Tract for Our Times

8/2/2019 Tract for Our Times

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tract-for-our-times 1/99

A “Tract for our Times”

Responding to the Challenges of Modern Science

Steven S. Jones

Dedicated to Keble, Pusey, DeKoven and all the Tractarians



A Tract for our Times

1

A “Tract for our Times” 1

Introduction 1

The Dilemma of Modernism 5

Biblical Veracity & Modern Day Societal Belief Systems

The Scientific ‘Affairs’ and Today’s Current Belief System Darwin: A Recent Case in Point 7

Velikovsky: A More Modern Day Case in Point 9 Velikovsky’s Analysis of the Ipuwer ‘Exodus’ Papyrus 10 Various Ancient Accounts of the Earth Stalling in its Rotation 14

Modern Belief Systems - the Conundrum

What is Change? 27

Change, Being and Thought

The ‘Grand Illusion’: The Dilemma

Faith By Will Alone? 33

Faith and Reason

Solipsism 37

The Ego-Centric Predicament: Fr. Bittle vs. Bp. Berkeley

Fr. Bittle’s Argument Against Bp. Berkeley 40

The Ego-Centric Predicament 43

Modern Science and Plato’s World of Illusion

Paradox as Truth - A Solipsism of the Present Moment 45

The Legend of Thoth (Taaut/Hermes), the Tautology [Taaut-ology], and the Two-Fold Truth

The Two-Fold Truth: the Ancient Basis of Dualism

Existentialism and the corruption of the Modern Church

Relativity: the Modern ‘Two-Fold Truth’ 55

Appendix to Chapter - Other Proofs Adam and Eve as Metaphors for Faith and Belief 59

The Doctrine of Original Sin (West), or the First Sin (East)

The Application to the Eucharist

Ancient References to the Eucharist Itself as Being Salvific 65

The Genesis Foundations for the Eucharist 66

Salvation 72

The Ethics of Liturgy 74

The ‘Real Presence’: an Ancient Doctrine 77

A Reasonable Test of Faith

Epilog 87The Dilemma of Pilate

Centrifugal Force - the Scientific Discovery that never was. 87

End Notes




2




1

Created: 1 January 2009, 12:52

Modified: 25 January 2009, 17:16

Status: Revised Draft

Label: Chapter

Keywords:

A “Tract for our Times”

Steven S. Jones

Dedicated to Keble, Pusey, DeKoven and all the Tractarians

Introduction

“Should one discard this thesis about reality as being arbitrary and an exercise in pure logic,

it would then become extremely difficult not to fall into solipsism.” – Albert Einstein

The whole of religion, the whole of philosophy, is centralized over one issue, ‘what is truth’.

This is the very question Pilate asked Christ at the pivotal point of the Gospel story. Yet, there is

a hidden pitfall in approaching this question. Before I can decide whether this doctrine, or that

doctrine, is worthy of my allegiance, I must first decide ‘Is it true’. The pitfall is that the verydefinition of ‘truth’ is also a ‘truth’ itself. If I decide wrongly everything necessarily falls from

there. While all philosophy seemingly must end in a decision over ‘truth’, it must also begin

there. A miss-assumption over the nature of truth could spawn ‘other false-truths’, eventually

jeopardizing the endeavor all together.

Clearly, any religion worth its salt must address this issue, no less Christianity. And, if Chris-

tianity is to survive, it must do it not only in a relevant way, but in a profound way that stands the

test of time. Indeed, the problem with modern Christianity is that it offers no ‘truth’ that stands it

apart from any other spirituality, or even something I might discover myself watching television.

It is also burdened with a volume of ‘stories’, most no longer believed to be true, that it must

continually apologize for. To most, the Bible has become an antiquarian version of Aesop’s Fa-bles. Modern clergy approach this dilemma fairly lack-lusterly, if they are troubled by it at all.

Typically they try to avoid the dilemma, resorting to several techniques: illuminating obscure

facts; finding subtle word nuances; illustrating weird cultural circumstance of the day… all try-

ing to show how the fable in question actually was hip to our modern approach to ‘truth’, despite

the misguided traditional understanding. The laity, for their part, are willing accomplices — they

want their coffee table ‘truths’ affirmed.




2

Yet, if we take a class in mathematics or even woodworking, we expect to actually learn

something, a ‘teaching’ that is not merely insightful, but practical, perhaps even profound. A

‘teaching’ is just another word for ‘doctrine’, and aside from the Golden Rule and its several

overly permeated variances, the Church today has none. Indeed, the Golden Rule of today has

literally become ‘I permit you whatever, so long as you permit me the same.’ We call this Rela-

tivism, more of a universal ‘politeness’ than a doctrine.

If you think this is the disease of just the Liberal Church, it is not. The Conservative Church

merely arrives at the same destination by a different horse: whatever responsibilities I might have

to a ‘true doctrine’ Christ has absolved me of, for I have proclaimed myself ‘saved’.

To the outsider, both methods seem to be ways to finesse the inconvenient fact — the Church

is obsolete, it is in denial. Still, modern society seems to be yearning for an answer. Something

must fill this void left by Christianity and at the end of the day, after all the parties, the football

Sundays, the Soccer matches, something must supply a purpose to all these diversions.

We live in an era where ‘truth’ has little to do with what ancient man thought truth to be.‘Truth’ was once an appeal towards an absolute, a tangible doctrine. Today, if one were to look

up ‘truth’ in a dictionary of philosophy one would find a definition like, “truth is what most peo-

ple believe”, almost trying to protect the word itself from the failure of future discoveries.

The ancient definition of ‘truth’ was this: Truth is conformity of mind to reality.

Here we have the essence of all philosophy. We have the observer and the observed, me and

everything I perceive. Yet, there is a boundary between that which I conceive, and that which I

perceive, a ‘veil’ that must be overcome. Every time I declare this ‘is’ that, I try to brave that

word ‘is’. No one’s perceptions are without error, the world around us is never perfectly known.

Therefore, truth is a continuous risky endeavor of trying, and declaring, to understand as we per-ceive ‘things as they are’. My truth is only as accurate as it depicts faithfully the reality I live in.

My ‘truth’ is only useful to the extent that I can communicate it and act upon it. It is only eternal

to the extent that it resolves in the Most High. Yet, this is not the modern definition of truth. Nor

is it the one the Church teaches.

Modern truth comes in two forms, both emblems of the fact that the modern world has no

formula for faithfully bridging the gap between ‘me’ and the world I perceive. The modern world

seldom makes a commitment to ‘is’. Therefore, we end up with ‘two truths’, one representing

that ‘which I am certain of’, me, and ‘the thing I can never be certain of’, everything else called

the ‘other’. These two notions of truth, permanently at odds with each other, result in the ‘two-

truths’:

1) Truth is my own thoughts, the sincere notions I ponder, the emotions I hold, the things

relevant to me.

2) Truth is the general mood of society, a political endeavor. It is simply ‘that which most

people believe’. Like all politics, it changes with the wind - it has no eternal answer, merely one

that suits the mood of the day and the current direction of the majority.




3

The result of all this is this: what was once a ‘connection’ between me and reality, a declara-

tive ‘is’, is now merely a subtle nuanced negotiation, a fad I must keep up with to ‘stay con-

nected’. The old definition of truth resulted in absolutes. It was an attempt at arriving at cer-

tainty. The modern attempt is anything but certain. It thrives on ‘uncertainty’. Uncertainty, or

relativism, hides the fact that things can be known. While it places no confidence in a purposeful

reality (making God obsolete), it allows me to do as I will when I will.

This leads to the ancient definition of morality: Morality is conformity of what I do to what I

believe.

You see, without a known truth, the basics or philosophy cannot begin. Without a basic un-

derstanding of some sort of philosophy, science cannot begin. Without the certainty that my real-

ity holds for others, too, then there are no moral imperatives.

One might ask, so what? The fact is this simple dilemma: if I cannot be sure that the world

around me can be known with certainty, then I am necessarily alone. The world is merely a fig-

ment of my own imagination. Real or unreal, it makes no matter, it is merely a thought, a phan-tasm of no consequence, a device merely to be used (and used up) at my will. Without purpose,

Man has no purpose. Society becomes merely a scheme for getting what you want. Morality be-

comes merely another diversion, a way of impeding the prosperity of others, so that you can get

more for you.

So, we are left with this: is the Church obsolete? Has it become a mere social club, a mass de-

lusion? (sic) It has if we refuse to acknowledge the dilemma, if we continue to be in denial, for

then the delusion is ours. If the Church is to take its troubles seriously it must find real reasons

for the positions it holds, not just vague cultural preferences and habits. It must appeal to the

common sense of everyman without reducing itself to a mere notion everyman can concede. For

example, if it is to declare women clergy an abomination, it must produce real evidence as towhy that is true. If it is to hold that only Man and Woman can marry, then it must show that the

rules against such were not just arbitrary proclamations of a defunct culture. It must show that its

rituals and actions arose from ‘a love of wisdom’, and are not a product of cultural fads. If we

fail to substantiate these things, proving that they were authentic beliefs of the ancient Church

will only serve as proof that the Church ought to be made obsolete. It only furthers the assump-

tion that dogma is just a cultural phenomena. If God is real, He is not arbitrary, and modern soci-

ety will not serve arbitrary beliefs that are merely part of a dead tradition.

I will attempt to show that the issue of ‘truth’ was the central issue of Christianity. That this

issue was best represented by the Scholastics, who not merely an odd anomaly of the late Middle

Ages/Renaissance but had hit on the main core of Christian thinking. Further, these doctrineswere derived from ancient, original sources, without which Christianity becomes an aberration.




5

The Dilemma of Modernism



Status: Revised Draft

Label: Chapter

Keywords:

Biblical Veracity & Modern Day Societal Belief Systems

I have been studying Perennial Philosophy, Modernism, and Tradition for many rears. It has

led me to a very stark conclusion: philosophy typically does not lead, it follows. The belief sys-tem of the average Man is seldom well thought out. It is not the product of a sincere regimen of

education, spirituality, and moral conviction. While the average person is philosophical, he sel-

dom has a philosophy. What we call ‘philosophy’, now and never has been “the study of the fun-

damental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an aca-

demic discipline.” Rather, philosophy usually is what ‘educated’ people do, to fill in the gaps,

once the lines have already been drawn. Seldom does philosophy reason, it usually rationalizes.

The only time it leads is when it reveals a ‘truth’ all must concede.

Man lives in this world and through his ‘investigations’ arrives at certain ‘evidence’. Then, in

an effort to make ‘sense’ of the ‘evidence’ at hand, he synthesizes a ‘belief system’, not to only

handle the day-to-day events of life, but also to ponder higher ‘truths’ and ‘spiritualities’. Mancan only believe what the evidence allows him to believe. The better he understands the evi-

dence, the more refined his ‘belief system’ becomes. When this belief system becomes honed to

a very high caliber, it begins to become a ‘philosophy’.

However, seldom does Man ever approach anything close to a ‘True Philosophy’. Inevitably

Man comes across contradictory evidence. It threatens to shake his belief system. How he han-

dles that evidence is critical. If he is able to ‘adjust’ his beliefs to accommodate the data, all iswell, truth reigns and he can move on forming his ‘philosophy’.

But something quite different happens if the contradictory evidence is so strong, so impene-

trable, that it cannot be accommodated, it cannot be made ‘sense of’ — the belief system beginsto erode. Eventually it will cease to be a belief ‘system’ at all, but just a collection of ‘beliefs’,

‘notions’. If it collapses entirely, it will become the notion that ‘nothing is true’.

Often, and typically, the Church will accommodate this ‘theory that nothing is true’. Para-doxes have their own allure — they almost seem ‘mystical’. Man, seeking a spiritual solution for

the desperation that contradiction brings, will synthesize a new ‘belief system’. It cannot be




6

rightly called a philosophy for it isn’t based on ‘truth’, there is no truth in contradiction. Rather,

it is set of beliefs, minimal beliefs at that, that are at least ‘true for me’.

This is not a profound quest at this point. Belief systems are not proactive but retroactive,

merely social schemes that allow the individual to operate in society providing a sort of ‘safe ha-

ven’ for the individual. The newly found contradiction could threaten the system, but perhaps itis just easier to withdraw. This act of withdrawing from reality appears profound to the individ-

ual for it seems to be a solution, a ‘spirituality’. As he begins to dismiss the evidence of the

world as potentially harmful, a ‘new’ spirituality begins to grow inside that seeks merely a cer-

tain minimal ‘peace of mind’. He who would proclaim a ‘truth’ threatens this new inner peace.

The current dogma in all religions, then, is to never produce evidence that might shake the belief

system as this would threaten the current state of ‘peace’.

This act of observing reality, making sense of those observations, and moving towards con-

clusions, is what was once called ‘science’. Assimilating these ‘facts’ into a belief system was

once called ‘philosophy’. Over time, this became a ‘teaching’, or a ‘doctrine’. The spiritual re-

sponse to this was called ‘religion’. But what happens when science starts to contradict itself?The philosophy of the Church is very much dictated to it by the ‘world image’ provided to it by

modern science. Being that in modern society this ‘scientific belief system’ reigns over the mere

‘spiritual belief system’ provided by the Church, the religious are left with little to construct a

religion out of that isn’t paradoxical. The reason for this is that a non-paradoxical world image

has long been toppled.

While the modern day critic of religion thinks his ‘truths’ are the result of his own ingenuity

and boldness to believe, this is the furthest from the truth. His ‘scientific mind’ has ignored

something fundamental: the very same contradictory evidence that threatens the Church was

produced by science, science that has gone astray. The slings and arrows cast by science fall on

itself, too, and to them it must also answer. It was a distrust of reality that broke that Church andit will break science also, if it is not already broken. One by one as science dispelled the ‘myths’

of religion, religion withdrew into itself becoming an ‘inner spirituality’. But skepticism has a

habit of devouring itself as it seeks more and more prey. It is like the child who continually asks

‘why’ there has to be an end… a ‘just because’. But science knows no such boundary. Eventually

it devours itself and the whole method of search and discovery collapses on itself with the only

left known solipsistic ‘me’.

A long series of scientific discoveries rooted in Descartes, but beginning with Darwin and

ending with Einstein, has led to a scientific belief system grounded in paradox and contradiction.

Seeking a mathematical formula to explain all, science came to the Theory of Relativity. Ac-

commodating this Theory into its fold, science has frozen the investigative process, resortingmerely to mathematical prowess as its only means of seeking ‘higher truths’.

Evidence that contradicts the Theory of Relativity is routinely dismissed and discredited by

scientist and seldom reported on. This allows the highest truth of all, the ‘theory of everything’ to

remain an unchallenged ‘paradox’, something even science knows cannot exist or its entire en-

deavor is worthless, unfounded, ungrounded and suspect. Yet it clings to this ‘truth’ not merely

as its own ‘truth’, but as a societal ethic all dare not doubt. Much like a fraternity hazing scheme,




7

all would-be academicians must brave the chasms of Relativity and its manifold offspring. They

must bow to its manifestations, or accept discreditation amongst their peers as not being ‘wor-

thy’.

The fruits of relativism are vast: lower more flexible ethical expectations, a broadened

scheme of acceptable knowledge, diversity in all things (especially ones that might produceparadoxical new vistas). One would think that in this new belief system there would be ample

room for all diversities, including a traditional. Yet, this is not allowed for. If there is one thing a

traditional ‘true philosophy’ clings to is that a paradoxical, contradictory belief system is not a

truth at all, but a mere scheme by which to get one’s social agenda advanced. It is this that can’t

be allowed.

I will begin not by trying to defend religion, but by showing that science, too, is subject to its

own belief system. That if this system were levied against itself, it, too, could not survive the

challenge — it would have to bury the evidence, ‘burn the books’ in order to survive. This has

already happened.

The Scientific ‘Affairs’ and Today’s Current Belief System

Darwin: A Recent Case in Point

There have been those who have proposed that it was Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy of

‘Nihilism’ (the belief that nothing is true) that began the erosion of the Church. More accurately,

Nietzsche was just reading the writing on the wall. Emerging new scientific evidences were

casting doubts on Biblical inerrancy. It was beginning to be discredited as a historical document.Nietzsche, the son of a Lutheran pastor, and himself an aspiring student of theology, merely

faced the spirit of the times and was bold enough to admit where it was heading. Not only was

science eating away at religious faith, it was destroying Man’s system of belief altogether. Most

prominent in this were the two Charles, Darwin and Lyell.

The key data that led to the Theory of Evolution was not gathered by Darwin. Darwin’s initial

publications of Origin of the Species does not mention such a theory. Darwin was the local con-

tact person of the explorer/researcher Russell Wallace. At this point in time, science was not so

much concerned with ‘where does man come from’ than the yet to be understood concept of he-

redity and genetics. Wallace was one of many researchers who went into the world to gather spe-

cies as evidence. Once gathered, he would send his specimens and theories back to Darwin inEngland for proper dissemination into the scientific community. But Darwin became jealous.

When Wallace’s achievements began to outstrip Darwin’s aspirations, Darwin began to sequester

the data. And then Darwin read this line of text, called Wallace’s Sarawak Law:

“Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing

closely allied species.”




8

To Darwin the case had been cracked and he, not Wallace, deserved the credit. With Lyell,

Darwin did not just envision a mere explanation for biological diversity, but an entirely ‘new’

motive force in the world of undaunted almost imperceptible change. The true theory of evolu-

tion offered by Wallace was not based on ‘survival of the fittest’. It had a subtle difference, one

that must be there if evolution is to work: that it is the environment that constrains evolution,

without that constraint, the world would be unbridled and constantly evolving. The environment doesn’t cause evolution, it puts the brakes on it.

Yet, Wallace’s original Theory of Evolution came to this striking conclusion:

“Because man’s physical structure has been developed from an animal form by natural selec-

tion, it does not necessarily follow that his mental nature, even though developed pari passu

with it, has been developed by the same causes only.” 1

To Darwin (who also had religious aspirations), Wallace’s theories were leading in the wrong

direction. Mounting geological evidence led by Charles Lyell was beginning to show that the

earth was much older than that being allowed by Biblical interpreters. What began to emerge wasa theory of long gradual change called ‘Uniformitarianism’ — the earth and its creatures were

not formed by deliberate action or instant causes, but by slow gradual change. To the religious,

this put into doubt essential parts of the Bible: no act of creation, no Deluge, no parting of the

Red Sea, etc. The main point is that this new theory of Uniformitarianism did not need God, all

change could be neatly handled by this newly discovered motive force.

But Wallace’s theory departed significantly from Darwin’s. To Wallace the evidence showed:

“these speculations are widely held to be far beyond the bounds of science — a superior intelli-

gence has guided the development of man… and for a special purpose, just as man guides the

development of many animal and vegetable forms.” 2

It was Wallace’s understanding that the mind of Man was so unlike anything else in nature

that it could not be explained by his own theory — there was nothing remotely like it for to have

evolved from.

Yet, Uniformitarianism contradicts much within nature… and ancient Biblical record (more

on that later). This caused many like to Nietzsche to seek spiritual/philosophical refuge else-

where. In the late 1800s many were turning to Buddhism, but here Nietzsche discovered a flaw:

unbridled change unwinds the fact of knowledge and truth. The modern day ‘Big Bang’ theory is

actually inherited from Buddhism 3.

The theory is that the current universe is the product of an eternal ‘breathing’ action — an ini-tial act of creation is followed by a long universal expansion of reality. At some point, the uni-

verse has expanded all it can so it begins to ‘breath in’ and collapse. Once collapsed, it restarts

with a ‘bang’ and the same process repeats over and over again. This is called the ‘eternal re-

turn’. This seemed reasonable to Nietzsche, much more scientifically acceptable than the West-

ern version, and also consistent with science… with only one problem. As Nietzsche endeavored

to understand and translate the philosophy into a Western perspective he realized that upon each

successive creation the laws of physics would necessarily be re-written. There was nothing to say




9

‘up’ would be up, ‘+’ would be plus, or ‘-’ would be minus. Without a grounding for eternal

laws, not even scientific ones, Nietzsche felt he had once and for all acquired the definitive an-swer to the world’s philosophical dilemma: there was no truth, even the concept itself was a de-

lusion. Any attempt at solving the dilemma is purely a waste of time. It was in this philosophical

conundrum that Nihilism was proposed.

Nietzsche was right. The consequence of Uniformitarianism is that its ‘motive force’ makes

truth unnecessary. Ultimately, there will never be a way of definitively settling the issue, we

can’t go back in time to observe the event, there will always be some little piece of data that con-

tradicts prevailing thought. Yet, there is one piece of evidence we cannot dismiss: the mind of Man.

Velikovsky: A More Modern Day Case in Point

In 2006, Hollywood movie producer James Cameron, in conjunction with the History Chan-nel, released a documentary called The Exodus Decoded: Biblical Folklore or Historical Fact . It

displays the life-work of researcher Simcha Jacobovici and his scientifically based research to

validate the Exodus and the events surrounding the Biblical event now doubted by most histori-ans. He has a rather novel way of uniting facts with science and artifacts. Numerous theories are

advanced as the bizarre episodes related to the tale are given scientific plausibility. One by one

Jacobovici gives historical credibility to the events, yet suspiciously missing from the documen-

tary is one thing: the name of the person who originally collected all the evidence and formulatedthe theory, Immanuel Velikovsky.

The mention of the name ‘Velikovsky’ in scientific circles is enough to receive pronounce-

ments of eternal damnation and scorn from academia and religious alike. Velikovsky ignited anacademic firestorm of controversy in the 1950s that has been largely suppressed to the public.

Yet, it is an episode in history, a peculiar

one at that. I’m convinced that it was

critical in shaping the modern day climatein which Christianity attempts to function

and repair itself. Largely forgotten about

today, the questions posed, the dilemma

created still haunts us and is a significantpart of the ‘paradox’ we hope to solve.

Whether Velikovsky was completely

right, partially right, or insane, it mattersnot. What the episode will show is thatacademia has no interest in solving the

dilemma it has created. Science will only

submit to facts that are conducive to itsown agenda.

Papyrus Ipuwer




10

Immanuel Velikovsky was a distinguished researcher. Born in Russia, adept at languages and

mathematics, he graduated with a gold medal from the Medvednikov Gymnasium in Moscow.

He attended the University in Edinburgh and eventually received a degree in medicine from

Moscow University. Well respected in psychology, he was an associate of Freud’s research

group and was instrumental in leading the foundation of Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It was

here where he became an associate of Albert Einstein. Born a Jew, Velikovsky was and remainedan agnostic his entire life. This is important: he was not trying to prove the Bible to save his

faith.

Initially Velikovsky merely desired to find historical precedence for the Oedipus events

which are so much apart of Freudian theory. Seeking historic foundations for the myth, he began

to research Egyptian historical records. He stumble upon more and more evidence that Egyptian

history was consistent with Biblical records. This was something nobody believed to be true

anymore, yet Velikovsky believed that Egyptian records were ‘patriotically’ falsified to give

credibility to their claim as the most ancient of cultures.

Turning to the Biblical Exodus, a story rife with spectacular, devastating events, he began tothink that such events, if true, should be documented elsewhere than the Bible. These events af-

fected the entire Egyptian nation, why were they omitted from its history? Unless of course they

were a Jewish myth. It was unthinkable that something so devastating to society would receive

no attention at all, else they be false.

Velikovsky became aware of an ancient Egyptian document called the Ipuwer Papyrus. In it

were contained bizarre Egyptian correlations with the Biblical Exodus:

Velikovsky’s Analysis of the Ipuwer ‘Exodus’ Papyrusfrom ‘Ages in Chaos’

JEWISH / EXODUS EGYPTIAN / IPUWER Lamentation 2:8 Forsooth, the land turns round as does

a potter's wheel.

2:11 The towns are destroyed. Upper

Egypt has become dry (wastes?).

3:13 All is ruin!

7:4 The residence is overturned in a min-

ute.4:2 … Years of noise. There is no end to

noise.

Blood /

1st plague

7:21 … there was blood throughout

all the land of Egypt.

7:20 … all the waters that were in the

river were turned to blood.

2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood

is everywhere.

2:10 The river is blood.




11

JEWISH / EXODUS EGYPTIAN / IPUWER Water was

Loathsome

7:24 And all the Egyptians digged

round about the river for water to

drink; for they could not drink of thewater of the river.

7:21 And the fish that was in the river

died; and the river stank, and the

Egyptians could not drink of the water

of the river;

2:10 Men shrink from tasting… human

beings, and thirst after water.

3:10-13That is our water! That is ourhappiness! What shall we do in respect

thereof? All is ruin!

Destruction offields

9:25 … and the hail smote every herb

of the field, and brake every tree of the

field.

9:31-32 ... the flax and the barley was

smitten; for the barley was in the ear,

and thefl

ax was boiled. But the wheatand the rye were not smitten: for they

were not grown up.

10:15 ... there remained not any green

thing in the trees, or in the herbs of the

fields, through all the land of Egypt.

4:14 Trees are destroyed.

6:1 No fruit nor herbs are found… hunger.

10:3-6 Lower Egypt weeps... The entire

palace is without its revenues. To it belong

(by right) wheat and barley, geese and

fish.6:3 Forsooth, grain has perished on every

side.

5:12 Forsooth, that has perished which

yesterday was seen. The land is left over

to its weariness like the cutting of flax.

Consumingfire

9:23-24 … the fire ran along the

ground… there was hail, and fire min-

gled with the hail, very grievous.

2:10 Forsooth, gates, columns and walls

are consumed by fire.

Starving cattle 9:3 … the hand of the Lord is uponthe cattle which is in the field… there

shall be a very grievous murrain.

5:5 All animals, their hearts weep. Cattlemoan…

Cattle flee 9:19 .. gather thy cattle, and all that

thou hast in the field…

21 And he that regarded not the word

of the Lord left his servants and his

cattle in the field.

9:2-3 Behold, cattle are left to stray, and

there is none to gather them together. Each

man fetches for himself those that are

branded with his name.

9th plagueDarkness

10:22 ... and there was a thick dark-

ness in all the land of Egypt.

9:11 The land is not light…




12

JEWISH / EXODUS EGYPTIAN / IPUWER

The Last Night before the Exodus “this night... against all the gods of Egypt, I will execute judgment”

(Exodus 12:12) A book by Artapanus, no longer extant, which quoted some unknown ancient

source and which in its turn was quoted by Eusebius, tells of “hail and earthquake

by night [of the last plague], so that those who fled from the earthquake were killed

by the hail, and those who sought shelter from the hail were destroyed by the earth-

quake. And at that time all the houses fell in, and most of the temples.”

Destruction

struck swiftly

12:27 [The Angel of the Lord] passed

over the houses of the children of Is-

rael in Egypt, when he smote the

Egyptians, and delivered our houses.

12:29 And it came to pass, that at

midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the

firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his

throne unto the firstborn of the captive

that was in the dungeon.

12:30: … there was not a house

where there was not one dead.

“The residence is overturned in a minute.”

On a previous page it was stressed that

only an earthquake could have overturned

and ruined the royal residence in a min-

ute.

4:3, and 5:6 Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls.

6:12 Forsooth, the children of princes are

cast out in the streets.

6:3 The prison is ruined.

2:13 He who places his brother in the

ground is everywhere.

A great cry 12:30 … there was a great cry in

Egypt.

3:14: It is groaning that is throughout the

land, mingled with lamentations.

Revolt and Flight

4:2 Forsooth, great and small say: I wish I

might die.

5:14f. Would that there might be an end of

men, no conception, no birth! Oh, that the

earth would cease from noise, and tumult

be no more!

The Pillar of

Fire

13:21 ... by day in a pillar of a cloud,

to lead them the way; and by night in

a pillar of fire, to give them light; to

go by day and night.

7:1 Behold, the fire has mounted up on

high. Its burning goes forth against the

enemies of the land.

The translator added this remark: “Here

the ‘ fire’ is regarded as something disas-trous.”




13

JEWISH / EXODUS EGYPTIAN / IPUWER The Jews

were pursued

and swal-lowed under

unusual cir-

cum-stances

After the first manifestations of the

protracted cataclysm the Egyptians

tried to bring order into the land.They traced the route of the escaped

slaves. The wanderers became “en-

tangled in the land, the wilderness

hath shut them in” (Exodus 14:3).

They turned to the sea, they stood at

Pi-ha-Khiroth. “The Egyptians pur-

sued after them. The Egyptians

marched after them.” A hurricane

blew all the night and the sea fl ed. In

a great avalanche of water “the sea

returned to his strength”, and “the

Egyptians fled against it”. The sea

engulfed the chariots and the horse-

men, the pharaoh and all his host.

The Papyrus Ipuwer (7:1-2) records only

that the pharaoh was lost under unusual

circumstances “that have never happenedbefore”. The Egyptian wrote his lamenta-

tions, and even in the broken lines they are

perceptible:

“… weep… the earth is… on every

side… weep…”

Is it conceivable that there were two such events? Having become an expert in Egyptian his-

tory, he re-figured all the datings so that everything worked out and correlated. He used little

data that hadn’t been advanced elsewhere and accepted. Yet, he struggled with one point: if all

the events were true, so must be the event documented as the Sun standing still in the sky.




14

Various Ancient Accounts of the Earth Stalling in its Rotation

Being a historian first and thinking such an event as the Sun standing still must be world-

wide, he sought correlation in other cultural records. He found this:

PLACE SOURCE TEXT / LEGEND Israel Bible, 2 Kings 20:11

Hezekiah’s Sun - That the Sun

regressed 10 degrees and on a Sun-

dial/Astrolabe lengthening the day

about 40 minutes

“And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the

LORD: and he brought the shadow ten de-

grees backward, by which it had gone down

in the dial of Ahaz.”

Israel Bible, Isaiah 38:8

Hezekiah’s Sun - That the Sun

regressed 10 degrees and on a Sun-dial/Astrolabe lengthening the day

about 40 minutes

“Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the

degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial

of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sunreturned ten degrees, by which degrees it was

gone down.”

India Mahabharata section 146 A day was lengthened to accommodate a bat-

tle.

Western China Huai-nan-tseForke, A. 1925. The World Conception of

the Chinese, pp. 86-87.

“When the Duke of Lu-yang was at war

against Han, during the battle the sun went

down. The Duke, swinging his spear, beck-

oned to the sun, whereupon the sun, for his

sake, came back and passed through three

solar mansions.”

Eastern China Chinese Legend

J. Gill, 1810. An Exposition of the Old

Testament ,

At the time of Kingcungus, the planet Mars

went back three degrees.

North America Menomonee IndiansThompson, S. 1929. Tales of the North

American Indians, pp. 42-43.

The Sun was taunting a hunter so he tied it to

the sky lengthening the night

Central Amer-

ica

Popol Vuh (Aztec Legend)A. Caso, 1937. The Religion of the Aztecs,

(Mexico City: Popular Library of Mexican

Culture, Central News Co.), pp. 15-16.

“Make it dark again, old one!” the buzzard

was told. “Very well,” said the old one, and

instantly the old one darkened the sky

California Northern IndiansOlcott, W. T., 1914. Sun Lore of all Ages,

pp. 131- 132.

Sun accidentally fell from the sky just prior

to sunrise




15

PLACE SOURCE TEXT / LEGEND South America(Peru)

Andean LegendGoetz, D. and S. G. Morley, translators.

1950. Popul Vuh: The Sacred Book of

the Ancient Quiche- Maya is Volume 29

in The Civilization of the American Indian

Series. Translated from the Spanish trans-

lation of Adrian Recinos. pp. 151-152.

Indians legend that the sun was caught held

with a chain causing a “brightening darkness”

Polynesia Perhaps a borrowing of the An-

dean legend

Chief Maui traveled east to ensnare the Sun

Greece Greek Legend Helios, already in mid-career, wrested his

chariot about and turned his horses’ heads

towards the dawn. The seven Pleiades, and

all the other stars, retraced their courses in

sympathy; and that evening, for the first and

last time, the sun set in the east.

Canaan Bible, Joshua 10:11-13Joshua commands the Sun to

stand still in the sky (a long

day)

“… THE LORD cast down great stones from

heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they

died: they were more which died with hail-

stones than they whom the children of Israel

slew with the sword. Then spake Joshua … in

the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon

Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Aja-

lon. And the sun stood still, and the moon

stayed… and hasted not to go down about a

whole day.”

Greek Æneid (Virgil) Book IV, 1, 489

[also quoted in The City of God

(Augustine)]

A witch who can reverse the wheeling of the

planets, halt rivers in their flowing.

Egypt Greek historian Herodotus

manuscriptTotten, C. A. L., 1891. Joshua’s Long

Day and the Dial of Ahaz, A Scientific

Vindication and A Midnight Cry, 3rd Edi-

tion

Reports that priests presented an ancient

manuscript telling of a day which lasted

twice as long as a normal day.

Egypt Hieroglyphs - translated byFernand Crombette**as recorded in Cercle Scientifique et

Historique, France and Belgium.

“The sun, thrown into confusion, had re-mained low on the horizon, and by not rising

had spread terror amongst the great doctors.

Two days had been rolled into one. The

morning was lengthened to one-and-a-half

times the normal period of effective day-

light…”




16

PLACE SOURCE TEXT / LEGEND China Chinese History - John Gill

It has been contended that thisdate puts it at the date of the

Moses/Joshua events in the Bi-ble ~1400-1500 BCGill, John. 1810. An Exposition of the

Old Testament (London: Matthews and

Leigh), vol. 2, p. 831.

“In the Chinese history it is reported, that in

the time of their seventh emperor, Yao, the

sun did not set for ten days, and that men

were afraid the world would be burnt, andthere were great fires at that time; and though

the time of the sun’s standing still were en-

larged beyond the bounds of truth, yet it

seems to refer to this fact, and was manifestly

about the same time; for this miracle was

wrought in the year of the world 2554, which

fell in the 75th, or, as some say, the 67th year

of that emperor’s reign, who reigned 90

years.”

North America Wyandot Indian Legend from

missionary Paul Le JeuneOlcott, W. T., 1914. Sun Lore of all Ages,

(NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons)

A legend of a long night

North America Ojibwa Indian Legend - Olcott,

Olcott, W. T., 1914. Sun Lore of all Ages,


A legend of a long night

North America Dgrib Indian LegendOlcott, W. T., 1914. Sun Lore of all Ages,


The Sun was caught at noon.

North America Omaha Indian LegendOlcott, W. T., 1914. Sun Lore of all Ages, (NY: G. P. Putnam’s Sons)

The Sun was caught in a trap before dawn

Central Amer-

ica

Annals of ChauhtitlanCaso, A. 1937. The Religion of the Aztecs,

(Mexico City: Popular Library of Mexican

Culture, Central News Co.), pp. 15-16.

“... So a conclave of the gods was called in

Teotihuacan, and there it was decided that

one of them should offer himself as a sacri-

fice that once again the world might have a

sun… The sacrificed gods had disappeared in

the brazier’s flames, but as there was no sign

of the sun, the remaining wonder when it

would first appear. At long last, the sun burst

forth… But the sun, despite

his brilliant light, did not move; he hung onthe edge of the sky, apparently unwilling to

begin his appointed task.”




17

PLACE SOURCE TEXT / LEGEND Central Amer-

ica

Popol Vuh (Mayan Legend)Goetz, D. and S. G. Morley, translators,

1972. Popul Vuh: The Sacred Book of

the Quiché Maya, Part III, Chapters 4-7,

pp. 172-190.

They did not sleep; they remained standing

and great was the anxiety of their hearts and

their stomachs for the coming of the dawn

and the day… “Oh, … if we only could seethe rising of

the sun! What shall we do now?” … They

talked, but they could not calm their hearts

which were anxious for the coming of the

dawn.

South America

(Peru)

Andean Legend

Montesinos, F., 1882. Memorias Antiguas

Historiales de Peru. The manuscript for

that book dates from 1648. A translation

of it was done by P. A. Means for the

Habluyt Society of London in 1920.

Notes from Z. Stichin, The Lost Realms, (New York: Avon Books), Ch. 7.

The Sun was hidden for nearly 20 hours in

the third year of the reign of Titu Yupanqui

Pachacuti II (~1400 BC) because of sin in the

land

South Pacific Fijian LegendFrazer, J. G., 1914. “The Magical Control

of the Sun,” Golden Bough, 3rd ed.,

1:316.

Natives would tied weeds together in order to

keep the sun from going down and this once

did happened.

Lithuania Legends collected by Jerome of

Prague from the ‘east’Olcott, W. T., 1914. Sun Lore of all Ages,


Tales of a night that lasted several months.

Japan Japanese Legend

Olcott, W. T., 1914. Sun Lore of all Ages,


Tales of a night that lasted several months.

This table is essentially derived from Velikovsky’s book ‘Worlds in Collision’ as correlated by

Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D. in his book, The Geo-centricity Primer: Introduction to Biblical Cos-

mology. It is not the intention here to advocate any particular conclusion particularly that Venus

was ejected from Jupiter became a comet and nearly collided with the Earth (Velikovsky), or,

that the Earth is at the center of the Cosmos (Bouw). Rather, it is the purpose to show the tre-

mendous proliferation of this account throughout the world, thus showing that the modern scien-

tific explanation is woefully inadequate: a ‘myth’ does not explain the numerous accounts, a

‘fact’ means our physics is faulty. There is nothing to prove the data false.

The Scholastic axiom ‘he who proves too much proves nothing at all’ should be kept in mind, a

warning both Velikovsky and Bouw would have been wise to heed. Yet, if we accept the data,

what conclusions do we draw? I do not know that this data correlates into one or two provable




18

episodes as both Velikovsky and Bouw contend. However, it does indicate an alarming synchro-

nicity for what should be an almost unthinkable event. Most remarkable of all are the similaritiesbetween the Moses/Joshua event in the Bible (~1400-1500 BC), the dated Chinese event, the

dated South Central America event, and the Egyptian account.

More interesting than the legends themselves is the alternative plasma based physics developedby Velikovsky to accommodate this data. Velikovsky himself believed these accounts were a di-

rect challenge to the accepted gravity/inertia based physics of Einstein and Newton – he believed

it was the scientific implications that created the most controversy, not the fact the theory backed

up the Bible.

___________________________________________________

**[Fernand Crombette complete text] – “The sun, thrown into confusion, had remained low

on the horizon, and by not rising had spread terror amongst the great doctors. Two days had

been rolled into one. The morning was lengthened to one-and-a-half times the normal period of

effective daylight. A certain time after this divine phenomenon, the master had an image built to

keep further misfortune from the country. Hephaistos… grant protection to your worshipers. Prevent the words of these foreign travel-

ers from having any effect. They are impostors. Let these enemies of the sacrifices to the images

be destroyed in the temples of the great gods by the people of all classes. Make life harder for

these cursed worshipers of the Eternal. Punish them. Increase the hardships of these shepherds.

Reduce the size of their herds. Burn their dwellings.

Rameses, our celestial ancestral chief; you who forced these wretched people to work, who

ill-treated them, who gave them no help when they were in need: cast them into the sea. They

made the moon stop in a small angle at the edge of the horizon. In a small angle on the edge of

the horizon, the sun itself, which had just risen at the spot where the moon was going, instead of

crossing the sky stayed where it was. Whilst the moon, following a narrow path, reduced its

speed and climbed slowly, the sun stopped moving and its intensity of light was reduced to thebrightness at daybreak. The waves formed a wall of water against the boats that were in the har-

bor and those that had left it. Those fishermen that had ventured onto the deck to watch the

waves were washed into the sea.

The tide, which had risen high, overflowed into the plains where the herds were grazing. The

cattle drowned represented half the herds of Lower Egypt. The remains of abandoned boats bro-

ken against the sides of the canals were piled up in places. Their anchors, which should have

protected them, had been ground into them. Quite out of control, the sea had penetrated deep

into the country. The expanding waters reached the fortified walls constructed by Rameses, the

celestial ancestral chief. The sea swept around both sides of the region behind, sterilizing the

gardens as it went and causing openings in the dikes. A great country had been turned into a

wilderness and brought into poverty. All the crops that had been planted had been destroyed and heaps of cereal shoots lay scattered on the ground.”

_________________________________________________

It had long been advanced, beginning with Isaac Newton, that the Universe ran like a ‘clock’

— something initially ‘wound-up’ with tremendous inertia, and then left to ‘wind-down’ as it

dissipated that inertia. This Newtonian physics had been validated by observation and mathe-

matical analysis. Even Albert Einstein’s Universe is merely a refinement of Newton’s gravita-




19

tionally based model. Yet, there is no allowance in such a scheme for a momentary stoppage and

restarting of the Solar System as made necessary by the ‘Sun standing still in the sky’.

Could physics be wrong? Velikovsky thought it might be, so he began to formulate a new

Physic that could account for the evidence. He noticed a major force of nature that Newtonian-

Einsteinian physics does not account for in its cosmology — electro-magnetic energy oftencalled ‘plasma’. Yet, electro-magnetic energy is billions and billions of time stronger than grav-

ity!

Think of it this way: when astronauts travel to space, it doesn’t take long before they travelbeyond the force of Earth’s gravity, they become weightless. The force of gravity is just not that

strong. Yet, starlight travels from distant galaxies, streams of plasma are discharging traveling

millions of miles. The power of electro-magnetic energy is billions of times more powerful, yet it

is not accounted for in modern cosmology (modern physics speculates on things like ‘blackholes’ to make up for the missing mass and energy that is easily accounted for by plasma). To

make the Biblical events possible Velikovsky proposed a theory that rewrote centuries of physics.

The Universe was essentially powered not by a winding down of Big Bang inertia, but a perpet-ual electro-magnetism — something that could be slowed or sped up at times! Further, Ve-

likovsky proposed a theory of evolution that does not require the uniformitarian motive force —

genetic mutation through plasma radiation. In other words, the Solar System is like a huge elec-

tric generator/motor that speeds or slows according to cosmic plasma activity!

Is the Earth’s rotation effected by cosmic activity? It has been shown that Solar flares do af-

fect the rotation of the Earth.

In 1950, Immanuel Velikovsky wrote a textbook for college use explaining his vast evidence

for his theories, Worlds in Collision. He included evidence from ancient sources that Earth’s ro-

tation had been slowed significantly in the past. Rebelling against the accepted inertia/gravitybased celestial mechanics, he proposed an electrical/plasma dependent system. Further, Ve-likovsky deduced from ancient records that the reason for the slowing was an astronomical cata-

clysm involving Venus and Mars — he proposed that Venus was once an immense comet dis-

charged by Jupiter, once nearly collided with Mars and the Earth, caused the events of Exodus

and the Earth’s pole to become shifted, and then attained orbit around the Sun. This seemed pre-posterous to the scientific community, where is the evidence for that?

Worlds in Collision was accepted for academic publication by Macmillan & Co. It had gone

through all the required peer review. Thousands of copies were printed for distribution. But, Ve-likovsky had approached Harlow Shapley of the National Science Foundation in 1946 to ask his

help in promoting a manuscript. Shapley’s reply was this:

“… the structure of the Solar System during historical times has implications which apparently

he [Velikovsky] has not thought through or perhaps was unable to convey to me in our brief con-

versation. If in historical times there have been these changes in the structure of the Solar Sys-

tem in spite of the fact that our celestial mechanics has been for scores of years able to specify

without question the positions and motions of the members of the planetary system for many mil-

lennium for and aft, then the laws of mechanics which have worked to keep airplanes afloat, that




20

operate the tides, to handle the myriads of problems of everyday life, are fallacious. But they

have been tested competently and thoroughly. In other words, if Dr. Velikovsky is right, the rest

of us are crazy.” — astronomer Dr. Harlow Shapley, founder of the National Science Founda-

tion, director of the Harvard Observatory.

Shapely went on to successfully have thebook indexed and banned as a textbook. Faced

with an academic boycott of all its textbooks,

Macmillan had all copies of Worlds in Collision

literally destroyed, and the publication rightswere sold. With Velikovsky’s career in sham-

bles, he spent the rest of his life defending his

truth against science. He felt the centerpiece of

his discoveries was his new physics. Carl Saganwas an unknown until he was designated by

academia to be their henchman. Remarkably,

Velikovsky re-befriended Einstein in the lastyears of Albert’s life. On his death-bed, facingthe newly found evidence that Jupiter was, in

fact, discharging electro-magnetic waves as Ve-

likovsky alone had predicted, Einstein admitted

conditionally that Velikovsky was right and —that his own theory was not adequate.

Unquestionably, Velikovsky’s conclusions were over-reached… still, denying him altogetheris just as questionable. While it is impossible to prove the reliability of all these accounts, their

coincidence is startling. Both Nikola Tesla and Velikovsky insisted that modern physics had be-

come derailed. Modern science has totally ignored a force billions of times stronger than gravityand chalked the discrepancy up to ‘sinister dark’ entities that can’t be observed. With modernString Theory having produced nothing in 50 years, astronomers continue to seek and detect the

undetectable, all based on Quantum Mechanic’s certitudes of ‘Uncertainty’, all sponsored by out-

rageous government funding. One wonders who is right.

Velikovsky describing the Comet ‘Venus’ from Worlds in Collision:

Hevelius wrote (in Latin): “In the year of the world 2453 (1495 B.C.), according to certain

authorities, a comet was seen in Syria, Babylonia, India in the sign Jo, in the form of a disc,at the very time when the Israelites were on their march from Egypt to the Promised Land. So

Rockenbach, The Exodus of the Israelites is placed by Calvisius in the year of the world2453, or 1495 B.C.”

I was fortunate enough to locate one copy of Rockenbach’s De cometis tractatus novus

methodicus in the United States. This book was published in Wittenberg in 1602. Its author

was professor of Greek, mathematics, and law, and dean of philosophy at Frankfort. He

wrote his book using old sources which he did not name: “ex probatissimis & antiquissimis

Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky in the

midst of their cosmological debate series. It

was often reported that Velikovsky was the

more astute.




21

veterum scriptoribus” (from the most trustworthy and the most ancient of the early writers).

As a result of his diligent gathering of ancient material, he made the following entry:

“In the year of the world two thousand four hundred and fifty-three – as many trustworthy

authors, on the basis of many conjectures, have determined a comet appeared which Pliny

also mentioned in his second book. It was fiery, of irregular circular form, with a wrappedhead; it was in the shape of a globe and was of terrible aspect. It is said that King Typhon

ruled at that time in Egypt… Certain [authorities] assert that the comet was seen in Syria,

Babylonia, India, in the sign of Capricorn, in the form of a disc, at the time when the children

of Israel advanced from Egypt toward the Promised Land, led on their way by the pillar of cloud during the day and by the pillar of fire at night.”

The Little & Ives Complete Book of Science Illustrated (c) 1958 reprinted in 1963 listed these

texts under the topic ‘Venus’:

“Venus may be called the earth’s twin planet, for in size, density, and general constitution, if

not in all physical characteristics, Venus is much like the earth... Spectroscopic evidenceshows the presence of a surprisingly high concentration of carbon dioxide... Measurements

of the surface temperature of the planet indicate a range from 333º K. (140º F.) on the sunlit

portion, down to 253º K. (-4º F.) for the dark regions.”

This was the believed state of Venus until the early 60s, ‘earth-like’. Scientist were convincedof this fact until February 26, 1963.

This was when the results of the Ameri-

can Mariner II space-probe of Venuswere announced to the public. The

spacecraft’s findings were: the atmos-

pheric temperature of Venus was ex-tremely hot (800 deg F) and that it wascomprised of hydrocarbons (or organic-

like, little understood compounds).

These findings had scientists scram-

bling for an explanation. It seems theyhad been reading only the very upper

atmosphere, underneath was something

much hotter, and more exotic. The the-

ory that resulted was called the Green-house Effect. If it were only that sim-

ple…

It seems many ancient texts have re-cords of Venus that are inexplicable.

The Babylonians, without the aid of a

telescope, somehow knew the phases.

Sir Walter Raleigh pondered the samein his History of the World (1616). How

The huge canyon system ‘scar’ in the middle of the picture

is Valles Marineris (Valley of the Mariners) It cannot be

explained by any Martian natural phenomenon.




22

could it be that the phases of Venus just discovered by Galileo had been known anciently? ‘so

great a miracle happened in the star of Venus, as never was seen before nor in after-times: for thecolour, the size, the figure, and the course of it were changed.’ That there is an epistemological

problem here was well known, How could the ancients have known…

Immanuel Velikovsky speculated on these very problems. Largely without the aid of scientificapparatus, and guided almost exclusively by ancient texts, he predicted the Mariner II discover-

ies nearly 20 years before its excursion to Venus. Velikovsky argued that the sunlit envelope of

Venus is giving false readings, that the planet is young (is still cooling down), and it radiates heat

from both day and night hemispheres (meaning it’s producing its own heat without the aid of sunlight). Also, ‘Venus is rich with petroleum gases and hydrocarbon dust.’

What baffled scientists was that Velikovsky’s

seemed to have been able to predict three seemingly un-related facts about the Solar System mostly relying on

ancient texts and the physics demanded by those texts --

the far-reaching magnetosphere of the Sun and planets,radio noises from Jupiter, and the extremely high tem-perature of Venus caused by an exotic mixture of gases,

gases that are impenetrable to sunlight .

Mariner II confirmed Velikovsky’s predictions: thesurface temperature of Venus is at least 800 deg F; the

planet’s atmosphere is heavy and 15 miles thick; it is

composed not of carbon dioxide or water, but of heavymolecules of hydrocarbons. Harper’s editor Eric Larra-

bee wrote:

‘Velikovsky offers evidence from numerous other sciences, in particular geology and ar-

chaeology. Breaking the barriers between disciplines, he arrives at conclusions which no

discipline had reached independently.’

The fact is this: the temperatures on Venus cannot be accounted for by a mere Greenhouse Ef-fect, the temperature is just too extreme, and the surface gets far too little sunlight. The very sce-

nario of a visually dense layer trapping in heat over a visually clear layer as it passes light to

warm the surface is wrong. The scenario does not exist. One must remember, this is the very cir-

cumstantial evidence on which Global Warming was formulated - the very reason the alternate

theory was disregarded was not because it was unscientific, but because it was formulated using

ancient texts that are supposed to be myth.

Mariner Space Craft




23

Modern Belief Systems - the Conundrum

While this all may seem fantastic to the average person, evidence keeps piling up that Ve-

likovsky was essentially correct on several points. It seems preposterous to think that worlds

have collided and were documented in the Bible, such a non-uniformitarian event. Still… In De-

cember 1984 a meteorite was found at Allan Hills, Antarctica. It was tagged ALH84001. In 1996

analysis on the meteorite was beginning to produce evidence that it wasn’t a meteorite in the tra-

ditional sense at all. It had come from Mars! President Clinton announced that it had proved life

on Mars (it hadn’t). Subsequent analysis indicates that ALH84001 has come from the very ‘scar’

on Mars considered to be a remnant of the ‘Worlds in Collision’. While there might be a few ex-

planations none are more provable than Velikovsky’s. It has one advantage over any other pro-

posed explanation: his has survived the test of predictability, a test too late for any other explana-

tion. Velikovsky has left us in a dilemma — if we are to believe in the data, the data might lead

to the seemingly absurd and fantastic, but not the contradictory. He has predicted numerous

things once held impossible. His theory, while never advanced or advocated in its entirety, still

remains never proven wrong.

While few are willing to risk their credibility

as out-and-out adherents to Velikovsky’s theo-

ries, his plasma physics do appear to be gaining

some notable support. They seem to build upon

the theories and discoveries of another scien-

tific oddity, Nikola Tesla, a person also

drummed into obscurity even though his elec-

trical discoveries form the backbone of our

modern technological society. These supporters

include highly respected astrophysicist Geof-

frey Burbidge (University of California, San

Diego - Director of Kitt Peak National Obser-

vatory), astrophysicist Margaret Burbidge (di-

rector of the Royal Greenwich Observatory,

University of London Observatory, Yerkes Ob-

servatory of the University of Chicago, Cav-

endish Laboratory in Cambridge, England, the

California Institute of Technology, first director of the Center for Astronomy and Space Sciences

at the University of California), Noble Prize winner Hannes Alfven, respected astronomer Sir

Fred Hoyle (Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge University), Halton Arp (Mount Wilson Ob-

servatory and Palomar Observatory, Palomar Observatory, Max Planck Institute for Astrophys-

ics), and numerous others.

Adherence to non-orthodox scientific theories has extracted huge cost to the careers of those

who dare to believe differently. All the above have suffered such consequences. All their beliefs

Nikola Tesla calmly working in his laboratory

surrounded by his plasma ‘aether’.




24

came about by trying to remain true to the evidences at hand. No one could accuse them of being

religious fanatics, if religious at all. Well-respected scientists all, they reap the very same wraththat is levied on modern religion — that their theories are not consistent with prevailing scien-

tific thought. Their theories require no adherence to Einsteinian paradoxes and remain com-

pletely true to the observable facts. They can account for, by other ‘simpler’ means, every so-

called proof of Relativity without the exotic incomprehensible mathematics. Yet, they, too, areaccused of heresy.

Physicists are no longer ‘physicists’, that is, ‘observers of natural things’. No, they are mathe-

maticians first, and the mathematical reality they discover dictates to them how they are tounderstand reality — mathematics is perfect, observable reality is a chaos fallen from those natu-

ral harmonies. Yet, this mathematically perfect reality is not three nor even four dimensions, it is

upwards of thirty! And as you increase dimensions you increase the number of possible solutions

to the mathematical ‘theory of everything’. This has opened the door for this new bread of ‘stud-iers of reality’ to speculate on innumerable realities. Indeed, some have even speculated each

moment of chance spawns a new reality. They believe this because it ‘mathematically’ covers

their conundrum of seeking a principle that will explain and account for everything:

“They had spent a long time searching for a principle that would select a unique theory, but

no such principle had been discovered… The question driving the field was no longer how to

find a unique theory but how to do physics with such a huge collection of theories… Even if

we limit ourselves to theories that agree with observation, there appear to be so many theo-ries that some of them will most certainly give you the outcome you want. Why not just take

this situation as a reductio ad absurdum! That sounds better in Latin, but it’s more honest in

English, so let’s say it: If an attempt to construct a unique theory of nature leads insteadto 10500 theories, that approach has been reduced to absurdity.” — The Trouble with Physics:

the Rise of String Theory, the Fall of Science, and What Comes Next, Lee Smolin p.159

There is only one conclusion that the objective observer can reach in all this: modern scienceis as much ‘faith based’ as the religion it claims to have made obsolete. It is as much of a ‘belief

system’ as is any spirituality. Even if we are to totally believe in modern science, we cannot

avoid the fact that many of its visionaries were also ‘crackpots’. More often than not, the person

achieving the title ‘authority’ was given it through nefarious means. Africa was not determinedas the cradle of society because a systematic approach was well thought out and embarked upon,

but because Leakey, daily driving by a rubbish dump to work, decided one day that, while civili-

zations had come and gone, this particular garbage dump hadn’t. He dug until he found ancient

bones and voila, the birthplace of Man was found. More often than not discoveries are accidentsthat eventually have practical value. We shamelessly use Tesla’s modern day electrical power

distribution system and the motors that power our society, but we sentenced him to destitution.

Preconceived notions of ‘what holds true’ in philosophy and society run deep, and this doesnot just pertain to religion. Yet, no notion of ‘truth’ is attainable if one must wrestle constantly

with criteria that sheds doubt not only on religion, but on itself. Formulations that seem to ‘fix’

these problems by incorporating ‘truth is paradox’ scenarios are no answers at all. They have

merely done away with the litmus test ‘truth’ to keep their particular aspirations alive. This issignificant for in such a society virtually any and all truth can survive and appear to thrive, but




25

only because the criteria of ‘truth’ has been made obsolete. While this ‘new’ thought systems

seek authority by appealing to the likes of Descartes, Plato, the fact is the modern day schemesare seldom so well thought out, so inquisitively pondered, so ‘innocent’. They are the product of

a self-willed ignorance so that one’s morality can remain consistent with one’s aspirations. Not

the hard-fought path of understanding, but the path of least resistance. The ‘appeal to authority’

is only invoked to disarm the adversaries.

Not understanding the problem the traditional church has analyzed the problem wrongly, and

it has prescribed the wrong prescription. The traditional church seeks to win, yet it has no strat-

egy. It has come to conclusions that can’t be supported. It remains adhered to ancient customsnot because they are true but because they are quaint. While the Traditions are still true, we di-

minish them with our quaintness. It’s not that the ancients were ignorant, it is that we have not

listened. Instead, we must seek a new way, understanding that the traditions of the Church were

established out of Truth, and that they will remain ‘traditional’ only to the extent that they canstand the test of truth. To do this will take at least a partial admission that much of what has

come to be known as ‘tradition’ is not traditional at all, but remnants of prior ‘modernisms’:

prior attempts to will the Churchinto

‘truth’ instead of submitting to a rational understanding of truth and the direction it might lead. We thought we were doing that with the emergence of mod-ern science, but we were swindled and we have yet to realize it. We protect the revelation of the

Truth, not the various attempts to translate it into quaint customs of the day and period of time.

To do this does not mean a submission to current trends, the whims of science nor even the

speculations of Velikovsky, but to know that the issues have yet to be decided and that the chal-lenges once posed have failed. To succeed we truly must understand the basis of what happened.

The work of religion is to encounter the miraculous. The work of science has been to reduce

everything to the mundane.




27

What is Change? Created: 1 January 2009, 12:05


Status: N/A

Label: Chapter

Keywords:

Change, Being and Thought

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. - Psalm 14:1

The only certainty is that nothing is certain. - Pliny the Elder

It is important to see that the issue of ‘change’, what it is, how it operates, is key to the under-

standing of nature. Darwin’s failure is not whether evolution exists or not, it is that his theory

necessarily leads to the complete collapse of the fact of knowledge. As Nietzsche correctly ob-

served, the result is a denial of the very thing most obvious to me, my own thoughts. And, just as

Nietzche, with that collapse goes sanity, the fiery hell of my own thoughts permanently witness-

ing a reality that is a fraud.

It is a very subtle problem but a very real one. In any given moment I look around, I see this, Ican identify that. Then the next moment comes. I still see this, I still can identify that. Then the

next moment… Wait a second, that has changed! It has become something completely different!

Ok, I must have remembered what it once was or I would not have noticed that it had changed.

Still, what it is now is completely different than what it was. Nothing is retained from its former

identity, what once was has all dissipated. Was it a magic act? Did the old thing just disappear

and the new pop into existence? The identifiable features of the old have all vanished, still, I

know this new thing was once that! How? The new thing must have retained some knowable

quality of the old or I would have no reason to believe the new thing had anything to do with the

old. What was that quality — or is that, too, an illusion?

Even more puzzling, in all this world of change, is my friend from around the world who Ihave not seen in years. He can come back into my entirely changed world and know who I am,

name the things that have little likeness to the past, and eventually plug into a completely new set

of circumstances without much bother. He looks entirely different. Science even tells me that in

the 10 years that I’ve not seen him his substance has completely changed. Each cell has decayed

and been replaced with a new. Yet, he still carries something that allows me to know who he is.

Is this not a miracle, perhaps one of the most profound of all?




28

The question is, ‘how does something become something else?’ When a ‘thing’ changes (the

weather, iron into a car, the baby into an adult) what is retained and what is lost? I was once

young, I cannot go back. Times of peace, faith, love, are all allusive, they’re here, then they’re

gone. Eventually even the mountains tumble to the seas. Often change seems to have a purpose,

or at least an order to it, when the planets revolve around the sun, when the right mixture be-

comes the perfect recipe. But often, change has no purpose at all - it’s just mere corruption. Thesenseless death, the house the burns for no apparent reason and can never be brought back. The

thought and talents one once had and are now forgotten. There must be some correlation between

my thoughts and what ‘is’. How do I know this change was good, this one bad.

But there would be those who deny this correlation. Ancient Gnosticism was based on some-

thing called the Two-Fold Truth — the notion that the disparity between my thoughts and what

‘is’ is a mystical truth in itself. This literally makes the problem of change inconsequential, for it

does not seek an answer to ‘change’. Everything just is in the present moment. The problem of

cognition also has a novel solution — what we think of as ourselves is merely an illusion of a

broader ‘spirituality’, a ‘One’, in that act of thinking. I no longer worry about ‘me’ because I am

an illusion.

Modern science has recreated this dilemma. Einstein has re-introduced it to us through the

paradoxes of Relativity. Freud has re-introduced it to us by making us all slaves to our desires.

Newton has re-introduced us to it by making the cosmos a mere clock that has been wound up.

Descartes has re-introduced us to it by insisting that the only knowable reality is ourselves. To

save itself from obsolescence, and keep up-to-date, religion has returned to that same Two-Fold

Truth. We call it Existentialism.

The ‘Grand Illusion’: The Dilemma

The question of change dates back to early Greek thought. It is, in reality, a search for perma-

nence. Am I to find permanence in me, something external, perhaps a God, perhaps atoms and

molecules, or all the above. The problem could be summed up “does change primarily exist in

the perceiver or the perceived?” When I see change, am I reading into it more than is there? Or

less? I see the Mona Lisa. Is it the real one or the forgery? My friend has rebuilt his antique car,

yet, he’s literally replaced all the parts. Why is it still his antique car and not a new one? What

act of cognition allows me to bridge the gap, to identify this with that? Or, perhaps it’s just alargely made-up convention, a game we’ve all agreed to play. Who is to say the red is in the rose,

and not my mind? It is merely another way of saying “Is reality ‘real’ or a figment of my imagi-

nation?” It should be remembered that the dilemma of ‘change’ is not foreign to Christian meta-

physics - it is the essence of the Eucharist. The various solutions are represented by the four

Greek thinkers, Anaximander, Parmenides, Heraclitus and Zeno.




29

Anaximander (c. 570 BC) is perhaps the first scien-

tist. He created the first scientific instrument, the gno-mon. He reasoned that 1) the earth must hang in suspen-

sion, and; 2) the Cosmos is an ‘ordering’. This necessi-

tated an earth that floats in an ordered space. Anaxi-

mander began the method of scientific investigation as asearch for permanence in the world. Knowledge de-

mands that all cannot be relative — there must be a ref-

erence point. An Earth floating in space seems to con-

test that permanence. Without an external permanence,knowledge becomes subjective, self-centered. Anaxi-

mander is the beginning of Materialism — that reality is

real and can be investigated.

Parmenides (544 BC) is perhaps the first philoso-

pher. He believes reality is ultimately an illusion, there-

fore he is the first Idealist. Rather than investigating theworld, like Anaximander, he tries to use his own reasonto discover truth. He believed that material change is an

illusion of the mind. While we can question his reason-

ing, it is he who first speculates on the self-evident:

principles that need no proof. He begins the task of logic.

Parmenides proof that change is an illusion runs likethis:

Proof

1) Being is being — what ever is, IS [Principle of Identity]2) Non-being is non-being — what ever is not, IS NOT [Principle of Identity]

3) Both cannot be identical [Principle of non-Contradiction]

4) Conclusion: what ever is, is, whatever is not, is not. Nothing has nothing to give, therefore

change is an illusion (not-being cannot become being, therefore material reality doesn’t actuallyexist, it is an illusion).

Parmenides, Idealism, seemingly has dealt away reality. Yet he has discovered some absolutes.

He shows that there are certain essential truths, mental realities, that exist prior to the evidencegathered. But Parmenides doesn’t trust the gap that divides the mind from reality. Anaximander

acknowledges reality, but cannot find a permanence. Is it possible to link the two?

Anaximander’s floating Earth seems to remove his reference point, but we must also see that‘change’ does the same in its own way — they both threaten a certain ‘permanence’. Not only

must something carry over from the thing that was to the thing that it is becoming, it must be dis-

cernible to the mind, too.

The central portion of Raphael’s paint-

ing ‘The School of Athens’ where Aris-

totle the Realist is leading Plato the Ide-alist into the hall of the philosophers.

Plato has his finger pointing up, Aris-

totle has his hand firmly grounded on

reality. It is found in the Vatican oppo-

site the similarly themed painting, also

by Raphael, ‘The Disputation of the

Eucharist’ where the same debate rages

only concerning transubstantiation.




30

Aristotle eventually solves this dilemma through two classes of being - ‘actual’ and ‘potential’.

But by confusing potential being with actual being, Parmenides thinks ‘being’ itself must be anillusion, or if it is not, then the change must be. He does not see that what something ‘becomes’

is a potential within each thing as it now ‘is’. Missing that, he believes change is merely an illu-

sion. Parmenides’ system, however, implies immortality: the outside world is an illusion, that

which is changeless is eternal (the observer) — if you don’t change, then you are eternal. (This isthe basis of Eastern mysticism)

Heraclitus (535 – 475 BC) begins to offer a solution. He also uses a word that is to be crucial

to understanding the Bible. He is famous for the phrases, “Nobody steps into the same river

twice”, and, “The only thing certain is change”. To him, reality is ‘process’ or ‘a state of flux’.

Heraclitus’ approach seems to be the most rational at first glance, however, it leaves this impor-

tant question: If I am constantly changing, and, I am materially not the same person as I was

moments ago, what right do I have to refer to myself as ‘me’? This point of view leads to the no-tion that there are no absolutes and that everything is contradiction, an early form of Einstein’s

Relativism. If everything is change then nothing is true; man has no identity; what ever he is now

has nothing to do with whatever he was then or will be tomorrow. Man is doomed.

Yet, beneath the observable world of constant change Heraclitus believes must exist a substrate

of the invisible, a logical ordering. This he calls the logos - a spiritual, divine ‘rationality’. If man

has knowledge beyond that grasped by his senses, he must have a faculty that understands that

knowledge. Hence, man must have an intellect, a mind. Heraclitus writes, “Eyes and ears are

bad witnesses for men with barbarian souls.” It takes a rational soul , not a barbarian, to perceive

the logos. The Bible states, ‘the Word became Flesh’, but the term ‘Word’ actually says ‘logos’.

It is Heraclitus’ term we should keep in mind when we read ‘Word’. It his observation of con-stant change that leads him to conclude an underlying permanence of reason — the logos. Hera-

clitus begins to solve the dilemma, yet he has not bridged the gap between ‘me’ and ‘reality’.

A fourth player in the game of change is Zeno. He is hardly worth mentioning, but he does

provide a solution. It is just obviously the wrong one. But it is ‘mathematical’ and it is actually

the basis for the mathematical solution used by science today. Hopefully, if we see the absurdity

in Zeno’s solution we will see the same in science’s. Zeno’s is the most absurd: change doesn’texist, anywhere. It is from Zeno that we get the famous race between the tortoise and the hare

(sometimes called Achilles). It was once Zeno’s proof.

Imagine a stadium where there is a race between a runner (Achilles or the hare) and a muchslower tortoise. The tortoise who has been given a big head start and the runner tries to catch up.

After the runner closes the difference by half, in that momentary ‘now’, he still has half to go.

Again, he closes that distance by half, but still has half to go – no matter how many halves therunner closes he never catches the tortoise. Being that the remainder can always be ‘halved’, therunner never gets to the other end. Zeno concludes that change, itself, must be an illusion. Many

now think that Zeno’s paradox was actually an attempt to illustrate absurdity with absurdity.

Zeno is perhaps trying to illustrate a flaw in thought.

So, are we to doubt the testimony of our senses in favor of some philosophical elegance?

Zeno’s notion of space/time is the result of trying to make a mathematical analogy where none




31

exists and this is why his paradox was largely ignored until the Enlightenment. Eventually, it be-

comes ‘rates of change’, or calculus. While calculus provides a method of measuring change, it

does not explain it — on what permanence do we base our ability to know?

Let’s restate the dilemma: if both the world and I are in a constant state of flux, nothing can be

true for there is no permanence — the mind has nothing to conform to, nothing to comparegoodness to. If I am that permanence, and the world is in a state of flux, I am eternal but my life

is pointless — I am the only reality I can know, all else is a mere figment. If the world itself is

the permanence and I am the thing in flux, what right have I to call me ‘me’? Why should I as-

sume that the ‘me’ of this moment survives to the next moment? Must I not retain something of

‘me’ to be ‘me’?

Clearly, change must retain some permanence or a new reality would be popping into exis-

tence every moment — this is Zeno’s absurdity. How do I continue to the next moment and re-

main ‘me’? Aristotle’s solution is the only one: the ‘me’ as I actually am right this moment is the

potential ‘me’ of the next moment. All change is potential existence moving toward actual exis-

tence — potentiality and actuality are different aspects of the same existence. What holds for meas a changing being holds for other things in change also. The permanence we seek is the logos,

the substrate of knowledge, rationality and purpose.

Change can be defined thusly:

change – the transition of a being from potency to act

actual – a being in act – true being that has achieved its full potential

potential – true being not in act, but possible to be in act

A piece of marble is potentially a statue. When it actually becomes a statue, it under goes

change. Many try to make a distinction between ‘change’ and ‘movement’, however, movementis really just an action, therefore movement can be defined thusly:

motion – the actualization of potency as such. – St. John Damascene

The mere fact that man can witness change proves that the soul to some extent must exist out-

side of time. If it were not for man’s awareness of time moving on, he would have no indication

of an eternity. Therefore, the fact that man can perceive time means he must be outside of it.

The modern tendency is to confine ‘movement’ to a mere change of place, or a mere change in

appearance, etc. Truly, movement is any passage from potency into act (actuality). If we pass

from ignorance to knowledge, we consider it a change. If we continuously pass from ignoranceinto knowledge, it is a type of movement. Continuous change is a movement. When we consider

movement in regards to a ‘before-and-after’, we are measuring it. This is time, a measurement of

movement.

time – a measurement in past and the future, and its parts have a connecting limit, which is the

present instant in time. - St. John Damascene




32

When we consider all the different kinds of movement, we realize each type needs sufficient

reason, a sufficient instigator. Knowledge, materiality, light, compassion, comparisons, change

in all its different forms. From rest into motion, from ignorance to knowledge, from non-

existence into existence, it is clear there needs to be a ‘Prime Mover’ — this is God. However, if

we fail to admit to this thing the ‘logos’, the ‘Spirit of Truth and Understanding’, all this fails.

So, where is this in the Bible? It was once summed up by the Scholastics: there is nothing in

the intellect that is not first in the senses (‘ Nihil est intellectu quod non prius fuerit insensu’).

This seems hardly enough to anchor truth, yet it is. St. Paul refers to a similar notion:

“Now faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not

seen… Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so

that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” — Hebrews 11:1

“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom (sophia) teacheth, but

which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural

(psychic) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit (pneuma) God: for are foolishness untohim: neither can he know (ana-krino/high discern) them, because they are spiritually dis-

cerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth (krino) all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

For who hath known the mind (nous) of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the

mind (nous) of Christ.” — 1 Corinthians 2:13

“For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” – 1 Corinthians 2:10b

“And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil

is understanding.” — Job 28:28




33

Faith By Will Alone?



Status: N/A

Label: Chapter

Keywords:

Faith and Reason Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

- St. Paul

My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.

Magnificat anima mea Dominum, et exultavit spiritus meus in Deo salutari meo.

- Our Lord’s Mother

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,

that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

- Jesus the Christ

The dilemma posed by faith and reason has plagued the Church for centuries. It has led to bi-

zarre solutions such as ‘faith alone’, or ‘Bible alone’. If there is one thing we have learned thusfar it is this: knowledge, even sanity, rests with the correlation of known to the unknown, and

that with and ‘ideal’. An isolated monism is solipsism. An unconnected, uncorrelated dualism is

no better than a monism.

What most people consider today as ‘belief’ is not belief at all, it is faith. Faith to most is a

mental act of resolve, something I will myself to think against the evidence. St. Augustine called

it a mere ‘abiding’ because it lays aside the problem of understanding. It is only through a certain

amount of mental understanding does one acquire conviction. True belief creates conviction. If I

know something to absolutely true, it requires no act of will on my part because something that is

‘true’ could not be otherwise. It just ‘is’. This is belief.

Belief has a method: we gather the evidence; the evidence is then weighed; we then form a

mental conviction to that which is true, discarding the false as counterfeit.

Until recently, the church relied on the ancient Greek definitions of ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ (from

Aristotle). There is a significant difference between the two.




34

faith - knowledge as it relates to perceiving (sensing) physical reality

belief - knowledge as it relates to conceiving known spiritual truths and absolutes; to under-

stand

Faith, in Greek thought, was when you are aware of something, to perceive. But when we un-

derstand something, we conceive, we have belief. The mind comprehends by accumulating datathrough the senses, judging that evidence, and then formulating convictions. These convictions,

when rightly considered, become universal truths and absolutes.

Divine Truth - the conformity of reality to mind (God conceives the world, His will cre-

ates)

Logical Truth - the conformity of mind to reality (man perceives reality, he conforms his

thought)

Moral Truth - the conformity of reality to mind (man acting as if what he believes is true)

By the time of the Reformation, the necessity of belief began to be questioned. Doubting Aris-

totle, we were returning to the dilemmas of Parmenides and Heraclitus (via Plato) — if Godspeaks to us inwardly, what is the purpose of belief? If all thoughts come from God, how dare we

judge them? Perhaps we should just have faith in those inner thoughts, which could only come

from God.

This led to William of Occam’s ‘Razor’ - simpler is better. It denied the distinction between

faith and belief and termed all knowledge as just ‘faith’. It was Occam who taught Gabriel Biel

and he who taught Martin Luther. Luther’s ‘Faith Alone’ is merely a summation of this doctrine

put into practice; it is a denial of the Greek formula of truths and absolutes.

The pre-Reformationists, Luther, Biel, Occam, Valla, etc. were actually advocating a certain

‘learned ignorance’ (Nicholas of Cusa) whereby the rational, intellective mind was actually ahindrance to salvation.

“. . . Biel follows . . . with an argument Occam himself had so often used, the principle of econ-

omy known as “Occam’s Razor”: “non est ponenda pluralitas sine necessitate.” That means, in

this case, that the plurality of forms in the soul is rejected: the sensitive soul is indivisible ex-actly because it is the same as the intellective soul.” 4

The cornerstone of Christianity has always been Free Will; that man can and must freely

choose Christ. Yet the emerging Calvinism was not denying the will, just that it was free. Any

free choice requires an act of deliberation – a weighing of the good, the true, with the counterfeit.

Without deliberation, choices are either random acts or compelled by an outside force. If onewere absolutely compelled to choose something, the choice would not be free. Yet, this is pre-

cisely what is in jeopardy in the Protestant formulation of faith.

Martin Luther says, “whoever advocates Free Will brings death and Satan into his soul.” The

genuine razor is this: if God is infinite goodness, then that goodness should be so compelling as

to cause anyone upon perceiving it to instantly turn to God, much as a dog desires a steak once

he smells it. Those not so compelled could only resist if that was their predetermined destiny.




35

Therefore, reason is unnecessary, a hindrance to genuine faith; all that is necessary is ‘faith

alone’.

The focus of the Reformation’s attack was not works per se. The Reformation was a direct as-

sault on Aristotle and the Scholastic system of rationality. Therefore, ‘by faith alone’ must be

rightly translated ‘by instinct alone’ (instinct being the sensual, non-rational mind). Evidence of this assault on Aristotle is Luther’s own words:

“Our theology and St. Augustine are progressing well, and with God's help, rule at our Univer-

sity. Aristotle is gradually falling from his throne, and his final doom is only a matter of time. It

is amazing how the lectures on the Sentences [Lombard’s Book of Sentences, once the basis of

all education] are disdained. Indeed no one can expect to have any students if he does not want

to teach this theology, that is, lecture on the Bible and on St. Augustine or another teacher of ec-

clesiastical eminence.” – Martin Luther

It became a favorite hobby of the ‘Humanists’ (the anti-Scholastics) to devise mental para-

doxes such as ‘how many angels can sit on a pin’, or, ‘triangles and lines are actually the samebecause a triangle with an infinite hypotenuse must have infinite legs in order that they add up toinfinity’. If this all seems incomprehensible, that is the point. It is these very mind games, these

mental tautologies, that require a paradoxical ‘leap’. This ‘leap’ is a supposed to be a source of

mystery — the only true access man has to God. They affirm that God is Truth, yet they deny

any evidence that might lead one to that conclusion. To them, all truth does not lead to Christ, Heis merely the last thing standing after everything else has been reduced to absurdity. Make no

mistake, the Humanist movement, out of which the Reformation arose, was a direct challenge to

the theory of knowledge that served as the very foundation of Christian thought and the Fatherswho taught it: the Protestants were reformulating the very basis of revelation itself.

True Philosophy makes a distinction between the two basic mental faculties of man: the soul(Gk. psyche, Lt. anima), and the mind (Gk. nous, Lt. intellectus or spiritus). These two facultiesrepresented the irrational faculty (faith) and the rational faculty (belief).

As man interacts with the world, his senses present data to him. Data of the senses is called

phenomena. The mind integrates this phenomena (data) into what is called a phantasm - an im-age of reality. From this mental image, the mind discerns what is believed to be true. This is

called noumena (from the Greek nous/mind). It is from this notion of truth that man can make

inferences (chains of judgments) which allows him to determine appropriate actions (morality).

Truth, then, is: conformity of mind to reality. Morality is conformity of action to mind by virtue of

truth. Knowledge comprehended by the mind over time leads to what is called ‘understanding’.

This is Aristotle’s basic formulation of how man comes to understand reality. This is how earlyChurch Fathers like St. John Damascene explained reality. This became there is nothing in the

intellect that is not first in the senses. In the Bible:

“For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of

Christ.” – 1 Corinthians 2:16




36

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being under-

stood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without

excuse:” – Romans 1:20

Belief is the result of a process of reasoning or inference brought about by making compari-

sons; it is not something that the mind can merely ‘leap’ to. It is not the property of the mind to‘know’ without understanding. Yet, God transcends the senses. If nothing comes into the mind

accept through the senses, how do we begin to comprehend God? This is done by perceiving the

collective ordering, harmonies and purposefulness of reality. It is by perceiving the thought in

oneself and in others and realizing that intelligence is not something that creates itself, it must

come from something. By these faithful acts belief is attained and a new sense, a new vision, is

cultivated and achieved. A higher faith with an eye towards an abstract not perceived by the

normal, mundane senses. Faith, in the grand sense, attempts to grasp the actual qualities of God:

Truth, Unity, Goodness. The intertwined harmony of these is Beauty.

St. John Damascene:

“The reasoning part, it should be understood, naturally bears rule over that which is void of

reason. For the faculties of the soul are divided into ‘that which has reason’ [ra-

tional/intellectus/nous], and ‘that which is without reason’ [irrational/anima/psyche]”.

The importance of this cannot be overstated. What will be shown is that the basis of sin is a sort

of willed ignorance. It will be shown that this is the metaphorical lesson at the Garden of Eden. It

is the lesson of each and every Eucharist. It is on the basis of this the Church either lives or dies.




37

Solipsism



Label: Chapter

Keywords:

The Ego-Centric Predicament: Fr. Bittle vs. Bp. Berkeley

Hell is oneself,

Hell is alone, the other figures in it

Merely projections.

T.S. Eliot , The Cocktail Party

In the middle of the 20th century, Fr. Celestine Bittle compiled perhaps the last complete an-

thology of Scholastic thought. About halfway through the ‘course’ near the middle of the book

Reality and the Mind: Epistemology lives a chapter entitled ‘Fallacy of Idealism’.

In this chapter, Fr. Bittle begins by illustrating the maze of conflicting philosophies and ide-

ologies that have led to the dilemma we now call Modernism. All of Modernism seems to be an

elaboration of one ‘root-idea’ which Fr. Bittle calls the idealist postulate. The unnamed philoso-

phical foe of Fr. Bittle is the idealist Anglican bishop George Berkeley. One can sum up Ber-

keley’s position in the often paraphrased, “ If a tree fall in the forest, and there is no one to hear

it, does it make a sound?” One could argue that Bittle is taking his foe out of context, but the ar-gument is still valid — Modernism is based on Idealism. Idealism is essentially the doubting of

reality, that it can be known and discerned. That it demands judgments and demands moral con-

victions.

The Scholastic argument hinges on the term substance. It was simply defined as: the ‘what-

ness’ of a thing as it is known. In a world of constant change, substance is what survives from

minute to minute, from second to second. It was a simple way of teaching the abstract concept of

change with an easily understood concept. Yet, simple it did not stay.

Substance literally means, ‘to stand beneath’, or ‘uphold’. Philosophically it is that which es-

sentially exists in itself. It is the very same term that appears in the Nicene Creed and fueled thecontroversy between the heretic Arius and the saint Athanasius. It was said ‘the fate of Christian-

ity rested on an iota’ (the difference between Arius’ term and Athanasius’). The word substance

allowed Christianity to continue (when understood correctly) and spawned a Christian sect called

Islam (when understood incorrectly). Make no mistake, this is the word that is at the seat of

every controversy, every heresy, every schism, every sophism.




38

Bittle, to prove his case, uses Aristotelian logic, the syllogism — All men are mortal, Socrates

is a man, therefore, Socrates is mortal. Yet many are convinced the syllogism offers no real

proof of anything, it is just a linguistic art form. They believe words represent nothing ‘substan-

tial’. They are merely a learned convention and represent nothing that has universal meaning.

We cannot say that ‘all men are mortal’ unless by it we mean that ‘all’, a universal, applies to‘man’, a real thing. Man can have many attributes: shapes, sizes, and colors, just as there are

many shapes, sizes, and colors of ‘triangles’. But the shapes, sizes and colors of a thing do not

determine what the thing is, they are merely attributes of the thing confined by its thing-ness. Yet

the critiques of this doctrine insist the attributes are the thing — substance is an illusion. Some

called it ‘logomachy’, a game (notice the similarity to the term ‘logos’).

The confusion is this: a certain thing exists because of its shape, size and color, etc. It is these

qualities that have come together in a particular way to form this particular ‘thing’, yet, these

qualities are not the ‘thing’ itself for they are all variable. They must exist ‘in’ (inhere) the thing,

but as they are variable, they are not the ‘thing’. At least, so the Scholastics taught. We can

change all the attributes (accidents) of a thing all we like, but once it becomes something else,the substance is changed. If we were to vary ‘that which is not variable’ the ‘thing’ would no

longer be what that thing is, it would be something else; therefore, that which is not variable

must exist in its own right.

We are at a crucial fork in the road here. If we are honest, if we are truly honest, we must ad-

mit to one thing: by Christianity’s own proclamation (at Nicea), its own legitimacy rests on the

term ‘substance’. The Nicene Creed is the foundation of everything that is the Church. It is the

crucial term in that Creed. Once we change that term, the legitimacy of the Church is suspect.

The Fathers of the Church said it, I did not.

The commonly accepted Scholastic definition of ‘substance’ is this:

Substance – that which can exist in its own right without requiring some other thing as a

foundation or substratum in which to inhere.

St. Athanasius records this in justifying the term ‘substance’. He is saying that the Word is

substantially the same as the Father. If ‘substance’ is a ‘game’, so are his words:

“Again, when the Bishops said that the Word must be described as the True Power and Image

of the Father, like to the Father in all things and unvarying and as unalterable, and as always, and

as in Him without division;” 5

Bishop Whately sums up his position thus:

“NOTHING has a greater tendency to lead to the mistake just noticed, and thus to produce un-

detected Verbal Questions and fruitless Logomachy, than the prevalence of the notion of the Re-

alists, that genus and species are some real THINGS, existing independently of our conceptions

and expressions.” 6




39

While many cultures might have different names for the same thing, the ‘thing’, what the

names signify, is never in question — light is light as perceived by different people regardless of the name or convention we give it. Yet this has not prevented some very knowledgeable people

from confusing the ‘name’ of something with the ‘what’ that the name represents. This has led

many intelligent people to thinking it is all an illusion. And, being the ‘name’ is merely a

‘thought’, a ‘convention’, that the ‘what’ is also just a thought, a convention (i.e., co-invention).If all the ‘whats’ in the world are just mere thoughts, then logic is merely an art-form for the sign

and symbols of language have no real significance. They stand for nothing that can be known

with certainty. All observation, the basis of all science, becomes game. This is the problem

Whately is skirting.

To clarify this we can appeal to St. Hilary of Poitiers (AD 315 – 367) who lived in this same

Nicene period; he lived, worked, and knew the Eastern bishops and is commonly referred to as

the Athanasius of the West. St. Hilary of Poitiers writes:

“Since, however, we have frequently to mention the words essence and substance, we must

determine the meaning of essence, lest in discussing facts we prove ignorant of the significa-tion of our words. Essence is a reality which is, or the reality of those things from which it is,and which subsists inasmuch as it is permanent. Now we can speak of the essence, or nature, or

genus, or substance of anything. And the strict reason why the word essence is employed is be-

cause it is always. But this is identical with substance, because a thing which is, necessarily

subsists in itself, and whatever thus subsists possesses unquestionably a permanent genus, na-ture or substance. When, therefore, we say that essence signifies nature, or genus, or substance,

we mean the essence of that thing which permanently exists in the nature, genus, or sub-

stance.”7

It should be apparent here that the term ‘substance’ was not a term conveniently concocted by

the Scholastics and Aquinas. Modern society has spoken and has decided that this whole debateover substance is folly, yet is it? We often hear in classrooms an argument that runs like this: theentirety of Aristotle was once lost to Western civilization. When it was reintroduced, it was

Aquinas who misapplied the text, invented an entire doctrine around ‘trans-substantiation’, per-

manently corrupting the Catholic Church.

As is the case with much conventional wisdom, it is not necessarily true. The Aristotelian

teaching had survived, via Boethius, Lombard and Damascene. What did trouble the Scholastics

of the Middle Ages was the rediscovery of the term ‘substance’ in the newly re-introduced Arab

Aristotelian texts. It was the discovery of the Arab term manu that left them confused. It is of much interest, being that Aquinas is accused of wrongly associating that term with the Eucharist,

that the termmanu

is derived from the Hebrew termmanna

. Manna’s first translation (look it up)is ‘what is this stuff?’. The similarities of a ‘bread from heaven’ and ‘what-ness’ are clearly es-

tablished. The original term for ‘daily bread’ in the Lord’s prayer was also ‘super-substancebread’.

So, if there is such a thing as ‘substance’, and it is so crucial to all of this, can we prove that

such a thing exists? Yes we can:




40

Proof of Substance: everything must either exist in itself or in another (accidents). If it exists

in itself, it has merely affirmed the definition. If it exists in another, the other must exist in itself,

or yet exist in still another, ultimately demanding either a final substance that exists in itself or an

infinite regression of accidents (which is absurd).

Fr. Bittle’s Argument Against Bp. Berkeley

Fr. Bittle begins with the phrase 8:

“Idealism [we can also read ‘Modernism’] arose out of the difficulty of understanding and ex-

plaining how the mind can transcend itself and know extra-mental reality”

Fr. Bittle tries to explore the problem in terms of a particular mental predicament: how do I

know that the world is not a figment of my own imagination? I know that mental reality is real,

how do I know extra-mental reality is? He implies that the mind almost desires to create its own

prison by denying reality, and it is from this the mind must be rescued. Fr. Bittle believes that itis Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” that began the corruption of Scholastic thought.

How do we assimilate data gathered by our senses? I see, I hear, I feel, but how does my mind

reach out and encapsulate what it perceives. It is as if something of the thing I see and escapes it,

entering my mind with the essential knowledge. Yet, this can’t be so, can it? The modern theory

of light is this: light rays illuminate objects, the object reflecting those rays which are gathered in

and sensed by the eye, the mind then processes the data. Yet, light rays alone are not enough to

explain how the mind knows what it is looking at. What about this piece of glass? It’s colorless,

odorless, shapeless. I’m not sure of its weight. It tells me not what it is. Still, I know…

Fr. Bittle, “The greatest difficulty lies in the fact of the dissimilarity which exist between mind

and matter. The mind is mental, while the object is physical. . . All knowledge, then, since it pro-

ceeds from the mind and takes place in the mind , must be purely mental. Physical objects are,

therefore, absolutely excluded from knowledge: the objects of knowledge are mental objects,

ideas.”

Put another way, how do I trust that what I perceive is materially real when upon my perceiv-

ing it, it immediately becomes an idea? Indeed, Descartes ‘I think, therefore I am’, when refined

becomes Berkeley’s ‘being is perceiving’; the object, for us, doesn’t exist unless it is perceived.

“This doctrine, that the mind in its knowing can only know its own ‘ideas’ or ‘percepts’ is Ideal-

ism; and when accepted as an axiom or postulate, it is the idealist postulate.”

That Berkeley has difficulty accepting this can be shown in his own words: “What are the

aforementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense? And what do we perceive beside

our own ideas and sensations? And is it not plainly repugnant that any of these, or any combina-

tion of them, should exist unperceived?”

In short, ‘being is perceiving’. One could argue that Berkeley’s perceiver in this is God —it is

God’s perception that sustains the Cosmos. Perhaps he is using an odd ontological argument to




41

prove God’s existence. Yet, for those who deny God, the postulate remains: objects cease to exist

once they cease to be perceived. Fr. Bittle creates a syllogism to sum up this Idealism:

Ideas or sensations cannot exist unperceived;

But sensible objects are ideas or sensations;

Ergo, sensible objects cannot exist unperceived.

This seems almost logical, but the fallacy is in the second ‘minor’ premise, that sometimes

‘sensible objects’ are ideas and sensations. True, but sometimes they are not. The Idealist has

rigged the conclusion by equivocating the word ‘are’; he is making sensible objects equivalent to

ideas. Sensible objects are ideas, but they also might not be ideas – he is saying that sensible ob-

jects are the same as ideas, which is true only once they become thought. The Idealist could say,

‘but there are no objects outside perception to worry about’. However, this is exactly what he is

trying to prove: he can’t assume what requires proof.

To make the objection clearer, Fr. Bittle recasts the argument as a hypothetical, ‘if, then’ syl-

logism:

If something has a purely subjective existence, it has a mental existence;

But perceived objects have a mental existence;

Ergo, perceived objects have a purely subjective existence.

While both premises are true, the logic is wrong. For example, I can say ‘if A, then B’. This

means: if I posit ‘A’ it demands ‘B’. However, I cannot posit ‘B’ and then demand ‘A’, for that

would be ‘if B, then A’. All balls may be round, but not all round things are ball. In other words,

the ‘B’ term of the second ‘minor’ premise must match the ‘A’ term of the first ‘major’ premise

for the logic to flow through – it should read ‘But perceived objects have a purely subjective ex-

istence’. For the logic to work, the syllogism should look like this:

If something has a purely subjective existence, it has a mental existence;

But perceived objects have a purely subjective existence;

Ergo, perceived objects have a mental existence.

True enough, but, so what? Even though the minor premise assumes what the idealist is trying

to prove, that ‘being is perceiving’, it still begs the question. The idealist has yet to prove his

point logically: ‘that perceived objects have an exclusively mental existence’, even though he

assumes it in his own premise.

The only remaining logical formulation of the problem is this:

If something has a mental existence, it has a purely subjective existence;

But perceived objects have a mental existence;

Ergo, perceived objects have a purely subjective existence.

The conclusion logically follows however it is not valid for it is merely a reiteration of the ma-

jor premise. Fr. Bittle asks: “Is it a fact that, if something has a mental existence, it has a purely




42

subjective existence? This is the very point which the idealist intends to prove by the argument.”

– one can’t assume what one is trying to prove.

In order for a syllogism to be true, it must stick to three terms. It is the ‘middle term’ that links

the two outer terms. But if one were to equivocate that middle term, in other words, use one term

to hide the fact that it represents two ideas, it looks like the point has been proved, but in fact the

logic has been destroyed. In other words, this:

Bars are rods of metal;

An establishment that sells beer is a bar;

Ergo, an establishment that sells beer is a rod of metal.

The term ‘bar’ has been equivocated. All idealism rests on this:

What is subjective is not externally real;

All objects of which we are aware are subjective;

Ergo, all objects of which we are aware are not externally real (mere ideas).

The term that is being equivocated is ‘subjective’; it does not mean the same thing in the ma-

jor and minor premise. Both are true but in the first, ‘subjective’ refers to a distinction made in

the mind, it does not deny objective reality only distinguishes it. There are realities that are ex-

clusively mental, such as emotions, but that does not prove that all reality has an emotional na-

ture, yet, this is what Gnosticism maintains: that truth is mere inner relevancy.

At this point we quote Cardinal Mercier, “The contention of the realists is that we can be cer-

tain of the existence of the external world.” 9

His proof is this:

“ Argument drawn from the passive character of sensations. – We are conscious that we are the

subject of certain internal experiences in the presence of which we are purely passive. These

facts of experience require a sufficient reason for their occurrence. Now since our consciousness

bears us testimony that we are passive, this sufficient reason must be, at least in part, exterior to

ourselves. Therefore some reality outside the ego must exist, there must be an external world.”

The problem with Berkeley and Whately is that they miss a simple point. ‘Substance’ is a term

very close to the simple idea ‘being’ itself or ‘existence’. The term that connects the subject and

predicate is also a term very close to ‘existence’ itself; is. When we ask, ‘is substance a thing’,

we are really trying to make the sentence “Is’ is ‘is’?’ Clearly, there is nothing that can be made

further specific of or by the word ‘is’. Because ‘is’ cannot be made further specific, there is littlefor the mind to grasp on to, the idea becomes too abstract. The point is that, ‘is’ does not have

constituent ‘parts’ to be made further specific. Does this mean that substance doesn’t exist or is

just rhetoric. No, this would be wrong, also. For you cannot say, “Is’ is not ‘is”. It is enough to

say that existence cannot be a subject of itself, it just is and somehow we know it.




43

All this is similar to God telling Moses ‘I AM’. When Moses asks God to be more specific, all

that God can say is ‘I AM THAT I AM’. We could refine this, ‘I AM the One whose essence is

to exist.’

The Ego-Centric Predicament

Now if we think back to Anaximander and Parmenides we will remember the hint of two other

solutions. The ‘One-Mind’ solution allows for an external sort of reality, but knowledge of that

reality is fed to you directly by God. This is Plato, but the price is the loss of individuality for

God is literally doing your thinking for you. This is the basis of the Occult.

The second solution can only end in one way: solipsism – all of reality is a figment of one’s

own imagination.

Therefore, one must make a choice; lose reality or lose the self. Which one do you choose tobe the illusion?

The third option, the only remaining option, is the one the Church took: the condition of our

being is a predicament. We either accept this predicament and the solution once offered by the

Church, or we begin to back down the ladder into the abyss of the Idealism, or perhaps Material-

ism. It does not matter, they end in the same place. Both end in its own style of solipsism: either

reality is not real and it can’t be known, or you are an illusion. Which is it? This predicament is

what ancient Christianity called the ‘Veil of Tears’.

The only solution is this: everything that enters our consciousness has an element of truth, a

reality that can be known, and an element of uncertainty, that which can’t be known or is yet tobe known. It is the mind’s duty to sift between that which we can be certain of and that which we

can’t – the counterfeit. In everything that we perceive there is a degree of certitude, of infallibil-

ity, that must be ferreted out. This is the task of knowledge and the basis of meaning. If we get it

wrong, in some subtle idealistic way, we create our own hell. We literally begin to will our own

existence away.

Modern Science and Plato’s World of Illusion

One may read the above and claim ‘I’m innocent!’ Science, by its own nature, is driven to ex-plain observable reality. However, it, too, must make ‘faith’ claims; laws of gravity, causality,

math, etc. If this were not so, it would deprive itself of the very tools it needs to operate. Yet, the

very claim ‘to explain material reality’ demands the question ‘by what?’ Since it already has out-

lawed the spiritual as a viable explanation, it must dig deeper and deeper into observable phe-

nomena. Eventually it runs out as the atoms of dissection become smaller and smaller. Like it or

not, you eventually end in some sort of less than knowable plasma (something Aristotle called




44

Prime Matter). Eventually science creates its own paradox when the act of examination literally

becomes the thing examined (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle).

Take man; scientifically, he is a sack of chemicals, mostly made up of water. And what of

these chemicals? They are made up of atoms. And the atoms? They are made up of sub-atomic

particles. And what of these particle. Well, they barely exist at all, they are a kind of energy, butnot really, they are a kind of matter, but not really. . . .well, anyway, the atom is mostly made up

of space. In fact, all material reality is mostly made up of space, it is only a matter of mathemati-

cal probability that my fingers don’t pass right through the keyboard I am typing on! 10 Likewise,

with relativity, the math destroys comprehension. A world based on ‘phenomena alone’ is, in

reality, the furthest from what it claims: while building up a reality based on formulas and

chemicals, it leaves man to live in a world where any opinion of the ‘visible’ is as good as the

next.

Are we in hell yet?




45

Paradox as Truth - A Solipsism of the Present Moment Created: 1 January 2009, 11:49


Status: N/A

Label: Chapter

Keywords:

The Legend of Thoth (Taaut/Hermes), the Tautology

[Taaut-ology], and the Two-Fold Truth

Part of the groundwork laid for Christianity by the Jews while under the polytheistic Persian

captivity was a philosophical innovation. The basis of this is the proposition that God, the high-

est of the high, is one not two. Christianity added to this the proposition that God, in order to be

knowable, must have distinctions: a monism has no distinctions and therefore is not knowable orapproachable.

At issue here is another subtle point: God, if He is to be

highest of the high, cannot be secondary to some otherhigher principle or law. Otherwise He would not be God.

He would be what is called a ‘demiurge’, a secondary be-

ing that must submit to these higher principles, no differ-ent than anyone else. In the Christian scheme, if therewere a higher law or principle, then that would be God.

Laws and principles have no ‘personality’. They are

‘mathematical’ in nature. Being that Man does have ‘per-sonality’, the trait of ‘person-ness’ needs to have its

source, God. A simple law or principle is not sufficient

enough to explain this ‘person-ness’.

In the Persian/Egyptian scheme God is indeed a demi-

urge subservient to two higher, equal but opposite reali-

ties, good and evil. This ‘two-fold principle’, in thisscheme, applies to everything — all of reality has its du-alistic counterpart. Material vs. immaterial, hot vs. cold,

faith vs. reason, etc., all of which are at odds with each

other. In this scheme concrete reality is a negative duality

to the positive mental ideal, it is a barbarian and oughtnot to be.

The Wand of Hermes as it appears

suspended between two barren

trees.




46

Also, in this scheme, Man is not so much ‘human’,

a composite of mind and body, but a mind inhabiting

a body. The physical body is more of a grave than a

living being. Much as a person drives a car, man

‘drives’ his body. Therefore he is not entirely re-

sponsible for all the predicaments the body might getin to. Man needs his body to gather information and

sense the illusions of reality that surround him. But

in this scheme, reality has no real truth to offer. In

this scheme Man is like an angel, but in the words of

the scholastic Anton Pegis, “… how did they ac-

count for the fact that man, who is for them very lit-

tle less than the angels, is yet an incarcerated angel?

What, after all, is an angel doing with a body?”

While many attribute the source of this Gnosticism

to Plato, the source is actually ancient dualism,where good and evil are equally powerful first prin-

ciples. This came down to the modern era through

Hermeticism as exemplified in the occult Corpus

Hermeticum rediscovered at the beginning of the

Renaissance. It is this text that is at the source of

most Christian heresy.

‘Hermeticism’ began as an attempt to politically

‘syncretize’ religion. Hermes Trismegistus, the syn-

cretic deity of this religion, was amalgamated from

separate deities representative of the various culturesthat existed prior to and within the Persian Empire:

Mercury, Marduk, Baal, Thoth, Taaut, Hermes, etc.

It is believed that the source of incivility is when cul-

tures within a broader emerging culture cling to their

past customs rather than adapt to the new. The for-

mula for peace, then, is to insist on a clever balance

between diversity and homogeneity: innocuous cus-

toms can be retained for they add color to society,

yet profound deeply held beliefs must be neutralized

for they are the seeds of bigotry, wars and religious

intolerance. The Persians tried it, the Greeks tried it,the Roman Empire tried it as has every major gov-

ernment known, yet it never works. People will not

abandon truth for customs, unless of course, they can

be convinced there is no truth, or that truth is para-

dox. It was this politicized, syncretism that infuriated

the Jews when they were subjected to it under the

Persian Empire. It emerged again under the Roman

a

b

c

a) The Egyptian god Thoth “Shepherd of

Souls”. b) Hermes as Mercury holding the

caduceus. c) Hermes Trismegistus displayed

as a Zoroastrian priest revealing the Two-

Fold nature of truth




47

Empire. It caused the Jews to insist God was one, not

many.

With the globalization of modern society a similar

crisis faces religion. While there is no ‘empire’ per

se, the emergence of global economies, mass mar-keting, mass communication, a similar polytheistic

pressure exists along with political pressure to ‘syn-

cretize’ religion. There are those who would blame a

particular country (such as the US), but this just

doesn’t hold as no country has the same access to

society as does do corporations (China, a political

foe to the US, is a willing accomplice in trade). This

has caused a ‘syncretic’ view to once again ree-

merge, along with sophisticated ‘psychological’

marketing and multi-cultural strategies and ‘games’.

The practical application of these strategies is not

just to sell goods, but to ‘blend’ the broader society

into a willing consumer. Ignorant of the ‘games’ and

theories underlying these games, the broader society

sees the details of religion as no longer relevant but

mere ‘dressing’. God as an intelligible reality is re-

place with a shared, common, almost mundane

heightened sense of inner spirituality. Religion is

stripped of unnecessary customs, trappings, rituals

and overly dogmatic beliefs, all in service of the

‘hermetic’ reality.

While the point may be subtle, it is still there: there

is historically no other more controversial debate

than the one over the existence or non-existence of

reality itself. How this debate is settled determines

the fate of Christianity. It was traditional Christianity

that uniquely insisted on the absolute existence of

not just a concrete reality, but Man as a true individ-

ual, and God as a personable entity. These are the

things lost to modern ‘spirituality’. The effect is,

while the names have been changed, this new Gnos-ticism is identical to the old. Both require dualism to

succeed. All dualism is based on what was called the

Two-Fold Truth.

Two Hermetic Texts




48

The Two-Fold Truth: the Ancient Basis of Dualism

Zoroastrianism is the dualistic prototype for Gnosticism. It was founded by Zoroaster, of the

school of the Magi. Legend holds Zoroastrianism was derived from the worship of Baal

(Bel/Baal-zebub). It maintained that there were two Gods, a good one and an evil one, that con-tested for dominion of the cosmos. The good God was the God of light (fire, the Sun).

The Persian emperors whose ancestors knew Zoro-

aster were beginning to be skeptical of Sun Worship

and were looking for a more substantial religion.

This is the reason why they began looking favorably

upon the Jews, ending their captivity and allowing

their return back to Jerusalem. This occurred under

the Emperor Cyrus when Daniel proved to him that

the religion of Bel (Baal) was a hoax (the story of

Bel and the Dragon).

Dualism begins when we take a ‘nothing’ and ele-

vate it to the status of a something. Instead of evil

being the absence of good, it becomes a ‘dual’,

counter reality. The dilemma posed is not as easy as

one might think. The scholastics proposed a simple

solution, ‘Evil is the absence of the Good.’ In this

scheme, evil doesn’t actually exist at all. What we

perceive as ‘evil’ is actually a lack of the goodness

— man creates evil as a result of his straying from

the good. Evil, as a naturally occurring reality, doesnot exist per se.

The problem with this is that there are many evils

in the world that just aren’t the result of Man’s er-

rors: the wicked tsunami, the innocent child that dies

at birth, the misfortunate coincidence that appears to be no one’s fault, the biologically evolved

creature (the mosquito, or the screw fly) that serves no purpose yet reeks havoc on society. One

can understand evil’s of this sort if understood as God’s method of teaching Man, yet this just

doesn’t seem satisfactory in every circumstance. True evil must exist, then, in some fashion or

another, but why would a true God allow it to exist at all?

Balancing such issues has caused theologians many sleepless nights. Many abandon religion

altogether, yet, we are left with Man’s rationality — from where did it come? The essence of the

intellectual process is to discern order. However, if intelligence is merely a result of a random

chance (evolution), how do we account for order, or our ability to discern it? We are left with the

proposition that there must be a reason for reason to exist, or reason itself is unreasonable.

The Faravahar, the holy symbol of the

Zoroastrian Two-Fold Truth.

Winged depictions of disks were derived

from visions people beheld during

eclipses of the Solar plasma emanating

from behind the Moon darkened Sun. It is

conjectured that this plasma represented

‘logos’ to the ancients. The turned man

climbing out of the disk represented

Man’s dilemma of picking the most cor-rect of the Two equally powerful but

opposite Truths. Should he pick wrongly,

he would be sentenced to a life of evil.




49

We are seemingly left with the same problem,

then, as to what defines good and evil. The

temptation to slip in to dualism is great and a

philosophically difficult situation. How do we

avoid irrationality? Even if we define ‘good’ as

‘that which produces the greatest good’ we seemto have avoided the definition ‘good’. Good,

therefore, must just ‘be’. A substance in itself,

something we just know when we see it.

The philosophical source for dualism is found

in the ancient Egyptian Book of the Dead . Thoth

or Taaut is the guardian of the Hall of the Two-

Truths. (Tao/Taut is also often used as a refer-

ence to God in some cultures) This is the Hall of

Justice, the Hall of the Two-Truths that one must

enter immediately upon one’s death. The de-ceased is presented before the judge, ‘Lord of

Truth, Master of the Two Leg’s’. What is re-

quired of the deceased is a Declaration of Inno-

cence before he can go to the world beyond. At

that moment, he is held accountable for all the

actions of his life — this is the moment of the

final judgment and only the innocent can pass.

But who is innocent? No one. No matter how

sincere one’s action, how truthful one’s truth, all

have fallen short. Thoth, however, has figured a

way out of this ‘game’. Thoth invents the Thoth-ology proving that there is no such thing as truth

— truth is an illusion, a mere symbol (an exam-

ple statement – This sentence is false – is it, or

isn’t it?). If there is no truth, how can one be ac-

countable before God for one’s actions? In a

sense, Thoth gets off on a technicality — and so

do all those of the Two-Fold Truth. Thoth, as the

proto savior of mankind, becomes the ‘shepherd

of souls’ and guardian of the Hall of the Two

Truths. The tautology becomes the very declara-

tion of innocence, the secret response for gettinginto heaven, and through life.

The Caduceus or Wand of Hermes /Thoth.

Notice the two truths represented by the

two Serpents (evoking the Serpent of the

Garden of Eden) Also, that they reach past

the ‘veil/abyss’ towards the Zoroastrian

Two-Fold Truth.




50

The Hall of the Two Truths depicted in the Egyptian Book of the Dead

This is where justice is weighed.

Christ says, ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’ Aqui-

nas echoes this in his belief that all of creation appears to serve those who serve the Truth. Inboth, the thing that determines what man ‘ought to do’ is truth itself. Yet, in today’s climate of

political correctness, that which primarily controls morality is a Thothic ‘declaration of inno-

cence’ — “I am not guilty for I have kept my truths to myself and I have allowed others to do the

same for there is no known truth”. “I am not responsible for my actions for it is in my nature toact in such a way, it’s just the way I am and I must submit.” “I am just as amazed by my actions

as you, I witnessed myself doing that but I could not stop.” “Life is a game, the only rules that

apply are the ones I gain by.” All are Thothic declarations of innocence, an abandonment of

judgment as a ticket to heaven.

CRITICAL POINT: In all these ‘declarations of innocence’ a certain mental maneuver musttake place: the personality is psychologically split. The person identifies ‘self’ with the one doing

thinking, but creates and objectifies a second ‘natural’ self on which the blame can be deposited.

It is this ‘second more natural self’ which is not blame-worthy because it possesses no rational-

ity to be held accountable.

The new formulation of the ‘Golden Rule’ is no different. Originally it was intended to estab-lish a standard of behavior based on a level of human dignity. Today, it has become a declara-

tion innocence — I will not judge your actions if you will not judge mine. It has become a

‘washing of the hands of guilt’, like Pontius Pilate.

Morality, today, is still primarily driven by the Thothology, that I am innocent of any crime aslong as the Truth cannot be known. This shows up in modern day marketing. For example, in

learning to drive a car, I must first learn to use the brake. Using the brake is not natural, it mustbe learned. After repeated use, the learned response becomes a habit, based on reason - it be-

comes ‘second nature’.




51

The basis of the occult is just this sort of psychology: to create a false second nature, based on

uncontrollable desire. For example, if you are naturally afraid of crowds, I can get you to shop inmy store by playing into your need to feel safe. You assume there are rules, I know there are not,

I can always concoct a game outside the ‘rules’ that you will lose. If I keep you shopping at my

store, eventually it will become second nature. It may actually be in your best interest to shop

elsewhere, but as long I play into and manipulate your desires you’ll keep buying my goods. Theway I keep you confused is the tautology - ‘Do you really trust those other guys?’ Of course you

don’t, you never met him. My statement sounds true, even thought it is not. But by making you

feel safe, I become rich.

Modern Existentialism is merely this tautology applied to religion and philosophy. By present-

ing you with a paradox, I can create a sense of anxiety. If I then can assuage that anxiety through

some benefit to you, I will win you as a disciple (or consumer). Any attempts at reason merely

re-ignite that anxiety, pulling you back into my fold.

Dualism is the basis of paradox. Perhaps, it was once an innocent religion, but it is now phi-

losophically bankrupt. It was Hermes/Thoth who provided a means of cheating its paradoxicalformulation. It is the Modernist who uses this ‘truth as paradox’ to will his way through life,cheating those unaware of its methods. Modernism has its roots in the Renaissance. The Renais-

sance has its roots in Gnosticism. Gnosticism has its roots in the Two-Fold Truth.

St. Gregory the Sinaite writes:

“The memory was originally simple and one-pointed [fold], but as a result of the fall its natu-

ral powers have been perverted: it has lost its recollectedness in God and has become compound

instead of simple, diversified instead of one-pointed [fold].”

It is man’s sentence to be of a two-fold nature, faith and belief, and to have to struggle past thatboundary, uniting the two as best he can to behold truth.




52

The Caduceus of Hermes displayed anciently with two Cornucopias (Horns of Plenty, Horns

of Amalthea) The cornucopia is a horn literally filled with bountiful fruits. The Eucharist im-

plication is that the ‘horn’ concept is based on the ancient ‘rhyton’ of the Persian Empire. In

vogue during the Hebrews captivity, it was the central vessel around which the Wine Feast

was based. Rhytons were originally horns sawed from bulls, but over time they were became

golden, ornately decorated vessels. It is from the rhyton that more modern wine chalice

evolved. The Persian metaphor was at the pinnacle of the feast a toast was made to one’s ad-

versaries after which the wine was consumed as ‘drinking the blood of one’s adversaries’.

This was the very feast that would have been celebrated in the Book of Esther. This feast (and

episodes of that feast) served as the model for the yearly Feast of Purim celebrated by the Jews. It was the yearly marking of that feast that numbered the years of Daniel’s prophecy for

the coming of Christ. (See my book ‘The Time of the Christ’, S. Scott Jones, where I argue

that the true model of the Last Supper was the Persian wine feast as memorially celebrated at

Purim. See also Josephus for the annual liturgy of that celebration noting its bizarre similari-

ties to the events of Maundy Thursday and Good Friday) It should be noted that the religion

of the Persian Empire, Zoroastrianism, based on the Two-Fold Truth, is the true ancient basis

of Islam and its two-fold philosophy. 11




53

Existentialism and the corruption of the Modern Church

With modern science breathing down its back, Christianity has found itself hanging on to moreand more doctrines that seemingly are becoming dubious. Geological findings contradict strict

Biblical interpretations. Science has discovered too many new species and too much evidencethat the age of the earth was much older than biblically allowed. Perhaps Biblical truths had be-

come over-extended over time into notions not originally intended. How does one retain ‘spiritu-

ality’ against this mounting (but often dubious) facts of science?

A divorce was sought. The domain of religion became limited to a form of social psychology,

with science claiming the rest. The Bible became reduced to an anomaly of symbolic importance

only, mere symbolism and emotional relevancy. With so many customs and truths to balance, it

became easier to see the Church as a mere undefined vehicle for an undefined ‘spiritual’ ambi-

ance. Mystery had become paradox and contradiction. To be holy was to be incomprehensible.

The Existentialist, Søren Kierkegaard, provides the model for most modern Christian philoso-

phy. Consider his statement:

“Paradox is the passion of thought; and the thinker who is without paradox is like a lover with-

out passion – an inconsiderable fellow. But the highest power of every passion is to want its own

destruction, and so it is likewise the highest passion of understanding to want a stumbling block,

even though the stumbling block may in one way or another prove its destruction. That is

thought’s highest paradox, to want to discover something it cannot think.”

Early in the 19th century, many Westerners began to look toward the East for either a replace-ment of, or a new interpretation for Christianity. This fueled a new search for essential Oriental

texts. Buddhism seemed to lead the way as a spirituality compatible with paradox. It is these

texts that inspired the western philosophies of Existentialism and Nihilism. Much of this phi-losophy is revealed by the very notable scholar Eugéne Burnouf in his book Introduction á

l’historie du Buddhisme indien. Burnouf writes:

“Whatever danger there is in precisely stating opinions to understand through texts still as in-

completely known as those from Nepal, I imagine that Shakyamuni, by entering religious life,

had a starting point the facts given to him by the aesthetic doctrines of the Samkhya, which were

ontologically the absence of God , the multiplicity and eternity of human souls, and physically,

the existence of an eternal nature, endowed with qualities, able to transform itself, and possess-ing the elements of the forms the human soul assumes in the course of its journey through the

world. Shakyamuni took from this doctrine both the idea that there is no God and the theories of

the multiplicity of human souls, of transmigration, and of Nirvana, or deliverance, which be-

longed to all the Brahmanic schools in general. Only, it is not easy to see today what he meant

by Nirvana because he did not define it anywhere. But since he never speaks of God, Nirvana for

him cannot be the absorption of the individual soul into a universal God, as the orthodox Brah-

mins believed; and as he spoke hardly more of matter, his Nirvana is not the dissolution of the




54

human soul with physical elements either. The word “empty,” which already appears on the

monuments proven to us to be the most ancient, leads me to think that Shakya saw the supreme good in the destruction of the thinking principle. He imagined it, as an often repeated

comparison makes one assume, as the disappearance of the light from the lamp that has been

extinguished.”

But with the absence of religious dogma came the promise of unbridled freedom. With this

came a new-found power to destroy the customs and traditions of past eras through subjecting

those truths to tautologies and paradoxes. Professor Marjorie Grene of the University of Chicago,

an Existentialist herself, having studied with Kierkegaard and Jaspers, sums up the technique of Existentialism in its understanding of desire; she is quoting Sartre’s theorem via Simoné de

Beauvoir:

“What we really want is to cast a spell on the enemy’s freedom, to seduce it like a woman: the

alien consciousness must remain free with regard to the content of its acts; it must freely

acknowledge its past faults, repent, and despair; but an external necessity has to force it to this

spontaneous movement.”

Eliminated from any possibility at all is man’s search for truth and the satisfaction in finding

that truth. Like an alchemical magician, the modern Existentialist seeks the voyeuristic pleasure

of attempting to chemically wed that which is foreign to each other and then delight in the bestial

intercourse that results. An essential occult alchemical theory was always the wedding of thingsthat ought not be wed in an effort to delight in new and unnatural realities. Taste becomes not a

matter of what is appropriate, but what you can appropriately get away with. Creativity becomes

redefined as just such an exercise in what the Existentialist calls ‘poetry’.

The Existentialist can provoke just such ‘happenings’ by interjecting statements like, ‘There

are no absolutes’, and ‘The only certainty is change’. We become his unknowing accomplice.Aligning himself with the god of disorder, his evangelism is spreading disorder and creatingdoubt. He seeks to unite with this conjugal ‘Force’ believing that uniting contradictions propels

the Cosmos into higher and higher levels of consciousness. He purposely rigs the data so that we

never notice the inconsistencies. It is the Two-Fold Truth becoming the accepted paradoxical ba-

sis of reality.

We can argue that science has a better grasp of reality, but only material reality, and only mar-

ginally. The paradoxes we are left with has left Man even less explained than the ancients — a

bag of chemicals that somehow thinks and feels — a spiritual demon locked in a dying corpse.

It is my conjecture that if we had the opportunity of chronological distance, if we could lookback from 500 years in the future, we would see the present era for what it truly is: another Dark

Ages. The scientific principle that we are absolutely sure of as it rapidly becomes the myth of tomorrow. As a whole, then, we are living amongst more myths than truths even by science’s

own estimation. The mathematical fictions explaining the cosmos aren’t even comprehensible to

the physicists themselves.




55

Relativity: the Modern ‘Two-Fold Truth’

Modern cosmologist have ordered the universe around gravitational models developed by

Newton and Einstein, yet have out-of-hand dismissed plasma forces billions of times greater.They’ve dismissed evidence by Georgés Sagnac and Roland DeWitte that Einstein was wrongwithout so much as an apology. When astronomer Halton Arp of Mount Wilson and Palomar

Observatories had found unequivocal evidence that the Big Bang had not happened he was

summarily removed from observational status and eventually dismissed. The Black Hole and

Dark Matter Theories needed to balance modern cosmological models are really no better thanthe Satanic Prince of Darkness explanations of the past. We still have the habit of taking all the

principles we can’t understand, wrapping them up into a nice package we can name, and then

assigning it all the magical properties we need to hide our ignorance. The fact of the matter is the

status quo needs relativism to keep its agenda moving forward. The Existentialists have reignedtoo long. They’ve turned the world into a game and all of us into their play-thing. It’s time we’ve

had enough.

The Sagnac Interferometer Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was supposedly verified by Michelson & Morley. The experiment claimed

to have proved that the speed of light was an absolute. Georgés Sagnac, noticing errors in the experi-

ment, reconfigured the test with his own device. Sagnac was able to exceed the speed of light, thus col-

lapsing any paradoxes of relativity. While Sagnac Devices are commonly installed in modern fighter

planes (replacing gyroscopes for navigation), physicists are reluctant to concede that the device actually

works on the principles by which it was invented — it’s all relativity, you know. When Einstein was con-

fronted by Sagnac and his effect, Einstein said, “That has nothing to do with relativity.” Sagnac retorted,

“In that case, Dr. Einstein, relativity has nothing to do with reality.”




56

Astronomical Object NGC 7603The Big Bang Theory is primarily based on what is called the “Red Shift” — that the further an astro-

nomical object is away, the more its light spectrum is lowered towards the red frequencies. The theory

states that it is essentially a Doppler shift – the higher the speed, the greater the distance, the bigger the

shift. Yet, by this very theory it would appear that the Earth is the center of the cosmos for there are no

major stars racing towards us. Also, by the same theory, the cosmos must be literally older than light:there are cosmic structures larger than the time allotted under the theory. Essentially, to work the entire

universe would have to be moving at relativistic speeds creating everyday relativistic events everywhere,

a necessity of Relativity. (An object moving away from me at near light speed means I am moving away

from it at the same speed relative to it causing space/time paradoxes – a man moving at such speeds ages

slower than a man standing still, yet we’re both moving those speeds relative to each other. These para-

doxes are a result of the theory that the speed of light, c, is an absolute. It can’t be exceeded even if part-

ing objects are both attaining their own light speed: c + c = c.)

The bigger object above is a low red shifted object. The object to the left, connected by a wispy tail, is a

high red shifted object. According to modern theory, they cannot both be the same distance away or all

our cosmological theories fail, the age of the universe, the size of the universe, etc. Here they are clearly

connected proving them to be the same distance away. Dr. Arp has numerous other evidences of the

same, all discounted by academia.There are other theories that explain the Red Shift. One simply says that light becomes ‘tired’. Plank’s

Constant stipulates that higher frequency light requires more energy than lower frequency light. As light

travels tremendous distances, it uses up energy trying to maintain its speed (the speed of light is a con-

stant, but not an absolute). With nowhere else to derive its energy from, it must lose frequency (shift to-

wards the red) to maintain its speed. Another theory states that the spectral ‘fingerprint’ of luminous ele-

ments are not fixed. Matter, as it is created in the formation of galaxies, generates different, shifted, fin-

gerprints from their stable counterparts. It’s possible ALL these theories are true to a degree, yet modern

science only considers the Big Bang explanation even though it requires Dark Matter to work.




57

Appendix to Chapter - Other Proofs

The Cambridge philosopher GE Moore was an arch defender of reality, but he would often re-

sort to a rather odd sort of logic that is valid but little understood. His proof of reality runs thusly:

MOORE’S PRIMARY PROOF OF REALITY

(1) Here is a hand. [Uttered while making a gesture with one hand.]

(2) Here is another hand. [Uttered while making a gesture with the other hand.]Therefore,

(3) There exists external things [Reality is proved, Idealism falsified].

While it appears to run short of a proof on the surface, the logic is, in fact, impeccable. This

has caused many philosophers to re-examine Anselm’s Ontological proof of God as actually be-

ing true, valid and profound. Is of the same ‘modal’ category as Anselm’s Ontological Proof.

ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL PROOF OF GOD

(1) God is the thought object than which no thought object can be thought to be greater

(2) Now suppose that God is only in the intellect (i.e. God is thought of, but does not exist)(3) But certainly any thought object that can be thought to exist in reality can be thought to be

greater than any thought object that is only in the intellect.

(4) And it cannot be doubted that God can be thought to exist in reality.

Therefore,(5) Some thought object can be thought to be greater than the thought object than which no

thought object can be thought to be greater [1,2,3,4] which is a contradiction, whence we have to

abandon our supposition that God is only in the intellect, so he has to exist in reality, too. 12

The true brilliancy of Anselm’s proof is concealed by the above, common over simplification.

The proof actually runs like this: the comparative goodness of any two things cannot be deter-

mined solely by comparing them to each other, invariably a third ‘ideal’ is needed to set a stan-

dard of comparison. This not only holds true for any ‘goodness’, but also any goodness one canthink of, such as ‘greatness’. This applies when comparing any two commodities one can con-

ceive, regardless how great. Therefore, for thought to be possible, a supreme ‘Ideal’, or ‘Great-

ness’, higher than any conceivable ideal, must exist or any comparison or description would bestymied. It is this supreme Ideal Greatness we call ‘God’.

MOORE’S PROOF THAT ‘GOODNESS’ IS A PRIMARY ESSENCE, NOT IN THE EYEOF THE BEHOLDER

Plato’s doctrine invariably led to that notion that ‘God’ was defined as ‘the greatest good’, yet

he seemingly made even this notion escape reason when he introduce the notion ‘beauty is in the

eye of the beholder’. Invariably, this is the mantra of the non-traditionalists. Moore, similarly,had an argument against this:




58

“In short, this modern theory that all art is form, is exclusively subjective. It denies that an ob-

ject is beautiful in itself, but it does not see that it is not even an object in itself. It is just as trueto say that a sunset is beautiful as to say that a sunset exists. I would therefore try to define the

beautiful as that with regard to which you have a specific emotion, the nature of which can only

be discovered by looking into yourself, whenever you say that an object is beautiful, and finding

what you mean thereby. But I must also maintain that this emotion is not merely yours, and ca-pable of attaching itself to any object whatever, but that some objects are by their very nature

more capable than others of exciting it. When you say that a particular red is beautiful, you mean

that you feel a pleasant emotion in contemplating it; and that emotion at once constitutes it a dif-

ferent object: it is no longer that particular red, to be distinguished only by intellectual marks; itis no longer given you only as an object of knowledge, but actually given as an object of feeling.

But different people think different things to be beautiful, and the same thing is thought ugly

by one person and beautiful by another; how then can you say that that same thing is beautiful orugly? I must reply by a question: Is it the same thing? When the two people say ‘beautiful’, they

have to some extent the same notion: else the word "beauty" would be utterly without meaning,

and we should never pass such a judgment at all. When, therefore, two people say of a thing, onethat it is beautiful, and the other that it is ugly, the thing of which they are speaking is not thesame thing. Part of the thing is the same, else they could not understand one another: but part

also is different, since for one the fixed notion of beauty is wrapped up in it, for the other its op-

posite.

But how are we to judge between them? If they are asserting opposite propositions about dif-

ferent things, they are not contradicting one another. But they are contradicting one another; and

are also asserting opposite propositions about the same thing. We can only decide between themby shewing that in the very notion, which makes it possible for them to contradict one another,

there is implied that which makes one of them wrong and the other right. In other words, we

must make the bare notion of beauty determine itself, and decide for itself with what other marksit is consistent and with what it is inconsistent.

But can we do this? We shall be told: “there is no disputing about tastes”. But it is a curious

thing that, though we are constantly being told this and may even think we are convinced of it,

we do nevertheless dispute about tastes and contradict our theory by our practice. More than thiswe are even amenable to reason on the point, and may be convinced that a thing which we had

taken for ugly is beautiful: which seems to shew that our taste is in a sense rational, and has laws

of its own, which may be expressed. Indeed, it follows from the fact that we attach any meaning

at all to ‘beauty’, that beauty must have a nature of its own, absolutely definite, and which there-fore excludes certain objects and must include others; and further that this definite nature may be

known, but though certain that we can know it, yet perhaps we can’t; for we find we can’t doeverything which we know we can do.” 13




59

Adam and Eve as Metaphors for Faith and Belief



Status: N/A

Label: No Label

Keywords:

The Doctrine of Original Sin (West), or the First Sin (East)

And man when he was in honour did not understand;

he is compared to senseless beasts, and is become like to them. – Psalm 49:12

“Knowledge is the light of the rational soul” – St. John Damascene

Whoever Adam was, whether he lived 10,000 years ago or 10 million years ago, matters not to

this discussion. The story of Adam is the story of the first creature to wake up one morning and

realize he was rational, that he was legitimately aware of himself and his surroundings, and the

dilemma posed to such an awareness. It is the crisis of how he would come to realize the impli-cations of that awareness and how those same implications interact with reality. Adam, who ever

he was, would have been the first to struggle with what it means to be curious, what it means to

communicate, what it means to identify this from that, what it means to be ‘me’. He would havebeen the first to face the notion of free will and the fact that he could not have all that he desiresor imagines. If the family pet were to one day became rational, it would face the same crisis.

The story of Adam and Eve is a particularly ancient one. While it appears in many cultures, thegist of the story seems to cleverly modify from place to place to emphasize each culture’s unique

tradition. However, there are some peculiar elements to the story that seem to have significance.

(One should know that it is often taught that the Biblical texts are derived from the Hebrew,

when it is well known that the oldest surviving texts were derived from the Greek Septuagint.This puts in to doubt how intricately one can reconstruct the story. I will stick to broad themes.):

1) The name ‘Adam’ is usually understood to be a cryptogram for something. One traditionuses the name as an anagram for the four corners of the Earth: anatole (east), dusis (west), arktos (north), and mesembria (south). The commonly held belief that Adam means ‘red’, or ‘earth’ is

actually a fairly recent invention (2nd cent.). The name also seems to have a plural connotation

indicating that the name was intended to apply to ‘mankind’ or the entire class of beings called

‘Man’.




60

2) God is referred to in the plural “let us make man…”. This is often understood to be the

basis of the ‘three-in-one’ Trinity, yet, this concept is particularly difficult to grasp, even now.

3) While it is usually avoided in most

translations, there are problems with just

who Eve is. The discrepancy begins withGod having created both male and female

‘together’, then later having to create Eve

again from Adam’s side. This has led to

several novel solutions to the problem. One

says that ‘Adam’ was created first as a

hermaphrodite, male and female together,

and later separated by pulling woman from

his side. Another ‘lilith’ account has it that

woman is somehow evil, perhaps identified

with the tempting serpent. Without getting

into details, Lilith lends to the general con-cept ‘woman’ a somewhat diabolical na-

ture, particularly when acting on her own.

Hebrew tradition often advocates a certain

spiritual solution to resolve these and other

discrepancies the basis of which is that

Adam and Eve are separate entities of a

union that was intended to be complemen-

tary, married together, to be complete. The

female nature appears to be able to act in-

dependently, ‘intuitionally’, but goes astray

diabolically. The male nature appears to belost without the female, he needs her as a

complement, yet she must be subordinate

or she is capable of undermining the enter-

prise. Still, and perhaps most curiously, it is

Adam who is culpable for the misdeeds,

not Eve. Eve is tempted, yet Adam sins.

4) Day cannot just mean ‘day’ as a 24

hour period. There are strong indications

that the word used, in context, refers to di-

visions of some sort, usually ages, but notnecessarily so. The Gnostics used such di-

visions to refer to the ‘seven heavens’

which were layers of reality. “Again, the

word age is used to denote, not time nor yet

a part of time as measured by the move-

ment and course of the sun, that is to say,

composed of days and nights, but the sort

The basic Tree of Porphyry. Notice the ancient me-

dieval common reference to the Tree as an actual

existing tree, here, with a crown on it. It is very easy

two take the seven aeons of Creation, treat them as

logical branch-levels and replace the Porphyrian

terminology with Biblical with God making logical

divisions (God divides ‘void’ into ‘form’ and ‘form-

less’, ‘light’ divides into ‘matter’ and ‘non-matter’,

etc.).




61

of temporal motion and interval that is co-extensive with eternity.” – St. Gregory Naziansus 14

5) The Tree of Knowledge, found in Eden, is intrinsic, almost salvific in nature. It is crucial

to the story, yet its significance appears to be lost to tradition. It is prominent in the story, yet

usually disregarded. It is the ‘apple’ taken from that Tree that is the center of the crisis and the

cause of the temptation leading to the Sin, the Fall of Man, and the need for resolution in Christ.

Therefore, we must consider that the Adam and Eve text is not, nor never was intended to

be a mere gratifying myth, a cultural fable. It was at the very least intended to be a moral story,perhaps a hidden mystery text, or a philosophical wisdom text.

The Scholastics maintained that the core of Christianity was the phrase ‘ Nihil est intellectu

quod non prius fuerit insensu,’ there is nothing in the mind that isn’t first in the senses. This wasbacked up by the much maligned phrase, “ from nothing, nothing comes” (it was intended to

prove God as a necessary contingency to the fact that ‘things exist. Occultist often used it to deny

reality — we can’t perceive God, God is a ‘nothing’, therefore reality is an illusion).

Also used were certain axioms: “nothing can be that which it is not ” the first absolute and the

essence of the principle of non-contradiction. Another, “as above, so below”, indicating that

truths found on a metaphysical level absolutely applied on a material level.

The purpose of these axioms often were to prove the necessity of God, yet they were also used

to establish the basis of Original Sin: the Sin of Man could be deposited directly on his igno-

rance, the ‘veil of tears’, the ‘ego-centric predicament’. Also, it has always been understood inCatholic circles that the Eucharist was integral to the ‘remission of sins’. Therefore, if the source

of all Sin was a certain ignorance, then the resolution of that ignorance must somehow be found

in the ‘Corpus’ of the Eucharist. To penetrate the mystery of Adam and Eve and the Eucharist we

must connect the two.

An ancient third teaching device used by the Scholastic, often taught to be introduced to Chris-

tianity in the Middle Ages, is the Tree of Porphyry. As the name indicates it was formulated by

Porphyry (3rd cent.) but is commonly attributed to Aristotle.

The importance of this device cannot be overstated. Not only did it give meaning to the order

of creation, it also served as a device for explaining the operation of language, particularly as the

mind is capable of making distinctions. The Renaissance Humanist Lorenzo Valla began his as-sault on Aristotle by attacking the Tree of Porphyry.

All sentences were once seen as subjects and predicates, examples of how knowledge workedin Man. He perceives ‘this thing’ as a class of ‘things’, by predicating something of the subject.He knows the ‘what-ness’ of that thing by distinguishing classes and attributes. I see Socrates, I

recognize Socrates as a man (a class of being of which I am a member). I then begin to know

Socrates as an individual by continuing to make distinctions and mentally collecting attributes.

I’ve purposely used the words ‘class’ and ‘attributes’ as they are words we are used to hearing.

The Medieval convention would have been ‘substance’ and ‘accidents’, but we hear those words




62

differently now. In this system, it was taught, Man’s knowledge functioned both by taking attrib-

utes and combining them into classes (comprehension), and by taking classes distinguishingthem into attributes (extensions). The understanding and utilization of this process formed the

essence of communication and knowledge theory. It also helped them to ponder and comprehend

things ‘transcendental’ (beyond speech).

Today, Middle Age philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas are accused of corrupting pure

Christianity by wedding it to Aristotle. That the use of the Tree of Porphyry was not just a Scho-

lastic contrivance (a mere elaboration of Christian philosophy by Aquinas) is attested to by the

fact that it appears in the early Christian writings of St. John Damascene.

St. John Damascene was born in the year 675 and died in the year 749. He worked for a Mus-

lim magistrate at the very time Islam began to assert itself, taking over countries, sequestering

books in an effort to accumulate all of knowledge under its authority. Realizing the impendingDark Ages, John decided to write a complete exposition of the faith for posterity. He called it the

Fount of Knowledge. It was the basis for Aquinas’ Summa Theologica. Damascene extensively

uses Aristotle to formulate his ‘Complete Exposition of the Orthodox Faith’. In fact, Damasceneclearly says, ‘I shall say nothing of my own, but I shall set down things which have been said invarious places by wise and godly men’, in other words, the Church Fathers. It is clear from the

text that an Aristotelian understanding of scripture is the only one justified because the words

used are Aristotelian philosophical terms. The opposing Platonic understanding is declared a

heresy by Damascene. Rather than invent a new religion, as the Protestants claimed, Aquinas hadmerely connected the dots back to the original.

Damascene is commonly regarded as the Aquinas of Eastern Orthodoxy. He writes:

“Being is divided into substance and accident, not a genus into species, but as an equivocal

term, or as those things which are derivative and relative.Substance is a most general genus. It is divided into corporeal and incorporeal.

The corporeal is divided into animate and inanimate.

The animate is divided into sentient, or animal, zoophyte, and non-sentient, or plant.

The animal is divided into rational and irrational.

The rational is divided into mortal and immortal.

The mortal is divided into man, ox, horse, dog, and the like.

Man is divided into Peter, Paul, and all other individual men. These are individuals, hypos-

tases, and persons.”




63

A middle 20th century Tree of Porphyry from ‘Logic: the Science of Correct Thinking’, Fr. Celestine

Bittle (Roman Catholic).

To elaborate this doctrine I supply the following chart. It is my contention that the original

Tree of Knowledge found in Genesis is the same pedagogical device. It is related in the story in

the best language available at that period of time, a written convention yet to invent an alphabet

and limited to symbolism, later converted into a written language. By ‘days’/‘aeons’ are sym-

bolically represented divisions of reality. The broadness of applying this term indicates not so

much a primitive myth, but the extreme antiquity of the teaching device, it was the only term

available to indicate ‘division’:




64




65

The Application to the Eucharist

Ancient References to the Eucharist Itself as Being Salvific

From the Bible: Matthew 26:26-28: “And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it,

and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the

cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the

new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.”

From the Ancient Sarum Mass: “Likewise, after supper, taking this most excellent chalice into

his holy and adorable hands, and [bowing] giving thanks to thee, he blessed it, and gave it to his

disciples, saying, ‘Take and drink ye all of this. [Lifting the chalice a little] For this is the cup of

my blood of the new and everlasting testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you

and for many for the remission of sins.’”

Also: “Lord, holy Father, almighty everlasting God, grant me so worthily to receive this most

holy body and blood of thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ, that I may thereby be found fit to obtain

remission of all my sins, and to be filled with thy Holy Spirit, and to have thy peace; because

thou art God alone and there is none other beside thee, whose kingdom and glorious dominion

abideth, world without end. Amen”

And numerous other references

From the most ancient Stowe Missal: “Who the day before He suffered, took bread into His

Holy and venerable Hands, and with His eyes lifted up to heaven to Thee, God, His Almighty Fa-

ther, gave thanks to Thee, He Blessed, He broke, and gave to His disciples, saying: Take and

eat from this all of you, for this is my Body. In a similar manner after the supper, He took thisexcellent Chalice in His Holy and venerable Hands: also giving thanks to Thee, He Blessed, and

gave to His disciples, saying: Take and drink from this all of you, for this is the Chalice of my

Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which is shed for you and for many

unto the remission of sins.”

The notion that the Church of Rome brought Christianity to Britain via Augustine of Canter-

bury is completely untenable. It is largely a product of a campaign to delegitimize the priorCeltic Church primarily by using a text by Venerable Bede, The Ecclesiastical History of the

English People. That this text is somewhat propaganda, attempting to prove that the ecclesial his-

tory of Britain legitimately began with Augustine’s mission in the 590s, is backed up by the nu-

merous references of a Church pre-existing that date.

A very thorough job of illustrating this has been done by F E Warren in The Liturgy and Ritual

of the Celtic Church, Oxford.15 For example: Athanasius (AD 363) in a letter states adherence of the British Churches to the Nicene Creed; St. Chrysostom (AD 386-398) states ‘even the British

Isles have felt the power of the word,… with differing voices but not with differing belief…”.

Warren literally sites too many examples to list here. Evidence of this earlier liturgy is primarily

found in the Stowe Missal (prior to 584).16 It is often taught that the literalness of the phrase ‘this




66

is my body’, implying Real-Presence, was an invention of the Scholastic Roman Catholic

Church during the Middle Ages, that prior to this, liturgy was a casual, more or less informal

service of praise, perhaps with a shared meal of remembrance.

The Stowe Missal is a Celtic liturgy that predates the Roman Church’s influence in Britain. It

is evidence that this early liturgy was of a ‘Catholic style’ and Eucharistic. Likewise, one canfind similar examples in Eastern Orthodox liturgies. It is a fact, then, that all of Christendom

prior to the Reformation took the phrase literally. Chrysostom’s statement alone signifies an im-

portant point: that the beliefs in all of Christendom conformed to the sanctity of the Eucharist as

found in these ancient liturgies, and most importantly, that this tradition was not merely a

“Romish” invention.

The Genesis Foundations for the Eucharist

If the First Sin was a particular predicament of ignorance, and the Eucharist is a resolution of

that same predicament, one would need to do two things: 1) that the First Sin was precisely a

failure of the proper relationship between faith and belief; 2) that the Eucharist, properly under-stood, was a re-unification of this faith and belief relationship. I also will hazard another hurdle,

that if such a truth could be shown to be true, that this ‘truth’ be not a truth confined to Christian-

ity, but a truth that represents a universal predicament and solution, a condition of Man, a univer-

sal dogma that applies to everyone.

Modern man has an aversion to dogma. He hears the word as a strict regulation that could po-

tentially restrict his freedom. Dogma means ‘law’, yet no one would feel like the law of gravity,

or the speed of light impinged on his freedom. The reason the modern rejects dogma is not be-

cause it is a law, but because it seems to him to be arbitrary; a mere opinion not based on truth

but designed to restrict his freewill. In a modern society, anything that smells like an absolute is

considered to be ‘dogma’ and is considered arbitrary.

The word ‘absolute’ is derived from the Latin ab and solvo. Ab means ‘from’. Solvo literally

means ‘without ties’. Our words ‘solvent’ is also derived from ‘solvo’. Absolute, ‘ab-solution’,

like dissolve, would mean ‘without any further taking apart’. Philosophically, absolute means

‘self-sufficient’ or ‘self-evident’. It is the opposite of ‘relative’, which means ‘with ties’. How-

ever, ‘relativism’ denies that there are self-evident absolutes. Yet, the word absolvo is not too far

removed from other Christian metaphors such as the ceremonial ablution of washing away sins,

or the washing of one’s hands to symbolize a cleansing of obligation, such as Pontius Pilate.

I have long held the conviction that there are three levels of right and wrong, not merely two,

moral and immoral . Allow me to illustrate. Imagine you are sitting at a table across from Adolf Hitler. You are aware that he has killed 3 million Jews and he is about to kill 3 million more.

You have a loaded gun and nothing is stopping you from killing him accept this: Thou shalt not

kill. Do you indirectly allow the certain death of millions, or do you bear the guilt of committing

murder. (I know the difference between the various translations of murder vs. kill, please disre-

gard for this thought experiment). Most moral decisions are not a simple ‘good vs. evil’ deci-

sions. They are usually a picking of the best of two questionable alternatives. Seemingly, either




67

way you choose a death is on your conscience. Yet, there is a third choice, to do nothing, to not

participate.

To do nothing, to not get morally involved, seemingly sidesteps the issue and takes you out of

guilt’s way. Like, Thoth, it is a declaration of innocence. Yet, think of Pilate, was he guilty? This

is modernism, the objectivization of reality, the non-judgmental dodging of moral issues to es-cape blame. Is this really moral? The only solution is if we allow for a third possibility besides

the moral and the immoral, the amoral, the suspension of reason so as to be unaccountable.

If you do nothing in the above example, have you really dodged the guilt? Modern society of-

ten teaches ‘yes’. To do nothing places you in the morally superior position of not ‘getting your

hands dirty’. Yet, doing nothing will lead to an evil. The only solution is defining ‘doing noth-

ing’ as ‘amoral’, and placing that amorality beneath suffering the immoral act of murder.

It is easy to do good when there are only good choices, but what of the mother who must steal

to feed her baby, the war that must be fought to retain freedom. Often the immoral person has a

concept of the good, he merely suspends that judgment to approach a perceived greater good (hestill seeks what he perceives is ‘good’). But the amoral person has no conception of good or evil ,

he is merely trying to save himself. By this, he has lost his humanity, his soul.

The amoral person is the sociopath. He literally uses everything to further his own well-being.

Here is the key point: the connection between himself and reality only goes one way, and that is

towards the self, it is as if reality has no consequence. To kill Hitler is still based on a moral

principle, something the amoral person, perhaps Hitler himself, knows not. Moving on…

The basis of dogma should not be opinion, but, things that are self-evident, the 1 + 1 = 2. The

fact of one’s own existence is self-evident. Self-evident facts are intuitive and are known ‘imme-

diately’. Immediately means ‘without a medium’, a ‘middle’. If something is self-evident, noconnection between self and reality is necessary. There is no veil of tears to conquer.

Most things, however, are not known immediately, but ‘mediately’ - they are not self-evident,

they require a medium to communicate the truth. Realty, all reality, requires a vehicle for com-

munication to take place. A part of that reality that is to be approached must actually imbed itself

within that vehicle or the fact of knowledge would be thwarted. Most of what man knows re-

quires a medium to convey that reality. Even when I look out into the world, my senses act as a

medium to the world around me. We call movies and CDs media.

If man’s senses were truly one with his mind, this veil would not exist – he would need no me-

dia, all man’s intuitions would be without error. In Platonic theory, ultimately nothing is learnedmediately, for all knowledge comes from within, therefore, all knowledge is immediate or intui-

tive. Platonism falsely simulates a state of grace, that access to all truth is intuitive. However, it

is evident that this is not the case. Therefore, man’s task is to adjust his beliefs to correspond

with what is real. Once he believes something to be real, he must act as if it is true.

“Divine knowledge, once it is awakened in us, teaches us that the perceptive faculty natural to

our soul is single, but that it is split into two distinct modes of operation as a result of Adam’s




68

disobedience. This single and simple perceptive faculty is implanted in the soul by the Holy

Spirit.” – St. Diadochos of Photiki, from The Philokalia, an ancient Orthodox text

According to this, the evidence of the Original Sin is this deficiency, this lack of intuition. This

‘veil’ is inherent to the nature of man.

The Bible gives evidence that God expected Israel to be obedient prior to dispensing His com-

mandments, yet man fell short of this expectation of knowledge. Even in Eden, Man was ex-

pected not to sin. The expectation was that man should intuitively know the essence of good and

evil. Adam (man) and Eve (woman) could be considered a metaphor for the relation faith has to

belief and its proper operation.

In order for this metaphor to work, Adam and Eve must be a legitimate representations of

something basic to our nature: this split between faith (our ability to sense) and reason (our abil-

ity to understand). Original Sin is part of man’s nature. Ancient Christianity defined ‘man’ as did

Aristotle, as ‘a rational animal’. Surprisingly the word ‘Adam’ means precisely that. Rabbi Mi-

chael Monk:

“‘Adam’ literally means ‘man’, yet, in Hebrew it means much more. It should be remembered

that the Scholastic definition of ‘man’ is ‘rational animal’. The Hebrew word ‘Adam’ is actually

an anagram composed of three letters: ‘a’ (A) stands for the man as a being in the image of the

One God; ‘d’ (D) stands for ‘dialect’, the power of speech and reason; ‘m’ (M) stands for motion,

man’s ability to be animate. The root of the word ‘Adam’ is derived from the Hebrew word

meaning ‘to compare’ or ‘the ability to differentiate’. The word ‘Adam’ literally means ‘rational

animal’.”

Referring to the fall St. John Damascene writes:

“Since God had endowed man’s nature with a free will, He made it a law for him not to taste

of that tree of knowledge of which we have spoken sufficiently and to the best of our ability in

the chapter on paradise. This command He gave to man with the promise that he let reason

prevail, recognizing his Creator and observing the Creator’s ordinance, and thus preserve the

dignity of the soul, then he would become stronger than death and would live forever in the en-

joyment of everlasting bliss. On the other hand, should he shake off the yoke of his Maker and

disregard His divine ordinance, thus subordinating soul to body and preferring the pleasure of

the flesh, ‘not understanding his own honor and compared to senseless beasts,’ [psalm 49:12]

then he would be subject to death and corruption and would be obliged to drag out his miser-

able existence in toil. For it was not profitable for him to attain incorruptibility while yet un-

tried and untested, ‘lest he fall into pride and the judgement of the devil’. [1 Ti. 3:6]” – St.John Damascene, Fount of Knowledge, Book II, Chapter 30

This text refers not only to the fall of Adam, but also of ‘mankind’. As Damascene is com-

monly regarded by the East and West as a Church Father, if not one of the most Orthodox of all

teachers, his doctrine must be taken extremely seriously. The words “let reason prevail ” can re-

fer to nothing other than the philosophical concept ‘belief’ (intellectus). The words “ subordinat-

ing soul to body and preferring the pleasure of the flesh” can refer to nothing other than the phi-




69

losophical concept ‘faith’ (animus). It was Eve via the temptation that led Adam astray, this

quote unites the Fall with a philosophical paradigm.

Therefore, metaphorically, Adam and Eve represent this:

Adam – belief/intellectus – the intellect, literally the rational animal(man – the rational principle - when acting without faith becomes false idealism)

Eve – faith/animus – the will, intuition, desire

(woman – the irrational principle - when acting without belief becomes misguided intuition)

Eden/paradise – truth – the unity of the soul/spirit

‘Sinless’ would be as if the intellect and the will could be joined with no ‘split’ – no veil, all

‘truth’ is self-evident, intuitional. The knowledge of good and evil would be immediate, requir-

ing no ‘middle’. It would be a state of grace for there would be no disparity between what one

sensed and what one thought.

Faith, the senses, are confined to the present moment; they are irrational and do not anticipate

nor have a memory. Confined to the ‘now’, faith can assume that it is ‘sinless’. Without reason it

can make a declaration of innocence. Yet, the senses have no moral imperative, they are just de-

vices for gathering information. It is only when the mind steps in and wills the senses in a par-

ticular direction that they must succumb. Therefore, the senses alone dodge the moral issue. Di-

vorced from reason, they go as they will, gathering information without judgment or direction.

The weight of morality falls on a free-will decision that the senses are not capable of. Faith

knows not the distinction between good and evil.

Adam and Eve have been given a simple command:

And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of

knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it,

thou shalt die the death. - Genesis 2:16

Eve (the will) is tempted by the Serpent to disregard Truth (God) and act out of concert with

the intellect (Adam).

Upon meeting with the Serpent, Eve is promised that if she takes of the apple, ‘Ye shall not

surely die’. This is precisely a promise of eternal life through an abandonment of the intellect as

a participant. Eve desires her own knowledge, the ability to know good and evil (to make distinc-tions). Representing ‘faith’, she approaches the Tree of Knowledge and reaches out for the evi-

dence, the apple, the thing that delights the senses. Acting alone, she divorces herself from the

faith/belief unity intended by God.

Eve, as faith, illustrates how the will on its own can recreate a state of dualism. Eve tastes of

the fruit for it is ‘desired to make one wise’. Yet, the sin was not counted against Eve — this

would be counted against Adam, representing belief, the half of the intended marriage that ought




70

to know the difference. It is Adam’s duty to guide Eve, but in this he fails. Eve seduces Adam,

convincing him that knowledge can be had by the abandonment of reason, disregarding God’s

imperative, sacrificing Him in favor of the apple which delights the senses.

It is the tendency of belief, and man, to be impatient, to become lazy and to shy from responsi-

bility. To reason is weighty, it is hard. It is natural for faith to desire. To desire is easy, but it isthe duty of belief to guide the will, not be seduced by it. Sin begins when belief gives in to the

ease of faith. One might think of this as the false Eucharist, the falsely directed act of grace for it

abandons knowledge for the immediacy of sensory satisfaction. Man has declared himself an an-

gel when he is not. Eve has seduced him in this. She becomes the first priestess offering Adam

the false Eucharistic substance of the apple.

THIS IS THE FALL

With this understanding, several metaphors hold true:

1) Eve is the Feminine nature. (I do understand the implications of sexism in a modern‘feminist’ society - we are talking ancient cultural metaphor here. I’ll leave the reader to decide

the implications. Consider stereotypical ‘truths’ used by women’s movements themselves such

as, ‘women’s intuition’, or that ‘women are more emotionally connected to their inner self,’ or

‘women are more nurturing’) Eve represents the ‘will’ or ‘faith’ acting alone and its hunger to be

satisfied by a false, incomplete intuition. However, the will must be wedded to the intellect to

function properly and not fall into Dualism. This ‘obedience’, then, is also exemplified in Mary

(the Second Eve), and the Church who becomes wise through its obedience, unifying the split.

Mary represents wisdom, not the fullness of wisdom as would be Christ, but the wisdom of seek-

ing obedience in natural order, an innocent wisdom of its own as a response to grace. Reason

tempered by compassion. In this way she is Mother of Mankind and an example for us all. She is

the will of mankind submitting to truth.

2) Adam is the Masculine nature. He represents the intellect – belief and reason, but an un-

tempered reason. His task is to guide the will, but, acting alone he is a perversion, he is literally a

solipsism, a lost individual with no purpose. By himself he is barren, the intellect severed from

reality, a Gnostic idealism, again a Dualism. Adam is a pre-figuration of Christ (the second

Adam) for the opportunity of proper sacrifice was his. He is an icon of the priesthood for the in-

tellect must guide the will. The weight of decision and the burden of sin is placed on him, the

spirit of this intellect.

3) The natural state of Man is one where these two natures are unified, faith and reason,

female and male in a natural wedding. The natures complement each other and lead to a truecomprehension of reality, visible and invisible. The marriage of these natures extends to both the

material and immaterial world. A proper immateriality leads to a proper system of knowledge.

When this knowledge is properly wed to the material world the result is proper morality and eth-

ics. A marriage of reason to reason, or will to will would be a crime against the natural order –

rather than temperance, the lack of fruit in such relationships would encourage the worst in both

natures.




71

4) The apple represents the Eucharist element itself, the medium, the connective element

between God and Man. It also represents the copulative ‘is’ connecting Man’s mind with his fac-

ulty of perceiving reality. This ‘is’ should also extend to the Mosaic I AM, or “I AM the One

whose essence is to exist”, the grounding of all being. The Eucharist, then, is representative of a

certain ethical use and ‘directionality’ to the act of comprehension, God’s grace to Man, Man’s

obedience back to God. Should this action be jeopardized, the literal act of comprehension wouldnot be able to transcend to a pure knowledge of God. Eve presenting the apple and Adam receiv-

ing it represents the thwarted act of understanding, the false directionality leading to a false un-

ion. This leads to a spirituality based on simple emotionalism and selfism.

The Fall resulted when Eve, the will, attempted to guide Adam, the intellect. This is only pos-

sible if the intellect abandons its authority and seeks a false union. The First Sin fell on Adam,

and not Eve, because it is natural for the will to desire but not natural for the intellect to give up

its authority.

Man can pervert his authority in two ways: 1) by deciding that the will is unnecessary (leading

to Idealism); or 2) by surrendering authority over to the will (making reason subservient to hisdesires). It is the Eucharist, then, that was instituted to heal this split, to lessen the veil. The Body

and Blood are the New Apple taken for the remission of Sin. From this, one can see that a

woman priesthood is a re-enactment of the original fall — a woman ‘priest’ distributing com-

munion is a re-enactment of that original temptation of the apple. Accepting it would be return to

the first sin.

It is interesting to note that nowhere is the word ‘apple’ used in the account. Instead, the Greek

word ‘karpos’ is used (phonetically similar to Corpus as the Eucharistic elements are called —

such linguistic similarities in ancient language should not be dismissed out-of-hand). While

modern society has been taught to think of Hebrew as being the ‘genuine’ language of the Old

Testament, Scholars are well aware that the Greek is the most definitive. The original languageof the Old Testament was lost in 270 BC when it was replaced by the Greek.

The usage of this term by no means is confined to a literal ‘apple’. There are strong indications

that this term was used metaphorically as it is still used to this day: ‘fruit of your labors’; ‘fruit of

righteousness’; ‘fruit of the kingdom’. does, in fact, mean ‘fruit’, however, more spe-

cifically it mean ‘fruit of the tree’ or a given predicament or crisis. Even more specifically, He-

braistically, it means ‘fruit of the loins’, of a relationship, and more interestingly, ‘praise-

offering’. 17

Examples of this last usage are:

Hosea 14:8 — “Ephraim shall say, What have I to do any more with idols? I have heard

him, and observed him: I am like a green fir tree. From Me is thy fruit found.”

Proverbs 18:20 — “A man' belly shall be satisfied with the fruit of his mouth; and with the

increase of his lips shall he be filled. Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they

that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.”




72

Proverbs 31:30 — “Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth THE

LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise

her in the gates.”

Matthew 7:15 — “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but in-

wardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt

tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt

tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and

cast into the fire.” Acts 2:30 — “Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to

him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his

throne;”

The simple point, of course, is that fruit () is often used in the Bible as a veiled refer-

ence to both ‘an offering/sacrifice’ and Christ Himself. In New Testament times it came to mean‘Christian’. Anciently it meant a ‘fruit’ or a ‘wheat’. It was believed that fruit juice was actually

the blood of the gods - to drink it would to be as God. The apple, then, is significant of man’sattempt to assimilate the mind of God.

If we return to the Tree of Porphyry, the ‘crux’, the ‘loin’ if you will, is where the dialecticalsplits. Linguistically it is the very point of the copulative ‘is’, and a decision must be made, ‘is it

this or that?’ For example, the class ‘animal’ splits into ‘rational’ and ‘irrational’. We think of

the copulative ‘is’ as the point where the subject and predicate meet in an ‘idea’ - something is

predicated of the subject distinguishing ‘this thing’ from a broader class of things.

This essence of being is the essence of the existable of which the ontological essence is GodHimself, the Grand ‘Is’. Being able to distinguish this essence is the basis of reason, of logic,

thought and sanity. It is where one either decides correctly or incorrectly. If one misses the pointor chooses mere ‘fruit’, he misses the spiritual decision facing this dilemma, and the dilemma of

every rational decision - one must see past the veil and risk a correct ‘realistic’ decision or the

conception of reality begins to whither.

Salvation

Ancient Christian philosophy is unique in that it uniquely places a priority of substance over

symbolism. Therefore, the one most important continuing action of the Church, the Eucharist,

must also be a triumph of substance over symbolism or sin would not be defeated. If we are tobelieve entirely our ‘as above, so below’, and that there is no disparity between faith and reason,

then we must see the practical as well as the miracle. Indeed, the miracle without the practical

has the air of magic, not truth.

The modern Protestant notion of salvation is this: that salvation was won on the cross by God

sacrificing Himself to Himself to appease his own anger at Adam who was sinful. A human sac-




73

rifice would not be enough to appease a God, therefore, the only sacrifice worthy of such a crime

was another God. God would have to duplicate Himself to appease His own anger. One might

strain to understand a vengeful God, but a God that must extract vengeance on Himself? Is this

then not a demiurge?

This is logically absurd. Sin began with the split between the irrational will/psyche and the ra-tional intellect/spirit, the veil of tears. Man assumed himself to be purely intuitive, an angel if

you will. Therefore, Man, everyman, must be taught this lesson as this ‘split’ is part of Man’s

eternal predicament. It would only be natural for God to institute a way for man to examine and

‘heal’ that split. The fall resulted in a deficiency in man’s ability to discern. Therefore, the heal-

ing of that deficiency should also be an act of discernment; the Eucharist must be, if only mo-

mentarily, a healing of that ‘split’ through man’s discernment of the Grace within the elements.

The process of the Original Sin began when Eve (the will/faith alone) assuming intuition was

enough to discern, grasped the apple without the aid of reason. But ‘truth’ is not something that

can be discerned by the will alone. Properly, the will is a servant of the intellect. Then, she

tempted Adam after Reason (God) had said not to eat of the apple. Abandoning reason, Adam ateof the apple. This was Man’s sentence to oblivion.

Again, imagine if the pet dog awoke one day and discovered it could reason, something it

never had before experienced. That initial decision, do I use it, or do I exploit it, would set the

stage for every reasonable dog after that. Something would have to derail that condition or the

dog would be better remaining a dog.

The Fall was the result of man’s rational faculty giving into irrational desires. Under this con-

dition Man becomes not just immoral but amoral. He has exploited the most treasured gift from

God, his intellect. Put another way, it is when we, assuming our eyesight to be clear and unfail-

ing, never question our own motives. It is my contention that simply told, the Adam and Evestory conveys the essence of all these metaphysics, even to the child. It’s only in a fallen age that

we require the elaborate explanation.

It is the function of the will to present evidence of reality to the intellect. It is the task of the in-

tellect to see beneath the mere symbolism, and detect the substance within. But in sin, it is the

intellect that has strayed by a false temptation. At some point, the intellect must convince the

senses that they can’t have all that they desire. Therefore, the senses must be taught that they

must desire truth, something unseen - something that transcends perception. It is substance that

determines truth. Ultimately, then, the will must be taught to seek substance, something unnatu-

ral for substance cannot be seen. Therefore, to conquer sin, it must be possible for the intellect to

reverse this — for God to present evidence to the will that would otherwise be imperceptible;intellectual evidence, to turn desires from the mundane towards the Highest Good, to reestablish

the complete harmony that once existed between the will and intellect. Therefore, it must be pos-

sible for the intellect to lead the will back. Therefore, the copulative ‘is’ must be intellectually

representative of God himself.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to the dis-

ciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it




74

to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed

for many for the remission of sins. – Matthew 26:26

If the Eucharist is a reversal of the First Sin, it must be an enterprise that unifies the will and

the intellect. Just as the will (Eve) seduced the intellect (Adam) to stray, now the intellect, con-

ceiving God Himself in the Body and Blood, must lead the will back as an act of faith, reversingthe original event. This action, in order to maintain and support the individual nature in each per-son, must be a continuing and personal event.

Salvation, therefore, must have two components, the once-for-all opening the door to all Man-

kind (Christ’s crucifixion), and the continued personal abiding (the Eucharist). If the Platonic‘God gives us our ideas from within’ formulation were true, there would be no need for any re-

occurring event – God could have just willed us to think the ‘ideas’ we needed for salvation.

Every Eucharist is an exercise in the intellect’s charge over the will – it is the reeling back of the

will into a momentary unity around this ‘Presence’ despite all the outward appearances and

temptations. If communion is for the remission of sins, and the First Sin was the severing of the

irrational mind from the rational, the Eucharist must be a healing of this two-fold nature of man.This would make complete sense if it were an exercise in recognizing Christ’s presence in the

Eucharist as super-substance (as in the Lord’s Prayer when ‘daily’ is translated correctly).

Salvation of Mankind was won the instant the Word became flesh; this was completed at the

crucifixion. The crucifixion is not the singular redeeming event. It is natural for man to desire; it

is rational to desire to know; it is salvation to desire to know God. An Idealist religion based on

mental contrivances alone ultimately leads to the philosophical undermining of reality - it will

eventually defy the witness if the senses (faith). A real religion must be rooted in reality to keep

it from wandering into imagination, the Eucharist is just such a marriage between the material

and the immaterial. Thus, the importance of tradition is to preserve the perceivability and know-

ability of God. This is the importance of the Eucharist as an exercise in faith and perception.

The Ethics of Liturgy

It should be apparent from the above that the focus of religion, and particularly liturgy, cannot

be emotional fulfillment. This sentimentalism (sentient-mentalism) would be the re-creation of

this false sense of intuition. If the First Sin was based on the flesh leading the body astray, then

the act of liturgy cannot be a continuation of that act (as it is today). Churches were once tem-

ples, now they are living rooms; liturgy was respectful, now it is entertainment. What was once

an act of devotion, is now an act of inner relevancy. The once personal act of the Eucharist has

become reinterpreted as a communal love feast based on emotionalism.

This is where one of Aristotle’s prime truths comes into focus: the last in execution is the first

in intention. Any misconception over what the final goal is, the last end, will result in an entire

life spent wasted. It is the first in intention that shapes everything one does. If the first in inten-

tion is a proper understanding of God, everything one does, including liturgy, becomes aimed at

that goal. A misconception of God has the reverse effect. It is this that causes man to seek happi-

ness in the wrong places. It is diabolical is to seek God where He is not. It is God’s deepest de-




75

sire that all should be saved – it is His deepest agony that man should not cooperate with His

grace. Part of that grace is tradition as exemplified in liturgy.

Today we have two types of liturgy; one is concerned with man as having a proper end to

which he can attribute a sense of purpose, the other has no concern with a proper end but only

evoking a certain type of experience. When man’s highest goals are emotional, he becomes lessthan an animal - a mere machine enslaved to his senses. Today, freedom is to do whatever one

wants. But true freedom has to do with man’s ability and responsibility to choose a proper end

and then to conform his life, his work towards that end.

The best that can be hoped for in modernism is to serve mankind; religion becomes nothing

more than socialism. The modern church has changed the heart of Christianity by directing it ex-

clusively towards psychology and social equality. Without balance they become perversions of

the original. Justice is the need to be right with truth. Not the need to be on-board with the major-ity. Void of truth, psychology becomes mere mental manipulation.

One of the primary truths as put by St. Thomas Aquinas – All human occupations appear toserve those who contemplate the truth. The reverse can be summed up by the proto-Nihilist Gor-gias: ‘There is no truth; if there were truth, it could not be known, if it could be known, it could

not be communicated.’ In other words, without truth, life is pointless – there literally is nothing

to be done. This is Hell.

The purpose of all this is ‘habit’. It is man’s continuing action that creates a habit of doing –

this becomes second nature. Liturgy is just such a habit. When habit is properly focused it be-

comes virtue. This is what modernism lacks, a formula for virtue for the only ethical act today isremaining true to oneself. Therefore, the correct formula for morality is this: grace leads to faith,

faith leads to belief, belief puts a focus on man’s actions, which leads to virtue. When we focus

upon man’s actions, we perceive the intent that started the process. “Ye shall know them by theirfruits.” (Matthew 7:16) For this reason, it is the first act of perceiving truth that sets the wholeprocess in motion; ‘the beginning of wisdom is fear’, not inner awareness.




77

The ‘Real Presence’: an Ancient Doctrine



Status: N/A

Label: No Label

Keywords:

A Reasonable Test of Faith

By the beginning of the Reformation, the Catholic Church had painted itself into a corner.

While the average layperson understood the debate as a struggle over faith and works, the actual

debate went much deeper. The real cause was a basic underlying shift from an Aristotelian

world-view to a Platonic world-view. The Renaissance that proceeded was largely the result of a

re-configuring of all of philosophy. The Council of Florence, originally intended to be a reunit-

ing of the Eastern and Western Churches, signified the reintroduction of texts and translations

unknown to the West. While the West had of most of Aristotle, Islam had interpreted the texts

differently. The primary text unknown to the West was the occult Corpus Hermeticum. Consid-

ered as a quasi-lost testament of the Bible, many believed written by Moses himself, it served as

a springboard for the re-conceptualizing of the Bible as a Platonic Idealistic philosophical text

where reality is anything but ‘concretely real’. The most important point for consideration is this:

prior to the Renaissance faith/reason, religion/science were considered complimentary enter-

prises. In this ‘new’ Idealism there was no such expectation. Faith became severed from reason,

religion from science. It is doubtful whether this new ‘platonism’ was even legitimately from

Plato for it had been derived from occult sources more in allegiance with numerology than ad-

vancing the needs of the ‘Republic’.

It was at this point in time that modern science began its departure from its marriage with phi-

losophy, chasing a young maiden called ‘mathematics’. Today, mathematics rules the roost over

modern science. Science, the practice of discovering truth through observation of reality, has

been subordinated to the mathematical re-constructions of reality by the ‘new’ relativists. The

modern day astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle remarked that the ‘modernists’ have relegated the tele-

scope to the trash-bin of history for anything cosmologists seeks in the sky has been preordained

by the mathematician – evidence contrary to their numerological claims are routinely dismissed.

Since the Renaissance the weight of Idealism has bearing down hard on the Church. When we

hear the history of science today, we hear the ‘dressed-up’ version, the noble quest for truth

against an oppressive Church. These discoveries are found through the expertise of inspired

sages in the art of observation. Most scientists up to and including Isaac Newton were grounded

in alchemistry, with its associated occult ties. Excluded from this history is the philosophy be-




78

hind those observations, the fact most were seeking the vindication of the Platonic/Occult ‘dark

science’ against the prevailing Aristotelian world-view. The essence of the Dark Science is that

reality is a barbarian, an illusion, that is more approximated by numbers than logic or observa-

tion. The political intention of scientific discoveries were seldom to advance the cause of reality,

but to befuddle philosophy so that it would ultimately have to give in to mathematics, the inten-

tion was always to topple the authority of the Church. The modern scientific thought that con-founds the Church to this day has been preloaded with just such disdain for reality, something it

considers a mere barbaric analogy for a pure, pristine mathematically driven reality underneath.

For a time Rome fought back. It burned the likes Giordano Bruno at the stake. It rightly

claimed that much of Protestant doctrine was occult inspired. However, the biggest enemy of

Rome came from within Rome herself, Nicolas of Cusa, Copernicus, Marsilio Ficino, Pico Della

Mirandola, Lorenzo Valla all worked from within, many ordained by the Church. All were seek-

ing occult explanations to reality. Each new scientific discovery ushered in another level of Pla-

tonism, each using discoveries grounded in observation designed to undermine and contradict the

Aristotelian philosophy of Realism. All of this was instituted not so much in deference to Plato

the teacher of Aristotle, but to Hermes Trismegistus the mythological inventor of magic. It is thissame world of mathematical illusion that drives science to this day.

The true challenge to this newfound Idealism came by way of the philosophy of Thomas

Aquinas. However, back in the days of Augustine and the Pelagian heresy it was claimed the

Doctrine of Infallibility, Rome would have to admit upon what authority Aristotle could be wed

to Christianity. Aquinas’ Summa Theologica was, in reality, an expansion of, Damascene’s

Fount of Knowledge, specifically formulated to not only beat back Islamic philosophy, but to

bolster Rome’s authority. Rome had unwittingly confounded itself: How does one appeal to the

authority of the Orthodox Church while at the same time retain Papal authority? In short, and to

perhaps overly simplify, to defeat Platonism would require an admission that the source of the

‘True Philosophy’ was the East, making Rome’s authority suspect. This is Rome’s dilemma tothis day.

This controversy ultimately plays out in the trial of Galileo. The Platonists desired observa-

tional contradictory evidence that Platonism is the ‘True Philosophy’. Aristotle had claimed, by

way of observation, that the Earth was the center of the cosmos. To prove otherwise would prove

Aristotle’s fallibility. Several decades before the trial of Galileo the Church had installed a new

calendar to account for errors in the calendar. This had already made geo-centric theory suspect,

and the Church knew it. The idea of solar-centricity was, in fact, very old, and the Catholic priest

Nicholas of Cusa had already speculated on the concept years earlier. However, the primary fo-

cus the Galileo’s trial was not geo-centricity, but the Aristotelian concept of hylomorphism, or,

‘how is it that elements change one into the other?’ This assertion of Galileo’s threatened thedoctrine of transubstantiation… it caused Galileo to be declared a heretic. The Protestants, armed

with Valla’s proof that Rome’s temporal powers had been considerably over extended (the Do-

nation of Constantine), were seeking any means of becoming Rome’s philosophical superior.18

The more volatile part of the trial was the application of this new physics to the Eucharist and

its dependence on the possibility of a transubstantial ‘shift in substance’. Evidence of this volatil-

ity can still be found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer:




79

“Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the

Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, over

throweth the nature of the Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.” – Art. 28,

Articles of Religion, Anglican.

And in Luther:

“What signifies it to dispute and wrangle about the abominable idolatry of elevating the sac-

rament on high to show it to the people, which has no approbation of the Fathers, and was intro-

duced only to confirm the errors touching the worship thereof, as though bread and wine lost

their substance, and retained only the form, smell, taste. This the papists call trans-

substantiation, and darken the right use of the sacrament”. 19

For various reasons, the authority of Rome was suspect, and Protestants sought more. Little of

modern science was understood at this time. In a plague stricken society, often people would go

to church and come home to die. Not understanding the transmission of disease, many attributeddisease to ‘magic’, and the Eucharistic was taught to be just such an act. The turning of the Sa-

cred Elements into Christ began to be seen as a ‘hocus pocus’, derived from the Latin phrase in

the mass where the shift in substance took place.

In a Platonic understanding, God literally is found in everything. As reality is an illusion, what

we perceive is merely a projection of God’s thoughts into our own - a concrete reality (and an

explanation as to ‘what is change’) is unnecessary. What we see with our eyes, smell with our

nose, is merely an illusion - and that illusion is God thinking those thoughts within us. A concrete

reality literally gets in the way of our conceiving of the Divine.

Aristotle’s approach, on the other hand, required some real change to happen, an underlyingshift in substance. This is a very difficult concept to explain simply, but in an Aristotelian world

what you think, the language you use to think it, and the reality underneath are inextricably tied

together. They are infused into each other in such a way as one does not exist without the other –

the reality of each is dependant on the reality of the other. It was thought that the ‘what-ness’ of a

thing was contained in the original idea of that thing called ‘substance’. The outward appear-

ances of that thing were merely ‘appearances’ as they aspire towards the reality dictated by the

substance, what that ‘thing’ was intended to be. The appearances were real, but the substance

underneath was even more real.

The doctrine at first glance seems counter intuitive, but it is an explanation of reality and does

hold up philosophically (some would even say scientifically – Atom in the History of HumanThought, Bernard Pullman, Oxford, 1998). Consider a piece of paper as it burns to ash – at some

point it ceases to be paper, at some point it becomes ash. The question was, ‘what survives this

change?’ Today we understand this as atoms and molecules as they change, but to the medieval

mind a very real philosophical change occurred – the substance shifted. The ‘thing’ that sur-

vived was called ‘prime matter’ as it hylomorphed (meaning ‘matter/forms’) one into the other.

It was very easy for them to conceptualize just such a change. The Eucharist was just such a

change, except the accidents (the Bread and Wine) appeared to remain the same.




80

Archaic doctrine you say! No need for that today. But wait…. The ‘atomic’ explanation is the

better one when we consider things like ‘paper’ and ‘ash’, but visible reality is the least of our

problems. What about when one atom changes into another, or one subatomic particle changes

into another. We can delve deeper and deeper, and smaller and smaller, but at some point our

‘atomic’ explanation fails and becomes numerology. To retain reality something approaching theconcept of Prime Matter becomes necessary.

Lest we think that modern science has settled this issue I must warn NOT True! The funda-

mental issue facing all of physics is, Is light a particle or a wave? There are just as many argu-

ments for one answer as the other, and with our present understanding it can’t be both. The phys-

ics is contradictory. Particles are ‘things’. Waves?... not so much. Much as light could be ‘frozen

resonances,’ reality seem to be ‘things formed from waves’ - something suspiciously like Aris-

totle’s hylomorphism.

Today, we teach about three states of matter, solid, liquid, and gas. Often left out is plasma, a

forth state. It’s easily recognizable as fire, or lightening, or the stuff inside the electronic plasmasphere one can buy. And, indeed, many physicists do speculate that matter is formed from

plasma, a ‘substance’ one could liken to Heraclitus’ ‘logos’ (especially when one considers this

substance was anciently associated with the plasma that becomes visible around the Sun during

an eclipse). Indeed, plasma, by itself, is literally ‘nebulous’, without definition. Once it begins to

aspire towards being a ‘this’ or a ‘that’ some set of circumstance must determine towards which

substance it begins to move. We find out ‘what’ that is once it takes on appearances. Many al-

ternate physicists are advocating an ‘electric’ model of the Universe where the fundamental sub-

stance is indeed this plasma.

The Scholastic position can be summed up thus:

“Man cannot understand without images (phantasms); the image is a similitude of a corporal

thing, but understanding is of universals which are to be abstracted from particulars” 20

‘Universals’ are substances as they are commonly beheld by man. ‘Particulars’ are the acci-

dents, appearances, as these substance are perceived. The phrase is derived from this:

It often happens that a man cannot recall at the moment, but can search for what he wants and

find it. This occurs when a man initiates many impulses, until at last he initiates that which the

object of his search will follow. For remembering really depends upon the potential exis-

tence of the stimulating cause. – Aristotle. 21

And something that exists potentially does really exist. Here, ‘corporal thing’ and ‘stimulating

cause’ refer to real things. The debate, here, centers around ‘what is memory?’ Memory is to be

understood as ‘mental images’, not ‘things remembered’ as in the modern sense. If we can imag-

ine something, does that alone make it real? No, but that ‘imagination’ must be based on some-

thing real or we couldn’t think it.




81

To a pure Platonist mental images are not abstracted from reality but re-memoried directly in

the mind from archetypes placed there by God. The Aristotelian mental ‘image is also an abstrac-

tion, but it is an abstraction derived from a concrete, actually occurring event. In a sense, his

memory pushes forward, gathering more and more evidence from which to understand reality.

The Platonist, on the other hand goes backwards, he has all the evidence he needs stored inter-

nally inside him, it only needs to be re-realized.

The Eucharist is a meal of ‘remembrance’. To the Scholastic it is important that the evidence

be real and not counterfeit. To the Platonist, it is not important that the evidence be real for it is

only intended to remind him and awaken inner truths that already exist inside him, a mere mne-

monic device. In other words, the conundrum is this: if the Eucharist were proved to not change

substantially, then the Platonic argument would be the only one that works, and it forces an en-

tirely different view of reality. The world becomes pantheistic – if God is to be at all, He is liter-

ally to be everything that is. All of reality is truly just ‘God in disguise’, the concrete forms we

see being mere illusions. The Eucharist must resort to being a ‘meal among friends’, a hospitality

feast with no real liturgy because anything you encounter, anything you intake is ‘God’.

While it is easy to envision a ‘hospitality feast’ with modern translations of the Bible, ancient

translations create a problem. The term ‘substance’ and its Eucharistic association is, in fact, part

of scripture, but has been missed by most since the Reformation. It exists as part of the Lord’s

Prayer. The qualification of bread as daily, cotidianum, täglich, does not appear in the Greek

text. What does appear in the Greek original is the term .

(KJVA) Give us this day our daily bread. (both Matthew and Luke versions)

(GNT) μ μ μ (Matthew 6:11)

(GNT) μ μ μ (Luke 11:13)

(Vulgate) panem nostrum supersubstantialem da nobis hodie (Matthew 6:11)

(Vulgate) panem nostrum cotidianum da nobis cotidie (Luke 11:13)(DRB) Give us this day our supersubstantial bread. (Matthew 6:11)

(DRB) Give us this day our daily bread. (Luke 11:13)

It should be noted that there are two Lord’s prayers in the Bible while both use the term

in the Greek, the Latin use a different term in Matthew than it does in Luke. This distinc-

tion survived even until the modern Douay-Rheims. The confusion results from the fact that the

word is unique to this prayer. Some claim ‘sounds’ like the Hebrew word for ‘daily’ (insisting

that the text ought not be in Greek despite no other text exists), but is a contraction of

two words:

epi, ; a primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order, etc.),as a relation of distribution

ousia, ; from the feminine of ousa, [being];

This is, in fact, how St. John Damascene understood the term for he refers to it:

This bread is the first-fruits 22 of the future bread which is , i.e. necessary for exis-

tence [supersubstantial bread 23]. For the word epiousion [supersubstantial] signifies either the




82

future, that is Him [the bread of the world] Who is for a future age, or else Him of Whom we

partake for the preservation of our essence. Whether then it is in this sense or that, it is fitting to

speak so of the Lord’s body. For the Lord’s flesh is life-giving spirit because it was conceived of

the life-giving Spirit. For what is born of the Spirit is spirit. But I do not say this to take away the

nature of the body, but I wish to make clear its life-giving and divine power. 24.

This connection between ‘substance’, ‘essence’, ‘God’ as ‘super-substance’, and ‘God’ the

‘prime mover’ has a dating back into antiquity. Here is Socrates:

“Even in foreign names, if you analyze them, a meaning [an essence] is still discernible. For

example, that which we term ‘substance’ [] is by some called ‘essence’ [], and by

others again ‘holy’ []. Now that the essence of things should be called estia, which is akin

to the first [] of these, is rational enough. And there is reason in the Athenians calling that

[] which participates in substance []. For in ancient times we too seem to have said

essence [] for substance [], and this you may note to have been the idea of those who

appointed that sacrifices should be first offered to estia, which was natural enough if they meant

that estia was the essence of things. Those again who read ‘holy’ [] seem to have inclined tothe opinion of Heracleitus, that all things flow and nothing stands; with them the pushing princi-

ple (prime mover) [] is the cause and ruling power of all things, and is therefore rightly

called ‘holy’ [].” 25

Returning, now, to St. John Damascene we find:

“But if some persons called the bread and the wine antitypes 26 of the body and blood of

the Lord, as did the divinely inspired Basil 27 , they said so not after the consecration but be-

fore the consecration, so calling the offering itself.”

Participation is spoken of; for through it we partake of the divinity of Jesus. Communion, too,

is spoken of, and it is an actual communion, because through it we have communion with Christand share in His flesh and His divinity: yea, we have communion and are united with one another

through it. For since we partake of one blood we all become one body of Christ and one blood,

and members one of another, being of one body with Christ.

With all our strength, therefore, let us beware lest we receive communion from or grant it to

heretics; Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, saith the Lord, neither cast ye your pearls

before swine 28, lest we become partakers in their dishonour and condemnation. For if union is in

truth with Christ and with one another, we are assuredly voluntarily united also with all those

who partake with us. For this union is effected voluntarily and not against our inclination. For we

are all one body because we partake of the one bread, as the divine Apostle says.” 29, 30

It is clear from this that the ‘fruits’ of the Eucharist are to be spiritually discerned — that

should a dog be able to discern such it would be no ‘test of faith’ (Occam’s razor as understood

by Luther comes to mind when he specifically likens the preferred discernment of God as to be

likened to the faith of a dog drawn to a steak). St. John Damascene also defines ‘substance’ or

ousia in the same text:




83

“Substance is a thing which subsists in itself and has no need of another for its existence. And

again: substance is everything that subsists in itself and does not have its existence in another—

that is to say, that which is not because of any other thing, nor has its existence in another, nor

has need of another to subsist, but which is in itself and is that in which the accident has its exis-

tence. Thus, color was made because of the body, that it might color it, but the body was not

made because of the color. And the color exists in the body, not the body in color. For this reasonthe color is said to belong to the body and the body not to belong to the color. Thus, for example,

although the color may often be changed and altered, yet the substance, that is to say, the body, is

not changed but remains the same. Now , or substance, is so called from its , or be-

ing (in the proper sense. On the other hand, μ, or accident, is so called from its μ

, or happening, and sometimes being and sometimes not being, because it is possible for

the same accident to exist in the same thing or not to exist, and not only that, but for its contrary

to exist there.” — Fount of Knowledge, St. John Damascene, Philosophical Chapters, Ch. 39

There is a proof to ‘substance’ and it is this:

Proof of Substance: everything must either exist in itself or in another (accidents). If it existsin itself, it has merely affirmed the definition. If it exists in another, the other must exist in itself,

or yet exist in still another, ultimately demanding either a final substance that exists in itself or an

infinite regression of accidents (which is absurd).

It is often contended that Aquinas unnaturally used Aristotle to bolster is philosophical under-

standing of the Eucharist, thereby forcing a ‘Catholic’ version of the Faith. However it is clear is

views derive there basis from the as Damascene. St. Thomas Aquinas tries to elaborates further:

“We must observe that the conversion of bread into the Body of Christ falls under a different

category from all natural conversions. In every natural conversion the subject remains, and in

that subject different forms succeed one another: hence these are called ‘formal conversions.’But in this conversion subject passes into subject, while the accidents remain: hence this conver-

sion is termed ‘substantial.’ Now we have to consider how subject is changed into subject, a

change which nature cannot effect. Every operation of nature presupposes matter, whereby sub-

jects are individuated; hence nature cannot make this subject become that, as for instance, this

finger that finger. But matter lies wholly under the power of God, since by that power it is

brought into being: hence it may be brought about by divine power that one individual substance

shall be converted into another pre-existing substance. By the power of a natural agent, the op-

eration of which extends only to the producing of a change of form and presupposes the exis-

tence of the subject of change, this whole is converted into that whole with variation of species

and form. So by the divine power, which does not presuppose matter, but produces it, this matter

is converted into that matter, and consequently this individual into that: for matter is the principleof individuation, as form is the principle of species. Hence it is plain that in the change of the

bread into the Body of Christ there is no common subject abiding after the change, since the

change takes place in the primary subject [i.e., in the matter], which is the principle of individua-

tion. Yet something must remain to verify the words, This is my body, which are the words sig-

nificant and effective of this conversion. But the substance does not remain: we must say there-

fore that what remains is something beside the substance, that is, the accident of bread.” —

Summa Contra Gentiles, St. Thomas Aquinas, Book 4, 63




84

The important point to note is the term ‘individuation’. The ‘primary subject’ referred to is the

‘substance’ as a ‘principle of individuation’, in other words ‘naming’. Just as Adam named the

species, the individuals of class (genus), the particular is individualized as it is named from those

items of a class which remain nameless. By giving something a name, you give it a ‘what’, and it

becomes an individual, a species signified. Think back to the Aristotle. Also his phrase, ‘the firstin cause/intention is the last in execution’. In other words, to Aristotle, the marble begins to be-

come the statue at the moment the marble is ‘named’, conceptualized by the sculptor. This is the

first cause, the conceptualization. Upon the completion of the statue, the intention of the artist is

revealed, but it was the first intention that set the course. In the Christian conception of reality all

things are ultimately drawn towards God, though they may resist out of their own free will. God

must allow this freedom or man would not be truly an individual. He would be an automaton,

neither sinful nor sinless. The price of the individual is the potential dangerous use of freedom

and free will. The act of ‘naming’ is not ‘insignificant’ (sic). It is the declaration of ‘this as a

that’ that begins the process of transformation from this towards that. It is not unlike the act of

Christening, declaring something (naming) as ‘Christ’s own’. It is not the priest’s act of naming

the Eucharistic elements, nor the laity’s affirmation that begins this process, but God condescen-sion to do the same that begins the process of drawing the elements towards Him. And, being

God necessarily exists outside of time (remember, time is literally defined as man’s ‘measure-

ment of change’ - being God is defined as ‘changeless’, He is outside of time) the final cause, the

execution has already occurred the instant God wills it. Whether this sounds preposterous to the

scientifically minded, one must understand the Aristotelian conception of reality: the Alpha is the

Omega, ‘the first in cause/intention is the last in execution’. Whether you believe in the Big

Bang, the Steady State, or a completely mathematical conceptualization of reality, the fate of any

system is sealed at the start of that system and it is only a free will from a thinking, rational mind

that can change it. Without free will, even the cosmos is merely a set of mathematical processes

set in motion moving towards completion.

It is a metaphysical fact that the act of naming has transformation properties. As I am named,

so my name becomes identified with me. In time, my name becomes me, and I my name. It is a

fact of linguistics, come to think of it, a miracle in rationality by itself, that I can be identified by

name and that mere utterance of those sounds can have a rational significance to another. Yet,

the utterance, by itself, evokes nothing if not linked to a real existing thing. The utterance, at

least in the case of me, springs nothing to life, creates by itself no reality. Yet, let God speak…

Yet, if God only infuses ‘existence’ into this or that, allowing it to be, how outrageous, how

audacious to call this ‘thing’ God, much less ask it to shift the grounding of its being towards the

Divine Essence - an act beyond man’s boundaries and God’s necessities, an unnecessary indi-

viduation in a pantheistic world. Why would man desire such a request? He didn’t, it was ex-tended to him by God in an effort to corral Man’s free will gone astray. A test of faith designed

to hone is reasoning in a particular way, towards a particular direction. That God’s act of creation

is not limited merely to bringing things into existence, to changing this into that, but creating the

unknown from the known… creating a spiritual reality from a mundane particular reality. Are we

not reminded of the same when a cherished picture evokes an emotion long forgotten, when a

faint smell takes us to a place we’re not sure we’ve been? What is at stake here is a particular

way of thinking, for if ideas are generated from within, then no such remembrance should be




85

possible. But what a hurdle our minds must cross if a mere peculiar order of some musical notes

should send us weeping. And if this is true, which it must be, then what potential does the Divinehave if it chooses to reach down through a mere mundane piece of bread? No, the change must

happen somehow or we would never know it as anything other than a crumb.

The convention of naming this and renaming that to suit our purpose is within our power. Whohasn’t taken that particular knife, renamed it a screwdriver, used it as such, and then returned to

the status ‘knife’? To a greater or lesser degree, things do substantially shift all the time. My

wife’s lap makes a handy pillow at times, the trunk of my car is often my daughter’s handy

closet, the tree a convenient umbrella during a shower. But none of these changes are permanentas is the paper burning, or the bread once changed consumed and digested. It’s destiny is set, not

only by God, but as it becomes part of my vital force, escaping the bread, wedded to my suste-

nance as the ‘particulars’ move through my system to be discarded later. And what miracle is

that? That a piece of bread, a sip of wine, can carry with it a life it once had as a living plant tohelp in replenishing my weariness? The true miracles of life are not the bombastic events de-

signed to impress, but the simple truths we might miss should they not be pointed out, made sig-

nificant, and sufficiently realized! The very ground of our being is based on subtleties that mightotherwise seem insignificant.

That Man should find himself in the very same predicament as Adam is of eternal conse-

quence. To be a true individual requires freedom of will, the freedom to choose correctly or in-

correctly. Man’s choices are handicapped by his senses, his knowledge is largely not intuitive, soman must struggle with the truth hidden behind the ‘veil’. He must also struggle with the abstract

nature of the concept itself and the fact that not only is reality itself susceptible to counterfeit in-

terpretation, but there are a lot of charlatans using the same phraseology to there own ends. Manmust decide which is in fact real but which philosophy gets him closest to the ‘true’ nature of the

world. That God should offer His grace to Man is a one-time, eternal event. The fact that Man

must respond and cooperate with that grace is an on-going test of faith.

The question that remains is, ‘does it matter how I philosophically view the Eucharist?’ Where

there is the possibility of heresy, there must be a philosophy, for the action in both the heretical

and the non-heretical stays the same. The difference is the mental understanding, which can only

be philosophical. For the Eucharist to be the most sacred of all acts, it must reach right down tothe core of what comprises reality. The fundamental question any man can ask is, ‘how do I

know that reality is not just a figment of my imagination?’ To answer one way saves reality, the

other way is the basis of the occult. Therefore, how one answers must matter.

It is the irrational mind that senses, that has ‘faith’ and presents the world to the mind. It is the

rational mind that formulates these impressions into a concrete understanding of reality with itsreason. Both are needed as a sympathetic union for the mind to function properly. Yet, if it

stopped there, man would still be doomed. Both faith and reason need to be stretched, as a unity,a marriage of near opposites, to conceptualize something past what each can apprehend by itself.

It is only the Eucharist that does that, yet, if we formulate the Eucharist as an act of mere notic-

ing a preexisting inbred quality, neither faith nor reason are stretched. The very holiest of acts

becomes reduced to a mere exercise in pantheism. The intention of the Eucharist is not to create




86

a paradox, or to totally defy reason, but to teach Man how to orchestrate his nature to cooperate

with grace.

The importance of this is simple: if the First Sin was the result of the irrational mind leading

the rational mind astray, shouldn’t it be possible for the intellect to corral the will and lead it

back? And what act of submission would be greater than evidence supplied by the intellect to thewill that defied the will’s sensibilities? If it was a mere apple that led the will astray, shouldn’t it

be the unlikely presence of God that brings it back? Isn’t the Eucharist a reversal of the ‘apple’?

A true ‘test of faith’?




87

Epilog



Status: N/A

Label: No Label

Keywords:

The Dilemma of Pilate

“At Lystra there was a crippled man, lame from birth, who had never

walked. He listened to Paul speaking, who looked intently at him, saw that

he had the faith to be healed, and called out in a loud voice, “Stand upstraight on your feet.” He jumped up and began to walk about. When the

crowds saw what Paul had done, they cried out in Lycaonian, “The gods

have come down to us in human form.” They called Barnabas “Zeus” and

Paul “ Hermes,” because he was the chief speaker.” – Acts 14:8-12

The connection between the laws of physics, ethics, and the basis of religion is nebulous to

most people, but it is very real. Like a logical argument, a theory is only as sound as the premises

it is based on — all religion and philosophy today must stand the test of religion. If science is

skewed, so will be religion. Yet we often invent forces (objectify causes) to seemingly make

things clearer.

Centrifugal Force - the Scientific Discovery that never was. Enter most any modern museum and somewhere you will find what is called a “Spiral Wishing

Well Coin Vortex Funnel”. A revenue generating machine disguised as a science project, it is a

‘gravity vortex’ where you drop a coin down watching it spiral into oblivion. It is intended to

simulate the cosmic operation of Newton’s/Einstein’s gravity based universe. You are told that it

is Centrifugal Force that keeps the coin adhered to the outside edge as it spirals down the vortex.

Yet, as any good scientist will tell you, centrifugal force doesn’t actually exist. It is really the

coin’s inertia, its tendency to travel in a straight line in an ever increasing curve, that keeps thecoin pinned to the surface as it ever increases in speed — centrifugal force doesn’t exist per se.

Yet, it looks like it does. Such is how our Universe is held together!

The same exhibit will often show a picture demonstration of the Newtonian Cosmos. The

weight of 3D globe sits on the surface of a 2D reality, distorting the trampoline of 2D space as

the weight pulls the 2D space down. Yet, in the illustration, 2D space requires a 3D force outside

its dimensionality to pull the globe down, to make the picture ‘work’. Yes, but it’s just a picture.




88

Yet, it is a little bit of a ruse, no matter how you ‘figure it’ you need another dimension, one

more than you already have, to provide the force to make the warping effect work. Regardless

how many dimensions you pick for the ‘weight of attraction’ must come from outside the sys-

tem, otherwise, what ever ‘force’ carried the power to warp would also have to submit to the

same force. It’s hard to think about. We tend to think of gravity like magnetism, as an actual

force (which would make sense), but we’re not talking about a ‘real’ force here. We are talkingabout the warping of space deceptively simulating a force to our senses. Einstein is literally say-

ing gravity does not exist, it is an illusion, he is trying to explain the force away by using

space/time warpage. He does this to salvage a Newtonian mechanics developed in the 1660s be-

fore electro-magnetism was discovered. It seems to have a child-like simplicity, yet it doesn’t

because a warpage of space cannot produce a simulated force that acts upon itself - you need a

real force.

In other words, if the earth’s gravity warps space, is the earth, too, part of that space? Is it also

warped by itself (in which case how would you know or measure it), or is it in its own dimension

just to salvage cause and effect? The temptation to worship the preternatural, scientifically or

otherwise, is great.

The simple fact is that the reason the mainline Church is failing is the Christians are leaving. In

an era of relativism, where there are no absolutes on which to base moral integrity, the only way

of advancing any issue is to resort to an amoral ‘Machiavellian’ style morality.

The Church has evolved into a preternatural scheme. While it may disguise it’s methods as ‘as-

sertiveness training’, ‘consumerism’, ‘management training’, ‘self-worth seminars’, ‘conflict

management’, the fact is they are all merely ways of advancing agendas once normal moral in-

tegrity has collapsed and there is no right and wrong to appeal to. Like the rest of society, the

Church has resorted to these very same ‘culturally neutral’ tactics, games. While the once main-

line Church may have a hierarchy, it is a hierarchy based on nothing - a barren ‘tree’ of authoritywith nothing to be authoritative on. The dogma of the Church has become a centrifugal ‘non-

existent’ force we think we are seeing but we are actually not.

More often than not these ‘schemes’ have been developed by occult psychologists, like Carl

Jung, disguising preternatural techniques as scientific method. This modern psychological ‘fix’

usually involves the creation of an ‘objectified presence’ so that we, the subjective audience, can

ponder the dilemma and proffer a cure. But often this ‘objectification’ extends right into the

mind of each person, creating a subtle ‘dual’ existence between the ‘spiritual man’ and the ‘natu-

ral man’ as we seek a remedy to the situation. How else are we to examine ‘objectively’ our own

faults, failures, and prejudices, but to distance ourselves from them and put this ‘other-self’ un-

der the inquisitor’s lamp? —

“But the natural (psychic) man receiveth not the things of the Spirit (pneuma) God”

- I Corinthians 2




89

Like any good physician the Great physician understands both the disease and the cure,

even if we don’t — it is not necessary for us to understand the chemical properties for it to

work. The disease centers around belief and to understand how the cure works flirts with

jeopardizing the remedy. At the center of this disease is doubt, and if Relativism has given

modern man anything it is doubt. Yet, it is also doubt that is the foil to this prescription,

with doubt the remedy will not work. The same could be said for the re-formulization of any of the ingredients — like a doctor’s prescription, the ingredients have been carefully

balanced for effectiveness, change one, and the prescription is less effective, if it works at

all. The disease is the unnatural split, the duality within man’s own psyche. The prescrip-

tion is intended to heal that split, dissolving the natural, objectified man absorbed into and

within the spiritual godly man without obliterating this dual existence altogether. For the

split is necessary in its own way, like free will, something we must struggle with, conquer,

but never totally alleviate for we are human, not angels.

Every authority needs something on which to base its authority and the hierarchy of the Church

is no different, but it appears the modern Church is basing its hierarchy on the fact of its own hi-erarchy. Lacking reason, method, understanding, and faith, it clings to the only remaining ingre-dient: the hollow structure of authority. Yet, it has abdicated the basis of that authority to other

disciplines: physics, psychology, historians, biology, etc. The modern formula to salvation has

become based on a mere affiliation to that empty hierarchy. While I have no doubt that the True

Church is intended to have a hierarchy, it must also be intended that that authority be authorita-tive on something, which the modern church can’t because it has hog-tied itself through relativ-

ism. The result is a Machiavellian institution hiding underneath a façade of ‘reasonableness’ that

can’t work. Like an alchemist trying to make gold out of lead, it blindly keeps re-juggling theingredients hoping to accidentally hit on something that works. Not trusting the Physician and

his prescription, it has resorted to self-medication. Shying from the commitment of true morality,

the only concoctions it finds effective are the ones based on the amoral formulizations of Dr.Machiavelli, a method that dodges a true grounding in dogma.

Likewise, the true clergy are also hog-tied. To which do they remain loyal? To Christ or to

their own hierarchy, neither of which they can envision a Church without.

So, in an attempt to create new prescription, we turn to the ‘mind’ as both patient and cure. We

resort to psychology and a new form of objectification: we create the sick psyche within, the bad

guy on to which we can deposit blame for all our miss-steps. In other words, avoiding the natural

the Church flirts with the preternatural, the Occult, the ‘Other’. Most of these prescriptions aredisguised as various schemes to promote self-worth.

Eminent psychologists, some non-Christian have noticed this oddity. From The Psychology as

Religion: the Cult of Self-Worship by psychologist Paul C. Vitz (New York University):

“Objectification is an intellectual act, central to all criticism, which takes a naive, unexamined

experience and turn the source or cause of the experience into an object of study.” p.153




90

“The power gained by the self as it objectifies more an more objects that come under its in-

creasingly sophisticated control feeds self-growth or individuation. The process is experienced

as actualization, as becoming autonomous, becoming independent of the objects — the places,

people, and customs — now located “outside’, in the environment with which the self was first

unself-consciously fused.” p.154

What we are seeing is a re-emerging of the new dualism — a preternatural ‘Other’ from within

that the mind of man knows not how to contend:

“…The self as subject frantically trying to gain control over others — the objects—in order to

build its own self as subject. As more and more people have their “consciousness raised”—that

is, they are “liberated” from objecthood and take on the role as subjects—the competition be-

comes fierce.”

The dualistic battle within one’s own mind as modern day institutions teach us this art of self-

examination, objectifying a portion of our own actions, our own motives, until, not wanting to be

blamed for our own failings, we objectify and distance ourselves from our own ‘Other’ within.

“Therefore this syndrome might be called “existential narcissism… Its end is the psychological

death (in some cases physical death as well) of the self.”

The psychological model for the ‘new age’ actualization is Carl Jung, also an affiliate of Freud.Looking for inspiration to set his credentials apart from his mentor, he resorted to the very same

text that started the New Age, the Renaissance, the split in the Church, the very same text that

inspired Julian the Apostate. Jung merely retranslated the Corpus Hermeticum text into modernscientific terms to disguise its occult philosophy to a modern, self-indulgent society. It is this text

that is at the heart of everything from the Mormons, Free Masonry, Cabbala, Numerology, As-

trology, Hermeticism, and the Occult. It serves as the inspiration of most charismatic cults (to memodern physics is suspiciously cabbala-esque). It was doubt in the Eucharist that forced theChurch to seek a new inspirational source. It was Carl Jung and the occult Corpus Hermeticum

that would seemingly provide a scheme of salvation through the new emerging charismatic

movement.

The Aryan Christ: the Secret Life of Carl Jung, Richard Noll (Harvard University - also The

Jung Cult: Origins of the Charismatic Movement ):

“Through years of reflection on Jung’s considerable impact on the cultural and spiritual land-

scape of the twentieth century, I have come to the conclusion that, as an individual, he ranks with

Julian the Apostate (fourth century C.E.) as one who significantly undermined orthodoxChristianity and restored polytheism of the Hellenistic world in Western civilization… the

patriarchal monotheism of the orthodox Judeo-Christian faiths has all but collapsed… this

twentieth-century mask was constructed deliberately, and somewhat deceptively, by Jung to

make his own magical, polytheistic, pagan worldview more palatable to a secularized world

conditioned to respect only those ideas that seem to have a scientific air to them.”




91

But it was not uniquely Jung that was the conduit back to Hermeticism, science at it heart is

also based on it, derived from its alchemical source in its infant life. What Rome tried to burn as

a counterfeit 3rd Testament to the Bible emerged again in the beginning of the 20th century, and

again when the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered, once again giving credibility to the occult ‘an-

gelic’ lost text.

“But whatsoever human souls have not the Mind as [their] pilot, they share in the same fate

as souls of lives [creatures] irrational. For [the One-Mind] becomes co-worker with them,

giving full play to the desires toward which [men] are borne; [urges] that, from the rush of

lust, strain after the irrational. Just like irrational animals, [they] cease not irrationally to rage

and lust, nor are they ever satiate of ills. For passions [desires] and irrational desires [fits] are

ills exceeding great; and over these God hath set up the Mind to play the part of judge and

executioner. . . All works, my son, are Fate’s [destiny’s]; and without Fate [destiny] naught

[nothing] of things corporal, or good, or ill, can come to pass. But it is fated [predestined],

too, that he who doeth ill, shall suffer. And for this cause he doth it, that he may suffer what

he suffereth, because he did it.” – the Corpus Hermeticum

Malachi Martin - exorcist, former Jesuit professor at the Vatican Pontifical Biblical Institute,

advisor to the Pope has noticed this ‘link’ between the occult, and this preternaturality in man:

“… The most obvious and striking effect common to all possessed persons, whether observed

in or apart from Exorcism, is the great loss in human quality, in humanness… The difficulty

comes, instead, from the insistence of latter-day opinion makers that the religious view of good

and evil is outdated; that the personality of each man, woman, and child exists only as a cross

section of single traits and attributes best revealed in scores we achieve in psychological tests;

that the truest and purest models for our behavior come from “lower animals” and from the

“natural man”—a mythical invention that has never existed and that we cannot imagine.” Hos-tage to the Devil , p.409

The essence of any drama, any narrative is discovering who you are in the story, which charac-

ter represents you. We started this discussion with the realization that something caused the Jews

to seek a spiritual separation from the worldly, ‘pagan’ deities pushed upon them. It was seen

that empires use similar formulas to accomplish this. Eventually, after trying to amalgamate the

various contradictory traditions, a form of Eastern Egyptianism is resorted to: truth is made para-

doxical, the two-fold truth becomes the essence of wisdom, virtue ceases to be a ethical act of

doing as you believe in truth but a mere inner self-consistency to self.

In such an endeavor, the Golden Rule becomes universalized. Seeking an unobjectionabledogma on which to base the plurality of society, do unto others as you would have others do unto

you seems the best of all candidates. Yet, even this rule is too weighty for most, so it is retrans-

lated to I will permit you to do whatever you will so long as you permit me the same. In this

clever manipulation right and wrong become mere poetical preferences, values as the nihilist

Nietzche put it. As we have discussed, the philosophical act of considering one’s self free of

moral imperative is always involved - amorality is placed as the highest of virtues when it dis-

guises itself as ‘judging not’.




92

It should not be surprising, then, that just such an action shows up in the Biblical narrative right

at the ‘crux’ of the story — you are intended to be Pilate at this point in the narrative. Pilate is

Thoth, the culmination of the ancient dilemma.

When Pilate asks Christ, “what is truth”, it is not for want of a pregnant pause that Christ doesnot answer. It is because Christ could provide no better answer than the concrete reality of His

presence; this is Grace. What we have here is the Christian paradigm for salvation in its essence.

Remember the Thothic confession of Hermes before God. The key to Hermetical salvation is the

abandonment of reason - that the disciple is willing to sacrifice his free-will, his truth, as an act

of devotion. Christ, on the other hand, knows that true salvation can never deprive man of his

free-will. Pilate needs to confess God as God of by his own free-will, which demands Truth -

even at this most pivotal moment of salvation, Christ will not announce His own divinity before

Pilate for to do so would be to deny Pilate, and us, coming to that conclusion freely. True Chris-

tian devotion cannot be based on a coerced confession, but because the disciple has followed

what he believes to be true. Even today, how often has the Church asked its disciples to abandon

their own conscience to prove their devotion - this is not something Christ would’ve done.




93

End Notes

1 A Delicate Arrangement: the Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, Arnold

Brackman, p. 301. The chief philosophical architect of Vatican II was the Jesuit paleontologist Fr. Pi-

erre Teilhard de Chardin. His ‘cosmological’ theology was the only one to seemingly fit the emerging

new science. Yet, principally based on the ‘truth’ of evolution, his theology was based on the finds andevidences produced by these very same paleontologists and anthropologists, of which he was one. In-

strumental was the Piltdown Man, a find later proved to be a hoax planted by Pierre himself.2 Ibid, p. 281.3 Although it’s modern day formulation and push came from inside the Roman Catholic Church - Fr.

George LeMaître4 See The Harvest of Medieval Thought , H. Oberman, Baker, p. 58 – particularly Ch. 3, ‘Faith and Under-

standing’.5 Defense of the Council’s phrases ‘from the substance’ and ‘one in substance’, Athanasius6 Elements of Logic, Richard Whately7 On the Councils, sec. 12.8 Reality and the Mind: Epistemology, Fallacy of Idealism, Celestine N. Bittle, O.F.M. Cap., Bruce-

Milwaukee, 19369 A Manual of Modern Scholastic Philosophy, Criteriology, Cardinal Mercier, Herder Books, 1953, p. 39410 Argument from Ten Philosophical Mistakes, Mortimer Adler, Colliers, 198511 All the key elements of Easter have their prefiguration:

• The Fast of Esther was honored. A final Wine Banquet or ‘last’ supper was held on the night of

the 13th, the day of ‘revenge’, the eve of the 14th, to commemorate the impending doom and mas-

sacre of the nation of the Jews.

• The betrayal for ‘blood money’.

• The waking of the next morning, the 14th, to find that they have been spared and that the con-spirators, Haman and his two sons have been caught.

• A condemned ‘scapegoat’ ritual is enacted where a common criminal is led through the streets in

procession.

• The crucifixion of Haman and his two sons is reenacted – Haman is crucified in the center with

his sons being also crucified one on either side as fellow criminals. While many historians insist

crucifixion is a uniquely Roman form of execution, the Jewish text, Jewish tradition, and Josephus’

History of the Jews all insist that it is an actual crucifixion, not a mere hanging, that is specified in

Esther. Regardless, at the time of Christ Jewish tradition believed it to be a crucifixion and this is

what would have been practiced in effigy.

• To illustrate the charitable nature of the Jews, and the charity of Artaxerxes, a prisoner is to be

voted on and set free.

• A ‘casting of lots’ (rolling of dice) ritual is acted out - the fate of the Jews was held in the balanceby this act (‘purim’ literally means ‘casting of lots’).

• On the 15th, the Jews rested and prepared for the Sabbath.

• A two-fold truth crisis is posed to the governor in charge (Artaxerxes, Pontius Pilate)

12 From an article by Gyula Klima, http://www.fordham.edu/gsas/phil/klima/anselm.htm 13 Moore: GE Moore and the Cambridge Apostles, Paul Levy, p. 170-114 Gregory Naziansus, Orat. 35. 38. 42




94

15 “Extent and Duration of the Celtic Church.–By the term ‘Celtic Church’ is meant the Church which ex-

isted in Great Britain and Ireland (with certain continental offshoots) before the mission of St.

Augustine, and to a varying extent after that event, until by absorption or submission the various parts

of it were at different dates incorporated with the Church of the Anglo-Saxons.” p.3 The Liturgy and

Ritual of the Celtic Church, Warren, Oxford University Press,16 “… It originally belonged to some church in Munster, that church being possibly the monastery founded

by St. Ruadhan at Lothra in the Barony of Lower Ormund and County Tipperary, where he died as its

first abbot and patron AD 584” p.198, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church, Warren, Oxford.17 A Greek to English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Walter Bauer,

University of Chicago Press18 This is the same debate that occurred in the trial of Galileo. The trial documents of Galileo as found in

the Vatican Secret Archives (from Galileo Heretic, Pietro Redondi, Princeton University Press p.335):

“I must now reply to the digression on heat in which Galileo openly declares himself a follower of the

school of Democritus and Epicurus. But since he has dealt here in a few lines, without any development,

with a problem that deserves an entire book, and since it is difficult for me to discuss it with him, whose

principles I do not know, for these reasons I will not make any statement on this opinion. Let him defend

it uncontested. On this matter, judgment will fall to those who, teachers of a thought in conformity withtruth and of scrupulous language, watch over the safety of the faith in its integrity. Yet, I cannot avoid

giving vent to certain scruples that preoccupy me. They come from what we have regarded as incontest-

able on the basis of the precepts of the Fathers, the Councils, and the entire Church. They are the qualities

by virtue of which, although the substance of the bread and wine disappear, thanks to omnipotent words,

nonetheless their sensible species persist; that is, their color, taste, warmth, or coldness. Only by the di-

vine will are these species maintained, and in a miraculous fashion, as they tell me. This is what they af-

firm. Instead, Galileo expressly declares that heat, color, taste, and everything else of this kind are outside

of him who feels them, and therefore in the bread and wine, just simple names. Hence. When the sub-

stance of the bread and wine disappears, only the names of the qualities will remain.” - from Document

‘G3’ of the Vatican Secret Archives to the Trial of Galileo

19

Table Talk, Luther. 20 De Memoria, Thomas Aquinas21 De Mem. et rem., 452 8 – 16.22 Cyril. loc. cit. 23 Cf. St. Matthew 6:11, ‘The Lord’s Prayer’ commonly translated as ‘daily’; Cyril of Jerusalem, op cit.

15 – some claim that the word is unique to this prayer.24 St. John 6:6325 As quoted Plato’s Cratylus.26 Anastas., Hodegus, ch. 2327 Cf. Liturgy of St. Basil , prayer of the epiclesis; F.E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western 1

28 St. Matthew 7:629 I Cor. 10:1730 On The Orthodox Faith (Fount of Knowledge), St. John Damascene, Book 4, Ch. 13.




LIST OF SCIENCE, PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGICAL SOURCES

The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of Science and What Comes Next, Lee

Smolin, Houghton Mifflin, 2006

The Big Bang Never Happened, Eric J. Lerner, Random House, 1991

A Delicate Arrangement: The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, Arnold C.

Brackman, (New York) Times Books, 1980Piltdown: A Scientific Forgery, Frank Spencer, Oxford University Press, 1990

Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Halton Arp, Apeiron, 1998

Cosmological Electrodynamics, Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammer, Oxford University Press,

1963

The Electric Sky: A Challenge to the Myths of Modern Astronomy, Donald E. Scott, Mikamar Pub., 2006

Thunderbolts of the Gods: A Radical Reinterpretation of Human History and the Evolution of the Solar

System (book & film), David Talbott & Wallace Thornhill, Mikamar, 2005

The Virtue of Heresy: Confessions of a Dissident Astronomer, Hilton Ratcliffe, Authorhouse, 2007

Big Bang Blasted: The Story of the Expanding Universe and How It Was Shown to Be Wrong, Lyndon

Ashmore, Booksurge, 2006Worlds in Collision, Emmanuel Velikovsky, Doubleday & Co., 1950

Earth in Upheaval, Emmanuel Velikovsky, Doubleday & Co., 1955

Creation: The Physical Truth, Harold Aspden, Book Guild Publishing, 2006

Universe: The Cosmology Quest (film), Randall Meyers prod., Norsk Film Institutt, 2003

Galileo Heretic, Pietro Redondi, Princeton University Press, 1987

Psychology as Religion: the Cult of Self-Worship, Paul C. Vitz, Wm. B. Eerdman’s, 1977

The Atom in the History of Human Thought, Bernard Pullman, Oxford, 1998

From Paracelsus to Newton: Magic & the Making of Modern Science, Charles Webster, Cambridge Uni-

versity Press, 1982

The Aryan Christ: The Secret Life of Carl Jung, Richard Noll, Macmillan/Random House, 1997The History of Twelfth-Century Philosophy, Peter Dronke ed., Cambridge University Press, 1988

The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, Etienne Gilson, University of Notre Dame Press, 1936

Tract for Our Times

Documents

Transcript of Tract for Our Times