Enlightenment     12/3/2005   copyright  A.F. van der Meijden  adrf@orcon.net.nz 

                                             or Home Press, Meremere, R.D. 2, Pokeno, New Zealand



The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes.

 William James

The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.

 Albert Einstein

- 0 - 0 - 0 -


Note: There's no bibliography because all the data can be checked out on internet. I am trying to catch several stones with one fly, mainly focussed on Arp's Comments anent;  "The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden." and  "The game here is to lump all the previous observations into one 'hypothesis' and then claim there is no second, confirming observation.",  by seeking a 'hypothesis" that can explain things. This applies to consciousness research, the treatment of mysticism and in general for any speciality the denial to accept alternative or extraneous data. The usual blame game approach of finding a wrong does not work by pathological or other  "causation" of an objective kind.  Verbally we can deconstruct anything because words isolate qualities and categories alike. So therefore a synthesis of sorts is required. For this several aspects of the situation are required to gain a perspective. I find it by an anagogic approach which, by Hussserlian intentionality, take an account, be it myth, theory or poetry at its own value in context in an existential sense. This needs to be explained in stages since knowledge nor dictionaries define this very well, so the method has to be explained as well as the findings.

- 0 - 0 - 0 -



         Enlightenment is a pop theme these days, when we had another one  three Centuries ago that got rid of theology and religion only to get back into it again. We don't like being reduced to mere materiality, it removes the soul, bores he heck out of chasing phenomena and getting chased by the almighty buck. Spirituality is back in and we find all manner of prophets down to incompetents peddling it. It still reflects the social myth that we need a teacher, guru, expert to show us how which comes from when Industrialisation had to teach us how to fit into the workshop and workbench doing repetitive tasks. It changed us from being jack of all trades into specialists. We like to be filled with meanings not goodies we pay for by working all day and being tired all night. So we will find Clinton imitators who offer us success, money and all that we are already bored with. Here and there we get some real stuff, mainly to teach us about let the buyer beware about what he gets himself into. It comes as free versus pay for it.


         An old tradition has it that the real stuff comes for free but in this day and age peddling your stuff costs real bucks, lots of it. So I cannot offer you any advice about this, just make up your own mind, take the risk and find out. The Wanderling, on internet, is into trying out all teachers and finds himself on a near never ending journey to learn that ALL roads lead to Rome, once the centre of enlightenment but no longer. It is a good way to get rounded out all over and learn that regardless of attitudes and all that there's something behind it in common to the lot. At its simplest the UNI-verse is run by an intelligence, Creater, god, call it what you like, that seems interested to have us evolve into spiritual beings. Once upon a long time ago that was the in thing during mythic times and called "the good", which was in open access to those interested. So we are, firstly into recovery of their ideas and in a second place having to work out how to get our act together so we can cope with mechanics, technology, dysinformation  and all that which arrived since myths faded away into the mists of antiquity dated around 6,000 BCE when trade and all that foregrounded.


         We've upholstered our nests or caves with all manner of comforts but that is not enough. It  still leaves that empty or hollow feeling that we're not complete, which is about right. We never will be. While animals show inventiveness under stress or need, man exercises his creativity in many ways well beyond needs. When he gets frustrated out of his freedom and creativity he can get rather nasty. There is a tale of a lady who had a pet dog on which she lavished her love. Then, through a dying family member she took care of a baby and lavished her love on that. One day when she went shopping she returned to find the baby bitten to death. We should not call this jealousy but an animal desperate for the love & attention suddenly withdrawn. We need that stuff and even the romantic version will do when we cannot get the real stuff. Quite often we find this with siblings when the second baby is suddenly deprived and turns jealous. We not only need it, we want the lot. So how does *instinct* know such things? We are disabled when badly enough deprived of enough true love to create our own character and social person and turn what is called schizophrenic or unable to integrate our experiences into a whole and develop several distinct persona, each in conflict with the others. Alternatively we have a whole army of unintegrated bits hanging around, which antiquity called demons to exorcise, but we now call them hangups and worse.


3: Definitional mishaps.

         So allow me to analyse this in more detail since I doubt it is, as psychology will have it, pathological or a mental illness, but more when we are deprived of what our feelings tell us we need. We see the sibling as a thief of what our survival instincts tell us as a "me first" right we are deprived of, since initially we got it all. Of course we feel in our emotional self we are deprived, punished and denied or just not-ok somehow. I don't necessarily agree with this but merely try to tell how it feels. This creates conflicts because we misunderstand or not fully enough, being immature and naive. It is curious that babies don't have to learn how to think and feel but have to get used to a body they spend their childhood exploring and training and it is the body which feels and does so in its own right, not knowing much about mind or spirit. It usually starts once we get mobile and a Mother feels it is her baby when baby has ideas of its own of what it wants. This sets up a conflict between Mother's intentions and those of a baby. In this the body's survival mode can dominate us and other ways lie open we don't yet know about.


         We can treat a conflict like a paradox. Both result when we cannot make whole meat from our experiences or when the nature of that conflict is not understood  by others who also play "me first". A paradox results when we reason logically to find the results don't add up consistently. Bertrand Russell in his Theory of Classes, which opened up that can of worms about paradox, has two I need here, the barber's and the librarian's paradox  For the barber Russell writes that "In a town lives a barber who does not shave himself" so who shaves him?  Now in reality we won't find a barber who cannot or will not shave himself so Russell sets up a well defined logical category as "barbers only shave other people", which seems common sensical enough. Technically we may not include a set as a whole as a member of the same set, we have to access a superset to do that. This creates a paradox when we accept that barbers only shave other people; they don't, they also shave themselves, which is like changing the consumer into a prosumer who both con-sumes and pro-duces. We are now lost in a thicket of words exactly the same as happens with siblings who 'me first" reckon "Mother loves me", which is fine when there is only one baby. Along comes a second one whom Mother now also loves either also or more than 'me'. There is a conflict now and baby not used to or able to consider other people yet as also having rights, resolves this by blaming the competition. It is a case of strict survival. The silly notion around is that we can love only one person instead of many people in many different ways.



         The librarian's paradox is an inverse of this. When the chief librarian of a country compiles a bibliographic list of all bibliographies compiled by local libraries she finds that some include the bibliography as rightfully a book on their shelves whereas others reason that a bibliography is "about" all other books and don't include that book. It is a book about book titles as a catalogue of all books in a library. So now she is in conflict of paradox about how to deal with that. Since Russell is a logician he tackles it as a set of well defined words for which a definition has to be self consistent, which is what baby does with that 'me first'. We can pickle that in logical jargon as A and ~A. For the barber to keep set (A) consistent with  ~A <ie. not-A> is excluded whereas for the Librarian she finds it as [(A .~A) +{(A) . (~A)}] where the dot means 'and'. We can hardly expect a baby to figure that one out, when it considers only itself and is coping with a new body.


         There are many binary logics and algebras contrasted by infinite Set Theory where such things as (A.~A) can happily co-exist with in between math using numbers above three and short of infinity. In binary we can have only two items, on'off, yes'no, good'bad, right'wrong and so on, whereas for the others we can have many. Words holding only to antonyms tend to go for binary. What i want to emphasise here is that a paradox cannot be resolved logically. Einstein points out that a level at which we find a wrong, cannot be used to resolve it, we have to move up into wider generalisation. Another illustration is the arrival of conscious as embroiled with only physical actions for a detached observer. Science does not include the observer or experient, just as does baby does not include itself, only what it experiences and observes happening to it. Baby takes itself for granted just as does the scientific observer. We cannot, logically, include as a member of a set the set as a whole. You cannot stuff a kitchen drawer inside that selfsame kitchen drawer, we all know that.  This drives us into infinite recursion we can only stop by ending that with an infinite set where paradox can exist. We can add and subtract a 1 to every number without stopping, which makes it infinite, even when we don't have names for those numbers which ends up calling them googolplexes or monster numbers. I could write a string of numbers as long as this article. We run out of names at about a trillion, which is U.S. style nine digits and English uk style twelve.


         So this is not a small problem, it's a big one. If we take the Boeotian Liar, which has it that "all Boeotians are liars" it's obvious that everybody lies SOME of the time but anybody who lies always is soon enough caught out. You just invert what they say and bingo it's truth. Doing it some of the time makes it uncertain or unpredictable which is not wanted by knowledge. Logic pretends to arrange chains of ideas that makes things predictable or certain and consistent just as baby wants it, reliable on demand. Paradox showws us it is unreliable. Quite clearly baby has an attitude problem, just as has the scientist with his assumptions, beliefs and logical premises or propositions. The way that game is played goes as "Let A stand for..." for whatever you care to make it which is called axiomatics. Logics make up rules and definitions to exclude paradox. But attitudes, assumptions and beliefs are a-logical since we have to make up our mind about that before we can get logical. G.K.Chesterton rightly points out that we cannot find truth with logic unless we have already found it without logic, just as I did here. And there's the rub.


         Our brain can work as a logic machine that works externally for observations rather well as long as we don't include our selves. It is when we also go inside that the problem hits the fan. Including the user, observer, experient, creator of an idea makes for problems. Now we can get in conflcts first with mum, then with other people, then with our society and after that with words as we expand our experience with the family, neighbourhood, society and knowledge. Children are all input until their teenage at which it all inverts and we start acting in our own right for ourselves. The child is not aware of those conflcts because it thinks with its feelings and takes itself for granted.  It is only when we begin to interact with others that words come into play and the so far buried conflicts show up, when acting in our own right. We select our character, personality or public facade from  a random set of experiences and choices to be consistent with each of our family, friends, society and social persona for whatever we specialise in or in other words  from a context we identify with.


         And there is the main snag because logic insists we identify our intellect with words. The recipe is:

Aristotle is a man

All men are mortal

Therefore Aristotle is mortal

That runs in algebra as  A = B, B = C, therefore A = C, regardless of content. For an alternative content of the same pattern we can say:

Aristotle is flesh,

All flesh is edible

Therefore Aristotle is food.

For any shark, cannibal, earthworm or other carnivore, just as consistently. Bacteria don't even care what they eat.

I mean bats are quite sure that the best way to catch food is at night when tigers and lions know it's done when hungry. Owls also do it in the dusk, so that makes most animals sleep in a safe place; now how would they know about that?



         What I have done here is to reason anagogically, which is what Chesterton suggests, by taking the object at its own word. If we look up the dictionary we get:

A: noun: anagoge: a mystical or allegorical interpretation (especially of Scripture) for a short dictionary most people would use, which I call sloppy.

B: Merriam Webster: "Etymology: Late Latin anagoge, from Late Greek anagOgE, from Greek, reference, from anagein to refer, from ana- + agein to lead -- more at AGENT --> interpretation of a word, passage, or text (as of Scripture or poetry) that finds beyond the literal, allegorical, and moral senses a fourth and ultimate spiritual or mystical sense", which is a shade more helpful. [ Essentially what that means is what the dictionary does not quite say, is that we don't know how we do it; it's creative or original]

C: Agent  "an active and efficient cause; capable of producing a certain effect", for sloppy.

D: MW> Agent:  Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin agent-, agens, from Latin, present participle of agere to drive, lead, act, do; akin to Old Norse aka to travel in a vehicle, Greek agein to drive, lead.

1: one that acts or exerts power

2: a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect: an active or efficient cause

    b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle [ which ignores emotionally and mentally]

3: a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result [ ie. a recipe or method used]

4: one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another: as

    a : a representative, emissary, or official of a government <crown agent> <federal agent>

    b : one engaged in undercover activities (as espionage) : SPY <secret agent>

    c : a business representative (as of an athlete or entertainer) <a theatrical

PS: I insert the  [ ] brackets.


         Which is again a shade more helpful, we're now not into attitudes but causes and get mystical for free as its means of enquiry. Mystae means enquirer into a mystery, which opens up the next can of worms with a word of older origins.

A: sloppy: "someone who believes in the existence of realities beyond human comprehension".[ So how come  mystics can figure this out?]

B: MW->  "Etymology: Middle English mistik, from Latin mysticus of mysteries, from Greek mystikos, from mystEs initiate:

1 : MYSTICAL 1a [Eh, where's the explanation?]

2 : of or relating to mysteries or esoteric rites : OCCULT

3 : of or relating to mysticism or mystics



   c : inducing a feeling of awe or wonder [You mean beastly curiosity of the awkward kind?]

d : having magical properties

MYSTERY: sloppy: "something that baffles understanding and cannot be explained". [wonderfully useful, eh?]

MW-> "1 a : a religious truth that one can know only by revelation and cannot fully understand [bullshit]

b (1) : any of the 15 events (as the Nativity, the Crucifixion, or the Assumption) serving as a subject for meditation during the saying of the rosary [more of that ilk]

(2) capitalized : a Christian sacrament; specifically : EUCHARIST [what about other religions eh?]

c (1) : a secret religious rite believed (as in Eleusinian and Mithraic cults) to impart enduring bliss to the initiate

  (2) : a cult devoted to such rites. [ I hope you can work that lot out! VOT do it MEAN?]

2 a : something not understood or beyond understanding : ENIGMA

   b obsolete : a private secret   [ a lot of waffle in one package]

   c : the secret or specialized practices or ritual peculiar to an occupation or a body of people <the mysteries of the tailor's craft> [ it takes time to learn that by practicing]

   d : a piece of fiction dealing usually with the solution of a mysterious crime [that's more honest]

3 : profound, inexplicable, or secretive quality or character <the mystery of her smile>

SYNONYMS> MYSTERY, PROBLEM, ENIGMA, RIDDLE, PUZZLE mean something which baffles or perplexes.

MYSTERY applies to what cannot be fully understood by human reason or less strictly to whatever resists or defies explanation <the mystery of the stone monoliths>. [NOTE that word Reason, hedged about by human! Now who is defining whom here?]

PROBLEM applies to any question or difficulty calling for a solution or causing concern <the problems created by high technology>.

ENIGMA applies to utterance or behaviour that is very difficult to interpret <his suicide was an enigma his family never understood>.

RIDDLE suggests an enigma or problem involving paradox or apparent contradiction <the riddle of the reclusive pop star>. [Well, the guy does not want to be gawped at ALL the time]

PUZZLE applies to an enigma or problem that challenges ingenuity for its solution <the mechanisms of heredity were long a puzzle for scientists. [Just stop nagging me, will ya]



         Is not science supposed to investigate unknowns? I should mention that knowledge claims to use a method and it is clear that anything outside this method cannot, or may not, be explained. Psychology does not even explain how creativity works and material realism describes things but does not go into causes except in a physical or time linear sense. The only part of mind allowed is intellect, feelings are ignored while they do our thinking since we have many communication systems or languages in our body and only external communication is given credit. This is a scholastic, medieval convention which had a static worldview, everything being created by god once and for all. Science was created during the 16th Century which was the heyday of scholasticism. It is so to speak a method which imposes order and reality maintains many kinds of order. Most every discipline tends to retain the rules and principles worked out during its origin with little change later on.


         Contrariwise I try to consider things from as many angles and tangles as I can make out, including going for the original meanings attached to words I can find. Our minds are quite able to untangle that since when I relax, the unconscious having done some more data crunching, ideas pop up to look into. Since only intellect is supposed able to reason it would mean breaching the rules of discourse, so called, which is taboo, intellectually speaking, it working with a static worldmodel. Science has introduced a fourth dimension to permit change to occur whereas reality is a unitive whole so all this concerns an artificial worldmodel. If now we believe in that as 'real' anything off that square is a puzzle. In my grasp of this creativity is about finding missing gaps in one's thinking and exploring those. Beyond this dictionaries reveal from their own data a constant referall to etymologies which forces one to look into changes of meaning as they occur to words at a same time that they pretend there are none because only the current worldmodel is taken as real and which makes up historical phases when such ideas changed. The general method of use appears to be devised by Ramon Lully, a missionary who devised a thinking machine based on the names of god which for us are verbal categories, nowadays only accepted when reducible to quantities. So how big is a soul or what does it weigh?


         A clear break occurs around the Middle Ages when people still thought in mainly visual terms and not solely in words. Erasmus may be taken as a first "rational" man since he was able to read silently, at the time a notable occurence, where now every child can do this. Then another break occurs when hieroglyphics were rendered into the demotic which reduced them to their first letters as our alphabet. Before that mime and ritual were in use during archaic times that were converted to art forms as images and out of which by a shorthand referall to a significant feature became our letters. A begins as a bull which leads the herd, shortened to its head as our lower case 'a', although Greek alpha shows this better. Aristotle is typical here when he declared man has broad, flat nails, when all other animals have claws. It all depends on what we take to be typical or significant as to what will foreground. I for one, here take man's typical and unique feature to be his runaway imagination, or should I say evolving imagination? The oldest known painted pebble is some 3,000,000 years old found at Makapansgat, Africa. For all we know it was used as an oracular tool, a trigger to imagination. We seem to have lost some significant features of our imagination in this curtailing process down to essentials.


         Hmmm, for something that cannot be fully understood I did rather well, I did, or did I? We're being sold a schlemiel pup here. Knowledge divides things between subjective, which is about raw experience versus objective as observed or researched by a specialist expert and pickled in words. Sloppy general definitions we all tend to rely on misdirect us or fail to inform fully enough. I've chosen MW, because on average it does reasonably well. In this instance it calls mystic an adjective where it is also used as a noun, but no great matter. The key thing to focus on here is initiate, which, if so, it can be taught or caught by demonstration.  Once people were taught such things. What I am trying to do here is stay away from standard psychology which is enacted by a psychologist, who, it seems, knows better than we do, hohum. We cannot, it seems, know ourselves unless interpreted by an agent, appointed by the Government. We incidentally picked up on paradox in the definitions as also rightfully included. All I really did was consult my common sense or intuition as to what feels right, also known once as a con-science, for 'knowing together with'. I chose to use logic because it gives us a pattern to reason with that keeps away from content and this sure widened the context to something explorable by finding fault or deficiencies


         Two: mathematicians tell us:

1: One of the chief duties of the mathematician in acting as an adviser to scientists is to discourage them from expecting too much from mathematics. N. Wiener  [ who invented Cybernetics by encouraging free gossip in a research institute's staffroom during the war]

2: "Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine." K Godel [look for his proof]

And googling "higher mathematics" I found this gem:

"By a mathematician: What is mathematics? Four provably equivalent definitions of mathematics:

1:  Mathematics is the part of science you could continue to do if you woke up tomorrow and discovered the universe was gone. I do not know the author of this elegant definition put on the web by Dave Rusin.

2: The human mind has first to construct forms, independently, before we can find them in things. Albert Einstein.

3: In mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them. John von Neumann

4: Mathematicians are mad tailors: they are making "all the possible clothes" hoping to make also something suitable for dressing... Stanislaw Lem, "Summa Technologiae" (translated) [ He's supposed to write S.F.?]

He adds: "For me, Goedel's results are the crucial evidence that stable self-contained systems of reasoning cannot be perfect (just because they are stable and self-contained). Such systems are either very restricted in power (i.e. they cannot express the notion of natural numbers with induction principle), or they are powerful enough, yet then they lead inevitably either to contradictions, or to undecidable propositions." 



         In a word Logic tenants an imaginary realm, quite detached from any reality. Goedel did a Double Bind on math by checking on the meanings of words used. I poked 'foundations of mathematics' into Google and this showed up. Internet is the most marvelous toybox once one gets past the commercial hype. Now since Russell and Whitehead in "Principia Mathematica", one of the more unread books around, tell us that logic and math do the same thing so we can take this to refer to words as well.  I like no 1 where the real universe is not needed to do logic and math, which means it's all in our imagination or virtual and artificial. Don't you get free gifts when you know what to look for! Yet logic is what we are told is used to construct knowledge. By converting an event and experience to a logically constructed pattern we lose what the Buddha called suchness and otherwise known as haecceity, essence, quiddity, soul and the likes or just those bits that matter most to us, our feelings, which are formally denied or suppressed to have well defined words substituted for them and yet they are the cause of our misdoings. Which direction did that turns us around in?


         Now historically what happened is that The Enlightenment as a historical period started around the 12Th Century AD in Europe in revolt against Papal and Churchly corruption. Mass was conducted in Latin, so was the Bible, and the population having none could be sold any old pup by the local priest. But you can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of them all the time and certainly not forever. It took a while for the local vernacular to go 'normal'.  Discourse was conducted in Latin, by the learned, and around the 8th Century AD there were wandering scholars, called goliards, like Erasmus, who could or would not be a churchly cleric so they found employ at royal courts or along the roadside. The method of thinking was theology which slowly converted into what we now call the rational, well settled in by the Victorian era, which cherished logic as its means of thought. I think I have just about said enough about logic although I could rant on for another hour or so finding fault with it. Zen has it that words don't cook rice. Logic makes up patterns which is quite handy to find them alike in many fields but as for conducting one's thinking in it, I severely doubt it unless one makes expressly clear what causes a given outburst of logic. In the Rg Veda we read that: "In the beginning was desire" and to make up a list of different kinds of desires would take a long time. Babies desire cuddles and cows grass. Since then a slowly built up other revolt against rationalism has built up to lead in to the current fad of spirituality peaking around 1990 odd and moving like wild fire catching on.


         Although such folk tales as Hansel and Gretel tell us how to get out of a cage, it took films like Powder. Matrix and now "What the bleep do we know?" to really stir things up. In the medieval tale of Faustus a disgruntled monk sells his soul to Mephistopheles, a devil, in exchange for worldly goodies of the childish kind only to discover near death that his soul was his very being he could not sell, for it is our life force that inspires a lump of meat to be active. This recalls earlier "Everyman" where god and the devil have a debate as to who controls souls. God allows the devil to have a go at Everyman and he failed. And that recalls the earlier biblical tale about Job, who, in utter trust of god, undergoes all sorts of bad experiences only to be redeemed in the end. Similarly Dumme Hans goes in search of the goose that lays the golden eggs, a global mythic motif, to get it given to him by sharing his lunch with a dwarf in the forest, where his two smart brothers tried to finagle the dwarf by sharing nothing but lies. So right along this change from Theology into Logic we get folk tales telling us otherwise.


         In effect should we read Plato, instead of textbooks about him, we find he calls the 'intellectus agens of mens' precisely what we now call our soul but he knew as his 'daimon" who told him things supramundane, he could not figure out himself. Nowadays we call that channelling. I have yet to come across any channelings that say things one cannot also find elsewhere. For Plato the good was to be integrated with his soul, which took an initiation to learn about. So where for us intellect is sloppy defined as that word factory in the head for him it was being inspired by what we now call intuition or conscience. But this can just as well be called whatever it is that alerts us to take notice of something, be it a cloud, an empty tum or something going on in our mind. It has nothing to do with morality or ethics but with what we directly know to be the right thing in any circumstance. This concerns living in an eternal "now" which has nothing to do with time and space but concerns the kind of world children live in, transcendental to or beyond time and space, more or less living in the very moment of experience and deciding there and then what feels right to do. That won't work too well when we are too screwed up by misinformation as to what we really are. As the imprisoned poet, Oscar Wilde, said. "Do  I contradict myself, very well, I contradict myself". It's silly to take an umbrella when the sun shines, although in New Zealand it may be smart.


         All that is found in the oldest belief system we know, Jain philosophy or religion. It tells us that as spirits we in-volve in seven stages or periods or as spirit descend into the material body only to revert into e-volving back into spirit. That too is peddled by occultism or Hermetism which went occult or hidden or underground when rationalism got to be dominant. This acccepts that spirit is always with us, even when we don't listen. The curiosity is that books and manuscripts are quite open about such things up to about the 12th Century but got to be more and more obscure and disguised in anagogic metaphors. That concerns that word 'sacred' and 'secret' as hidden. Now while it is true and valid that as we get used to heing a body as babies we get embroiled with acting through the body but being blithely ignorant of what causes or drives our being, namely the life force or soul or what animates us. Why 'animated' why not 'enliven'? Basically rationalism is about truth by authority rather than individual experience.


         So, to go through the dictionary routine again

SACRED< sloppy: concerned with religion or religious purposes (Example: "Sacred texts")

MW-> Etymology: Middle English, from past participle of sacren to consecrate, from Old French sacrer, from Latin sacrare, from sacr-, sacer sacred; akin to Latin sancire to make sacred, Hittite saklAi- rite

1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods>

   b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>

2 a : worthy of religious veneration : HOLY

   b : entitled to reverence and respect

3 : of or relating to religion : not secular or profane <sacred music>

4 archaic : ACCURSED

Consecrated is big noise for dedicated, taking as real, getting hooked by a belief and so on; with the rider, for the moment. Again, at its simplest, this concerns our awareness alerting system taking special notice


SECRET, sloppy: information known only to a special group (Example: "The secret of Cajun cooking")

noun:   something that should remain hidden from others (especially information that is not to be passed on) (Example: "The combination to the safe was a secret") [ and what do we need a safe for?]

MW: Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin secretus, from past participle of secernere to separate, distinguish, from se- apart + cernere to sift -- more at SECEDE, CERTAIN

1 a : kept from knowledge or view : HIDDEN

   b : marked by the habit of discretion : CLOSEMOUTHED

   c : working with hidden aims or methods : UNDERCOVER <a secret agent> [ you could say that again!]

   d : not acknowledged : UNAVOWED <a secret bride> e : conducted in secret <a secret trial> [enough said]

2 : remote from human frequentation or notice : SECLUDED [frequent means often]

3 : revealed only to the initiated : ESOTERIC

4 : constructed so as to elude observation or detection <a secret panel>

5 : containing information whose unauthorized disclosure could endanger national security -- compare CONFIDENTIAL, TOP


UNDERHANDED means done without attracting observation. [hopefully!]

SECRET implies concealment on any grounds for any motive <met at a secret location>. [Yep. powergames]

COVERT stresses the fact of not being open or declared <covert intelligence operations>. [?bedroom talk?]

STEALTHY suggests taking pains to avoid being seen or heard especially in some misdoing <the stealthy step of a burglar>.

FURTIVE implies a sly or cautious stealthiness <lovers exchanging furtive glances>. [obvious to everybody!]

CLANDESTINE implies secrecy usually for an evil, illicit, or unauthorized purpose and often emphasizes the fear of being discovered <a clandestine meeting of conspirators>. [whoopeeh!]

SURREPTITIOUS applies to action or behavior done secretly often with skillful avoidance of detection and in violation of custom, law, or authority <the surreptitious stockpiling of weapons>.

UNDERHANDED stresses fraud or deception <an underhanded trick>.


          In older myths we find Plato's cave and the likes of Pandora's box, which is Mother to Schrodinger's box. The curly clue is in MW 1d, "not acknowledged", which should have "publicly" or "formally" added. BTW 'clue' comes from 'clew' as in a ball of wool, which can get unravelled; doing it right now. In a way it's quite true but tells us nothing much. It's quite clear logic does not acknowledge it for the simple reason that being in touch with our soul is at a raw and direct experience level which, unless one is also one of those, cannot be told from the outside. I cannot tell how smart, religious, intense or humorous or detached, etc., you are until I get to know you much better than mere acquaintance. As the Buddha has it: "When Buddhas meet they nod and pass, what is there to say?". "Happy" for example is when your body ticks over as it should which is true for children but not for adults judging by the dull glaze in their eyes. It is not an emotion to cultivate or impose but a sensation to experience, something I cannot do for you. Basically unless you wish to tell me about it I'm clueless, unless I be enlightened. We now have instead of objective as decided by an expert versus subjective as allowed for you, the esoteric, what gives inside, versus exoteric what gives outside for others to see. We are these days supposed to get happy when chasing distractions, getting rich or whatever is made out as the latest fad around. All that does is keep you unaware of what feelings are around inside.  As pres Bush puts it whenever anything happens be sure to know it's pre-planned and organised.

Quote: "Statesman George Bush, Illuminati, the old man - as a response to what would happen after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He referred to the Council on Foreign Relations. "... in politics nothing is accidental. If something happens, be assured it was planned this way". [aren't they stupid showoffs!]

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks."   Dorothy Parker Rothschild


         Historically the first reported liar around is Homer's Odyssey where Ulysseus, the king, goes gallivanting around the countryside in search of adventure and gets plenty of it, all typical of possible ways to grow up some. When he returns home only his dog recognises him, as dogs would regardless of appearances. Not even his wife does. Because the convention in those days was that no Queen could rule a country alone she is beset by dozens of suitors she keeps at bay by telling them she is weaving a memorial tapestry to her husband, which she does by day and unweaves at night. Ulysseus calmly throws a party for the suitors and, when they are  asleep in a drunken stupor, calmly murders the lot. That's the first historical instance that man can be devious and lie or cheat. My fancy favours the interpretation that with farming being very successful and leading to trade that in making a profit you don't get honest. Egyptian history shows that storing material goods and trading needed record keeping which took off around 4,000 BC odd, exactly the time when E.A. Wallis Budge, the translator of 'The Egyptian Book of the Dead', in the preface finds the scribes no longer understood hieroglyphics as they were not put in the right place alongside the images. He dates this event as between 6 and 4.000 BCE.  Farming as an official culture wide pastime took off in Sumeria, around 7,000 BC and in those days of horse and cart travel things did not move or change that fast. It took from 900 AD to the 15th Century for printing to reach Europe from China when Gutenberg invented movable print although the Dutch reckon it was Laurentz Janszoon Coster did it. Similarly the Amerindians told the European invaders that until they arrived evil was unknown in America. It was Aristotle who tutored Alexander the Great in his logic which enabled him to become emperor of all Persia and go mad in the process. The poor boy could not handle it.


         It follows that when we are screwed up in several ways to find again our original connection with spirit the odds are much against. The ideal pattern would be that after having passed through our teenage this should naturally emerge as shows with so miscalled primitive people whose happiness shines out of their eyes. Then we can identify the right way and take our life as a mere charade laid on by spirit for us to learn from experience. The situation today is quite different from the good old days before the fall from grace when we were naive and innocent as against now when we know man can be honest and lie and cheat and bluff, himself and others, as well have material goodies galore which could make life easy but instead is distorted and used to make a profit from the other fellow. We now know about good and evil which got us cast out of paradise and have to find ways to transcend this. As I hope to have shown logic is not much good with that unless we also know what drives, causes or impels the show. In effect having the right kind of experience has intuition recognise a pattern between beginning and end as is clear when reading myths. So we don't really need to create such patterns with logic, the engineer's way to "suck it and see" is much better because then you'll know all the variations on such themes as well.



         Which leaves me to tackle magic for the moment. It is not what is magic, but how does it work? Actually kids do it in play by dressing up and make believe whatever takes their fancy. The trick is to harmonise feelings and imagination in serious make believe which requires an intense focus. We have empathy, mimpathy and sympathy, 'pathy' meaning feelings as in empath or sensitive, another word for psychic. Empathy is to get in resonance or harmony with whatever can turn you on or off. Sympathy pours mine into yours as in " I know how you feel, dear", which we seldom do. Mimpathy is to mimic feelings as kids do when copying adults in play, trying to understand them. Empathy is the word that covers either direction of doing this. It shows in stone age cave art where the Sorcerer naked, actually nude, dressed up in a deerskin into a ritual we're not shown. Make believe can be very serious stuff and it is no wonder even our era strongly makes use of it. Medieval art has naked for lewd, mundane, physical stuff we are shown in films and nude for sacred magic, usually done in natural colours.


         We're told as much by Quantum Physics when it tells us that consciousness is involved with physical events making that random aether flux change into material forms of longer duration. We can do this ourselves by, as it were, creating a loop of desire, shaped by imagination and fired off by desire we send into spirit to have something happen, when it comes home to roost in and for us in a feedback loop. To do this well we have to go into a trance which excludes all but what we intend to happen, the clearer thought through the better. Israel Regardie, in his many tomes on magic, tells us the magician may imagine he is the god ordering things, as does the god of Genesis, play he is the petitioner praying to his god to grant him his wish or a craftman organising symbols, talismans and rituals to suit in pre-planned mimicry of the real thing. So it is about sending out a feeling stuffed into packed together thoughts or ideas. In order to do so we have to be in touch with spirit which is everywhere around inside and out and the more so we care the better it works. The creative intelligence of the universe knows everything that goes on, having created this in a first place. As for the three wishes, be careful what you wish because you may get what you ask but not exactly what you need. So the need is to be very clear and precise which takes hard training to learn. Oliver Homes, the Victorian, could levitate at will which is relatively minor to what Magicians in Arabic tales do. So did St Francis of Assisi.


         This is where Logic applies well when hooked together with causes set up in order to arrange the mimicry imagined to match what will happen. Inventors, artists and creatives do this when minding things for years until it yields. Once we have thought things through we stop thinking and start pouring feelings into this by simply minding to bear in mind what we are after. Mine is into understanding things and it works for me. I am not much interested in doing things, or practicing rituals or acquiring skills although that is what most people do. It made the 4 and 3 minute mile possible. Everything is possible, provided and only one goes about it properly. And there's the rub as we can only learn this by experience. It requires an intuitive mind to figure out what one did wrong when it does not work and to change that so it will work. It is clear that our society by manipulating us from the outside to hem us in to their control neurosis works because all too many people imagine it is real. What we treat as real will behave as real, whether it is seeing ghosts or making money. Money is a symbol as  are ghosts who having died still believe their body was real and stick around to animate a now dead lump of flesh. So it varies by the level or frequency of body, mind and spirit as what we can attain.


         Plato used to believe that all forms and possibilities already existed in an ideal realm. So how then did the inventions and changes since his time come about? His academe believed City States were made forever. A good example is to test for whether a given substance is a mixture or a compound. A compound has all the elements interact together as one so it can be crystallised. In doing so to get this to happen is immensely difficult but once and after it has been done it can be readily repeated. The same holds for that 100th monkey effect where it takes one monkey to do something original and it spreads out from there. Thus it is told of avatars, achieved spirits embodied here who do not need to return to earth, that they make pathways into spirit other people can thereafter tap or source. This is now mooted by Rupert Sheldrake as morphogenesis which imputes us doing this making of forms Plato thought pre-existed. Our habit system does much the same. Archaic man began with thinking he was brethren with animals and had animal totem ancestors. But at some stage he changed into having human gods symbolic of spirit or the life force. We can similarly think of god or the creative as embodying in matter what works so that even god is still learning, being anyhow infinite so the job is never done. There is a difference between what is potentially possible but not yet created and what is actually possible because it has been done before. Our evolution shows this too. We are now accepted to be millions of years old and it was Victorian to imagine that being dressed in whalebone corsets was the peak of humanity. It has nothing to do with bodily appearances as to what spirit or soul is attached to that body. We embody the dreams of archaic man.


         To embody or give form to something original may take generations. Man invented logic or abstracted it from how his mind works sometime during the stone ages and conceived that doing things together instead of shamanic doing it on one's own which produced what we now call a society which has gone too far into the mechanical. Not that there is anything wrong with the mechanical, the entire material universe runs that way. It is again the purpose or intent to which it is put that is wrong because it reduces us to social robots or work horses. So the pendulum swings and we now are into exploring intuition which is actually but spirit in action. With it what was once taught by initiations to selected groups has now become publicly available to anybody. The issue there is that it cannot be taught, only caught as we can only acquire experience for ourself. Nobody can do that for us. Yet, as Jung makes clear with his collective unconscious. Whatever an individual can achieve also becomes our collective inheritance so that later learning turns eACT wants taniwha outlawed under Act

ACT wants change to Resource Management Act as Ngati Naho stops roadworks because of taniwha

6 November 2002


          A good example is flatworms. A few decades ago somebody thought of mincing up trained flatworms to feed them to untrained flatworms and behold they learnt faster. Archaic man practiced his magic on plants and animals to domesticate them for our own use. Experiments with plants show they squeal when something is killed or hurt. Experiments on man show we do so too but remain unaware of this so it takes special equipment to show this. Imagine now a fully realised, enlightened person and they would know it happens, or was done to them. We were shown this in 'Powder' when the boy makes a hunter feel what it is like to be killed for an animal. With enough realised people around we will have peace on earth without enforcing it. Not that we cannot kill. There is a tale of a Sufi who was asked by a man to teach him the way. The sufi told him to obey him in everything, which the man agreed to. He was then told to kill somebody which he refused so the Sufi would not teach him. Years later they met again and the man told him how bad a life he had had. Whereupon the Sufi told him that had he killed that man none of that would have happened. If you don't want to learn the easy way it has to be the hard way, your choice. That, as it were, is an example of black magic where we can do things to other people too for our own benefit instead of self and others. It works either way with the consequences to the doer and which is called karma or the payoff for your wishes. Karma means results. You get what you asked for with a bill attached. Although we are free to do as we like we are not free to escape the consequences. it is a rule of magic that whatever we give out, if bad news for others, when rejected or denied returns to the giver. Black magic works only on others when they are insensitive to this.



         We have not done yet, one more riddle to go. What shall we use to replace rational logic to reshape knowledge? It stares us in the face, but we do not know it. We can use the same gambit as with dictionaries. Logic is quite deficient because as Emmanuel Kant tells us words are empty categories. In Sanscrit the word = Vac, as in vacuum, and we find in the Rg Veda that the gods come after creation, in other words a human fiction. Animals don't have gods. It is our feelings we use to supply the meanings that since Universal Education arrived has replaced old meanings with new, just as done by any bureaucrat when they seek control. But in this case the trick of the Church has been to build its churches over the top of old temple sites so here with words, the meaning has been overlaid into the old words. Historically it was during the reign of the god-kings that divine guidance was replaced by human guidance. This culminates in Alexander the Great who cut the Gordian knot with his steel sword. Literary gossip has it that during Alexander's reign the old spiritual knowledge went underground by way of the river alpheus. So let us look that one up for the trick was to use the most mundane of things for the most abstruse of meanings.


         Rob Weedon, writing in Karl Jaspers forum, mentions that "tails don't wag dogs" as a briefest ever koan about consciousness which is a function of reality as embodied in our world. We are a product of reality as much as is matter and we run by its game rules. Consciousness is non-local, or better put: local everywhere. In Greek myth, Alpheus is a river deity, son of Oceanus and Tethys. He fell madly in love, in human form, with the Nereid Arethusa and pursued her under the sea to Sicily. There she pleaded to Artemis who changed her into a fountain, which fed the river. The river Alpheus then worked its way underground to mingle with the waters of Arethusa. The river Alpheus flows through Arcadia and Elis into the Ionian Sea across the Olympian plains; all magical words. The gods of Greece lived on the mountain Olympus. So here we get a chase by Alpheus of a Nereid, our other half again, as a constant motif in myth. A nereid is any of the 50 sea nymphs, and used in Biology for a class of polychaete worms, why? Because they are named after their father Nereus, which comes from the Greek verb 'naros' for flowing and liquid and them worms wriggle just like liquid does. There is no doubt about it that our social system attempts to keep things static and stable its way, even by telling us that our all too human Nature is unchangeable, which is funny because our delightful Governments  do little else than modify, manipulate and retrain us, so there's another fib. You can possibly see why I say one has to think in anagogic mode like a poet does. Poets are good at sly jokes.


         As Hermetism and the occult it pops up in Europe in Medieval Guilds, of which Masonry is a survival. It was craftsmen who make art and it was dwarf gods who were their gods and craftsmen working underground, which is, spiritually seen, our unconscious. It can hardly just pop up, only go public when there is a continuing underground stream of knowledge flowing along, just as we see with the suppressed, over-run primitive cultures whose shamen right now also have gone public. In Indian culture there too is the never varied guru tradition of a master who taught one, going back to as far as sounds ok. Ditto for royal familitles whose ancestry also disappears into the mists of antiquity. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", has just revived the hoary tale that Jesus had children who went aground in France, and Joseph of Arimatea, his uncle, who landed in Glastonbury. It is all too obvious that Christianity stole its ideas from much older myths now that we have access to all myths. The family pattern resemblance between the life of Buddha and Jesus is remarkable even unto Buddha's Mother being called Mary and both Jesus and the Buddha being of royal bloodlines. Things do leave their traces. There's even a wicked Uncle Seth called Jehosaphat, - very like Joseph - the wandering Jew, cursed tor eternity, for the Jesus tale he is called Judas.


         The education technique of Antiquity was to plaster sacred knowledge all over the place and tell it in story form which gives us theme, plot, setting and action  as the four corners of its universe which keeps parts and wholes as a context together as one. Contrariwise our standard, rationalised knowledge only gives us the facts as details and one may not quibble with the theory, which splits this up so well. So there we are, what do poets use to do their thinking? Why, of course, anagoges, the rules of which are found in rhetoric, still used today by politicians and sermon peddlers. Basically this is about making unseen, intangible things vivid to our minds. And any rhetorician can mock up logical things as a much reduced form of that. Truth once meant when everything fits nicely together as a whole, or as Keats has it: "Truth Beauty is and Beauty Truth, that's all you need to know". But it is not, the one thing Keats missed is empathy, in-feeling, making imagination come alive. When people are empowered to think for themselves they can recognise real truth any old time.



         Mysticism which is done with our feelings and is nothing much special. It's only special because it has become rare and practised by irrational people, so rationalism tells us and that mystics have woolly minds. And that's another fib. God has no need for our worship, he already knows what we feel, so lying does not help much, that works only to deceive other people. Reading literature, stories, forces us to make up our own minds as what it means, something Aristotle calls Catharsis. Here we go again, sloppy has it as "purging of emotional tensions".

MW-V Etymology: New Latin, from Greek katharsis, from kathairein to cleanse, purge, from katharos


2 a : purification or purgation of the emotions (as pity and fear) primarily through art

   b : a purification or purgation that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension

3 : elimination of a complex by bringing it to consciousness and affording it expression  

There's nothing very deep or mysterious about this as living in the flow of our experience, the things we feel and live through, it happens all the time when the penny of understanding drops about what fools we were yesterday to make mistakes we dislike and determine never to make again, but usually do until we get rid of the bad habit which makes us. And doing that is called acquiring wisdom. What does wisdom mean? Simple, it comes from 'iwis" = I know, by doing or from experience, because knowledge by acquaintance is called 'kennen' which translates as "know" and well confused in English, and doom as in doomsday books that records kings' judgments as precedents, if they are wise enough. And that lot we inherited as proverbs which started life as oracles because folk repeated them, recognising their truth. Just as for a bodily purge we can do a mental and emotional purge as housecleaning. So in the end it boils down to: "live and learn".


         We do this spontaneously, which comes from Latin "sponte" meaning 'of one's own free will and voluntarily'. It's built in because if a rabbit does not spontaneously learn that snakes and eagles are best avoided first time round it ends up as breakfast. So where does rabbit get that kind of insight wisdom? It becomes an effort when we are wrongly and mis-informed. I have a nice example. This is the second version of the article, The computer hung so I lost the first one. I got upset and sulked for a day or so until I laughed at myself living in self-annoyance about losing my "precious", because I cannot repeat myself, once on paper it clears my mind to be re-scripted and is gone the way of all things. So I started again, and as per usual, my unconscious had done some more data crunching and what came out is this one, which hindsight tells me is better so no great loss. Thinking it over it was preparatory noises to this one. I sort of live half in doubt, half in certainty over the fact that there's no such thing as a coincidence because I don't make happen everything in my life. There's the opposition trying to turn me into a devout believer of their fibs. Can anybody prove or disprove that the wrong finger poke on the keyboard was an accident or a Freudian slip? You tell me and then we'll both know. Lastly the phrase "sugar free mental diets" pops up in my mind but I'm not sure what to do with it, maybe it should have been the title, who really knows?



         In final summary what appears to be the case is that we arrive with certain potentials, kind and number unknown, each of which we can refine to a stage where we can join up with the unitive nature of reality. Just as a baby starts with a waddle that can be refined to an art form as mime, dance and ritual and a child's scribbles can lead to a Michelangelo or Picasso, or again a Beethoven and our thinking into an Einstein and Cheops or Hawkings or he who took 30 years to solve Fermat's last theorem, so why not mystics too? And Schwarzenegger may dream of being muscleman. Given we are a body, mind and spirit then some of those potentials are not relevant or useful to each of the body, mind and spirit, but once we find a relevancy we begin, as usual, stumblingly exploring to refine into an art and science down to essentials, which fits both in a historical and individual sense. After all, it makes sense for individuals to create ideas and to make them work, after which the good news spreads around. R, M. Bucke, MD., Cosmic Consciousness, University Books, USA, 1961, found that gifted individuals spread their genes into the pool. Now Gariyev, Russian academician, has recently proposed that our so called junk DNA actually constitutes a holographic projector for which Kanshzhen in China changed a hen into a duck by holographic means, which confirms Sheldrake's morphogenesis for which it needs nothing more miraculous than us being able to self-manipulate this setup which then accounts for evolution. All that means is that we are a creator's scribbling tools. Ultimately, I surmise, we may learn how to integrate the lot and be a Nietschean superman or what to Plotinus would be a god. It is then natural that across a population we find most all potentials being explored and used. It is even the case that historically and geographically now this now that focus of interest dominates.


NOTE: I all this I ignore a vital aspect, technology. Medieval changes came along with the shift from manuscipts, stored in cloisters, where the quill can draw as easily as write into Gutenberg mainly letters with Lully, Erasmus and Ramus being word oriented a sitiation now reversed  from Libraries into Internet, which derserves another article