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 p
recisely 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.
MindStar Page 15
