytheism, whether

new or old, is false and fictitious. It follows that any such

fiction cannot possibly be as, much less more

sophisticated than Hebraic monotheism [as triple-

modified]. Egyptian religion may be studied, exploited for

artistic purposes and horror movies, but never actually

believed in.

B. Egyptian History

Let us now review those aspects of ancient Egypt on

which most scholars, the academic and the arcane, might

be expected to find some common ground.

The earliest existing evidence of human culture in the

Nile valley dates to more than 250,000 BCE, as the

remnants of hand axes and other stone tools have been

uncovered 50-100’ below the Nile’s silt terrace.

Sometime between 10,000 and 7,000 BCE, according

to conventional archæology, a most important event took

place - the domestication of the wild African goat and the

subsequent freedom to begin cultivation of grain. This

effectively heralded the beginning of human civilization,

as for the first time primitive man was free to turn his

thoughts to matters other than a constant search for food.

- 38 -

By the same consensus, it was in the pre-dynastic

Gerzean period (commencing about 3600 BCE) that the

first communities of the future Egyptian nation came into

existence. A great war of unification commenced in

approximately 3400 BCE. After more than two centuries

of intermittent conflict between Upper and Lower Egypt,

the land was finally united under Menes (or Narmer), the

first pharaoh of the I Dynasty. 6

Inhabiting a land characterized by the regularity of

the elements (behavior of the winds, the Nile, the climate,

the Sun, and the skies), the Egyptians sought perfection

in stability, harmony, symmetry, geometry, and a cyclical

[as opposed to progressive or linear] concept of time.

In modern culture we take progressive/linear time for

granted. It is as inevitable and inexorable as the hands of

the wristwatches to which we are gently, yet firmly

manacled. We see our lives, and indeed the entire known

universe, as a terrible struggle against entropy, ending

ultimately in the death, decomposition, and obliteration

of each separate person or thing.

It is further this perception, and the fear of it, which

has lent Hebraic monotheism a vampiric persistence far

past the 17th-18th Century “Enlightenment” which,

intellectually at least, exposed it as a sham. For the

Christian and Muslim versions, if not the Jewish, promise

continuation of the same life after physical death, albeit

with dire punishment specifically for not believing in and

obeying them now.

The Egyptians, however, envisioned neither

themselves nor the world about them to be entrapped in

such a fearsome forced-march. They saw the Sun, Moon,

and firmament behaving in recurring cycles, as also the

rise and fall of the Nile, the regular seasons, plant life. If

6 Fairservis, Walter A. Jr., The Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile. New

York: New American Library/Mentor #MY-843, 1962, Chapters #1-2.

- 39 -

humans and other animals were born, lived for a time,

and died, it stood to reason that they too participated in

an eternal cycling of a more subtle color. Egyptian

records would accordingly document specific

personalities and events, but without any particular

attention to related change or innovation. Harmony with

the cycles of things, not defiance of them, was the

Egyptian ideal - which explains why the essential

character of Egyptian society remained little changed,

except to meet external intrusion, for thirty dynasties

extending over 3,000 years. 7

Former Director of Cairo’s French Oriental

Archæological Institute Serge Sauneron comments:

To understand the attitude of the Egyptians, it is

necessary to emphasize the striking contrast between

their view of the world and ours. We live in a universe

which we know is in perpetual movement; each new

problem demands a new solution. But for the Egyptians

this notion of time which modifies the current

knowledge of the world, of an alteration of factors

which forces a change in methods, had no place. In the

beginning the divinity created a stable world, fixed,

definitive; this world functions as a motor well oiled

and well fed. If there are “misfires” - if the motor fades,

if one of the parts making it up is worn out or broken -

it is replaced and everything starts off again better than

before. But this motor would always remain the same;

its mechanism, its appearance, its output would always

be identical.

If some problem intrigues the mind, therefore - if

some serious event arises to disturb the customary

order of things - it could not really be new; it was

foreseen with the world. Its solution or remedy exists in

all eternity, revealed in a kind of universal “manner of

7 The XXX Dynasty is generally considered to be the last native

Egyptian one. Subsequently there was a Persian one (XXXI) and a

Ptolemaic Greek one (XXXII), ending with the death of Cleopatra VII

and Roman rule in 30 BCE.

- 40 -

use” that the gods defined in creating the universe

itself. What is necessary, therefore, is to find in the

ancient writings the formula that foresaw such-and-

such a case. Before a given event - a physical

phenomenon, a catastrophe striking the whole country

- the scholar would not seek to discover the actual

causes in order to find an appropriate remedy. Rather

he would examine with scholarly ardor the volumes of

old writings to find out if the event had already

occurred in some moment of the past, and what

solution had then been applied to it. 8

In accordance with their cyclical perception of reality,

therefore, the Egyptians’ achievements tended to be in

“timeless” areas such as astronomy, mathematics,

medicine, and architecture. These, along with Egyptian

religion and art, are often oversimplified in many modern

treatments, due in part to the absence of verifiable data in

later history until the deciphering of hieroglyphics by

Champollion in 1822. Because of the destruction and

despoliation of ancient Egyptian records and works of art

by religious fanatics of later eras, it is estimated that

modern archæologists have at their disposal less than

10% of that country’s cultural creations from which to

reconstruct its values. 9

Egypt was divided into 42 nomes (provinces), each

dominated by the priesthood of one or more neteru. A

particular priesthood might also influence more than one

nome. The monarchy was closely controlled by the

various orders of priesthood, with the pharaoh acting as

an Earthly deputy of and interpreter for the neteru.

Governmental, judicial, and political systems were

responsible for their ethics to the neteru, not to the

8 Sauneron, Serge, Les pretres de l’ancienne Egypte. New York:

Grove Press, 1980, pages #118-119.

9 Cf. Fagan, Brian M., The Rape of the Nile. New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1975.

- 41 -

people. Justice was meted out by viziers (internal roving

ambassadors of the pharaoh) and nome governors

according to the neter of justice, Maat, on an individual-

case basis. There was no concept of individual rights

against the government, because government was viewed

as a system imposed from without by the neteru.

Similarly each Egyptian, whether high- or lowborn,

participated in this system. Crime and corruption were of

course possible, but inadvisable because of the conviction

that viciousness, callousness, or cruelty would be

punished severely after Earthly death. 10 [It is of note that

such posthumous judgment focused upon individual

virtue/vice rather than, as in later Christian/Islamic

doctrine, upon mere orthodoxy and obedience to

religious institutions.]

Old Kingdom Egypt was largely insulated from foreign

invasion or conflict, hence Egypt spent its early years as a

peaceful culture with no standing military. Egypt is

credited with invention of the alphabet, as well as the use

of currency as a medium of exchange. It is noteworthy for

having produced the first national (as opposed to city-

state) political system, as well as the most enduring one

in recorded history (more than 3,000 years). There was

no caste, racial, or sexual discrimination; foreigners were

considered “less than human (=Egyptian)”, but could

remedy this misfortune simply by moving to Egypt and

adopting Egyptian culture.

Egypt was ultimately destroyed by foreign conquerors

(Persia, Macedonia, Rome) and by her inability to adapt

to the continuing competition of foreign cultures. Her

New Empire of the Setian (XIX-XX) Dynasties was a

protectionist backlash rather than an effort to “civilize” or

10 Wilson, John A., “Egypt” in Frankfort, Henri (Ed.), Before

Philosophy. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1946.

- 42 -

create a permanent empire [after the fashion of Persia,

Macedonia, or Rome].

C. The Neteru

The Egyptians perceived the Universe as actively

controlled by conscious, natural principles ( neteru) of

which Sir E.A. Wallis Budge remarks:

The word neter has been translated “godlike”,

“holy”, “divine”, “sacred”, “power”, “strength”, “force”,

“strong”, “fortify”, “mighty”, “protect”; but it is quite

impossible to be certain that any word which we may

use represents the meaning of neter, because no one

knows exactly what idea the ancient Egyptians attached

to the word. The truth is that the exact meaning of

neter was lost at a very early period of Egyptian history,

and even the Coptic does not help us to recover it. 11

To the Egyptians, all of “nature” (derived from neter)

was alive and the direct consequence of the wills of the

neteru. Nature was intelligible not just through

inanimate, automatic, general regularities which could be

discovered via the “scientific method”; but also through

connections and associations between things and

events perceived in the human mind. There was no

distinction between “reality” and “appearance”; anything

capable of exerting an effect upon the mind thereby

existed. Hence a dream could be considered just as “real”

and thus significant as a daytime experience. No more

eloquently has this been summarized than by She-Who-

Must-Be-Obeyed in H. Rider Haggard’s She and Allan:

11 Budge, E. A. Wallis, The Book of the Dead. New Hyde Park:

University Books, 1960, page #99.

- 43 -

[Allan Quatermain] “I have heard of Isis of the

Egyptians, Lady of the Moon, Mother of Mysteries,

spouse of Osiris whose child was Horus the Avenger.”

[Ayesha] “Aye, and I think will hear more of her

before you have done, Allan, for now something comes

back to me concerning you and her and another. I am

not the only one who has broken the oaths of Isis and

received her curse, Allan, as you may find out in the

days to come. But what of these heavenly queens?”

“Only this, Ayesha: I have been taught that they

were but phantasms fabled by men with many another

false divinity, and could have sworn that this was true.

And yet you talk of them as real and living, which

perplexes me.”

“Being dull of understanding doubtless it perplexes

you, Allan. Yet if you had imagination, you might

understand that these goddesses are great principles

of nature: Isis of throned Wisdom and strait virtue,

and Aphrodite of Love as it is known to men and

women who, being human, have it laid upon them that

they must hand on the torch of life in their little hour.

Also you would know that such principles can seem to

take shape and form and at certain ages of he world

appear to their servants visible in majesty, though

perchance today others with changed names wield their

sceptres and work their will. Now you are answered on

this matter.”

The Egyptian concept of “magic”, correspondingly,

was neither unusual or exceptional. It merely represented

the setting in motion of appropriate neteru forces to

accomplish a desired end: which could be through

physical action, symbolic ritual, art, or speech ( heka). A

magical operation thus initially required perception ( sia)

of a necessity, followed by utterance of the heka ( hw) to

address it.

Egyptian art, literature, and science looked for beauty

and symmetry (felt to be indications of divine perfection),

rather than for cause-and-effect relationships. Hence

Egyptian thought is sometimes called “geometric” as

- 44 -

opposed to the “algebraic” thought of Hellenic and later

logicians.

Since impressions and appearances substantiated

reality, the Egyptian emphasis on portraits and statues of

the neteru was not merely decorative, metaphorical, or

symbolic. Rather an image was a medium whereby the

neter in question could make an actual appearance in the

material world. 12

Similarly part of something could substitute for the

whole as long as the mind completed the connection.

Mental imagery created by viewing the portrait of a dead

relative, for example, brought that relative to true life.

Persons unfamiliar with the ancient Egyptian culture

often assume that the Egyptian religion, like those of later

Mediterranean civilizations, consisted of a single,

integrated pantheon of anthropomorphic gods and

goddesses. It is rather the case that the earliest Egyptian

neteru were provincial, being patrons of individual cities

and districts (nomes). Nor, despite their famous human/

beast composite appearances, were they mere

“ s u p e r n a t u r a l p e r s o n s ” i n t h e l a t e r G r e e k ,

Mesopotamian, or Roman mold. While popular stories

were woven about them - presumably for popular

consumption - the hieroglyphic treatment of the Egyptian

neteru suggests that they actually represented various

aspects of existence - the “Forms” or “First Principles”

discussed by Pythagoras and Plato in a more abstract

manner. 13

12 Cf. Schaefer, Heinrich, Principles of Egyptian Art. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1974. Contrast Egyptian statuary with Greek,

Roman, or later European. The “living presence” in the former will be

dramatically evident.

13 Cf. Winspear, Alban D., The Genesis of Plato’s Thought. New York:

S.A. Russell, 1940. Also Cf. Aquino, M.A., “The Sphinx and the

Chimæra” (Appendix #1).

- 45 -

Intriguingly the neteru may have had a physical

presence as well. The 30-Dynasty dating system most

archæologists use for ancient Egypt comes from

Manetho, an Egyptian priest at Sebennytos in the Nile

Delta ca. 280 BCE. Manetho’s dynastic list extends

backward before Menes and the I Dynasty date of 3100

BCE: 350 years Thinites; 1,790 years other Memphite

kings; 1,817 years other kings; 1,255 years “Heroes”; and

before that 13,900 years in which the neteru reigned

physically on Earth.

Obviously this chronology would conflict with the

“accepted” prehistory of Egypt as summarized at the

beginning of this appendix. Conventional Egyptologists

are comfortable only with a “civilization began suddenly

in 3100 BCE” scenario, hence Manetho is relied upon

very strongly after that date, but swept under the rug

prior to it. 14

Commerce, protective alliances, cultural contact, and

finally the unification of the entire nation ca. 3100 BCE

resulted in the gradual incorporation of local neteru into

regional groups, and then into a loosely-knit national

pantheon. Local and regional cult centers continued to

hold their respective patrons in especial regard, however,

and so the character and role of a specific neter might

vary remarkably from place to place. Individual dynasties

also tended to be oriented to particular cult centers, and

so the neteru in question would be elevated - at least for a

time - to the status of national patrons. 15

The information concerning these cults which is

available to modern Egyptologists is both sparse and

14 Hoffman, Michael A., Egypt Before the Pharaohs. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf, 1979. Fix, Wm. R., Pyramid Odyssey. New York:

Mayflower Books, 1978.

15 Ions, Veronica, Egyptian Mythology. New York: Hamlyn

Publishing Group, 1968, pages #11-13.

- 46 -

confusing. Since a given neter could be portrayed in a

number of different ways, identifying the “core neter” is

difficult. The images and inscriptions concerning a neter

were often altered or appropriated by cultists of rival

neteru. In Christian and Islamic times all “old gods” were

considered blasphemous, and monuments to them were

regularly defaced and destroyed. By the end of the fifth

century CE, knowledge of hieroglyphics had died out, not

to reappear until the nineteenth century; meanwhile

many “useless” records perished through neglect.

For two reasons the cult of Osiris ( Asar) and Isis

( Asa) has been emphasized in modern literature: First, it

was the last cult to dominate the entire Egyptian nation.

Thus it was in a position to do a “final editing” of non-

Osirian manuscripts and monuments. Secondly it was

described in detail by Plutarch, permitting its study long

after the hieroglyphic records of the other cults had

become unreadable. 16

D. Set

No records of the ancient Priesthood of Set survived

first the Osirian-dynastic persecution and later the more

general vandalism of the Christian/Islamic eras. We

know of it only by its reflection, both in the character of

Set as he was portrayed symbolically and mythologically

and in the nature of Egyptian priesthoods in general.

Three significant facts are known about the Priesthood of

Set:

16 Budge, Egyptian Language. New York: Dover Publications, 1971,

page #15. Ions, op.cit. , pages #50-55. Fagan, op.cit. , pages #34-36.

Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, Volume V in Moralia (14 volumes), F.C.

Babbitt (Ed. & Trans.). London: Loeb Classical Library, 1936.

- 47 -

(1) Together with the Priesthood of Horus [the

Elder], it was the oldest of the Egyptian

priesthoods. If we date it to the earliest predynastic

images of Set found by archæologists, we can establish an

origin of at least 3200 BCE. Working with the Egyptians’

own astronomically-based records, we may approximate

5000 BCE. 17 If we are to assume the final eclipse of the

Priesthood at the end of the XIX-XX [Setian] Dynasties

ca. 1085 BCE, we are looking at an institution which

existed at least two thousand and possibly as many as

four thousand years. “In the early dynasties,” observes

Budge:

Set was a beneficent god, and one whose favor was

sought after by the living and by the dead, and so late

as the XIX Dynasty kings delighted to call themselves

“Beloved of Set”. After the cult of Osiris was firmly

established and this god was the “great god” of all

Egypt, it became the fashion to regard Set as the origin

of all evil, and his statues and images were so

effectively destroyed that only a few which have

escaped by accident have come down to us. 18

One may note that Set was by no means the only

“fabulous” creature ever portrayed by Egyptian artists.

But he was the only one represented as a principal neter,

as opposed to a purely-animalistic monster of the Tuat.

(2) Set was the neter who was “different” from

all of the others. Too often this is simplified into his

being the “evil” slayer of Osiris, hence the personification

of “evil”; yet any but the most cursory study of Egyptian

religious symbolism is sufficient to dispel this caricature.

17 Lockyer, J. Norman, The Dawn of Astronomy. Cambridge: MIT

Press, 1964, page #215.

18 Budge, The Book of the Dead, page #181.

- 48 -

He was rather a neter “against the neteru”: the entity who

symbolized that which is not of nature.

This is a very curious role for a neter in Egyptian

cosmology: to be a presence and force which alone could

not be apprehended by perceptions of the natural senses.

Set thus represents the nameless “thing” whose existence

we know of by the shadow it casts on things apprehended

and things perceived by it: the non-natural “presence of

self” ( telos) in individual intelligent life.

Various post-Egyptian cultures have generalized the

vehicle by which this presence is manifest as the spirit,

psyche, or soul, but increased precision is possible. We

must subtract from such crudeness what is “life force”,

and focus our attention on that which remains: the very

awareness of self. In doing so we have in one sense

retraced the path of Descartes to the cogito ergo sum

proposition. Unlike Descartes, however, we see this

phenomenon to be a “thing totally apart” which is not an

extension of “God” or anything else. Set is the

conceptualizer of this principle: the designer. To rewrite

the crucial sentence in the above quote from the point of

view of a neter: “A thing created in the mind thereby

exists.”

This is delicate ground to tread, so much more so for

an ancient Egyptian civilization whose entire “natural”

cosmology was based upon the perfection and harmony

of the Universe.

(3) Despite this unique and disturbing image,

or perhaps because of it, Set became the patron

of the two most powerful dynasties in Egypt’s

long history, the XIX and XX. Herein there is an

interesting “theological succession”:

The early XVIII Dynasty (ca. 1580-1372) was that of

the great Amenhoteps, during whose reigns the

Priesthood of Amon at Thebes was preeminent. The

- 49 -

dynasty disintegrated during the “Amarna period” (ca.

1372-1343) of Akhenaten, during which the solar disk of

Aton was considered supreme if not indeed all-inclusive

of the neteru. When the new XIX Dynasty arose under

Rameses I and Seti I, the state role of Amon was restored

- but the pharaohs directed much of their efforts towards

Set. Recounts Sauneron:

The new dynasty in power, careful to appear to be

“restoring everything to order”, had many reasons for

mistrusting the Amonian priesthood. Descendants of a

military family of the eastern delta, the new pharaohs

were traditionally devoted to a god little esteemed by

the masses because of the role that he had been

assigned in the death of Osiris. But they preserved

nevertheless, here and there, the temples and

priesthoods of the god Set.

The Amarnian experience had demonstrated the

cost of too abrupt a break with the beliefs central to the

entire nation, and of entering into open warfare against

a priesthood practically as powerful as the throne itself.

Thus the politics of Seti I (1312-1301) and of Rameses II

(1301-1235) were infinitely more subtle than those of

their predecessors. There was no rupture with Thebes;

the constructions continued, and magnificent edifices

were raised to the glory of Amon at Karnak, Gourna,

and Ramesseum. But it was from the [Osirian] center

of Abydos that Rameses appointed the High Priest of

Amon. Then he installed two of his sons, Merytum and

Khamuast, as the High Priests of Ra at Heliopolis and

Ptah at Memphis, and demonstrated by further

monuments and political favors his public support of

these gods. But finally, wearied of Thebes and its

ambitious priests, he departed to build a new capital,

Pi-Rameses, in the eastern delta - where he could

quietly worship the god dearest to him, with Amon

occupying a secondary prominence.

The provincial cities where Set had been

worshipped from all eternity - among them Ombos,

Tjebu, and Sepermeru - gained new preeminence from

the favor accorded by the Ramesside leaders to the god

- 50 -

of the Eastern Delta. Above all, Pi-Rameses, the new

capital, brilliantly restored the worship that Set had

formerly received in the Avaris of the Hyksos. 19

During the Setian Dynasties - most probably during

the reign of Merenptah - the revolt and “exodus” of a

number of nomads (hieroglyphic habiru) living in Egypt’s

Goshen province occurred - or at least did so in Jewish

legend. Although “Old Testament” lore states that the

original Hebrews were a unified, foreign culture which

entered Egypt during the time of Rameses I, there are no

Egyptian records substantiating this. It is more probable

that the actual participants in any “exodus” were people

from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. 20 Possibly the

Hebrews’ hated “Satan” derives from one of the honorific

titles ( Set-hen = Eternal Set) accorded the state deity of

the regime they were fleeing.

Following the passing of the two Setian dynasties, the

increasing influence of a priesthood not courted by the

19 Ibid., pages #183-184.

20 Romer, John, Testament. New York: Henry Holt, 1988, page #58:

“Hard evidence of the Exodus event in the preserving deserts of the

Sinai, where most of the biblical Wandering takes place, is similarly

elusive. Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of

ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse, 5,000-year-old

villages of mine-workers, there is not a single trace of Moses or the

Israelites. And they would have been by far the largest body of

ancient people ever to have lived in this great wilderness. Neither is

there any evidence that Sinai and its little natural springs could ever

have supported such a multitude, even for a single week. Several

19th-century vicars recognized this fact within a day or two of the

start of numerous expeditions in search of Moses’ footsteps.

“Escaping from the rigours of an English winter,” as one of them

says, “in a land of the flock and the tent to which our only guide was

the Bible” they quickly realized that the biblical Exodus was

logistically impossible and that the Bible was a most ambiguous

guide to that desolate region. The biblical description of the Exodus,

then, flies in the face of practical experience. Indeed the closer you

examine it, the further it seems removed from all of ancient history.”

- 51 -

Ramesside pharaohs - that of Osiris - boded ill for the

Priesthood of Set. The Osirians recast Set as Osiris’

treacherous brother and mortal enemy of Osiris’ son - for

whom they appropriated the neter Horus. Not content

with attacking Set personally, they further appropriated

his consort and son from the original triad of his cult -

Nepthys and Anubis - whom they now described

respectively as a concubine of Osiris and a son of Osiris

by Nepthys. Comments Budge:

Between the XXII and the XXV Dynasties, a violent

reaction set in against this god [Set]; his statues and

figures were smashed; his effigy was hammered out

from the bas-reliefs and stelæ in which it appeared. 21

Various reasons for this reaction have been proposed

by Egyptologists. It is been suggested that Set fell into

disrepute through being associated in the popular mind

with the Sutekh of the invading Hyksos. Possible, but

improbable, as the Hyksos invasion occurred prior to the

XIX-XX Dynasties when Set was preeminently in favor -

and the presiding neter over Egypt’s greatest period of

imperial glory.

Set’s eclipse may well have been due to a more subtle,

yet pervasive sentiment sweeping Egypt. As Sauneron

and many other Egyptologists have acknowledged,

Egyptian philosophy was based upon a millennia-old

conviction of the absolute presence and influence of the

neteru, and in the virtue of a social system in which the

preservation of cyclical harmony was all-important.

While the New Empire of the XIX-XX Dynasties extended

Egypt’s influence to Palestine and Mesopotamia, it also

made the Egyptians aware that there were many other

functioning cultures in which the neteru were unknown

21 Budge, The Mummy. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1973,

page #276.

- 52 -

[at least by their Egyptian names]. Moreover the concept

of Egypt as just one among a number of nation-states

competing for power and influence in the Mediterranean,

rather than as the one civilization at the center of

existence, must have been a most unsettling one to this

ancient culture - which previously had been able to

discount its neighbors as mere uncultured, barbarian

tribes.

Egypt’s solution to this problem was to turn gradually

away from a glorification of this life and towards an

orientation on the afterlife, where such disturbing

dilemmas could be assumed not to exist. This would

explain the growing influence and popularity of the Osiris

cult during the post-XX Dynasty Egyptian decadence;

Osiris was an afterlife neter.

As the Osiris cult portrayed Set as Osiris’ nemesis

rather than an independent and preexisting neter with no

particular interest in Osiris, this would also explain the

simultaneous wave of Setian persecution described by

Budge. It was characteristic of ancient Egypt that each

new dynasty, in an attempt to establish its own

“timelessness”, often doctored monuments and records to

eliminate inconvenient inconsistencies. Presumably the

Osirian dynasties followed suit, defacing or rewriting all

references to Set that did not support their portrayal of

him as a “Devil”. 22 And that was the distortion of Set

which survived in later Mediterranean legend -

principally through Plutarch, who described it in some

detail in his Moralia. 23

The greatest breakthrough for modern scholars of

Egyptian metaphysics came with the writings of René

22 Ions, op.cit. , pages #72-78. The Osirian legends on this subject are

treated comprehensively in J. Gwyn Griffith’s The Conflict of Horus

and Seth (Chicago: Argonaut Publishers, 1969).

23 Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, Volume V in Moralia.

- 53 -

Schwaller de Lubicz and his wife Isha. Indeed much

credit is due her, because much of René’s work is highly

technical. Isha synthesized its elemental themes into her

highly-readable “novel” Her-Bak, a young Egyptian’s

journey from ordinary peasant to initiated priest. 24

René’s initial realization came from his study of

hieroglyphs: that in addition to their convenience for

mere alphabetics, they embodied symbolic principles

apprehensible to both the rational and the suprarational

intelligence. [His methodology is thus often termed

“Symbolism”.] Gradually he extended his awareness of

this key to Egyptian culture into its architecture (as in his

magnum opus examination of the Luxor temple complex,

Le Temple de L’Homme) and pre-Pythagoreanism.

Of the various secondary works examining René’s

ideas, John Anthony West’s Serpent in the Sky is the

most “immediately-intelligible” introduction. 25 Another

very capable presentation is Egyptian Mysteries by Lucie

Lamy, René’s longtime student and the talented

illustrator for both his works and Isha’s. 26

In the original 1994 Stargate motion picture, the

Great Pyramid of Giza was revealed to be nothing more

than a crude, ritualistic imitation by fearful protodynastic

Egyptians of the gigantic, pyramidal starships in which

creatures beyond their comprehension had come to

Earth; the stone coffer in the “King’s Chamber” was a

similar rough image of the wondrous machine in the

starships with the power to literally bring dead bodies

back to life.

24 Schwaller de Lubicz, Isha, Her-Bak. New York: Inner Traditions,

1954 (two volumes).

25 West, Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High Wisdom of Ancient

Egypt. New York: Julian Press, Inc., 1987.

26 Lamy, Lucie, Egyptian Mysteries. New York: Crossroad, 1981.

- 54 -

In that film, as well as the elegant television series it

subsequently inspired, the alien “gods” were not quite the

neteru they pretended to be - simply an advanced species

using “divine” imagery as a means of psychological

domination of others as well as for their own exotic

pleasures. Nevertheless these Goa’uld almost uncannily

demonstrated the relationship which ordinary humanity

has with its perceived “God/gods” - and why it is quite

fulfilled by such a relationship, false and oppressive as it

may be.

In world after world, civilization after civilization, it is

ever the same; and when a Goa’uld is exposed or killed,

the result is always chaos and uncertainty, with the

“liberated” peoples slipping down into aimless, tedious

tribalism. The wanton terrors of the Goa’uld are gone -

but so are the great, gleaming Pyramidal starships, the

technology to instantly heal all injuries and even restore

bodily life itself, and the ecstatic experience of interacting

with the “gods” face-to-face.

Stargate leaves its audience with an even more

tantalizing mystery. If the Goa’uld borrow their personæ

from real neteru whom they have used technology to

imitate, how did they originally come to know them?

Which leads to my central question about the

ancient Egyptians: Why didn’t their culture “develop”?

The evidence shows that their arts, sciences,

mathematics, technology, techniques of warfare are all

there complete from the beginning. What I want to

argue here today is that the Egyptians of the pre-Old

Kingdom era somehow “inherited” all these arts and

sciences. Then after a short “getting acquainted”

period, we see the full flowering of what we call ancient

Egypt ...

Lecture, Daniel Jackson, Ph.D.

Scottish Rite Temple

4357 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, California, December 1992

- 55 -

Chapter 4: Anamnesis from “Soul”

to MindStar

Hollywood is a place where they’ll pay you a

thousand dollars for a kiss and fifty cents for your

soul. I know, because I turned down the first offer

often enough and held out for the fifty cents.

- Marilyn Monroe

A. Anamnesis

Plato devotes his Dialogue Meno to an exposition and

demonstration of anamnesis: the faculty that, as sentient

beings have lived previously/eternally, their knowledge of

the Forms ( neteru) - creative, organizing, and preserving

Principles of the OU - is also permanent, recallable

through the exercise of dialectic. Through this mental

discipline, the conscious mind is inspired through

progressively more precise questioning to discard later,

coarser, inaccurate concepts in favor of their pure,

original substance and clarity.

The key of anamnesis came down to Plato from Egypt

through Pythagoras. As Dr. Raghavan Iyer summarizes:

Thus the soul, since it is immortal and has

been born many times, and has seen all things

both here and in the other world, has learned

everything that is. So we need not be surprised

- 56 -

if it can recall the knowledge of virtue or

anything else which, as we see, it once

possessed. All nature is akin, and the soul has

learned everything, so that when a man has

recalled a single piece of knowledge--learned

it, in ordinary language--there is no reason

why he should not find out all the rest, if he

keeps a stout heart and does not grow weary of

the search, for seeking and learning are in fact

nothing but recollection.

- Plato, Meno

Anamnesis is the true soul-memory, intermittent

access to the divine wisdom within every human being

as an immortal spectator. All self-conscious monads

have known over immemorial time a vast host of

subjects and objects, modes and forms, an ever-

changing universe. Assuming a complex series of roles

as an essential part of the endless process of learning,

the soul becomes captive recurrently to myriad forms

of maya and moha, illusion and delusion. At the same

time the soul has the innate and inward capacity to

cognize that is is more than any and all of these masks.

As every incarnated being manifests a poor, pale

caricature of himself - a small, self-limiting, and

inverted reflection of one’s nœtic and creative potential

- the ancient doctrine of anamnesis is vital to

comprehend human nature and its hidden possibilities.

Given the fundamental truth that all human beings

have played many parts, initiating diverse actions in

intertwined chains of causation, it necessarily follows

that everyone has the moral and material environment

from birth to death which is needed for self-correction

and self-education. But who is it that has this need?

Not the shadowy self or false egoity which merely

reacts to external stimuli. Rather there is that Eye of

Wisdom in every person which in deep sleep is fully

- 57 -

awake and which has a translucent awareness of self-

consciousness as pure, primordial light. 27

For the reader to apprehend the original Egyptian

nœsis of what modernity only dimly and vaguely calls the

“soul”, we will now highlight this corruption and

degeneration preliminary to jettisoning them.

B. Western Religious CSU

Recall from Chapter #1 that human societies are

generally not comfortable with free and independent SUs.

At the conscious level, humans dislike disagreement and

wish for consensus. But far less apparent and more

deadly are SU conflicts at the subconscious level, which

threaten the prevalent and acceptable view of “reality”.

Until recent centuries, control of Western

civilization’s subconscious CSU was by institutions of the

dominant religion: Judaism and its Christian and Muslim

variants. They defined “reality” and of course punished or

killed “heretics” who could or would not see this “reality”.

[Anticipating Orwell’s 1984, evangelists and inquisitors

saw themselves as “saving” or “curing” unbelievers, even

if the “cure” was individual execution or “heathen”

culture extermination.]

27 Iyer, Raghavan, The Society of the Future. London: Concord Grove

Press, 1984, pages #13-14.

Raghavan (D.Phil. Oxford) was Professor of Political Science at

the University of California, Santa Barbara [and revered mentor and

friend during my M.A. & Ph.D. studies there]. He was also a member

of the Club of Rome and a Mahatma of the Theosophical Society & its

Krotona Institute in Ojai, as well as founder of the Institute of World

Culture, Santa Barbara. His writings may be studied at:

http://theosophy.org/

- 58 -

C. The Judæo-Christian Soul

Judaism is most significant from a CSU standpoint

for its introduction of the concept of “original sin”,

according to which every human begins, lives, and ends

his or her life under a curse and condemnation from

Judaism’s God. This “greatest of all sins” resulted from

Adam and Eve innocently and ignorantly eating a fruit in

the Garden of Eden which gave them individual SUs:

awareness of their freedom to assign meaning and

evaluations of goodness and evilness according to their

own intelligence and experience, not God’s. In effect they

had ceased to be non-conscious components of the OU,

and this separation was the “greatest sin”. Implicitly their

OU-separation from their eating of the fruit was also

passed along to all of their descendants, who similarly

inherited the same inescapable sin.

Consider the effect this CSU has had upon all of the

civilizations in its grip: the entire Jewish, Christian, and

Muslim world down through the centuries. Humanity is

taught that it is inherently and inescapably evil, so much

so that even the most strenuous of purging and punitive

lifestyles, such as monasticism, nunnery, celibacy, etc.,

are futile. Only through the intercession of divine saviors

such as Jesus Christ and Mohammed can a fortunate few

humans hope for even posthumous relief. For everyone

else this life is a journey of misery followed by an eternity

of torture. In its original, pre-Christian “Hell” concept,

ancientMesopotamians [including the Hebrews]

considered the underworld ( Kur-nu-gi-a or Sheol) as a

dim, dismal place in which the once-incarnate soul

disintegrated. Hence their approach to life was fatalistic

and pessimistic, with ethics considered in terms of

Earthly consequences only.

Contrast this with the culture of ancient Egypt, in

which there was neither “original” nor “inherited” sin.

- 59 -

Each individual was born a blank slate, so to speak, and

had full discretion to pursue an incarnation of virtue or

vice, after which, at the entrance to the Afterlife, the

deceased’s heart would be “weighed against a feather” to

fairly ascertain whether pleasure or penance had been

earned.

The Judaic soul, unlike anything in Egyptian

m e t a p h y s i c s , w a s t h u s s o m e t h i n g s h a m e f u l ,

reprehensible, and evil. What could families,

communities, or nations composed of such flawed and

doomed creatures hope to accomplish? If they could not

save themselves in the greater sense, of what value were

efforts towards morality, virtue, and other behaviors

supposed to please if not placate God?

It wasn’t until the late-17th/early-18th century CE

“Enlightenment” that Judæo-Christianity ceased to be

regarded as literal truth and became merely a

propaganda tool for controlling the ignorant and

superstitious. Thereafter, and to this day, it receives

extensive lip service and ceremony, but without the

intelligentsia or even its own cadre regarding it as

anything more than a fairytale. Neither God nor Jesus

nor Satan is regarded as anything more than a convenient

symbolic myth.

It therefore takes some effort to cast oneself back to

pre-Enlightenment times when all such influences were

held to be quite real indeed, and so the determinants of

human actions. Once this is appreciated, the Crusades,

religious wars, sect-persecutions, and “heathen”

civilization exterminations are coldly understandable not

as aberrations but as the God-sanctioned norm of human

conduct.

The Enlightenment relegation of Judæo-Christianity

from truth to fiction was echoed in its concept of the soul.

Previously the soul had been a real, tangible object of fear

and self-hatred within each human. Now that it was

- 60 -

eliminated, society had to develop new devices to entice

or coerce the dominant CSU. We shall survey these

devices as they were introduced and are still used today,

but before doing so, we need to clear away the remaining

wreckage from the popular notion of the soul, and return

again to Egypt for completeness and clarity.

From Webster’s International Dictionary:

soul: (1) The immaterial essence or substance,

animating principle, or actuating cause of life or of the

individual life. (2a) The psychical or spiritual principle

in general shared by or embodied in individual human

beings or all beings having a rational and spiritual

nature. (2b) The psychical or spiritual nature of the

universe related to the physical world as the human

soul to the human body ...

While a superficially-impressive attempt, this

definition finally falls back on empty circularity. What is

an “animating principle”, and would the soul not exist if it

did not animate externalities? What is meant by

“psychical” and “spiritual”? As Robert Anton Wilson

quipped in Schrödinger’s Cat: “Theology was a system for

explaining things by coining words which nobody could

understand and pretending that the words meant

something.” 28

D. Jewish and Christian Afterlifes

Within the Western cultural tradition it is rarely

realized that its two major religions - Christianity and

Judaism - are actually at extremes apart on this issue.

Christianity in all of its many forms upholds life-after-

death as reason for abstinence in “this life”. Judaism, on

the other hand, insists upon “this life only” and absolutely

28 Wilson, Robert Anton, Schrödinger’s Cat. New York: Pocket

Books, 1979, page #98.

- 61 -

rejects justification for human behavior on any grounds

other than YHVH’s direct instructions to living humans.

Comments Arthur Schopenhauer in Parega #I, 13:

The Jewish religion proper, as described and taught

in Genesis and all the historic books until the end of

Chronicles, is the crudest of all religions because it is

the only one which has no theory of immortality - not

even a trace of it. Every king and every hero or prophet

is buried, when he dies, with his fathers, and there is an

end of the matter; no trace of any existence after death;

indeed, as if intentionally, every thought of this sort

seems to have been removed.

Schopenhauer is only partially correct. The ancient

Hebrews drew no distinction between human souls and

the animating force common to all animals ( nephesh).

Although some part of this animating force was thought

to survive the destruction of the body, it was regarded

with superstitious terror and referred to ambiguously by

the terms elohim and rephaim. By the 2nd century BCE

Hebrew doctrine had changed to include the

revivification of the material body, but Hebrew

theologians never extended this principle to the

Pythagorean/Platonic concept of an independently-

surviving psyche.

Not surprisingly the original Christians continued this

Jewish tradition of corporeal revivification, using the

Greek term psyche to mean much the same thing as the

Hebrew nephesh. In Matthew 10:28, where the soul is

mentioned as distinct from the body, their posthumous

reunion is promptly suggested. The most conclusive

example of this doctrine, of course, is that of Jesus’ own

material resurrection [as in Luke 24:36-43], but by the

time of Paul the distaste with which sophisticated Greeks

regarded this “animation of corpses” ( anastasis nekron)

induced that apostle to modify Christian teachings in the

- 62 -

direction of Pythagoreanism. Paul was further aware of -

and presumably sought to overcome - the challenge of

Gnostic and Hermetic Christianity, being a blend of basic

Christianity with various Egyptian and Hellenic

mysteries. 29

In I Cor. 15:35 and II Cor. 5:1-2 Paul offers a mixture

of Pythagorean and Hebrew ideas, whereby the

posthumous soul is given a “spiritual body” ( soma

pneumatikon) which nevertheless requires a bodily form.

Despite Paul’s efforts, Christianity has never succeeded in

breaking free from the notion of reanimation of the

original corpse, which at least has been grist for the mill

of horror-film producers.

While there have been many explanations for

Christian antipathy towards Judaism, one of the most

crucial had todo with Jews’ failure to be posthumously

accountable in any way for their incarnate conduct,

implying that they are self-serving and indifferent to

ethics. Observed Dietrich Eckart, initiate of the Thule

Gesellschaft and mentor to Adolf Hitler and Alfred

Rosenberg, in 1919 ( Auf gut deutsch):

It is now evident that a people which completely

denies the existence of life after death must limit all of

its thoughts and endeavors to the present world, to

earthly existence; it has no other choice. But a people

can only grow up with such an emphasis on worldly

matters if it fundamentally lacks any need for

immortality, which in turn is possible only if there is no

trace of feeling in its basic character for the eternal in

mankind. Wherever the soul manifests itself, no matter

how faintly, a sense of immortality necessarily follows.

The individual is not always consciously aware of this;

indeed there are many who refuse to understand it -

29 The 1945 discovery of thirteen original Gnostic codices at Nag

Hammadi in Upper Egypt has shed much light on the ideas with

which Paul had to compete. The codices themselves date to 350-400

CE but are probably copies of 2nd century CE originals.

- 63 -

who are so ignorant concerning the concept of

immortality that they habitually denounce it, even

while their unselfish actions clearly reveal that each

one of them senses the soul and therefore eternity

within himself.

Although Pauline Christianity attempted to

appropriate the Pythagorean/Platonic concept of the

“soul distinct within and ultimately freed from the body”,

it was unable to sustain this concept without the vehicle

of the body. Christian artistic representations of

posthumous Paradise are invariably sterile and dull. It

will be recalled that Christ’s ultimate promise upon his

Second Coming was to reunite all souls with their ex-

bodies, so that they would once again enjoy their original

corporeal shells.

- 64 -

- 65 -

Chapter 5: Anamnesis MindStar

You have left your body; be aware if you care.

Your mind has left your body, and for this one moment

You are under the polar ice cap in a place we call home.

How is it there, white bear, like that where you grow?

Now all of you come back to here, and now elsewhen to

there.

Move on out the other way where...

Do you find yourself floating, growing there?

You can exercise your mind on where you want to go,

And you can see the city lights flashing two thousand miles

below you.

You can feel the sands of Zanzibar or pierce the nearest sun;

Find out what and who you are and if you need to run.

There is one moment in your life, and it can come at any

time,

And you remember all of what went on

From the instant you were born through your early years.

And if you can fasten on that moment and expand through

the afterglow,

You can reverse your mind in time and travel back to when

The Earth was formed, the sky was born, and the universe

began.

You have left your body; return when you may.

Save it for another day - beyond you.

- Paul Kantner, Your Mind Has Left Your Body

- 66 -

A. MindStar

How then can each soul find and see itself, since it is a

singularity which each individual cannot “get outside of”?

This harks back to philosophers such as Descartes, who

sought, one might say Quixotically, to “prove” their

conscious existence. “Proof” is of necessity external, as

discussed above, so Descartes’ famous Cogito Ergo Sum

(I think, therefore I am) is futile: It is impossible to

describe a “thought” which is not the composite of

external sensory input.

No, conceptual thought (Kant’s “pure reason”, Plato’s

nœsis, Nietzsche’s “horizon building”) begins from the

pure, unsupported apprehension of one’s conscious self

as an existential reality: the ba of ancient Egypt, the

psyche of the Greeks, the Golden Flower of the Tao, the

soul of Judæo-Christianity, identifying, in the words of

Dr. Raghavan Iyer, “... not the shadowy self or false egoity

which merely reacts to external stimuli. Rather there is

that Eye of Wisdom in every person which in deep sleep

is fully awake and which has a translucent awareness of

self-consciousness as pure, primordial light.”

Indeed as this “pure, primordial light” is brought fully

into focus, none of the above labels seems completely

adequate or accurate. Some, like Kant’s and Nietzsche’s,

address expression rather than essence. The Egyptian

realization of the complete essence was multifold: not

limited to the ba. For this discussion, therefore, I propose

a fresh term, inspired by Dr. Iyer’s sublime description

above:

- 67 -

... being the self-contained, self-sustaining concentration

of essence which exists as the core of the conscious mind.

This new term not only frees us from the limitations and

preconceptualizations of old labels; it is a constant

reminder that the present examination is a fresh,

evolutionary one in which we cannot be content to coast

on inaccurate or inadequate myths or stereotypes.

Thus emboldened, therefore, let us return to

anamnesis to address the question of the MindStar’s

ability to interact with a temporary physical body while

not itself containing any element of the OU. [In

conventional conversation this is often referred to as the

“mind/body problem”.] The key we bring to this lock is

that of fields.

B. Fields

1. Definition

What exactly is a “field”? When something occurs

somewhere in the OU because something else happens

somewhere else in the OU, by no detectible means by

which the cause produces the effect, the two events are

said to be connected by a “field” [well-known examples

being gravity and magnetism].

Understandably OU scientists don’t like fields. To the

extent they remain fields in defiance of all attempts to

connect their events, they are inconvenient and annoying

refutations of one of the most sacred OU cows: the law of

cause and effect. Science’s fallback excuse is that the law

must apply to every field phenomenon too; the medium

just hasn’t been discovered yet. Sometimes, even more

desperately, scientists hypothesize completely fantastic

“missing links”, such as “gravitons”, to emulate Robert

Anton Wilson’s amusing explanation of conventional

religious jargon. Leaving both scientists and theologians

- 68 -

thrashing about in this terminological quicksand, let us

proceed to a very special type of field: that integral with

thehuman body.

2. Life-Fields

The human body is an electromagnetic machine. As

such it both generates and is enveloped by

electromagnetic fields (EMF), controlling everything

from heartbeat and respiration to sleep and female

menstrual cycles.

To understand the significance of EMFs to the human

body, it is first necessary to appreciate that each such

body is not an inert, static clump of permanent matter. It

is rather an organic complex in a constant state of

reorganization and reconstitution. For instance, human

liver and serum proteins are replaced every 10 days, and

the whole of the proteins in the body about every 160

days. Moreover these protein molecules are extremely

complex devices, not mere raw material; not even a single

amino acid can be out of place in the replacement.

To put it another way, there are about 60 thousand

billion cells in the human body, and every day about 500

billion of these die and are replaced and rebuilt.

Why? One possibility is that these molecules are so

complex that they are inherently unstable and thus are

continuously deteriorating. The metabolic system,

including the liquid-based transmission of food and raw

material throughout the body, is a raging furnace of

consumption and regeneration.

How does the body know precisely how to recreate

each cell and molecule? It cannot be within the object

itself, because an object cannot “organize itself”.

The answer lies in the existence of an entire layered

network of EMFs throughout and within the body,

altogether comprising a “master plan” EMF for it. Dr.

- 69 -

Harold Saxon Burr, Professor Emeritus of Anatomy, Yale

School of Medicine, named this the L-Field (for “Life-

Field”/LF). 30

In the case of the human body, its organizing system

cannot be chemical, because then that system itself would

be subject to the same entropic process. Hence there is

more to a human being than mere chemistry. It requires

an organizing field, not merely an accidental

accumulation of proteins; thus the notion of “gene

randomness” is invalid.

3. Telos

Organization inherently requires preconception

based upon purpose. Conventional academic doctrine is

that living beings’ purpose is selectively the result of

environmental survival needs: Darwinian “natural

selection”: There is no inherent purpose to life-forms

beyond passive/reactive survival, avoidance of pain,

seeking of pleasure, and instinct to reproduce.

Prior to Darwin’s theory of passive natural selection,

the French biologist Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829),

while not denying such passive evolution, augmented it

with what he termed “soft evolution” (in modern parlance

“Lamarckism”). According to this theory, characteristics

developed or acquired by a given living being can be

inherited by its progeny, thus adding the element of

intentional purpose to evolution.

If Lamarckism is allowed to operate according to

human intellectual will, of course, then the principle of

purpose on the individual human scale is established.

This in turn suggests that there may be a greater element

of purpose above and beyond the individual.

30 Burr, Dr. Harold Saxon, The Fields of Life: Our Links with the

Universe. NY: Ballantine Books #23559, 1972.

- 70 -

While heretical to the Darwinian establishment, such

a master-principle of purpose was neither unknown nor

repugnant to the ancients, who by the time it had reached

Greece from Egypt referred to it as telos.

Teleology is the doctrine that final causes of

phenomena exist. Further that purpose and design are a

part of or are apparent in nature. Further that

phenomena are not only guided by mechanical forces

(e.g. passive natural seletion), but also move towards

certain goals of self-realization.

The opposite of teleology is mechanism, which

describes phenomena in terms of prior causes instead of

their presumed destination or fulfillment. [Modern

science is thus mechanistic.]

The existence of Life-Fields establishes that humanity

is teleological, not mechanistic, in its physical design and

development. The species is not a “random OU accident”

just stumbling onward through equally-haphazard

“survival of the fittest”. This simple and obvious truth is

shattering to mechanistic science, because it inevitably

mandates an intelligence establishing and guiding the

telos: the Egyptian neteru, Pythagorean/Platonic Forms,

or in vulgar simplification “gods/God”.

But the scientists’ teleological nightmare gets worse

[or better, depending upon one’s point of view] ...

4. Thought-Fields

As it turns out, human thought also has the properties

of a field. While Dr. Burr was conducting his 40 years of

research regarding what would eventually emerge as L-

Fields, other academicians were examining mental

activity and discovering that it too does not behave as a

“linear machine” [as, for instance, electronic computers

- 71 -

running programs of “artificial intelligence”]. 31 Among

these findings:

(1) Memory is not localized in the brain, except

where it is connected to a very immediate,

specific, and continuous sensory function

(e.g. perception of heat). Destroying select,

even major areas of the brain does not have

a traceable effect upon the general memory

function; other parts of the brain simply

“take over”, and even appear to be re-

learning and re-refining supposedly-excised

m e m o r i e s . I f t h e s o u r c e f o r s u c h

reacquisition is not physical, then it defaults

to a field phenomenon.

(2) Access to memories is also non-linear. One

may forget what one had for dinner the

previous evening, while having a crystal-

clear recall of information/imagery decades

previously. The process by which memories

are so assorted [as it is a grey-scale

spectrum, not an either/or action] remains

unknown.

(3) Memory access is instantaneous, its age or

complexity notwithstanding. This again is

non-linear, as computers must go through

31 Dr. Harold Saxon Burr’s L-Field research was summed up in his

The Fields of Life: Our Links with the Universe (NY: Ballantine

Books #23559, 1972). The first collection of research extending this

“fields” concept to thought was Design for Destiny by Edward W.

Russell (NY: Ballantine Books #23405, 1971). Russell was a former

newspaper reporter with an interest in speculative science. While it is

admittedly hypothetical, Russell does a commendable and exhaustive

job of identifying and citing both scientific and philosophical sources.

- 72 -

selection/exclusion sequences to answer

memory-questions.

(4) As Plato illustrated in the Meno, the

underlying basis of all knowledge - the

primal building-blocks upon which learning

and reasoning depend for their accuracy

and coherence - are inherent to each

incarnate intelligence: anamnesis -

“recollective awareness of the neteru/

Forms”. In non-metaphysical terms,

humans know “instinctively” whether they

are thinking reasonably and with validity.

[This is not the same thing, obviously, as

processing thoughts on the basis of invalid

information.]

Of course much of what humans know as day-to-day

thought is [at least assumed as] linear [the precise term

being “algorithmic”]. Human brains coast through each

day largely on sensory stimulus/response “autopilot”,

about 95% of which is subconscious. If the avalanche of

daily sensory data had to be dealt with consciously,

anything resembling normal human activity would be

quite impossible.

As with Dr. Burr’s L-Fields, Mr. Russell’s “T-Fields”

met with something less than thunderous enthusiasm in

established/conventional scientific circles. It was bad

enough for Burr to discover an external and purposeful

intelligence behind human OU/bodily organization and

evolution. It was far worse for the most essential

elements of individual human presence-of-mind to be

completely removed from the physical brain. In this

devastating one/two blow, Darwinian mechanism had

been completely exploded, with the terrible spectres of

“intelligent design” and a metaphysical “soul” returning

- 73 -

[absent Judæo-Christian trappings] from their post-

Enlightenment banishment.

As these [re]discoveries could not be invalidated or

discredited, they met with the academic establishment’s

fallback response: they were simply and persistently

ignored.

Except, of course, here.

C. Egyptian MindStar Emanations

To this point we have first cleared away the

conventional religious and materialistic wreckage from

the popular concept of the “soul”, and established both

the metaphysical existence of the MindStar (MS) and its

means of interaction with the OU brain and body.

We are now in a position to identify the elements or

“emanations” of the MS as the Egyptians apprehended

them. This is thus the “core” of this book, but it cannot be

overemphasized that this is not a mere recitation for the

reader’s bemusement. It is a doorway, a map, by which

the individual can redirect the power of discretionary

consciousness to its source, purification, and realization

of immortality.

Each of the following eight emanations proceeds from

the [more] OU-linked to the [more] SU-linked.

Predictably this makes the more basic ones that much

easier to identify based on their familiar, if subconscious

OU-usage. A comparison may be made to Plato’s

“pyramid of thought”, which in his Dialogues he stratified

as Eikasia (primitive emotion), Pistis (ordinary active/

reactive thinking), Dianoia (precise, logical, enlightened

thought), and Nœsis (intuition and apprehension of the

Ultimate Good ( Agathon).

The Egyptian priesthoods knew that each living

creature was possessed of several existence-emanations

above and beyond the metabolic mind/body. All sentient

- 74 -

beings possess the first four ( khat, ren, khabit, ab).

Beings endowed with the Gift of Set (awareness of isolate

self-consciousness) the next two ( ba, ka) as well as in

those of initiatory capacity and attainment the next one

( sekhem), and in unique instances the ultimate one ( akh).

Accordingly each of the following expositions is meant

not just as something to be read, but as a personal

application exercise. Upon being alerted to each

emanation, redirect your thought “inward” until you find

and recognize it in yourself. You may be surprised at how

effortless this is. [As effortless and self-evident, indeed, as

all of the “great truths” presented in MindStar, each of

which you find, perhaps to your surprise, that you “know

already”. Welcome to anamnesis.] It is a gateway, a map

to your personal Grail Castle. Once you know that it exists

and is there to be quested and found, you have only to:

Descende, audas viator, et terrestre centrum

attinges. Kod feci.

Descend, audacious traveler, and you will reach

the center of the Earth. I did it.

Arne Saknussemm, in

Jules Verne,

Journey to the Center of the Earth, 1864

1. Khat

The body-emanation. The khat is integral with the

being’s physical body, and is the original of what later,

lesser cultures would represent as the “energy body”,

“body of light”, “astral body”, etc. In current field theory

it constitutes the life-field of the person, controlling and

directing its material counterpart’s organization,

regeneration, and span of existence. During physical life

it is coextensive with its material counterpart. After

material death it may remain with the corpse to serve as a

medium for the other emanations, or it may merely linger

near its remains. Jungians perceived the khat as the

- 75 -

“earthbound” anima, and in the oriental vision of the

Golden Flower it was known as the kuei:

Tao the undivided, Great One, gives rise to two

opposite reality principles, Darkness and Light, yin and

yang. These are at first thought of only as forces of

nature apart from man. Later the sexual polarities, and

others as well, are derived from them. From yin comes

K’un, the receptive feminine principle; from yang

comes Ch’ien, the creative masculine principle. From

yin comes ming (life); from yang comes hsing

(essence).

Each individual contains a central monad which, at

the moment of conception, splits into life and essence

( ming and hsing). These two are super-individual

principles and so can be related to eros and logos.

In the personal bodily existence of the individual

they are represented by two other polarities, a p’o soul

(or anima) and a hun soul (or animus). All during the

life of the individual these two are in conflict, each

striving for mastery. At death they separate and go

different ways. The anima sinks to earth as kuei, a

ghost-being. 32

It is the khat which is drawn into or activated from

within a corpse in necromantic magical workings. As the

32 The Secret of the Golden Flower by Richard Wilhelm (Trans)

(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1931. A classic of Chinese

Taoism describing the process of the attainment of transcendental

existence by the means of creating a mandala from the personal

subconscious. A key influence in the magical philosophy of Golden

Dawn Rosicrucian W.B. Yeats. Cf. also a more recent translation by

Thomas Cleary (San Francisco: HarperSan Francisco, 1991).

- 76 -

reader may surmise, the khat is also the vehicle for the

zombie practices of Voodoo. 33

2. Ren

The name-emanation. The Egyptians understood

the power of names to identify, define, protect, and

empower individuals - most conspicuously in the various

names taken by each pharaoh. Collectively and separately

each name affected the very essence of the person, and

the greatest curse [as also illustrated in literature and

film] was to be denied all names. 34 Externally a name can

be used to summon or compel, whether physically

incarnate or not. The neteru also have the power and the

discretion to give names as well as take them, and

through such names to take form and voice.

33 For details of zombification see Wade E. Davis , The Serpent and

the Rainbow (New York: Warner Books, 1987), concerning Haitian

Voodoo and actual zombie creation - not by supernatural means, but

by the secret use of poisons. The book is based upon field research by

the author, who holds undergraduate degrees from Harvard

University in Ethnobotany and Biology, and a Ph.D. in Ethnobotany.

34 For example, in Bram Stoker’s The Jewel of Seven Stars, the

Egyptian priests who sought to prevent the feared sorceress-Queen

Tera from returning to incarnate life attempted to destroy all

inscriptions of her name in her tomb, as well as in other references to

her. [They failed.]

In H.P. Lovecraft’s The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, the name

and all references to the Colonial sorcerer Joseph Curwen were

tracked down and obliterated by the vigilantes who murdered him.

Elsewhere in exoteric history it was a common practice for

Egyptian pharaohs and priesthoods to attempt to deface or erase the

names, images, and monuments of feared or hated predecessors,

such as the “heretic” Akhenaten.

- 77 -

3. Khabit

The shadow-emanation. This is the connection of

the still-incarnate khat with the life-forces of the natural

neteru, enabling it to function as the organizing and

controlling energy (the individual “life-field”). If the

khabit is destroyed, the life-field de-energizes and the

physical body expires. In Black Magic the khabit can also

be sent out by its owner as an instrument of influence

upon others.

After the physical body is destroyed or no longer

needed, the khabit becomes an avatar of the neter

Anubis, overseeing guidance of the [noninitiate]

consciousness through the incoherence of the Tuat into

the stabilization of Amenti. An initiated consciousness

needs no such guidance.

4. Ab

The heart-emanation. The physical locus of

individual identity and consciousness, hence the bridge

between the OU of the neteru and the SU of the four

metaphysical emanations. It is through the ab that an

individual realizes and recognizes incarnate identity and

uniqueness, and following destruction/expiration of one’s

body it is through the ab that one can reenter the OU [as

a “ghost”, through “possession” (more precisely merger

with another, incarnate ab), or through thought-

transference].

It is also in the ab that the strength and quality of

one’s maat (inclination to “good” or “evil”) reposes. This

is echoed in the later Indian mythologies of karma, and

was the reason for the posthumous “weighing of the heart

against a feather” in Egypt. After bodily death the maat

within the ab overwhelms it completely, so that any

subsequent manifestation in the OU is likely to be an

- 78 -

extreme concentration of either beneficence or

malevolence.

5. Ba

The core-emanation. This is each sentient being’s

sense of self-awareness, of unique and absolute

distinction from everything else (both other sentient

beings and the entire OU). Thus it is the manifestation, or

Gift, of Set, the neter of non-nature, in each so-conscious

entity.

The ba becomes stronger through increased self-

exploration and -realization: the initiatory process of

Xeper. Unlike natural initiation, which draws the

individual into alignment, harmony, and ultimately

conscious absorption into and indistinction from one or

more of the natural neteru, Xeper of the ba does not

dissolve the self into Set, but attains and sustains a

cohesive essence of its own.

The anamnesis or “remembered knowledge”

experienced by the slave boy in Plato’s Meno is perhaps

more accurately described as the physical-process,

stimulus/response brain reaching in to the ba for bits of

its immortal, eternal wisdom. But this is akin to reaching

for a coal in a hot fire. It is stressful to do, and the result

can be held only for a fleeting moment without further

stress. The superficial/physical “self”, which through

material “hits” continuously reassures itself that it is the

only self, is shaken by exposure to its falseness, its

nothingness. It backs away from such “close encounters”,

dismisses them as “illusions”, “fantasy”, “imagination”,

etc., and hastens to rebuild its fortress of material-

sensation walls.

Absent Setian orientation and initiation, a ba simply

continues as one’s sense of identity, thus the “essential

self” around which all of the other souls coalesce and

- 79 -

recognize themselves. Within noninitiates this results in

the ba being sensed as a dreamy, meditative “state of

being” which, if indulged in with persistence and

intensity, leads to its overwhelming the other souls, hence

“nirvana” and similar states of ba-ecstasy.

6. Ka

The transmigration-emanation. The ka is the

complete mirror-image of all eight natural and non-

natural emanations, fused into an avatar, Doppelgänger,

or Horla, a completely metaphysical remanifestation of

oneself which can exist and displace without limit, both

within the non-natural universe generated by one’s ba

and within the physical universe of the natural neteru as

well.

It is the ka that, through the ab, enters the natural

universe through “identity gates” such as pictures or

statues of the individual, or utterance of the individual’s

name(s) (the ren), as well as through conducive locales

such as temples and geological & architectural anomalies.

While the ba may, particularly posthumously, lose

awareness of itself through the paradoxical expansion of

that consciousness into its entire perceptive field, the ka

remains immortally finite, distinct, and otherness-

separate. Thus in an expressive, active sense it becomes

the externally-identifiable individual beyond physical

death.

Nowhere is the ka better illustrated than in initiate

Bram Stoker’s The Jewel of Seven Stars. Film treatments

of this work, such as Hammer’s Blood from the Mummy’s

Tomb and the more recent The Awakening, have done it

a grotesque disservice. In Stoker’s original text it is in no

sense a horror story, but rather a fascinating and

romantic mystery: Who was Tera of ancient Egypt, this

marvelous sorceress-queen who took with her to her

- 80 -

tomb only a ruby scarab inscribed with the constellation

of the Thigh of Set (our “Great Bear”) and the hieroglyphs

mer (love) and men ab (patience)? Listen to the words of

the woman of our own era with whose ka Tera came

gently to merge:

I can see her in her loneliness and in the silence of

her mighty pride, dreaming her own dream of things

far different from those around her. Of some other

land, far away under the canopy of the silent night, lit

by the cool, beautiful light of the stars. A land under

that Northern star, whence blew the sweet winds that

cooled the feverish desert air. A land of wholesome

greenery, far, far away. Where were no scheming and

malignant priesthood; whose ideas were to lead to

power through gloomy temples and more gloomy

caverns of the dead, through an endless ritual of death!

A land where love was not base, but a divine possession

of the soul! Where there might be some one kindred

spirit which could speak to hers through mortal lips

like her own; whose being could merge with hers in a

sweet communion of soul to soul, even as their breaths

could mingle in the ambient air! I know the feeling, for

I have shared it myself. I may speak of it now, since the

blessing has come into my own life. I may speak of it

since it enables me to interpret the feelings, the very

longing soul, of that sweet and lovely Queen, so

different from her surroundings, so high above her

time! Whose nature, put into a word, could control the

forces of the Under World; and the name of whose

aspiration, though but graven on a star-lit jewel, could

command all the powers in the Pantheon of the High

Gods. And in the realisation of that dream she will

surely be content to rest!

In Love and Patience we are taught the secret of true

immortality - not the repulsive reanimation of corpses

( anastasis nekron) of Christianity, nor the vague

confusion of reincarnationists - but the infinite radiance

- 81 -

of one’s MS by its most magnificent expression, and with

a serene transcendence of natural time.

The last two souls are unique in that they must arise

from the individual, and require initiate consciousness to

do so, per the formula Xepera Xeper Xeperu (“I Have

Come Into Being and Created That Which Has Come Into

Being.”).

7. Sekhem

The neter-emanation. While the term sekhem is

ordinarily translated as “power”, this is misleading,

because it is power in a very rarified sense - that

emanating from the neteru themselves. For this reason it

is also described as “the power of the stars” through

which the neteru manifest in the natural universe. The

sekhem combines with the ab (as, in effect, a temple

within one’s consciousness), to draw down the essence of

one or more adored neteru to indwell therein.

Activation of the sekhem has another effect: every

incidence infuses the Initiate with more of the neter

invoked, to the cumulative degree that the Initiate’s

personality becomes accented by the neter’s: seeing as

that neter sees, speaking as that neter would speak,

acting as that neter would act. Hence it is the sekhem

which makes possible, and ultimately consecrates

priesthood of a neter in the individual so aligned. Once

this transformation has taken place, it cannot be undone;

at most it may be sublimated or repressed, but only at

great cost to the priest’s or priestess’ very sanity.

8. Akh

The star-emanation. Beyond the priesthood of the

sekhem is the akh, in which the Initiate rises to the

company of the neteru as one of their essence, if not of

- 82 -

them absolutely. Such one is indistinguishable from the

actual neteru except by the neteru themselves. Such a

mode of existence departs completely from all concern

with physical displacement within natural-universal

references or boundaries, manifestation, or action, and

affects otherness only by the radiance of its presence.

While it does not destroy any of the other emanations, it

permeates all of them, such that henceforth they all exist

in conformity and concert with it.

9. Conventionalist Blinders

What conventional Egyptology calls the “Egyptian

soul” varies from three to eleven “parts” taken arbitrarily

from the multitude of Old & New Kingdom magical and

funerary texts favored by the Egyptologist offering his

“translation”. What quickly becomes commonly evident is

that these treat the entire subject, as indeed the rest of

Egyptian metaphysics, as nothing more than a primitive

fairytale: an entertaining curiosity but certainly nothing

to take seriously or apply as a key to reality. Only from

the Symbolists, who do not make the fatal mistake of

regarding hieroglyphs as nothing more than an alphabet,

can the modern mind move, as herein, beyond the

superficial and “quaintly silly” to the authentically

experiential: the apprehension of the true, immortal, and

eternal MS. All one need do is to focus one’s conscious

past the physical-sensory prison of the khat.

As you seek and find each emanation, you will realize

it suprarationally, beyond the limitations of khat-

realm alphabetics. Expect this; don’t make the mistake of

dismissing it as “mere imagination”. You are unlocking a

far greater reality, not merely corrupting the most crude

and confining physical-sensory illusion of it.

- 83 -

Chapter 6: MindStar Activity

... And travellers now within that valley,

Through the red-litten windows see

Vast forms that move fantastically

To a discordant melody;

While, like a rapid ghastly river,

Through the pale door;

A hideous throng rush out forever,

And laugh - but smile no more.

- Edgar Allan Poe

The Fall of the House of Usher

A. Metaphysical Evidence

To this point we have discarded inaccurate and

incoherent representations of the “soul”, discussed how a

purely-metaphysical locus of conscious existence (MS)

can interact with an incarnate body in the OU through

field functionality, and returned through anamnesis to

the original Egyptian MS emanations.

Within its familiar realm of OU-studies, physical

science identifies and classifies phenomena, the natural

laws governing them, through observation and repeat-

experimentation (the “scientific method”).

How can the purely-metaphysical MS be similarly

verified and “tracked” if it cannot be compared and

contrasted to anything besides itself? The answer is that

- 84 -

if incarnate humans cannot “see” the MS through any OU

medium, they can accomplish the same identification and

validation by looking at its “reflection”: its activity in the

course of both individual and group events.

Once again the ancient Greeks, after their Egyptian

sages, had a word for this MS “footprint”, and it is:

B. Logos

The Greeks saw the OU divided into a non-conscious,

automatic functioning ( physis) conceived and

implemented by a divine intelligence and consciousness

( logos). The individual human intelligence ( nous) was

capable of coherent recognition and application of the

logos; each human was thus a microcosm of the

macrocosmic logos. As Raghavan Iyer relates:

In classical Greece the term nomos had to do with

measure. As early as Sophocles, agraphos nomos, the

unwritten law, had divine sanction, and with the later

Stoics it was grounded in nature ( physis) as the

immanent logos.

Nous for Anaxagoras was both a cosmological

principle as the source of all motion, and an immanent

principle in all living beings.

Diogenes qualified the principle, which he

denominated ær-nous, by replacing mechanistic

interpretations with the view that its activity is

intelligent and forms the best possible kosmos, and it is

expressed in the operation of a principle of measure

among all things.

In the later writings of Plato kosmos nœtos, the

intelligible universe, is both produced and ordered by

nous, which is inherent in all men.

Plotinus drew the implication that nous is

transcendent as the cause of kosmos nœtos and is

immanent in human beings, each of whom is therefore

a kosmos nœtos.

- 85 -

The Stoics concluded that the human nous is a

manifestation of cosmic nous.

Nous represents a binding-together of human

minds as rays from one central source of cosmic

intelligence. 35

Thus the logos may be described as the field which

enables the human intelligent consciousness ( nous) to

transcend the OU ( physis) and come into its divine being

as the MS.

As the human MS energizes and is energized by the

logos, it radiates its existence in both an active and a

passive way.

The active radiation, well-known to the Egyptians but

not so clear to the Greeks, is Xeper (hieroglyphic Xpr). It

is sensed by the individual experiencing it, but is

inherently difficult for others to perceive because it is

constantly remanifesting and enhancing the nous in

question. It is unique and unpredictable in each

individual, so the most that others may sense is that

something involved with the logos is transforming that

individual beyond the known and familiar.

The passive “footprint” of humanity’s encounter with

the logos is more easily seen by the intellectual and

emotional reactions it has engendered throughout the

course of history. One might suppose it to be a desirable,

exhilarating experience, but remarkably this has not been

the case. Failing to understand the divine dimension of

the logos, humans have more often than not reacted to its

presence in them with confusion and fear. This

uncertainty has not focused on the logos as a unique

principle, but rather upon its presumed purpose ( telos).

This has coalesced into extremes of absolute discretion

(or “free will”) vs. predestination (or “mechanization”).

35 Iyer, Raghavan, Parapolitics: Toward the City of Man. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1979, pages #54-55.

- 86 -

C. The Telos of Logos

The scope and discretion of the consciousness, the

Greeks contended, evidenced that each living being so

endowed was far more than a mere survival, gratification,

and reproduction mechanism. The self-aware mind

( nous) extends far beyond this, indeed far beyond the

discernible limits of the natural environment itself

( physis). There was of necessity a purpose to this

existence greater than the natural, whether divinely or

individually inspired ( logos). In individual humans the

Egyptians knew it as Xeper: the ever-expanding,

evolutionary assertion of being. In Greece it was sought

as telos - usually translated as “purpose” but referring not

to mere convenience or application, but to a being’s,

object’s, or process’ metaphysical fulfillment. Thus Xeper

or telos was not always readily apparent; it was a

profound, hidden magic which only the enlightened

consciousness could come to recognize and appreciate

(again, the logos).

Of the two terms, Xeper was by far the more elusive,

since it varied infinitely between particularizations,

especially conscious beings. Telos was less multifaceted,

looking for recognizable, predictable features in things or

even beings of an apparent relationship. Thus telos could

be ascertained through methodical, enlightened

discovery: the dialectic. (exemplified by Plato’s

Dialogues). Xeper, on the other hand, does not pre-exist

such as to be discoverable through examination; it is

spontaneous and unique to each entity. Other

enlightened intellects accordingly can sense it in its

manifestation only.

Thus while Xeper reveals no “map” or “program of its

unfolding, as it unfolds and expands it creates a

- 87 -

progressively more identifiable “trail” or “mirror” of itself

to the perceptive onlooker: its telos.

Again, telos refers to the “end” of a particular thing -

its most functional, efficient, and effective object in the

manifestation of its existence. Happiness and harmony

lie in discovering that end or activity for which a being or

thing is most precisely suited, then concentrating on that

telos.

Accordingly an initiate activating and maximizing his

personal Xeper should pay close attention to its

progressive revelation of telos, so that he does not expend

time or energy wastefully. 36

It is relatively easy to establish the telos of a pencil or

a table, and even of most natural animals. Humanity,

however, is another story altogether. Indeed once one is

sensitive to this principle, much of human history is

revealed to consist of confused and even violent

arguments and contests concerning it - though

noninitiates never see their irreconciliations through this

lens.

D. Historical Non- Telos: Free Will

As we have seen, Plato was a proponent of teleology:

the doctrine that final causes of phenomena exist.

Further that purpose and design ( logos) are a part of or

are apparent in nature. Further that phenomena are not

only guided by mechanical forces ( physis), but also move

towards certain goals of self-realization.

36 The [in]famous British mystic and magician Aleister Crowley is

well-known for his admonition: “Do What Thou Wilt shall be the

whole of the Law.” - which most assume to mean simply “do

whatever you want”. In fact he meant that one should first discover

one’s telos, then concentrate upon its fulfillment. “... Thou hast no

right but to do thy will.” - Liber L #I-42

- 88 -

The opposite of teleology is mechanism, which

describes phenomena in terms of prior causes instead of

their presumed destination or fulfillment. [Modern

science is thus mechanistic.]

Mechanism may be further divided into “free will” vs.

“determinism” subcategories.

Free-will advocates say that humanity is completely

discretionary: that people are free do whatever they want

or allow one another to do, with no “higher standard” of

any sort involved beyond social consensus. Such

advocates tend to be religious atheists, and in their

societal extreme are inclined to anarchism. This position

ultimately demands a fallback to strict materialism,

including the denial of anything metaphysical in

humanity. Thus there is no “soul”; humans are mere

stimulus/response machines.

1. Sophism

The roots of this cold utilitarianism may be traced

back to 5th century BCE Greece, where the metaphysical

concepts espoused by Pythagoras and Plato were rejected

by a school of thought called Sophism. The Sophists,

most prominent of whom was Protagoras (c.490-420

BCE), maintained that “man is the measure of all things”,

a contention which Plato sought to refute in his

Republic. 37 To do so, Plato’s Socrates had finally to fall back on another metaphysical concept: nœsis, a

suprarational apprehension of the ultimate Good

( Agathon) and humanity’s inclination thereto.

Unsurprisingly this argument did not commend itself to

non-initiated minds unable to make sense of nœsis, so

the principles of sophism continued into such derivative

37 The complete statement attributed to Protagoras is: "Of all things

the measure is man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the

things that are not, that they are not."(DK 80B1)

- 89 -

Hellenistic variations as Skepticism, Epicureanism,

Stoicism, and Cynicism.

2. Skepticism

Skepticism, introduced by Pyrrho of Elis (360-270

BCE) and Timon of the Platonic Academy in Athens

(320-230 BCE), may be defined as the doctrine that any

true knowledge is impossible, or that all knowledge is

uncertain - a position that no fact or truth can be

established on philosophical grounds.

If nothing can be conclusively known, argues the

Skeptic, then virtue lies in avoidance of judgment and

thus of action. Beyond the individual, the community

( polis) is something to be reluctantly endured for

whatever relief from negative values it offers. It is not a

positive thing in itself.

In many ways Skepticism may be considered a

“clever” parody of the Socratic method. Socrates,

however, used a Skeptical approach towards knowledge

as a “clearing away the mental underbrush” device in

order to better employ logic. The Skeptics did not pursue

a similarly positive, constructive approach to the

acquisition of knowledge.

3. Epicureanism

Epicureanism was a philosophy of hedonistic ethics

that considered calmness untroubled by mental or

emotional disquiet the highest good, held intellectual

pleasures superior to others, and advocated the

renunciation of momentary gratification in favor of more

permanent pleasures. It was introduced by [and named

after] Epicurus of Samos (341-270 BCE), and it enjoyed

considerable influence among the Greek civilizations of

the Asiatic coasts.

- 90 -

Epicurus, a pantheist who rejected conventional

religion, felt that the aim of philosophy should be to free

humanity from fear of the gods, who, if they exist, are too

remote to concern themselves with human fortunes. He

rejected metaphysics, holding that humans can know

nothing of the suprasensual world. Reason, he said, must

accept the evidence of the senses. Epicurus considered

mankind a completely natural product - and mind only

another kind of matter. The soul can feel or act only by

means of the body, he maintained, and it dies with the

body's death.

Accordingly Epicurus considered virtue to be not an

end in itself, but rather the means toward happiness. He

recommended the simple, non-envious life of the country

peasant. “Everything natural is easily procured, and only

the useless is costly.” “Desires may be ignored when our

failure to accomplish them will not really cause us pain.”

Epicureanism thinks of happiness in a negative

fashion, i.e. freedom from pain. It considers wisdom as

an escape from the hazards and problems of life. It is a

nice philosophy for one able to pursue it, but few are. An

entire polis of Epicureans, to be sure, would cease to

function beyond Homer’s mythical Land of the Lotus-

Eaters.

4. Stoicism

Stoicism was a philosophical system holding that it is

man's duty to freely conform to natural law and his

destiny, that virtue is the highest good, and that the wise

man should be free from passion, equally unperturbed by

joy or grief. First introduced by Zeno, a somewhat

mysterious Phœnician/Egyptian (336-264 BCE), it was

later espoused by Chrysippus, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus,

and Marcus Aurelius of Rome.

- 91 -

Stoicism too was pantheistic: The world is the

embodiment of and is governed by the Logos

Spermatikos (seminal reason). All the OU is essentially

one, but matter is dynamic. The OU goes through cycles

of expansion and contraction, development and

dissolution. “God” is this entire process, not a being apart

from it. He is the “soul” of the OU, so to speak. Man is a

microcosm of the OU. When he dies, his soul survives

death as an impersonal energy. Ultimately this will be

reabsorbed into the OU energy.

Stoics denied the Skeptical contention that no

objective knowledge is possible, holding rather that a

wise man can distinguish reliable impressions

( kataleptika phantasia = “grasping impressions”) from

ethereal ones. Hence the Stoics thought it possible to

identify the OU as a single, integrated substance in which

human existence and behavior partake. Knowledge arises

through the senses, which are also the final test of truth.

Experience does not always lead to knowledge, for

perceptions may be distorted by passion and/or emotion.

Reason is the supreme achievement of humanity.

Since humanity is integral with the OU, goodness is

cooperation with nature. It is not the pursuit of pleasure,

which would subordinate reason to passion. If evil comes

to the good man, it is only temporary and not really evil,

since in the greater sense it is natural. The Stoic thus

accepts all fortunes and misfortunes of life calmly. He

seeks an absence of feeling in his thoughts and conduct.

Nevertheless Stoicism does not excuse all events as

deterministic. The individual is still responsible for

virtuous or vicious choices, measured against a natural

approximation. The Stoic considers the “average man” a

dangerous fool governed by passions and emotions rather

than by virtue and reason. The Stoic disapproves of war

and slavery, and believes in humanitarianism and

equality of all humans as elements of nature. But he does

- 92 -

not advocate violent social revolutions or drastic policies

to attain these ends. Change must come “naturally”, not

artificially. Stoics sought harmony in society, which -

unlike Epicureans - they acknowledged as natural. The

Stoic ideal was a “world society” ( cosmopolis)

transcending regional divisions: one of Alexander's goals

for his empire.

5. Cynicism

A variant on Stoicism was the early Cynicism of

Antisthenes (444-365 BCE) and Diogenes (d. 323 BCE),

who advocated a rejection of worldly goods and

involvement and a concentration on virtue as the only

worthy goal. Cynicism's simple opportunism - taking

what life offers, for better or worse - was eventually

absorbed into the ethical posture of Stoicism.

6. Scholasticism

During the Christian Medieval and Renaissance

periods of European history, “free will” was condemned,

indeed literally demonized as the disastrous consequence

of Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of

Eden to acquire it by eating the fruit of its forbidden

tree. 38

Hence virtue and right-conduct during this era were

strictly decreed to be found in unquestioned adherence to

the post-Eden laws of God, and all that sinful humanity

could do was to learn and obey them.

38 That God had placed the tree there and given his human creatures

not even a hint of the dire consequences not just to them but to the

entire human race to follow them was and still is judiciously ignored

by Judæo-Christianity. In effect it reduced Eden to the most cruel

and sadistic of God’s jokes.

- 93 -

The “High Middle Ages” was not a particularly rich

time in terms of the cultural arts, save for architectural

ventures in the relatively severe and massive

Romanesque style, followed in the mid-12th century by

the Gothic (lighter and loftier construction, with greater

emphasis upon vertical elements). Some notable ballads

and poems ( Nibelungenlied, Parzival, Edda, etc.) were

composed about this time, and music became somewhat

more complex in its written formats.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was a Christian cleric

who ultimately achieved Catholic sainthood by his

success in reacting to the challenge of Islam and the

rediscovery of Classical philosophy, particularly that of

Aristotle, ca. 1140. By 1250 Aristotle's influence had

become so great that he was referred to as “the

philosopher”. Hence it was necessary to refine

Catholicism to an intellectual precision comparable with

that of Aristotle, and also to make Aristotle's more

secular/scientific works tolerable to the church through a

flattering interpretation of them.

Invoking Aristotle's argument for an “unmoved

mover”, Aquinas suggests that the necessity for a “first

cause” logically proves the existence of God. This was

later to be challenged by David Hume (who suggests that

causes and effects can go forward or backward

indefinitely) and Immanuel Kant (who maintains that the

doctrine of causality is applicable only to the realm of

sense experience).

Aquinas observes that Aristotle had advocated the

principle that the “good” to be found on a large scale is

better than the “good” to be found on a purely personal

scale, since the larger good more closely approximates

and reflects the whole of creation.

For non-human animals the “good” consists of

sensual pleasure, but for mankind something more is

sought. However, following the doctrine of his

- 94 -

predecessor, Augustine of Hippo (354-430), Aquinas

respected a distinction between the exaltation of God

(Augustine’s “City of God”) and the lesser station of

mankind (“City of Man”). Aquinas saw man’s mission as,

while tied to his own City, to ever yearn for that of God. It

was not an achievable telos, or even a visualizable one,

because of mankind’s post-Edenic sinfulness -

redeemable only by the intercession (“Grace”) of Christ.

So mankind’s redemption lies beyond this life: the

vision of God. The aim of incarnate life is thus “not

merely to live in virtue, but rather through virtuous life to

attain to the enjoyment of God”. Since natural human

virtue is insufficient to attain this, it is not the task of

secular rulers but rather that of Christ through his

church, to whose pope “all kings in Christendom should

be subject”.

In addition to the Aristotelian content of Aquinas’

thought, there is the legalistic element: The OU is

obedient to laws. Aquinas defined “law” as “an ordinance

of reason for the common good, made by him who has

the care of the community, and promulgated”.

But as nature is hierarchically organized into forms

and organisms of greater and lesser complexity, so are

the universal laws.

At the top is Eternal Law, which more or less

equates with the mind of God. Accordingly it is

intelligible only to God.

Next is Natural Law, which is Eternal Law to the

extent that human reason can detect consistencies in it.

Here would be found “scientific laws”.

While Natural Law is comprehended through reason,

Divine Law is identified by religious revelation -

through Christ and the Christian church. Divine Law and

Natural Law “rank” more or less side-by-side.

Lowest on the scale is Human Law, a term which

encompasses laws which mankind makes in imitation of

- 95 -

and towards the “good” perceived in/revealed by Natural

and Divine Law. The “three drives” which tempt man

away from goodness are wealth, carnal pleasure, and

honor/status. Hence the “three virtues” are poverty,

chastity, and obedience.

It is the defining irony of Judæo-Christianity that it

acknowledges “free will” only to condemn it as the

“original [and ultimate] sin”. Mankind unaided cannot

escape its curse; the species’ only course is to obey and

imitate God’s laws, with the hope that this will win the

Grace of Christ.

This same demonization of individual consciousness

and its free will occurs in the other conventional religions

as well. In Buddhism, for instance, it is condemned as

anatta, or “not-self”, which must be annihilated for the

devotee to attain obliteration and absorption into the OU

( nirvana).

7. Reformation:

Crisis of Theological Determinism

By 1500, as a consequence of the invention of the

printing press, Europe possessed an estimated 9 million

books, as opposed to fewer than 100 thousand hand-

wrought manuscripts ca. 1450. The exchange of ideas was

accelerated, and with it criticism of religious, political,

and social norms.

The Reformation, usually dated ca. 1517 to ca. 1648

(end of the Thirty Years' War), was a 16th century

religious movement aimed at correcting real or assumed

abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, and marked

ultimately by rejection of the supremacy of the pope,

rejection or modification of much of Roman Catholic

doctrine, and establishment of the Protestant churches.

The Reformation's key proponents were Martin Luther

- 96 -

(1483-1546) in Germany and John Calvin (1509-1564) in

Switzerland.

While there were a number of sub-movements

throughout Europe, they generally agreed upon

Fundamental Christianity as characterized by (1) the

finality and ultimate authority of the Bible, (2) denial of

the authority of the church bureaucracy to interpret the

Bible, (3) repudiation of reason and affirmation of faith

instead, (4) condemnation of the use of force for religious

conversion, and (5) “the two realms” [spiritual grace and

political power] concept, which licenses unChristian acts

if commanded by secular authority.

To these essentially Lutheran points Calvin adds a

strong element of church coercion of the individual and

intolerance of alternative religions. “God makes plain that

the false prophet is to be stoned without mercy. We are to

crush beneath our heel all affections of nature when His

honor is involved.”

Luther and Calvin believed that mankind is totally

depraved - that even “good works” fall short of God's

standards of righteousness. The reason for ethical

behavior is that a righteous man will automatically

incline towards such behavior, not because it is logically

or ethically justified in itself. Salvation is attainable only

by complete surrender of the self to Christ.

This constitutes a rejection of medieval scholasticism,

and of the “logical ethics” arguments of Aristotle (“this

damned, conceited, rascally heathen” - Luther) and

Aquinas. “Reason” is mistrusted and even condemned.

Concerning the two kingdoms Calvin stated: “Let us

observe that in man government is twofold: the one

spiritual, by which the conscience is trained to piety and

divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is

instructed in those duties which as men and citizens we

are bound to perform. To these two forms are commonly

given the not-inappropriate names of spiritual and

- 97 -

temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species

has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates

to matters of the present life, not only to food and

clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man

to live among his fellows purely, honorably, and

moderately. The former has its seat within the soul; the

latter only regulates external conduct. We call the one the

spiritual, the other the temporal kingdom.”

Calvin avoided prescribing the best form of

government, feeling that this is a question for secular

authorities to decide. Luther considered collective

governments to magnify human corruption, hence he

favored monarchies.

Against Catholicism Luther and Calvin argued the

autonomy of the state under God. Against radical

fundamentalists such as the Anabaptists, they argued the

theological necessity for civil government. Against

aggressive civil rulers they argued the autonomy of the

church [in the Protestant sense].

Calvinism condemned art, Lutheranism tended to

ignore it, and within Catholicism there was a reaction

against renditions of nudes, resulting in the defacing or

alteration of many earlier works. Consequently there

were few Reformation-era artists of note, with the

exception of Dürer, Holbein, and El Greco. Artists began

to work more as professionals, and to produce works for

secular officials and for the middle classes.

In the scientific realm Copernicus (d. 1543) asserted

heliocentrism.

The greatest support for the Reformation came from

the secular nobility and the emerging merchant middle

class. This support was born essentially of the desire by

these groups to rid themselves of the economic burden of

the papacy and its subordinate echelons.

In time the Reformation provoked the Catholic

“Counter-Reformation”, a somewhat desperate and

- 98 -

militant retrenchment by that church. From 1545 to 1563

the Council of Trent, a Catholic Church conference, met

to resolve questions of dogma. Once decided, these

dogma were promulgated and enforced with a

seriousness not found during the pleasure-loving papacy

of the Renaissance. “If my own father were a heretic,”

said Paul IV, “I would burn him.”

In 1540 Ignatius Loyola founded the Society of Jesus

(Jesuits), characterized by extreme discipline and

Machiavellian social influence. Loyola placed great stress

on education, and by the 17th century Jesuit-dominated

universities were educating virtually all of Catholic

Europe.

After 1550 tensions between Catholics and Protestants

had reached the stage of religious warfare, culminating in

the terrible Thirty Years' War between Denmark, Sweden,

and the Protestant German principalities on one hand

and the Catholic Hapsburgs (Spain, Austria, Netherlands,

Italy, and most of Catholic Germany) on the other.

France, though Catholic, fought against the Hapsburgs

for secular political reasons. Approximately one-third of

Germany's population died from the war and its side-

effects, and the final Peace of Westphalia (1648) was

brought about more by exhaustion than by genuine

reconciliation.

8. Secular Negative Free Will

Culturally the 16th and 17th centuries were a time of

transition between medieval/Renaissance knowledge and

the new, scientific climate of the Enlightenment. Ancient

history was still known only by the “Old Testament”,

other histories being considered later and inferior to it.

While scripture put creation at 4004 BCE, histories

began ca. 400 BCE, with large episodes of later history

being unknown.

- 99 -

The universe was generally thought to be Earth-

centric, and the non-Christian/European world was

considered to be “savage”. It was difficult for intellectuals

to know just what to believe. Even the noted Galileo

published his Authority of Scripture in 1614, and Isaac

Newton devoted many years to Biblical studies. He wrote:

“If any question at any time arise concerning Christ’s

interpretations, we are to beware of philosophy and vain

deceit and oppositions of science falsely so-called, and

have recourse to the Old Testament.” A generation after

he published his famous Principia, Newton was still

trying to discover the exact plan of Solomon’s Temple,

which he considered the best guide to the topography of

Heaven.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) took a scientific,

materialistic approach to the OU, asserting that the

supernatural or SU was beyond rational understanding.

Impressed by mathematics and geometry, Hobbes

postulated human behavior as similarly structured. He

thus sought to understand the “mechanics” or “laws” of

human social behavior. Hobbes departed from Aristotle

and the medieval tradition by denying that man is a social

animal, i.e. that he seeks companionship, society, and

political interaction as an end in itself. Man is indeed a

“solitary beast”.

Echoing the Sophists in Plato’s Republic: There is no

“supreme good”; there is only self-interest and

gratification. “In the first place, I put for a general

inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire

of power after power, that ceaseth only in death.” The

“supreme evil” is death, and it is fear of death that

prompts human cooperation. Society is thus negatively

motivated.

In contrast to the “natural inequality” espoused by

Aristotle, Hobbes argues that all humans are “naturally

equal”. Hence the door is opened for social contract,

- 100 -

which Hobbes defines as a de facto contract between the

people and the state for popular security and prosperity.

The individual “contracts” with society and is thus bound

to obey its laws, but he may disobey if his life is

threatened. He reserves the right to make this decision

for himself.

The social contract has two parts: agreement to

acknowledge as sovereign the individual or group

selected by the majority, and the vote determining the

sovereign.

The task of reason is to intensify the fear of death and

the desire for comfort as factors in society - to the extent

that the resultant cooperation overcomes the destructive

desires for “glory” and “pride”.

Hobbes’ ideal government has a simple task: to

maintain order and security for the benefit of the citizens.

The citizens, he says, do not submerge their individuality

in it; they are “contracting parties” with it. Government

should be authoritarian but not totalitarian.

Hobbes preferred monarchy as a form of government,

but monarchy based upon its social effectiveness in

maintaining order - not based upon the “divine right of

kings” principle.

While Hobbes is systematic, he is not scientific in the

sense that he supports his contentions with empirical

evidence. He is still a purely rational philosopher, much

like Niccolò Machiavelli. He was the first exponent of

“possessive individualism” - the trade-oriented ethic of

the 17th century that ran counter to the landed

aristocratic system and institutional religious conflict. He

advocated politics based upon material self-interest for

individuals.

Hobbes differs from Machiavelli in that Hobbes does

propose a morally-binding social law (based on natural

law in the “observed behavior” sense). Machiavelli is

- 101 -

comparatively lawless: no social contract, and of course

no telos: no rationale other than raw power politics.

9. The Enlightenment:

Secular Positive Free Will

The late-17th and 18th centuries loosely encompass a

scientific and cultural climate known as the

Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was not an

organized or coordinated movement [as could be said of

the Reformation, compartmentalized though it was].

Rather it was a sort of encouraging or stimulating

atmosphere for certain kinds of thought brought about by

at least the limited acceptance of the ideas of a few

prominent pioneers such as Francis Bacon, Rene

Descartes, Isaac Newton, and John Locke. Among the

features of the Enlightenment were:

(1) A relegation of mankind to a “natural

place”, not a privileged place within the

natural order of things.

(2) A vague, general disbelief that God, if he

were presumed to exist, would ignore the

operation of natural laws to take an interest

in the behavior of individual human beings

for better or worse.

(3) A sentimental admiration for the culture of

ancient Greece and Rome, together with a

distaste for the medieval Christian heritage.

(4) Increased emphasis on the affairs of the

present world as opposed to an afterlife.

- 102 -

(5) A growing humanitarianism, being respect

for and kindness to others for their own

sake as fellow natural creatures.

The Enlightenment, however, was a phenomenon

limited to the literate, wealthy, and noble classes. The

masses of the European populace were still impulsive and

superstitious. The 16th and 17th centuries also

encompassed Europe’s great witchcraft hysteria, when

millions of victims were tortured and burned to death at

the stake, primarily in France and Germany. The

appearance of Halley’s comet in 1682 was popularly

interpreted as a sign of divine wrath.

So the “confused” climate of Hobbes’ era continued to

pervade much of the Enlightenment as well. It may be

hypothesized that the forthcoming age of revolutions was

energized by the spread of Enlightenment techniques

among a general populace insufficiently educated [and

“enlightened”] to handle them save through

oversimplified, extreme, violent methods.

John Locke (1632-1704) was an advocate of a

“reasonable” Christianity, admitting pro forma the

possibility of revelation but not taking it into political

account. His religious toleration was noteworthy but

limited, excluding as it did atheists and Catholics. Locke

saw humanity as having begun in a “state of nature”:

“Men living together according to reason, without a

common superior on Earth with authority to judge

between them, is properly the state of nature.”

The opposite of the state of nature is civil society:

“Those who are united into one body and have a common

established law and judicature to appeal to, with

authority to decide controversies between them, and

punish offenders, are in civil society one with another;

but those who have no such common appeal, I mean on

Earth, are still in the state of nature.”

- 103 -

The basis for Locke’s civil society is cooperative self-

preservation. Locke does not talk significantly in terms of

such ideals as charity, ethics, morality, virtue, love, etc.

His basis for society is positive, assuming willing

cooperation, as opposed to the point of view of Hobbes,

whose society came together through hatred and fear.

The state of nature shouldn’t be endured, since it is

characterized by poverty and hardship. [Locke uses the

Indians of the Americas as an example of people living in

the “natural state”.] The remedy is civil government.

Locke introduced a “labor theory of value”, saying that

it is the changes wrought in the natural animal, vegetable,

and mineral goods of the Earth which makes them

valuable. Another way to make them valuable is to

restrict the supply by closing off producing areas, i.e.

private ownership of land and assets. Locke defends

private ownership and accumulation of wealth and power

through money as raising the general standard of living

above that of “penury”, which he attributes to the state of

nature. Hence the concept of property becomes central to

Locke’s civil society. “The great and chief end … of men’s

uniting into commonwealths and putting themselves

under government is the preservation of their property.”

This “property” is defined to include “life, liberty, and

estate” (the basis for the famous phrase in the U.S.

Declaration of Independence).

Since self-preservation (including personal property)

is the most powerful emotion, Locke feels that any

government which is not based upon it is fighting nature

and will not survive. He takes issue with the ancient

philosophers, who considered the emotions to be things

to be suppressed and conquered in favor of rational

virtues. Politically he was a social contract theorist,

advocating a de facto contract between the people and the

government to provide for the people’s “life, liberty, and

estate”: “Political power, then, I take to be a right of

- 104 -

making laws, with penalties of death, and, consequently,

all less penalties for the regulating and preserving of

property, and of employing the force of the community in

the execution of such laws and in the defense of the

commonwealth from foreign injury, and all this only for

the public good.”

Locke is responsible for the doctrine that all

government should be limited in its powers and exists

only by consent of the governed. He introduces the

concept of inalienable rights, which cannot be

“contracted” away to the government or anyone else. He

postulates that “all men are created equal”: “… there

being nothing more evident than that creatures of the

same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the

same advantages of nature and the use of the same

faculties, should also be equal one amongst another,

without subordination or subjection.”

Locke’s preferred form of government is limited

government, with the legislative branch superior to the

executive. He considered the judicial function to be

included in the legislative. He advocated policy-making

based on what he called the “law of the greater force”,

which is interpreted to mean majority rule. [This implies

the “democratization of truth”, which Plato had utterly

rejected.]

“Prerogative” is Locke’s term for the ability of the

executive, king or otherwise, to occasionally act above

and beyond the written law “for the public good”. “The

people shall be judge” whether the powers of government

are being used to endanger the people. According to

Locke, an abusive executive is actually “warring” on the

people by using the force they entrusted to him against

them. Thus he is no longer a political leader but a tyrant.

He, not they, is outside the society.

Locke distinguished between rebellion and revolution.

He approved of the former and disapproved of the latter,

- 105 -

since revolution implies the overturning of the entire

social order as opposed to ridding the society of a tyrant.

Locke bases his political philosophy upon reason,

paying lip service to rational ideals. Like Hobbes he

wants to build a system that will reflect “basic man”

rather than one which sets ideals and expectations for

him that he cannot reach. The advantage of this kind of

system is that it never over-reaches itself and rarely falls

victim to hypocrisy of a structural sort, since not much

except cooperation and stability is expected of it. The

disadvantage is that it is a difficult system to improve by

inspired or intellectual leadership, since the political

power is concentrated in majority opinion - which tends

to be sluggish, conservative, complacent, and apathetic -

unless a crisis shocks it into action. Political power can be

corrupted through the economic, social, or demagogic

manipulation of the people.

10. Secular Emotional Free Will

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) begins his Social

Contract (1762): “Man was born free and everywhere he

is in chains … How did this change come to pass? I do not

know. What can make it legitimate? I believe I can

resolve this question.”

Rousseau, like many other Enlightenment

philosophers, postulated an impersonal God more-or-less

identical to the “divine natural law”. He saw no

connection between the actual essence of God and

conventional religious institutions; they distort and

pervert. They are valuable only insofar as they contribute

to society as reflections of the general will. As a popular

ordering device he would rather cynically propose the

institution of a “civil religion” requiring belief in God,

immortality, happiness of the just, punishment of the

wicked, and sanctity of the social contract and the laws.

- 106 -

Subordinate to the civil religion, religious creeds would

be tolerated if they themselves are tolerant.

Rousseau feels that the defects of civil society are due

to its basis in economic motivations. Since personal profit

is the primary factor determining human relations, trust

and fellowship are destroyed, and selfishness and neglect

of civic duty are encouraged. The rich use society to

protect their privileges, and the poor are oppressed by

this same use of society.

Rousseau denies that progress in the arts will

ultimately improve manners and morality [as the

mainstream of the Enlightenment supposes]. Rather the

arts are increasingly corrupted because of their

requirements for luxury and patronage in order to

prosper. Moreover their subjects emerge from the vices of

the soul: idle curiosity and desires for unnecessary

comforts.

Rousseau’s ideal societies are the city-states of ancient

Greece (Sparta in particular) and Rome, because they

were operated - at least originally - on the principles of

virtue. His modern ideal state would be an improvement

upon their basic concepts.

Rousseau feels that the other social contract theorists

were not radical enough in their efforts to understand

pre-political man. Hobbes was correct in saying that

societies are built on hostility and avarice, but wrong in

saying that man is naturally this way. Locke was correct

in saying that societies’ purpose is to protect private

property, but wrong in saying that this is natural and

reflects justice.

Rousseau’s “natural man” has two fundamental

passions: self-preservation and sympathy with others of

his kind. Natural man differs from other animals because

of his capacity for free exercise of the will. He is not

governed merely by instinct. The awareness of this free

will is evidence of the spirituality of the human soul [=

- 107 -

implies its somewhat vaguely-conceived reflection of

logos?]. Man can also use his will to improve his level of

knowledge and sustain it over generations. It is this same

free will which is man’s downfall, because he has used it

to move from a “free animal” existence to the misery of

civil life based upon inequality and private property.

Modern man cannot very well go back to a natural

state of existence, so … “[The problem is] to find a form of

association which defends and protects with all the

common force the person and the goods of each

associate; by which each, uniting himself to all, obeys

nevertheless only himself and remains as free as before.”

… to have one’s cake and eat it too: to reapproach natural

freedom while retaining the benefits of civil society.

Rousseau’s solution is that everyone first give all of his

rights and property to the state, and submerge his

personal will in a cooperative “general will”. The only

true source of morality is this “general will”. Because it is

a function of all the citizens, it is limited in its flexibility,

and this limitation establishes the boundaries of morality.

Having moved from a benevolent state of nature to a civil

society which encourages hostility and avarice, mankind

needs a social contract which best reflects the “general

will”. This “general will” will most closely approach the

virtues of natural mankind.

If a man obeys his private will in a civil state, he

reduces himself to the level of a brute animal and causes

society to degenerate into an oppressive, power-

manipulative system. He must formulate his own will in

terms of relevance to moral principle [as expressed by the

“general will”]. Thus society “forces him to be free” - to

exercise his will in coherence with the “general will”. His

conscious acceptance of this responsibility results in his

true human dignity.

Rousseau is a republican by necessity, since modern

states are too large for direct democracy. He considers

- 108 -

representative government unfortunate, however, since it

weakens the expression of the “general will”. He

advocates a majoritarian voting system, but he stresses

that this will work only if people do not vote according to

their private wills, but according to the rather severe

morality imposed by the “general will”.

Rousseau despised the democracy known to his time

as “a wild anarchy of self-interest”. Factions - such as

political parties and interest groups - would have to be

outlawed as devices corrupting a person’s interests and

motives away from those of the “general will”. Rousseau

allows no reserved or inalienable rights against the

government [as does Locke], because they de facto

weaken the “general will” by allowing individuals to

ignore the social contract at critical moments. Moreover

it is the private life of the individual which determines his

respect for public laws and institutions.

Rousseau is perhaps a little too conveniently

considered the philosopher of the French Revolution [as

Locke is of the American]. It is true that Rousseau’s

espousal of emotion over reason, and his glorification of

the masses (the “general will”) lend themselves to this

interpretation. But the actual causes of the French

Revolution (more properly Revolutions, as there was a

series of them) were the inability of the French absolute

monarchy to effectively run the country, and a national

financial crisis caused by almost constant war and the

exemption of the nobility and the clergy from domestic

taxation.

During the Revolution Rousseau’s appeal was never to

the middle classes of the “third estate”, who were uneasy

about the property-abolition aspects of his philosophy.

Rather his appeal was to the more radical elements in the

lower classes, who gained power for a time during the

Reign of Terror.

- 109 -

11. Free Will:

Religious Curse to Secular Obliteration

So in this exhaustive and tragic historical survey of

humanity’s grappling with a purely-Mechanistic concept

of “free will”, we have seen it proceed from religious curse

to secular monster, both perceived to require subduing

and surrender by the individual either to God or to

society. The religious demand, culminating in the

maniacal extremism of the Reformation, held out no

hope or compensation for such surrender. The later

social-contract theorists’ arguments ranged from the

most ominous relief from nihilistic anarchy to some

degree of cooperative benefit and cultural emotional

stability.

The premise of “free will” thus required its

obliteration, either voluntarily or coercively. Once again

Orwell’s 1984 describes the inevitable result: a

totalitarianism in which the individual has not only

relinquished his individuality, but indeed cannot even

conceive of it apart from the Rousseauean “general will”

of the Party:

“But how can you stop people remembering

things?” cried Winston. “It is involuntary. It is outside

oneself. How can you control memory? You have not

controlled mine!”

O’Brien’s manner grew stem again.

“On the contrary,” he said, “you have not

controlled it. That is what has brought you here. You

are here because you have failed in humility, in self-

discipline. You would not make the act of submission

which is the price of sanity. You preferred to be a

lunatic, a minority of one.

“Only the disciplined mind can see reality, Winston.

You believe that reality is something objective,

external, existing in its own right. You also believe that

the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude

- 110 -

yourself into thinking that you see something, you

assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you.

“But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external.

Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else.

Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes,

and in any case soon perishes; only in the mind of the

Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the

Party holds to be truth is truth.

“It is impossible to see reality except by looking

through the eyes of the Party. That is the fact that you

have got to relearn, Winston. It needs an act of self-

destruction, an effort of the will. You must humble

yourself before you can become sane.” 39

Earth in the 21st century CE remains predominantly a

mixture of both the religious and post-religious telos-

ignorant. Like those chained in the darkness of Plato’s

Cave, they can see and think no further than the old

superstitions, fears, and social constriction of “free will”.

Only through initiation can the few Elect of their number

cast off these chains and awaken to the true and non-

destructive enlightenment of telos.

E. Historical Non- Telos: Determinism

As noted above, the alternative to Mechanistic free

will is determinism, which, as the term implies, denies

all conscious volition in the OU (which includes all

human activity). This is the “cold, dead extreme” of

existence, in which there is nothing but cause/effect,

stimulus/response - all of which, were one to take all

factors into account, result in inevitable, predictable

outcomes.

Determinism became fashionable in the scientific

community with the advent of Newtonian physics, which

39 Orwell, George, 1984. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company,

1949, pages #205-206.

- 111 -

enthusiasts sought to extend beyond natural phenomena

to all event interactions, including those of human

beings. This resulted in the notion that human thoughts

and emotions could be not just predicted but controlled

by identifying and manipulating the environmental,

physiological, and psychological factors that govern them.

On the scale of human communities and nations,

determinism was loosely present in the East in such

concepts as Taoism, in which the universe and everything

in it rolled inexorably onward through time, with

everything in it locked to that mechanism. There is

accordingly no personal discretion possible for Taoists:

The most one can do is to sense and harmonize with the

Tao, so as not to be overwhelmed by it.

In the West determinism got off to a slow start,

b e c a u s e i t w a s a n t i t h e t i c a l t o e s t a b l i s h

religions’ (principally Judæo-Christianity) belief in a

creative and active God. And, of course, in the related

belief that his human creatures had brought “original sin”

upon themselves through Adam & Eve’s making a [free

will] choice. If there were no need for God, and if A&E

had no responsibility for an “inevitable choice”, then the

entire religious control system evaporates: There is no

deity to be vengeful; no humans deserving of vengeance.

With the Enlightenment and the eclipse of literal

religious belief, however, came the notion that there was

a predictability, a mechanism in human affairs. This was

associated with another supposition: that history was

“progressing” through time from the primitive to the

sophisticated. Interpretations of these perceptions would

take several forms, from the abstract to the neo-religious.

1. Empiricism

David Hume (1711-1776) is the father of modern

empiricism, which holds philosophical and political

- 112 -

values to be determined by habit and by their apparent

utility, not by abstract virtues or ideals.

Cosmologically Hume adhered to deism. The mere

existence of a political system or institution, according to

this approach, demonstrates that it has a part in God’s

overall scheme of things. If it didn’t have such a part, it

wouldn’t have come into existence. What that scheme

might be is not addressed by Hume, hence political

philosophy and systems cannot be measured critically

according to it.

L o o k i n g a t t h e h u m a n m i n d , H u m e s e e s

perceptions, which consist of impressions “when we

hear, see, feel, love, hate, desire, or will”; and ideas

“when we reflect upon a passion or an object which is not

present”.

Impressions are more “strong” and “lively” than ideas.

All ideas are derived from impressions. As a blind man

cannot have an idea of a color nor a deaf man an idea of

music, so “we can never think of anything which we have

not seen [or otherwise sensed] without us or felt in our

own minds”. We cannot have factual knowledge of

anything which can be conceived otherwise. Since it is

possible to think that the Sun will not rise tomorrow, we

cannot know that it necessarily will. The laws of nature

which say that it will might change between now and

then.

Mathematics and geometry are examples of things in

which principles cannot be conceived otherwise. One

cannot think of a triangle whose internal angles do not

add to 180°.

What Hume is getting at is that much of what

previous philosophers had considered necessary cause-

and-effect relationships is not that at all, but simply

habit. “All reasonings [about causation] are nothing but

the effects of custom; and custom has no influence, but

- 113 -

by enlivening the imagination, and giving us a strong

conception of any object.”

When considering virtue and vice, Hume starts with

the notion that they must either be relations (resulting

from the comparison of ideas) or factual matters

(inferences). He finds that he cannot accept them as

either. Therefore they are simply irrational, non-factual

passions. Hume sees reason as a device used to satisfy

passions, not something which is superior or prior to

them. “Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the

passions, and can never pretend to any other office than

to serve and obey them.”

Hume considers the morally good as what one ought

to do according to prevailing passionate custom. It

cannot be ascertained by dispassionate reasoning.

Reason may be used to discover the “fitting” - the most

practical or sensible approach - but not the “morally

good”. Hence virtue and vice are products of sentiment.

Virtue is not approved because it is virtue; it is

considered to be virtue because it meets with passionate

approval.

The good is identical with the pleasant, but not

necessarily with one’s own immediate personal pleasure.

Examples of what Hume considers virtues: (1) Useful to

others: justice, generosity, beneficence, honesty. (2)

Useful to self: prudence, frugality, temperance, industry.

(3) Pleasant to others: modesty, wit, decency. (4)

Pleasant to self: self-esteem, glory.

We approve of such “virtues” because we are moved

by a sense of humanity or benevolence. This is not a

“natural instinct”, but rather the result of a sympathy

which humans feel for one another - a transference of the

applicability of others’ predicaments into one’s own

frame of reference. Social justice is sought not out of

simple, direct self-interest, but rather because we feel

- 114 -

that even remote injustices will act to harm the

cooperative society.

Hume’s objection to social contract theory is that he

thinks it is simply historically false. Rulers don’t consider

their authority as based upon the consent of the ruled,

nor do subjects feel sovereign.

Hume also objected to social contract theory on the

grounds that it was based upon reform of humans by

reason. Hume argues for strong governments and

preservation of systems based upon their historical

durability. He is thus a conservative.

The Christian political thinkers had God/Christ-based

values. The social contract thinkers had reason-based

values. Hume has endeavored to deal with politics by

ignoring the former and denying the actual validity of the

latter. He thus finds himself in a no-man’s-land of

subjective opinion. His somewhat clumsy solution is to

endorse and preserve values simply because they have

been around for a long time (i.e. conservatism). Strict

conservatives tend to be Hume-like, just as radicals tend

to oppose values based upon non-rational sentiment and

to favor ideals based upon reason. This is not to say that

much of their “reasoning” isn’t guilty of the weaknesses

which Hume identifies.

2. Dialectic Idealism

Europe in the early 19th century was influenced

significantly by budding forces of Romanticism,

nationalism, and liberalism.

The first represented a rejection of the “cult of reason”

espoused by the social contract theorists of the

Enlightenment, in favor of a more emotional approach to

social and cultural issues.

The second represented a growing identification of

the individual with a nation or state, as opposed to with a

- 115 -

city or monarch. This was particularly significant in the

cases of Germany and Italy, which until now had

remained largely fragmented.

The third represented a general impatience with

archaic aristocratic systems as justifying a state’s

existence. The Enlightenment and the Age of Revolution

had opened the door to critical analysis of state systems,

not just to their glorification.

Georg W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) developed his theories

o f d i a l e c t i c i d e a l i s m a n d o r g a n i c i s m b y

approximately 1816, when he held a professorship at the

University of Heidelberg. His two principal concepts are

defined as follows:

(1) Hegel conceives the universe as the

manifestation of God’s mind seeking

complete self-realization through a process

called dialectic idealism. This is

occasionally [and more precisely] called the

dialectic of absolute spirit. As applied

to Earth, it is the concept that the history of

the world consists of part of the spirit of

God, manifesting itself through the

collective spirits of mankind, moving

onwards through logic (the dialectic)

towards complete self-understanding. An

existing idea (thesis) is criticized and

partially refuted by its opposite (antithesis),

resulting in a more perfect concept

(synthesis).

(2) The organic state is the manifestation or

appearance of God in the material world. [It

is not identical with God; it is a “reflection”

of the dialectic of his mind. Accordingly it

proceeds in ways and towards goals which

- 116 -

are not necessarily the sum total of the ways

and goals of the individual human minds

within it.

In many ways Hegel is a reaction (antithesis &

synthesis) to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Bishop

Berkeley’s subjective idealism had held that nothing

could be known objectively - that knowledge is limited to

subjective impressions. Kant refines this into what is

called critical idealism, in which human consciousness

is subdivided into sensation, understanding, and

pure reason. Sensations and understanding of them

and consequences of them can be proven, Kant says, but

pure reason (concepts unsupported by sensations) cannot

be conclusive. It is “beyond causality”.

Hegel overcomes Kant’s problem by making “pure

reason” a necessary and intrinsic characteristic of God/

the universe. All history is “logical”. If it sometimes seems

illogical, it is because we don’t see it as clearly and

comprehensively as God does. The task of philosophy,

therefore, is one of understanding, of logical analysis -

and not one of creation of abstract, ideal political

systems.

Hege further introduced the concept of the

phenomenology of mind as a variation on the

Platonic “pyramid of thought” concept. 40 With Hegel, of

course, the mind develops forward through time

(historically); whereas with Plato the levels of thought are

measures of excellence irrespective of time or

progression. Hegel’s phenomenology of mind begins with

consciousness, which is everyday experience (action

40 In his Republic Plato stratified thought as eikasia (primitive

emotion), pistis (ordinary active/reactive thinking), dianoia (precise,

logical, enlightened thought), and nœsis (intuition and apprehension

of the transcendent Forms (Egyptian neteru) and the perfect Good

( Agathon).

- 117 -

and reaction to events) without self-consciousness. We

take the truth of conscious experiences for granted; Hegel

calls this sense-certainty.

As soon as one pauses to reflect on conscious

experiences, one moves to self-consciousness. At the

same time there comes an awareness of other selves,

other minds. This is very close to Hobbes’ concept of the

state of nature. The antagonism is because “they exist and

are not me”. Therefore I wish to control them and not to

be controlled by them. I wish recognition by them; I do

not wish to recognize them in return. Thus there comes

into being the political “master/slave relationship”.

The next step in the dialectic involves a personal

internalization of the master/slave relationship, as

exemplified in Hellenistic stoicism and skepticism. The

inconsistency this produces between internal and

external life goes on to produce the rages and hypocrisies

of medieval Christianity. In the Reformation the internal

is seen as relevant to, and in command of the external.

There is still the problem of conflict between individual

wills, which, if undisciplined through organization and

government, would run wild in anarchy “… since any

institution whatever is antagonistic to the abstract self-

consciousness of equality”.

As consciousness gives way to self-consciousness,

questions of morality ( Moralität) arise in contrast to

custom or social convention ( Sittlichkeit). How to aspire

to morality?

The answer is that one apprehends it through the

modern state. Hegel’s concept of the state is that it is the

embodiment of the spirit of those who constitute it; its

leaders must consider this spirit and not simply their own

desires when guiding it. Correspondingly individuals

must seek in this spirit ( Volksgeist) a guide for their

personal morality.

- 118 -

Human society is an artificial machine which works

for the goals of the spiritual state. Individualism and

rights against a government are considered by Hegel to

limit freedom: Since they reduce the scope and power of

the whole, they serve to limit possibility.

Similarly Hegel feels contempt for democracy. It

reduces questions of relevance to the state to resolution

by simple “counting of noses”, i.e. voting, in which all

opinions are not of the same intellectual merit. [Hegel

prefers a monarchy. This preference is a weak area of his

thought, since it is not really justified. Why should an

accident of birth make one any better a judge of the

Volksgeist?]

For Hegel there are no absolute values. Values are

products of history; they are validated by their success.

Thus Hegel overcomes Hume’s objection to morality. The

“social contract” theorists - Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau

- felt that man made the state. Hegel reversed this, saying

that the state is prior to man. He thus conceived the most

advanced and complex metaphysical statement of man as

a product and subject of his environment. Unlike B.F.

Skinner and other environmental materialists, however,

Hegel postulated a deliberate, universal intelligence

behind the historical process.

3. Will to Power

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) completed and

published his major theoretical works Also Sprach

Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil ca. 1885. He was

an atheist and a materialist, insisting that the universe

[or world] of appearances is the only true one. He carries

this principle into his assessment of humanity by denying

any “dual existence” within the body (i.e. soul vs. physical

body). Man is a unified, material being.

- 119 -

Nietzsche defines the Will to Power as the inherent

compulsion of any being to create and control its

environment and interactions with other beings. Its

ultimate expression in society is the creation of values by

which other beings will live and be governed.

Nietzsche attacks the Hegelian view of rational

history, asserting that it is full of “blindness, madness,

and injustice”. By attacking “history as God”, of course,

Nietzsche attacks any demonstrations of God which are

justified by a “rational, logical” historical dialectic.

Past events, says Nietzsche, are valuable to the extent

that they serve as monumental models of past greatness,

antiquarian mementos of tradition, and objects for

critical analysis leading to the destruction of erroneous

values in favor of the construction of better ones. Abuse

of the first leads to the mistaken idea that the past can or

will come again; abuse of the second leads to detachment

from the present; abuse of the third leads to a pessimism

wherein one sees only the failures of things,

unconsciously neglecting their positive legacy.

Nietzsche interprets Hegel as saying that history had

now reached its perfection in the contemporary German

state system. Nietzsche sees danger in this because it

would lead to lassitude on the part of modern man, who

would feel “there is nothing more to be done”. [Compare

the “last days” sects of early, medieval, and modern

Christianity, as well as the “ecological doomsday”

ideologies of the late 20th/early 21st centuries.]

Man differs from other animals, says Nietzsche, in

that he has the power to “create horizons” - to

construct visions, ideas, and ultimately philosophical

systems. These horizons are meaningful to him unless he

perceives them as artificial constructs. In that case he

either destroys them in favor of newer, larger horizons or

degrades himself by an artificial, hypocritical self-

limitation to a horizon he knows is false.

- 120 -

Plato is wrong, says Nietzsche, in assuming there to be

absolute values (the Theory of the Forms). It is rather the

case that all truths are situational and relative. Hence the

great virtues are supra-rational. They cannot be

explained by logic, as Nietzsche accuses Socrates of trying

to do. [Nietzsche is wrong; the Platonic Dialogues provide

for nœtic apprehension of the Forms, not logical

construction or analysis of them. Moreover a Form is not

a static concept.]

Nietzsche’s attack on Hegel and Plato leaves his man

in a very “naked” and self-dependent position. He has no

gods, no values, no progressive history - nothing external

to help him. Thus disillusioned, he is strongly tempted to

abandon all aspirations and live only for self-gratification

and comfort. This is Nietzsche’s “last man”. He seeks

neither power nor social inequalities; he wants society

“leveled” - everyone the same. “‘We have invented

happiness,’ say the last men, and they blink.” [Nietzsche

considered Marx to be the prophet of the “last man”

ideology.] Nietzsche lashes out at the states of his time

because he feels that they are tending towards the “last

man” condition. This is also his essential objection to

Christianity and democracy: They destroy man’s creative

powers and opportunities to distinguish himself in

society.

As the democratic world becomes more cynical of

governments and disillusioned by religion, it will

gradually polarize into the haves (bourgeoisie) and have-

nots (socialists). There is no justification for the

acquisitions and possessions of the bourgeoisie; they

result from petty self-gratification. What the bourgeoisie

actually fear from socialist movements is that they will

take the acquisitions and possessions. Nietzsche has

comparable contempt for the socialists/radical left

because they insist on ignoring “the actual inequality of

- 121 -

man”. Hence the ideal socialist state is simply a tyranny

of the most inferior and the most stupid.

Since all ideals, all horizons have been shown to be

false, the creative individual reacts against this

intolerable movement towards the “last man” with an

impulse of nihilism. Nihilism as Nietzsche conceives it

is a psychological sickness, a tendency towards self-

destruction born of resentment of one’s perceived

impotence in the face of a terrible, degenerate, yet

seemingly inevitable future.

This nihilism, continues Nietzsche, is false and

unnecessary. It is caused by moral training [in particular

Christianity] which suggests that we must be forgiven for

existing, that life is a burden, that self-love is sinful. One

must wrench oneself free of this “Spirit of Gravity” and

unleash one’s creative capability: the Will to Power. He

who successfully accomplishes this is Nietzsche’s

“superman”. The superman is not necessarily a political

leader or despot, though he will be the architect of values

by which society lives. He is a “horizon maker”, a

supremely creative artist. He is not the product of any

particular country or race, but rather of a purely mental

evolution.

Nietzsche considers war to be an energizing,

revitalizing influence in politics, deterring the otherwise

sluggish descent towards the “last man”. “For the present,

wars provide the greatest agitation of the imagination

after all Christian raptures and horrors have grown stale.”

But Nietzsche does not love war for its destructiveness.

He says: “And perhaps a great day will come when a

people, distinguished through war and victories,

voluntarily proclaims: ‘We break the sword.’ Disarming

oneself, from an intensity of feeling, while one is the best

armed: That is the means to real peace.”

Yet Nietzsche does not hold out much hope for a

rescue of humanity by his supermen. Around him he sees

- 122 -

only the march towards the “last man”, leading to a

“succession of several martial centuries that have no

equal in history … We have entered the classical age of

war on the largest scale, the age of scientific war with

popular national support.” Looking ahead he sees “Signs

of the next (20th) century: The entrance of Russia into

culture. A grandiose goal. The proximity of barbarism.

Awakening of the arts, magnanimity of youth, and

fantastic madness.”

4. Dialectic Materialism

The European industrial revolution, which created the

conditions conducive to the onslaught of modern

capitalist/labor/socialist developments, began in England

at the start of the 19th century. The move towards

industrialization spread to Belgium as a consequence of

English investments in that country, and France and

Germany experienced their major industrial booms

between 1830 and 1870. Sweden, Denmark, and the low

countries followed during the period 1871-1914, as did

Austria, Bohemia, and Russia. By the period just prior to

World War I, the principal countries which were still

essentially pre-industrial were Hungary, Italy, and Spain.

During the 1870s a gradual transition could be seen

from individual entrepreneurship to various forms of

industrial combination and conglomeration. Government

aid to such industrial enterprises was also a new

development, consisting of a gradual liberalizing of

corporate law and the instituting of protective tariffs in

order to help protect budding national industries against

competition from further-developed foreign ones. By the

1890s England, Belgium, and Holland were the only

countries still observing a free-trade policy.

The consolidation and organization of business

encouraged (by example) the organization of labor. Labor

- 123 -

unions first began to experience general legal toleration

in France in the period 1864-1884, in England in

1871-1875, and in Austria in the early 1870s. The first

international labor organization, the International

Workingmen’s Association (the “First International”) was

founded in London in 1864 and existed until 1876, when

it dissolved due to a split between the anarchist faction of

Bakunin and the socialist/Marxist factions. In 1889 the

Second International came into existence, but it did not

survive World War I.

Marxism, sometimes called dialectic materialism

to distinguish it from the dialectic idealism of Hegel, is a

theory and practice of socialism including the labor

theory of value, dialectic materialism, economic

determination of human actions and institutions, the

class struggle as the fundamental force in history, and a

belief that increasing concentration of industrial control

in the capitalist class and the consequent intensification

of class antagonisms and of misery among the workers

will lead to a revolutionary seizure of power by and the

dictatorship of the proletariat and to the establishment of

a classless society.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) was strongly influenced by

Hegel, but believed that Hegel had made a fundamental

mistake in using nations as the basis for his dialectic and

in relating it to a divine manifestation or purpose. Marx

considered the dialectic to be a function of economic

struggle between social classes, and he denied the

existence of any supernatural intelligence, calling all

religion “the opiate of the masses”.

According to Marx, one cannot choose one’s social

class. Rather one is placed into a particular class by the

forces of economics, particularly the means of

production.

As more and more economic power becomes

concentrated in the hands of the upper class (the

- 124 -

bourgeoisie), the middle class will disappear, leaving

only a large, impoverished working class (the

proletariat) opposed to the bourgeoisie. Eventually the

strain between these two classes will lead to revolution,

resulting in a classless, utopian society. [“From each

according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”]

Marx called this end result socialism, but it was

ultimately called communism. As a general rule,

“socialism” means ownership of the means of production

by the state, while “communism” means ownership

collectively by the proletariat.

Essential to Marxism are the concepts labor theory

of value and theory of surplus value.

The labor theory of value suggests that the value of an

item results from “the quantity of labor necessary for its

production in a given state of society, under certain social

average conditions of production, with a given social

average intensity, and average skill of the labor

employed”. Members of the proletariat “sell” their labor-

power (the ability to labor for a specific period) to

employers from the capitalist bourgeoisie, but they are

not paid the entire value of their labor. The part that is

not paid to the laborer is called the surplus value. The

capitalist keeps this surplus value as his profit.

As smaller competitors are driven out of business, the

capitalist faces increasing pressure from large

competitors. Since the cost of producing similar goods is

more or less the same, trying to undersell competitors is

not effective in the long run. The only way the capitalist

can increase his profit is to pay the workers less and less.

As the worker realizes that he is being exploited, he will

develop class consciousness and ultimately revolt.

As economic forces and not ethical values determine

relationships in a capitalist society, Marx charges that

capitalism dehumanizes mankind, causing insecurity,

fear, and self-alienation. Unable to find value in other

- 125 -

humans, victims of self-alienation find it in produced

goods - a phenomenon which Marx calls fetishism (love

of possessions).

Marxism began the transition into what is called

Marxism-Leninism at the turn of the 20th century.

Vladimir Lenin’s “What Is To Be Done?” pamphlet was

published in 1902. Lenin’s form of communism argued

for a speeding-up of the Marxist process via a

“dictatorship of the proletariat”, as well as for

establishment of a revolutionary socialist state prior to

the utopian state of pure communism.

Marx’ utopian society would require perfection in its

citizens. This contrasts with most other political

ideologies, which are geared to deal with enduring

imperfections in human relationships (hatred, greed,

selfishness, sloth, power-lust, etc.).

Marx, like Hegel, based his ideas on a necessary,

inevitable force of history. Thus communism would

eventually come no matter what capitalism tries to do to

stop it. The other side of this coin is that there is nothing

would-be communists can do to speed it up; their society

must first evolve to the “last stages” of capitalism. The

first country to embrace communism, Russia, was not in

an advanced state of capitalism - nor have been the other

countries which have become communist. Lenin modified

Marx (“Marxism-Leninism”) with the concept of the

state-embodied dictatorship of the proletariat: the

running of the country by a communist party elite until

its economic systems could be advanced to full

communism. The state apparat would then “wither

away”. It is noteworthy that power is addictive, and no

“temporary” communist governments have shown any

signs of withering away.

Marx conceived communism as supranational,

assuming the nation-state system to be a device for

economic and class inequality and exploitation. In their

- 126 -

effort to justify their continued control, however, modern

communist governments have strengthened their

nationalism.

Marxism has been corrupted by its use as an

ideological slogan in many countries and systems which

were completely foreign to Marx’ original analysis. This

leads us to a certain contempt for “Marxists” today, since

they seem to be emotionally, not rationally motivated.

This should not necessarily reflect upon Marx himself. A

precise Marxist would say that the economic polarization

forces which Marx identified have been delayed by deficit

financing, compromises with the pre-revolutionary

p r o l e t a r i a t ( u n i o n s , b e n e f i t s , u n e m p l o y m e n t

compensation, etc.), but that these are all merely

postponements of a final reckoning.

5. “Mind Control” and MindWar

The most recent, and sinister, concept of determinism

resulted from medical and scientific discoveries

concerning the physiological functioning of the human

brain and its influence upon, if not complete control over

the individual’s sensory perceptions and emotions.

Fictional illustrations, such as the book/film The

Manchurian Candidate, portray human subjects

becoming mindless robots through psychological and

physiological “brainwashing”.

“Classic” determinism as surveyed above does not

involve manipulation of humans’ physiology. Rather it

proposes different scenarios of external, natural forces

which influence human behavior. All humanity can do is

identify and attempt to live with such forces.

“Mind control” thus not only introduces intentional

artificiality into the human equation, but indeed attempts

to do it so pervasively and powerfully as to overcome any

and all other behavioral influences.

- 127 -

As of this writing, fortunately, all such “mind control”

experiments and programs have failed, the principal

reason for this being the conductors’ complete and

continuing failure to understand the actual construction

and functioning of human brain architecture. My

companion book MindWar explains this architecture,

and why it [again fortunately] renders Manchurian

Candidate ambitions quite impossible.

MindWar also explains what psychological and

physiological influence of humans is possible and

practical, and proposes a constructive and ethical telos

for such an application.

Indeed it is precisely the telos-basis of MindWar

which illustrates and exemplifies why telos is the

essential key to evolution and exaltation of human

consciousness towards MS divinity and immortality.

Absent such telos, the human race has nothing in its

future, as in its past, but Mechanistic suffering, futility,

and eventual, inexorable extinction.

- 128 -

- 129 -

Chapter 7: “Death” Demystified

To die, to be really dead: that must be glorious!

- Count Dracula

A. From Terror to Transformation

The obvious fulcrum of the concepts and processes

addressed throughout MindStar is the phenomenon of

transition from physical to metaphysical human

existence: what is commonly called “death”.

Since “death” is not in fact death (in the sense of a

cessation of self-conscious existence), this chapter shines

a harsher, more explicit light upon it, to explode and

vanquish the conventional, ignorant fear-conditioning so

deeply and constantly ingrained in human beings

throughout their incarnate phase of self-aware existence.

“Deathfear” is physical-body-instinctive, easily the

strongest and most unrelenting of all such emotions.

Invalidating and rejecting it is one thing intellectually,

but quite another viscerally. Even the most advanced and

enlightened initiates can suddenly find themselves

stricken and terrified by it.

So this is not a read/enjoy/relax chapter of MindStar:

It is a rude-awakening, a shock that will accompany you

- 130 -

henceforth, very much a “Matrix red pill”. 41 Its discourse

ranges from the conventional to the extraordinary,

pushing the limits of the reader’s coherence [and/or

confidence in that of the author].

We’re going out on some limbs here, but you won’t

need a saw. As with other supra-rational concepts in

MindStar, which thereby are not reconcilable by OU-

exclusive laws of logic42, you will need to apply the

analytical tool of anamnesis, the dialectic precision of

which will enable you to recognize truth when you

see it - an exercise not of faith or trust, but Nœsis.

Non-initiate humanity habitually regards “life” as

being either a purely physical OU-function, or as a two-

layered physical body with a non-physical “soul”. which

may or may not survive the body’s cessation of

metabolism and subsequent decomposition.

The “blue-pill”-former is termed materialism, the

“red-pill”-latter idealism. 43

B. Who Owns Your Body:

The protagonist of The Matrix assumed he did, until

he awakened to discover it attached to a variety of

parasitical mechanisms. Let’s find out to what you might

be hooked-up ...

41 In the 1999 science-notsofiction movie The Matrix, a human

sensing “something wrong” with his environment was told that it was

an artificially-conditioned illusion. He was offered a blue pill to

restore it, or a red pill to shatter it. He chose the latter, and

experienced something rather like this chapter.

42 The principles and applications of strict logic are reviewed in

FindFar. Deductive and inductive logic operate exclusively within

the OU.

43 These terms for human life are used differently for the political

processes discussed in Chapter #6.

- 131 -

1. State?

Externally in society you know who you are by

documentary credentials: birth-certificate, passport,

licenses, diplomas, marriage/divorce certificates, and

eventually death-certificate. All these are issued by

various levels of the nation-state of which you are a

“citizen”, in other words to which you belong. It is the

state that recognizes and validates you, and it legally

claims both the responsibility to protect you and the

prerogative to kill you.

You and others may call yourself by many names, but

it is the state which records and authenticates your

“official”, permanent name.

The state stipulates what officials, agencies,

physicians, teachers, parents, and morticians can do to/

with your body. It can punish you if you try to escape its

control, as well as deny your attempt to enter it. From

birth to death you are enveloped in a “matrix” of its laws

and customs conditioning, controlling, and limiting your

freedom of communication and action.

Despite all-of-the-above, an individual would

probably argue that consciousness is untouched &

unreachable by the state, and that this is the final,

decisive establishment of bodily-ownership. 44

2. Religion?

Life is a divine gift, conventional religions all

maintain, and in “intelligent” humans especially so,

giving them dominion over the “lesser” flora, fauna, &

features of God’s creation. Thus functions like mating,

44 In 1984 George Orwell argued that in fact one’s “soul” could be

destroyed by unendurable torture (Room #101). But all that was

actually demonstrated was that self-preservation can be terrorized to

preempt selfless love.

- 132 -

sex, and birthing are held to be sacred, and any

interference with them sinful. The killing of non-human

life is permissible precisely because it highlights the

“special” status of human life.

The killing of other humans is usually endorsed as

self-serving collaboration with religion-hosting states, but

once again individual, non-state “murder” is not. 45 Most

significantly, killing oneself is condemned as the “greatest

of all sins”. It is the ultimate insult to God to reject his gift

of life to you, since it is a life, an “image”, that emulates

his own. Killing yourself is killing God “by proxy”, as

illustrated by humans’ crucifying/killing God-as-Christ.

As Judæo/Christianity lost its literal hold on educated

humanity ca. the European Enlightenment, social-

contract theorists contended more cynically that the

Church frightened adherents into continuing their

miserable lives simply to extract tribute and toil from

them. All disobedience, heresy, infidelity led inevitably to

eternal damnation in Hell; only the most abject surrender

of oneself throughout life might possibly result in Christ’s

mercy - certainly not owed by personal effort.

3. Profession?

Some professions expect the individual to subordinate

his life to their success, mission, or image. The most

obvious of these is military service, whether state,

mercenary, or revolutionary. You are expected to risk,

45 In the United States, for instance, the military forces all include

chaplains from all the profane religious institutions, as

commissioned officers with government-provided/funded facilities

[in bald disregard of the Constitution’s establishment-of-religion

prohibition]. The principal mission of chaplains is to convince

soldiers that human injury and murder ordered by the state is not a

sin in the eyes of God. Religions providing such chaplains include

Judaism, Catholic & Protestant Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, &

Hinduism.

- 133 -

and if necessary sacrifice your life for the mission or

cause. Decorations for valor are awarded as much for

such personal risk and injury/death as for killing the

enemy.

In other professions, including religions, martyrdom

is not only permitted but admired and rewarded. If a

minister kills himself, he’s damned to Hell. But if he is

killed ex officio, he might well be canonized a saint.

4. Psychiatry?

The “medical” avocation of Psychiatry has as its

central article of faith that any continuation of physical

life, no matter how painful or restrictive, is preferable to

death. If a sufferer contemplates suicide, this is “mental

illness” and must be enticed, argued, threatened,

drugged, or padded-cell-imprisoned away. Your body

ceases to be your property the moment you want to get

rid of it.

5. Family?

If you are a member of a family, other members of it

will claim all or part of your body according to your and

their position. As a minor your body is controlled by your

parents, who are subject to state punishment if they don’t

control it as prescribed. If you marry as a husband, your

wife and relatives expect you to procreate as well as

provide. If you marry as a wife, your body is instantly

subordinate to reproduction and care of children.

Suicide within a family is traditionally regarded as a

betrayal of “family obligations”, a social shame to the

family name, and even criminal culpability of other

members who didn’t prevent it.

Exclusive of self-serving exploitation, of course, there

may also be the factor of sincere romantic and/or familial

- 134 -

love. Of course persons genuinely and purely in love

characteristically don’t think of it in “property” terms.

But if one is contemplating personal incarnation options,

love for other incarnates is certainly going to be of

critical, even determinant importance.

6. Familiars?

If your family extends to members who are furred,

feathered, finned, or scaled, what you do with your body

must take what happens to theirs into special

consideration. Implicitly neither they nor you would see

this as a question of “ownership”, but certainly of a bond

and obligation that goes beyond verbiage.

7. Yourself!

What the above recitation highlights is that, as

intuitively as you assume your body to be “yours

exclusively”, this is true only insofar as you’re the only

one inside it.

Indeed even this is a bit of a broad-brush: Biological

science estimates that each human body contains about

39 trillion living bacterial cells, so where the OU is

concerned, it’s more accurate to visualize a very large

crowd of critters who’ve somehow all decided to be “you”

for awhile. 46

At least in the metaphysical realm of the MS, there

are, as the Egyptians detected and identified, only eight of

You. 47

46 Nor do these remain the same 39T cells: The body’s Life-Field (LF)

dictates the disintegration and regeneration of all proteins in the

body about every 160 days. Cf. C#5.B.2.

47 Cf. Chapter #5.C.

- 135 -

C. Materialism - “The Big Black Sack”

Since materialism holds that a human being is

nothing more than a haphazard, temporary coagulation

of physical matter/energy 48, “consciousness of self” is

nothing more than an illusion which ceases the moment

the body stops functioning and decomposes. 49

Hence whether this “illusion” is completely accidental

or constructed and emplaced by prior/super-nature

intelligence/s is also a nontopic of permissible discussion.

The only respectable assumptions are atheism and

agnosticism.

1. The Conceit of Atheism

Some materialists are so fanatic in their certainty that

since “they” are only freak, persistent electrochemical

accidents, everything else in the entire OU must be too.

Thus they confidently deny not just any creative genius

behind the subatomic, interfunctional complexity of the

OU/“Nature”, but the uniform and continuous

enforcement of this “Natural Law” (NL) everywhere

from millisecond to millisecond.

The odds against the entirety of this are prima facie

impossible, so atheists handle this annoyance by refusing

to discuss it. Questions as to why, if one’s personal

consciousness is nothing more than a freak electrical

collision in the brain, this “illusion” should continue with

consistent memory for the individual’s lifetime - and why

48 Prior to Dr. Harold Saxon Burr’s 1972 discovery of LFs (C#5.B.2),

conventional materialism had no way to explain the extraordinary

organization, integration, & replacement of the human body’s

cellular & molecular structure. Materialists grappled with this crucial

problem by simply ignoring it.

49 Cf. C#2.C.

- 136 -

such a “freak electrical accident” coincidentally occurs in

every other human brain.

Insistent that “he” is nothing more than this electrical

illusion, the atheist has nothing but nothing to anticipate

when the electrical switch is turned off: the proverbial Big

Black Sack (BBS) of extinction, of nothingness.

The absence of any supernatural morality, including

of posthumous reward/punishment for incarnate

behavior, makes sincere atheists that much more

dangerous to others, as they are motivated only by

sensual gratification. Some may of course derive pleasure

from kindness, but others just as whimsically may enjoy

depravity, torture, murder. Indeed the entire spectrum of

sensual gratification has nowhere a moral governor; the

overriding goal is relief from boredom, of being forced to

confront the futility of a meaningless consciousness.

Emperor Ming the Merciless: Klytus, I’m bored! What

play thing can you offer me today?

Klytus: An obscure body in the S-K System, Your Majesty.

The inhabitants refer to it as the planet ... Uurth.

Ming: How peaceful it looks. [He activates a console, and

watches as earthquakes, floods, etc. start to occur.

They both laugh.]

Klytus: Most effective, Your Majesty! Will you destroy

this ... Uurth?

Ming: Later. I like to play with thing awhile before

annihilation.

- Flash Gordon (1980)

H.P. Lovecraft, himself an exceptionally reflective

atheist, was only too aware of this plight, highlighting it

in his story The Hound (1922):

Wearied with the commonplaces of a prosaic world,

where even the joys of romance and adventure soon grow

stale, St. John and I had followed enthusiastically every

æsthetic and intellectual movement which promised

respite from our devastating ennui.

- 137 -

The enigmas of the Symbolists and the ecstasies of

the pre-Raphaelites all were ours in their time, but each

new mood was drained too soon of its diverting novelty

and appeal.

Only the sombre philosophy of the Decadents could

hold us, and this we found potent only by increasing

gradually the depth and diabolism of our penetrations.

Baudelaire and Huysmans were soon exhausted of thrills,

till finally there remained for us only the more direct

stimuli of unnatural personal experiences and adventures.

It was this frightful emotional need which led us

eventually to that detestable course which even in my

present fear I mention with shame and timidity - that

hideous extremity of human outrage, the abhorred practice

of grave-robbing. 50

Fortunately for Earth’s climatologists, as well as the

tranquillity of cemeteries and mausoleums, today’s

atheists sublimate their ghoulish desperation for ultimate

boredom-relief by the ongoing catharsis of multimedia

zombie-orgies, wherein the absence of a higher life-after-

death is replaced by a decidedly lower one. At least, the

extinction-fearful atheist consoles himself, continuation

as a rotting, cannibalistic cadaver is better than the BBS!

An ambulance responds to a 911-call at a cemetery

overrun by cannibalistic zombies. The paramedics are

instantly attacked and devoured.

Rotting zombie on the ambulance radio:

“Send ... more ... paramedics ...”

Instead a few minutes later a police car responds to

investigate. The two policemen are also attacked and

eaten.

Rotting zombie on the police car radio:

“Send ... more ... cops ...”

- Return of the Living Dead (1985)

50 Lovecraft, H.P., Dagon and Other Macabre Tales. Sauk City:

Arkham House, 1965, page #152.

- 138 -

2. The Timidity of Agnosticism

Agnostics seek to avoid the pretentious arrogance of

avowed atheists by maintaining that there is not enough

information to answer the design/enforce question one

way or the other.

Just as glaringly this but begs the question, because

the intricacy/consistency realities are every bit as visible

and inescapable to them. All they demonstrate by their

refusal to confront the question is their fear that the

obvious answer will doom them to “creationist” ridicule

in supercilious atheist circles. Thus they succeed only in

emulating ostriches. .

3. The Prison of Physics

The annihilistic masochism of atheists and agnostics

is both understandable and unavoidable - for the simple,

caustic reason that the science of OU physics is a priori

restricted to inquiries into the “how”, never the “why”. It

is a tabulation of effects, not causes.

Indeed there are no instruments to seek or identify

cause, and a claimant to causality would be ridiculed by

and ostracized from the “reputable” (e.g. safe) academic/

professional community for indelicate heresy.

Such is the fate of iconoclasts from Galileo Galilei and

Robert Fulton to Wilhelm Reich, Nikola Tesla, Townsend

Brown, Oskar Klein, et al.

What kind of instrument could detect or measure the

metaphysical? After all, instruments are normally

constructed with OU-sensors and read-outs.

One candidate might be the sensory-deprivation tanks

of Dr. John Lilly (C#8.B), precisely because their function

is to suppress the body’s OU-senses, but this blurs the

line between verifiable reality and hallucination.

- 139 -

The discipline of “Radiesthesia” (or “Biogeometry”)

attempts to bridge the physical and metaphysical, but at

this time has yet to establish verifiable, reliable results.

Just as unfortunately, “fringe sciences” are notorious

for being the stock-in-trade of unscrupulous stage-

magicians seeking commercial reward beyond ethical

entertainment.

Several obscure detection capabilities and thresholds

of the human conscious and subconscious mind are

detailed as “Psychological Controls” (PSYCONs) in

MindWar. Without exception, of course, these are all OU-

phenomena. Any representation or application of them as

“metaphysical” would be erroneous or fraudulent.

4. The Taboo of Metaphysics

Ostensibly the antipathy of physics for metaphysics

dates to the European Enlightenment of the 17th-18th

Centuries, not unsurprisingly reacting to institutional

Christianity’s previous condemnation of science and

scientists as a threat to the Holy Bible.

Admitting God as the creator of the OU would also

imply his continued presence and willful discretion to

change or ignore its established consistency, e.g. by

“miracles”. If he were ruled out altogether, “miracle”

explanations for mysterious events would be moot.

Ironically religionists have never attempted to argue

the active presence of God per the existence and

enforcement of OU NL - which would seem to be the

most obvious and powerful contention.

Rather they have sought evidence of God’s existence

and power in claimed NL violations: “miracles” such as

the parting of the Red Sea, changing a person into a pillar

of salt, and Jesus walking on water. The obvious

absurdity of such Vaudevillian dramatics served only to

ridicule religion all the more, whereas an argument based

- 140 -

on the evident omnipresence and omnipotence of NL

would have had quite the opposite effect.

5. Inadequate Alphabetics

Human language, especially in its most modern form,

has played a crucial and often underappreciated part in

the marginalizing and mythification of metaphysics. The

few terms that exist - such as “soul”, “spirit”, “essence”,

“ethereality”, “psyche”, “supernature”, and of course

“magic” - are so wooly, so encumbered with obsolescence

and triviality as to render them vague at best, silly at

worst in serious discussion.

The most sophisticated and educated metaphysicists

struggle to express themselves [at least in English]

because the words to do so adequately do not exist.

6. Symbolism

In certain antiquities such as those of Egypt and

Runic northern Europe, both written and inscribed

communication went well beyond the merely alphabetic

and phonetic to the acronymic; thus a single hieroglyph

can represent an entire concept, and a word of several

hieroglyphs a statement which in modern alphabetics

would require one or more sentences.

Phonetic modern English utilizes 26 alphabetic

characters. By contrast there are more than 2,000

Egyptian hieroglyphs, which can be used and mixed from

the phonetic to the acronymic.

The study of hieroglyphics beyond the syllogistic

limits of modern alphabetics and languages, to their full

and frequently metaphysical meaning was one of the

most important discoveries of René Schwaller de Lubicz

as articulated in his Du symbole et de la symbolique

(Collection Architecture et symboles sacrés). This

- 141 -

methodology is known as Symbolique in French and

Symbolism in English. Similar breakthrough-work has

been done for ancient north European Runes by Dr,

Stephen Flowers in his Futhark and later analytical

books.

An excellent illustration of Symbolism analysis may

be seen in Bram Stoker’s The Jewel of Seven Stars, when

the Jewel in question, found grasped in her seven-

fingered right hand when the XI Dynasty Queen Tera’s

tomb was discovered in the Valley of the Sorcerer.

On a lining of white satin lay a wondrous ruby of

immense size, almost as big as the top joint of Margaret’s

little finger.

It was carven - it could not possibly have been its

natural shape, but jewels do not show the working of the

tool - into the shape of a scarab, with its wings folded, and

its legs and feelers pressed back to its sides.

Shining through its wondrous “pigeon’s blood” colour

were seven different stars, each of seven points, in such

position that they reproduced exactly the figure of the

- 142 -

Plough. 51 There could be no possible mistake as to this in

the mind of anyone who had ever noted the constellation.

On it were some hieroglyphic figures, cut with the

most exquisite precision.

Mr. Trelawny turned it over so that it rested on its

back.The reverse was no less wonderful than the upper,

being carved to resemble the underside of the beetle. It too

had some hieroglyphic figures cut on it:

“As you see,” said Mr. Trelawny, “there are two

words, one on the top, the other underneath.

“The symbols on the top represent a single word, of

one syllable prolonged, with its determinatives. The

Egyptian language was phonetic, and the hieroglyphic

symbol represented the sound.

“The first symbol here, the hoe, means ‘ mer’, and the

two pointed ellipses the prolongation of the ‘r’: mer-r-r.

“The sitting figure with the hand to its face is what we

call the ‘determinative’ of ‘thought’, and the roll of papyrus

that of ‘abstraction’.

“Thus we get the word mer, ‘love’, in its abstract,

general, and fullest sense. This is the heka52 which can command the Upper World.

“The symbolism of the word on the reverse is simpler,

though the meaning is more abstruse. The first glyph is

men, ‘abiding’, and the second ab, ‘heart’. So we get

‘abiding of heart’, or in our language ‘patience’. This is the

heka to control the Lower World.

“That Jewel, with its mystic words, and which Queen

Tera held under her hand in the sarcophagus, was to be an

important - probably the most important - factor in her

resurrection. From the first I seemed to instinctively

realise this. I kept the Jewel within my safe, whence none

could extract it; not even Queen Tera herself as her ka -

her incorporeal apparition.

51 In Egypt the Thigh of Set constellation, known in America as the

“Big Dipper” or “Great Bear”.

52 Heka, “Word of Power”, plural hekau.

- 143 -

“Dr. Budge53 characterizes the ka as ‘an abstract

individuality of personality’, capable of going where it will,

even to converse with the gods.

“Alternate expressions include the khat (body), ren

(name), khabit (shadow), ab (heart), ba (core), sekhem

( neter), and akh (star).

“This division of functions, spiritual and bodily,

ethereal and corporeal, ideal and actual, includes all the

possibilities and capabilities of corporeal transference,

g u i d e d a l w a y s b y a n u n i m p r i s o n a b l e w i l l o r

intelligence ...” 54

7. Orwellian UnWords

George Orwell realized the subtle, yet decisive power

of language in his classic novel 1984, in which political

heresy is being systematically eliminated by the

destruction of words by which to conceive or express it:

Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to

narrow the range of thought?

In the end we will make thoughtcrime literally

impossible because there will be no words in which to

express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be

expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly

defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and

forgotten.

Already we’re not far from that point. But the process

will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every

year fewer and fewer words, and the range of

consciousness always a little smaller.

Even now there’s no reason or excuse for

thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline,

reality control. But in the end there won’t be any need even

53 Sir E.A. Wallis Budge, distinguished Keeper of Egyptian

Antiquities at the British Museum, author of numerous classic

Egyptological books, and fellow Initiate of Stoker in the Hermetic

Order of the Golden Dawn.

54 Stoker, Bram, The Jewel of Seven Stars. New York: Kensington

Publishing Corp (Zebra Books #416), 1978 (originally published by

Rider & Company, UK, 1912), pages #180-2, abridged.

- 144 -

for that. The Revolution will be complete when the

language is perfect.

By the year 2050 at the very latest, not a single

human being will be alive who could understand such a

conversation as we are having now.

The whole climate of thought will be different; in fact

there will be no thought as we understand it now.

Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think.

Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. 55

Orwell’s illustration was simplified into a dictionary

which kept shrinking with every new edition.

The reality, as detailed in my companion volume

MindWar 56, is more subtle but just as persistent:

Humans form panoramas or “patterns” of reality over

time, based upon continuous and reinforcing sensory

input, including political ideologies and propaganda

designed to instill and preserve desired values and

interpretations.

While the more sensational and dramatic propaganda

targets the conscious perceptions, the far stronger

conditioning take place subconsciously: For example

the term “democracy” means one thing to a capitalist and

another to a socialist or communist. Such patterns form

an individual’s pillars of “reality”, identified and changed

only slowly and with considerable difficulty [if at all].

As of the Mind-trilogy’s57 publication, the educational

process and environment in technologically-advanced

countries is undergoing further change consequent to

digital media, which influence both subconscious and

conscious thinking in audio-visual processes faster, more

intuitive, and less personal-deliberative than previously,

55 Orwell, George, 1984. New York: Signet, 1949, pages #46-7.

56 Aquino, Michael A., MindWar. San Francisco: Barony of Rachane,

2016 (2nd Edition).

57 The third book in the trilogy is FindFar (2017).

- 145 -

with “reality” becoming more of a variable than a

constant in the individual’s experience.

8. Sacking the “Sack”

MindStar now proposes to free both atheists &

agnostics from the glum BBS prospect, and without

recourse to irrational faith:

As discussed previously herein, the Egyptians

apprehended the OU as the physical manifestation of

conceiving principles: the neteru. 58 These were

Symbolized as animals or therianthropes; and remember

that in this context Symbolism is an ideographic

representation of a concept beyond mere alphabetics, or

for that matter “simple picture”.

Accordingly the neteru could just as easily be [and

were] called “Forms” by Pythagoras & Plato, “Æsir” by

ancient northern Europeans, or “Ainur” by J.R.R.

Tolkien. What these aren’t are the “cartoon gods” as

moderns brought up on soap-opera mythologies are

accustomed to imagine and dismiss them.

In these and other semblances, the neteru are

pluralized for a more refined interpretation of OU

complexity and interaction between markedly-different

phenomena. Lazier, simpler minds could [and did]

describe the collective principles as a conglomerate, e.g.

“God”.

Does the OU require a prior imaginative, creative

agency to bring it into existence?

Consider its size and complexity, which everywhere

functions precisely and harmoniously: a gigantic machine

58 While references to “the Egyptians” throughout MindStar draw

from a vast amount of primary & secondary sources, some of which

are cited in the Bibliography, especial cosmological sourcing is to the

“Pyramid Texts” of the Old Kingdom dynasties. Cf. for introduction

Wm. R. Fix, Star Maps (London: Octopus Books, 1979).

- 146 -

of an almost infinite number and variety of working

parts.

If the mechanism per se is not impressive enough,

note that everywhere its components - both severally and

in various levels of grouping - have a strong æsthetic

aspect: In short it is not just functional but beautiful in

every sensory, detectible medium. It is a work of art as

well as science. 59

Absent the neteru, proposing that a machine like this

could just appear and function by nothing more than

sheer, random accident is not just slightly but

overwhelmingly beyond statistical possibility.

The OU machine is characterized not only by its

intricacy but by the consistency of that intricacy:

predictable regularity which, as humans have catalogued

it, is collectively called NL/“nature” [from neter]. So we

confront an OU which not only exists in its intricacy &

æsthetic, but continues to do so strictly and inductively

endlessly.

Such consistency requires external enforcement; a

closed mechanism cannot “enforce itself” [any more than

it can originally “construct itself”].

So the proof of the existence and power of the

neteru is - and requires nothing more than - the

fact of NL.

Temporal incarnate humans are witnesses to NL, so

there is no question about its existence.

The matter of how the OU originally came into being

is a bit dicier, and here we are talking about the origin of

the entire NL mechanism, not just the metagalactic

assortment of “space and stuff” we see at the moment.

59 Arguably the apotheosis of arrogance rejecting an OU æsthetic was

Jean-Paul Sartre’s Nausea (New York: New Directions, 1964), in

which the protagonist Roquentin is “nauseated” by the mere

existence of material objects.

- 147 -

As discussed in the “Time” sections of FindFar, the

4th Dimension is simply a measurement of change

between the 3D locations of two or more objects or

forces. Hence any variety of 4D “yardsticks” can be

devised and used within & among OU components, such

as human schedules in terms of the Earth’s orbit around

the Sun.

However things become more problematical when

trying to measure the 4D of the entire OU, because then

at least one 3D externality is required, and none has been

found to date. Indeed most astrophysicists cannot wrap

their heads about any kind of 3D OU externality - that

would just not expand the parameters of the OU.

In other words, it is impossible to “date” the entire

OU.

But what’s even more fun is that we don’t need to.

The notion of “time” as a fixed, unidirectional linear

progression is nothing more than a myth of certain

primitive religions whose storylines require a “start”,

“action”, and “end” [usually in terms of “sin”,

“punishment”, and “atonement or worse punishment”].

Absent such a threatening storyline, there is no actual

need for an OU “beginning” or “ending”: It simply

extends infinitely into both its past and its future [or

more accurately these would both be “measureless”].

Correspondingly the OU neteru don’t require

definition in terms of “beginning or ending”.

The implications of this brief preamble being that as

the essence (NL) of the OU is external to it, so the

essence (MS or “soul”) of an incarnate OU-

human is necessarily higher/external to it.

This relationship is inescapable if each OU body’s

coherence and continuation ( telos60) as an integral being

are to be maintained.

60 Cf. Chapter #5.B.3.

- 148 -

Summarily: The actual, authentic You is not a

temporary OU device; that is just its manifestation as a

tangible tool. You exist in the super-OU realm 61 of the

neteru, which is literally “beyond time and space” [since

those 4Ds are limited to within the OU].

That You will continue past the discarding of your

temporary OU body is thus not even a matter for debate.

The only questions are what You can and elect to do with

yourself after OU-disconnection.

D. Profane Religions

Profane62 human religions, generally identifiable as

“mainstream” institutions targeting the widest expanse of

the masses, are propaganda mills with the common

purpose of the deception, intimidation, and exploitation

of the ignorant and credulous throughout their incarnate

lifetimes. Characteristics of the principal Western and

Eastern institutions may be studied in IlluminAnX. 63

1. Extrapolating Ignorance

Profane humans generally receive passive, faith-based

indoctrination only; they are not expected to actively

examine or interrogate such indoctrination, indeed are

usually reprimanded or punished if presuming to do so.

Accordingly they assume themselves to be defined and

manifest by their physical bodies and senses. If they think

about “death” - which most avoid doing as much as

61 Neter-Xertet. Cf. Chapter #7.G.

62 From the Latin profanum: “before/outside the fane/sacred

temple”.

63 Aquino, Michael A., IlluminAnX. San Francisco: Barony of

Rachane, 2017.

- 149 -

possible - they imagine only the blind fear of the BBS.

Thus they are easy prey for profane religions.

Cruelly and cynically, the result is a danse macabre of

the blind leading the blind, though a maze of mystical

nonsense, alternately promising posthumous reward for

obedience and threatening eternal punishment otherwise.

Not only do such religions have no actual power or

authority to decree such fates, but their private and

public documents make it clear that they have not the

slightest idea about actual “afterlife”, or even how to

discover it.

Nor, all the more remarkably considering these

destinations’ ostensible all-importance, do they even

care. The amount of profane-religious writings on

postcarnate existence is almost nonexistent, abandoning

even speculation to secular visionaries such as John

Milton, Dante Alighieri, and William Blake.

2. Procrustean Prescription

In ancient Greek mythology Procrustes was an insane

ironsmith from Attica who prided himself on creating an

iron bed that would fit everyone he kidnapped. If they

were too short, the bed functioned as a torture-rack to

stretch them; if they were too tall, he’d cut off the excess

from their legs and feet.

Profane religion professes to know the “Why?”

answers that OU science adamantly refuses to address.

Why do individual humans exist as conscious entities? Is

life the greatest of all divine gifts and blessings? Or is it a

sadistic joke: decades of affliction, fear, and toil, relieved

only by its ripping-away, unexpectedly and amidst pain,

exhaustion, degradation? Followed by the even grimmer

prospect of endless torture, with only an eye-of-the-

needle chance for some vague bliss instead?

- 150 -

Are humans even given the option to embark upon

this journey? No.

Can they abandon it if it’s unendurable? No, suicide is

held by all profane religions to be not just a sin, but the

uttermost heinous of all sins (C#7.B.2.).

If they struggle through their forced lives, obeying

every religious edict as best they can, can they thereby

expect Heaven instead of Hell? Most certainly not:

Humans can never escape their own “original sin” if they

are Jews; all are destined for the same posthumous

nightmare.

And if Christians they can still not save themselves no

matter how devout they are; only the whim of Jesus

Christ can purify them. And if the New Testament is any

guide, he is just as likely to bless a whore as a virgin.

Perhaps more so.

So welcome to the bedroom of Procrustes. You are

placed on Earth with a “Guilty!” sentence hanging like an

immaculate albatross around your neck. You now face

perhaps eighty years of every possible physical ordeal

before you, which brief interludes of happiness only

highlight as all the more recurring and relentless. You

have nothing to look forward to but a painful, terrifying

death-throe at an unknown moment.

And this was the pleasant part: Now if you are

Jewish, you are condemned to an eternity of desolation in

Sheol, And if a Christian or Muslim, a far greater

likelihood of eternal, hideous torment and torture in Hell

than admission to Heaven on the mere whim of Jesus or

Mohammed.

Expect to escape this doom as a Hindu or Buddhist?

Sure, you get to stay right here! If you’ve been a

normally-flawed human, though, expect to come back as

a centipede or wharf-rat.

Isn’t it a relief to know that “all of the above” is

nothing more than cruel, cold-blooded enslavement lies?

- 151 -

3. Sometimes They Come Back

a. Reincarnation

“Reincarnation” - the centipede/rat scenario

mentioned above, began as a Buddhist and Hindu idea,

because these do not posit the Judæo/Chistian Sheol/

Heaven/Hell repository, so needed to think of something

else to do with expiring souls. It seemed simplest just to

recycle them, with the profane-control threat being the

provision for slippage down the organismarchy if you

were uncooperative this carnation.

As examined in more detail in IlluminAnX, this

Hindu/Buddhist invention was later borrowed by some

profane Western “initiatory” groups as something more

“occult” than the old, depressingly-inevitable S/H/H.

And exciting because, unlike conventional J/C, such an

“initiate” could self-redeem beforehand - guaranteeing

either a ticket to Heaven or at least a promotion for the

next reincarnation! How could this be accomplished?

In the 13th Century CE Jews [and uncertain

Christians] were offered a new hope for non-Messianic

redemption from both Adam & Eve’s Original & their own

additional sins. The Spanish Jew Moses de León

authored a series of books, the Zohar (“Splendor”),

claiming to reveal divine mysteries concealed in the

Torah. 64

The mysticism contained in the Zohar is known as

[Hebrew] Cabala (aka “Kabbalah”, “Qabala”, etc.). The

word means “aligned” or “corresponding”, and purported

64 Moses de León ascribing the Zohar to the 2nd-century rabbi

Shimon bar Yochai, who hid in a cave for thirteen years studying the

Torah and was inspired by the prophet Elijah to write the Zohar.

León’s widow confessed that her husband had written it, using the

prophet for profit. ( Jewish Encyclopedia, Funk & Wagnalls)

- 152 -

to chart an initiatory pathway to redemption by personal

effort alone.

Standard Buddhist/Hindu reincarnation is prima

facie nonsense. With the occasional exception of a few re-

Napoleons and -Cleopatras in sanitariums, newborns

have not appeared with oldmemories. And of course

neither Gautama nor Vishnu set up an equivalency of

old/new bodies.

Nor in the B/H model, would it make sense to

eradicate one’s previous personality, memory, and

accumulated knowledge with a physical reincarnation.

This would make the entire operation pointless, since the

reincarnate would be completely new and unique from

any perspective. Punishment or promotion would be

equally pointless.

Some “pop-occult”-fantasies notwithstanding,

Egyptian metaphysics included absolutely no concept of

physical reincarnation. The B/H model of “identity

restart” would amount to sacrilegious murder of the ren-

emanation of the MS: an inconceivable blasphemy.

As detailed herein, the entire curriculum of Egyptian

initiation involved extension and exercise of the body and

its senses to enable identification and realization of the

eight MS emanations, following which the body is

discarded and the MS embarked upon its neter-

immortality.

So while bodified you’re not expected to cringe before

religious threats of punishment, or equally-empty

promises of reward. As the Egyptians represented by the

symbolism of Maat, and their disciple Plato by his

concept of the Agathon65, your desire to be and do the

Good is yet another anamnesis: an innate nobility of your

MS which you have only to acknowledge and actualize.

65 The highest Good for its own sake. Cf. MindWar & FindFar.

- 153 -

b. Resurrection

Chapter #4.D examines the rather repulsive and grisly

superstitions of J/C relating to dead bodies in which

human “souls” were either permanently imprisoned or

reinserted by God/Jesus.

Summarily Hebrews had no concept of the “soul”

beyond a mere animal-animating force ( nephesh), of

which only reviled and feared elementals elohim and

rephaim remained with the corpse.

The early Christians [erroneously] mistook the Greek

psyche for the Hebrew nephesh, insisting that, although

sundered at death, it would soon reunite with its dead

body:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not

able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to

destroy both soul and body in hell. 66

The immediate, if short-lived (!) resurrection of Jesus

post-crucifixion was held to exemplify this:

And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the

midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed

that they had seen a spirit.

And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and

why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself:

handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones,

as ye see me have.

And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his

hands and his feet.

And while they yet believed not for joy, and

wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?

And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an

honeycomb.

66 Moses et al., Holy Bible. Garden of Eden: Day 1+, Matthew 10:28.

- 154 -

And he took it, and did eat before them. 67

However dramatic this Easter-fable, it has no

significance beyond that - not just for the obvious reason

that Jesus did not permanently revive, but more that

some theoretical future Night of the Living Dead would

seriously overcrowd Earth with re-animatees utterly

adrift from their original envirotimes. It is difficult to

imagine how any such Christian finale could be anything

but a worldwide disaster.

(1) Necromancy

Ritual summoning of the Departed has been an

interest of ceremonial magicians, mediums, scientists,

and séancetists since antiquity. Most of this can be

written off to the superstitious, delusional, or fraudulent.

But if thought is indeed a field-phenomenon and the

MS is immortal, there is no reason to assume that

communication of the ESP-type is impossible. While a

full inquiry into this would require its own book, here it

may be noted that the seemingly-fanciful trappings of

ritual chambers, séance parlors, and Expressionistic

mad-laboratories should not be dismissed too quickly or

contemptuously. As discussed in MindWar, deliberate

concentration and energizing of both conscious and

subconscious thought requires reinforcement by and

non-distraction of the body’s physical senses. This can be

either by minimizing them [as in Yoga-meditation or Dr.

John Lilly’s sensory-deprivation tanks], or in the

selection/construction/decoration of enhancing

externalities.

Beyond its range of physical senses, the human body

can both detect and react to a wide range of waves and

67 Ibid., Luke 24:36-43.

- 155 -

fields within and possibly beyond the Electromagnetic

Spectrum. Many of these EMS functions are detailed as

Psychological Controls (PSYCONs) in MindWar. Dr.

Lilly’s tanks did not specifically identify or reduce/these.

What would have been needed was for the tank to be

surrounded by a “Faraday Cage”, indeed one enhanced to

nullify all externalities. 68

(2) Zombification

The reanimation of dead human bodies minus the

“soul” (personality, intelligence, conscience) of the once-

person has assuredly been grist and gore for horror from

Haiti to Hollywood.

In his The Serpent and the Rainbow (Warner, 1987),

Wade E. Davis (Ph.D. Ethnobotany) exposes the Haitian

practice as the controlled use of poisons.

As for modern “Zombie Apocalypse” reverie, there is

more than a passing allusion to the worrisome opiate

epidemic, combined with the alarming dumbing-down of

an undereducated populace. Still this hasn’t yet advanced

to mass-mob cannibalistic extremes. 69

68 While it is obvious to even the minimally-intelligent that the Great

Pyramid of Giza was never anyone’s tomb, its true purpose has

remained elusive, not the least because of the odd interior

architecture, dimensions, baffles, sinks, and angularities. Published

instrument readings, spatial relationships, and the constitution of

the “King’s Chamber” coffer just happen to add up to a very tidy

sensory-deprivation Faraday Cage - which would explain Napoleon’s

comments. Cf. Wm. R. Fix, Pyramid Odyssey (New York: Mayflower

Books, 1978).

69 Perhaps I spoke too fast: A 2018 Google-search for “zombie food”

yields no fewer than 140 million websites of munchies, crunchies,

recipes, and party-catering! “Zombie rock music” brings up 63

million more, in case the decomposing feel like dancing ...

- 156 -

E. Posthumous Pageantry

“Deaths” of their slaves, and particularly the more

prominent ones, are beloved by profane religions for the

spectacles they invite, both immediately and sometimes

annually thereafter. Or even daily, as in the case of the

famous “Woman in Black” visiting Rudolph Valentino’s

crypt.

As with the event of “death” itself, the common

feature of all such profane necrofestivals is complete

disinterest in the current state of the deceased. There is

never any concern or conversation about whether the

individual is in Heaven or Hell: how to congratulate the

former or commiserate the latter.

With the possible exception of Elvis Presley, no time is

spent searching for reincarnations either. 70 But even after

several samplings of “Thriller”, the author remains

uncertain whether Michael Jackson was indeed then/

subsequently zombified. And some personages, such as

James Dean, Princess Diana, Jim Morrison, and Adolf

Hitler, mesmerize the masses far more as avatars than

actualities. On the other hand, perhaps Morrison already

was one?

F. Monolithic Anamnesis

To understand physical “death” accurately, it is first

necessary to dispel the notion that physical “death” is an

utter and final end: the proverbial “Big Black Sack”

propaganda of the profane. In actuality it is nothing of

the sort, but a consciousness-evolutionary process which

70 Except upon the disincarnation of the Dalai Lama, which

precipitates a search for his new embodiment. Unlike The King,

however, His Holiness usually reappears in Tibet instead of Las

Vegas.

- 157 -

is easily realizable and identifiable once one knows where

and how to look for it.

As so much else in MindStar, this is a practical,

personal exercise in anamnesis: recollective Nœtic

knowledge of primal truth (a neter or Platonic Form).

Once alerted to anamnesis, and upon exercising the

requisite dialectic thought-discipline to attain it, its utility

and veracity will be definitively and reliably self-evident.

While anamnesis may be activated by simple

prompting [as illustrated by Plato’s Dialogue the Meno],

it can also be utilized in extensive and elaborate

explorations [as illustrated in the “Sphinx & Chimæra”

Afterwords to this book].

For a convenient metaphor to illustrate the “death”-

transitional sequence, we need look no further than the

classic science-fiction movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

[Do not read this as nostalgic entertainment. It is an

exercise to replace the prevalent, preconditioned mental

model of “death as BBS obliteration” with a schematic of

continuation and evolutionary transition.]

As you apply anamnesis to this, its actuality will

replace the BBS falsity, freeing you from enslavement to

that hopelessness and despair. 71

In this collaboration director Stanley Kubrick and

author Arthur C. Clarke were not too far off when, at the

culmination of the film, the transitioned MS of astronaut

71 In Greater Black Magic (GBM) a purgative ritual such as this is

called a Black Mass. And authentic BM has nothing to do with

mockery of the Catholic Mass [except for addicted Catholics]; it is a

ritualized shock tailored to each celebrant, the purpose of which is

the removal and dissipation of identified self-destructiveness. It

eliminates taboos, sacred cows, and all similar conditioning, whether

conscious or subconscious.

A famous “secular” example is the shattering of Winston Smith’s

Julia-addiction in George Orwell’s 1984 by a stronger BM of rats in

Room #101.

In his The Aristos and The Magus, John Fowles described the

BM as “disintoxication”.

- 158 -

David Bowman was represented as an “embryonic star-

child”. As he awakened, wrote Clarke, “he wasn’t sure

what he was going to do next ... but he would think of

something.”

2001 starred a flat-black, Golden-Rectangular 72

Monolith with the “missing link” power to catalyze

successive stages of human consciousness evolution:

from instinctive-animal to Homo Sapiens in prehistory,

then from intelligent incarnation to pure mentality (=

“star-child”), activated once man had advanced

sufficiently to reach the Moon and encounter a “sentinel”

Monolith. 73

The prehistoric and Moon Monoliths are followed by a

third, floating in space near the Jovian moon Europa.

Bowman’s transitional trip through it occurs in two

stages:

First his 3D-defined body is subjected to a series of

extreme physical forces to destroy its OU-physical

displacement.

The metamorphic Bowman then finds himself in a

Subjective-Universal (SU) “hotel suite” in which he is

suspended while his OU 4D accelerates to match the dis-

integrated 3D, as illustrated by a hypercompressed aging

process.

The “OU-4D-vacated” Bowman now re-enters the

Monolith to complete his transition to a third, wholly

mental stage of evolution, theatrically portrayed as the

“star-child”. In Egyptian Symbolism, Bowman’s MS has

72 A golden rectangle is a rectangle that can be cut up into a square

and a rectangle similar to the original one. All golden rectangles are

similar and the ratio length/width = golden ratio = (1+ sqrt 5)/2, or

ϕ. ϕ is held to be the universal standard of beauty in proportion.

73 Clarke’s original 1948 short-story was entitled The Sentinel,

describing just such a Moon-trigger, without speculating on the

consequences of its activation. Sentinel was later expanded into

2001.

- 159 -

cast aside its khat-OU4D incarnation to reconstitute itself

on a ka-basis. 74

Not being initiates or Symbolists, neither Kubrick nor

Clarke found the imagery or language to be this specific.

What audiences see is therefore their “Nœtic sensation”

of this process: an artistic act of anamnesis. 75 It is the same anamnesis in 2001 which impresses them with a

subconscious sense of the intrinsic correctness, the

validity of this film-sequence without being able to put it

into words.

Stanley Kubrick was an avowed atheist, who, having

illustrated next-stage evolution, felt no need to define it.

Famous for completely differentiating his films, he simply

went on to A Clockwork Orange, then Full Metal Jacket.

But Arthur Clarke was less sanguine about the door

he’d cracked open. Popularly regarded as one of the “Big

Three” moderns of science-fiction, he had to stand up

against the other two: atheists Isaac Asimov and Robert

Heinlein. The unspoken ethic was that any hint of

supernaturalism in their stories would taint their

“science”, take them down a stage to “fantasy”. 76 The

most that Clarke permitted himself in interviews was a

74 An Egyptian illustration of this transitional process was authored

by Bram Stoker in The Jewel of Seven Stars (1903), based upon the

GBM Opening of the Mouth. It was filmed, more sensationally than

accurately, as Hammer’s Blood from the Mummy’s Tomb (1971) and

The Awakening (1980). An extract from the Stoker novel is included

under the discussion of the ka-emanation in MindStar.

75 Cf. Chapter #4.A.

76 When in 1982 Isaac Asimov sequeled his famous Foundation

trilogy with Foundation’s Edge, I pointed out to him that his hero’s

choice of Gaia in favor of the First and Second Foundations smacked

suspiciously of Paris’ choice of Aphrodite over Hera and Athena in

Greek mythology, Isaac amusedly admitted that I’d caught him; he

nursed an affection for that legend.

- 160 -

Deistic shrug that God might have created the OU, but if

so paid no further attention to it.

Obviously Clarke was left floundering what to do with

his 2001 “star-child”. In 1982 he finally came up with the

sequel 2010: Odyssey Two, in which an inexplicably-re-

OU4D David Bowman chats with his wife on television,

materializes on Earth to visit his mother, and then

bequeaths the entire Solar System to humanity as long as

it stays away from Europa [for which no reason is

given77]. To emphasize this Dave changes Jupiter into a

second sun for the System, doubtless precipitating both

gravitational and radiation catastrophes for all the

remaining planets. Perhaps unsurprisingly Arthur didn’t

stick around to watch this happen; he went through his

own Monolith two years earlier in 2008.

With the perspective of initiation, we can do a bit

better than Kubrick & Clarke as to “what’s beyond the

third Monolith”:

G. Neter-Xertet

Having rejected the Big Black Sack of atheism/

agnosticism, as well as its tacit but camouflaged

acceptance by profane religion, the obvious question

remains: If upon disassociation from a physical human

body, where does the MS “go”?

“Go” is in quotes because the MS isn’t a 4D OU

displacement that is either stationary or mobile against

OU points of reference. It is of metaphysical, not

physical constitution and integrity, like the neteru, and

can be accurately conceived and understood only upon

this realization and in this context.

77 It turns out that there’s yet another one of those you-know-whats

down there in a swamp, but so what?

- 161 -

Human brains conditioned to working with their

physical senses alone are accustomed to regard the OU

(the perceptive extent of those senses) as the whole of

reality.

These same physical senses are almost, but not

completely useless where reality beyond the OU is

concerned. The key to that capacity lies in the mind’s

capacity for intuition. This has nothing to do with the

commonplace use of this term for guesswork and

hunches. Rather it constitutes the capacity of though

exclusive of all OU-sensory receptions and their

accumulated reality-patterns. This is the intuition

described by Plato as Nœsis.

As illustrated by the structure of the Platonic

Dialogues, Nœsis is attainable only after an individual

has recognized and freed himself from a “pyramid” of

lesser, OU-referential thinking: a “thought purification”

process called by Plato the Dialectic. 78 In the Dialogues

it is illustrated by conversation in order to render it

intelligible in words; but the process itself is purely

mental. Experienced Initiates can activate Nœsis by

reflective thinking alone: “turning the mind in upon

itself”. The term meditation most closely characterizes

this, although again that term has been popularly

corrupted in various recreational expressions.

Accordingly there is no “physical [in the precise sense

of that term] place” wherein the neteru - and each

individual MS - dwell. For conversational convenience

only the Egyptians identified it only as the Neter-Xertet

(Place of the Neteru). In conventional Egyptology it is

frequently confused with the Tuat (Underworld) or

Amenti (Afterworld), simply because of the accepted

portrayal of Egypt “soul”-mythology as a Hebraic-style

78 Cf. FindFar for detailed discussion & illustration of the Platonic

Pyramid of Thought.

- 162 -

“Heaven/Hell” journey & repository. As Symbolism

reveals, the multi-aspect MS is not reimprisoned in a

postmortem body and dragged before a “Hebrew-Godly”

Osiris to be judged and consigned to a Heavenly Amenti

or Hellish Tuat.

The neteru are utterly unconcerned with pre-

mortem human morality. “Weighing of one’s heart

against a feather” represents each MS’ transition from

OU-referential morality (symbolized by the ab or “heart

emanation”) to pure/abstract neter-morality as

symbolized by Maat.

Expect your eventual awakening [or “entry” if that is

easier to conceptualize] to Neter-Xertet to be a wondrous

unfolding of possibilities, limited only by your own

coherence, creativity, and courage.

This “destination” is the same for every conscious

entity’s MS; the only difference is with what Nœsis you

anticipate and plan for it. If you’ve “died” expecting

nothing but the terror and obliteration of non-initiation’s

BBS, it’s going to take you awhile to get over your

surprise, relief, and wonder: a meta-“rebirth” not

altogether unlike your previous, more constrained

incarnate one.

H. The Two Paths

The initiatory journey to Neter-Xertet is by one of two

Paths: the Right-Hand (RHP) and Left-Hand

- 163 -

(LHP). 79 The Egyptians represented these respectively in

Symbolism as HarWer80 and Set.81

1. The Right-Hand Path

A MS which has chosen the RHP emerges in willful

synchronicity with the natural neteru, enjoying the rich

harmony of their collective Natural Law. In this

environment the MS is no longer be-Set by the tensions

of incarnate tension between a self-affirmative

consciousness enveloped in NL regularity. By far the

most initiated MSs arrive via the RHP and enjoy this

experience of Neter-Xertet as “participant” rather than

“creator” neteru. 82

Such NL-harmony is also the transitional emergence

of non-initiate MSs, the difference being that, a bit like

2001’s “star-child”, they don’t anticipate it and will need

79 While these terms originated in Buddhism to designate asexual/

sexual rituals, and were later used in Judæo-Christianity to

distinguish angelic from dæmonic occultism, they are used herein as

in the Temple of Set: RHP = OU inclusion & harmony; LHP = OU

distinction & independent creation. Cf. The Temple of Set and

IlluminAnX.

80 “Horus the Elder”: the original, pre-Osirian Horus as the neter of

the Solar daylight, complement of Set as neter of the night sky and

the seven circumpolar stars ( Septemtrione). Together Set and

HarWer functioned in complementary contrast as the Sam-Taui,

represented in Symbolism as a human figure with both their heads,

or the two of them ceremonially binding-together the Djed-pillar of

Existence. [In later Osirian mythology Horus was re-cast as Osiris’

son (hen “the Younger”) and Set as Osiris’ evil brother. MindStar

refers to their original apprehension.]

81 Cf. Sir J. Norman Lockyer’s The Dawn of Astronomy: A Study of

the Temple-Worship & Mythology of the Ancient Egyptians.

Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1964.

82 In human mythology this is somewhat similar to the difference

between “angels and archangels”, Tolkien’s “Maiar and Valar”, etc.

- 164 -

to gradually discard their BBS terror and/or profane

religions’ “afterlife” myths. But relief and harmonious

consciousness will gently and comfortably arise, without

sacrifice of individuality.

While neither violating nor wishing to violate NL,

RHP MSs may freely observe and move about in the OU,

indeed to the extent of subtle interaction [as the khabit]

with still-incarnate beings. Such interaction is sensed by

the incarnate at both conscious and subconscious levels

of thought: the former as “dreams” and the latter as

extra-sensory perception (ESP) in the precise incidence

of impressions not utilizing the body’s physical senses.

Rather such occasions are a Thought-Field (TF)

phenomenon. 83

Such ESP awareness and communication occurs

through the khabit-emanation of one or more MSs, and is

“shadowed” in the physical brain of the incarnate by

Theta-wave activity. 84 It is the khabit that both causes and is sensitive to OU-disturbances such as “ghosts” and

“haunted houses”, which also explains why such

sensitivity is more developed in some incarnates than

others.

2. The Left-Hand Path

The LHP is based upon the principle of isolate-self

consciousness - “the Gift of Set” - and its exploration,

83 Concerning TFs see C#5.B.4 herein. Concerning the related Life-

Fields (LF) ordering and maintaining the consistency of an incarnate

being’s physical body, see C#5.B.2 and, for more detail, MindWar.

84 The correlation of Theta to ESP was discovered by the Soviet

psychiatrist Dr. Dmitry G. Mirza in his four secret KGB laboratories.

Cf. Ostrander & Schroeder’s Psychic Discoveries Behind the Iron

Curtain (1970) and Michael Murphy’s An End to Ordinary History

(1982).

- 165 -

exercise, and maximization. It seeks to evolve the

initiated human from self-aware animal to a god.

This aspiration is not as preposterous as humans

conditioned to faith [for it is a de facto religious faith] in

their complete OU subjugation docilely accept. In fact the

reality is completely the opposite: Every individual

exercise of will, of choice, of discretion, and above-all of

creation is a manifestation of the Gift. Any thought,

expression, or action which is not the product of OU-

stimulated instinct flexes the Gift.

Humans’ failure to appreciate this phenomenon is

partly the result of masochistic self-indoctrination, but

also the seeming minimal impact of the Gift against the

intimidation vastness and omnipresence of the OU, and

of course the relentless barrage of perceptions of personal

identity only as the sum-total of OU-bodily senses and 4D

displacement boundaries.

Without seeing it as “initiation”, self-maximizing

individuals already defy OU-prison conditioning, most

obviously in the creative arts. Every Wagner opera, Clark

Ashton Smith poem, Paul Kantner song, Jules Verne

novel, Expressionist film or painting strains if not indeed

breaks the chains. The more extraordinary the

“violation”, to be sure, the more taxing the energy and

concentration demanded. The inertia and “gravity” of the

OU are strong and relentless, and the human body is

their creature.

Formal LHP initiation thus realizes that this same

body is a chain, a prison-cell. The Gift cannot be

completely free and omnipotent until the chain is broken,

the cell escaped.

Paradoxically and importantly, however, it is this very

environment of an OU body that enables each Set-created

MS to become aware of itself. The body provides a point

of reference, both in itself and externally, for the MS to

use to discern what it is vs. what it isn’t. A fish who has

- 166 -

known nothing but its ocean-existence has no concept of

“water” until it jumps into the air [or has the misfortune

to be caught].

LHP incarnates, whether artists or initiates,

experience the exhilaration of their occasional “jumps

into the air”. If they are seen to be too threatening to

conventionality, however - or as H.G. Wells ominously

storytold it, sighted men in “The Country of the Blind” -

they can expect to be “caught fish” and have their

offending eyes put out. Each LHP adventurer walks a

tightrope throughout his incarnation; only upon

successful transition to Neter-Xertet does he become free

not just of the OU prison but of its guards.

The challenge of LHP initiation is therefore to extract

the maximum utility from one’s OU-incarnation, and not

to abort it prematurely. Every exercise of one’s presence

though physical mechanism strengthens and refines self-

definition.

Equally emphatically the many avenues the physical

senses provide for communication and interaction with

other forma of life, and æsthetic appreciation of nonliving

phenomena of vast beauty and utility, must not be

prematurely cast aside, whether from unfamiliarity,

impatience, or indolence. The OU “ordeal” exists for a

very essential and vital reason. Preemptively aborting it is

not a “sin”, but it is the waste of a unique and invaluable

opportunity.

If the incarnate experience of the LHP artist or initiate

is more demanding than that of his RHP counterpart,

postincarnation both magnifies and relieves this tension.

The LHP MS now finds itself in a medium completely of

its own generation: a Subjective Universe (SU) in which it

is the defining neter.

As daunting as it sounds, an emergent LHP MS

therefore faces the prospect of creating its own SU, or

even multiple SUs. It can also blend these with the OU of

- 167 -

the natural neteru, or with SUs of other LHP MSs -

including the “Form”-SU of Set himself. The old physical-

incarnate constraints and energies of the OU no longer

apply, except insofar as a MS may elect to observe them.

Thus whereas a RHP MS feels no inclination to ignore

or violate the harmony of the natural- neteru OU, a LHP

MS may elect to behave much the same for the most part,

but reserving the discretion to veer off from it in SU

ingenuity as inspiration occurs.

There is no limit to the richness of an individually-

created SU, of course, and it may have direction and

purpose or be delightfully random. I can think of no

better example of such an SU as rendered in English than

Clark Ashton Smith’s magnificent The Hashish-Eater,

readily available in both book and Internet-online

formats. If you elect LHP transition to your personal

divinity and immortality, this is very much the “canvas”

that awaits you.

I. Meta-Morphosis

The moment when the MS discards the physical body,

e.g. [physical] “death” is less agreed-upon than most

humans suppose.

In 1981 a Commissioners’ Conference on Unites States

Laws proposed a model state law entitled the Uniform

Determination of Death Act, since adopted by some but

not all states. It reads:

An individual who has sustained either (1)

irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory

functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of

the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A

determination of death must be made in accordance with

accepted medical standards.

- 168 -

This suffices in the OU to discard bodies no longer in

use by their MSs, but it is an unsubstantiated overreach

of OU materialism to claim that the absence of brain-

electricity proves the obliteration of the mind, i.e.

consciousness - which as shown herein is a field85, not a

physical mechanism.

MindStar argues this from the Egyptian-metaphysical

methodology of anamnesis, but for those humans still

unfamiliar with and thus hesitant to rely upon it, the

materialism-myth is easily refutable in conventional,

exoteric language as well:

1. Brain activity isn’t the same as thinking, feeling, or

seeing.

2. No one has remotely shown how molecules acquire the

qualities of the mind.

3. It is impossible to construct a theory of the mind based

on material objects that somehow became conscious.

4. When the brain lights up, its activity is like a radio

lighting up when music is played. It is an obvious fallacy

to say that the radio composed the music. What is being

viewed is only a physical correlation, not a cause. 86

MS/brain separation can originate with either the

lower function of the khat or the higher of the ab:

85 Cf. Chapter #5.B.4. For instance physical sensory & body-

functional mechanisms can be traced to specific sections of the brain,

but thoughts and memories cannot be localized, nor measured in

terms of access speed/complexity.

86 Deepak Chopra, M.D., FACP, and Dr. Rudolph E. Tanzi, Ph.D.,

Joseph P. and Rose F. Kennedy, Professor of Neurology, Harvard

Medical School Director, Genetics and Aging at Massachusetts

General Hospital (MGH), “Good News: You Are Not Your Brain”,

The Huffington Post, May 27, 2012.

- 169 -

1. Khat-alyst

This is the disconnection with which humans are

commonly, if not conscientiously familiar. It is what is

regarded as “natural death”, especially when the “soul” is

believed either not to exist at all (atheism, agnosticism),

or to exist in only a very vague, crude way (J/C, etc.

mythology).

a. Khat-alepsy

The khat can cease to interact between the body and

the other, higher emanations if the body “wears out”, e.g.

“natural causes”. In the most comfortable circumstances

this transpires with peaceful unconsciousness or sleep. In

more advanced, civilized countries it may be anticipated

and eased further with “palliative” care and/or drugs.

b. Khat-astrophe

Sufficient damage to the body, as in accident, war, or

murder, disrupts the functionality of the khat, such that

the other emanations are also “cast adrift”, as well as

sensing in their several avenues the traumatic shock and

pain of the body. While these vanish upon disconnection,

a return to MS cohesion of the non- khat emanations

requires that much more concentration, while the body-

attached khat may be temporarily or permanently

incoherent depending upon the degree of physical

damage.

2. Ab-solution

In more refined interrelationships between the MS

and its indwelled body, the passive failure of the khat-

linkage is replaced by one of deliberate disengagement, as

- 170 -

accomplished by the ab-emanation. This may be

approximated as the MS “asserting full control of the

body”, and then retiring its activity in a single, smooth

“discontinuation”.

a. Ab-sense

A purely ab-controlled transition, achievable in some

individuals of high initiation, is illustrated by the “Secret

of the Golden Flower” (C#5.C.1).

The ab eschews violence to either the khat or the

body. In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien asserts

this capability as one of the privileges of the passing

“Atlantean” race of Númenor [emphasis mine]:

At last Aragorn felt the approach of old age and knew

that the span of his life-days was drawing to an end, long

though it had been.

Then Aragorn said to Arwen: “At last, Lady Evenstar,

fairest in this world, and most beloved, my world is fading.

Lo! we have gathered, and we have spent, and now the

time of payment draws near.”

Arwen knew well what he intended, and long had

foreseen it; nevertheless she was overborne by her grief.

“Would you then, Lord, leave your people that live by your

word?”

“Not before my time,” he answered, “for if I will not

go now, then I must soon go perforce. And Eldarion our

son is a man full-ripe for kingvship.”

Then, going to the House of the Kings on the Silent

Street, Aragorn laid him down on the long bed prepared

for him.

Then he said farewell to Eldarion and gave into his

hands the winged crown of Gondor and the sceptre of

Arnor.

Then all left him save Arwen, who stood to plead with

him to stay for awhile. She was not yet weary of her days,

and thus she tasted the bitterness of the mortality that she

had taken upon herself.

“Lady Undómiel,” said Aragorn, “the hour is indeed

hard, yet it was made even in that day when we met under

the white birches in the garden of Elrond where none now

- 171 -

walks. And on the hill of Cerin Amroth when we forsook

both the Shadow and the Twilight, this doom was

accepted.

“Take counsel with yourself, Beloved, and ask

whether you would indeed have me wait until I wither and

fall from my high seat unmanned and wittless.

“Nay, Lady, I am the last of the Númenoreans and the

latest King of the Elder Days. To me has been given not

only a span thrice that of the Men of Middle-earth, but also

the grace to go at my will, and give back the gift. Now,

therefore, I will sleep.

“I speak no comfort to you, for there is naught for

such pain within the circles of the world.

“The uttermost choice is before you: to repent and go

to the Havens and bear away into the West the memory of

our days together, that shall there be evergreen but never

more than memory; or else to abide the Doom of Men.”

“Nay, dear Lord, that choice is long over. There is now

no ship that would bear me hence, and I must abide the

Doom of Men whether I will or I nill: the loss and the

silence.

“But I say to you, King of the Númenoreans: Not until

now have I understood the tale of your people and their

fall. As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last.

For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to

Men, it is bitter to receive.”

“So it seems,” he said, “but let us not be overthrown at

the final test, who of old renounced the Shadow and the

Ring.“In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold!

we are not bound for ever to the circles of the

world, and beyond them is more than memory.

Farewell!”

“Estel, Estel!” she cried; and with that, even as he

took her hand and kissed it, he fell into sleep. 87

As a devout Catholic, whose Ainulindalë echoed John

Milton’s creation-epic of God/ Eru and his angels/ Ainur,

Tolkien could be expected to lament the BBS “Doom of

Men” that Aragorn and Arwen had been assured awaited

87 Tolkien, J.R.R., The Lord of the Rings. New York: Houghton

Mifflin, 1954 et seq., Collector’s Edition, Appendix A.I. “Númenorean

Kings”, pages 3343-4.

- 172 -

both of them as humans. What they didn’t know had been

revealed by King Angmar (formerly Ar-Pharazôn the

Golden) to the Wizard Pallando the Blue, at Barad-dûr in

Mordor, shortly before the siege of Minas Tirith, 3019 of

the Third Age:

I often wonder, Blue Wizard, at how little of Númenor

was known either to the Ainur in Valinor or to the several

races and realms of Middle-earth. Had it been otherwise,

that island might still be above the waves of the Belegaer

today, nor Beleriand itself broken. The Men of Númenor

had, in their three thousands of years as a culture, grown

beyond the Men, Elves, Dwarves, and other beings here,

and indeed beyond also the Valar in Aman themselves.

Before you disbelieve, for I see that you would, remember

that the Elves, beautiful of form and immortal upon Arda

as they may be, are yet thus bounded in their existence. As

for the Valar, while they may bend and hurt this world

mightily, still dare they not but as allowed by Eru Ilúvatar,

to whose mindless, changeless service they are eternally

enthralled, save only one.

But we Dúnedain - for indeed I am Númenorean -

discovered that, though our lives be limited on this world,

neither are our bodies entwined with it as the Elves and

Dwarves. We Men are not thus imprisoned to it, but by our

will may continue beyond it through all dimensions and

distances of the universe. Nor are our minds condemned

never to venture beyond that of Eru Ilúvatar, as are those

of the Ainur - save only one. Indeed, Blue Wizard, as you

are of the Maiar, I speak here beyond your own ability to

comprehend. But this that you cannot understand is the

Gift and Doom of Men, and that is what Númenor learned,

and that is why the Valar feared, and destroyed,

Númenor.88

What Aragorn did not know, therefore, was that

within his Earthmortal body burned the immortality of

not just the “circles” of the OU created by Eru Ilúvatar

88 Ash nazg, Morlindalë. San Francisco: Barony of Rachane, 2003,

The Fifth Scroll, pages #108-9.

- 173 -

(“the One”) and ordered by the [natural] Ainur, but of the

SU-creative Gift of Melkor.

Further that, in relinquishing her Quendi (Elven) Life-

force for that of Númenorean Mankind, she had freed her

MS from its OU-bounded continuation to the limitless

Being now before Aragorn. 89

b. Ab-sence

Unfortunately for post-Númenor humans, the ability

to simply ab-dicate one’s body at will has been lost along

with that thrice-span incarnation. The closest

approximation is accomplished by body-deactivation

pharmaceuticals, e.g. “physician-assisted suicide” (PAS).

While one might sensibly expect this to be a routine,

personal-discretionary procedure for mature/sane adults,

this is almost nowhere the case, even in the early 21st

Century CE, because of both profane-religious and

nation/state insistence that human life is theirs -

certainly not the affected individual’s! - to give or take.

At most, and then subject to draconian, grudging

restrictions, PAS may be permitted by a few states [but

never by profane religion] in cases of imminent,

extremely-agonizing expiration from disease or injury.

Beloved pets may receive the mercy of a gentle VAS

drift-off to the Rainbow Bridge90 from no-longer-

89 That at the very last, despite a lifetime of J/C Catholicism, Tolkien

himself experienced and expressed this Nœsis (my highlighting)

gruntles me. For Aragorn to follow it with “Farewell!” thus seems

little more than disingenuous dramatics. “Back in a moment after I

change from khat to khabit!” would have been more to the point,

though requiring Arwen to come up with a less-tragic rejoinder.

90 At the Rainbow Bridge, Earth family-animal MSs await their

humans in a serene, secure, and healing setting. The Bridge gets its

name from the bodies of spectral-light which replace the animals’

cast-off OU ones. When in this form an animal rushes to greet its

human, it is sometimes visible from Earth as a “shooting star”.

- 174 -

operational bodies, but rarely if ever is this same mercy

available to their human family.

Scenarios in which individual humans own their own

bodies are still in the realm of science-fiction.

In the 1973 motion picture Soylent Green, Edward G.

Robinson - as an elderly gentleman tired of life in an

overpopulated, environmentally-degraded near-future, is

able to patronize a courteous and comforting suicide

facility: He drinks a lethal cocktail and reclines on a

comfortable bed to drift off to “light classical” music and

projected vistas of bygone natural beauty and serenity.

One day perhaps this will become the civilized standard. 91

Soylent Green was anticipated in 1895 by Robert W.

Chambers, who in his legendary collection of outré short

stories The King in Yellow was not optimistic about the

new century:

In the winter of 1901 began that agitation for the

repeal of the laws prohibiting suicide which bore its final

fruit in the month of April 1920, when the first

Government Lethal Chamber was opened in New York on

Washington Square ... 92

In the 1976 film Logan’s Run, PAS was portrayed as a

systematic state deception to prevent over-population by

killing everyone at age 30 in a fake “reincarnation”

ceremony. The cynical reality, of course, was the BBS.

91 On the other hand, after Edward expired his corpse was conveyer-

belted to a large vat in which it was cooked with others to create the

“Soylent Green” crackers distributed to the food-desperate populace.

When Charlton Heston protested that “Soylent Green is people!”, he

was ignored and arrested.

92 Chambers, Robert W., The King in Yellow. New York: F. Tennyson

Neely, 1895, page #11.

- 175 -

The following year George Lucas’ Star Wars retained

the BBS for ordinary humans & aliens, but exempted

initiates, the “Jedi”, who could in/dis/recarnate at will. 93

But in the 21st Century CE in this galaxy, body-

bondage still prevails. For such mature and responsible

guidance as does exist, two standard, regularly-updated

reference books are Final Exit by Derek Humphry and

The Peaceful Pill Handbook by Dr. Philip Nitschke & Dr.

Fiona Stewart.

Neither book advocates nor encourages suicide; they

exist primarily to warn readers against known dangers,

risks, and exploitations in subject areas so susceptible

to rumor, misinformation, and cold-blooded fraud.

They do not “preach” either pro or con; they assume

and expect the reader to be responsible for personal

decisions.

Similarly MindStar’s intent in identifying these works

is simply and specifically protection of readers. While

rejecting unjustified fears of “death”, MindStar maintains

that decisions concerning it should be reached only with

the greatest of care and understanding.

On subjects such as this there will always come a

point where the reader is either trusted or not. Education,

experience, ethics, and responsibility to oneself as well as

others all play a part. But “the buck stops with you”.

J. Prescience

With physical “death” looming so prominently and

inevitably before all humans, one would expect

considerable and careful attention to it. That this is

93 Lucas borrowed “Jedi” from the [non-initiate] Jeddak (warrior-

king) or Jeddara (-queen) of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Mars novels.

Since Star Wars does not explain this capacity of Jedis, I do in

FireForce.

- 176 -

anything but the norm obviously follows from BBS

propaganda and the terror it generates.

Assuming that MindStar has substantially, if not

completely alleviated this masochism, what are some of

the generalities that merit a prudent individual’s interest?

1. Prudence

As with other major factors affecting your existence

and activities, generally the sooner you begin to

contemplate this subject and its many ramifications, the

better.

Your incarnate presence affects others as well as

yourself, so any plans and options should include

appropriate attention to their “ripples”. Make it a point to

dialogue with impacted-others. The more you do this, the

easier and more conversational it will become, without

being “morbid”. Indeed as you become comfortable in

your own case, others may learn from your example.

2. Practicality

It is not the function of MindStar to be a “checklist” of

physical-“death” tasks, plans, legal & funeral

arrangements, etc. There is plenty of professional,

specialized literature on such subjects, as well as

professional services.

Since discarding one’s body is not a reversible action,

especial attention should be paid to maximizing its health

and versatility while you do have access to and control

over it. The body is an invaluable, unique tool for

identifying and exploring your concept, perception, and

full exercise of existence and OU-extension. Never

underestimate nor underappreciate this.

- 177 -

3. Pageantry

Previously and incidentally MindStar has mentioned

pomp & ceremony associated with “death”: funerals,

commemorative holidays, awards & medals, parties,

parades, orations, and of course profane-religious

fetishism.

Some of this is sentimental, some BBS fear-reaction,

some financial or etc. exploitation. Since you’re the star

of the show, by all means get pre-involved in activities,

invitations, budgets. Decide your own disposition and

tomb. King Tutankhamen proved that you can take it

with you, so decide on accoutrements, decoration,

memorabilia. If archæologists discover and dig up your

tomb 5,000 years from now, what would you like them to

find94 and try to figure out?95

In the 21st Century artificial-intelligence and

miniaturized technology are fast reaching the point where

a holographic “you” will be able to greet visitors, chatting

appropriately with b0th the desired and the detested,

including personal messages for the face-recognized.

Imhotep may have needed the Scroll of Thoth and Kharis

nine Tana-leaves, but all “you” will require is a suitable

“app” hooked up to a nearby solar panel. Enjoy!

94 A wound-up “joy buzzer” is a good tension-reliever, as is a spring-

loaded snake [particularly if you’re expecting Indiana Jones].

95 In a charming satire of the celebrity of Tut’s tomb, David

Macaulay’s Motel of the Mysteries (HMH Books, 1979) recounts the

distant-future discovery of an ancient 20th-Century tomb & religious

shrine, an intact (!) “motel” near the ruins of St. Louis. With

scientific solemnity the toilet bowl is determined to be an acoustic

altar, before which a priest would first don the sacred collar (the

seat), then kneel and intone into it the ritual invocation “SANITIZED

FOR YOUR PROTECTION”. Miniature jewelry reproductions are

offered for sale as these priceless artifacts tour major museums.

- 178 -

- 179 -

Chapter 8: Sic Itur Ad Astra

To die would be an awfully big adventure.

- Peter Pan

Bow down: I am the emperor of dreams;

I crown me with the million-colored sun

Of secret worlds incredible, and take

Their trailing skies for vestment when I soar,

Throned on the mounting zenith, and illume

The spaceward-flown horizon infinite ...

- Clark Ashton Smith, The Hashish-Eater

IN SEPTEMTRIONE CRESCO

I arise in the Seven Stars [of the Celestial North Pole].

- Motto on the Coat of Arms of Michael,

13th Baron of Rachane, Scotland

Granted by the Lord Lyon King of Arms

Edinburgh, 18th May 2006

A. States of Life

In Isha Schwaller de Lubicz’ Her-Bak, the chronicle of

an ancient Egyptian youth’s education from profane to

priest, he is exposed to increasingly more complex

aspects of existence, all of which leads him towards the

ultimate mystery of his own conscious existence, its OU

perspective, and his gradual realization that his own SU is

a “thing apart” from the natural order of the OU neteru.

- 180 -

“What is man?” he asks. “If man is the most complete

being on Earth, I ought, knowing this, to know all else;

but I’m a man and I don’t know myself. I don’t know who

or what is in me.” The Sage (a Priest of Isis) responds:

What is life? It is a form of the divine presence. It is

the power, immanent in created things, to change

themselves by successive destructions of form until the

spirit or activating force of the original life-stream is

freed.

This power resides in the very nature of things.

Successive destruction of forms, metamorphoses, by

the divine fire with rebirth of forms new and living is

an expression of consciousness. It is the spiritual aim of

all human life to attain a state of consciousness that is

independent of bodily circumstance.

What I have just said concerns the living spirit

bestowed on the man already quickened, like every

living thing, by a rudimentary soul, which makes of

such a man a creature superior to the animal-human

kingdom.

He who recognizes the divine meaning of life knows

that knowledge has but one aim, which is to achieve the

successive stages that liberate him from the perishable.

For things die only in their body; the spirit, the divine

Word, returns to its source and dies not.

Unhappy is the kea that fails to recover its soul. 96

Such an explanation generally represents the

perspective of the OU priesthoods, who sought to

interpret and explain humanity within that universe.

They were forced to conceptualize incarnate humanity as

a temporary particularization of the general OU, each

such human uncomfortably aware of this tension and

striving to eliminate it through re-absorption into the

OU. While this Sage suggests that this is done by

successive, progressively-more-refined incarnations (a

96 Schwaller de Lubicz, Isha, Her-Bak: Egyptian Initiate. New York:

Inner Traditions, 1967, page #35.

- 181 -

general premise of reincarnationism), there is little in

original Egyptian metaphysics to support this. 97

Had Her-Bak’s initiation been into the Priesthood of

Set rather than that of Isis, he would presumably have

been answered much in the vein of this book; but that

would have necessitated a far different exposure to the

OU reality surrounding him than he received. Repeatedly

and remorselessly his complete separateness would have

been dramatized to him, removing the reassuring and

relaxing prospect of both incarnate and disincarnate OU-

inclusion.

Thus Setian initiation exposes and incites a crisis in

the initiate which initiation through the other, natural

neteru avoids. This crisis is definitive and exhilarating to

the Setian mentality, but can be devastating to one of the

other neteru. As starkly summarized by H.P. Lovecraft:

Life is a hideous thing, and from the background

behind what we know of it peer dæmoniacal hints of

truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more

hideous. Science, already oppressive with its shocking

revelations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator

of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for

its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne

by mortal brains if loosed upon the world. 98

As we have seen, conventional visions of post-

incarnate immortality tend to the OU-totality model,

fumbling between either immediate OU-reabsorption or

97 In Secrets of the Great Pyramid Peter Tompkins has suggested

that a crucial rationale of Egyptian mummification was precisely to

prevent further terrestrial reincarnation. Permanent preservation of

the body gave the more material emanations the anchor they needed

until the multifaceted MS could fully integrate itself in a completely

independent environment.

98 Lovecraft, H.P., “Arthur Jermyn” in Dagon and Other Macabre

Tales. Sauk City: Arkham House, 1965, page #47.

- 182 -

some sequence of progressive or karma-varying

terrestrial reincarnation. In the absence of a non-natural

telos, humanity is forced into either free-will or

deterministic OU-Mechanism. Envisioning immortality

within such constraints leads to only one result:

dissolution of the self, the independent consciousness.

To the OU-initiate this is indeed expected and even

anticipated, often with the assumption that one’s

personality will not in fact be extinguished, but rather

melded into that of the collective gods/God. Such an

outcome would indeed relieve the tension and

exclusiveness of separateness; it is less comprehensible

how it would permit any vestige of the previously-

individual life-being to continue.

In his book Life After Death, the eminent philosopher

Maurice Maeterlinck addressed his perceived reliance

upon bodily definition of self:

I care not if the loftiest, the freest, the fairest

portions of my mind be eternally living and radiant in

the supreme gladness; they are no longer mine; I do

not know them. Death has cut the network of nerves or

memories that connected them with I know not what

centers wherein lies the point which I feel to be my very

self. They are thus set loose, floating in space and time;

and their fate is as alien to me as that of the most

distant stars.

Yet Maeterlinck is not so certain that the physical

body’s materials and mechanisms are the whole story. He

senses that the entirety of himself is more than the sum

of such tangible physical parts, and indeed may be

completely apart and distinct from them, using them only

as an OU-interactive device. He continues:

All that befalls has no existence for me unless I can

recall it within that mysterious being which is I know

not where and precisely nowhere and which I turn like

- 183 -

a mirror about this world whose phenomena take shape

only insofar as they are reflected in it. 99

Maeterlinck used the term “ego” [in a non-Freudian

sense] to refer to this individual identity somewhere/

somehow beyond the purely physical, in which he defined

“mind” as physically-driven brain functioning:

This ego, as we conceive it when we reflect upon the

consequences of its destruction - this ego, therefore, is

neither our mind nor our body, since we recognize that

both are waves that roll by and are incessantly

renewed. Is it an immovable point, which could not be

form or substance, for these are always in evolution,

nor yet life, which is the cause or effect of form and

substance?

In truth it is impossible for us either to apprehend

or define it, or even to say where it dwells. When we try

to go back to its last source, we find little more than a

succession of memories, a mass of ideas, confused, for

that matter, and unsettled, all connected with the same

instinct, the instinct of living: a mass of habits of our

sensibility and of conscious or unconscious reactions

against the surrounding phenomena.

When all is said, the most steadfast point of that

nebula is our memory, which seems, on the other hand,

to be a somewhat external, a somewhat accessory

faculty and, in any case, one of the frailest faculties of

our brain, one of those which disappear the most

promptly at the least disturbance of our health. As an

English poet has very truly said, “That which cries

aloud for eternity is the very part of me that will

perish.” 100

Maeterlinck was, however, falling into - or, rather,

setting for himself - the same logical trap that imprisons

99 Maeterlinck, Maurice, Our Eternity. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1914,

pages #50-51.

100 Ibid., pages #48-49.

- 184 -

contemporary Mechanists: that memory is completely a

product and construct of OU interactions through the

physical senses. Eliminating them eliminates it.

Implicit in this limitation is the assumption that OU-

based, and presumably buttressed, memory is the only

“real” memory. Anything else is merely imaginative, and

as such must be kept carefully and strictly segregated

from the “real”. If the two are confused, or worse yet

deliberately dignified with the same reality, the individual

is “insane”.

The same holds true for time-assignments of memory

events. If one remembers an event, it may or may not be

consciously or subconsciously dated. Remembering your

date from your high school prom associates that OU date

with the memory creation. But remembering something

not so inherently fixed in time, such as a favorite location

visited repeatedly over years, does not carry a specific

date. You may store enough short-term memory to be

certain you haven’t seen it within the last year or so, but

that is merely external-exclusionary.

Also there is no reliable division in terms of precision

between short-term and long-term memory. It’s effortless

to remember the multiplication table you learned in the

third grade. Yesterday’s credit-card charge at the

supermarket? Not unless you gave it special “retentive”

attention at the time.

All of which is to say that memory is neither objective

nor reliable, and that there is no certain mechanism to

ensure or correct either problem.

With Maeterlinck’s trust in memory-as-self undercut,

the individual is reduced to instantaneous sensation of

separateness to establish conscious identity. This is René

Descartes’ cogito ergo sum at its most fundamental. It is

not thinking “of something”, whether real or imaginary,

- 185 -

that establishes individual consciousness; it is the

exercise of thinking itself. 101

But confirming that one exists is only the smile of the

Cheshire Cat. What distinguishes and differentiates you

from innumerable other separate consciousnesses? Again

the Mechanist’s habit is to default to his OU body. “I am

what exists within and uses this machine.” Nevertheless,

as we have already seen, this is not at all a unitary

relationship. Parts of the body can be inactivated or

r e m o v e d w i t h o u t a f f e c t i n g t h e w h o l e n e s s o f

consciousness, and during sleep or anesthesia the

consciousness disconnects from all of the body’s physical-

sense interfaces.

We are left with an “essential self” which we thought

we knew through a mixture of reliable memories and

constantly-reinforcing body sensations. We now realize

that both are fragmentary, imperfect, unreliable illusions.

B. Sensory Deprivation

During the mid-20th century John Lilly, M.D. devised

and conducted numerous experiments with sensory

deprivation tanks to determine whether any

consciousness remained, and if so in what form, once

bodily sensory im/expression had been eliminated. Lilly

pursued this with several students and colleagues over

the years, and discussed the results and his conclusions

in his 1977 book The Deep Self. Which in turn inspired

his playful caricature in the novel/film Altered States:

101 Rejecting the “disincarnate origin” of thinking as establishment of

personal existence and identity, Martin Heidegger proposed that self-

perception requires external displacement: “being there” ( Dasein) in

order to subsequently conceive itself through a composite of “what it

isn’t” reflections. This may console those unnerved by Descartes, but

ultimately does not refute him. Something with the innate capacity to

perceive must preexist any external input.

- 186 -

I’m a man in search of his true self. How

archetypically American can you get? Everybody’s

looking for his true self. We’re all trying to fulfill

ourselves, understand ourselves, get in touch with

ourselves, get ahold of ourselves, face the reality of

ourselves, explore ourselves, expand ourselves. Ever

since we dispensed with God, we’ve got nothing but

ourselves to explain this meaningless horror of life.

We’re all weekending at est or meditating for forty

minutes a day or squatting on floors in a communal

OM or locking arms in quasi-Sufi dances or stripping

off the deceptions of civilized life and jumping naked

into a swimming pool filled with other naked searchers

for self. Well, I think that true self, that original self,

that first self, is a real, mensurate, quantifiable thing,

tangible and incarnate. And I’m going to find the

fucker! - Edward Jessup, Ph.D. (after several glasses of

wine)102

Lilly associated his quest for the self with the problem

of “reality”. Assuming, per Descartes, that the

consciousness is a constant, active phenomenon, prior to

and independent of what it perceives and constructs

through the physical senses, the task is then to pare the

irrelevant and unnecessary clutter away, resulting in that

true, raw reality. In The Deep Self he sums up the

conclusions of his investigations [and earlier writings]

thus:

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be

true either is true or becomes true within certain limits.

These limits are to be found experientially and

experimentally. When the limits are determined, it is

found that they are further beliefs to be transcended. In

102 Chayefsky, Paddy, Altered States (New York: Harper & Row,

1978), page #44.

- 187 -

the province of he mind there are no limits. The body

imposes definite limits. 103

Previously Lilly had written:

Today reality may be said (in its less involved

meanings) to possess the same attributes as the

original meaning of the [Latin word] res (“a lawcourt”).

First it expresses that which is completely objective as

opposed to anything subjective. By “objective” we mean

“existing without the mind, outside it, and wholly

independent of it”. “Subjective”, on the other hand,

takes the meaning of that which is in the mind ...

How can the mind render itself sufficiently

objective to study itself? In other words, how are we

able to use the mind to ponder on the mind? It is

perfectly feasible for the intellect to grasp the fact that

the physiological changes of the brain occur

simultaneously with thought, but it cannot conceive of

the connection between its own thoughts and these

changes. The difficulties of the precise relation between

the two have caused many controversies as to which is

the more real, the objective or the subjective reality. 104

Lilly had indeed succeeded in “finding the fucker”,

showing scientifically that “reality” is a composite of OU

and SU interpretations and constructs. His research was

of course purely on an individual level. Having verified it,

he found himself at a bit of a loss as to what to do with his

discovery. At the culmination of Altered States, the

hapless Dr. Jessup is reduced to a protoplasmic “primal

self” so unconstrained that it is like a mental atomic

critical mass. He is just barely rescued from this state by

his wife, who then collapses in hysteria:

103 Lilly, John C. M.D., The Deep Self. New York: Warner Books,

1977, page #63.

104 Ibid., pages #67-8.

- 188 -

He’s a truth-lover, a God fucker. I was never real to

him. Nothing in the human condition was ever real to

him. Reality to Eddie is only that which is changeless,

immutably constant. What happened to him tonight -

that was Eddie’s idea of love. That was consummation.

He finally got it off with God. He finally embraced the

Absolute, was finally ravished by Truth. And it fucking

near destroyed him. 105

C. MindStar Visions

The Setian initiate, bypassing all conditioned OU-

dependencies, is challenged to first recognize, then

differentiate, then identify his immortal consciousness

with those parts of the eightfold emanations which are

never connected to the physical body’s functions, hence

are not affected by its death or disintegration.

This is accomplished through reflective, non-

reactive thinking. Thus the individual becomes aware

of his authentic self (MS); and upon activating this as the

locus of his consciousness, looks outward at phenomena

at the same depth.

In other words, the superficial “self” looks out at its

level and sees OU events - like bodily pleasure/pain, blue

sky, ringing telephones, time defined by clocks and

calendars, and so forth.

The core or true self, however, exists as a neter and,

when looking outward, sees a SU not of the works of

other neteru, but of those neteru themselves.

One “machine” sees other “machinery”; one “creator/

operator” sees other “creator/operators”.

The Egyptians might describe such inward, reflective

thinking as the accessing of the ba or core-MS by the khat

or body-soul: the Platonic phenomenon of anamnesis as

the khat, which normally exists and defines itself in an

105 Chayefsky, op. cit. , page #167.

- 189 -

environment of bodily dimensions and sensations, not

only reaches beyond that environment but in some

situations depends upon the ba for a more accurate

source of truth.

To “deny one’s senses” is a familiar experience for

most people in certain situations, though they may not

realize what such a gesture actually entails in terms of

mental coherence. When done, it is almost always brief

and minimal, because the khat’s reliance upon bodily

senses for its information and both definition and

continuous reinforcement of “reality” is so strong and

ingrained.

Unless the khat-ba connection is both a conscious and

a strong one, the individual may interpret such an

experience as mere loss of coherence, or “insanity”.

Immortality of the self is. Your ability to align your

consciousness with your neter, rather than your

superficial, animal, illusion of “self” is Xeper, the

apprehension and affirmation of your telos.

We have seen how these ancient initiatory keys to

immortality were energetically attacked and suppressed

by institutional Christianity, as that religion correctly

perceived that fear of death was one of the most powerful

weapons it could use to enslave adherents and converts.

It was crucial that death be taught as something fearsome

and final, from which the only salvation was surrender to

Christ - by which, of course, Christian churches really

meant their institutions.

Those areas of non-Christian Europe which had

escaped, at least for a time, domination by this terrifying

propaganda, continued to preserve the truth. In For

Freedom Destined Dr. Franz Winkler observes:

In ancient times the secrets of man’s true nature,

and of the forces that determine his fate, were

contemplated in the great temple universities of

paganism all over the civilized world.

- 190 -

Though men were fully aware of the important role

that heredity plays in the shaping of the physiological

and psychological organism of a human being, they did

not think that the innermost core of the human being

was the product of purely biological forces. This

innermost core, called by the Greeks the entelechy or

dæmon of man, was credited with qualities unique to

the individual, apart from the characteristics of the

body he inhabited. The concept of entelechy

corresponded roughly with the Judæo-Christian

concept of an immortal soul.

Most pagan creeds held that the human entelechy

neither begins nor ends with life on Earth. Man’s

“mortality” referred merely to the fact that his self-

awareness ceased with the death of his body.

The immortal gods differed from mortal man by the

continuation of their consciousness.

Since ancient ideas on the mystery of birth cannot

be separated from pagan philosophies about the soul’s

supersensible existence, certain concepts generally

accepted in the pre-Christian era should be mentioned.

According to pagan theology, consciousness after

death could reach one of three levels.

The first level was the one allotted to the average

man: dreamlike, with almost complete absence of

memory and self-identification, called Hades in Greek,

Hel in Germanic mythology.

The second was accessible to the true hero, the man

whose deeds of courage and creativeness distinguished

him from ordinary mortals. The Greeks called this state

of consciousness the Elysian Fields, the Germans

Walhalla.

The third level was reached by those who could soar

b e y o n d t h e n a r r o w l i m i t s o f E a r t h - b o u n d

consciousness and thus bring new impulses into the

world. Already while they still lived in a mortal body,

their awareness had assumed divine status. Their souls

- 191 -

after death, in the language of mythology, were lifted to

the stars. 106

Is attainment of the immortality of the ba or psyche a

technique which the individual has to “learn”? Must one

hurry to do so, lest one’s body expire before the transition

is mastered? Quite the contrary, as the Sage in Her-Bak

emphasized: This immortality is innate in all

conscious beings. You possess it already, by evidence

of that same consciousness which enables you to read and

comprehend these words. It is nothing which initiation,

either Setian or natural, “confers” on you; rather it is

something to which conventional churches have resolved

to blind you, and which materialistic science has denied

simply because it is an aspect of existence which

transcends that science. Further from Winkler:

Life’s appearance as “meaningless” stems basically

from man’s materialistic concept of himself. If his

innermost nature were merely biological, complete

fulfillment of his appetites and the acquiring of wealth

would satisfy his longing for happiness. Since they do

not, an atmosphere of hopelessness is enveloping our

generation, especially our youth. In an affluent society

where all material ways out of such frustration have

been found wanting, drugs, perversions, and the thrills

of crime are now being used as desperate means of

escape from the intolerable boredom. Well-meaning

efforts on the part of the authorities to stem the tidal

wave of juvenile delinquency and drug-addiction will

therefore bring scant results, until the following simple

truth has been fully accepted by parents and teachers:

Happiness, love, and compassion are spiritual

faculties that during centuries of neglect and

misunderstanding have withered and grown weak.

Unless they are nursed back to health, man will despair

106 Winkler, Franz E., For Freedom Destined: Mysteries of Man’s

Evolution in the Mythology of Wager’s Ring Operas and Parsifal.

Garden City, NY: Waldorf Press, 1974, pages #54-55.

- 192 -

of life and eventually throw it away in a mass suicide by

nuclear destruction.

But how can we care for what we no longer

comprehend?

Modern science, admirable in its achievements on a

material plane, has proven ineffectual in the

understanding of intangible values. This limitation,

while freely admitted by the small number of truly

creative scientists, seems to elude the average

intellectual. And the failure to recognize this limitation

adds to the delusion that natural science in its present

form can be the judge of religious or spiritual truth.

Making modern man’s plight even more serious is

the fact that his materialistic delusion of himself not

only deprives him of wisdom and happiness, but acts

also as a pattern in whose dreary image he tends to

reshape his nature. Consequently more and more

personalities emerge who think and act virtually like

robots. They know no happiness and have no

perception of objective morality.

We have grown wise in the analysis of the material

world, have expanded the scope of our perception to

outer space and to the world beneath the atom. But

objective inner experience has faded almost entirely

away, and it has left us groping in the dark for the true

image of ourselves. 107

It is a function of the Temple of Set, as of the ancient

Egyptian priesthoods, the Pythagorean Brotherhood, and

the Platonic Academy before it, to inspire the Elect of

humanity to awaken to that knowledge which is latent

within their consciousness and needs only to be

appreciated as such. 108 Winkler rightly points out that,

107 Ibid., pages #19-21.

108 Within initiation the term “Elect” identifies an individual who has

not merely been chosen for this transformative adventure, but who

intrinsically possesses the intelligence, vision, and ambition to

pursue it successfully. It is thus both an active and a passive

qualification.

- 193 -

the more highly initiated one becomes, the more one can

experience such prerogatives of Xeper. But this is a

matter of perspective and proportion, not of the quality of

immortality itself.

D. Emperor of Dreams

I don’t make things up, and I can’t write stories. I

daresay that if I tried to do either, the results would be

awkward, clumsily and self-consciously [in the banal

sense] artificial. So what are these books of mine that are

casually labeled “fiction”?

Simply: SUs outlined and shared in print. And they

exemplify the flexibility of SU-creation from little if any

OU-modification - Secret of the Lost Ark, Grail Mission,

We Break the Sword, and Ode to Esmé - to near-

complete disassociation: Morlindalë, FireForce.

Often - and I confess somewhat mischievously - I

enjoy pranking the reader with OU-facts that appear

fantastic, as well as SU-constructs that have every

appearance of OU-substantiation. 109

This is not just an attentiveness- and credibility-

challenge to the reader, but a very serious representation

of how, when we assume we perceive and interact with

the OU daily, the reality is that each individual creates

and indwells a SU interpretation of the OU, sufficient to

render it intelligible and practical for physical

functioning.

Beyond each personal SU and the OU are also several

Collective SUs (CSU) (C#1.E), constructed by groups of

109 There wasn’t really an article in the Los Angeles Times about the

discovery of an ancient city of lizard-beings beneath L.A. Or was

there? Robert Fulton didn’t really build the first Nautilus for

Napoleon. Or did he? The secret SS records of the Atlantis expedition

aren’t really on decaying microfilm reels in the U.S. National

Archives. Or are they?

- 194 -

entities in which we participate, both voluntarily or

necessarily. As we have seen herein, many such CSUs -

ideological, profane-religions, etc. - insist that they are

not CSUs but indeed the OU: an image they deem

essential to their effectiveness.

Once, like Her-Bak, you are awakened to and begin to

understand this “matrix” of interleaved, interlocking

universes, you become their controller and manipulator,

not their blind, ignorant slave.

At the end of this “Mind- trilogy”, as the Afterword to

FindFar, appears “The Prince and the Magician”, a

rarely-noticed incidental in John Fowles’ The Magus. It is

a Black Mass, a “red pill”, or as Fowles terms it,

“disintoxication”.

MindStar is also such a disintoxication. The Preface

predicted that it would expose you to nothing whose truth

you don’t already know: anamnesis.

That turned out to be the case, yes?

E. The End of the Beginning

MindStar has endeavored to take its subject to the

limits of conventional exposure and expression. 110

Religious eschatology myths and contemporary

science-fiction re-attempts like 2001 characteristically

fall silent at precisely the moment when the subject

becomes most interesting: Once you are re-created as a

disincarnate, immortal being, freed from both your

material body and the OU to which it was permanently

chained during your incarnation, what’s next?

You’ll think of something. As Walt Disney said, “It’s

kind of fun to do the impossible.”

The common feature of all the old superstitions -

whether Hebraic, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or etc. -

110 At least, hopefully, without scaring the cats.

- 195 -

was that you’re in big trouble: if not just from your own

sinfulness, that of great+grandparents Adam & Eve. Your

whole life is spent trying to get out of the Very Bad

Eternity this promises.

Or, if you shucked that all off, the Big Black Sack.

Isn’t it nice to punt all of this?

Millennia of foggy fablisms have also left Hereafters

surprisingly unexplored. Well, the Egyptians had Amenti

and the Tuat nicely mapped out, including where not to

step if you didn’t want your ba-foot eaten by Apep.

No guidebook was need for the Jewish Sheol; it’s a

divine dump, a celestial cesspool for rephaim refuse.

At least Christians could throw dice for Dante’s Divine

Comedy (!) of Paradise, Purgatory, or Inferno, for which

Hieronymus Bosch and Francisco Goya were only too

happy to offset Michelangelo and da Vinci.

Upon deactivation of your physical body, the khat

ceases to be the “default” emanation, re-centering your

“sense of self” in the ba. Extension from the ba is

thereafter effortless: for instance into the ka for a SU

manifestation of 4D displacement for travel throughout

the OU or other SUs. The khabit reaches across the SU/

OU boundaries if you wish varying types of “visits” from

delicate inspiration to full-fledged ghost or house-

haunter.

At the onset of the American Civil War, a Union

soldier came closer than Aragorn to anticipating the

khabit, writing to his wife:

... But oh! Sarah: If the dead can come back to this

Earth and flit unseen around those they loved, I shall

always be near you in the gladdest days and in the darkest

nights - always, always.

And if there be a soft breeze upon your cheek, it shall

be my breath; as the cool air fans your throbbing temple, it

shall be my spirit passing by.

- 196 -

Sarah, do not mourn me dead. Think I am gone and

wait for thee, for we shall meet again. 111

Queen Tera knew well from her own initiation how to

escape the perils of her original time. 112 Upon the precise

culmination of the ceremonial, incantational, and

astronomical alignments combined to send her khabit

unobtrusively into the 19th-Century body of Margaret113

Trelawny, whose own khat had been conjured into a

physical double of the Queen’s, therein to blend delicately

and willingly with the khabit of Margaret:

In the autumn Margaret and I were married. On the

occasion she wore the mummy robe and zone and the jewel

which Queen Tera had worn in her hair. On her breast, set

in a ring of gold make like a twisted lotus stalk, she wore

the strange Jewel of Seven Stars which held words to

invoke the neteru of all the worlds.

At the marriage the sunlight streaming through the

chancel windows fell on it, and it seemed to glow like a

living thing.

The graven words may have been of efficacy; for

Margaret holds to them, and there is no other life in all the

world so happy as my own.

111 Letter, Sullivan to Sarah Ballou, July 14, 1861. One week later, on

July 21, Sullivan was killed at the First Battle of Bull Run.

112 The XI [Theban] Dynasty (2134-1991 BCE) was dominated by the

Priesthood of Amon. The only child of Mentuhotep III, Princess Tera

took the throne in 1998, reigning for seven years under the male

name of “Mentuhotep IV”.

Tera’s father, fearing that her youth and sex would cause her

assassination, had sent her to the Delta for initiation into the

Priesthood of Set at Hwt-nen-nesu (Gr . Herakleopolis Magna), 20

miles from the successor Tanis of the Setian XX Dynasty.

Queen Tera’s Arts indeed protected her, but upon her death (said

to be by her own Arts] she was entombed “namelessly” in the “Valley

of the Sorcerer” and her reign erased, shown on the Turin Papyrus as

“7 empty years”. No “Mentuhotep IV” tomb has ever been found.

113 Reverse the last four letters.

- 197 -

We often think of the great Queen, and we talk of her

freely. Once, when I said with a sigh that I was sorry she

could not have waked into a new life in a new world, my

wife, putting both her hands in mine and looking into my

eyes with that far-away eloquent dreamy look which

sometimes comes into her own, said lovingly:

“Do not grieve for her! Who knows, but she may have

found the joy she sought? Love and patience are all that

make for happiness in this world, or in the world of the

past or of the future; of the living or the dead. She dreamed

her dream, and that is all that any of us can ask!” 114

Upon rising to Neter-Xertet, your MS can be as

neteru-harmonious or Set-creative as you wish, whether

it is fulfillment of such a gentle and modest dream as

Queen Tera’s, or the magnificent grandiosity of a Clark

Ashton Smith. Assume your ka and explore galaxies [with

your friends along], toss Esmé a seaweed cigar, discuss

straightening-out Earth’s wobbly axis with Adolf Hitler,

or go back a few Ages to revisit it as Arda. Don your

khabit and kiss your still-incarnate Beloved [or settle

some scores with those in need of nightmares]. Join

Princesses Ozma of Oz and Dorothy Gale for red-tinted

Quadling tea on the terrace of Glinda’s palace. Later

perhaps enjoy a glass of sherry with Barnabas Collins at

the Old House. Frolic with everyone ever in your furmily

at the Rainbow Bridge. Re-go-out on every date you ever

screwed up and get it right this time. Snap your fingers

and transform a revived Christopher Reeve from

wheelchair to [the real] Superman; the planet definitely

needs him!

Oh, and if you’re having any trouble figuring out

Plato, just conjure up a sphinx and a chimæra to help.

Ascending into the radiant æthyr, among the

immortals, you shall be yourself a god.

- Pythagoras, Golden Verse #37

114 Stoker, op.cit. , pages #255-6.

- 198 -

- 199 -

Afterwords: The Sphinx and the Chimæra

On May 30, 1975 in Santa Barbara,

California, a sphinx and a chimæra were evoked

to manifestation in order to explore certain

esoteric implications of the Dialogues of Plato.

Placed upon the altar: The Collected Dialogues of

Plato , Hamilton & Cairns (Ed.), Princeton

University Press, 1961. This conversation was

recorded, transcribed, and annotated by Michael

A. Aquino.

The Sphinx: I think it essential to preface any

discussion of a single Platonic dialogue with two

major qualifications. The first is that, to be treated

without distortion, Plato’s philosophy must be

appreciated in its entirety. Emphasis upon any

single dialogue or group of dialogues carries with it

a certain unfairness to the author.

The Chimæra: Yet our span of materialization is

limited, and we cannot hope to treat the entire

range of Plato’s thought in the time available to us.

The Sphinx: True, and so let us focus first upon The

Sophist, which illustrates many of the points most

important to this investigation.

- 200 -

The Chimæra: But what is your second qualification?

The Sphinx: There is the problem of understanding

what Plato “really meant”. This is an issue against

which I am powerless to defend myself. I am of

Khem and not of Hellas; I am bilingual only in

English and hence must depend upon my

understanding of Plato as he is translated into the

English language. The dialogues center much of

their discussion around terms whose final

definitions are elusive at best, even in

conversations carried out at intellectual planes

below that of Plato. Then, too, there is always the

spectre of imprecise translation from the Greek to

the English. And Plato himself could not anticipate

this.

The Chimæra: Your qualifications are entirely

acceptable. Proceed.

The Sphinx: The initial question raised by The Sophist

is its raison d’être. Why should Plato have felt it

necessary to include such a dialogue as this in his

philosophy at all? Was it truly because the

included lines of argument required exposure? Or

did Plato intend the document rather as a gauntlet

of sorts to be flung before the Sophists

themselves?

The Chimæra: I sense that the editors of this book

ventured one explanation. Grasping it with a

forepaw, he turns to page #958. Yes, here it is:

The argument is hung on the figure of the

Sophist quite arbitrarily. No real picture is given

of the men who were the professional

instructors of Greece for many years. All Plato

- 201 -

does is ascribe to them every notion he

disapproves. He detested the whole band of

Sophists. To him they were shallow-minded,

pretentious, superficial, mercenary - they were

really doing what Socrates was charged with,

corrupting the minds of the young.

And this appears to be reinforced by the dialogue’s

concluding statement, which seems to be little

more than an outright vilification of Sophistry. He

turns to page #1016 and quotes:

The art of contradiction-making, descended

from an insincere kind of conceited mimicry, of

the semblance-making breed, derive from

imagemaking, distinguished as a portion, not

divine but human, of production, that presents a

shadowy play of words - such are the blood and

lineage which can, with perfect truth, be

assigned to the authentic Sophist.

The Sphinx: Obviously that is not an objective

philosophical statement. It is a deliberate insult

reached through a dialectical process which, in

retrospect, seems a transparent parody of Plato’s

more serious argumentative style. In most of the

Platonic dialogues one feels that Socrates is not

“managing” the conversation towards an end that

he has conceptualized beforehand. But every twist

and turn of The Sophist is designed only to

channel the conversation into providing a part of

that final statement.

The Chimæra: But how would you have Plato compose

such a definition, save by a summary of the

component arguments preceding it?

- 202 -

The Sphinx: I quarrel not with the final assembly

process, but rather with the fashion in which the

components themselves were forged. For, you see,

there are many ways along which each of those

component arguments could have proceeded.

Each, however, consistently follows a path

derogatory to the Sophists. If the Sophists were in

fact personifications of all that is erroneous and

destructive in teaching, all possible paths would

lead to the same conclusion, i.e. one derogatory to

the Sophists. But this is not the case at all. See - He

takes the book from the Chimæra and turns to

page #973:

STRANGER: They cross-examine a man’s

words, when he thinks that he is saying

something and is really saying nothing, and

easily convict him of inconsistencies in his

opinions; these they then collect by the dialectic

process, and, placing them side by side, show

that they contradict one another about the same

things, in relation to the same things, and in the

same respect. He, seeing this, is angry with

himself, and grows gentle towards others, and

thus is entirely delivered from greater

prejudices and harsh notions, in a way which is

most amusing to the hearer, and produces the

most lasting good effect on the person who is

the subject of the operation. For as the

physician considers that the body will receive no

benefit from taking food until the internal

obstacles have been removed, so the purifier of

the soul is conscious that his patient will receive

no benefit from the application of knowledge

until he is refuted, and from refutation learns

modesty; he must be purged of his prejudices

first and made to think that he knows only what

he knows, and no more.

- 203 -

THEÆTETUS: That is certainly the best and

wisest state of mind.

STRANGER: For all these reasons, Theætetus,

we must admit that refutation is the greatest

and chiefest of purifications, and he who has not

been refuted, though he be the Great King

himself, is in an awful state of impurity; he is

uninstructed and deformed in those things in

which he who would be truly blessed ought to be

fairest and purest.

THEÆTETUS: Very true.

STRANGER: Well, what name shall we give to

the practitioners of this art? For my part I

shrink from calling them Sophists.

THEÆTETUS: Why so?

STRANGER: For fear of ascribing to them too

high a function.

THEÆTETUS: And yet your description has

some resemblance to that type (the Sophist).

STRANGER: So has the dog to the wolf - the

fiercest of animals to the tamest. But a cautious

man should above all be on his guard against

resemblances; they are a very slippery sort of

thing.

Now let me rewrite the latter part of the dialogue.

In doing so I shall move to eliminate the stranger’s

instinctive or preconceived notion of what

Sophists actually are. The Sphinx gestures at the

page, and the wording changes:

STRANGER: Well, what name shall we give to

the practitioners of this art?

- 204 -

THEÆTETUS: The characteristics you have

enumerated are those the Sophists use to

describe themselves.

STRANGER: But I fear this ascribes too high a

function to them.

THEÆTETUS: To say that individual Sophists

may not achieve the standards they have set for

themselves does not disprove the nobility of

their goal, nor their right to claim it as a

standard and hence an identifying characteristic

of their profession.

STRANGER: I cannot find fault with that. But

let us examine the Sophist from some other

vantage-points.

The wording reverts to normal, and the Sphinx

closes the book.

I do not say that the dialogue should have

proceeded in a different direction. I merely

demonstrate that it would have been possible. This

fact - that it is possible -testifies to the looseness of

Plato’s logic in this instance. Rather than refining

the definition of the Sophist by the careful

elimination of inconsistent characteristics, Plato

simply ignores implications which do not support

his preconceived notions.

The Chimæra: I’m beginning to see what you mean.

The Sphinx: There are other examples which I could

take from the text. But I think this demonstration

sufficient proof of the principle involved. The

entire dialogue is not an attempt to understand

what a Sophist is. It is an attempt to denigrate

- 205 -

Sophists. As such it is of no value as an exercise in

logic or in the true process of reduction.

The Chimæra: But now we are back where we started,

enriched only by an irony of Socratic logic: We

know what The Sophist is not, but we don’t know

what it is. So we must consider why Plato felt it

necessary to attack the Sophists at all. Why did he

not feel it possible merely to coexist with them in

friendly competition for men’s minds?

The Sphinx: Here we must depart from the dialogue as

a universe in itself. We must try to place it in

context amidst a larger and more complex

universe. The reason for doing this is that, viewed

in isolation, The Sophist is logically invalid; this we

have just proven. Seen against a larger

background, however, it may indeed be significant.

We attempt, like Archimedes, to move a world. For

a place to stand we have the existence of The

Sophist; for a lever we have its bias. The world

need move only a little, and we who push against

the lever may count ourselves satisfied.

The Chimæra: I follow you, but beware of

unsubstantiated speculation.

The Sphinx: The proponent of a viewpoint who feels

secure in his position will not find it necessary to

attack the mere existence of opponents. He may

point out the fallacies in their arguments in an

effort to hasten their understanding of his “correct

interpretation”. But he will not see their

“incorrect” views as a threat to the truth of his

own. An attack against the very existence of

competition is mounted when one is uncertain of

- 206 -

the invulnerability of one’s own position.

Permitted to exist, competition might pose a

mortal challenge. Hence it must be destroyed

without delay. Such a preemptory strike is justified

by the rationalization that, while one has glimpsed

an ultimate truth, more time is needed to refine

the ideas to a form which may be understood by

those of lesser intellectual acumen.

The Chimæra: You are suggesting, then, that Plato may

not have felt secure in his philosophy - that he

feared the axioms upon which he based his logic to

be false?

The Sphinx: Let us not say that he feared them to be

false. It is enough to say that he may not have been

completely certain of their truth. Had he been, he

would have ignored the Sophists.

The Chimæra: Why should Plato have attacked the

Sophists in particular? Was it simply because they

were his only Athenian competition? That would

make his motives rather materialistic.

The Sphinx: Here we should bear in mind that we have

no precise catalogue of individuals whom Plato

considered Sophists. At various times he took issue

with the ideas of Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno,

and Protagoras, to name but a few theorists.

Whether he considered the Sophists as comprising

only specific individuals, or whether he considered

Sophism more broadly to be composed of all

challengers to his own philosophy, is an issue we

cannot decide. If we are to look through Plato’s

eyes via The Sophist, we can establish only that the

- 207 -

Sophists were guilty of teaching according to

methods too close to those of Plato himself.

The Chimæra: You mean, I take it, by the process of

cross-examination described by the stranger in the

passage we considered earlier?

The Sphinx: Precisely. I ask you to consider both the

praise that the stranger accords the system itself

and his unsubstantiated reluctance to credit that

system to the Sophists. History contains many

examples pointing to the fact that the most

dangerous threats are those akin to the favored

philosophy in all ways save one - which is

considered to be crucial. Wars have been fought

simply because men were unable to agree upon

one name for the same god, or, later, because they

could not agree upon the same meanings for words

such as “freedom”, “democracy”, and “equality”.

The Chimæra: Only two wars that I recall strike me as

having made any sense: the Trojan War, which

was fought for sex, and the Carthaginian Wars,

which were fought for elephants.

The Sphinx: Very funny. But to return to the issue at

hand, we have the evidence of that passage in The

Sophist to substantiate this point. Plato regarded

the process of teaching through cross-examination

to be a standard of excellence in itself. Its use to

teach anything other than pure philosophy,

accordingly, would have been intolerable to him.

Hence his extraordinary anger at the Sophists.

The Chimæra: But we do know more about the Sophists

than that. Even if we limit our scope to the school

- 208 -

of Protagoras, we know that Sophistic thinking

disavowed absolute knowledge. Despairing of

attaining such knowledge, they regarded even its

pursuit as worthless. So they taught a sort of

relativistic pragmatism as the only sound basis for

human affairs. Hence Protagoras’ famous

statement that man is the measure of all things.

The Sphinx: That is right. And we know that Plato was

firmly opposed to this view. Perhaps our most

convincing evidence of this is the inscription above

the entrance to his Academy: Let no one

ignorant of mathematics enter here.

The Chimæra: I thought it was “geometry”.

The Sphinx: Unfortunately for purists it has been

recorded both ways. But either serves to illustrate

the point. Plato saw in mathematics unshakable

evidence that there was an absolute standard for

the Universe. And where one such standard

existed, it was logical to assume that there were

others. Today humans regard mathematics

principally as an applied science, but in Plato’s

time it was considered by the Pythagoreans to be

“pure”, having nothing to do with the gross and

imperfect everyday world.

The Chimæra: I presume that Plato would have been

somewhat upset to learn of the Theory of

Relativity, which is inconsistent with the notion

that mathematics adhere to a fixed standard. But

do I understand you to say that Plato was a

Pythagorean?

- 209 -

The Sphinx: Not in the sense that he had any

connections with one of the Pythagorean schools

as such. He was born in Athens in 427 BCE, and he

was a disciple of Socrates from 409 to 399.

Following Socrates’ execution in that year, Plato

traveled abroad, absorbing Pythagorean doctrines

in many of the Greek cities located in Italy and

Africa. It was not until 387 that he returned to

Athens to found his Academy.

The Chimæra: That is interesting, but it does not

constitute evidence that Plato endorsed the views

of the Pythagoreans.

The Sphinx: No, and for that one must turn to the

Timæus, wherein Plato presents his concept of the

Universe. Here he describes the five possible

regular solids - that is, those with equivalent faces

and with all lines and angles equal. Four of those

represented the four elements, he said, while the

dodecahedron represented the Universe as a

whole. He also postulated that the various stellar/

planetary bodies move in exact circles (the perfect

curve) along with the crystalline spheres (the

perfect solid) holding them in place. All of these

theories were originally Pythagorean, as one may

see from the writings of Philolaus and other

avowed Pythagoreans. But we wander too far

afield. Let us return to Plato’s conviction that the

Universe was based upon absolute, not relative

standards.

The Chimæra: I presume that the Sophists did not

consider mathematics as an invalidation of their

relativism.

- 210 -

The Sphinx: Whether the issue centered around

mathematics or not is something we cannot know.

We do know that the Sophists considered whatever

evidence Plato offered insufficient to dislodge

them from their position. From their point of view,

the Sophists were champions of logic. They based

their arguments upon what they understood to be

“obvious” realities. And they drew “common

sense” conclusions. What so antagonized Plato was

not that they held different views than his

concerning the primal forces of the Universe.

Rather it was the intolerable insult - in Plato’s eyes

- that they were not interested in that topic as a

field for rational inquiry. Plato must have felt

somewhat akin to Noah building his Ark in the

midst of an ignorant and unconcerned society.

The Chimæra: The Noah legend is not in our myth-

cycle, if you please.

The Sphinx: My apologies.

The Chimæra: And so Plato wished to identify the

primal forces of the Universe. This resulted in his

famous Theory of the Forms, if I am correct. But I

sense a weak point here. Plato was a finite being,

and yet he desired to comprehend Universal

absolutes. As perfect standards they would

necessarily be infinite, since any measure of

perfection must extend in all dimensions without

limitation. It would be possible for a finite entity

like Plato to comprehend the infinite without

distortion only if the infinite reveals aspects of

itself to and through the finite. But the finite must

have faith or trust that the aspects are undistorted

in their presentation.

- 211 -

The Sphinx: Precisely, and now we are getting to the

crux ansata of the matter. For, you see,

assumptions based upon faith or trust are logically

indefensible, otherwise there would be no need to

base them upon faith or trust to begin with. Plato,

being a man of no mean intellect, was certainly

aware of this. He feared that an intelligent Sophist

might see it as well and proceed to attack the

foundations of his entire philosophy as illogical.

And so, in the dialogues, he constructed a very

elaborate defense of his concepts according,

apparently, to the most rigorous standards of the

cross-examination system of the Sophists.

The Chimæra: Statements like that are liable to get you

into a great deal of trouble, I hope you know.

The Sphinx: Only with those who underestimate Plato

and interpret this as a slur against him. Quite the

contrary, it is all the more indicative of his

brilliance. The entire process of “logical reasoning”

is ultimately circular. What humans loosely tern

“cause and effect” relationships are not really that

at all. They are rather observations of phenomena

believed to occur consistently under identical

environments. But logic cannot explain why

electrons circle protons, or why the color red and

the color blue are distinct, or why the Universe

exists at all. Yet every one of our senses tells us

that these things are so, and if we, as Descartes,

deny the validity of our sensory input, we resign

ourselves to insanity. Plato’s faith derives from no

greater and no lesser observation that things are

what they seem to be. Once that consistency is

granted, all else follows.

- 212 -

The Chimæra: If that is so, why should Plato have gone

through all the trouble to create the dialogues?

Merely as a blind for Sophist critics who might

have interfered with his Academy or accused him

personally of being irrational or illogical?

The Sphinx: Again the explanation is not that simple.

The dialogues may indeed have served as a blind

for the Sophists, inasmuch as they defend Platonic

principles according, apparently, to Sophistic

logical criteria. But the dialogues would thus serve

only a negative function, and that hardly seems to

justify the obvious effort of their preparation. Plato

was first and foremost a teacher, and he would

have designed the dialogues to teach.

The Chimæra: That appears to run afoul of your

previous statement that faith and reason are

mutually exclusive. If Platonic students studied the

dialogues only to become skilled at the Sophistic

argumentative procedures employed therein, they

would complete the Academy only as skilled

Sophists.

The Sphinx: We are at something of an impasse. I

confess that I cannot resolve this evident

inconsistency. Let us seek fresh counsel.

Quite suddenly there materializes a Gryphon.

The Gryphon: The dilemma can be resolved, but it is so

constructed that it defies resolution by Sophistic

logic. And that is precisely the trap into which the

two of you have fallen. Indeed the dialogues are

there to teach, but the student must put forth the

- 213 -

effort to see past the Sophistic teachings to those

of Plato himself.

The Chimæra: But the argumentative pattern of the

dialogues is Sophistic, and any connection

between Sophistic logic and Platonic faith cannot

exist. Do you think to pursue me?

The Gryphon: The key to Plato rests in the Meno. Here

- He turns to page #364:

SOCRATES: Those who tell it are priests and

priestesses of the sort who make it their

business to be able to account for the functions

which they perform. Pindar speaks of it too, and

many another of the poets who are divinely

inspired. What they say is this - see whether you

think they are speaking the truth. They say that

the soul of a man is immortal. At one time it

comes to an end - that which is called death -

and at another is born again, but is never finally

exterminated. On these grounds a man must

live all his days as righteously as possible.

For those from whom

Persephone receives requital for ancient doom

In the ninth year she restores again

Their souls to the Sun above

From whom rise noble kings

And the swift in strength and greatest in

wisdom,

And for the rest of time

They are called heroes and sanctified by men.

Thus the soul, since it is immortal and has been

born many times, and has seen all things both

here and in the other world, has learned

everything there is. So we need not be surprised

if it can recall the knowledge of virtue or

anything else which, as we see, it once

- 214 -

possessed. All nature is akin, and the soul has

learned everything, so that when a man has

recalled a single piece of knowledge - learned it,

in ordinary language - there is no reason why he

should not find out all the rest, if he keeps a

stout heart and does not grow weary of the

search, for seeking and learning are in fact

nothing but recollection.

The Chimæra: You imply, then, that it is not the object

of the dialogues to “teach” at all -but rather to

expose Plato’s students to demanding mental

gymnastics which will inspire them to recollect

knowledge of the Forms.

The Gryphon: You have recollected admirably. The

Gryphon dematerializes.

The Sphinx: Is it not interesting that the example given

by Socrates in the Meno employs mathematics and

geometry? That ties in rather neatly with the

inscription over the entrance to the Academy. To

the Platonic philosopher, then, that inscription

would have meant something more than mere

ability to calculate areas of triangles. In effect it

would say: “Let no one ignorant of the recollective

basis of knowledge leave here.”

The Chimæra: Harking back to what you said

concerning Plato’s exposure to Pythagorean

concepts, it is quite appropriate. Mathematical

consistency was Plato’s “foot in the door”, so to

speak, where the Forms were concerned. Yet, in

view of relativity, does not that door slam shut

upon us?

- 215 -

The Sphinx: That’s the Hades of it; it doesn’t. Or rather

it does, but another one opens simultaneously.

The Chimæra: Do you mean that relativity provides

access to another Form similar to mathematical

consistency, upon which a modern Plato could

base a Theory of the Forms?

The Sphinx: No, not really. But what relativity has done

has been to turn the Meno inside-out. Look here:

Socrates proves the immortality of the soul by

demonstrating its intrinsic grasp of mathematics,

which he considered a Form. Pause here and

consider: What, precisely, is immortality?

The Chimæra: I should say the continuous existence of

the mind or soul.

The Sphinx: That would be the case if there were no

such thing as relativity. But there is. So let us say

rather that immortality is the ability of the mind or

the soul to exist unbounded by time, i.e. the fourth

dimension. Mortality is measured according to the

notion that time is a constant. But relativity

disproves this, showing that time may be retarded,

hastened, stopped altogether, or, presumably,

raised to infinity. Thus the prison of a so-called

temporal span of existence is no real prison at all.

It is only imagined as such by a mind untrained in

fourth-dimensional movement. The mind that is

immortal is one that breaks free of time, not one

that merely plods along within it as it ticks off the

æons.

The Chimæra: And so the same principles of relativity

that destroy Plato’s first-known Form now open

- 216 -

the door to the very immortality which he sought

through knowledge of the Forms. Fascinating.

The Sphinx: Now we must consider the implications of

this as applied to the notion of recollection of

knowledge. When Socrates used the term in the

passage cited by the gryphon, he meant it of course

in terms of a fixed fourth dimension. He visualized

the soul as plodding along through the æons,

“seeing all things” along the way. Thus, by the time

it reached incarnation in Greece circa 400 BCE, it

had completed some 9.5 to 10.5 billion years’

“ s i g h t s e e i n g ” s i n c e t h e l a s t U n i v e r s a l

c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f r a d i a t i o n u n d e r w e n t

transformation into matter and antimatter,

making it possible for existence to displace

vacuum.

The Chimæra: Just out of curiosity, how do you come

up with ten billion years?

The Sphinx: Simply by dividing the distances of the

known galaxies from the calculated metagalactic

center of this expansion cycle by their speeds

according to the Red Shifts, then taking an

average. But we digress again. We must still work

out the nature of the acquisition of knowledge.

The Chimæra: If the invalidation of time as a constant

has been shown, then the mind or soul could not

have acquired knowledge via an æonic sightseeing

trip such as Socrates describes. But the mind

possesses the capability to cast itself forward and

backward through time, since time is not fixed.

- 217 -

The Sphinx: Correct. The process is to imagination what

directed thinking is to unconscious dreaming. It is

something like the Raja-Yoga technique of uniting

the mind to a single idea through force of will, or

like corresponding ceremonial magic techniques.

The Chimæra: But I thought that the object of Yoga is

to break the cycle of birth-death-rebirth through

union of the soul or mind with the whole of

existence. To one who achieves the eighth stage,

samadhi, the concept of knowledge - itself a

relative measurement of that which is known

versus that which is not known - would be

meaningless. All would be known, or, to use a

more precise term, realized. Nothing would

remain to be “learned”.

The Sphinx: Indeed.

The Chimaera: I think I am beginning to see your

point. There is an identity between the state of

samadhi and the innate condition of the mind or

soul as Plato perceived it. Both exist in a state of

absolute awareness, including, presumably, the

freedom to move through all dimensions including

that of time. Thus they break the bonds of both a

finite period and a finite path of existence,

achieving true immortality. Earthly incarnation

becomes a prison in terms of both time and space,

and it is the incarnated mind’s ability to travel

within time that allows it to break free from this

prison. The ambition of Plato, like that of the Yogi,

was to regain the freedom of mental movement

through all dimensions of existence - which, of

course, would provide access to knowledge of the

Forms.

- 218 -

The Sphinx: That is right. And the final proof of this is

that Adepts in all cultures and all ages have

inclined towards this same realization, no matter

what exploratory methods they may have used and

what linguistic terminology they may have

employed. “Proof” in the scientific sense is the

achievement of identical results under identical

circumstances by independent researchers. Our

comparison of just two initiatory systems - that of

Plato and that of Yoga - meets these criteria

exactly, given that the “identical circumstance” in

this case is Earthly incarnation.

The Chimæra: Similar evidence could be obtained from

additional case studies of other initiatory systems.

But one substantiation suffices for our discussion.

The Sphinx: And now, I think, we are finally in a

position to understand Plato’s distinction of the

work of a true philosopher from that of a sophist.

Let us return to The Sophist. He turns to page

#998:

STRANGER: Well, now that we have agreed

that the kinds stand toward one another in the

same way as regards blending, is not some

science needed as a guide on the voyage of

discourse, if one is to succeed in pointing out

which kinds are consonant, and which are

incompatible with one another - also, whether

there are certain kinds that pervade them all

and connect them so that they can blend, and

again, where there are divisions [separations],

whether there are certain others that traverse

wholes and are responsible for the division? ...

And the man who can do that discerns clearly

one form everywhere extended throughout

many, where each one lies apart, and many

- 219 -

forms, different from one another, embraced

from without by one form, and again one form

connected in a unity through many wholes, and

many forms, entirely marked off apart. That

means knowing how to distinguish, kind by

kind, in what ways the several kinds can or

cannot combine.

The Chimæra: I am well satisfied. Now that we have

resolved the questions raised by The Sophist, it

seems necessary to consider The Statesman as

well.

The Sphinx: We know that The Statesman was written

as a sequel to The Sophist - that Plato intended his

ideal statesman to be antithetical to the “worst

possible kind” of Sophist. Observe: He turns to

page #1074.

STRANGER: Therefore all who take part in one

of these governments - apart from the one based

upon real knowledge - are to be distinguished

from the true statesman. They are not

statesmen; they are party leaders, leaders of

bogus governments and themselves as bogus as

their systems. The supreme imitators and

tricksters, they are of all Sophists the

archSophists.

YOUNG SOCRATES: It seems to me that the

wheel has come full circle, now that the title of

Sophist goes to those who most deserve it, to the

men who get themselves called political leaders.

The Chimæra: That may be nothing more than another

of Plato’s invectives against the Sophists in general

- a bit of name-calling without real substance.

Such seems to be the opinion of academic critics,

who are prone to ignore this exchange. But let us

- 220 -

reexamine Plato’s alienation from the Sophists. As

I said earlier:

Even if we limit our scope to the school of

Protagoras, we know that Sophistic thinking

disavowed absolute knowledge. Despairing of

attaining such knowledge, they regarded even

its pursuit as worthless. So they taught a sort of

relativistic pragmatism as the only sound basis

for human affairs. Hence Protagoras’ famous

statement that man is the measure of all things.

The Sphinx: We then considered the Pythagorean

precedents for Plato’s conviction that the Universe

adheres to absolute and not relative standards. But

how does this tie in with The Statesman?

The Chimæra: The connection seems to be that Plato

considers statesmanship also to be absolute and

not relative. Observe the following key passage: He

turns to pages #1051-2.

STRANGER: Must we not do now what we had

to do when discussing the Sophist? We had to

insist then on the admission of an additional

postulate, that “what is ‘not x’ nevertheless

exists”. We had to introduce this postulate

because the only alternative to asserting it

which our argument left us was to allow the

Sophist to escape definition altogether. In our

present discussion too there is an additional

postulate on which we must insist, and it is this:

“Excess and deficiency are measurable not only

in relative terms but also in respect of

attainment of a norm or due measure.” For if we

cannot first gain assent to this postulate, we are

bound to fail if we advance the claim that a man

possesses statecraft, or indeed that a man

possesses any other of the special forms of

knowledge that function in human society.

- 221 -

YOUNG SOCRATES: In that case we must

certainly follow the precedent and admit the

additional postulate in our present discussion

too.

STRANGER: Our present task is greater than

our previous one, Socrates, and we can hardly

have forgotten what a very long time that took

us. However, while discussing these problems,

there is one thing to be said at the outset that it

is perfectly right and proper to say here.

YOUNG SOCRATES: What is this?

STRANGER: That when one day we come to

give a full exposition of true accuracy in

dialectic method, we shall find the need of this

postulate concerning the due measure which we

have just enunciated. However, the statement in

the form we have made it and with the

demonstration - adequate for present purposes -

which we have given of it, is a very great help to

us, or so it seems to me. For it shows that two

propositions stand or fall together. The first is

that the arts exist; the second is that excess and

deficiency are measurable not only relatively but

in terms of the realization of a norm or due

measure. Thus if measure in this second sense

exists, so do the arts, and, conversely, if there

are arts, then there is this second kind of

measurement. To deny either is to deny both.

The Sphinx: That “existence of ‘not x’ postulate”, as I

recall, left something to be desired in terms of

logical integrity. The point hinged upon things that

were not themselves “existence” being able to

exist. In distinguishing them from “existence”,

Plato treats “existence” as an entity. But, when

saying that certain things “exist”, he treats “exist”

as a quality. That is inconsistent and hence

inconclusive. He glances at page #1003

- 222 -

indignantly, then turns to pages #1050-1. And

what sort of demonstration of this second

postulate does he offer?

STRANGER: On the other hand, will we not also

be ready to assert that we do in fact hear words

spoken and see acts done which at one time

exceed the essentially right measure and at

another time fall short of it? Is it not just this

matter of attaining the due measure which

marks off good men from bad in human society?

The Chimæra: That’s not much of a proof. The words or

actions that impress one observer as ideal may

strike another as excessive or inadequate.

Similarly “good” and “bad” are subjective terms.

Plato is guilty of a non sequitur.

The Sphinx: True. If the stranger had been talking with

someone like Protagoras instead of the docile

young Socrates, The Statesman would have

floundered [and foundered] right there.

The Chimæra: Note that, immediately after making

that statement, Plato tries to reinforce it by

denying that statecraft - or any other art - can exist

without it. Thus he assumes that statecraft has

already been proved to be an absolute standard,

when in fact it has not. Two unproved statements

cannot be used to prove each other, and so Plato is

guilty of a second logical fallacy, generally known

as interdependence.

The Sphinx: Since the rest of The Statesman hinges

upon young Socrates’ blind disregard of these two

fallacies, is there a point in our discussing it

further? What we have uncovered here is not some

- 223 -

relatively-unimportant digression. The subsequent

structure of The Statesman is one of peeling away

inadequate manifestations of statesmanship,

leaving, theoretically, the Form itself at the core. If

there is not an agreed-upon Form, then the

peeling-away process is pointless.

The Chimæra: To be fair to Plato, let us examine his

idea of the Form of statesmanship. He turns to

page #1077.

STRANGER: If you will view the three arts we

have spoken of as a group with a common

character, you will be bound to see that none of

them has turned out to be itself the art of

statesmanship. This is because it is not the

province of the real kingly art to act for itself,

but rather to control the work of the arts which

instruct us in the methods of action. The kingly

art controls them according to its power to

perceive the right occasions for undertaking and

setting in motion the great enterprises of state.

The other arts must do what they are told to do

by the kingly art ... It is a universal art, and so

we call it by a name of universal scope. That

name is one which I believe to belong to this art

and this alone, the name of “statesmanship”.

The Sphinx: On the whole, that’s not a bad definition.

And, I might add, there is nothing in it which

necessitates the existence of an absolute standard

for statesmanship. A statesman can simply be a

person who is relatively skilled at emphasizing,

directing, and applying the various arts and

sciences of a state or community.

The Chimæra: So it would seem. In view of Plato’s

attack on “arch-Sophists” as being the leaders of

- 224 -

all but the perfect [Form] government, one might

suspect that he insisted upon an absolute standard

of government just so that he could attribute

everything less than that to Sophistry. Having

delivered such an uncomplimentary blow to both

Sophists and politicians, Plato could quietly

abandon the notion of an absolute governmental

standard. In fact, the definition that I just quoted

is thoroughly relativistic and cannot be applied in

terms of absolute standards.

The Sphinx: And just how do you draw that conclusion?

The Chimæra: If each subordinate art in a community

possesses its own standard of absolute perfection,

a raising or lowering of the application of that art

by the statesman would cause excess or deficiency

in the art itself. For example, the military art

involves winning battles and wars. If the

statesman, for the good of the entire community,

prevents the military from conducting battles or

wars, the military art itself experiences a

deficiency. At a later date, if the military does go to

war, that deficiency will be evident as inexperience

in combat. Similarly, if the statesman orders the

military to fight too many battles or wars, excess

will occur. The military will become inefficient

through demoralization and attrition. To permit

the military to function at an ideal level, a

statesman would have to allow a level of

continuous or intermittent warfare. This,

obviously, would not be ideal for the state as a

whole.

- 225 -

The Sphinx: Your point being that the ideal level of a

subordinate art as a thing in itself is at odds with

its ideal application by the statesman’s art.

The Chimæra: Yes, and there’s more to it than that. If

there is an ideal standard or level for both

component arts and the statesman’s art, then the

maintenance of that standard or level over a

period of time should ensure continuous and ideal

prosperity for the state as a whole, correct?

The Sphinx: Theoretically, yes.

The Chimæra: But conditions outside that state will

vary. A neighboring state may go to war against it,

for example.

The Sphinx: That would necessitate an alteration of

certain component arts - such as materiel

production, resource allocation, and military

activity - by the statesman, if he is to perform his

ideal role.

The Chimæra: But this means exceeding or falling

below the ideal standards of the individual

component arts. In other words, the ideal

standards of a component art by itself and the

ideal level of that art as a factor in the overall

community do not coincide. Therefore, if Plato

insists upon absolute standards, he places his

statesman in the position of having to

continuously violate the absolute standards of

component arts for the sake of his own art.

The Sphinx: I suppose Plato would argue that the ideal

standards of the component arts would include

- 226 -

consideration for the proper level of those arts

within the community as a whole.

The Chimæra: That still begs the question. The posture

of the community must change as its external

environment changes. Therefore the component

arts will be subject to continuous revision of their

levels of activity and emphasis. They become

factors relative to the community, just as the

community becomes a factor relative to its

external environment. Q.E.D.

The Sphinx: So Plato’s definition of statesmanship is

valid only if both that art and the subordinate arts

are assumed to be variable and relativistic. How

intriguingly Sophistic!

The Chimæra: ... All of which brings us back to the

basic “relativity vs. absolutism” issue between

[what Plato would call] Sophistry and Philosophy

respectively. In a purely practical sense we cannot

continue to use those terms as Plato did, because

“ s o p h i s t r y ” n o w c o n v e y s t h e i m a g e o f

charlatanism, while “philosophy” embraces

relativistic as well as absolutist theories.

The Sphinx: True. The basic issue still remains, but the

old labels are no longer accurate. Why do you

suppose Plato felt so strongly that absolute

standards (Forms) existed?

The Chimæra: It probably started with what he

believed to be common sense. Our senses seem to

tell us that the world around us is made up of

reliable and permanent phenomena. A chair can

be counted upon to remain a chair, a desk a desk.

- 227 -

The Sun and the planets behave regularly.

Relativism carried to its logical conclusion would

deny these things. How could the Sophists say that

“man is the measure of all things” as they walked

about on the solid and permanent ground of

Greece? Man cannot decide that the ground will be

there one minute and transmute into water the

next. Plato must have felt that he was arguing a

case for the way things actually are, even if he

encountered difficulties in justifying that position

logically.

The Sphinx: To be quite precise, a chair does not

remain a chair nor a desk a desk. Both are

undergoing continuous molecular breakdown,

which is not apparent to humans because they

normally experience sensory input at a relatively

swifter rate. Nor are astronomical bodies truly

constant; they only seem that way, again because

of the relative differences in their rates of change

and in human perceptive powers. At the other end

of the scale, there are phenomena that occur too

swiftly for human senses to register them. So they

seem “instantaneous”. So how dependable is

Plato’s “actual world”?

The Chimæra: I am tempted to say that, relatively

speaking [from the human point of view], the

world appears to adhere to absolute laws.

The Sphinx: Now that is an interesting statement! You

mean that the human ability to perceive relative

change exists in a comparatively small range, and

that phenomena changing at rates beneath or

above that range appear to be instantaneous or

permanent, as the case may be.

- 228 -

The Chimæra: I suppose so.

The Sphinx: Can we not identify anything that is truly

permanent? That is in fact absolute and not

relative?

The Chimæra: That was Einstein’s problem. He was

able to postulate only one thing that was absolute -

the speed of light. But in that he was wrong.

The Sphinx: Wrong? Kindly explain!

The Chimæra: We run the risk of straying rather far

from The Statesman.

The Sphinx: But not from our ultimate topic.

Remember that we are trying to get a grip on true

conceptual analysis, and to do that we had better

resolve this relative/absolute issue once and for

all. According to the Platonic school of thought,

political science has an absolute standard, just as

physical laws do. That is the argument of The

Statesman. So now we have said that Einstein

reduced physics to only one absolute - the speed of

light - and you dispute even that. I for one

consider a resolution of this germane. If you

destroy absolutism in the physical world, then the

basis for attempting to parallel the “absolute

physical world” with an “absolute political world”

disappears altogether. So proceed.

The Chimæra: All right. According to Einstein’s second

fundamental postulate of the Special Theory of

Relativity, the velocity of light is always constant

relative to an observer, no matter how fast the

observer and the light source may be separating or

- 229 -

converging. A derived equation states that, when

an object is moving with respect to an observer,

the mass of the object becomes greater, the

amount of increase depending upon the relative

velocity of object and observer. As the mass of the

object increases, its length along the axis of its

direction will decrease. At the speed of light, the

object’s mass becomes infinite, and its length

shrinks to zero. Since an infinite-plus amount of

energy would be required to raise the speed of an

infinite mass beyond the speed of light, such

hyper-light speed is not possible.

The Sphinx: So states the Special Theory.

The Chimæra: Now, internally the Special Theory is

consistent, because it treats the speed of light as a

constant and incorporates a series of equations

which rely upon that constant and are consistent

with one another. As the Special Theory applies to

phenomena which are substantially below the

speed of light, it is practical. The interrelationship

of mass and energy relative to 186,000 miles per

second (the Einstein speed of light constant) has

been formulated as E=mc2 and put into practice

through nuclear fission.

The Sphinx: Where, then, lies the fault?

The Chimæra: The Achilles’ Heel of the Special Theory

is that, while applying the principle of relativity to

everything else except the speed of light, it thereby

treats the speed of light as an exception to the

rule. An exception to a rule of physics is an

indication that the rule is inadequate to cover all

known phenomena. Einstein’s decision to treat the

- 230 -

speed of light as a constant was based upon the

difference between the speed of light and non-

light-wave-related phenomena being so vast as to

make sub-186,000 mps light speed impossible to

detect; and also upon the inability of science to

detect anything traveling faster than 186,000

mps.

The Sphinx: Why this emphasis upon the word

“detect”?

The Chimæra: Detection and existence are two

different things, and that difference is crucial to

my argument. Now consider this hypothesis: If

light waves from a stationary source travel at

186,000 mps, and those light waves are the only

means an observer located elsewhere has for

detection of that source, what would happen if the

source were to begin moving away from the

observer at 186,001 mps? Those light waves that

are the sole source of the observer’s information

would no longer reach that observer. The waves

are now receding from him at 1 mps. As far as the

observer can detect, the light-source vanished

when its speed exceeded the speed of light. But did

the source in fact cease to exist? It did not. [And its

presence may be detectable by observing warps in

radiation waves and emissions affected by it - a

possible explanation of the “black hole”

phenomenon.]

The Sphinx: What about light-sources that are

proceeding in directions other than diametrically

away from an observer?

- 231 -

The Chimæra: As for an object approaching an

observer at 186,000+ mps, it would arrive before it

could be detected at any distance as a moving

object, because humans do not possess

instruments that can identify approaching light

speeds in excess of 186,000 mps - which would be

the only means of identifying the object’s

approach. If the source were to proceed at a

tangent to an observer, it will seem to compress as

it approaches the speed of light. The explanation

for this illusion is more complex, but I may

approximate it by saying that the lateral

movement/oscillation of the emitted light waves is

less detectable as the lateral speed of the object

approaches 186,000 mps. At 186,000 mps the

waves are no longer detectable as waves - merely

as radiation; hence the illusion that the source has

transmutated from matter to energy.

The Sphinx: In fact, then, the Special Theory contains

its own invalidation. It states that everything is

relative, but it cannot exist as a formula without at

least one absolute constant - which, upon

examination, proves to be relative itself. Which

leaves only one question: If it is wrong, why does

E=mc2 work?

The Chimæra: Because the values which are plugged

into that formula are so far below 186,000 mps

that the speed of light might as well be treated as a

constant. For equations that include values closer

to 186,000 mps, the formula becomes increasingly

less accurate. Hence the preposterous calculation

that a mass at 186,000 mps becomes infinite. That

is simply the result of the formula’s intrinsic

distortion.

- 232 -

The Sphinx: This is all very unsettling. So everything is

relative?

The Chimæra: Let’s not jump to conclusions.

Remember what we decided concerning Plato’s

own proof of absolute Forms?

The Sphinx: Yes. I referred to the Platonic Academy’s

inscription Let no one ignorant of mathematics

enter here, and then I said:

Plato saw in mathematics unshakable evidence

that there was an absolute standard for the

Universe. And where one such standard existed,

it was logical to assume that there were others.

Today humans regard mathematics principally

as an applied science, but in Plato’s time it was

considered by the Pythagoreans to be “pure”,

having nothing to do with the gross and

imperfect everyday world.

The Chimæra: Would you care to elaborate upon that?

The Sphinx: The best thing to do is to quote directly

from Thomas Stanley’s 1687 account of the

Pythagorean doctrines, which draws its material

from Porphyrus, Iamblicus, Strabo, etc. The

Stanley text materializes, and the Sphinx turns to

Part IX page #522. Consider the following: [sic]

The mind being purify’d [by Discipline] ought to

be applied to things that are beneficial; these he

procured by some contrived ways, bringing it by

degrees to the contemplation of eternal

incorporeal things, which are ever in the same

state; beginning orderly from the most minute,

lest by the suddenness of the change it should

be diverted, and withdrew itself through its

great and long pravity of nutriment.

- 233 -

To this end, he first used the Mathematical

Sciences, and those Speculations which are

i n t e r m e d i a t e b e t w i x t C o r p o r e a l s a n d

Incorporeals, (for they have a Threefold

Dimension, like Bodies, but they are impassible

like Incorporeals) as Degrees of Preparation to

the Contemplation of the things that are;

diverting, by an artificial Reason, the Eyes of the

Mind from corporeal things (which never are

permanent in the same manner and estate)

never so little to a desire of aliment; by means

whereof, introducing the contemplation of

things that are, he rendered men truly happy.

This use he made of the Mathematical Sciences.

These Sciences were first termed μάθημα by

Pythagoras upon consideration that all Mathesis

(discipline) is Reminiscence, which comes not

extrinsecally to souls as the phantasies which

are formed by sensible objects in the Phantasie;

nor are they an advantageous adscititious

knowledg, like that which is placed in Opinion;

but it is excited from Phænomena’s, and

perfected intrinsecally by the cogitation

converted into it self.

The Chimæra: How very interesting. It would seem that

the recollective basis of knowledge, heretofore

assumed to be a Platonic concept, is in fact

Pythagorean.

The Sphinx: And the use of mathematics as a key to this

particular sort of knowledge, i.e. of the Forms.

The Chimæra: Who is this Stanley, and how reliable

can he be considered to be?

The Sphinx: Thomas Stanley graduated from

Cambridge at age 16 as a Master of Arts. He

practiced law; was fluent in French, Italian,

- 234 -

Spanish, and the Classical languages; and issued

the first volume of his famous History of

Philosophy when he was only 30. The three

paragraphs cited above are all footnoted to original

Greek sources.

The Chimæra: So Plato used mathematics as a “place to

stand”, in an effort to make the Universe

intelligible by reason alone. And Platonists tend to

emphasize this, shielding Plato from the despised

title of “mystic”. See here: He indicates page #xv

in the Collected Dialogues .

[Huntington Cairns:] But the difference

between Plato and the mysticism that has

attached itself to his philosophy is essential.

Plato’s aim is to take the reader by steps, with as

severe a logic as the conversational method

permits, to an insight into the ultimate necessity

of Reason. And he never hesitates to submit his

own ideas to the harshest critical scrutiny; he

carried this procedure so far in the Parmenides

that some commentators have held that his own

doubts in this dialogue prevail over his

affirmations. But the beliefs of mystics are not

products of critical examination and logical

clarification; they are, on the contrary, a series

of apprehensions, flashes, based on feeling,

denying the rational order. The mystic’s reports

of his experiences are beyond discussion

inasmuch as they are subjective and emotional;

they must be accepted, by one who wishes to

believe them, as a matter of faith, not

knowledge. Plato’s view of the world is that of

an intelligible system that man can know by

disciplined intellect alone. He was, in fact, the

founder of logic, a logician and a poet, but he

was not a mystic, he never exalted feeling above

reason.

- 235 -

The Sphinx: Well, well. What do you think Cairns would

say to the following quote from The Statesman?

He turns to page #1082.

STRANGER: When there arises in the soul of

men a right opinion concerning what is good,

just, and profitable, and what is the opposite of

these - an opinion based on absolute truth and

settled as an unshakable conviction - I declare

that such a conviction is a manifestation of the

divine occurring in a race which is in truth of

supernatural lineage.

YOUNG SOCRATES: It could not be more

suitably described.

The Chimæra: (dryly) He would probably say that,

since sphinxes and chimæras do not really exist,

nothing we say is to be taken seriously.

The Sphinx: So, where Plato is concerned, a great deal

hinges upon the basis for mathematics itself. Is it

acquired through reason or through mystical

vision, so to speak?

The Chimæra: This is rather curious. Plato actually sets

his dialectic process in contrast to mathematics,

almost as though the object of the Dialogues is to

arrive at a Form greater than that of mathematics.

He turns to page #746.

I understand, he said, not fully, for it is no slight

task that you appear to have in mind, but I do

understand that you mean to distinguish the

aspect of reality and the intelligible, which is

contemplated by the power of dialectic, as

something truer and more exact than the object

of the so-called arts and sciences whose

assumptions are arbitrary starting points. And

- 236 -

though it is true that those who contemplate

them are compelled to use their understanding

and not their senses, yet because they do not go

back to the beginning in the study of them but

start from assumptions you do not think they

possess true intelligence about them although

the things themselves are intelligibles when

apprehended in conjunction with a first

principle. And I think you call the mental habit

of geometers and their like mind or

understanding and not reason because you

r e g a r d u n d e r s t a n d i n g a s s o m e t h i n g

intermediate between opinion and reason.

The Sphinx: It’s all very well for Plato to say that, and

I’m sure that dialecticians are not displeased to

consider themselves more intellectual than

mathematicians. Yet we have found, in both The

Sophist and The Statesman, that Plato cannot

proceed with his arguments unless he assumes the

divinely-inspired ability to perceive not only

greater, but absolute perfection when he is

confronted with it. That is not reason; it is

revelation. Plato does mathematics an injustice:

While mathematicians openly admit that their

conclusions are originally based upon assumptions

(axioms), Plato pretends that his are not. And of

course they are. Just as Einstein required a

concrete assumption - a constant speed of light -

upon which to build his mathematical philosophy,

so Plato must have an assumption - the ability to

recognize absolute perfection - upon which to

build his dialectic philosophy.

The Chimæra: Plato seems to be caught in a trap

between the relativistic Sophists on one hand -

who denied the reliability of intuitive assumptions

- and the Pythagoreans on the other - who

- 237 -

permitted original assumptions via revelation/

intuition. Plato rejects the notion that axioms are

necessary for reason, yet he cannot reason without

them. No wonder he was so touchy about the

Sophists.

The Sphinx: Note the very precise manner in which the

Pythagoreans discussed the original assumptions

of mathematics: Again he indicates page #522 of

the Stanley text.

The whole science of Mathematicks, the

Pythagoreans divided into four parts,

attributing one to Multitude, another to

Magnitude; and subdividing each of these into

two. For Multitude either subsists by it self, or is

consider’d with respect to another; Magnitude

either stands still, or is moved. Arithmetick

contemplates Multitude in it self: Musick with

respect to another: Geometry, unmoveable

magnitude; Sphaerick, moveable.

These Sciences consider not Multitude and

Magnitude simply, but in each of these that

which is determinate: for Sciences consider this

abstracted from infinite, that they may not (in

vain) attempt in each of these that which is

infinite. When therefore the wise persons say

thus, we conceive it is not to be understood of

that multitude which is in the sensible things

themselves, nor of that magnitude which we

perceive in bodies, for the contemplation of

these I think pertains to Physick, not to

Mathematick. But because the Maker of all

things took Union and Division, and Identity,

and Alterity, and Station and Motion to

compleat the soul, and framed it of these kinds,

as Timæus teacheth, we must conceive that the

Intellect, consisting according to the diversity

thereof, and the division of proportions and

- 238 -

multitude, and knowing it self to be both one

and many, proposeth numbers to it self, and

produceth them and the Arithmetical knowledg

of them. According to the union of multitude

and communication with it self, and colligation,

it acquireth to it self Musick: for which reason

Arithmetick excels Musick in antiquity, the soul

it self being first divided by the Maker, then

collected by proportions. And again establishing

the operation within it self, according to its

station, it produceth Geometry out of it self, and

one figure, and the principles of all figures, but

according to its motion, Sphaerick: for she is

moved by circles, but consists always in the

same manner according to the causes of those

circles, the straight and the circular: and for this

reason likewise Geometry is precedent to

Sphaerick, as Station is to Motion.

But forasmuch as the Soul produced these

Sciences, not looking on the excitation of Ideas,

which is of infinite power, but upon the

boundure of that which is limited in their

several kinds, therefore they say that they take

infinite from multitude and magnitude, and are

conversant only about finite: for the mind hath

placed in her self all principles both of

multitude and magnitude, because being wholly

of like parts within her self, and being one and

indivisible, and again divisible, and producing

the world of Ideas, it doth participate essential

finiteness and infiniteness from the things

which it doth understand: But it understands

according to that which is finite in them, and

not according to the infiniteness of its life. This

is the opinion of the Pythagoreans, and their

division of the four Sciences. Hitherto Proclus.

The Chimæra: In the final analysis, whether Cairns

would enjoy the idea or not, Plato must be classed

with the Pythagoreans as a “mystic”, in that he

- 239 -

assumed that humans possess a supernatural

power beyond reason to recognize perfection/

absolute Forms.

The Sphinx: Yes. The Sophists were the only ones who

could claim to be “non-mystics”, because they

would not admit to revealed accuracy of any sort.

Plato tried to strike a balance between the Sophists

and the Pythagoreans, but there is just no halfway

position that holds water. The Pythagoreans would

have been amused by Plato’s laborious

argumentative process, holding it to be a waste of

time, in that the final answer to a given problem

could be known only by revelation/recollection. As

for the Sophists, they would have faulted Plato’s

arguments by denying the primary assumptions/

revelations in them.

The Chimæra: All of which leaves us where?

The Sphinx: Well, I think we have pretty well finished

with The Statesman. But our discussion

concerning the Pythagorean aspects of “Plato’s”

philosophy raises yet another question: To what

extent was Plato an original thinker?

The Chimæra: On that thorny little problem I will let

you take the lead.

The Sphinx: I think we would be wise to start with some

observations about time - not just the way most

humans regard it, but the way Plato himself

perceived it. I recall a pertinent comment of G.J.

Whitrow’s in his book The Nature of Time:

- 240 -

The first question to consider is the origin of the

idea that time is a kind of linear progression

measured by the clock and the calendar. In

modern civilization this conception of time so

dominates our lives that it seems to be an

inescapable necessity of thought. But this is far

from true ... Most civilizations, prior to our own

of the last two or three hundred years, have

tended to regard time as essentially cyclic in

nature. In the light of history, our conception of

time is as exceptional as our rejection of magic.

The Chimæra: Well said. Modern academicians are

conditioned to an essentially Newtonian attitude

towards time. They regard it as a simple

progression of events. The past may be referred to,

and visions of the future may be projected, but

neither past nor future has any intrinsic effect

upon the present - nor do they exist objectively at

all.

The Sphinx: In a cyclical system of time, by contrast,

past, present, and future would all be part of a

single continuum. This wouldn’t necessarily mean

that “history repeats itself” either. Rather the

components of fourth-dimensional existence

would continue to exist, although they might be

undergoing periodic rearrangement and

recomposition. One might draw an analogy to the

interchangeability of matter and energy; a

seemingly-endless variety of transmutation takes

place, but the “sum of the whole” remains the

same.

The Chimæra: Take the Platonic notion of the

transmigration of souls. It wouldn’t make much

sense if entirely new souls could come into being

“out of nothing”, would it? Yet the transmigration

- 241 -

theory has been ridiculed on the grounds that (a)

world population is expanding, and (b) past

incarnations have not been recalled to standards of

scientific proof. If “the stuff of which souls are

made” can transmutate from other components of

a unified time-continuum, then the first objection

disappears. And limited recomposition [short of

transmutation] would account for the second.

The Sphinx: And this would put the concept of the

recollective basis of knowledge in a new light as

well. Instead of knowledge being cumulative or

progressive [again a purely-linear concept] with

the linear “passage” of time, it can be considered

“circular” - rearrangements and recombinations of

certain all-inclusive principles which are part of

the cyclical continuum, i.e. “timeless”.

The Chimæra: A provocative way of approaching the

Theory of the Forms.

The Sphinx: Let us try to “clear the air” of modem

presuppositions and place ourselves in the time-

environment that Plato himself perceived. As he

looked at the world around him and observed

changes taking place, wouldn’t linear time have

seemed obvious to him? Within the scope of his

own consciousness, for example, he could tell that

things “weren’t the way they used to be” and that

new events were regularly taking place.

The Chimæra: On a small scale, yes. But, seen at the

“Forms level”, various events could be viewed as

modifications of a single Form of political behavior

or as more complex combinations involving more

than one Form. Thus the conquest of Athens by

- 242 -

Sparta or the conquest of Sparta by Athens were

essentially variations on the same Form [of

conquest], distinguished by variable applications

of other Forms [such as economic pressures,

military power, political imperialism, etc.]. Viewed

in this context, events could indeed be considered

cyclical.

The Sphinx: Well, have we justification to presume that

Plato truly thought in that context? After all, it is a

perspective so broad that it could have been

attacked as useless for concrete applications. In

point of fact this was the basic Sophist criticism of

Plato - that his philosophy, while it might be true

on a macrocosmic scale - was of no help to people

who were trying to solve immediate problems. So

the Sophists advocated problem-solving

techniques that ignored macrocosmic Forms.

The Chimæra: In the Republic, Laws, arid Statesman

we have three attempts by Plato to make his

political philosophy relevant. But it would be a

mistake to say that he merely attempted to “scale

down” this Form or that Form to a problem-

solving level, in order to compete with the

Sophists. A Form is not that sort of “thing”; it is

not an axiom which can be applied to various

problems. Rather it is a sort of sum-total of

identifying characteristics in various phenomena

which relate them, as sphinxes and chimæras are

variations of the Form “mythical beast”.

The Sphinx: Speak for yourself. But we have now

reached a point where we can explore the

development of Forms-theory prior to Plato’s

time ... excuse me, Plato’s point of focus in the

- 243 -

continuum. Because the Forms - and especially the

ones that were applicable to statesmanship -

weren’t all that nebulous. In fact they were the

guiding principles of the most ancient civilization

in the Mediterranean -and the one with the most

highly-developed political system as well. I am

talking, of course, about Egypt.

The Chimæra: The most highly-developed political

system? You’re going to get some objections on

that score. The accepted impression of Egypt is

that it was a simple military monarchy, reinforced

by a death-obsessed religion, which cared nothing

for philosophy. I quote Bertrand Russell:

P h i l o s o p h y b e g i n s w i t h T h a l e s , w h o ,

fortunately, can be dated by the fact that he

predicted an eclipse which, according to the

astronomers, occurred in the year 585 B.C.

Philosophy and science - which were not

originally separate - were therefore born

together at the beginning of the sixth century. 115

The Sphinx: Bertrand Russell was ever quaint. “Sixth

century” my claw! For thirty recorded centuries

before Thales, Egypt had existed as a national

system - not a mere city-state or even federation of

city-states. It was older to the Greeks than the

Greeks are to present-day humans. Scientifically it

d e v e l o p e d a r c h i t e c t u r e t o a p r e c i s i o n

unapproached again until the present century [and

in some aspects still unequaled]. 116 It developed

115 Russell, Bertrand, A History of Western Philosophy, page 3.

116 Stecchini, Livio, “Notes on the Relation of Ancient Measures to the

Great Pyramid” in Tompkins, Peter, Secrets of the Great Pyramid,

pages 287-382.

- 244 -

elaborate, codified medical skills [including that of

open-skull brain surgery] which were used with a

high measure of success. 117 It possessed the only

accurate calendar in the entire Mediterranean

until the time of Julius Cæsar [when Cæsar

introduced a modified Egyptian calendar to the

Roman Empire]; the Egyptians’ own records date

back to 4241 BCE! 118 And what of the hieroglyphic

alphabet, introduced more than seven thousand

years ago? 119

The Chimæra: I expect that part of the problem lies in

the fact that the alphabet you just mentioned was

so very hard to read. Indeed it was almost a sort of

cipher used exclusively among the Egyptian

intelligentsia. Training of a scribe took about

twelve years, and even then a scribe was not in a

position to understand the significance of most of

the philosophical material he was recording. By

Plato’s time other, less complex linguistic systems

had come into use for both reading and writing,

and probably no one in Athens could read

hieroglyphic, let alone gain access to philosophical

texts hoarded by the Egyptian priesthoods. So it is

not so very surprising that Egyptian philosophy

was not discussed by the Greeks, except for

tourist-type accounts such as that of Herodotus

and the Egyptian passage of Plato’s own Timæus.

The Sphinx: The last known use of hieroglyphic writing

even in Egypt itself was in 394 CE [on the Temple

117 Cottrell, Leonard, Life Under the Pharaohs, pages 189-191.

118 Casson, Lionel, Ancient Egypt, page 146.

119 Ibid., page 141.

- 245 -

of Isis at Philæ]. 120 Thereafter all knowledge of the

language vanished from human knowledge until

Champollion decoded the Rosetta Stone in 1822

CE. And only a small number of Egyptian texts

have been translated today -by a smaller handful

of people who can read the language. So perhaps

Russell’s statement can be partially excused, if not

condoned.

The Chimæra: Then, too, Egypt has suffered a savage

pillaging over the centuries. As a symbol of

“heathen paganism” it was viciously despoiled by

the early Christians and their Moslem successors.

C o u n t l e s s a n c i e n t t e m p l e s w e r e e i t h e r

appropriated or razed by the Catholics, and

thousands of statues and inscriptions were

disfigured. In 389 CE a Christian mob, acting on

the orders of the Christian Roman Emperor

Theodosius, burned the great library of Alexandria

to the ground. 121 Even so, millions of book-rolls

were rescued or gathered together from other

repositories and the library was reestablished -

until 636. In that year Alexandria was taken by

Omar, the Third Caliph of Islam, who decreed:

“The contents of these books are in conformity

with the Koran or they are not. If they are, the

Koran is sufficient without them; if not, they are

pernicious. Therefore let them be destroyed.” They

were burned as fuel to heat the city’s baths; it took

six months for all of them to be consumed. 122 So it

is not too surprising that modern researchers have

120 Ibid.

121 Tompkins, op. cit., pages 3-4.

122 Berlitz, Charles, Mysteries from Forgotten Worlds, page 36.

- 246 -

only a pitiful few scraps of information from

previously-undiscovered tombs or overlooked

monuments.

The Sphinx: Before we explore the links between the

Egyptians and Plato, it may help if we bring out

some of the salient characteristics of the Egyptian

political system. To begin with, it was cyclic rather

than linear. Individual pharaohs and dynasties

came and went, but the social system and political

structure remained constant. Each successive

pharaoh, for example, was merely the momentary

personification of a permanent, semi-divine entity

that governed Egypt in the name of the gods. The

nation itself was not viewed as merely one in a

series of political units located in northeast Africa;

it had existed as a divine creation before recorded

history, and it would continue to exist indefinitely.

Various natural cycles and human lifetimes would

impact upon it, but the essence of Egypt would

remain untouched by [linear] time. 123 Consider,

for example, the following hieroglyphic inscription

accompanying an image of the scarab-beetle

Xepera, principle of cyclical regeneration and

immortality:

I was the spirit in the Primeval Waters. He who

had no companion when his name Came Into

Being. The most ancient form in which I Came

Into Being was as a drowned one. I was he who

Came Into Being as a circle. He who was the

Dweller in his Egg. I was the one who began

everything, the Dweller in the Primeval Waters.

First the Wind emerged for me, and then I

began to move. I created my limbs in my glory. I

123 Compare this to the Chinese view of China as the “Middle

Kingdom” ( Chhung kuo), the “focus” of civilization and creativity.

- 247 -

was the maker of myself; I formed myself

according to my desire and in accord with my

heart. 124

The Chimæra: If each pharaoh were held to be divinely-

appointed, what was the actual selection

procedure? And how could a human-supervised

selection procedure retain credibility as a divine

process?

The Sphinx: It compares rather intriguingly with the

system for selection of philosopher-kings in the

Republic. During stable dynasties new pharaohs

were selected from among the male offspring of

the late pharaoh. There was more latitude in this

process than one might think, because (a)

pharaohs generally had many wives and

concubines, resulting in scores of children, and (b)

the education and selection of pharaohs were

handled by colleges of priests, themselves

detached from the secular government but

exercising a sort of guardianship over it.

Unsuitable princes were either diverted to

harmless careers or simply assassinated. With the

exception of a few temporary puppet-kings or

usurpers, then, Egyptian monarchs were generally

priest-kings [an intentional reference to the

Atlantean tern in the Critias] of exceptional

calibre. Incumbent pharaohs who began to behave

in maverick fashion [such as Akhenaten, the

monotheist mystic of the XVIII Dynasty] were also

assassinated with the tacit consent of the

priesthood. This method of “impeachment” does

not seem to have been abused, because an attack

on the divine pharaoh for purely-partisan motives

124 Clark, R.T., Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt, page 74.

- 248 -

would have been thought extremely ill-omened.

Only for an obvious betrayal of the pharaoh’s

sacred trust - as determined by the priesthood -

could assassination be contemplated.

The Chimæra: What sort of legal system did the

Egyptians have?

The Sphinx: Now we enter some particularly interesting

territory from a Platonic standpoint. As far as can

be deduced from surviving records, bureaucratic

and judicial affairs were not conducted according

to a centralized legal code superior to the

judgment of individual officials. Such officials

were given a more-or-less free hand within their

respective areas of responsibility - contingent, of

course, upon the maintenance of order, payment

of taxes, and general preservation of a harmonious

attitude among the people. There were no

legislated standards of good and evil/right and

wrong. Justice was meted out ad hoc according to

each supervisory official’s concept of fairness and

equity. The Egyptians prized this system very

highly; it was personified by the goddess Maat.

When an Egyptian died, a feather from Maat’s

crown would be weighed against his heart to

determine whether he would be granted a pleasant

repose in Amenti or be torn limb from limb by

monsters from the Tuat. I expect that would-be

crooks were inhibited accordingly, since the

Egyptian religion was taken quite literally.

Consider the following inscription, dating from

one of the earliest Old Kingdom dynasties of Egypt

[and compare it to the concept of Tao]:

- 249 -

If you are a leader who directs the affairs of a

multitude, strive after every excellence until

there be no fault in your nature. Maat is good,

and its worth is lasting. It has not been

disturbed since the day of its creator, whereas

he who transgresses its ordinances is punished.

It lies as a path even in front of him who knows

nothing. Wrongdoing has never yet brought its

venture to port. It is true that evil may gain

wealth, but the strength of truth is that it lasts; a

man can say, “It was the property of my

father.” 125

The Chimæra: A rather interesting contrast to the

governments of Mesopotamia, Persia, and Greece,

all of which laid stress upon codified law. I expect

you are leading up to a comparison to the Republic

and Statesman, wherein Plato argues for specially-

trained or specially-gifted rulers above the law. Are

you going to suggest that Plato took the Egyptian

system as an ideal governmental model?

The Sphinx: Let’s not jump the spear on this. I have a

few other points to make concerning the Egyptian

system proper; then we’ll look into the matter of

its actual links with Plato. Again bearing the

recommendations of the Republic in mind,

consider the following: Almost uniquely within the

ancient world, Egypt was free from hereditary

caste, racial, or sexual discrimination in political

affairs. A social aristocracy was created by

property-inheritance, but a scion of poor or even

unknown parentage might just as easily rise to

high office upon demonstrating suitable prowess.

At various times the throne was held by Negroes,

Persians, Mesopotamians, Greeks, and assorted

125 Frankfort, Henri, Ancient Egyptian Religion, page 62.

- 250 -

Asians without racial objections being raised.

Women enjoyed the same “citizenship” status as

men, including choice of mate and inheritance of

property. Queens such as Nefertiti and Ty wielded

as much or more power than their consorts, and

female pharaohs such as Hatshepsut and

Cleopatra ruled Egypt as decisively and with as

much popular sport as did male pharaohs. Even in

the Egyptian religious pantheon, gods and

goddesses enjoyed equal prestige.

The Chimæra: To an observer this extraordinary

flexibility and tolerance might well account for the

staying-power of the Egyptian system, in spite of

the occasional invasions, occupations, and even

civil wars that took place there. When the dust

cleared, so to speak, the political and social

institutions remained intact.

The Sphinx: Precisely. Egypt was no more a utopia than

any other human-run society was, is, or will be.

There were power-struggles, epidemics of

corruption, popular revolts, and all the rest.

During the Middle Kingdom (2150-1792 BCE) a

pessimistic Pharaoh Amenemhet I advised Crown

Prince Senwosret:

Harken to that which I say to you,

That you may be king of the earth,

That you may be ruler of the lands,

That you may increase good.

Harden yourself against all subordinates.

The people give heed to him who terrorizes

them;

Approach them not alone.

Fill not your heart with a brother,

Know not a friend,

Nor make for yourself intimates,

- 251 -

Wherein there is no end.

When you sleep, guard for yourself your own

heart;

For a man has no people in the day of evil.

I gave to the beggar, I nourished the orphan;

I admitted the insignificant, as well as him who

was of great account.

But he who ate my food made insurrection;

He to whom I gave my hand aroused fear in my

heart. 126

The Chimæra: But the institutions survived, and on the

whole Egyptians were able to boast of a far more

stable, prosperous, and inspiring society than

those of the other Mediterranean countries. That is

your point?

The Sphinx: Yes. By contrast the Greece of Plato’s time

was in pretty sorry shape. The various city-states

couldn’t even maintain stable governments of their

own, much less get along with each other. Elitist

systems such as that of Sparta were vulnerable to

tyranny by strongmen; democratic Athens suffered

from demagoguery and dictatorships. The much-

vaunted philosophers were tolerated only as long

as they were not thought to be actual threats.

When they were inconvenient, as Plato and

Aristotle had occasion to observe, hemlock or

banishment awaited. Great principles of religion

and/or philosophy were ridiculed in favor of

Sophistic opportunism. Yet -and I think this is an

important point - the Greeks had demonstrated

that they were quite capable of high intellectual

achievement. They had produced a number of

noteworthy philosophers, artists, statesmen,

126 Fairservis, Walter A., The Ancient Kingdoms of the Nile, pages

98-99.

- 252 -

architects, and military leaders. What they had

not produced was a stable cultural environment in

which such talent could be nurtured. In his

politically-oriented dialogues, therefore, Plato

sought a system of government that could achieve

this stability without being as dictatorial as, say,

the Persian or Assyrian monarchies. In Egypt, if in

fact he realized it, he had a near-exact functioning

model of his Republic - and one which was

working quite well.

The Chimæra: ... If he realized it! So the problem is

now to discover what connections, if any, Plato

had with Egypt. Are the Dialogues of any help?

The Sphinx: No, they aren’t. There are a very few

passing references to Egypt, but nothing of any

substance. It would be discouraging if it were not

for the fact that the Pythagoreans are similarly

ignored. That makes the situation a bit suspect. If

Plato’s links with Egypt are tenuous, his links with

the Pythagoreans are beyond doubt. The geometric

passages in the Timæus are virtually pure

Pythagorean doctrine. And, from a political point

of view, the Pythagoreans represented the extreme

of initiated elitism that Plato juxtaposed to

Sophistry. To the Sophists, human values were

purely relative to custom, convention, and

practical necessity; to the Pythagoreans, values

were eternal, unchanging, and universal - the

“Platonic” Forms. How is it that the Pythagoreans

came to hold this point of view? Let us look to

Pythagoras himself for the answer.

The Chimæra: Back to the Stanley text. I see that most

of its biographical entries concerning Pythagoras

- 253 -

are footnoted to Iamblicus, a fourth-century CE

Neoplatonist, and from Diogenes Laertius, writing

about a century earlier. Specific passages dealing

with Pythagoras’ stay in Egypt are footnoted to

Porphyrus and Clemens Alexandrinus as well. In

Chapter III “How he travelled to Phœnicia” we

read:

He made a voyage to Sidon, as well out of a

natural desire to the place itself, esteeming it his

country, as conceiving that he might more easily

pass from thence into Egypt.

Here he conferred with the Prophets, successors

of Mocus the Physiologist, and with others, and

with the Phoenician Priests, and was initiated

into all the mysteries of Byblus, and Tyre, and

sundry of the principal sacred institutions in

divers other parts of Syria, not undergoing these

things out of Superstition, as may be imagined;

but out of love to knowledg, and a fear, lest any

thing worthy to be known, which was preserved

amongst them, in the miracles or mysteries of

the gods, might escape him. Withal, not being

ignorant, that the rites of those places were

deduced from the Egyptian ceremonies, by

means whereof he hoped to participate of the

more sublime and divine mysteries in Egypt,

which he pursued with admiration, as his

Master Thales had advised him. 127

The Sphinx: Two rather intriguing points - first that

Mesopotamian initiatory priesthoods were thought

to be corruptions or derivations of their Egyptian

counterparts, and secondly that Pythagoras

undertook this quest on the advice of Thales.

Thales was reputed to have been born of a

127 Stanley, Thomas, The History of Philosophy, page 494.

- 254 -

Phœnician mother, and it is more-or-less reliably

established that he studied the science of geometry

in Egypt. 128 But please continue.

The Chimæra: Here are some extracts from Chapter IV

“How he travell’d to Egypt”:

Antiphon, in his Book concerning such as were

eminent for virtue, extolleth his perceverance

when he was in Egypt, saying, Pythagoras

designing to become acquainted with the

institution of the Egyptian Priests, and

diligently endeavoring to participate thereof,

desired Polycrates the Tyrant to write to Amasis

King of Egypt, with whom he had friendship (as

appears also by Herodotus) and hospitality,

(formerly) that he might be admitted to the

aforesaid Doctrine. Coming to Amasis, Amasis

gave him Letters to the Priests, and going first

to those of Heliopolis, they sent him to the

Priest of Memphis, as the more ancient, which

was indeed but a pretence of the Heliopolitans:

[For the Egyptians imparted not their mysteries

to every one, nor committed the knowledg of

Divine things to profane persons, but to those

only who were to inherit the Kingdom; and, of

Priests, to those who were adjudged to excel the

rest in education, learning, and descent.] From

Memphis, upon the same pretence, he was sent

to Thebes. They not daring, for fear of the King,

to pretend excuses; but thinking, that by reason

of the greatness and difficulty thereof, he would

desist from the design, enjoyned him very hard

precepts, wholly different from the institution of

the Grecians, which he readily performed, to

their so great admiration, that they gave him

power to sacrifice to the gods, and to acquaint

himself with all their studies, which was never

128 Asimov, Isaac, Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopædia of Science

and Technology, page 2.

- 255 -

known to have been granted to any forraigner

besides. Clemens Alexandrinus relates

particularly, that he was disciple to Sonchedes,

an Egyptian Arch-prophet. 129

The Sphinx: Again something catches my eye - that

comment about Egyptian initiation normally being

reserved for the pharaoh and the priesthood alone.

In the Statesman Plato writes:

For the priest and the diviner have great social

standing and a keen sense of their own

importance. They win veneration and respect

because of the high tasks they undertake. This is

shown in the fact that in Egypt none can be king

unless he belongs to the priestly caste, and if a

man of some other caste succeeds in forcing his

way to the throne, he must then be made a

priest by special ordination. 130

The Chimæra: Now how would Plato come to know that

bit of information, unless he were party to policies

within the Egyptian priesthoods?

The Sphinx: It is always possible that he heard it from

the Pythagoreans, although it seems only

incidental to the sort of doctrines that

Pythagoreans would be inclined to discuss. So here

we may have a link directly between Plato and the

Egyptian initiatory orders. Continue with the

material from Stanley.

129 Stanley, op. cit. , page 94.

130 Plato, Collected Dialogues, page 1059.

- 256 -

The Chimæra:

Diogenes saith, that whilst he lived with these

Priests, he was instructed in the Learning and

Language (as Antiphon also affirms) of the

Egyptians, and in their three kinds of writing,

Epistolick, Hieroglyphick, and Symbolick;

whereof one imitates the common way of

speaking; the rest allegorical, by Ænigms. They

who are taught by the Egyptians, learn first the

method of all the Egyptian Letters, which is

called Epistilographick; the second, Hieratick,

used by those who write of sacred things; the

last and most perfect Hieroglyphick, whereof

one is Curiologick, the other, Symbolick. Of the

Symbolick, one is properly spoken by imitation,

another is written as it were Tropically; another

on the contrary doth allegorize by Ænigms. For

instance, in the Kyriologick way, to express the

Sun, they make a Circle; the Moon a Crescent.

Tropically they do properly traduce, and

transfer, and express by exchanging some

things, and variously transfiguring others. Thus

when they deliver the praises of Kings, in

Theological Fables, they write by Anaglyphicks.

Of the third kind, by Ænigms, let this be an

example: All other Stars, by reason of their

oblique course, they likened to the bodies of

serpents, but the Sun to that of a Beetle, because

having formed a ball of Cow-dung, and lying

upon its back, it rolls it about (from claw to

claw.)131

The Sphinx: Once again there is more here than meets

the eye. It is possible that lamblicus or one of the

other sources could have made up the other details

of a trip by Pythagoras to Egypt, but here we seem

to have conclusive proof - both of the trip itself and

131 Stanley, op. cit., pages 494-495.

- 257 -

of Pythagoras’ initiation. For the description given

of the Egyptian linguistic system is in complete

agreement with what has come to light with the

discoveries of Champollion and Young. 132 Stanley

could not have known this, and it is highly

improbable that Iamblicus or any of the other

biographers could have known it either.

Hieroglyphic writing was a closely-guarded skill in

Egypt, and, as we noted earlier, its teaching

required many years of study. Pythagoras’

initiation seems all the more probable.

The Chimæra: Here is the concluding passage from the

chapter:

Thus being acquainted with the learning of that

Nation, and enquiring into the Commentaries of

the priests of former times, he knew the

observations of innumerable Ages, as Valerius

Maximus saith. And living admir’d and belov’d

of all the priests and prophets with whom he

conversed, he informed himself by their means

accurately, concerning every thing; not omitting

any person, eminent at that time for learning, or

any kind of religious rites; nor leaving any place

unseen, by going into which he conceived, that

he might find something extraordinary. [For he

went into the Adyta of the Egyptians, (and, as

Clemens saith, permitted himself to that end to

be circumcised) and learned things not to be

communicated concerning the gods, mystick

Philosophy.] He travelled to all the Priests, and

was instructed by every one, in that wherein

they were particularly learned. In Egypt he lived

twenty two years, in their private sacred places,

studying Astronomy and Geometry, and was

initiated (not cursorily or casually) into all the

132 Budge, Sir E.A. Wallis, Egyptian Language, pages 13-42.

- 258 -

religious mysteries of the gods. Lærtius saith,

He made three Cups of silver, and presented

them to each [Society] of the Egyptian Priests;

which, as we said, were three, of Heliopolis,

Memphis, and Thebes. 133

The Sphinx: It is perhaps worthy of note that the

sources cited by Stanley lived at points of time

when the bulk of the material from the library at

Alexandria still existed. It is not unreasonable to

assume that they would have either taken or

verified their accounts from such records as they

could read [in Greek if not in hieroglyphic] from

that institution. At the time its prominence was

unparalleled by any other literary repository in the

Mediterranean, and it is hard to imagine scholars -

particularly ones dealing with such a subject as

this - bypassing it.

The Chimæra: The highly-selective “clubs” or schools

which Pythagoras established in Sicily and

southern Italy seem to align more closely to the

fashion of the Egyptian priesthoods than to

schools of the Greek tradition. Stanley, quoting

lamblicus, makes this point and hints that

Pythagoras’ exacting methods were not well-

received:

His country summoned him to some publick

employment, that he might benefit the

generality, and communicate his knowledge:

which he not refusing, endeavored to instruct

them in the symbolical way of learning,

altogether resembling that of the Egyptians, in

which he himself had been instituted. But the

133 Stanley, op. cit. , page 495.

- 259 -

Samians not affecting this way, did not apply

themselves to him. 134

The Sphinx: I think we have satisfactorily established

the links between Pythagoras and the Egyptian

priesthoods. Now we must determine to what

extent the Egyptian doctrines reached Plato, either

directly or through the Pythagoreans.

The Chimæra: Stanley quotes the following passage

from Porphyrus:

Moderatus saith, That this (Pythagorick

Philosophy) came at last to be extinguished,

first, because it was aenigmatical; next, because

their Writings were in the Dorick Dialect, which

is obscure, by which means, the Doctrines

delivered in it were not understood, being

spurious and misapprehended, because

(moreover) they who publish’d them were not

Pythagoreans. Besides, Plato, Aristotle,

Speusippus, Aristoxenus, and Xenocrates, as the

Pythagoreans affirm, vented the best of them, as

their own, changing only some few things in

them; but the more vulgar and trivial, and

whatsoever was afterwards invented by envious

and calumnious persons, to cast a contempt

upon the Pythagorean School, they collected

and delivered as proper to that sect. 135

The Sphinx: That certainly doesn’t appear to be too

complimentary to Plato. Yet the fact remains that

the cosmological philosophy in the Timæus is

indisputably Pythagorean, yet is nowhere credited

by Plato to the Pythagoreans or to Pythagoras

134 Ibid., page 496.

135 Ibid., page 508.

- 260 -

himself. What of the Pythagoreans’ political

doctrines?

The Chimæra: In The Genesis of Plato’s Thought, Alban

D. Winspear summarizes them succinctly, if less

exhaustively than Stanley:

It is true that Pythagoras himself seems to have

held no elective office in any Greek state. His

function was rather to organize political clubs

which busied themselves with practical political

affairs and developed a general intellectual

apologia for aristocratic rule.

[Quoting Iamblicus] The Pythagoreans met in

caucuses and gave counsel about political

affairs. With the passage of time, it came about

that the young men not only took the lead in

domestic matters but in public too; they came to

govern the city, forming a great political club.

For they were more than three hundred in

number.

It is in this connection not without significance

that Pythagoras himself held (according to one

authority) [Stobæus] that all income should

come from agriculture. Here we have a hint of

that same prejudice against the merchants and

the democracy, that defense of the position of

the landed proprietor which so constantly

recurs in Greek idealistic thinkers.

Once this point is understood, the philosophical

teachings of the Pythagoreans become

intelligible. A passage in lamblicus (which goes

back to Aristoxenus) gives their point of view

very clearly, and we must connect it with our

previous discussion about the importance of the

problem of justice:

- 261 -

Pythagoras thought that the most efficacious

device for the establishment of justice was the

rule of the gods, and beginning with that he

established the state and the laws, justice and

the just.

In this interesting passage we have a long step

forward in the theologizing of the concept of

justice. The contemplation of divine things,

thought the Pythagoreans, instructed by

Pythagoras himself, was useful for mankind.

The reason was that we need a master, some

ruling principle against which we do not dare to

rise in rebellion, and this is provided by the

divinity. Our animal nature, he argued, is

subject to hybris and is diverse and chaotic,

subject to control by a variety of impulses,

desires, and passions. There must be a power

which by its superiority and its “threatening

eminence ( epanastasis)” will introduce

prudence and order into chaos. 136

The Sphinx: Compare this notion of justice as a divine

standard to the Egyptian concept of Maat which

we discussed earlier. Here we find evidence of a

Form discussed virtually identically by first the

Egyptians, then Pythagoras, then Plato. It is

something higher than law, higher than human

reason or learned wisdom - it is a “god” itself.

The Chimæra: The actual characteristics of what are

generally known as the “Egyptian gods” are far

closer to the notion of Forms than they are to the

later pantheons of pagan cultures such as Greece,

Rome, and Scandinavia. A reading of Egyptian

texts translated directly from the hieroglyphic will

substantiate this. In only a very few legends [such

136 Winspear, Alban D., The Genesis of Plato’s Thought, pages 81-82.

- 262 -

as that of the death and rebirth of Osiris] do the

gods assume human behavioral characteristics. In

the vast bulk of the existing texts they are far more

abstract, having “personalities” that seem to

overlap one another and symbolic attributes that

are difficult to identify in terms of purely-human

desires. Consider the following inscription from

the tomb of Rameses VI in this light, noticing the

overlap between Truth ( Maat) and Ra:

Adoration to Truth. Salutation to thee, this Eye

of Ra through which he lives every day! They

who are behind the chapel fear her, the Brilliant

One, She who comes out from the head of him

who made her. On the Head Serpent, who

comes out in front of him! Thou art the brilliant

eye who leads him, the word of judgment of the

One Whose Name Is Hidden, the victorious one

before the Ennead, Lady of Fear, great of

respect, Truth, through whom Ra is glorified,

she who appeases for him the Two Lands by her

decrees, she who speaks to the gods and chases

away evil, whose abomination is sin, she who

appeases the hearts of the gods! Thou art the

balance of the Lord of the Two Banks, whose

face is beautiful when Ra comes to his Truth,

being glorious through her. Those in Busiris

praise him through her, litanies are sung to him

by the great gods while she adores the powers of

the Two Chapels. He is glorious through her,

more than the gods, in this her name of the

Brilliant One. Thoth brought her and reckoned

her, the Established One, the Brilliant, the

Reckoned One, in this her name of the Ipet

Serpent. He made her live as a Uræus in this her

name of Opener of the Ways, She who leads him

on the ways of the horizon, in this her name of

- 263 -

Leader of Men. He erected her on his head in

this her name of Very Great Crown. 137

The Sphinx: A passage such as this is quite impossible

to explain in terms of ordinary human conventions

and values. It certainly bears scant resemblance to

the light, allegorical adventures of later

Mediterranean gods and goddesses. Yet to one

versed in the language of the Egyptian

priesthoods, its meanings are quite clear. If Plato

were an Egyptian initiate, one can see why he

would dismiss conventional means of reductionist

logic as a means for comprehending the Forms.

The Chimæra: We have seen definite evidence of

Pythagorean doctrine in the Platonic writings, and

at the beginning of this discussion we recounted

Plato’s visit to the Pythagorean centers in Italy and

Africa from 399 to 387 BCE. But are there any

grounds to suppose that Plato received direct

initiation at the hands of an Egyptian priesthood?

The Sphinx: There are at least two indications that he

did. First there is the following passage from the

Prefaces of St. Jerome [circa 340-420 CE], placed

by order of Popes Sixtus V [1585-1590] and

Clement VIII [1592-1605] as introduction to the

Bible:

Pythagoras and Plato, those masters of the

genius of Greece, visited as pilgrims seeking

after knowledge and as humble disciples the

sacerdotal college of the soothsayers at

Memphis [ Memphiticos vates], preferring to be

initiated with respect to the ancient doctrines of

137 Piankoff, Alexandre (Ed.), The Tomb of Ramesses VI, page 321.

- 264 -

that distant land, rather than impose on their

country the yoke of their own ideas. 138

The Chimæra: At the risk of belaboring the point, I

again note that this passage was written prior to

the final destruction of the Alexandrian library and

[possibly] such references to the matter as it may

have contained for scholars of the time.

The Sphinx: For that matter, there may have been other

sources available to St. Jerome which, for one

reason or another, have not survived to the present

day. Our second bit of evidence comes from

Proclus, who states that Plato was initiated in

Egypt over a thirteen-year period by the priests

Patheneitb, Ochoaps, Sechtnouphis, and Etymon

of Sebennithis. 139

The Chimæra: Again we can indulge in a little

detective-work. The names of the first three priests

can be rendered precisely in hieroglyphics; that

argues for their authenticity. [The fourth can be

rendered only approximately and thus is not

conclusive.] The “thirteen-year period” happens to

coincide with the normal training time for an

Egyptian scribe [to achieve full fluency in the

hieroglyphic language]. As for Sebennithis, it was

the seat of the Egyptian government from 378 to

360 BCE under Nekht-Hor-heb I, first pharaoh of

138 “Taceo de philosophis, astronomis, astrologis, quorum scientia

mortalibus utilissima est, et in tres partes scinditur. to dogma

thnmeqodon, thn empeirian. Ad minores artes veniam,” etc. [A.

Hyeronomi, Prologus galateatus, in Bibl. saer.].

139 Proclus, quoted in Christian, Paul, Histoire de la Magie, du

Monde Surnaturel et de la Fatalité à travers les Temps et les

Peuples, page 88.

- 265 -

the XXX Dynasty. Hence it would have been both

relatively secure from a political standpoint and a

logical place for Plato to seek Egyptian

initiation. 140

The Sphinx: Talk about last-minute timing! In 340

BCE, after more than four thousand years of native

national rule, Egypt finally fell to a Persian army

[which in turn fell to Alexander the Great in 332].

How sophisticated the Egyptian initiatory systems

remained under purely-occupational governments

is open to question - as would be the willingness of

Egyptian priests to initiate foreigners under such

circumstances. Even Pythagoras’ initiation many

years earlier seems to have occurred only after

some arm-twisting by Amasis, himself a native

Egyptian pharaoh and thus an initiate in his own

right. A Persian or a Ptolemaic ruler would not

have had such leverage over the native

priesthoods, nor the knowledge to judge whether

forced-instruction were in fact genuine. After

Pythagoras and Plato the link with the Egyptian

priesthoods was broken. [This may very well

account for the sharp distinctions between the

Pythagorean/Platonic doctrines - with their

apparent sophistication and seeming uniqueness -

and the decidedly-diluted commentaries (such as

those of Aristotle) which trailed along after them.]

The Chimæra: Having come this far, what may we

conclude concerning Plato’s legacy?

140 Brugsch-Bey, Heinrich, Egypt Under the Pharaohs, pages

450-451.

- 266 -

The Sphinx: He left two memorials: his writings and his

Academy. The former contain discussions of

Forms [or Egyptian “gods”, if you will!] on an

initiatory level, although they are also useful as

exercises in ordinary logic. The latter was, in

effect, a Pythagorean school minus the strict

personal and psychological discipline that

Pythagoras thought important [and which

contributed directly to the burning of Crotona and

the slaying of Pythagoras himself - by outraged ex-

students who had failed to withstand the

pressure]. Evidently Plato thought that he could

transmit the doctrines in an environment more

suited to Greece than to Egypt. And he was

successful, at least to the extent that the Academy

enjoyed a long and productive existence - and to

the extent that his own writings were preserved for

our consideration at this point in the time-

continuum. He may have failed to provide the

Greece of his own day with the sort of enlightened

government that he might have preferred, but he

had seen Pythagorean domination of Sicily and

Italy come to grief. So perhaps he was not so

anxious as some might suppose to duplicate the

Pythagorean experiment in Greece itself. Whereas

Pythagoras died a violent death and left none of

his personal works for posterity, Plato lived a full

life and left a rich heritage for scholars - and

Initiates - of the future. That, certainly, is

testimony to his wisdom.

The Chimæra: “The secret worship of the logos in the

cosmos, the divine spark in every human form.” 141

141 Incantation, Raghavan Iyer to M.A. Aquino, 1975.

- 267 -

Bibliography

Alvarez, A., The Savage God: A Study of Suicide. New

York: Random House, 1972.

Aquino, Michael A., San Francisco: Barony of Rachane,

FireForce, 1977, 1981, 2016.

FindFar, 2017.

IlluminAnX, 2017.

MindWar, 2013, 2016.

Morlindalë, 2003.

Ode to Esmé, 2017.

The Temple of Set, 1975-2016.

We Break the Sword, 2016.

Aristotle, De Cælo.

Assmann, Jan & Jenkins, Andrew (Trans.), The Mind of

Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the

Pharaohs. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2002.

Asimov, Isaac, Asimov’s Biographical Encyclopædia of

Science and Technology. Garden City, New York:

Doubleday and Company, 1972.

Barker, Sir Ernest, Greek Political Theory: Plato and his

Predecessors. London: Methuen and Company Ltd.,

1918.

Berlitz, Charles, Mysteries from Forgotten Worlds.

Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company,

1972.

- 268 -

Becker, Robert O. M.D. & Seidon, Gary, The Body

Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of

Life. New York: William Morrow, 1985.

Brandon, S.G.F., Religion in Ancient History. New York:

Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1969.

Breasted, James H., Development of Religion and

Thought in Ancient Egypt. New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1912.

Brunes, Tons, The Secrets of Ancient Geometry.

C o p e n h a g e n , D e n m a r k : “ T h e A n c i e n t

Geometry” (Nygaardsvej 41, Copenhagen 0), 1968.

Brugsch-Bey, Heinrich, Egypt Under the Pharaohs. New

York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891.

Budge, Sir E.A. Wallis,

- The Book of the Dead. 1960.

- The Egyptian Heaven and Hell. La Salle, Illinois: Open

Court, 1974.

- An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary (two volumes).

New York: Dover Publications, 1978.

- Egyptian Language. New York: Dover Publications,

1973.

- From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt. London: Oxford

University Press, 1934.

- The Gods of the Egyptians. London: Open Court, 1904

- The Mummy. New York: Collier Books, 1973.

Burr, Harold Saxon, M.D., The Fields of Life: Our Links

with the Universe. New York: Ballantine Books

#23559, 1972

Carroll, David, The Magic Makers. New York: Signet

#E-6556, 1974.

Carus, Paul, The History of the Devil. New York: Land’s

End Press, 1969.

Casaubon, Meric., John Dee’s Actions With Spirits.

London: Askin Publishers, 1974 (originally published

1659).

- 269 -

Casson, Lionel, Ancient Egypt. New York: Time, Inc.,

1965.

Cavendish, Richard,

- The Black Arts. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1968.

- Encyclopedia of the Unexplained (Ed.). New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1974.

- The Powers of Evil. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons,

1975.

Chayefsky, Paddy, Altered States. New York: Harper &

Row, 1978.

Christian, Paul, Histoire de la Magie, du Monde

Surnaturel et de la Fatalité à travers les Temps et les

Peuples. Paris, 1870 (translation - New York: Citadel

Press, 1969).

Colquhoun, Ithell, Sword of Wisdom: MacGregor

Mathers and “The Golden Dawn” . New York: G.P.

Putnam’s Sons, 1975.

Cottrell, Leonard, Life Under the Pharaohs. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

Crow, W.B., A Fascinating History of Witchcraft, Magic,

& Occultism. North Hollywood: Wilshire Book Co.,

1970.

Crowley, Aleister,

- The Equinox (Volume I #1-10, Volume III #1). New

York: Samuel Weiser, 1972.

- The Magical Record of the Beast 666. Montreal: 93

Publishing, 1972.

- Magick. New York: Samuel Weiser, 1994.

- The Vision and The Voice. Dallas: Sangreal Foundation,

1972.

Davis, Wade E., The Serpent and the Rainbow. New

York: Warner Books #0-446-34387-0, 1987.

Deacon, Richard, John Dee. London: Frederick Muller

Ltd, 1967.

de Lafforest, Roger, Houses That Kill. New York: Berkley

Medallion Books #425-02620-125, 1972.

- 270 -

de León, Moses, Zohar.

Drury, Nevill,

- The Occult Experience. Garden City Park, New York:

Avery Publishing Group, 1990.

- & Tillett, Gregory, The Occult Sourcebook. London:

Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.

Dunn, Marcel (Ed.), The Larousse Encyclopedia of

Ancient and Medieval History. New York: Harper &

Row, 1963

Eckhart, Dietrich, Auf gut deutsch. 1919.

Edwards, Michael, The Dark Side of History: Magic in

the Making of Man. New York: Stein & Day, 1977.

Eliade, Mircea, Occultism, Witchcraft, and Cultural

Fashions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Every, George, Christian Mythology. New York: Hamlyn

Publishing Group, 1970.

Fagan, Brian M., The Rape of the Nile. New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1975.

Fakhry, Ahmen, The Pyramids. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1961.

Fairservis, Walter A. Jr., The Ancient Kingdoms of the

Nile. New York: Mentor Books, 1962.

Farr, Florence, Egyptian Magic. Wellingborough,

Northamptonshire: The Aquarian Press, 1982.

Fix, Wm. R.,

- Pyramid Odyssey. New York: Mayflower Books, 1978.

- Star Maps. London: Octopus Books, 1979.

Flannery, M.C., Yeats and Magic: The Earlier Works.

New York: Harper & Row (Barnes & Noble Import

Division), 1978.

Fleming, Ian, Goldfinger. New York: Signet, 1959.

Flowers, Stephen E., Lords of the Left-Hand Path.

Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 1997.

Fowles, John,

- The Aristos. New York: Signet Books, 1964.

- The Magus. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1965.

- 271 -

Frankfort, Henri, Ancient Egyptian Religion. New York:

Harper and Brothers, 1948.

Frankfort, Henri et al., Before Philosophy. Baltimore:

Penguin Books, 1973.

French, Peter J., John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan

Magus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd, 1972.

Gardiner, Sir Alan, Egyptian Grammar. Oxford:

University Press, 1927.

Gilbert, R.A., The Golden Dawn: Twilight of the

Magicians. Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: The

Aquarian Press, 1983.

Gillings, Richard J., Mathematics in the Time of the

Pharaohs. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1972.

Goodrick-Clarke, Nicholas, The Occult Roots of Nazism:

The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany 1890-1935.

Wellingborough, Northamptonshire: Aquarian Press,

1985.

Griffiths, J. Gwyn, The Conflict of Horus and Seth.

Chicago: Argonaut Publishers, 1969.

Grimal, Pierre (Ed.), Larousse Encyclopedia of World

Mythology. New York: Excalibur Books, 1981.

Grun, Bernard, The Timetables of History. New York:

Simon and Schuster, 1975.

Haggard, Sir H. Rider,

- Cleopatra. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1888.

- She and Allan, 1921. The Second Book of Ayesha,

Leonaur Press.

- W i s d o m ’ s D a u g h t e r . N e w Y o r k : D e l R e y

#345-27428-8-195, 1922.

Hall, Manley Pa;mer, The Secret Societies of All Ages.

Hollywood: Philosophical Research Society, 1928.

Harper, George Mills, Yeats’ Golden Dawn. New York:

Barnes & Noble, 1974.

Harrington, Alan, The Immortalist. New York: Avon

Books #380-00201-125, 1969.

- 272 -

Hay, George (Ed.), The Necronomicon. London: Neville

Spearman, 1978.

Heckethorn, Charles William, The Secret Societies of All

Ages and Countries. New Hyde Park: University

Books, 1965.

Hersey G.L., Pythagorean Palaces: Magic and

Architecture in the Italian Renaissance. Ithaca:

Cornell University Press, 1976.

Hoffman, Michael A., Egypt Before the Pharaohs. New

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979.

Hornung, Erik & Lortin, David (Trans.), The Secret Lore

of Egypt: Its Impact on the West. Cornell University

Press, 2002.

Howe, Ellic, The Magicians of the Golden Dawn. New

York: Samuel Weiser, 1978.

Huntley, H.F., The Divine Proportion: A Study in

Mathematical Beauty. New York: Dover Publications

#0-486-22254-3, 1970.

Huysmans, J.K., La-Bas ( Down There). New York: Dover

Publications, 1972.

Ions, Veronica, Egyptian Mythology. New York: Hamlyn

Publishing Group, 1973.

Iyer, Raghavan, Parapolitics. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1979.

Iyer, Raghavan, The Society of the Future. London:

Concord Grove Press, 1984.

Jerome, St., “Taceo de philosophis, astronomis,

astrologis, quorum scientia mortalibus utilissima est,

et in tres partes scinditur. to dogma thnmeqodon, thn

empeirian. Ad minores artes veniam,” in the Prologus

galeatus to the Bible, 1590.

Jordan, Paul, Egypt the Black Land. New York: E.P.

Dutton, 1976.

Jung, Emma & von Franz, Marie Louie, The Grail

Legend. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1970.

- 273 -

Katsaros, Thomas & Kaplan, Nathan, The Western

Mystical Tradition. New Haven, Conn.: College &

University Press, 1969.

King, Francis,

- Modern Ritual Magic: The Rise of Western Occultism.

NY/UK/Australia: Macmillan, 1989

- (Ed.), The Secret Rituals of the O.T.O. London: C.W.

Daniel Company, 1973.

- Sexuality, Magic, and Perversion. Secaucus, New

Jersey: Citadel Press, 1971.

Lamy, Lucie, Egyptian Mysteries. New York: Crossroad,

1981.

LaVey, Anton Szandor,

- The Satanic Bible. New York: Avon Books, 1969.

- The Satanic Rituals. New York: Avon Books, 1972.

Lilly, John C, M.D.., The Deep Self. New York: Warner

Books #33-023, 1977.

Lockyer, Sir J. Norman, The Dawn of Astronomy.

Cambridge: MIT Press, 1964.

Lovecraft, H[oward].P., The Dunwich Horror & Others /

Dagon & Other Macabre Tales / The Mountains of

Madness & Others / Tales of the Cthulhu Mythos

(four volumes). Sauk City, Wisconsin: Arkham House,

1963+.

Mackay, Charles, LL.D., Extraordinary Popular

Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. New York:

Harmony Books, 1980 [reprint of the 1841 edition].

MacKenzie, Norman (Ed.), Secret Societies. New York:

Crescent Books, 1968.

Maeterlinck, Maurice,

- Ancient Egypt. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd,

1925.

- Our Eternity. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1914.

Mannix, Daniel P., The Hell-Fire Club. New York:

Ballantine Books #01625, 1959.

- 274 -

Massey, Gerald,

- Ancient Egypt, the Light of the World. New York:

Samuel Weiser, 1976.

- A Book of the Beginnings. Seacaucus, NJ: University

Books, 1974.

- Gerald Massey’s Lectures. New York: Samuel Weiser,

1974.

- The Natural Genesis. New York: Samuel Weiser, 1976.

Masters, R.E.L., Eros and Evil. New York: Julian Press,

1962.

Mathers, Samuel L. MacGregor (Trans.), The Book of the

Sacred Magic of Abra=Melin, the Mage. New York:

de Lawrence, 1932.

McCormick, Donald, The Hell-Fire Club. London:

Jarrolds Publishers Ltd, 1958.

Merritt, A[braham],

- The Moon Pool. New York: Avon Books, 1919.

- Seven Footprints to Satan. New York: Avon Books,

1942.

Milton, John & Asimov, Isaac, Asimov’s Annotated

Paradise Lost. New York: Doubleday, 1974.

Mlodinow, Leonard, Ph.D., Subliminal: How Your

Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior. New York:

Pantheon, 2012.

Montet, Pierre, Lives of the Pharaohs. Cleveland: World

Publishing Company, 1969.

Moses et al., The Holy Bible.

Murphy, Michael, An End to Ordinary History. Los

Angeles: J.P. Tarcher [distributed by Houghton

Mifflin], 1982.

- 275 -

Ouspensky, Peter D.,

- The Fourth Way. New York: Random House (Vintage),

1957.

- A New Model of the Universe. New York: Alfred A.

Knopf, 1931

- The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf, 1969

Pauwels, Louis & Bergier, Jaques,

- The Eternal Man. New York: Avon Books, 1972.

- The Morning of the Magicians (original French title:

The Dawn of Magic). New York: Avon Books, 1968.

Pearce, Joseph Chilton,

- The Crack in the Cosmic Egg. New York: Washington

Square Press #41648-0, 1971.

- Exploring the Crack in the Cosmic Egg. New York:

Washington Square Press #83118-6, 1974.

Pennick, Nigel, Hitler’s Secret Sciences. Suffolk: Neville

Spearman, 1981.

Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind: A Search for the

Missing Science of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 1994.

Piankoff, Alexandre (Ed.), The Tomb of Ramesses VI.

New York: Bollingen Foundation, 1954.

Plato, The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1961.

Plutarch, Isis and Osiris, Volume V in Moralia (14

volumes), F.C. Babbitt (Ed. & Trans.). London: Loeb

Classical Library, 1936.

Ponce, Charles, The Game of Wizards: Psyche, Science,

and Symbol in the Occult. Baltimore: Penguin Books

#3864, 1975.

Reed, Graham, The Psychology of Anomalous

Experience. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,

1974.

- 276 -

Regardie, [Francis] Israel (Ed.),

- 777 and Other Qabalistic Writings of Aleister Crowley.

New York: Samuel Weiser, 1973.

- The Golden Dawn. River Falls: Hazel Hills, 1970.

Reymond, E.A.E., The Mythical Origin of the Egyptian

Temple. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1969.

Rhodes, H.T.F., The Satanic Mass. London: Jarrold’s

Publishers Ltd, 1968

Rohmer, Sax, The Romance of Sorcery. New York:

Causeway Books, 1973.

Romer, John, Testament: The Bible and History. New

York: Henry Holt, 1988.

Rucker, Rudy, Infinity and the Mind: The Science and

Philosophy of the Infinite. New York: Bantam New

Age Books #0-553-23433-1, 1982.

Russell, Edward W., Design for Destiny. New York:

Ballantine Books #23405, 1971.

Sauneron, Serge, The Priests of Ancient Egypt. New

York: Grove Press (Black Cat Edition), 1980.

Schaefer, Heinrich (Emma Brunner-Traut, Ed.) (John

Baines, Trans. Ed.), Principles of Egyptian Art.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.

Schuré, Edouard, The Ancient Mysteries of Delphi:

Pythagoras. Blauvelt, NY: Rudolf Steiner, 1971.

Schwaller de Lubicz, Isha,

- Her-Bak (2 Volumes). New York: Inner Traditions,

1954.

- The Opening of the Way. New York: Inner Traditions,

1979.

- 277 -

Schwaller de Lubicz, René A.,

- Sacred Science. New York: Inner Traditions, English

translation 1982.

- Symbol and the Symbolique: Ancient Egypt, Science,

and the Evolution of Consciousness. New York: Inner

Traditions, 1981.

- The Temple in Man. Brookline, Massachusetts: Autumn

Press, 1949.

Shea, Robert & Wilon, Robert Anton, The Illuminatus!

Trilogy. New York: Dell Publishing Company, 1975.

Shepard, Leslie A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Occultism and

Parapsychology. New York: Avon Books #48835,

1980.

Shumaker, Wayne, The Occult Sciences in the

Renaissance. Berkeley: University of California Press,

1972.

Simpson, Keith, Professor, O.B.E., F.R.C.P., F.C. Path,

The Mysteries of Life and Death: An Illustrated

Investigation into the Incredible World of Death.

New York: Crown (Crescent Books), 1980.

Smith, Clark Ashton, Collected Poems. Sauk City, WI:

Arkham House, 1971.

Smith, Timothuy d’Arch, The Books of the Beast.

London: Crucible (Aquarian Press/Thorsons

Publishing Group, 1987.

Spence, Lewis, Encyclopedia of Occultism. New Hyde

Park: University Books, 1960.

Stanley, Thomas, Pythagoras: His Life and Teachings.

Los Angeles: Philosophical Research Society, 1970.

Stoker, Bram,

- Dracula. London: Archibald Constable, 1897.

- The Jewel of Seven Stars. New York: Kensington

Publishing Corp (Zebra Books #416), 1978 (originally

published by Rider & Company, UK, 1912).

Symonds, John, The Great Beast. London: Macdonald,

1971.

- 278 -

Taylor, Thomas, The Theoretic Arithmetic of the

Pythagoreans. New York: Samuel Weiser, 1972

[originally published 1816].

Te Velde, H., Seth, God of Confusion. Leiden, The

Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1977.

Thomson, James, The City of Dreadful Night. 1874.

Thorndike, Lynn, A History of Magic and Experimental

Science. New York: Columbia University Press, 1923.

Thorson, Thomas L., Plato: Totalitarian or Democrat?

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

1963.

Tolkien, J.R.R.T., The Lord of the Rings. Cambridge:

Houghton Mifflin, 1967.

Tompkins, Peter, Secrets of the Great Pyramid. New

York: Harper & Row, 1971.

Towers, Eric, Dashwood: The Man and the Myth.

London: Crucible (Aquarian Press/Thorsons

Publishing Group, 1986.

Vandenberg, Philipp, The Curse of the Pharaohs. New

York: J.B. Lippincott Company, 1975.

Vanloo, Robert, Les Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde.

Paris: Claire Vigne Editrice, 1996.

Webb, Don,

- Overthrowing the Old Gods: Aleister Crowley and the

Book of the Law. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions,

2013.

- Seven Faces of Darkness: Practical Typhonian Magic.

Smithville, TX: Runa-Raven Press, 1996.

West, John Anthony, Serpent in the Sky: The High

Wisdom of Ancient Egypt. New York: Julian Press,

Inc., 1987.

Whitrow, G.J., The Nature of Time. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston, 1972.

Wilkinson, Richard H., Symbol and Magic in Egyptian

Art. London/NY: Thames and Hudson Ltd, 1994.

- 279 -

Williams, Thomas A., Eliphas Levi: Master of Occultism.

University of Alabama Press, 1975.

Wilson, Colin,

- The Occult. New York: Random House, 1971.

- The Philosopher’s Stone. New York: Warner Paperback

Library #0-446-59213-7, 1974.

Wilson, John A., “Egypt” in Frankfort, Henri (Ed.),

Before Philosophy. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1946.

Wilson, Robert Anton, Schrödinger’s Cat I. 1979.

Winkler, Franz E., For Freedom Destined: Mysteries of

Man’s Evolution in the Mythology of Wager’s Ring

Operas and Parsifal. Garden City: Waldorf Press,

1974.

Winspear, Alban D., The Genesis of Plato’s Thought. New

York: S.A. Russell, 1940.

Wyckoff, James, Wilhelm Reich: Life Force Explorer.

Greenwich, CT.: Fawcett Publications

#449-00586-095, 1973.

- 280 -

- 281 -

Index

Ab 74, 77-81, 142-3, 162,

Ownership 130-4.

168-70, 173.

Agathon 73, 88, 152.

Buddhism 20, 95, 150-2,

Agnosticism 138.

194.

Akh 74, 81-82, 143.

Cabala, Hebrew 151.

Alexandria, Library of 245,

Calvin, John 96-97.

258.

Cat, Cheshire 185.

Alighieri, Dante 149, 195.

Chayefsky, Paddy 185-6.

Anamnesis 21, 55-56, 65,

City:

67, 72, 74, 78, 83, 130,

of God 94.

152, 156-7, 159, 168,

of Man 94.

188, 194-

Clarke, Arthur 157-60.

Anastasis nekron 61, 80.

Communism 125.

Anatta 95.

Consciousness 16, 19,

Asimov, Isaac 159.

25-33, 56-7, 73-74, 77,

Astral body 74.

79, 81, 84-6, 95, 116-8,

Atheism 135-7.

131, 135-6, 144, 156,

Ayesha ( She) 22-3, 43.

158, 163-5, 168-9, 180,

Ba 66, 74, 78-79, 143,

182, 185, 188-92, 241

188-9, 191, 195.

Conservatism 114.

Ballou, Sullivan 195-6.

Cosmology 145.

Berkeley, Bishop 116.

Cosmopolis 92.

Black Mass 157, 194.

Counter-Reformation

Blake, William 149.

97-8.

Body, human:

Critical idealism 116.

Cells, living 134.

Crowley, Aleister 87.

- 282 -

Cynicism 89, 92.

Entelechy 190.

Dæmon 163, 181, 190.

Epicureanism 89-90, 92.

“Death”, physical

Existence 75f, 146, 149,

determination 167-8.

166, 172, 179, 182,

de León, Moses 151.

190-1, 215-7, 221-4,

Descartes, René 32, 48, 66,

230, 240, 266.

184-5, 211.

Existentialism 21, 146f.

Determinism 88, 110-127.

Extra-sensory perception

Devil 19, 52, 139.

(ESP) 164.

Dialectic idealism 114-118.

Fields 67-73

Dialectic materialism

Definition 67-68

122-126.

Life- 68-69, 74.

Dianoia 73, 116.

Thought- 70-73, 77, 79,

Dimensions, 4 [OU] 147.

83, 85, 154-5, 164, 168.

Dracula, Count 129.

FindFar 130, 144, 147, 152,

Dreaming 33, 80, 217.

161, 194.

Eckart, Dietrich 62-3.

Fowles, John 23, 157, 194.

Egypt 35-55, 57-60, 62, 66,

Free will 87-110

70, 73, 76-9, 82-6, 90,

Galileo 18, 99, 138.

134, 140, 142, 143-5,

General will 107-108

152, 158, 161, 163, 168,

Ghost 75, 164, 195.

179, 181, 188, 192, 195,

Gnosticism 135, 138, 160,

243-59, 263-6.

169.

Eikasia 73, 116.

God 18-9, 21, 27, 37, 48,

Einstein, Albert 228-9,

54, 58-9, 91-4, 96-7,

236.

101, 106, 109, 111,

Elect 110, 148, 167, 192.

114-6, 119, 132, 139,

Electromagnetic spectrum

145, 153, 160, 182, 186,

155.

188.

Eliot, T.S. 15.

Golden Flower ( Tao) 66,

Elohim 61, 153.

75, 170.

Elysian Fields 190.

Hades 180, 215.

Empiricism 111-114

HarWer 163.

Enlightenment, the 59, 73,

Hegel, Georg 114-118.

101-2, 105-6, 111, 114-5,

Heidegger, Martin 185.

132.

Heka/-u 142-3.

- 283 -

Hel 190.

Lilly, John 138-9, 154-5,

Hinduism 151.

185-7.

Hobbes, Thomas 99-101

Locke, John 102-105.

Horizon creation 119-120

Logan’s Run 174.

Hume, David 112-114.

Logos 9, 75, 84-87, 91, 107,

IlluminAnX 148, 151.

266.

Inalienable rights 104

- Spermatikos 91.

Iyer, Raghavan 9, 55-57,

Lord of the Rings 170-2.

66, 84-85.

Lovecraft, H.P. 76, 137,

Jewel of Seven Stars, The

181.

79-80, 141-3, 196

Loyola, Ignatius 98.

Judæo-Christianity 92, 95,

Luther, Martin 95-97.

111, 132, 151, 190.

Maat 41, 77, 152, 162,

Soul 19, 58-60

248-9, 261-2.

Judaism 58-63

Maeterlinck, Maurice

Afterlife 60-63, 150.

182-4.

Ka 74, 79-81, 142-3, 159,

Manchurian Candidate,

195, 197.

The 126-7.

Kant, Immanuel 66, 93,

Marx, Karl 120, 123-6.

116, 165.

Mathematics 40, 54, 99,

Kantner, Paul 65.

112, 208-10, 214-5,

Khabit 74, 77, 143, 164,

232-7.

195-6, 255.

Materialism 135

Khat 74-7, 143, 159,

Matrix, the 130.

168-70, 188-9, 195-6.

Mechanism 16-9, 38, 70,

Lamarckism 69.

72, 86, 88, 111, 130,

Language 140-4.

146, 166, 168, 182, 184.

Laws, Thomistic:

Men ab 80, 141-3.

Divine 94-95.

Mer 80, 141-3.

Eternal 94.

Milton, John 149.

Human 95.

Mind/brain distinctions

Natural (NL) 94, 135,

168.

139-40, 146-7, 163-4.

Mind Control 126-127

Lenin, Vladimir 125-6.

MindStar 66-7.

Liberalism 114-5.

Emanations 73-82.

- 284 -

MindWar 16-7, 30, 126-7,

71-2, 78, 102, 116, 125,

139, 144, 154-5.

129, 154, 156, 164-5,

Miracles 20, 139, 253.

170, 171-3, 186-8,

Monroe, Marilyn 55.

213-5, 230.

Morlindalë 172.

Sophist, The 199-201,

Mummification 181.

203-7, 210-13, 218-20,

Nag Hammadi 62.

236, 242.

Names 76, 141-3.

Statesman, The 219-20,

Nationalism 114-5.

222-3, 228 235-6, 238,

Nephesh 61.

242, 249, 255.

Neteru 42-6.

Timæus, The 209, 237,

Existence proof 146.

253,259.

Neter-Xertet 148, 160-1.

Poe, Edgar Allan 83.

Nietzsche, Friedrich

Procrustes 149.

118-22.

Protagoras 88, 206, 208,

Nihilism 121.

220, 222.

Nirvana 79.

Psyche 19, 48, 51, 66, 140,

Nœsis 17, 57, 66, 73, 88,

153, 191.

130, 161-2.

Psychiatry 133.

Nomos 84.

Psychological Control

Nous 84.

(PSYCON) 139.

Organicism 115-116.

Pyramid, Great 155.

Orwell, George ( 1984) 18,

Pyramid Texts 145.

30, 57, 109, 131, 143-4,

Pythagoras 44, 55, 88, 145,

157.

197, 233, 252-4,

Pan, Peter 179.

256-66.

Phenomenology of mind

Redemption, Christian

116.

150.

phi 158.

Reformation 95-98.

Physics 138.

Reich, Wilhelm 18, 138.

Physis 84.

Reincarnation 151.

Pistis 116.

Relativity 208, 214-5, 226,

Plato

228-9.

Critias, The 247.

Religions, profane 148.

Meno, The 17, 21, 25,

Ren 76, 141-3, 152.

31, 34, 40, 48, 55-6, 67,

Rephaim 61.

- 285 -

Romanticism 114-5.

162-3.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques

Taoism 66, 75, 111, 248.

105-9.

Teleology 70, 87.

Samadhi 217.

Telos 27, 48, 69-70, 85-7,

Sartre, Jean-Paul 146.

94, 101, 110, 127, 147,

Satan 18, 50, 59, 92.

182, 189.

Scholasticism 92-95.

Tera, Queen 140-3, 196-7.

Schopenhauer, Arthur 61.

Theology 60.

Schwaller de Lubicz:

Thinking, reflective 161,

Isha 53, 82, 180.

188.

René 32, 52-3, 140-1,

Thompson, Hunter S. 31.

184.

Thomson, James 35.

Sekhem 81.

Thought:

Sensory deprivation 185-8.

Algorithmic 17, 45, 72

Set 142, 163-7, 181, 192,

Conceptual 17, 48,

197.

66-7,

Gift of 74

Subconscious 16-7,

Temple of 163, 192.

28-30, 57, 72-5, 139,

Thigh of 80, 142.

154, 159, 164, 167, 184.

Sheol 60-3, 150.

Time 16, 26-7, 36-9, 45,

Skepticism 89.

50, 56, 61, 70, 80-1, 87,

Smith, Clark Ashton 165,

93, 97-9, 108, 111-20,

167, 179, 197

137, 139, 144, 147-8,

Social Contract 98-110.

156, 170, 182, 184,

Socialism 124.

188-9, 196-7, 200, 206,

Soma pneumatikon 62.

208, 213, 215-7, 221-2,

Sophism 88-89, 199-266.

225, 232, 239-45, 251,

Stanley, Thomas 253-8.

257-8, 260, 264-5.

Stargate 53-4.

Cyclical 38, 40, 51,

Stoicism 90-2.

241-2, 246.

Stoker, Bram 140-3, 196-7..

Linear 38, 70-2, 147,

Subjective idealism 116.

240-1, 246.

“Suicide” 173-5.

Nonexistent 147.

Symbolism (Egyptian)

Universes

43-8, 53, 59, 82, 137,

140-2, 145, 152, 158-9,

- 286 -

Collective Subjective

(CSU) 17-9, 29-30,

57-8, 60, 193-4.

Objective (OU) 16-20,

26-28, 34, 55, 58, 67,

70, 72-3, 77-8, 83-5, 91,

94-5, 110, 130, 134-5,

138-9, 145-9, 155,

172-6, 179159-68,

172-9, 182-8, 193-6

Subjective (SU) 15-21,

28-9, 57, 73, 77, 99,

158, 166-7, 173, 179,

187-8, 193-5.

Torah, Hebrew 151.

Verne, Jules 74, 91.

Walhalla 190.

Will to Power 118-22.

Winkler, Franz 188-92.

Whitrow G.J. 239-40.

Xeper 78, 81, 85-7, 190,

193.

Xepera 81, 246.

Xepera Xeper Xeperu 81.

Yoga 154, 217-8.

Zohar 151.

Zombies 76, 137, 155.

2001: A Space Odyssey

156-60.

- 287 -

About the Author

Michael A. Aquino was the only member of the

Church of Satan to attain Magister Templi IV° prior to

1975, and was a member of the Church’s Council of Nine

and Order of the Trapezoid 1970-75.

He served as founding High Priest of the Temple of

Set 1975-1996, was Recognized as an Ipsissimus VI°, and

was founding Grand Master of the Temple’s Order of the

Trapezoid 1982-87.

In secular life he is a Lt. Colonel, Psychological

Operations, U.S. Army (Ret.). He is a graduate of the

Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense

University; Defense Intelligence College, Defense

- 288 -

Intelligence Agency; Foreign Service Institute,

Department of State; U.S. Army Special Warfare Center

(Special Forces (“Green Beret”)/Psychological

Operations/Civil Affairs/Foreign Area Officer); U.S.

Army Command & General Staff College; U.S. Army

Intelligence School, and U.S. Army Space Institute.

Decorations include the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service

Medal, Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal (3

awards), Special Forces Tab, Parachutist Badge, USAF

Space & Missile Badge, and the Republic of Vietnam

Gallantry Cross, Psychological Warfare Medal (First

Class), & Air Service Medal (Honor Grade).

Academic credentials include the B.A., M.A., and

Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of

California, Santa Barbara; and the M.P.A. in Public

Administration from George Washington University. He

has taught as Adjunct Professor of Political Science,

Golden Gate University.

In 2006, following his retirement as a U.S.

government officer, he was recognized by Scotland’s Lord

Lyon King of Arms as the 13th Baron of Rachane,

Argyllshire. He is a member of Clan Campbell. He, his

wife Lilith, and cats live in San Francisco, California.