I CAN NO LONGER REMAIN SILENT
9 months ago
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Monday, April 4, 2011
Synchronicity & MAGIC
Synchronicity
& MAGIC
http://thealchemicalegg.com/synchN.html
Copyright Robert Michael Place 2000
this article first appeared in Llewellyn's Magical Almanac
Defining Magic:
Magic, real magic, which is not sleight of hand or trickery, is illusive and hard to define. In Merriam Webster's Dictionary, we find that the term magic is derived from the Greek "magus," which refers to a sorcerer. The Greeks borrowed this word from Persia where it was the name of a member of the priestly class, which brings out one of the essential problems in defining magic: is it separate from or one and the same as religion?
Webster goes on to define magic as, "the use of means (charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces." This seems to fit the common conception of magic. Except that Webster's definition contains the disclaimer "believed." As if to say, "some people believe in magic but we officially do not." This brings out the second essential problem. Our culture sees magic as a misconception or false belief. Although magic is an important part of ancient culture and of some modern cultures, and many people in our own culture continue to believe in and practice magic, it is officially considered a superstition.
Most studies of modern religious thought start with a discussion of the theories of the British folklorist and author, Sir James Frazer, and those of Tylor, the scholar who most influenced Frazer. In 1890, Frazer wrote The Golden Bough in which he refined Tylor's theories by placing magic on the bottom rung of an evolutionary anthropological structure, which became a major influence on modern thinking. Briefly, the theory states that humans, finding themselves helpless in nature, first attempt to control nature with magic. As culture advances, humans, realizing that magic in ineffective, abandon it and develop a belief in a higher power outside of their control, which they attempt to appease. This is called religion. When sufficient knowledge of the real workings of the world are attained, humans abandon this second superstition and enter into the wisdom that is called science. In this final stage, the culture aims at real power over nature.
Modern anthropologists have found that the neat sequential structure of this theory is not supported by their observations. Most primitive people believe in a higher power or powers and use both magic and technology (science as power over nature) in conjunction with this belief. The same can be said of prehistoric peoples, ancient Greeks, or modern Americans. Most historians trace the origins of rational scientific thought to the philosophers of the Classical world, such as Pythagoras and his follower Empedocles. Pythagoras is thought of as a mathematician and Empedocles as creating the rational discipline that led to physics. Yet, Pythagoras was the founder of a mystical religious movement and Empedocles, a member of that religion, wrote his theories in the form of poetry and would have called himself a magician. The Pythagoreans seem to be responsible for initiating a religious, scientific, and magical culture simultaneously - one that became the root of modern Western culture.
As we can see, the distinction between magic and religion seems to be an artificial one created in the West. St. Augustine, who lived in the twilight of the Classical age, helped to create the Medieval Christian worldview. He described magic as a continuation of pagan culture and therefore unchristian. His view persisted, and near the end of the Middle Ages, the papal bull of 1320 defined magic as heresy, subject to the censorship of the inquisition. This happened in spite of the of the fact that the essence of the Christian mass is the magical transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, that saints were all reported to have performed miracles, and that many Christians - including Popes - were involved in alchemy and Hermetic tradition, which was considered white magic. In order to think of magic as evil and unchristian, it was necessary to see it as something separate from religion and redefine sanctioned magic as something else - a miracle of God. Although anthropologists do not find this separation in any other culture, it continues to influence modern Western scientific thinking. Only instead of evil, scientists now think of magic as an ignorant superstition.
I feel that it is impossible to separate magic from the esoteric aspect of religion. By attempting to cut itself off from magic Western culture has vilified and driven underground the esoteric aspects of its tradition. The esoteric is that aspect of religion that has the power to create a personal inner experience, one that can lead to psychic transformation and growth - the quest for enlightenment. As a result, modern Westerners have increasingly turned to other cultures for this experience. Although this outside influence has been good for the health of our culture, the unhealthy separation from our own esoteric tradition has not been resolved.
Next, let's look at how a modern Western practitioner of magic defines it. For this, I have chosen one of the most notorious 20th century magicians, Aleister Crowley. In his Magick in Theory and Practice, Crowley defines magic as, "the Science and Art of causing change to occur in conformity with will." He precedes this definition with the following quote from The Goetia of the Lemergeton of King Solomon.
Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most divine Knowledge of natural Philosophy, advanced in the works and wonderful operations by a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so that true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and admirable effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are profound and diligent searchers into nature; they, because of their skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall seem to be a miracle. *
Crowley even goes on to quote Frazer. Crowley believed that because magic makes use of cause and effect experiments in the practitioner's attempt to control nature and not to the intervention of a spiritual agent, there is a closer analogy between magic and Frazer's final scientific stage than between magic and religion.
Although Frazer, no doubt, would have been surprised to find his work used to support Crowley's theories, Crowley seems to feel a kinship with Frazer's anti-religious sentiment, and therefore views magic as a branch of science. In fact, his definition is so broad it could include any act of technology or art under the title magic. In his next paragraph Crowley goes on to clarify that this is exactly what he means when he states that by writing his book he is performing an act of "magick" (as he spells it).
Aside from not including a disclaimer, Crowley's definition of magic is not that different from Webster's. Although, to Crowley the "charms and spells" of the magician only seem to be supernatural to the "vulgar," both admit that they cause change in the natural world. We can find this same cause and effect relationship in most modern definitions of magic.
BEYOND CAUSE AND EFFECT:
I believe that magic is synonymous with what Jung calls "synchronicity." Apparently, I am in good company in making this association, because Carl Jung, himself, has stated as much. In his introduction to the Wilhelm/Baynes edition of the I Ching, Jung says that when we successfully consult this Chinese oracle (which we may consider an act of magic) we are experiencing the principle which he termed "synchronicity."
Synchronicity is defined by Jung as a meaningful coincidence of an external event with a psychic event, such as a dream, fantasy, or thought. These events coincide in time in a way that gives them meaning for the observer. That is, they seem like communications between a divine force and ourselves, and they confirm that there is a connection or interaction between our psyche and physical reality.
Jung gives a personal example of synchronicity in his memoirs, Memories, Dreams, Reflections. First, he describes a dream that leads up to the incident. In the dream, he was introduced, for the first time, to his inner mentor archetype, a wise old man that he called Philemon. Philemon took the form of a Hellenistic Gnostic who wore an ankle-length robe, had a long gray beard, and had the colorful wings of a kingfisher. The following quote describes an event that took place a few days after the dream, while Jung tried to capture Philemon's image in a painting:
During the days when I was occupied with the painting, I found in my garden, by the lakeshore, a dead kingfisher! I was thunderstruck, for kingfishers are quite rare in the vicinity of Zürich and I have never since found a dead one. The body was recently dead - at the most, two or three days - and showed no external injuries.**
We can see that the event described had a magical quality for Jung. It might seem that Philemon had sent the kingfisher to Jung to confirm his existence, but Jung feels that these occurrences are not part of a cause and effect relationship. Instead, he insists that they are acausal acts of pure creation. He adds that when synchronicity happens an archetype - such as the internal mentor - is activated, but we should not think of the archetype as causing synchronicity. Synchronicity is simply what happens when the archetype emerges into consciousness. With this, we are breaking with the previous definitions of magic. They all try to define magic as a cause and effect relationship instigated by the magician. This is typical of our culture, which is predisposed to view all events as cause and effect. However, here we are coming to a deeper and more profound view of reality. This is where magic lives and this is why I feel that it is connected to the quest for higher consciousness.
It seems that if we are going to understand fully what is meant here we must also define Jung's term "archetype." Archetype is a term that Jung borrowed from Plato. Plato was searching for what is real and constant in the world - he felt that these two terms should be interchangeable. As a result, he did not trust his five senses to give him accurate information about reality - the exact opposite viewpoint from modern empirical science. Instead, he reasoned that the sensual world was entirely composed of temporary, time-bound objects and that the forms or patterns that these objects posses are timeless and therefore real. These are the archetypes.
In other words, if we look at our house cat what we are seeing is a creature that will die and disappear in a brief instant when its life span is compared to all of eternity. Yet, this cat contains a form that we can distinguish from other animals and that we can see is consistent with others of its species. If allowed to reproduce, it will pass this form onto its offspring, and they, in turn, will pass it onto their offspring. This form is like an immortal or divine cat, because as long as there are cats, it will not die - this is what Plato calls the real cat or archetype. The real cat is the actual intelligence responsible for the direction of the individual cat's life. We tend to call the decisions that it makes for the individual cat instinct or intuition.
Humans are caught in the same illusions about themselves as they are about other animals. The part of themselves that identifies with this individual physical life is what Jung calls the ego. The ego thinks that it is in charge because it can manipulate the world to attain its desires, but it can not decide what to desire. This decision is made for it by the real self.
Plato said that number is the bases of form and the essence of the archetypes. This view is confirmed by modern scientists who have discovered that this archetypal form is communicated to each living creature through a numerical pattern of molecules, called DNA, which are contained in the center of each cell. It would seem that science has found an empirical location for the acualization of the archetypal self.
When we include the observations of modern quantum physicists in this discussion, we find that the number of electrons and protons in an atom determine what substance it will be (another example of number determining reality); but when we try to determine the nature of these subatomic particles we find that they are made of an illusive non-stuff that can take on the quality of matter or energy. This non-stuff also has the disquieting, acausal habit of slipping in and out of existence, and when we try to prove that it is either a wave or a particle, it can be proved to be either depending on the expectation emplyed by the nature of the experiment.
These facts pull the rug out from under our materialistic worldview and show that there is a connection between psyche and matter. In the end, we are left with the fact that all physical reality is the illusive expression of the numerical thoughts of the universe - what the alchemists would call the "Anima Mundi" - and somehow, our thoughts are a manifestation of the thoughts of universe.
When Jung explored the unconscious mind, he discovered that at its deepest layer there emerged psychic patterns or personalities that were the same in all individuals and that can be found in religions and myths in all peoples throughout time. He called these the archetypes. At the deepest level of the unconscious, he, like the quantum physicist exploring matter, found that he lost sight of the archetypes as they merged into the vast sea of the collective unconscious. For this, he used the alchemical term "Unus Mundus".
When we use an oracle, such as the I Ching or the Tarot, we bring these unconscious archetypes into consciousness through the use of symbols. The archetypes, or we may call them the Gods, are a more immediate manifestation of the place where the patterns are being formed that will become our future physical reality. Therefore, this gives us the opportunity to intervene and create the future that we desire. This brings us back to the initial problem of defining magic.
When we perform magic, we use symbols to manipulate the inner world of the psyche, and thereby, change happens in the outer physical world. When we succeed in doing this, the changes seem miraculous - that is they seem to happen outside of the normal cause and effect relationships of the physical world or to intervene in them in some mysterious way. By using symbols to manipulate the psyche we are activating the archetypes - in fact in many magic rituals we deliberately contact them as gods, angels, or demons. Therefore, the magical event is the manifestation of an archetype, in other words, synchronicity.
As I said before, Jung feels that synchronicity, or magic, is an acausal act of pure creation. This concept is almost impossible for our Western trained minds to grasp. The definitions, which I quoted above, try to explain that magic is a cause and effect phenomenon making use of a force that science does not yet recognize. Whereas, saying that it is acausal is like saying that it just happens, but it seems to us that our symbolic ritual is causing it because these two things always coincide. Is magic just an illusion created by our ego to convince it that it is in charge? When we attempt to fulfil our desires through magic, it may seem to the ego that it is causing change. However, the very desires that the ego is trying to fulfil came from the archetypes. Perhaps, our magical actions are a manifestation of the archetypes as well. Jung has supplied evidence to support this view by demonstrating that most people perform daily rituals and yet remain unconscious of their symbolism.
The simplest way that I can explain acausality is to use the example of meditation. When we meditate, we observe that our thoughts emerge out of nothingness - they just appear. We can have thoughts that lead to other thoughts, but when we quiet the mind, we notice that they can just as easily emerge out of nothing - with no cause. This is synonymous with the observation of physicists that subatomic particles emerge out of nothingness. At an unconscious level, the archetypes emerge out of this nothingness also.
This void, the Unus Mundus, is the real creative power. This is where inner and outer reality comes from. If we want to effect change, this is where we must go, but when we enter the Unus Mundus the ego dissipates and we go beyond desire. So how can we manifest our desires if we no longer have them? This is the paradox of magic. Magic must take place in the middle zone, where the archetypes emerge out of the unconscious, and our desires are not yet dissolved.
Now, in spite of what Jung says, I have found from experience that the archetypes respond to my expectations of them. If I treat them as individual personalities that can cause change, when I ask for their help, change happens through this cause and effect relationship - although, the way that it manifests has startling acausal quality as well. If I treat them as manifestations of the Unus Mundus, then acausal synchronicity happens. Again, It reminds me of the findings of the quantum Physicists. When they conduct an experiment to prove that subatomic quanta are solid particles, they find that they are. When they conduct an experiment to prove that these same particles are immaterial waves, they find that they are. In both cases, reality responds to the expectation of the observer. The observer is intimately connected to result simply by having expectations. This is magic.
footnote* Crowley, Aleister; Magick in Theory and Practice; Castle Books, New York; page IX.
footnote** Jung C. G.; Memories, Dreams, Reflections; 1989: Vintage Books, New York; page 183.
Art copyright Robert M. Place 1995
& MAGIC
http://thealchemicalegg.com/synchN.html
Copyright Robert Michael Place 2000
this article first appeared in Llewellyn's Magical Almanac
Defining Magic:
Magic, real magic, which is not sleight of hand or trickery, is illusive and hard to define. In Merriam Webster's Dictionary, we find that the term magic is derived from the Greek "magus," which refers to a sorcerer. The Greeks borrowed this word from Persia where it was the name of a member of the priestly class, which brings out one of the essential problems in defining magic: is it separate from or one and the same as religion?
Webster goes on to define magic as, "the use of means (charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces." This seems to fit the common conception of magic. Except that Webster's definition contains the disclaimer "believed." As if to say, "some people believe in magic but we officially do not." This brings out the second essential problem. Our culture sees magic as a misconception or false belief. Although magic is an important part of ancient culture and of some modern cultures, and many people in our own culture continue to believe in and practice magic, it is officially considered a superstition.
Most studies of modern religious thought start with a discussion of the theories of the British folklorist and author, Sir James Frazer, and those of Tylor, the scholar who most influenced Frazer. In 1890, Frazer wrote The Golden Bough in which he refined Tylor's theories by placing magic on the bottom rung of an evolutionary anthropological structure, which became a major influence on modern thinking. Briefly, the theory states that humans, finding themselves helpless in nature, first attempt to control nature with magic. As culture advances, humans, realizing that magic in ineffective, abandon it and develop a belief in a higher power outside of their control, which they attempt to appease. This is called religion. When sufficient knowledge of the real workings of the world are attained, humans abandon this second superstition and enter into the wisdom that is called science. In this final stage, the culture aims at real power over nature.
Modern anthropologists have found that the neat sequential structure of this theory is not supported by their observations. Most primitive people believe in a higher power or powers and use both magic and technology (science as power over nature) in conjunction with this belief. The same can be said of prehistoric peoples, ancient Greeks, or modern Americans. Most historians trace the origins of rational scientific thought to the philosophers of the Classical world, such as Pythagoras and his follower Empedocles. Pythagoras is thought of as a mathematician and Empedocles as creating the rational discipline that led to physics. Yet, Pythagoras was the founder of a mystical religious movement and Empedocles, a member of that religion, wrote his theories in the form of poetry and would have called himself a magician. The Pythagoreans seem to be responsible for initiating a religious, scientific, and magical culture simultaneously - one that became the root of modern Western culture.
As we can see, the distinction between magic and religion seems to be an artificial one created in the West. St. Augustine, who lived in the twilight of the Classical age, helped to create the Medieval Christian worldview. He described magic as a continuation of pagan culture and therefore unchristian. His view persisted, and near the end of the Middle Ages, the papal bull of 1320 defined magic as heresy, subject to the censorship of the inquisition. This happened in spite of the of the fact that the essence of the Christian mass is the magical transformation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, that saints were all reported to have performed miracles, and that many Christians - including Popes - were involved in alchemy and Hermetic tradition, which was considered white magic. In order to think of magic as evil and unchristian, it was necessary to see it as something separate from religion and redefine sanctioned magic as something else - a miracle of God. Although anthropologists do not find this separation in any other culture, it continues to influence modern Western scientific thinking. Only instead of evil, scientists now think of magic as an ignorant superstition.
I feel that it is impossible to separate magic from the esoteric aspect of religion. By attempting to cut itself off from magic Western culture has vilified and driven underground the esoteric aspects of its tradition. The esoteric is that aspect of religion that has the power to create a personal inner experience, one that can lead to psychic transformation and growth - the quest for enlightenment. As a result, modern Westerners have increasingly turned to other cultures for this experience. Although this outside influence has been good for the health of our culture, the unhealthy separation from our own esoteric tradition has not been resolved.
Next, let's look at how a modern Western practitioner of magic defines it. For this, I have chosen one of the most notorious 20th century magicians, Aleister Crowley. In his Magick in Theory and Practice, Crowley defines magic as, "the Science and Art of causing change to occur in conformity with will." He precedes this definition with the following quote from The Goetia of the Lemergeton of King Solomon.
Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most divine Knowledge of natural Philosophy, advanced in the works and wonderful operations by a right understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so that true Agents being applied to proper Patients, strange and admirable effects will thereby be produced. Whence magicians are profound and diligent searchers into nature; they, because of their skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the which to the vulgar shall seem to be a miracle. *
Crowley even goes on to quote Frazer. Crowley believed that because magic makes use of cause and effect experiments in the practitioner's attempt to control nature and not to the intervention of a spiritual agent, there is a closer analogy between magic and Frazer's final scientific stage than between magic and religion.
Although Frazer, no doubt, would have been surprised to find his work used to support Crowley's theories, Crowley seems to feel a kinship with Frazer's anti-religious sentiment, and therefore views magic as a branch of science. In fact, his definition is so broad it could include any act of technology or art under the title magic. In his next paragraph Crowley goes on to clarify that this is exactly what he means when he states that by writing his book he is performing an act of "magick" (as he spells it).
Aside from not including a disclaimer, Crowley's definition of magic is not that different from Webster's. Although, to Crowley the "charms and spells" of the magician only seem to be supernatural to the "vulgar," both admit that they cause change in the natural world. We can find this same cause and effect relationship in most modern definitions of magic.
BEYOND CAUSE AND EFFECT:
I believe that magic is synonymous with what Jung calls "synchronicity." Apparently, I am in good company in making this association, because Carl Jung, himself, has stated as much. In his introduction to the Wilhelm/Baynes edition of the I Ching, Jung says that when we successfully consult this Chinese oracle (which we may consider an act of magic) we are experiencing the principle which he termed "synchronicity."
Synchronicity is defined by Jung as a meaningful coincidence of an external event with a psychic event, such as a dream, fantasy, or thought. These events coincide in time in a way that gives them meaning for the observer. That is, they seem like communications between a divine force and ourselves, and they confirm that there is a connection or interaction between our psyche and physical reality.
Jung gives a personal example of synchronicity in his memoirs, Memories, Dreams, Reflections. First, he describes a dream that leads up to the incident. In the dream, he was introduced, for the first time, to his inner mentor archetype, a wise old man that he called Philemon. Philemon took the form of a Hellenistic Gnostic who wore an ankle-length robe, had a long gray beard, and had the colorful wings of a kingfisher. The following quote describes an event that took place a few days after the dream, while Jung tried to capture Philemon's image in a painting:
During the days when I was occupied with the painting, I found in my garden, by the lakeshore, a dead kingfisher! I was thunderstruck, for kingfishers are quite rare in the vicinity of Zürich and I have never since found a dead one. The body was recently dead - at the most, two or three days - and showed no external injuries.**
We can see that the event described had a magical quality for Jung. It might seem that Philemon had sent the kingfisher to Jung to confirm his existence, but Jung feels that these occurrences are not part of a cause and effect relationship. Instead, he insists that they are acausal acts of pure creation. He adds that when synchronicity happens an archetype - such as the internal mentor - is activated, but we should not think of the archetype as causing synchronicity. Synchronicity is simply what happens when the archetype emerges into consciousness. With this, we are breaking with the previous definitions of magic. They all try to define magic as a cause and effect relationship instigated by the magician. This is typical of our culture, which is predisposed to view all events as cause and effect. However, here we are coming to a deeper and more profound view of reality. This is where magic lives and this is why I feel that it is connected to the quest for higher consciousness.
It seems that if we are going to understand fully what is meant here we must also define Jung's term "archetype." Archetype is a term that Jung borrowed from Plato. Plato was searching for what is real and constant in the world - he felt that these two terms should be interchangeable. As a result, he did not trust his five senses to give him accurate information about reality - the exact opposite viewpoint from modern empirical science. Instead, he reasoned that the sensual world was entirely composed of temporary, time-bound objects and that the forms or patterns that these objects posses are timeless and therefore real. These are the archetypes.
In other words, if we look at our house cat what we are seeing is a creature that will die and disappear in a brief instant when its life span is compared to all of eternity. Yet, this cat contains a form that we can distinguish from other animals and that we can see is consistent with others of its species. If allowed to reproduce, it will pass this form onto its offspring, and they, in turn, will pass it onto their offspring. This form is like an immortal or divine cat, because as long as there are cats, it will not die - this is what Plato calls the real cat or archetype. The real cat is the actual intelligence responsible for the direction of the individual cat's life. We tend to call the decisions that it makes for the individual cat instinct or intuition.
Humans are caught in the same illusions about themselves as they are about other animals. The part of themselves that identifies with this individual physical life is what Jung calls the ego. The ego thinks that it is in charge because it can manipulate the world to attain its desires, but it can not decide what to desire. This decision is made for it by the real self.
Plato said that number is the bases of form and the essence of the archetypes. This view is confirmed by modern scientists who have discovered that this archetypal form is communicated to each living creature through a numerical pattern of molecules, called DNA, which are contained in the center of each cell. It would seem that science has found an empirical location for the acualization of the archetypal self.
When we include the observations of modern quantum physicists in this discussion, we find that the number of electrons and protons in an atom determine what substance it will be (another example of number determining reality); but when we try to determine the nature of these subatomic particles we find that they are made of an illusive non-stuff that can take on the quality of matter or energy. This non-stuff also has the disquieting, acausal habit of slipping in and out of existence, and when we try to prove that it is either a wave or a particle, it can be proved to be either depending on the expectation emplyed by the nature of the experiment.
These facts pull the rug out from under our materialistic worldview and show that there is a connection between psyche and matter. In the end, we are left with the fact that all physical reality is the illusive expression of the numerical thoughts of the universe - what the alchemists would call the "Anima Mundi" - and somehow, our thoughts are a manifestation of the thoughts of universe.
When Jung explored the unconscious mind, he discovered that at its deepest layer there emerged psychic patterns or personalities that were the same in all individuals and that can be found in religions and myths in all peoples throughout time. He called these the archetypes. At the deepest level of the unconscious, he, like the quantum physicist exploring matter, found that he lost sight of the archetypes as they merged into the vast sea of the collective unconscious. For this, he used the alchemical term "Unus Mundus".
When we use an oracle, such as the I Ching or the Tarot, we bring these unconscious archetypes into consciousness through the use of symbols. The archetypes, or we may call them the Gods, are a more immediate manifestation of the place where the patterns are being formed that will become our future physical reality. Therefore, this gives us the opportunity to intervene and create the future that we desire. This brings us back to the initial problem of defining magic.
When we perform magic, we use symbols to manipulate the inner world of the psyche, and thereby, change happens in the outer physical world. When we succeed in doing this, the changes seem miraculous - that is they seem to happen outside of the normal cause and effect relationships of the physical world or to intervene in them in some mysterious way. By using symbols to manipulate the psyche we are activating the archetypes - in fact in many magic rituals we deliberately contact them as gods, angels, or demons. Therefore, the magical event is the manifestation of an archetype, in other words, synchronicity.
As I said before, Jung feels that synchronicity, or magic, is an acausal act of pure creation. This concept is almost impossible for our Western trained minds to grasp. The definitions, which I quoted above, try to explain that magic is a cause and effect phenomenon making use of a force that science does not yet recognize. Whereas, saying that it is acausal is like saying that it just happens, but it seems to us that our symbolic ritual is causing it because these two things always coincide. Is magic just an illusion created by our ego to convince it that it is in charge? When we attempt to fulfil our desires through magic, it may seem to the ego that it is causing change. However, the very desires that the ego is trying to fulfil came from the archetypes. Perhaps, our magical actions are a manifestation of the archetypes as well. Jung has supplied evidence to support this view by demonstrating that most people perform daily rituals and yet remain unconscious of their symbolism.
The simplest way that I can explain acausality is to use the example of meditation. When we meditate, we observe that our thoughts emerge out of nothingness - they just appear. We can have thoughts that lead to other thoughts, but when we quiet the mind, we notice that they can just as easily emerge out of nothing - with no cause. This is synonymous with the observation of physicists that subatomic particles emerge out of nothingness. At an unconscious level, the archetypes emerge out of this nothingness also.
This void, the Unus Mundus, is the real creative power. This is where inner and outer reality comes from. If we want to effect change, this is where we must go, but when we enter the Unus Mundus the ego dissipates and we go beyond desire. So how can we manifest our desires if we no longer have them? This is the paradox of magic. Magic must take place in the middle zone, where the archetypes emerge out of the unconscious, and our desires are not yet dissolved.
Now, in spite of what Jung says, I have found from experience that the archetypes respond to my expectations of them. If I treat them as individual personalities that can cause change, when I ask for their help, change happens through this cause and effect relationship - although, the way that it manifests has startling acausal quality as well. If I treat them as manifestations of the Unus Mundus, then acausal synchronicity happens. Again, It reminds me of the findings of the quantum Physicists. When they conduct an experiment to prove that subatomic quanta are solid particles, they find that they are. When they conduct an experiment to prove that these same particles are immaterial waves, they find that they are. In both cases, reality responds to the expectation of the observer. The observer is intimately connected to result simply by having expectations. This is magic.
footnote* Crowley, Aleister; Magick in Theory and Practice; Castle Books, New York; page IX.
footnote** Jung C. G.; Memories, Dreams, Reflections; 1989: Vintage Books, New York; page 183.
Art copyright Robert M. Place 1995
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Logos again...
I have recently been reminded of my post about logos and vibration, from two different resources. The first was from doing research for a ritual I was to compose. I was reading the Egyptian creation epic and found the following:
Harmonized from various versions of the Mythos
by Aaron Leitch
In the beginning there was only the Nun: the great celestial waters of the Unmanifest; the depths of the nighttime sky. Swimming within this primordial Deep were the mighty Ogdoad: eight Gods who consisted of four Serpents, and four Frogs. There names were Nun and Nunet, deities of the watery abyss; Heh and Hehet, deities of infinite space; Kek and Keket, deities of darkness; and Amon and Amonet, deities of the invisible. These primordial Gods swam within the Waters, guarding the Great Egg that incubated the Creator. In time, the Egg began to hatch. It split into two halves, dividing the waters of the Nuninto the upper and lower, and making between them a space wherein the Creator could fashion the world. From the Egg arose a single blue Lotus. It rose high above the darkness of the abyss, and opened it's great petals. Within it's golden heart rested a beautiful young God, the Creator Amen-Re, with one single finger pressed against His lips in Silence. Light streamed from the body of this Divine Child, banishing darkness to the far reaches of the universe. Like a phoenix with flaming plumage He arose, uttering a cry that shattered the eternal silence. This was the first sound- the first Word- and that Word manifested as a living God. Thoth was His name: the Self-Created, the Logos, Wisdom.
Then, I started watching a series of YouTube lectures called "Hidden Knowledge in Old Norse Myths"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evE6aLg-_Q8
Harmonized from various versions of the Mythos
by Aaron Leitch
In the beginning there was only the Nun: the great celestial waters of the Unmanifest; the depths of the nighttime sky. Swimming within this primordial Deep were the mighty Ogdoad: eight Gods who consisted of four Serpents, and four Frogs. There names were Nun and Nunet, deities of the watery abyss; Heh and Hehet, deities of infinite space; Kek and Keket, deities of darkness; and Amon and Amonet, deities of the invisible. These primordial Gods swam within the Waters, guarding the Great Egg that incubated the Creator. In time, the Egg began to hatch. It split into two halves, dividing the waters of the Nuninto the upper and lower, and making between them a space wherein the Creator could fashion the world. From the Egg arose a single blue Lotus. It rose high above the darkness of the abyss, and opened it's great petals. Within it's golden heart rested a beautiful young God, the Creator Amen-Re, with one single finger pressed against His lips in Silence. Light streamed from the body of this Divine Child, banishing darkness to the far reaches of the universe. Like a phoenix with flaming plumage He arose, uttering a cry that shattered the eternal silence. This was the first sound- the first Word- and that Word manifested as a living God. Thoth was His name: the Self-Created, the Logos, Wisdom.
Then, I started watching a series of YouTube lectures called "Hidden Knowledge in Old Norse Myths"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evE6aLg-_Q8
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Logos
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Speaking a word (logos) creates a vibration. String theory states all things are made up of tiny vibrating strings. So, what does all this mean?
Defining Logos:
Logos - Longer definition: The Greek word logos (traditionally meaning word, thought, principle, or speech) has been used among both philosophers and theologians. In most of its usages, logos is marked by two main distinctions - the first dealing with human reason (the rationality in the human mind which seeks to attain universal understanding and harmony), the second with universal intelligence (the universal ruling force governing and revealing through the cosmos to humankind, i.e., the Divine).
http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/logos-body.html
The philosophy of Logos:
Heraclitus
The writing of Heraclitus was the first place where the word logos was given special attention in ancient Greek philosophy. Although Heraclitus seems to use the word with a meaning not significantly different from the way it was used in ordinary Greek of his time, an independent existence of a universal logos is already suggested:
This LOGOS holds always but humans always prove unable to understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this LOGOS, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out, distinguishing each in accordance with its nature and saying how it is. But other people fail to notice what they do when awake, just as they forget what they do while asleep. (Diels-Kranz 22B1)
For this reason it is necessary to follow what is common. But although the LOGOS is common, most people live as if they had their own private understanding. (Diels-Kranz 22B2)
Listening not to me but to the LOGOS it is wise to agree that all things are one. (Diels-Kranz 22B50)
The Stoics
In Stoic philosophy, which began with Zeno of Citium c. 300 BC, the logos was the active reason pervading the universe and animating it. It was conceived of as material, and is usually identified with God or Nature. The Stoics also referred to the seminal logos, ("logos spermatikos") or the law of generation in the universe, which was the principle of the active reason working in inanimate matter. Humans, too, each possess a portion of the divine logos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos
The science of vibration
Cymatics:
Is there a connection between sound, vibrations and physical reality? Do sound and vibrations have the potential to create? In this article we will see what various researchers in this field, which has been given the name of Cymatics, have concluded.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_cymatics.htm
String theory:
According to string theory, absolutely everything in the universe—all of the particles that make up matter and forces—is comprised of tiny vibrating fundamental strings. Moreover, every one of these strings is identical. The only difference between one string and another, whether it's a heavy particle that is part of an atom or a massless particle that carries light, is its resonant pattern, or how it vibrates.
All objects, not just fundamental strings, have resonant patterns associated with them. Pluck the string of a violin and you hear mainly one tone. This is the string's fundamental resonant pattern, or frequency. And the instrument's resonance doesn't stop there. The body of the violin has resonant frequencies, which work to amplify the sound created by the vibrating string. There's resonance in objects that aren't musical, too. Your desk has resonant frequencies, and so does a flagpole, and so does the Earth.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/resonance.html
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Wisdom from Swans
No We Have Never Been Here
And We'll Never Be Gone
I Saw Your Voice Rise Up
And Cut Into The Heart Of The Sun
I Kissed The Lips Of A Girl
She Took Her First Breath When The World Was Young
I Felt The Cold Of The Air As It Burned By Empty Lungs
And We Have Never Been Born
And We Will Be Consumed
And Unreality Is Buried Beneath The Truth
And Though We've Never Been Here
We Will Never Be Contained
And Reality Is Naked Beneath The Moon
So We'll Go Down To The Ocean
And Wash Our Memory Clean
We'll See The World For The First Time
Through An Unburied Eye
And Though The World Will Stay The Same
And We're Certain To Die
We'll Raise Our Hands Up To Heaven
And Sacrifice Our Limitations
And The Pain And Frustration
Are Equal To The Bliss Of Release
And In The Eyes Of Nature
We'll Live For An Eternity
And In The Eyes Of Nature
We Could Never Have Been Born
And The Light That Surrounds Us
Will Take Us Into It's Arms
And When We Die We'll Disappear
Into The Eyes Of Nature
And We're Here Just For A Little While
And Then Our Body Disappears
Into The Eyes Of Nature
Into The Arms Of God
Into The Mouth Of Indifference
Into The Eyes Of Nature
And We Are Nothing But Experience
In The Eyes Of Nature
And We Will Live Forever
In The Eyes Of Nature
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
