The Wild Mind – Part XI


Scientology 1.0.0 – part 18

“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” — Albert Einstein

The third eye

Man has always been aware that there is something additional to this existence, something greater than what seems to be available to the five senses.

This as different from an awareness of the infinitude of space or supreme realities such as God, as deeply dismaying or uplifting as those things are. This is simply the wild sense that there is, well, to put it simply: more.

However, one can easily become entangled in this, resulting in pathologies of insufferable yearning, sometimes overshadowed by a disregard for, or even contemptuous disgust with, the ordinary, mundane, everyday; what is, in a word, normal. Alternatively, this perception, this intuition that there is more, can set one on an unbelievably exciting journey as a Seeker.

The following is a brief account of a body of information that, I believe, despite its poor reputation and many very real dangers and pitfalls, is helping to lift mankind up to a new level, a better condition, opening the doors to what is, in fact, more. This evolution, and it is an evolution, will hopefully forestall the perversions of scientism and materialism from fully dominating Western thought and take civilisation to more civilised heights.

I am going to do my best to plot out just a very little of this crazy, confusing, yet touchy (oh, so touchy!) subject. Not to teach or show anyone how to do anything—everything can be found in books—but to describe the breadth and importance of the field, to help get it out of the “fringe” category it got put in, and to show its real importance (and give my usual opinions). If I do a good job, I hope to not just raise doubts in the minds of those who have dismissed it (these are typically the same people who dismiss religion, without which there simply is no more), but to possibly inspire more receptive minds to look into it, if they haven’t already.

Okay, that’s the intro. Now:

The occult

There’s a great book: The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall.1 This gentleman, Mr. Hall, really knows about esotericism (a subject intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialised knowledge or interest) and is the best writer to start with if you aren’t familiar. (Actually, even if you are, he’s an endless resource and one of the best thinkers regarding these matters.)

The previous article was about alchemy. Alchemy and occultism overlap, but they need to be separated out today because of what happened about five hundred years ago.

Indeed, this idea of a fundamental primordial erudition, or prisca theologia (an ancient study of the nature of God), as it was termed in the Renaissance, is one of the main focal points of occultism, especially as it developed in the early stages of the modern era (approximately 1500 A.D.), certainly by the 17th century: that an ancient knowledge, once known and practiced, became lost somehow, but may yet be found and known again.

This possible “return to grace” is shades of the Fall, sure, and one could have any number of ideas about the journey of man: whether he is battling degeneration and striving for a return, or evolving, moving ever forward to a better, brighter future, come what may. But that there was a profound treasure of lost knowledge to be rediscovered was, and still is, a unifying concept in occultism. If it could be found and recognised once more, it could then shine a great, unfathomably bright light upon the world, leading civilisation to heights long since lost with the disappearance of places like Atlantis, Lemuria, Kumari Kandam, and Shambhala. There are obvious similarities between this goal and that of some aspects of religion, but the Holy Mother Church (as well as most sects) is and should be extremely conservative. Occultism, conversely, is anything but. Conservative, that is.2

This business of there being an ancient wisdom lost is pretty fascinating. If there was such knowledge, then how was it so unwise as to get itself lost in the first place? Speculation as to the reasons for this could bear valuable fruit.

Another running theme is that of the Masters, or Hidden Superiors, or Secret Chiefs. Not entirely dissimilar to angels and saints but not the same either, these are a number of adepts (skilled beings rather than divine beings, although they may be that too, I don’t know) who, possessing this wisdom, are, by some mysterious means, guiding men.

However, what all occult practices definitely have in common is a deep understanding of the profound role aesthetics, intuition, and imagination play in the game of life.


As mentioned, the occult’s roots go all the way back to the earliest magical and mystical practices of man. But the word “occult,” because it is usually misunderstood by the general populace, is often used today as a pejorative.

The word “occultism” actually began to be used in France in the 19th century. Today, the term is used by scholars of esotericism mostly to refer to the revival of such traditions at that time as well as to new developments that have come into existence since. In 1875, the word was introduced into English by the Russian ex-patriot and mystic, Helena P. Blavatsky.

In the 1960s, it began to be used as a putdown. Partly because it became a plaything for the drug culture, but also because the term became entwined with the newly coined tabloid buzzword “cult,” referring to people like Charles Manson, who was not an occultist.3

Then, the final nail in its coffin: by the time the 1970s rolled around, the occult had gotten mixed in, stew-like, with satanism and, tragedy of tragedies, the New Age movement. The New Age movement, as it developed through the 1960s and 70s, is a farrago of so many various and sundry practices, everything equally significant, that it rather tends to defeat a proper investigation of spirit. (There is a lot of valuable information and practice in the New Age movement, it’s the “this is equal to that is equal to everything” aspect that’s the problem.)


The usual dictionary definition of “occult” today is: involving or relating to mystical, supernatural, or magical powers, practices, or phenomena.

The more accurate definition is: Involving or relating to hidden forces, secret practices, or phenomena. From late 15th century from Latin occultare ‘secrete’, frequentative of occulere ‘conceal’, based on celare ‘to hide’; from occult– ‘covered over’.

Tossing in that word “supernatural” really throws a spanner in the works because supernatural is more of a mediaeval concept, when everybody was fantastically superstitious about nature. The supernatural just refers to hidden forces and phenomena, which, in turn, refer, actually, to Natural Law.

Natural Law

Natural Law: a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature, right reason, or religion and as ethically binding in human society (emphasis mine). To be clear here, “law” is defined as: particular phenomena that always occurs if certain conditions are present.

Natural Law refers to the repeating patterns in reality that can be deduced and applied independently of positive law, as revealed by close observation of the values inherent in human nature. (Positive law consists of the enacted laws of a state or society that all too often deviate from Natural Law, thus giving us our ephemeral societies and civilisations.)

History books get into the background of Natural Law by discussing Plato and Aristotle, specifically Aristotle, but actually it goes straight back again to Thales of Miletus and the origins of Western philosophy.

Before the birth of Western philosophy, there was mythology, which outlined how to behave in the world if you were going to survive. But myths don’t isolate what was contained within them that made them so useful. Figuring this out was the whole point of Western philosophy and, eventually, psychology.

Something strange is happening with us humans. We can act in certain ways entirely against our own best interests. Or not. No other life form seems to want to do this with such persistently reckless abandon. The working theory in philosophy and psychology is that something in our nature just doesn’t know better without a proper education of some sort. If so, and it has been working out this way, then there are some overarching principles that, if properly codified, could explain how certain behaviours work as well as they do. There is something in the very fabric, the warp and woof, of the universe that, if properly observed and taught, could help man create a better and more lasting civilisation. If people knew these codes, these fundaments of reality, perhaps they could do better. Remember, the Greeks were intimately aware of the many civilisations that had come and gone in the previous thousands of years in a way we moderns have long since forgotten, including such antediluvian cultures as Atlantis, so they understood there would be great value in once and for all figuring this stuff out.

Due to the excesses of dictators as well as the pastimes of religious and political fanatics, who have a fondness for burning books, exactly how the Greek philosophers discovered and compiled their ideas is pretty sketchy.

Apparently, it was Thales who got onto the ancient art of mathematics and began to work things out from that angle. Mathematics is the science of number, quantity, and space, either as abstract concepts (pure mathematics) or as applied to other disciplines such as physics and engineering (applied mathematics). Previously, the ancient world used the discipline of numbers to build authoritarian, hierarchical societies that worked from the priest-king’s point of view and didn’t always include the whole society, which may have caused them to be short-lived.

The upshot of all their work is that man is not “constructed” differently than the universe he inhabits; nothing is. He is a microcosm of the macrocosm, period, full stop. His “geometry” is a pure reflection of the geometric patterns of the whole, as issued forth by the true perfection of the One Thing that created them. Thus, man does really well when he is in harmony with these grand patterns (called heaven) and doesn’t do well when in disharmony (called hell).

But man also has a choice. He does not always “fall into error” in the simple way that many other forms of life can and seem to; he can outright ignore Natural Law, even if he knows it intimately, the foolish cuss. I mean, what’s up with that?

That’s a whole other story, however. To get to the point of fully answering that question, a lot of other developments have to take place. Many different streams of knowledge must come together, one of them being what will eventually be known as “occultism.”

Mysticism and occultism

It is correct that the occult involves or is related to mystical practices or phenomena, but it is also incorrect. Here’s a not-so-humble attempt at separating and clarifying these two somewhat different things:

On the other hand, occultism deals with the knowledge of the mechanics of reality, similar to alchemy, and the techniques by which reality might be managed in some way or altered, as well as influencing the invisible or divine forces that interplay and underlie the mundane. In other words, the occult deals with the technologies of perception, psychology, and reality by means of harnessing hidden forces, spiritual and otherwise. It has links to both hermeticism and mysticism, but it may also incorporate many other practices. True occult praxis may still be developmental of the self, like mysticism, and may result in mystical experiences, but there is a distinct objective orientation in the occult, as I’ll explain. This cannot be overstated: the difference between mysticism and the occult is not so much one of knowledge and technology as it is one of access, purpose, and outcome.

Occult technologies

So, the occult is the field of invisible powers and their manipulation.

Occult technology (the word technology comes from the early 17th century: from Greek tekhnologia ‘systematic treatment’, from tekhnē ‘art, craft’ + –logia denoting a subject of study or interest) is primarily predicated on an intimate knowledge of Natural Law, its use, and consequences, in order to penetrate, or “intuit,” the realities that lie beyond what can normally be perceived with only the five senses. This can be done because Natural Law contains within it limitless possibilities that can be contacted without necessitating its violation (as is usually attempted by rank amateurs), which is impossible in any case (thank goodness).

Initiations, rituals, practices, rites, magic, and spells, when properly performed, are intended to amplify one’s energy as well as hone and direct one’s attention. Thus the experience of the physical world around one’s self, both visible and hidden (as any physicist will tell you, it is mostly hidden4), may be altered, even manipulated, with the possibility of perceiving and thus negotiating the attentions and intentions of other physical or non-physical forces. The purpose of all this is to modify circumstances in reality, both objectively and subjectively, so that access to the true workings of the universe (Natural Law) might move one on to other, higher levels of reality where alternate portals of perception may be located and possibly opened. Ta-dah!

Of course, many aspects of natural law would be based on or expressed by invisible physical forces. Things such as magnetism, sympathetic and affinity behaviours (such as gravity), and the internal workings of any system that ceases to function when examined too closely (no, I’m not referring to quantum mechanics,5 I’ll explain more about this in the next article). It’s also easily observable that most of us are clueless as to what these laws really are and how to align with them, given the simple fact that so many people are miserable.

Okay, that’s the overall look. The following is a little of the history of what happened after the Greeks and Hermes Trismegistus.


Before the rise of occultism in the 19th century, there were a few other developments that would form its roots.

Gnosticism was a prominent movement in late first and second-century Christianity that was partly pre-Christian in origin (the exact origins are unknown). Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge (a heavenly being, subordinate to the Supreme Being, that is considered to be the controller of the material world and antagonistic to all that is purely spiritual), and that Christ was an emissary of the more “remote” Supreme Being.

Gnosis: knowledge of spiritual mysteries. From New Latin, from Greek gnṓsis a seeking to know, equivalent to gnō-, base of gignṓskein. The ancient Greek gignṓskein (γιγνώσκειν) is the present active infinitive of the word “know.” This means “to know, perceive, judge.”

The human spirit could be redeemed through gnosis of the Supreme Being. It was thought to be heretical by some other Christians, however.

So what was so heretical? And what does that have to do with the occult? Well, the Gnostics believe in knowledge based on personal experience or perception. In a religious context, gnosis is mystical or esoteric knowledge based on direct participation with the divine. This idea of a personal experience of hidden forces (oh, oh) is one of the keys to occultism. Also, the Gnostics are conceptualists whereas the movements that would ultimately become the state controlled religion of Rome were staunchly literalist. In other words, for the Gnostics, Jesus is symbolic, for the rising Roman church he was historical.

Another thing was a conflation of the demiurge with Yahweh of the Old Testament (oops).

The first and second centuries were the period of Christian history called the Patristic Era; patristic comes from Latin pater, meaning “father,” which means “authority.” Things were getting organised, you see, in preparation for what would become the Catholic Church, which would actually turn out to be a very good thing, given that the pagan Romans had failed to update their operating software: Jupiter’s days were numbered. Jupiter, being the chief god of the earlier Roman state religion, is a sky god associated with thunder and lightning and a god personifying total force, which is a very different sort of being than Jesus, who taught additional methods of handling life, less cudgel and more flow. (Of course, various popes would soon forget this, turning away from spirit and instead becoming avatars of worldly power, but that’s another story.)

The Christians are monotheists, and this was the time when the world was mostly polytheistic. The exact nature of this new god, somewhat borrowed from Judaism, was getting worked out by these early Church Fathers, which was proving to be a very tough job. This job had to be done, though, and one of the methods of His delineation was to “give” God human attributes, as was often the polytheist’s custom, a little bit of a switcheroo, for sake of ease I suppose. This anthropomorphism trick is a traditional method of conceptual communication in the West, which isn’t far from wrong, God being the macrocosm and man being the microcosm and all, but if it’s viewed literally, then all sorts of cognitive distress may develop.

The Gnostics, however, didn’t want to get organised under any of those church fathers because they believed in the direct and personal knowledge of the One Supreme Being (which they termed the Monad, or The One), and no demiurge, let alone a bunch of puffed-up, self-important patriarchs, were going to get in their way, no sir! Besides, the up and coming Christian fathers were prioritising repentance and redemption, for which they were to be the gatekeepers, whereas the Gnostics weren’t. Gatekeeping, I mean.

A little note here as to the demiurge: There is, I think, a bit of a glitch in Gnosticism. In Gnosticism, the demiurge is the creator of the physical universe, not the remote Supreme Being; this includes the physicality of us humans. The second-rate aspect of the demiurge’s creation echoes disgust, I fear. Thus, Gnostics have what can be an irritating ascetic-like tendency to view the material world as “merde.” So, materiality, especially the materiality of the human body, is seen as corrupt and limiting, like a prison built for us to suffer in.

This perception, the feeling of contempt for all things incorporate, especially the “odoriferous meatbag” we inhabit (not my view), didn’t (I assume) start with the Gnostics. It has to be as old as man himself, at least. I say this because it’s how one can often feel when crushed by the weight of reality, what Scientology 1.0.0 calls being interiorised. The idea of getting “free” of the physical, when it feels literally like a trap, is often a powerful motivation for many to enter the enlightened path. As one progresses to higher levels, however, one learns there’s no escaping that for which you have no love. In fact, there’s no escaping any such thing so long as one desires to “escape” and run away. Not ever.

This gnostic perspective of the universe informs part of the Scientology 2.0 worldview, by the way, as newer Scientologists, being new, are sometimes working hard to “get out of here,” (as are many, many other people involved in other practices). This is not an uncommon phenomenon, not by a long shot. In fact, the whole driving force for many of the people waiting for the Rapture6, or any other version of apocalyptic millenarianism, is partially based on this gnostic rejection of all that is earthly. This is powerful stuff and needs further clarification, which I will get to eventually. In the meantime, it should be recognised that this is not an uncommon experience and is perfectly understandable if one is unhappy, which too many people are.

The gnostics, though, certainly knew that direct knowledge of the divine, or “The One,” was the only way to true knowledge, and for them it doesn’t help to put permanent gatekeepers everywhere, such as priests and popes. This could apply, actually, to general education, not just esoteric or divine knowledge—something that all good teachers understand (state education supporters take note).

Naturally, the gnostics were heavily persecuted, eventually resulting in several spectacular bloodbaths, but the movement never died.

The Kabbalah

Kabbalah, from Medieval Latin cabbala, from Hebrew: קַבָּלָה Qabbālā “tradition,” literally, “something received,” i.e., “handed down.” Connected to the word, “cabal” meaning “clique,” which is a small, exclusive group of people. It is an esoteric discipline and school of thought in Jewish mysticism.

Its origins are said to predate world religions, going as far back as Eden. The historical, rather than mythical, Kabbalah, however, emerged from a number of earlier forms of Jewish mysticism in Mediaeval Spain and southern France. The Zohar, the main text of the Kabbalah, was written in the late 13th century.

Isaac Luria (1534–1572) is considered the founder of the Kabbalah as it is known today. The Lurianic Kabbalah was popularised in the form of Hasidic Judaism from the 18th century on. The Kabbala is pretty much the origin point of magic, as distinct from alchemy, as it was understood in Mediaeval Europe. It is a set of esoteric teachings meant to explain the relationship between the unchanging, eternal God—the mysterious Ein Sof (אֵין סוֹף, “The Infinite”)—and the mortal, finite universe (God’s creation). This is a version of, “as above, so below,” mentioned in the previous article on alchemy.

Magic and astrology as practiced in old Chaldea (Babylonia), along with the Eleusinian Mysteries, Hermetic philosophy, Gnosticism, alchemy, and other forms of occult practice, are also rooted in traditions thousands of years old. With the Kabbala, however, one gets the ingredient that will complement the occult picture all the way up until the mid-eighteenth century or so.

The Kabbalah is a vast and important body of knowledge that has influenced Western thought, not just the esoteric, far more than is indicated in the sedate and dull histories taught in most schools, and still does.

With the Enlightenment and, consequently, the rise of the natural sciences sometime in the 17th century, these and other disciplines slowly became more and more arcane, as in the manner in which they are viewed in our times. They didn’t exactly “go underground,” though; they sort of ran in a parallel fashion to philosophy for awhile and would manifest in the rites of many secret societies that were eventually formed.

Secret societies

To begin with, there have been and continue to be numerous secret societies throughout history, dating back to the dawn of civilisation. Some personality types get overly excited about them, though, especially those monolithic, authoritarian-obsessed people who want all of history to boil down into one or two neatly packaged global conspiracies and then, probably, join them. These sorts simply need to take more responsibility for themselves: think locally, act locally, and forget “global,” you know? Just to be clear, I’m the last person to say there are no groups trying to do bad things in the world; it’s just that most of them aren’t secret, and besides, they can only be properly dealt with after first being good and useful in one’s own life. (Beware the “saviours” of mankind, the veritable legions of “do gooders.”)

So, no bizarre stuff here, folks. I’m only going to mention the two “secret” societies that are known to have had an enormously positive effect on world affairs: the Rosicrucians and the Masons. Of course, the infamous Illuminati need a plug, just for forms sake. Oh, and the Templars too, of course.

Three of these had one thing in common: the idea that merit should play a chief role in the construction of workable (cooperative) societies, a very Hermetic idea and also a cornerstone of Enlightenment philosophy.

As a reminder, back in the day, there was a bit of a problem with being too public with information that didn’t fit the narrative of the all-powerful first two estates. Society was divided into three estates back then: the clergy (the first estate), the nobles (the second estate), and the commoners, peasants, and bourgeoisie (the third estate).

One had to be “wery, wery careful” with knowledge that could challenge the authority of the clergy and nobles. For instance, there were the ecclesiastical proscriptions before the 12th century and various holy inquisitions from about 1184, lasting through the first quarter of the 19th century. Although not nearly as many people were imprisoned or executed as one might think, especially given its more than 600 years of operation, the inquisition mostly got you kicked out of academies and guilds and generally censured or socially persecuted, sort of like today’s doxing and “cancel culture.”

The Knights Templar

The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Salomonici), or Templars, were a Catholic military order.

One of the wealthiest and best-known of the Christian military orders, they were founded in 1119, and existed for nearly two centuries before getting wiped out in 1307. They got their name partially because they were headquartered in the ruins on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. When they were finally disbanded a mysterious treasure disappeared with them.

A powerful hotshot named Bernard of Clairvaux somehow got them an exemption to kill the Church’s enemies in the Levant, which almost always meant outright murder.7 Later, the Pope changed the rules, allowing them to charge interest on loans, which was also prohibited under Christian law at the time. Interestingly, this last exemption helped them become the Western World’s first banking empire, not to be exceeded in political power again until the House of Rothschild, some five hundred years later. Remember the Golden Rule: those with the gold make the rules, and as a result, the Templars grew massively powerful in a relatively short period of time.

When the Holy Land was finally lost in 1302, the Templars, being closely involved in the Crusades, basically lost their support. King Philippe IV of France, being as stupid with money as most rulers are, was, of course, in debt up to his eyeballs to the Order (as were nearly all the monarchs of Europe). When old Phil wanted to get out of debt as well as regain political control lost to these famed warrior-monks, he used rumours about the Templars’ initiation ceremony to create popular distrust (rumours being that they were satanic).

So, in 1307, he pressured Pope Clement V to have many of the order’s members rounded up, tortured into giving the usual “confessions,” and then French-fried (now, there’s jurisprudence for you). Under further pressure, Pope Clement V disbanded the order in 1312, but not before many of the members of the Brotherhood had already disappeared, along with, it is rumoured, their famous treasure, thus spawning many legends and theories as to what really happened to them (ah, the mystery!), as well as a series of pop-fiction books and three movies.

That “treasure,” though, could have been part of the prisca theologia, the lost wisdom that began to be rediscovered when Cosimo de’ Medici tasked Marsilio Ficino with translating the Corpus Hermeticum. The fact this material comes from the East, specifically Arabia, the Levant and Morocco, is part of the occult mythos, by the way. Given the critical role Muslim countries played in preserving knowledge lost to Christian Europe, this is far from implausible.

Later secret societies, mainly the Freemasons, would apparently incorporate some of the legend as well as versions of the Templars’ initiation ceremony into their own rites, as well as swathes of the Corpus Hermeticim. Also, because of the Templars’ connexion to the stone built First and Second Temples, originally erected on the Temple Mount, there is the masonic element.

The Second Temple was the reconstructed Jewish house of worship that stood on the Temple Mount in the city of Jerusalem between ca. 516 B.C. and 70 A.D. Legend has it that it replaced the First Temple, the temple erected by the wisest of monarchs, King Solomon, on the same site, and that had been destroyed in 587 B.C. by Nebuchadnezzar II, king of the Babylonians. Construction on the Second Temple began some time after 539 B.C. and was in turn destroyed by the legions led by the future Roman emperor, Titus. These temples are of great significance in terms of sacred geometry; they are described at length in scripture, and they were, of course, built in stone.

Another factor could have been the complex networks created by the Templar banking organisation, their ability to entirely circumvent strict political boundaries, yet another special power granted by the Pope. This sort of networking was at the heart of Masonic organisational theory and practice.


Between 1614 and 1617, three anonymous and mysterious folios were published in Germany, and the legend of Christian Rosicross was born. These works would take some ideas that had been percolating over the years, focus them somewhat into several pamphlets, and literally change everything.

They were rife with hermetic symbolism and proposed completely new possibilities for things hidden and powerful, political and social. Many people searched high and low to discover where to sign up with this new organisation but they, whoever “they” were, proved impossible to locate (more mystery!).

Europe was on the verge of exploding into the Thirty Years War, which, when they got tired of killing eight million of themselves, would be ended by the Peace of Westphalia. This piece of paper would calm things down enough for some foresightful individuals (i.e., future Freemasons) to get rolling on some of the ideas proposed in the Rosicrucian documents.

Other, more expansive manifestos appeared over the years, but one thing is clear: those original publications set in motion wild ideas, vaguely utopian at the time but realistic enough to enflame some of the greatest thinkers of the day. The original three manuscripts were perhaps a signal that it was time to “think outside the box,” or “colour outside the lines,” or — well, you get the idea.

The fact that the author, or authors, could not be found was rather fortuitous, for this very mystery lent the whole affair a wondrous magical aspect. Later, though, one Johannes Valentinus Andreae (1586–1654) claimed authorship and called these works a “ludibrium” (ludibrium is a word derived from Latin ludus, meaning a plaything or a trivial game). Later, he would go on to contribute to this “game” in serious ways, even so.

That it was not understood as some trivial game, however, is demonstrated by how many luminaries of the day were electrified by the Rosicrucian vision. Men like René Descartes (1596—1650), for one, whose Discourse on Method is widely considered to be the official beginning of the Enlightenment. He excitedly attempted to join up with the Rosicrucians, but like many others, failed to locate them. There isn’t any direct connexion between the Enlightenment and Rosicrucianism, but, like I said, new things were in the air, so who knows?

One thing is for sure: Rosicrucianism was to be, along with the Templars, a very powerful influence and inspiration for 18th-century Freemasonry.

1 If you’re interested, get the 2003 Reader’s Edition. It’s on the Philosophical Research Society’s website. Everything by Mr. Hall is just great; I highly recommend reading literally anything he wrote as well as listening to any of his lectures.

2 The original goal of conservatism wasn’t to stop progress but to prevent change from being too disruptive to society. Instead, slow, gradual modification to organisational systems is optimal; otherwise, a working system could be broken or dismantled before a new one supplanted it. Also, to prevent progressives from destroying a system before fully comprehending why it exists in the first place.

3 Charles Milles Manson (1934–2017) was a criminal who, in the late 1960s, led a group based in California. Some of the members committed a series of murders in 1969. He apparently learned the easy trick of mind-controlling certain people using LSD.

4 Wikipaedia says 96% of the universe is made of stuff astronomers can’t see, detect, or even comprehend. Called dark energy and dark matter, it turns out that about 68% of the universe is the former, and the latter makes up about 27%. How that adds up to 96% and how these ratios were worked out, I don’t know, what with them being invisible and all.

5 Because of certain pop-cultural enthusiasms, quantum mechanics got optioned by New Agers as “proving” the nature, or existence, of spirit. This is wrong way around thinking and can be a dangerous trap, if not the most dangerous trap: matter does not “prove” the existence of anything other than itself, thus science. Attempting to prove the existence of the spirit is a project that will only lead to confusion.

6 The Rapture is one form of millenarianism, teaching the transporting of believers to heaven at the moment of the Second Coming of Christ. There are many others. One wonders why such movements always seem to think in terms of a thousand years. Perhaps “millennium” meant “eternity” once upon a time, the way “gazillion” does to children.

7 The difference between killing and murder is intent. Killing in self-defence is justified as long as that is what it took to stop the attack. Every other type of killing is some form of murder. The crusades were an invasion = murder. It’s very, very rare that an invasion isn’t.

10 responses to “The Wild Mind – Part XI”

  1. Hi Arthur,

    Well, so far I got up to Mysticism and occultism.

    (I had to look up many words since I am no native English speaker)

    But this is fascinating to be reading it on a sunny, bright afternoon here in Athens, Greece!

    I would love to:

    1) To have all this in a book! Why not? I would but it immediately
    2) To have it signed by you (lol) when you come to visit Greece and the… ruins, lol! I don’t know if you ever did (I usually don’t seek authors’ signatures on books but on this one yes, but ok I can have it without your signature, too)

    Jokes aside, this is so wonderful. Not just that you have presented all those things to us in this Series of articles but in the way you write.

    Now, I am going to get down to the second part which I have a feeling is “more juicy”

    Thank you


    • Thank you for your very kind words. I did not make it to Athens, as much as I wanted to, but instead spent my time on the Ionian, which was so magically beautiful that I still dream about it.

      There are, or at least I predict there will be, eleven more articles to come before I have said what I set out to say three years ago. Then, who knows, maybe it could all be put into a book; we shall see.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Hi there! You mean the Ionian Sea, right? Some islands, right?

        When was that?

        You know your father was there, in Corfu? Was it around 1967-8? And Corfu is the biggest and most beautiful island in the Ionian Sea. Maybe he started his first Sea Org land base there. And, you know what? I was in 1966 (a 6 year old boy) and swam in the Ionian Sea and OMG there was a sea horse in the sea. And I chased it and chased it and changed it until I caught it. I had never seen or never saw again, even, another sea horse.

        Well, some 20 years later I find out that the sea horse was the symbol of the Sea Org, who were around that time just a few miles away. I was too young to know and even if I did know they were there, I was hypnotized enough so I couldn’t know. Well, I returned to the land, my family and grew up and after 56 years I can proudly say that at least I served the Sea Org for 9 years. Right now I am on LOA! But the billion year contract is still valid for me. Don’t think I am crazy, your father stated: and you may never be the same again. So, we had to do it, lol! And I don’t regret it at all, my dear Arthur, though Miscavige destroyed the whole endeavor.


      • Ionian Sea, yes. 1968 and 1969. We were all over the coast, but mostly in Corfu for the telex line. There was a base planned, but I forget what came of it. I had a similar encounter with an octopus; they appear and then poof. Wonderful creatures everywhere in that incredibly clear water.


  2. I really like your addendum on persistence magic. “… every time you remember something, you alter it slightly so that you can remember it again.” Very good insight.

    That’s a great explanation of overrun, too. Attempting to unmock things that shouldn’t be unmocked only leads to more mass and a deteriorating condition. As your late father said somewhere, criminals have missed the distinction between their own universes and the objective MEST universe.

    The potential conflict between studying things to understand them, and simply as-ising everything, seems to have been a recurring theme in Mahayana Buddhism. ‘Cessation and Contemplation’, to quote the title of one of the basic texts of the HuaYen school. The more knowledge-oriented schools like TienTai and HuaYen sometimes criticised the Chan (Zen) masters for ending up silent and blissfully smiling at nothing. There was something like a parallel to this in the two sides of the old grades chart in Scientology – one could be audited to have one’s own case disappear, but fail to get any knowledge by not doing the training side.


    • Thank you. Yes, that’s another great point—the criminal’s failure to distinguish. I’ll add that in. Your comments as to blissful inaction in an action universe and the difference between getting audited and getting trained are also great observations.

      I had to pull that addendum temporarily because it needs a bit more clarification, being that As-isness is one of those reconcilable paradoxes. I don’t want to leave anyone unfamiliar with this stuff up in the air if I can help it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: