MindStar

by Michael A Aquino

  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.

  Never
theless 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