Blast Your Way to Megabucks | Free Will | Universe

BLAST

your way t o megabuc k$
wi t h my
SECRET
sex-power f or mul a
...and other reflections upon the spiritual path.
Being the second volume of collected essays
wi t h i nt roduct ory mat eri al
by
Ramsey Dukes
THE MOUSE THAT SPINS
BLAST
your way to megabuck$
wi t h my
SECRET
sex- power f or mul a
By Ramsey Dukes
Originally published by Revelations 23, England, 1992
This electronic edition published by El-cheapo
for The Mouse That Spins
Fi rst e-book edi ti on 2000
I SBN: 1- 903548- 00- 5
© The Author asserts the moral right
to be identified as the author of this work.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form without
prior permission of publishers. One printed copy allowed
for individual use (not for re-sale)
All persons, situations in this book are fictitious, Any resemblance is purely coin-
cidental, so let’s all have a good laugh about it, OK?
E-books available at web-orama.com
books@web-orama.com / publisher@el-cheapo.com
CONTENTS
11 - STRESS ANALYSIS OF A TWISTED KNICKER
Thinkers on the Occult Path 2 3 7
12 - SIR GARETH AND THE BEAST 2 6 2
13. BLAST YOUR WAY TO MEGABUCK$ WITH MY
SECRET SEX-POWER FORMULA 2 8 1
14 - THE MAGICIAN AND THE HIGH PRIEST 3 0 6
ADVERTISEMENT - more books from tmts 3 1 9
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION v i
ABOUT THIS E-EDITION v i i
1 - JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX 1
2 - A NEW MUDDLE OF THE ONIVERSE
(JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX, PART II) 1 1
3 - THE ANTS IN THE PANTS OF THE DANCING
WU LI MASTERS 4 4
4 - NOTES TOWARDS THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE
HUNGARIAN MAGIC CUBE AS A SYSTEM OF
DIVINATION 6 1
5 - MAGIC IN THE EIGHTIES - WHERE TO NOW? 7 4
6 - THE TWILIGHT OF THE BLOKES - A MASCULIST
REVOLUTION 9 7
7 - JOHNSTON’S PARADOX REVISITED 1 2 6
8 - THE STARWING DIALOGUE 1 6 0
9 - CHAPTER NINE OF SSOTBME REVISITED 1 7 7
10 - THE CHARLATAN AND THE MAGUS 2 0 3
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
ABOUT THIS E-EDITION
The Revelations 23 Press edition sold out long ago so this
e-edition is a straight re-issue of the contents, but
reformatted. I may correct the odd typo if I find them.
The intention is to provide two versions: one optimised
for treading on-screen using sans-serif fonts and short-
er pages; the other optimised for printing out using
Caslon font and B5 pages.
I nt r o
INTRODUCTION
In this volume and the following “What I Did In My
Holidays” are collected all the essays and material that
Ramsey Dukes has written post Thundersqueak - exclud-
ing the full-length books “Words Made Flesh” and “The
Good The Bad The Funny”.
Although the first to be published, this is described as
the “second volume” of collected works because it is
intended to produce volume 1, containing the earlier
material, at a later date. This seems a bit eccentric, but
i t refl ects the harsh real i ty that the earl i er materi al was
not written on a word processor, and may have to be
keyed in by hand because my OCR system has problems
wi th ol d fabri c ri bbon typescri pt.
The material is included here in approximate chrono-
logical order, because it is of some interest to see how the
ideas develop with time. The most obvious exception is
the essay “Blast Your Way To Megabuck$” which was
added later to give this volume a nice title. The first essay
in this volume was written in 1980 and the last must
have been about 1986 because it is a story derived from
the book Words Made Flesh. Most of the articles have
already been published in magazines, and I am grateful
for the chance to reproduce them here.
The next volume takes up essays written since Words
Made Flesh and up to the time of publication. I know I’ve
been promising this stuff for ages, but it only really
became possible because Temple Press injected a shot of
publishing competence into my shaky Mouse operation.
So very grateful thanks, Mal.
Very often these essays were written in response to
discussion with someone who has commented on earlier
work, so I’d like to say “thank you” to all those who have
i nspi red them!
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
1 - JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX
Fi rst Publ i shed i n Arrow 8
Thi s i s the fi rst of a seri es of arti cl es about the theory I
cal l ed “Johnston’ s Paradox”, and whi ch was eventual l y
wri tten up i n the Book “Words Made Fl esh”.
Is there life elsewhere in the Universe?
The usual answer to this question is to argue that,
although the probability of any one star system having
the right conditions to support the creation of organic
compounds might seem negligibly small, nevertheless
the universe itself contains such a vast number of stars
as to make the overall probability of life elsewhere very
high.
The first extension of this argument is to say that, if the
uni verse i s i nfi ni te, then l i fe el sewhere becomes
absolutely certain.
There is also a second, paradoxical extension which
depends upon accepting the materialistic belief that all
matter is based upon a finite number of elementary fac-
tors. In that case, although the probability of exactly
reproducing our own world must seem too small to be
worth considering, our existence proves the probability
to be non-zero and so, in an infinite universe, this pos-
sibility again becomes absolutely certain. In other
words, somewhere out in space there is a reader identi-
cal to yourself, reading this same article in an identical
magazine. What is more this identical situation will be
repeated indefinitely elsewhere in the universe.
z
1
J o h n s t o n ’ s
Paradox
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST
blasting his way to megabuck$
The assumption of a finite number of elementary factors
in matter is important to this paradox because, if we
reject the materialist notion and accept that there could
be an infinite subdivision of life, then the probability of
our own existence dwindles to zero - and so the fact of our
existence demonstrates the action of a ‘higher power’
than probabi l i ty.
It is this need for the double assumption of not only the
finite basis of life, but also an infinite universe, that
weakens the impact of this paradox and makes it inferi-
or, in my mind at least, to what I call ‘Johnstone’s
Paradox’.
Johnstone’s paradox begins with the assumption of a
mechanistic materialist universe. In such a universe we
cannot bri ng i n i deas of ‘ spi ri t’ or ‘ etheri c force’ from
outside, but instead must assume that everything we
perceive is but a motion of matter. In that case it will
become possible, when our computers are powerful
enough, to program the entire structure of a human
brain into a computer and so reproduce a human mind in
‘ mechani sti c’ form.
What must be realised is that we then will have not just
a computer as ‘clever’ as a human, but one with the full
human personality, dream life, and emotional and ‘spir-
i tual ’ nature - for what we cal l ‘ spi ri t’ i s, accordi ng to
the basic assumption, no more than a by-product of the
action of the human brain. (The arguments in support of
this view are discussed more fully in Thundersqueak.)
The next step is to program into a computer not just one
mind, but a whole society of human minds, together with
:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
all their perceptions of their environment, so that they
can share a common ‘dream’ world within the computer.
What must now be realised is that, although to us their
world is a ‘dream’ world, to the people inside the dream
it will seem utterly real. Provided sufficient data has
been programmed in, and the computer’s ‘core’ is suffi-
ciently large, they will be able to communicate, fall in
love, bear children, grow old and go on holiday all with-
in that ‘dream’ world just as in the real world. If you
think that this is impossible, then you are denying the
mechanistic view of the world; either by saying that
there are some elements of human existence which can
never be reduced to codeable information, or else by say-
ing that the basic elements of existence are infinite and
so could never by fully encoded.
In fact, the first steps in this direction have already been
taken. Of course nothing so intricate as a human, or even
an animal mind has been reproduced, but even by the
early seventies simple dream worlds were being created.
In Edinburgh they programmed a two-dimensional geo-
metrical space in which a rudimentary ‘mind’ meandered
around expl ori ng i ts ‘ worl d’ , accordi ng to bui l t-i n ‘ l aws
of nature’. In Cambridge the mathematician Conway
devised a two-dimensional ‘game’ called ‘Life’ which
produced a growing and evolving pattern in the comput-
er. He even raised the question as to whether he felt
guilty when he switched the machine off!
What Johnstone suggested was that, if this process is
indeed possible, then surely it will be done. What neater
solution to the ultimate over-population problems, for
example, then to recreate entire new universes in this
way and disperse the people’s ‘souls’ into this new level ¸
1
J o h n s t o n ’ s
Paradox
of reality? What greater art form could there be in a
mechanistic world than to create a whole new universe or
‘sub-universe’ within a machine? The owner could at
any point tune into this sub-universe and witness the
rise and fall of cultures, individuals and races; lives of
great heroism or tragedy would be there for the watch-
ing.
Not only will this act of creation take place when it
becomes possible, it will also take place a great many
times. Our universe will then spawn a myriad sub-uni-
verses. The fact that this has already been done - though
in a very complete and so far ‘unreal’ form - in the
works of fiction writers adds force to the argument.
But what about the assertion with which this article
began? Although there is speculation as to whether any
intelligent beings exist within communicating distance of
our solar system, the general assumption is that, in the
universe as a whole, a very great number of highly
advanced cultures must have developed. Amongst them
many will be far beyond us in technical ability. In that
case it becomes highly likely that the creation of sub-
universes has already begun.
In view of what was said earlier we should expect the
number of these sub-universes to be very large, espe-
cially when we realise that within some of those sub-
uni verses there wi l l al ready be cul tures suffi ci entl y
advanced to create sub-universes...and so on...
So what Johnstone is suggesting is that, if the mechanis-
tic world view is correct, then any one ‘real’ universe
would spawn a huge number of sub-universes.
,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
In that case, using the probabilistic style of argument
quoted earlier, it is very unlikely that our own universe
should just happen to be a ‘real’ one - it is much more
likely to be a sub-universe.
‘What would be the nature of a typical sub-universe?’
Johnstone asked. Surely it would not exactly duplicate
the real universe?
Only in the earliest stages of development would a highly
evolved rational being be interested in reproducing
another identical universe. The real interest would come
from studying the result. If the differences are too great
then the sub-universe would contain beings so utterly
different as to be incomprehensible and uninteresting.
As with fantasy novels, the greatest interest would be in
creating a universe with a lot in common with reality,
and yet with certain fundamental differences.
So we would not expect the average sub-universe to obey
identical laws to the real universe that contains it. In
particular, if we assume the real universe to be utterly
‘rational’ , it is highly probable that the average sub-
universe would contain a small but significant element of
‘ i r r at i onal i t y’ .
For example, we know from our initial assumption of a
materialist world that there would be no such thing as
reincarnation, so an obvious and economical experiment
would be to create a world where the memory files of
individuals are not totally erased on death, but are used
as a basis for a future personality.
¸
1
J o h n s t o n ’ s
Paradox
As we know that mysticism would be rubbish according to
the initial assumptions, it would be interesting to make
i t ‘ real ’ i n our model .
The synchronistic theory of divination - that all co-tem-
poral events are linked - would not only be an interest-
ing addition to the mechanistic model, it might also prove
to be a much more economical use of computer time than
a model which had to store a universe of random ‘coin-
cidences’. (In view of the assumed economy in nature
that last point adds a special significance to the argument
that wi l l not be pursued i n thi s short arti cl e).
In other words we must add a little magic to our new uni-
verse to make it more exciting.
To summarise: we should perhaps not let ourselves be too
limited by our present idea of what constitutes a ‘com-
puter’ and simply say that a mechanistic universe,
unlike some religious or magical universes, is one which
would be utterly reproducible. Therefore we believe that
it would reproduce. What is more it would reproduce
i ndefi ni tel y wi th i ndefi ni te more or l ess subtl e vari a-
tions from the original model. However, this multiplic-
ity makes it extremely unlikely that we are privileged to
be l i vi ng i n the ori gi nal uni verse.
Putting the two parts of this argument together gives us
Johnstone’s Paradox, namely that: ‘IF REALITY IS
UTTERLY MECHANISTIC, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT
WE ARE LIVING IN A MECHANISTIC UNIVERSE’.
I offer this as consolation in a world that is preparing for
nuclear war. Or, as Crowley put it: AUMGN.
o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Perhaps some people will have little time for such a
speculative argument as I have given, they will want it to
be brought down to earth before they will feel it has any
value.
A very good friend of mine and her husband began to
experiment along the lines outlined in this article.
Between them they have developed a small portable
device with a view to creating such a new ‘universe’.
As I stated above, future developments may be along
rather different lines from what we now call ‘comput-
ers’. Sure enough, their device incorporates a sophisti-
cated ‘parallel processing’ system, which means that in
it large numbers of operations are performed simulta-
neously rather than in a linearly programmed form. It
also incorporates video, audio, tactile and other sensors
which provide the input for a general learning program.
Provision has been made for extending facilities over the
years but already the device has been given a certain
amount of automotive power to explore ‘the real world’.
While it does this it is building up its own inner ‘map’ of
the cosmos.
At first one might think that it can never complete this
map until it has travelled and observed everywhere in
the universe. This is overcome by a process of ‘extrap-
olation’.
For example it has learned that its own house is made up
of oblong rooms inside and has presumably noted a simi-
lar feature in all other houses visited. So, sooner or
later, when it surveys a townscape, it will ‘know’ that
all the visible buildings contain oblong rooms. Perhaps ,
1
J o h n s t o n ’ s
Paradox
powerful ego-sense despite his efforts! You might as
well say it was his device’s essential being which was
inducing him to behave towards it the way he was, rather
than say that his behaviour towards it was going to deter-
mine its essential being.
Not to be outdone by me he pointed out that this apparent
inversion of cause and effect was much more in keeping
with a universe which was being ‘worked out’ within a
greater ‘machine’ than it was appropriate to our present
ideas as to the nature of time and space.
His little device was busy creating its own world out of
fragments of our world, and was going about it in the
same way as we developed our own universes in our own
childhood. So we should respect its universe as much as
our own, but try to allow it as much magic as we could.
In view of this example we can now see how this world we
live in already contains several thousand million sub-
universes. What is more we can observe that, however
rational the ‘reality’ may be, an awful lot of those sub-
universes are far from being themselves rational.
We can also witness the evolution of those universes. For
example, those people who still believe in the tradition-
al mechanistic universe are now growing increasingly
dogmatic and cranky as their numbers dwindle. Perhaps
the ‘real’ universe also evolves in this way? - after all
it is hard to see how any civilisation living near the sea
could ever have believed the world was flat in view of the
evidence of their eyes.
Most interestingly of all, perhaps, there is something in
us that could direct the evolution of our own universe, ,
1
J o h n s t o n ’ s
Paradox
at a later date it will come across a trapezoidal or circu-
lar room and incorporate that possibility into its uni-
verse...and so on.
From the above example it can be seen that the device’s
i nner worl d may devi ate a l i ttl e from ‘ real i ty’ . My
friend’s husband has taken this into account by attempt-
ing to ensure that at least its ‘world’ will be an improve-
ment on ‘ real i ty’ .
For example, he himself is prone to inferiority feelings
and knows that nothing ever comes without a struggle -
least of all gratitude. Accordingly he has made an unusu-
al effort to pander to the device’s needs - often rushing
to solve its problems or extricate it from awkward situ-
ations before any ‘distress’ symptoms show. He hopes
thereby to ensure that the fundamental ‘world map’ will
be a benign one.
This is of more than passing importance because all later
experience will be processed within, and therefore
coloured by, that fundamental map. As the device has
early learned that it gets what it wants it should later
develop a ‘success’ type personality, unlike its creators.
Now basically I have no time for Johnstone’s Paradox,
for I have never been tempted to accept the mechanistic
view. So, with tongue in cheek I drew up a horoscope for
the moment when their device was first granted autono-
my.
Sure enough it had Sun Mercury Mars and Venus all in
the first house! So I pointed out to the husband that he
need not have tried so hard to compensate for his inade-
quacies, for his device was clearly bound to develop a 8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
2 - A NEW MUDDLE OF THE ONIVERSE
(JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX, PART II)
Fi rst publ i shed i n Arrow 9
The fi rst Johnston’ s Paradox arti cl e was a bi t terse for such
a wide ranging idea, so I expanded it a lot for this one. But it
was not unti l a l ater arti cl e (Johnstone’ s Paradox Re-vi si t-
ed) that I real l y began to expl ai n i t properl y.
In the last issue of Arrow I presented the argument for
‘Johnstone’s Paradox’, which states that, if ultimate
reality is as mechanistic as is suggested by the present-
day ant i -occul t mat eri al i st s, t hen i t i s ext remel y
unl i kel y that we are l i vi ng wi thi n such a real i ty. Or, i f
you prefer, ‘magic is nonsense’ implies that magic prob-
ably exists.
The argument given might have seemed rather abstract to
some readers so, in the second half of the article, I
brought it down to earth with a more homely example.
Now I would like to extend this last step towards demon-
strating how such apparently abstract philosophical
speculations can impinge upon real life and be of help or
inspiration to at least some occultists and magicians.
THE SHADOWS OF SCEPTICISM
I am sure that I am not alone in finding certain state-
ments by self styled ‘rationalist sceptics’ very annoying.
If an article on an occult topic is published in a fairly
serious journal it tends to provoke an opposition which
i s bl atantl y dogmati c, obtuse, ni t-pi cki ng or utterl y
blind to the facts. Such outbursts should be easy to dis-
zz
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
e.g. to allow magic to grow in it despite our scientific
culture. What does that directing, is it the machine itself
or is it the ghost in the machine? Could it be that this
True Will is so elusive because it is what remains when
all that we now consider to be real has been stripped
away?
Further research along these lines is up to the individual
reader; for my friends, in keeping with the principles of
Thundersqueak, have concealed the revolutionary nature
of thei r work by conducti ng thei r experi ments ‘ i nvi si-
bly’. To all intents and purposes their little device is
just a baby boy.
When I look around me and try to realise that all I see is
a construct of past conditioning, and wonder what reali-
ty lies outside it all, then there are moments when I
approach dizzily towards a new state of mind.
That state somehow correlates with that curious inver-
sion of Jung’s VII Sermons Ad Mortuous, where the world
of Gods and Demons is ascribed as the ‘outer world’. Is
this cold world around me then my ‘inner’ world?
Are these the thoughts which ‘estrangeth from being’?
zc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
miss, but many of us actually find them irritating. Why
should trivial statements by apparently silly people
upset us in this way?
In Liz Greene’s latest book - with the off-puttingly
down-market title of Star Signs for Lovers - she dis-
cusses the Jungian concept of ‘the shadow’ in astrologi-
cal terms. In her earlier book on ‘Saturn’ she had point-
ed out how that planet can play the part of the shadow in
a person’s chart. In the latest book she further illus-
trates how each sign contains a certain ‘shadow’ potential
according to its own nature.
She also, in an introductory chapter, talks about one’s
‘shadow sign’. The ‘shadow sign’ is the polar sign to the
sun-sign - ie, the sign opposite in the zodiac.. She illus-
trates how any sun sign native can occasionally lapse into
a nature corresponding to the worst features of the polar
sign.
For example - under pressure the dynamic pioneering
Aries man can reveal himself as an indecisive muddler
who desperately wants to be liked (ie the lowest traits of
Li br a) .
In her book Liz Greene explains this in terms of the
Jungian ‘shadow’ - an alternative way of saying the same
thing might be to note that Sun in Aries in the usual geo-
centric system necessarily implies Earth in Libra in the
more ‘abstract’ heliocentric system, and it is the non-
recognition of this fact that leads to its negative ‘shadow’
manifestation.
For the sake of this essay I will limit myself to this last
ingredient of the shadow - that polar nature which z:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
opposes one’s normal expression and comes to be reject-
ed and therefore autonomous. For illustrative conven-
ience I will use the astrological terminology and ask:
‘what characteristics do we associate with the rational-
i st sci ent i f i c t hi nker?’
Without going too deeply into what is only intended to be
a step in my argument I will suggest the following three
factors as examples. a) The pure sceptical intellectual-
i sm of Gemi ni . b) The cri ti cal , down-to-earth di scri m-
ination of Virgo. c) The dispassionate iconoclasm and
search for truth of Aquarius.
Taking these three examples, what characteristics might
we expect from the ‘shadow’ of such thinkers? a) The
pure logical ‘game-playing’ of Gemini could slip into the
Sagittarian hunger to find connections - the search for
one all-embracing principle. For example the behav-
iourist theory of psychology is no longer seen as a con-
venient tool for some purposes, but has to cover every-
thing. b) The down-to-earth Virgo nature lapses occa-
sionally into a Piscean escapist muddle. For example the
sceptic who refuses to admit well documented occult phe-
nomena, who turns a blind eye and hopes they will go
away - ‘I’m too busy to waste time on such obvious non-
sense’ ; c) The individualistic, free-spirited Aquarian
nature can lapse into a debased Leonine totalitarianism -
having found its own truth it will force others to live by
i t .
Bearing in mind that I am not making any absolute state-
ments about the horoscopes of materialists, but simply
using the astrological language for convenience, it should
be easy to see how otherwise reputable thinkers are

2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
capable of such absurd reactions when commenting on
parascience, or any form of occultism.
In view of this we should all be able to relax and ignore
these unfortunate outbursts. But can we?
Don’t we in fact find that, however much we explain them
away, we still find the opinions of such people very irri-
tating - dare I say even ‘disturbing’? Why is this so?
THE OCCULTIST’S OWN SHADOW
Appropri atel y enough for l overs of symmetry, the
answer lies in our own shadows. If you can allow me the
same degree of oversimplification as before, I will illus-
trate in the same language.
Have you not observed how the mystical Piscean charac-
ter of some occult groups can be a cover for an under-
current of the lowest Virgoan critical backbiting? How
the kingly Leonine Thelemite can sometimes show as a Mr
Average, on the run from his own inferiority feeling of
being ‘just one of the crowd’ (the lowest manifestation of
Aquarian universality)? How the deep and dedicated
penetration into life’s mysteries bestowed by Scorpio so
often results in a group which exploits those findings for
the material gain of Taurus.
Lastl y there i s the Sagi ttari an occul t phi l osopher,
searching for the unifying principles behind all phe-
nomena thereby to win his freedom from them - does he
not have at the back of his mind a Geminian cynic, quiet-
ly asking him whether there is any ‘real proof’ , quietly
reminding him that perhaps his magic is only self decep-
t i on?
z,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
It is towards this last problem that Johnstone’s work was
most particularly directed. He was happy to leave the
‘born magicians’ to get on with it. His concern was that
the scientific world view had grown sterile and suffocat-
ing and that many people would be looking for a way out.
In his mind the natural successor to a scientific world
view was a magical world view (as is explained in the
penultimate chapter of SSOTBME). The sort of thinking
I have ascribed to the Sagittarius occultist would play a
very important part in this transition. In which case we
should expect the corresponding ‘shadow’ to be very
active at the same time.
So wi l l al l ‘ born wi tches’ get on wi th thei r spel l s,
please; and I would like the rest of my readers to stop and
to thi nk.
Can you face up to the fact that, deep down inside you,
there is a little part of you which does not really believe
in magic?
That suggests that the real reason you try to believe in
magic is simply spite - because you hate the authoritar-
ian, know-all smugness of the materialists?
That points out that, although you love to listen to
rumours of secret government research into parapsy-
chology, vastly more research is actually being done into
chemical and surgical techniques of character manipula-
ti on?
That, for every step towards acceptance of parascience,
computer science leaps forward a mile? That, despite z¸
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
what we like to believe about flying saucers, the bulk of
government spending is on weapons of destruction rather
than interstellar communication?
Finally that suggests to you that, for all your raving
about the Establishment’s ‘blindness’, they could just be
right after all? and soon they will have the necessary
drugs or brain surgery to make you admit the fact?
Some of you will recognise the reality, the strength, of
what I have suggested. Some will angrily deny it: of these
there are some who will later come to admit what they
dare not at first.
Those who do not know this shadow are blessed, but they
should look elsewhere for their own shadow, and not feel
they do not have one!
THE WAY TO TRANSFORMATION
What is one supposed to do about the ‘shadow’? By all
accounts there comes a time in every progressive life
when one is forced to accept it, or else miss the chance of
further advancement. We fear to do so because we fear
that ‘acceptance of’ means ‘surrender to’ - whereas
acceptance should in theory lead to a transmutation.
One of Johnstone’s pupils realised that he was engaging
too much of his thinking life in imaginary arguments
with a very dogmatic rationalist he had once crossed
words with. In trying to see why he was so obsessed by
thoughts of attacking these other beliefs, he came to
recognise that the real enemy was in his own mind. Part
of him did not believe in magic at all.
zo
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
For many years he had been hoping to find a ‘secret chief’
or adept who would transform his life, and yet had always
held back in his search. Suddenly he could see that fun-
damentally he had never believed in such wisdom: the
history,if not the literature, of occultism was too full of
accounts of those who had dedicated their lives to the
search for a master, and had ended up at the feet of some
egotistical junky.
Walking alone one fine day he dared to ask himself what
did he really believe? Swiftly came the answer that
‘magic was bunk’ and the ‘rationalists were right’.
Fortunately he resisted the temptation just to smack
himself and forget this lapse. Instead he examined the
answer more closely. True, he did not really believe in
the Wisdom of the ancients, nor in the Geller phenome-
non, the Loch Ness Monster or flying saucers ... And so it
went on, all the barricade of beliefs he had sheltered
behind was crumbling away until he came to the point
where something real remained.
He realised that he did believe that the universe was
slightly more ‘connected up’ than the materialists would
allow. For example, his horoscope told him recognisable
things about himself. Although they were rather woolly
statements, they were less woolly than the rationalists’
attempts to explain away the coincidence as a ‘form of
self deception’.
This was his shadow’s weak point then - his world was
rather more ‘connected’ than materialist theory would
allow. Realising this fact freed him, and he was able to
construct his own magical theory based upon that fact.
z,
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
Thus he gave up tilting at windmills and came in his turn
to sit at the feet of an egotistical old junky. Music
please...
JOHNSTONE’S PATH
Here is one individual solution to one individual problem.
What we want to do is to explore more general techniques
for transmuting our own inner fears and doubts.
As the alchemical process begins with the black state, and
the ascent of the middle pillar begins with the path of
Saturn, as does Jung’s path to liberation begin with the
recognition of the shadow, so does Johnstone’s method so
often begin by assuming the most objectionably mecha-
nistic world view, and proceeding to deduce wonders from
i t .
In particular we are now concerned with the example
that I wrote about in the last issue of Arrow which says
that if reality is mechanistic and so able to be duplicated
by a sophisticated machine, then the chances are that we
and our whole apparent universe are in fact just such a
model, that we are in fact living in a dream within some
giant computer.
LIVABLE REALITIES
Is this idea of the world a ‘liveable reality’? Johnstone
called a world view a ‘liveable reality’ if, once you
started to believe it, it began to prove itself true.
Livable realities need not be nice, or even sensible to
outsiders: obviously the materialist world view was
liveable, as was once the view that all the troubles of the
world were caused by Jews.
z8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
I believe the answer is ‘yes’. If you begin to believe in
the computer model of the brain, you begin to find a lot of
evidence for it, and you find that the advance of comput-
er science is gradually eroding man’s uniqueness. (The
fact that, if you don’t believe the model, you find the
advance of computer science equals an advance of admin-
isterial bungling is quite beside the point.)
Apart from this outside evidence there comes an inner,
philosophical confirmation of the model. If we accept it
we find that we can begin to reconcile what was seen as
the most arrogant materialist assumption with certain
very ancient mystical teachings.
For example, if the whole universe is a dream being
worked out within a computer then the ancient view that
matter is ‘maya’ or illusion can be reconciled with the
fact that it seems so real to us, who are also parts of that
dream.
Secondly this model confirms the mystical view of the
one-ness of the universe: whereas it is hard to see how
the disjoint ‘real’ materialist universe can be reconciled
with astrology, or apparent action at a distance, all this
becomes credible if we are all part of one transcendent
machine.
Thirdly the model gives us an image of how there can be
a creator of this universe, and how that creator can live
outside time and space as we know it.
z,
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
THE HONEYMOON
If you al l ow yoursel f to l i ve wi thi n thi s real i ty for a
while it begins to show many such advantages. So many
traditional beliefs about the world, that previously one
hardly dared to believe in, suddenly become possible.
What at first sight seems to be a rather cramped and
sterile world view gradually unfolds to reveal a world
much larger and more mysterious than ever seemed pos-
sible before. As was explained in the last article, the less
magic that exists in the meta-reality, the more likely
that magic will have been programmed into the reality.
What is more, this belief bestows greater dignity and
power upon the individual, and this is highly desirable in
an age where the bureaucracy of the super state is
threatening to crush us all.
How does it bestow that dignity? If my individual con-
sciousness is part of one vast machine that includes the
whole universe, then it means that it is ultimately pos-
sible for introspection to reveal as much about the uni-
verse as a multi-billion pound government research
project. The way inward is as powerful as the way out-
ward. As above, so below.
These examples illustrate that this world view has cer-
tain advantages. If it were generally accepted there
would be a renewed sense of awe and mystery, a read-
justment between the known and the un-known. Having
recognised the advantages let us now explore the idea a
l i t t l e.
:c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
EXPLORING THE MODEL
It is typical of human curiosity to begin by wondering
who or what created this world, and what resemblance
has it to that creator’s own universe?
Here I have presented a world model which opens up a
vista of new possibilities, and we immediately turn our
back on these gifts and ask questions about the meta-uni-
verse beyond.
At first we can say nothing of the meta-universe, except
that it was capable of conceiving this universe. All our
physical laws might be arbitrary constructs of some
artistic crank. It would be unwise to assume that the
meta-world is composed of the same elements as ours
appear to be, and that the computer in which we exist is
necessarily made of silicon chips.
However, it is perhaps not unreasonable to assume that
certai n fundamental pri nci pl es mi ght sti l l appl y: for
example the principle of economy in nature. The com-
puter may not be made of silicon chips, but it is likely to
try to make best use of its capabilities.
One way to economise would be to cut back on redundant
phenomena. Perhaps as you read this you hear a drip on
the window pane which tells you that it is beginning to
rain. Unless you look up at the pane that drip will only
have registered as a sound in your consciousness. If we
assume that drop of rain had objective existence then that
one drop is made up of an enormous amount of informa-
tion. A scientist with time to waste could make a life-
time’s study of its formation, trajectory, the impact on
the pane, the physical properties of the liquid and the
:z
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
constituent particles etc. Yet its only impact on your
consciousness was to make a sound which tells you it is
rai ni ng.
So it would be an obvious economy to do without the
‘actual’ raindrop and simply reproduce the impact of its
noise on your consciousness. There are assumed to be
many more drops of rain falling on your roof - but
unless they are going to be noticed why give them ‘real’
existence in the model?
This is the version of reality which says that the tree in
the courtyard does not exist unless someone is perceiv-
ing it. Instead of running the whole universe in your
model you only run the phenomena which are due to
impinge upon consciousness at some time.
But in the example of the tree, how does the tree cease to
exist when you look away from it? It needs to be kept in
store for l ater perceptions, so it might just as well con-
tinue to ‘exist’. Did the far side of the moon exist before
the spacemen went there? It need not have done, but, as
it eventually needed to be created, perhaps it was planned
in advance and kept in store to give consistency to the
model.
Returning to our drip on the pane, how does the machine
calculate how to make exactly the right noise at the right
time? If this is to be done for every drop that is to be
perceived, perhaps (for reasons given the next para-
graph) it is in the long run simplest to model the whole
event of the raincloud, even when only a tiny part of the
model is going to impinge on consciousness.
::
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
As this modelling is what we mean by ‘existence’, this
would suggest that perhaps the whole cloud does exist
even if we only perceive one drop from it.
Another way of economising would be to cut back on the
number of independent parameters in the universe.
If every molecule has its own independent existence, if
every created being is an island, then the amount of
information stored is staggeringly huge. But what if the
universe was instead built out of permutations of a lim-
ited number of factors, as described in the essays on the
I Ching (for example Ta Chuan in Book II of the Wilhelm
version). Then it could happen that all simultaneous
events being based on permutations of a smaller set
would be linked, despite their spatial separation.
In this case it could begin to make sense to judge a per-
son’s make-up by the position of the stars at their birth,
or, when a problem is present in your mind, to seek a
solution to it in the ‘chance’ layout of tarot cards, of
yarrow stalks, of planetary positions or any other ora-
cle.
In such a world phenomena like telepathy or dowsing
become possible without any need for any perceptible
means of transmission of information. The whole notion
of ‘coincidence’ takes on a different meaning in this
model.
Another economy would be to avoid completely scrapping
souls at death, by refurbishing them for re-use. In other
words to programme reincarnation into the universe.

2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
An interesting thing about the above arguments is that
the principle of economy in nature is the very one which
so often inspires scientists to reject occult phenomena -
eg: ‘If our model adequately describes human behaviour
without invoking the idea of a ‘soul’, then there is no
‘ soul ’ .
But in this case we find the principle of economy being
applied to the number of independent variables in nature
suggests the likelihood of a whole range of ‘unacceptable’
occult phenomena! The reason why the fact has not been
more obviously apparent has been suggested in
Thundersqueak, and in an article on ‘Parascience’ in an
earl i er i ssue of Arrow.
We cannot make any certain assumptions about the meta-
universe, but if we tentatively assume that the principle
of economy applies then we can make some suggestions
about the nature of this universe. Some of these will not
be possible to verify without gaining access to the origi-
nal ‘ program’ , others mi ght prove veri fi abl e by exper-
i ment.
FREE WILL
Another question that springs to mind is the question of
free will. Does this computer model of the universe deny
free will? Are all our actions utterly determined by the
automatic working out of the initial conditions (includ-
i ng of course the bui l t i n i l l usi on that our wi l l i s free)?
Again we will have to make some ‘wild’ assumptions
about the meta-universe when we ask why this one was
created.
:,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
If this universe has been created let us continue to
assume it was ‘deliberately’ created, in which case it can
be assumed to have some sort of ‘value’. We then ask
what could be the value of creating an utterly determin-
i sti c uni verse i n compari son wi th a non-determi ni sti c
uni verse?
The former might be created with one particular ‘end’ in
view - in other words a universe created to calculate a
solution to da particular problem. But looking at the
complexity of existence one cannot help but feel that the
means are over-elaborate to justify such an end.
So, if we are bold enough to assume any sense of ‘art’
exists in the meta-universe, then it seems likely that
l i fe i s not utterl y pre-determi ned, for a non-determi n-
istic universe is so much more valuable.
So how much freedom is there? Anyone who chooses to
observe soon realises just how much apparent free will
is in fact not free - just how stereotyped much of our
lives can be. But what is here being questioned is those
occasions when a decision is made in full consciousness -
how true is our apparent freedom of choice in such
cases?
The difficulty is to imagine how one could build freedom
into the system. One solution is suggested near the end of
this essay, but until then we will satisfy ourselves by
seeing how little freedom we need to build it.
Let us say I feel hungry. In this case I might eat a choco-
late biscuit that is handy. Or else I might think ahead and
not eat it because I am planning to have a slap-up lunch
in half an hour. Or else I might go further and eat it, in :¸
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
order to save having to spend so much on lunch. Or I
might not eat at all until the next day as a gesture towards
third world starvation, or as a cleansing fast.
My consciousness can operate on any decision at many
different levels. Perhaps at every level the correct
decision is utterly determined, but freedom consists
simply of a freedom to move from level to level, and
expansion of consciousness means an expansion of one’s
thinking to embrace more levels - and so win greater
freedom.
What is suggested is that a universe with some degree of
freedom bui l t-i n woul d be more ‘ val uabl e’ or ‘ i nterest-
ing’ than a totally deterministic universe and so more
likely to be created.
DIVINE INTERVENTION
A universe which allowed freedom might be more worth-
while, but it would also need much more careful adjust-
ment. Indeed it would be very difficult to adjust it at all
from ‘outside’.
Let us imagine that ‘god’ never meant us to find out about
nuclear power so soon, what can he do about it now?
The obvious answer is to re-program the laws of physics
to annul nuclear reactions - but that would produce cat-
astrophic changes at every level of existence. Destroying
all nuclear establishments would quite likely panic the
politicians into another war ... and so on.
The only way of predicting the outcome of any change
from outside would be to do a computer run, and as the
:o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
uni verse i s the computer this is rather pointless. In the
case of a non-deterministic universe it is especially
pointless, because two runs on the same input might lead
to different outcomes.
Any changes made in a non-deterministic universe will
involve a lot of risk. The safest course is not to make
clumsy changes from outside, but to enter into the uni-
verse itself in order to make the change. Only by becom-
ing a human and accepting the limitations of a human
existence could the creator hope to fully appreciate what
changes are needed, and only as a human, working with-
in the system, can changes of sufficient subtlety be
brought about - even if one might be crucified in the
process.
One snag is that the more of the godlike consciousness is
carried into the body, the less easy it is to totally enter
the human condition. So possibly subsequent world
teachers have attempted to direct the course of history
with only a comparatively hazy realisation of their true
status. For instance they might see themselves as beings
from another star system, or as humans ‘possessed’ by a
god. Or even just perceptive thinkers.
This model sheds new light on World Teachers and Sons of
God.
A BIGGER, OR A SMALLER WORLD?
Those were just a few examples to show that we can still
speculate about the nature of the universe even though we
know nothing of the meta-world in which it was created.
These examples should have given some idea of how open
the possibilities are. Earlier I suggested how a belief in
:,
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
this model could benefit society by widening our hori-
zons, how then does it benefit the individual?
We have transformed the apparently most constricting
and sterile theory of materialist science - that of man as
a machine - by extending it to its logical conclusion, and
we have found that conclusion to be full of magic. By this
means we have transformed the twentieth century
occultist’s ‘shadow’ and got it to co-operate with us.
The findings of science are seen as part of a huge game,
and are no longer seen as attacks on cherished beliefs.
‘Flowers now grow in the dust’, as Johnstone would say.
The computer model of the universe need only limit us if
we kid ourselves that the present day computers repre-
sent the ultimate possibility. In fact whoever, or what-
ever, built this universe must have had abilities far
beyond our present abilities - so who knows what undis-
covered possibilities have also been created in our uni-
verse?
This suggests a possible route towards the discovery of
our True Will: the elimination of all that is automatic or
mechanical in our nature. As each advance in machine
intelligence is made the initiate would, in his meditation,
discount the corresponding faculties in his mind and look
towards what remains. Step by step he could approach
that transcendent core of his being that must contain, or
be, hi s True Wi l l .
The possibilities are wide open, but all the same some
readers may have read this far and still feel cheated by
this world model, because they feel that I have replaced a
mysterious transcendent Creator by some nasty know- :8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
all egghead scientist in a white coat who has constructed
our universe within a computer just for a cold-blooded
experi ment?
Then stop! Whoever suggested a ‘nasty know-all scien-
tist’ as the Creator? That figure came out of your own
mind: he is the very shadow we set out to overcome and
he is trying to sabotage our efforts by getting back to the
controls. You are tempted to reject this model because
the shadow has taken up residence within it.
OLD WINE...
Myself I do not see this model in these terms, and here is
why. Rudolf Steiner in his book Occult Science gives a
long and tedious chapter on the evolution of the universe
- not evolution since the ‘big bang’ but evolution before
there was even any material existence. At great length he
describes four levels of creation - the Saturn, Sun, Moon
and Earth stages. Only the last one comprises matter, the
Moon stage i s rari fi ed - a l i ttl e l i ke the dream worl d -
and the Sun and Saturn stages are correspondingly even
less corporeal.
At each stage the universe is born, goes through an entire
evolutionary cycle until it reaches its ultimate expres-
sion before being re-born at the next stage.
The only thing that kept me going through this detailed
and tedious account was the recognition that it paralleled
the cabalistic account of creation where the entire cre-
ation process of the Tree of Life is repeated in four
worlds - the Malkuth or ‘fruit’ of each world becoming
the Kether, or ‘seed’ of the next world. At each of the
four levels the Tree is descended as far as Yesod, then we
:,
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
are told comes the ‘fall’, a change of state which sets an
abyss between Yesof and Malkuth.
Knowing how dull such Kosmic Speculation can be I will
present only a very brief summary of the process, skip-
ping the detailed justification of the model as it will be
familiar to many readers.
...IN NEW BOTTLES
I begin by skipping the description of the birth of mani-
festation from out of the Unmanifest. This is dealt with
in Crowley’s article Berashith. Sufficeth to say that
from out of the Unmanifest came the seed of manifesta-
tion. From this seed grew a world or universe called
Atziluth. This world is usually called the world of
‘archetypes’ or ‘gods’ but, as it contains nothing even as
defi ni te (or l i mi ted) as an abstract i dea, I wi l l si mpl y
call it a World of Possibilities.
This world was not created as a completed entity; only
‘Kether’, the initial seed, was created. From that seed
evolved the world in ten stages symbolised by the ten
sephiroth of the Tree of Life - with which I assume the
reader i s fami l i ar.
According to tradition this evolution followed a regular
course as far as the ninth sephirah. But at that point
came a crisis.
The creation of the tenth sephirah is described as a ‘fall’
- the creation of a whole new order of reality. This fall
is as catastrophic a step as the original creation of Kether
from the Unmanifest.
¸c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
This tenth sephirah is now the seed, or Kether of the next
world which is called Briah, the World of Archangels or
the World of Ideas. The World of Possibilities has given
birth to the Possibility of an Idea.
The archetypal pattern having been set in Atziluth, we
find that this new World of Ideas evolves from its own
formless chaotic seed into a fully developed world in ten
stages which echo the ten evolutionary stages of the pre-
vious world.
So we find the Tree of Life repeated in Briah, and again
the final stage is a ‘fall’ to a new order of existence.
From Briah is born Yetzirah - the World of Images.
With the birth of Malkuth in Briah we find that the
World of Ideas has given birth to the Idea of an Image.
This Idea of an Image is the formless chaotic seed from
which the World of Images evolves - a world we might
describe as a ‘dream world’.
Once again there are ten stages and a fall. The Tree of Life
is repeated in Yetzirah. When Malkuth is created out of
Yetzirah it marks the creation of a new order of exis-
tence, namely ‘matter’. Created as formless chaos, being
initially just the Image of Matter, this matter evolves
and our universe is created in ten stages.
It is only this last cycle of evolution which has been
acknowledged and studied by contemporary science.
Bearing this in mind, and the enormous timescale
involved, we can look back on the earlier three worlds
and get a better feeling for the immensity of each stage.
Each of the previous three stages marks the complete
development of a complete universe - not just a three- ¸z
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
day ‘tooling-up’ job of a creator whose real aim was to
make our present real i ty. It i s thi s i mmense pre-cre-
ation which Steiner so wordily described as seen by his
own spi ri tual vi si on.
This then is the traditional cabalistic story of creation.
As such it is probably familiar to most readers. What we
want to do now is to feel our way towards a better under-
standing of this creation. Why should a new order of
reality be created? By what sort of method might it be
possible to create the ‘solid’ world of matter from out of
the ‘insubstantial’ world of dream?
To answer these questions let us come back to our pres-
ent situation. On the vast timescales we have been con-
sidering we can say we now live in a ‘complete’ world.
From formless chaos the World of Matter has evolved a
structure, and that structure is sophisticated enough (in
the form of Man) to examine the World of Matter itself.
So this world is ‘complete’ on the cosmic timescale, even
if it is not ‘perfect’ or ‘exhausted’ on our own timescale.
Within this complete universe there are now beings
(certain computer scientists) who claim that we are
approaching the possibility of re-modelling our very
physical existence in the form of binary computer logic.
In view of the many stupid things said in the name of sci-
ence we must not be too quick to accept this claim. But
consider, for example, digital sound reproduction. Music
is often considered the most spiritual of the arts, music
has been seen as the very foundation of our existence, but
now music has been reproduced in digital form. What is
more this reproduction is not a shoddy third rate repro-
duction - instead it is now setting a new standard of qual- ¸:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
ity that surpasses earlier techniques. Though taking
second place to live music, it has at least attained that
second place in a very short time. One can begin to
respect those scientists’ claims in the light of what they
have achieved so far. If music can be coded into binary
logic perhaps consciousness can too?
In that case the time could come when this World of
Matter will be capable of creating a new world, a whole
new order of real i ty. Wi thi n a ‘ computer’ of hi therto
undreamed of vastness a set of laws governing a new sub-
material world could be programmed and the initial cloud
of sub-matter ‘created’. The World of Matter will have
given birth to a whole new order of existence.
When beings have evolved within that new universe they
will be only able to speculate about our World of Matter
which to them will be ‘beyond time and space’ - a veri-
table Dream World. But to us their dreams will be a con-
crete reality - the flow of electrons in the circuit of a
computer.
When particle physicists look closely at the structure of
our existence they get back beyond rock hard matter to
reveal entities which are no more substantial than
images to us. So could the creation suggested above not be
a model for the creation of our own world of matter?
Might not the images or Angels of Yetzirah have discov-
ered the structure of their own level of reality, and have
assembled that knowledge, that logic, to create a universe
of matter?
To their ‘outsiders’ eyes they were merely constructing
an Image of Matter, to us it is a reality. Might not the
Archangels or Ideas of Briah have structured the logic of ¸¸
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
their own level of existence to create the Image World of
the Angels? And so on?
Do we now begin to have an understanding of the ‘how’ of
creation? Such a fact of creation would well justify the
gap between the tenth sephirah and the other nine, being
a true ‘fall’ to a new order of existence.
The structure, or relationships between entities on one
world (rather than those entities themselves) forming
the ‘matter’ of the next world, just as the relationships
between transistors rather than the transistors them-
selves form the ‘matter’ of robot consciousness.
What then about the ‘why’ of creation?
In Thundersqueak there is a discussion of a short story in
which such an act of creation takes place as the ultimate
solution to a population crisis. The limitations of the
physical universe were too great for the human masses to
be transported to other habitable planets, instead a
series of parallel universes were created within a com-
puter and the peoples’ consciousness was programmed
into those new realities.
In the story those new worlds were created and modelled
into a ‘completed’ form. To do so would have involved an
appal l i ng amount of prel i mi nary cal cul ati on - every
grain of sand and every blade of grass in every planet in
every world would have had to be pre-calculated. To do
so would have required a computer just as big as the final
‘mother’ computer.
For this reason I suggest that it would be more realistic
to follow the course I have here described - to merely ¸,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
input the initial conditions and to permit the universe to
evolve itself. In that case the myriad human souls would
each be put into memory store, or ‘limbo’ until the uni-
verse had evolved an appropriate body for each to inhab-
it. Our model begins to sound even closer to that
described by Steiner!
This idea of each universe being a ‘working out’ or evo-
lution from an initial set of conditions provides a possi-
ble mechanism for Johnstone’s Law of General Psychic
Relativity which is discussed in Thundersqueak.
Briefly stated this law says that the inertia of any region
of the universe is a function of all the conscious beliefs
in that universe.
For example this law would explain why the incidence of
miracles increases as we go back in history to times
when there was less scepticism about miracles. It would
also explain the fact that the most striking modern psy-
chic phenomena seem to occur at odd moments when there
are few witnesses - ie in a restricted universe contain-
ing fewer sceptical minds - and that they lose their cred-
ibility when later published. (The accepted explanations
for these two facts are that a) people were sillier in the
past and b) lonely people are either silly or liars).
In this model the ancient world was less ‘worked out’ -
for example human consciousness had not yet crys-
tallised the laws of physics - and so there was more room
for miracles in the correspondingly looser structure.
The world picture is like the creation of a pen and ink
drawing: the fine cross hatching and shading is still being
slowly filled in. In ancient times when only the main ¸¸
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
outlines were complete there was more freedom to alter
the picture. Now the picture is more detailed and so less
flexible, there was not room enough for Uri Geller to
overthrow the scientific status quo.
The fact that we can still witness miracles if, for exam-
ple, we go alone into the wilderness and keep our mouths
shut, is because it is possible to ignore the whole picture
and focus on your own private corner of it. When viewed
in close up we can see the spaces between the lines and
there is still room to make changes.
Does this mean then that the age of magic is passed? No,
not if we are prepared to change the picture rather than
to squeeze new details into the one that science has given
us. If everyone started to believe in the model I am now
describing we might all be riding around on non-pollut-
ing broomsticks in a century or two!
Overpopulation - one reason to create a new reality.
Another more interesting reason will be considered in
the next paragraph, but first I would like to draw atten-
tion to an intriguing idea that the last model has suggest-
ed. It is the idea that beings from the previous order of
reality could somehow come to populate the new level -
to enter as ‘souls’ into the new ‘bodies’. In this case the
previous reality would partake in, and have an interest
in the new reality of a quite different order to the ‘artis-
tic’ curiosity which we considered earlier and in the last
art i cl e.
Why should a dream world create a world of matter in
this way? If Yetzirah is as we picture it with the free-
doms of a dream world, why should the ‘angels’ choose to
enter into the limitations of physical existence, to put on ¸o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
the burden of a material body? Perhaps the following
analogy will suggest a possible reason.
Imagine that the present evolution of mankind had taken
a slightly different course, without attaining our own
mastery of mobility. A civilisation of what we would
consider to be ‘cripples’ had evolved and provided some
very wise men. Such was their wisdom that certain of
them began to feel their limitations. They realised that
something else was needed before they could extend their
mastery, and that something was ‘mobility’.
For the sake of consistency I should now say that they
created machines for transport; however, the idea of
machine consciousness is still not easy to grasp so
instead I will assist the imagination by saying that these
wise men turned to the wild creatures and, by selective
breeding, created horses. Having created this ‘new real-
ity’ they had to learn to mount and ride these horses.
This was not easy. For the horses had evolved a con-
sciousness of their own and could put up considerable
resistance. The situation was even more difficult because
there were also plenty of less wise men who were eager
to grab the reins themselves - or even to sabotage the
scheme by distracting and panicking the horses in an
attempt to dislodge their rightful riders.
But those few horses that learned to ignore these distrac-
tions, to overcome them and to gain rapport with their
riders, were able to achieve a new freedom. Horse and
rider together became one greater entity, with new
power to rule the land and bring order to the world.
Could this story suggest another type of relationship
between the World of Images and the World of Matter: ¸,
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
that the angels needed to cloak themselves in matter in
order to complete their work? In this case we are their
vehicles, buffeted by demons and doubts and blinkered by
our own sense of identity.
Until we each find our True Will and join forces with our
Holy Guardian Angel, we will never find that true free-
dom.
In this model we find that our physical existence - albeit
an ‘ i l l usi on’ and a ‘ l i mi tati on’ - i s somethi ng that i s
prized by the angelic beings. As is suggested in Jung’s VII
Sermones Ad Mortuos ‘numberless gods await the human
state’ or ‘the gods are many, whilst men are few’. The
struggles and obsessions described in Thundersqueak are
the lower demons of Yetzirah scrabbling to incarnate by
gaining a foothold in our souls.
An article in New Scientist in the 70s suggested that soon
Science might come to know everything. Truly the
details are too numerous for anyone’s knowledge: what
was suggested was that we might be approaching the
position of knowing all the basic laws of existence. The
ability to create a new universe in the way I have sug-
gested would be tantamount to having that knowledge.
What then of our religious feelings? How small and
frustrating our vaster universe would seem to those most
advanced thinkers who first reached that understanding!
Here is a different sort of ‘overpopulation’: minds who
have grown too big for the material world, rather than
bodies who have grown too numerous. To have that
knowledge and yet to have failed to create the perfect
society - that is the direction in which we are progress-
ing. ¸8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Like the wise men we pictured on the angelic plane might
not our leading thinkers feel compelled to create a new
real i ty i n order to extend the battl e onto new terri tory -
to widen their horizons into a whole new order of reali-
t y ?
Actually I am not really engaged in making predictions at
this point, although it might read like it. What I am ask-
ing is ‘can we see possibilities in our present condition
which will help us to understand what might have hap-
pened before? Does this throw light on the ‘why’ of cre-
ati on?
As to the future there is a major doubt. Although it seems
very reasonable for creation to continue ever down-
wards, a substantial body of tradition claims that this
material universe in fact marks a lowest point of evolu-
tion and that the future holds an involution back towards
godhead. Could this idea simply be a reflection of inade-
quate imagination on the part of previous generations?
being unable to imagine anything more ‘solid’ than mat-
ter and not understanding the true nature of the creative
process, did they therefore just assume that the end had
been reached?
I feel that this was not so. The cabalistic model shows so
great an understanding of the process that it is most rea-
sonable to accept that it was based on knowledge that had
been input from the ‘higher’ worlds.
Therefore I am inclined to trust the assertion that the
future lies towards the spiritual rather than down
towards a new creation. After all the discovery of atom-
ic fusion amounts to a discovery of how to erase certain ¸,
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
files in the computer memory. The knowledge that we are
gaining as to how we could create a new universe is not a
red herring so long as that knowledge opens our eyes to
the true nature of our own existence. For then the ascent
can begin in earnest, only the first stage of which is the
return to one-ness with our angelic nature.
For what happens when we attain unity with the guardian
angel ? It i s j ust the fi rst step, for that ‘ angel i c’ worl d
must itself be mastered. But can that happen until the
angel has realised its own oneness with its own inner
archangel - for whom and by whom the world of angels
was created? And beyond that lies the Kingdom of gods
before we once more can merge with the unmanifest,
according to our cabalistic model.
In this model we are already half way through evolution
- but it is an evolution that is seven times bigger than the
evolution now recognised by science. According to this
traditional view, then, our forthcoming development of
computer technology is not destined to lead evolution
down along an endless chain of realities. Instead it will
be the key to the understanding of our own evolution,
from whence we can begin the ascent back to godhead.
CONCLUSION
We have ended up right back at the traditional cabalistic
world view, with the four worlds and each human with
his own ‘guardian angel’, and higher bodies. Self culti-
vation, or finding one’s True Will consists of turning
away from the hubbub of obsessions around us, which are
trying to possess us. Only when local thoughts in the
machine are quelled does there come awareness of the
higher nature, and the path to initiation commences.
,c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
So what have we achieved?
Our new approach has got us nowhere. But that is what
is so interesting. At the beginning of this essay I
addressed myself to those of us who would have liked to
embrace a traditional model of man’s make-up, but who
found that, whenever they faced it, a nagging voice of
doubt was always heard over their shoulder.
So what we did was call that Doubt’s bluff. We turned
round and set off in the opposite direction towards the
idea of man as machine. At the end of our journey we
were back where we started. It appears that the universe
of belief must be closed, finite and curved as is the uni-
verse of matter - just as would be expected in our model!
Our argument has got us where we wanted. It has got us
nowhere. Nowhere is the beginning of all possibilities.
Go out and look at the world. As you do so try to live this
new model of reality - feel your thoughts and perceptions
as processes in the vast machine of a unified universe.
The world becomes fresh and full of a new mystery and
potential. We witness the re-birth of Reality.
But is it true? Johnstone never explained any particu-
l ar model i n terms of i ts truth, but onl y i n terms of i ts
ability to foster this re-birth and give joy, hope and
freedom. Philosophy with the emphasis on ‘philo’
instead of ‘sophy’. Surely the appropriate approach for
the Age of Horus?
As was promised in the first section I have tried to pres-
ent the idea in a form that is helpful to the individual. ,z
2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
The fact that, along the way, I have laid the foundation of
a whole new philosophy of existence, a world religion
that (for once) actually depends upon the co-operation of
scientific advance, is, I am sure, just the sort of good
value that my readers have learned to expect!
ANALOGUE
A mighty King ruled the land. As a young man he had
appeared as a saviour to the people, defeating the tyrant
that oppressed them and bringing new freedom and hope.
Now the people were prosperous and well fed thanks to
the King’s wise policies. Yet they were not content.
Around the city the King had built mighty fortifications
to protect his realm, but now the people felt cramped by
these walls, choked in the confines of their own prosper-
i t y.
Hearing the people’s cries of complaint, young warriors
had come from other lands to challenge the Kingship, but
the mighty walls kept them at bay. The King grew older,
and harder on these claimants.
One day the King’s valet announced the presence of a new
challenger to the throne.
“I have nothing to fear!” the old King bellowed, “Have
not my walls already repulsed Spiritualism, Theosophy,
UFOs, Gurdjieff, Geller and the Psychedelic invaders
from the East? No-one will take my throne from me!”
“But Sire,” answered his valet, “this challenger comes
not from wi thout...”
,:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
At this a callow youth burst into the room, awkwardly
wielding a sword.
“I am the challenger!” he cried.
The King stepped back alarmed, angry. Restraining his
wrath he qui etl y but fi rml y spoke.
“You cannot ki l l me, for I am your own father!”
“You are not my father,” said the youth. “For my father
was an idealistic and vigorous warrior who defeated the
tyrant Religion in single combat. Whereas you are your-
self an old and hidebound tyrant who hides behind forti-
fications and ignores his people’s changing needs.”
Whereupon the King drew his sword and spake again.
“How dare you, a mere stripling, challenge a mighty
warrior who has fought and conquered to build this real-
i ty. For that you wi l l di e a trai tor.”
The youth bit his lip nervously but spoke firmly.
“Remember only that you have not faced a challenger on
equal terms for over one hundred years, whereas I have
been practising daily for this challenge.”
The two stood facing each other in silence.
The youth farted nervously.

2
A new
muddl e
of t he
Oni verse
3 - THE ANTS IN THE PANTS
OF THE DANCING WU LI MASTERS...
Fi rst Publ i shed i n Arrow 10
Thi s i s the thi rd Johnstone’ s Paradox arti cl e (don’ t gi ve up,
the next one in this book is about something else). Sorry about
the rather fl i p i ntroducti on - I was parodyi ng the way certai n
col umni sts i n the New Sci enti st used to wri te (can’ t thi nk
why) .
As menti oned, I was tryi ng to gi ve up wri ti ng at the ti me.
Pluto was opposing my Sun, so I was actually trying to give
up al most everythi ng.
Having emptied the contents of my brain onto the pages of
Arrow i n the form of two concl udi ng arti cl es on
‘Johnstone’s Paradox’ I had decided that Ramsey Dukes’
literary days were done and it was time to concentrate on
weightier matters such as copulation and the size of my
bank balance.
Last year I celebrated this bold decision by buying The
Tao of Physics to read - and later The Dancing Wu Li
Masters.
It was while reading the latter that I came upon the pas-
sage about ‘Bell’s Theorem’ quoted below, whereupon my
nostrils flared and flecks of foam appeared upon my lips.
Little did I then realise that, from that moment, Arrow
readers were doomed to another article from my pen.
Theorem One: when a regular contributor to a
magazine starts writing much about her\himself
it is indeed time she\he stopped writing.
,,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
As it was the more recent of the two volumes to fall
drained of wisdom from my sweaty grasp, I will concen-
trate my attention on the Dancing Wu Li Masters.
This book describes physicists’ attempts to discover the
fundamental units of existence, since the time when it
was discovered that what were presumptuously called
‘atoms’ turned out not to be fundamental after all. It
describes the newest candidates - the fundamental parti-
cl es - and thei r very pecul i ar behavi our. In parti cul ar
it describes the bizarre conclusions that have been drawn
from their behaviour - ‘conclusions’ is too strong a
word, ‘confusions’ is a little closer.
What physicists wanted was to find the basic ‘Lego’
bricks from which all matter could be built. Having dis-
covered that colliding particles tend to reform into dif-
ferent particles as if they were in fact complex bodies,
they wondered whether any truly fundamental particles
could be identified from which the others could be con-
structed.
In fact it seems that particles can under different cir-
cumstances divide and reform in a whole lot of ways. It
is beginning to seem that a particle is not so much a solid
object as a collection of possibilities. It is even said that,
even when not colliding, a particle is constantly splitting
and re-formi ng i n a dance of ‘ vi rtual parti cl es’ (‘ vi rtu-
al’ because they break and re-form too quickly for
observation or measurement).
If the simplest units of matter are so very immaterial,
what about our conceptions of time and space? We talk of
a particle being generated at one point, A, accelerated in
a certain direction and then colliding or otherwise react- ,¸
3
Ant s
i n t he
Pant s
ing at another point, B. Is it really the same particle that
moves from A to B?
Our intuition that this is so is supported by various
observations. Firstly the particle seems to obey the laws
of motion between A and B, secondly if we cause it to pass
through photographic emulsion we find a definite trail
marking the particle’s passage.
However these ‘laws of motion’ are a pre-existing
assumption in our thinking, and that is dangerous in an
area of study where the observations we make appear to
be profoundly affected by the way we make them (and so
by the assumptions upon which we base our search). In
the case of the photographic emulsion, if we look at it too
closely the solid trail breaks into a series of dots, where
individual molecules of the sensitive material have been
activated. Instead of a continuous locus through space we
have a string of billions of separate particle detectors,
al l regi steri ng posi ti vel y.
Physicists no longer feel confident in claiming that from
this we can reach any conclusion about the motion of the
part i cl e between each molecule; all they can admit is
that at some point in the given time interval a particle
was present at each of the points in question.
To cut a long story short we come to Bell’s Theorem.
Having found evidence that there is apparently an instan-
taneous transfer of information between separate local-
ities (a particle at one point seems to know what is hap-
pening elsewhere) this suggests several possibilities.
l ) a total l y predetermi ned uni verse (whatever the
experimenter thinks he is doing in fact the outcome was ,o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
decided before he even started). This unpopular idea was
suggested, and I hope argued out of, as a possible deduc-
tion from Johnstone’s Paradox in the last article.
2) That something conveys information between the
particles and it does so much faster than the speed of
light. This idea is also unpopular.
3) That apparent separation in space-time is in fact an
illusion. This rather ‘Eastern’ idea is too unfamiliar to
the West to have had any chance of becoming popular.
4) Bell’s Theorem suggests that the universe is in fact a
whole, that apparently isolated objects and events are in
fact linked within a fundamental structure that lies
beyond our perception. This is the same conclusion that
I deduced from Johnstone’s Paradox in the previous arti-
cles.
5) There are other possibilities such as a ‘many worlds’
theory.
I do not intend to flaunt my ignorance of the subject by
trying to expound further. Instead I will economise on
literary effort by quoting several passages from the book
i t sel f .
THE QUOTES
Quote l
‘ I n l 964 J S Bel l , a physi ci st at t he European
Organisation for Nuclear Research in Switzerland zeroed
in on this strange connectedness in a manner that may
make it the central focus of physics in the future....
Bell’s Theorem was reworked and refined over the fol-
,,
3
Ant s
i n t he
Pant s
lowing ten years until it emerged in its present form.....
One of the implications of Bell’s Theorem is that, at a
deep and fundamental level, the ‘separate parts’ of the
universe are connected in an intimate and immediate way.
In short, Bell’s Theorem and the enlightened experience
of unity are very compatible.’
(‘Bell’s’ Theorem indeed! Why not ‘Dukes’ Theorem?
Sure I said it six years after Bell but, as the book points
out, such time differences are merely a function of one’s
space-time perspective.)
Quote 2
‘Thus one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness
which denies the classic idea of analyseability of the
world into separately and independently existent parts.’
Quote 3
‘According to Sarfatti’s theory, the wave function of the
photon pair is at a ‘higher level of reality’ than the wave
functions of the separate photons ... In other words the
whole is always greater than the sum of its parts.’
Quote 4
‘In short the physical world, according to quantum
mechanics is ... not a structure built out of independent-
ly existing unanalysable entities, but rather a web of
relationships between elements whose meanings arise
whol l y from thei r rel ati onshi p to the whol e.’
(That the universe is an interconnected wholeness is
tantamount to saying that the universe is one huge
machine. In the last article I suggest this might be so,
but the world as we see it is not the machine itself, but
something of a different order of reality - in the same ,8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
way that a calculation in a computer is of a different
order of real i ty to the actual computer ci rcui try. In
other words the linking mechanism behind phenomena
lies not in the physical world but in a different (‘high-
er’ ) l evel of real i ty whi ch we mi ght as wel l cal l ‘ ether-
i c’ ‘ ast ral ’ ‘ spi ri t ual ’ or what ever.
That was what I suggested. This book too suggests that the
connection between particles exists outside physical
reality. Does this not support my suggestion?)
Quote 5
‘“Reality” is what we take to be true. What we take to be
true is what we believe. What we believe is based upon
our perceptions. What we perceive depends upon what
we look for. What we look for depends upon what we
think. What we think depends upon what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe. What we
believe determines what we take to be true. What we take
to be true i s our real i ty.’
(It i s j ust as wel l Arrow has l i mi ted ci rcul ati on - I’ ve a
nasty feeling I might owe the author some money for so
much quoting. To make up for this travesty I will rec-
ommend you all to buy “The Dancing Wu Li Masters’ to
get the whole story.)
To sum up: I found in this book a strong case to support
the ideas of my last article ‘A New Muddle of the
Oniverse’. To explain why is the purpose of this article.
I present my case, as usual, in the form of an analogy
(thus confirming that, unlike fundamental particles, I at
least am predictable).
,,
3
Ant s
i n t he
Pant s
THE ANALOGY
For this analogy I am going to ask you to imagine that you
have a sort of super Hewlett Packard programmable cal-
culator, one so powerful that its internal processes have
achieved the state of forming a conscious and coherent
universe in the way that I have suggested might be pos-
sible in these articles.
But first I must make an apology. All through this series
of articles I have told you NOT to make the assumption
that the machinery of the universe is as crude as our
present understanding of the word ‘machine’.
With our present state of development of, and attitude
towards, computers I know that I can expect a negative
reaction when I try to suggest that our universe might
exist in the ‘mind’ of a mighty cosmic computer. So that
you do not dismiss my thesis too hastily I have asked you
to avoid this too obvious and crude picture of the clever
computer.
But now I am going against my word and asking you to fall
back on just such a picture, because I believe that any-
one who has understood the previous two articles will not
by now fall into the trap of thinking ‘Does this idiot real-
ly believe the universe is NOTHING BUT a super Hewlett
Packard calculator!’ (A True Master knows when to
make, and break, his own rules. So what?)
Insi de thi s cal cul ator of yours i s a uni verse, the
‘ obj ects’ i n thi s uni verse are ‘ real l y’ (i e. to our outsi de
eyes) just ‘calculations’. The conscious beings or
‘ humans’ i n thi s uni verse are ‘ real l y’ j ust very compl ex
‘ programmes’ .
¸c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
(We cannot go on with all these inverted commas, for the
rest of thi s secti on I wi l l wri te normal l y when wri ti ng
in terms of the little universe inside your calculator but
wi l l wri te i n i tal i cs when re-descri bi ng i t as seen by us
outsi ders).
Some of these humans (programmes) are scientists and
they seek to discover the laws of their universe, in par-
ti cul ar to fi nd what matter (calculations) is made of.
They have long speculated that it might be made of indi-
vi si bl e ‘ atoms’ .
In recent years they have actually managed to isolate
these atoms (numbers) for the fi rst ti me. Al l obj ects
( calculations) in their world are in fact made of these
atoms (numbers) .
However they have gone on to discover that atoms are not
in fact indivisible, but they have da definite internal
structure. They consist of an unchanging nucleus around
which exist a cloud of particles which fall into discrete
orbi t s. (In other words numbers ( at oms) consist of an
unchanging decimal point (nucl eus) around which clus-
ter di gi ts ( par t i cl es) in definite positions ( or bi t s ) . )
For example the atom 32.0l consists of a ‘3’ particle
( di gi t) i n t he ‘ t ens’ orbi t , a ‘ 2’ part i cl e (di gi t) i n t he
‘ uni ts’ orbi t, nothi ng i n the ‘ tenths’ orbi t and a ‘ 1’ par-
ti cl e i n the ‘ hundredths’ orbi t.’
(Notice already certain fundamental differences between
this analogy and our universe: their ‘atoms’ are one
dimensional, while ours are three dimensional; on the
other hand they have particles orbiting both sides of the
nucleus (inside and outside as it were). Or perhaps these ¸z
3
Ant s
i n t he
Pant s
inner particles should be called the nucleus and the dec-
imal point seen as just a boundary?)
A new breed of scientists - ‘particle physicists’ - have
since made a lot of experiments with atoms. They have
found, for example, that they can add energy to the atom
32.0l and make the 3 particle jump to other orbits to
make 302.0l, 3002.0l and so on. They have also matched
the dreams of their ancient alchemists by breaking 32.0l
down i nto di fferent atoms such as 3l +1.01, 30+2+.01
and so on.
But having discovered that atoms are not the indivisible
units of the universe they want to know what is.
Obviously the ‘particles’ must be. They have discovered
ten parti cl es 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 of whi ch ni ne
possess ‘ ant i part i cl es’ -1, -2, -3 t o -9. Unf ort unat el y
these particles have proved not to be themselves indivis-
i bl e - for exampl e 9 can spl i t i nto three 3’ s or 7+2, and
so on.
There was a flurry of excitement when one team in the
Bloggsland Institute of Technology confirmed a theory
that all particles can be made up of just three, namely -
1, 0 and 1, but this hope was soon shattered when
Finkstein in the same year broke a ‘1’ into ‘3’ and a ‘-
2’ (since then it has been split into a ‘7’ and a ‘-6’ and
two ‘-4’s’ and a ‘9’, and many other combinations).
It was after this last revolution that the ‘new physics’
was formulated. Scientists were forced to admit that
these particles did not obey the laws of ‘macroscopic’
matter.
¸:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
For example any particle such as a ‘9’ is really not so
much a ‘solid’ material entity as a matrix of probabili-
t i es or ‘ vi rt ual part i cl es’ (7+2, 3+3+3, et c et c i n t he
case of a ‘9’). In fact there is a sense in which it can be
said that any one particle includes every other one!
Argument is still raging as to whether particles can even
be ascribed individual existence - in what sense is a 9 in
one atom different from a 9 in another atom, or are they
both just two manifestations of a sort of ‘9 Field’ that
pervades all of reality?
(Meanwhile, back in the real world we are falling about
with laughter as we listen to these idiots trying to make
experiments on digits as if they were billiard balls!
Some of them seem to be getting towards the point, how-
ever....)
At a recent conference the new doubts were brilliantly
outlined in Blenkinsop’s paper. He raised the question as
follows.
When a particle is moved through space (ie ‘rolled up the
register’ through a series of memory stores) i t i s no
longer valid to argue that it is a discrete physical entity
actually following a one dimensional locus in space. All
we can say is that in the progress of a ‘9’ from, say,
Register Rl to register Rl2 we know that a measuring
instrument placed in any intermediate register will
record a 9 during the interval of movement. A 9 will
appear in Rl, in R2, in R3 and so on in turn, but it is no
longer valid to say it is the ‘same 9’, or to speculate that
it has any real existence in the unmeasured ‘spaces’
between registers. A 9 appears in Rl, then a 9 appears
in R2 - this tells us nothing about the nature of what ¸¸
3
Ant s
i n t he
Pant s
happens between Rl and R2’ for ‘between Rl and R2’ is a
concept with no measurable existence.
Similarly when a 3 jumps to a different orbit in an atom,
from 301 to 3001 say, then it is not meaningful to talk
about its movement between the hundreds and thousands
orbits’ - those two orbits might exist, but the space
between them has no real meaning.
(The joke is growing stale, let’s turn away from the sci-
entists and listen to another group of loonies in this
ri di cul ous uni verse. Let’ s l i sten to the so-cal l ed
occultists, as represented by a certain nobleman called
Duke Ramsey.)
Duke Ramsey argues that the scientists are not looking in
the right place, they are not looking at the r eal bui l di ng
blocks of the universe, but only its ‘illusionary mani-
festations’! “Show us the real ones then!” jeer the sci-
entists.
“ I can’ t show you them for they are ... well ... you could
call them ‘gods’, or ‘angels’ or ‘ideas?..” The scientists
roar with laughter. “For example there is the Moon...”
“You mean that” laughs a scientist, pointing at the sky.
“No!... wel l , not exactl y,” (l aughter) “I mean more the
Principle of Femininity and Change. Then there is Kali,
which is sort of the Principle of Destruction. Oh dear, I
cannot show you any of these things because they don’t
have any physical existence, I can only feel them, and
recognise their physical manifestations, as it were”.
¸,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
The scientists, tears of laughter on their faces, go back to
their laboratories to see if a vast input of energy is capa-
ble of converting 9 into 9 million, as predicted by theo-
r y .
(Poor old Duke Ramsey - if only we could talk to him!
We know exactly what he means by an ‘idea’ for, as out-
siders, we can detect it as an electrical pulse in the cir-
cuits of the calculator - something with no ‘physical
reality’ in his world of numbers and calculations.
The ‘principle’ he is struggling to define as Kali is sim-
ply the pulse that clears a memory register - ie. some-
thing he can ‘feel’ as an element of his own being, some-
thing he can recognise at a vastly more complex macro-
scopic level, yet something none of his kind will ever
di rectl y know i n what they cal l ‘ real i ty’ .
We would just love to ‘teach those scientists a lesson’ by
pressing the ‘All Clear’ button that would destroy their
entire world at a stroke. But what is the point? they
would not be aware of what had happened!)
THE CONCLUSION
We must now abandon this phantasy, as tears of laughter
have given way to tears of sorrow for poor Duke Ramsey
and his frustrating debate with the scientists. Let us
i nstead l i sten to hi s counterpart i n our ‘ real ’ worl d -
Ramsey Dukes.
I, Ramsey Dukes, say let us consider this reality to be the
mani festati on of non physi cal (‘ spi ri tual ’ ) pri nci pl es.
The nearest I can get to describing these principles is by
using the word ‘ideas’ (in the past they were called
¸¸
3
Ant s
i n t he
Pant s
‘Gods’, ‘angels’ and so on). This is an ancient and well
used view of reality, perhaps most precisely outlined in
the Kabalistic model of the Tree of Life in the four
worlds, as described in the previous article.
When scientists struggle to locate the basic particles of
existence we hope they are having fun because we would
like them to get something for thei r l abours.
When we set out to devise a symbolic, microcosmic rep-
resentation of the world (Tree of Life, Tarot, I Ching,
Holy Cube or any personal private system) we are actu-
al l y doing what the scientists are t r yi ng to do.
This is only true when we know what we are doing; if we
merely study these subjects in the form of ‘dead dogma’
and in terrified awe of our sources, then we are doing
rather less. By ‘study’ I mean more than just ‘memo-
rising’. I mean active meditational and observational
research into the relationships between parts. To take an
example using the symbols of astrology:-
To take an example using the symbols of astrology. When
we operate at the level of Duality there are only two
symbols, Sun and Moon. These are polar opposites, they
have nothing in common.
When, however, we operate at the level of ‘6’ there are
onl y 6 symbol s formi ng three pai rs (Moon-Saturn,
Mercury-Jupi ter, Venus-Mars). At thi s l evel the sun i s
not included, far from being the ‘opposite’ of the Moon,
the Moon is now the Sun’s representative (this is seen at
the ‘l2’ level of the rulerships of the zodiac signs when
each symbol of the 6 splits into a ‘positive’ and a ‘nega-
tive’ except for ‘Moon’ which becomes ‘Moon’ and ‘Sun’ ¸o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
(Cancer and Leo)). At this level the polar opposite of
Moon is not Sun, but Saturn. What does this alteration in
the status of the Moon tell us about the Principle of the
Moon itself?
The answer to this question, or at least the further ideas
prompted by this question, is as fundamental to our exis-
tence as the debate about the existence of quarks is meant
to be. In that case why is so much more attention paid to
the latter question?
The answer is that the technology of physics is at pres-
ent better developed than the technology of magic. (The
government of Bloggsland has just put forward a hundred
million pounds for the building of a more powerful par-
ticle accelerator - tell me, Arrow Readers, what did you
do with your last hundred million pounds?)
If we can be so presumptuous, so big headed and so
insulting to our elders as to suggest that in this century
it is only in the last decade that magical philosophy has
begun to be accepted on the sort of scale where it could
have any chance of growing to rival physics, and if we can
recall how much time, money, energy and thought has
gone into physics since the ‘new physics’ was created,
then we can see how far there is to go in our own work.
No doubt there were occasions early in this century when
Einstein dreamed of exploding an atom bomb over his
most dogmatic opponents; I too would love to levitate the
Pentagon by chanting a mantra, now that I can see that the
obvious theoretical barriers to this act have been dis-
solved.
To quote again from The Dancing Wu Li Masters: ¸,
3
Ant s
i n t he
Pant s
‘A powerful awareness lies dormant in these discoveries:
an awareness of the hitherto-unsuspected powers of the
mind to mold ‘reality’, rather than the other way round.’
But I am still caught in the web of maya: as long as I wish
to confound the sceptics, it reveals that their opinions
mat t er to me. So long as their opinions mat t er I am not
completely free of them and so my ‘reality’ is still bound
partially by their rules. Therefore I must continue upon
the slow road: I must wait until the deductions from
Johnstone’s Paradox are generally accepted before I per-
form my ‘miracles’. The technology must grow slowly
alongside the theory.
Einstein’s model gained acceptance because a) it fitted the
facts, b) it could make predictions. In these essays I have
tried to show how my ideas do fit the facts; when will the
theory be sufficiently developed to make its own predic-
tions? What sort of predictions can it make?
Recently I have read political comments to the effect that
in recent years we have become obsessed with ‘hard men’
‘brute force’, ‘tough policies’ etc. The last phase I recall
was an obsession with ‘thrill seekers’ ‘the love genera-
tion’ and so on. What do I see in this apparently irra-
tional progression? In astrological terms I see a pro-
gression from ‘Venus’ towards ‘Mars’. What series of
symbols has ‘Venus’ followed by ‘Mars’ and what is the
symbol preceding both of them?
Answer: a ‘Mercury’ phase. Sure enough we had this in
the form of an obsession with ‘newness’, ‘novelty’ and
‘getting about’. What therefore can we predict for the
f ut ure? ¸8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Answer: an obsession with Jupiterian values. But how
will this show? A return to expansion? A revival of
sporti ng val ues? A rel i gi ous revi val ?
Obviously there is work to be done!
POSTSCRIPT
A word to those who see in the ‘new physics’ a denial of
my thesis, arguing that a ‘world machine’ implies a fully
determined universe rather different from the crazy
mystical universe of the Wu Li Masters.
The question of ‘free will’ requires a whole essay on its
own, but I have at least touched upon it in my last arti-
cle. As for the curious unpredictable behaviour of par-
ticles under observation, I must fall back upon my anal-
ogy.
As suggested earlier let us crudely assume a correspon-
dence between physical locations and individual memory
locations in the machine. In this case the ‘programme’
that makes up a so-called ‘human’ might well, in some of
its working, encroach upon or make use of memory
stores outside of the boundaries of its own ‘physical
body’. In other words in this world a ‘human’ might pos-
sess a ‘non-physical aura’. In particular a concentration
by a ‘human’ upon a particular locality might well
extend the ‘aura’ into that locality.
In this case the locality is an observation point for a
‘particle’ experiment. If the information that makes up
the ‘particle’ is to share memory space with the observ-
¸,
3
Ant s
i n t he
Pant s
4 - NOTES TOWARDS THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE HUN-
GARIAN MAGIC CUBE AS A SYSTEM OF DIVINATION
Fi rst publ i shed i n Arrow 11
Thi s i s a bi t di fferent. I was empl oyed as a techni cal wri ter
for the fi rst ti me, and i t went to my head a bi t. So I deci ded
to write this in approved Ministry of Defence technical docu-
mentati on format... more or l ess.
Two developments have occurred since writing this piece.
One is that a 4x4x4 magic cube has been produced (see para
9.4) and I bought one but am not laughing. The other is that
someone has written a booklet on the use of the cube for div-
i nati on: I bel i eve i t i s cal l ed “The Oracl e of Li ght”. I bought a
copy, but cannot fi nd i t - nor can I remember what system i t
recommended.
l . WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR DIVINATION:
l . l A permutable set containing not too many mem-
bers (eg. the 78 tarot cards as upper bound?) nor too
few (eg. the 8 trigrams which needed to be extended for
the I Ching system).
l . 2 The set shoul d preferabl y be “structured” for
easier assimilation by the human mind (eg. the relation-
ships between the astrological symbols, the various
attributions of the tarot cards etc.)
l . 3 Ideally the members of the set should link with,
or suggest, other traditional symbols - though this cor-
respondence need not be exact.
oz
4
Magic
Cube
Di vi nat i on
i ng ‘ human’ programme, then i t i s hardl y surpri si ng
that the observer should affect the observation.
In other words the apparent ‘crazy mystical’ nature of
these particles is in fact a projection of our own ‘crazy
mystical’ nature, it is our physical selves that are unre-
al. Is not the dilemma between the particle and wave the-
ories not just a projection of Hadit and Nuit respective-
l y ?
The solution to the mysteries of the new physics lies
wi thi n oursel ves.
Bleep.
oc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
2. WHAT CAN THE MAGIC CUBE OFFER?
2 . l It is a portable (note especially the midget key
ring cubes now available at .......) permutable set. The
key ring cubes are smaller than the Rider Traveller’s
Tarot yet perfectly legible and easy to manipulate.
3. WHAT DOES THE MAGIC CUBE CONSIST OF?
3 . l A cube whose 6 faces are made up of 9 (3x3)
coloured squares, 6 colours equally distributed.
3. 2 A rotation of the faces produces an extremely
large number of possible permutations of these coloured
squares in a way that is not too predictable (so not liable
to conscious “fiddling” of answers.
3. 3 The permutations are not totally random, for
example:
a ) there can only be 6 white squares in all, howev-
er the cube is permuted. The same is true of the other
colours.
b ) The centre squares on each face do not move rel-
atively to each other.
NOTE 1: The above means it can always be meaningful to
talk about a “correct” orientation of the cube.
c ) Certain other fixed relationships between adjoin-
ing squares on edges exist.
NOTE 2: The above limits on the permutability need not
invalidate the system. On the contrary they could suggest
a structure that is in itself meaningful cf. in astrology
o:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
where a Sagittarius ascendant MUST indicate a Gemini
seventh house cusp, and so on.
4. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - PART 1
4 . l 6 faces and 6 colours. Is there any structure
here?
4. 2 Yes, the 6 faces form 3 opposing PAIRS, immedi-
ately suggesting 3 POLARITIES (+ and -).
4. 3 So we have 3 spatial dimensions (up-down, left-
right, front-back) and a positive and negative face in
each dimension.
4. 4 What does “3” offer? Al chemi cal “sul phur, sal t
& mercury” correspondi ng to the astrol ogi cal “cardi nal ,
fixed & mutable” perhaps? and to Steiner’s 3 functions
of “wi l l i ng, f eel i ng and t hi nki ng”?
4. 5 Let us imagine the cube upright before us and
allocate meaning to its 3 directions as follows:
Up, down = WILL (cf. the upright rod or phallic
symbol of wi l l )
Left, right= THINKING (cf. the “weighing up” motion of
the balance)
Front, back= FEELING (cf. a reaching forward and a
shri nki ng back towards yoursel f)

4
Magic
Cube
Di vi nat i on
4. 6 Pol ari se the tri pl i ci ty as fol l ows:-
Yin Yang
Rest WILL Change
Attraction FEELING Repulsion
Synthesis THINKING Analysis
4. 7 The 6 colours are white, brown, blue, yellow, red
and green. Suggested attribution is as follows:-
Brown = Rest Change = Whi te
Green = Attraction Repulsion = Red
Blue = Synthesis Analysis = Yellow
4. 8 What traditional link does this suggest?
Answer: the 6 planets as polar pairs, eg.
Saturn, Brown, Rest - Change, White, the Moon
Venus, Green, Attraction - Repulsion, Red, Mars
Jupi t er, Bl ue, Synt hesi s - Anal ysi s, Yel l ow, Mercury
NOTE 3: These 6 symbols clearly LINK with the astrolog-
ical planets but need not be congruent with them.
For example the Moon in this scheme is the antithesis of
Saturn and therefore represents both the luminaries. So
the astrological association of Moon with Subconscious
would not fit here.
Such anomalies do not destroy a system, they merely
give thought for meditation. For example the very
dynamic trump card of The Chariot seems an odd attribu-
tion to Cancer as described in a popular sun-sign guide,
but this does not negate the tarot.
o,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
5. PRACTICAL STEP - l.
5 . l We find that cubes are coloured wrongly for our
purposes. However the colours are self adhesive labels
which may be removed and replaced.
5. 2 Re-colour your cube as follows:-
Bottom = brown Top = whi te
Left side = blue Right side = yel l ow
Front (toward you)= green Back (away) = red
HUMOROUS ASIDE: l
On completing this step I had a cube whose harmonious balance
of colours was much more pleasing to Libran aesthetic sensi-
bilities. However the labels had stretched and distorted on
being pulled off, so the result was offensive to Virgoan aes-
theti c sensi bi l i ti es.
6. PRACTICAL STEP - 2
6 . l Place your re-coloured cube the correct way up
in front of you and acquaint yourself with it by medita-
tion upon its polarities and relative positions.
6. 2 FRONT: Green, Venus, Attraction, Feeling reach-
ing toward you. This is the face that is truly yours, for
it is the only one directly facing you. It is the “first
impression”. It is the closest face. If the cube speaks to
you here surely is the answer.
6. 3 BACK: Red, Mars, Repulsion, Feeling reaching
away from you. The face that is not for you to see, but the
face that others first see.

4
Magic
Cube
Di vi nat i on
6. 4 LEFT: Blue, Jupiter, Synthesis. Thinking as
revealed when you move to the left, ie. right brain
thoughts, non-verbal. If the cube is speaking to you then
this face must be a message to the non-verbal half of the
brain. The left represents the past.
6. 5 RIGHT: Yellow, Mercury, Analysis. Thinking as
revealed when you move to the right, ie. left brain ver-
bal thought. Here the cube is speaking to your logical
brain. The right represents the future.
6. 6 UP: White, The Moon, Change. Upward motion of
the Will. Aspiration, light. The crown of the cube, the
higher nature is here spoken to.
6. 7 DOWN: Brown, Saturn, Rest, inertia or resist-
ance. Downward motion of the Will. Again, like BACK, a
side you do not see, but here no-one sees it. Hidden
unconscious factors.
7. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - 2
7 . l In para. 6 we noted that certain faces were hidden.
Does this mean they should not be read in divination?
7. 2 To answer this we must ask how the cube is
viewed.
7. 2. l As an authority: In which case it stands
before one and speaks, and we have no right to probe
those areas it does not reveal to us.
7. 2. 2 As a microcosm: In which case we can pick
it up and examine it as we see fit. Here the diviner is
active. oo
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
7. 3 The difference surely lies in the style of the
question as follows:-
7. 3. l Cube positive, diviner negative. A ques-
tion of the form “Please advise me...” or “should I do
this...” where we approach the cube as an authority.
7. 3. 2 Cube negative, diviner positive. A ques-
tion of the form “What would happen if I...” or “Who
will be victorious...” where the cube is expected to
encapsulate a situation which will then be studied
from all angles by the diviner.
8. PRACTICAL STEP - 3
8 . l Set up the cube before you again and continue the
meditation in the light of the above.
8. 2 In particular explore the relative positions eg.
should not the Analysis Mercury face be on the left
because when we look at it we are facing the right?
Should not the Moon be down and Saturn be up? and so on.
8. 3 Only when such doubts as those in 8.2 are dis-
pelled can one proceed.
9. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - 3
9 . l What can we make of a 3x3 grid?
o,
4
Magic
Cube
Di vi nat i on
9. 2 Graphology offers one answer with its analysis
into:-
UPPER
MIDDLE
LOWER
This could be a useful scheme.
9. 3 Numerology. I have seen the numbers one to nine
ranged in a 3x3 box (as in Austin Coates’ book). This
might suggest a meaning for the 9 positions.
9. 4 Astrology. If only, as in C F Russel’s Holy Cube,
we had a 4x4 division we would be laughing. However we
do not.
HUMOROUS ASIDE 2:
We are, therefore, not laughing
9. 5 However reference to NOTE l means that so long as
we always replace the cube in its correct orientation as
determined by the middle square of each sides, then that
middle square can be discounted as just a “marker”.
9. 6 This reduces our 3x3 to a square of eight squares.
9. 7 SCHEME A.
Ascribe the 4 sides of the square to the four elements, and
the 3 small squares on each edge to “cardinal, fixed,
mutable” and you have represented the l2 signs of the
zodiac. But it is not a good scheme as each corner square o8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
does double duty - so I do not recommend this scheme
unless this problem can be overcome (eg by isolating
meaning according to adjacent squares on other faces).
9. 8 SCHEME B.
An eightfold scheme. Ascribe the middle of each side to an
element and the corners to their synthesis - eg some
such scheme as the following:
9. 9 SCHEME C.
Use 8 house astrology, as described in the Handbook for
the Humanistic Astrologer. This would mean that a cer-
tain coloured face would represent the corresponding
“planet” upon the cusp of the appropriate house, as fol-
l ows: -
9. l 0 Here is the most promising scheme. However it
is again not di r ect l y relatable to 8 house astrology
because:
a) in our system any “planet” can be repeated up to 9
times. o,
4
Magic
Cube
Di vi nat i on P
A
S
T
P
R
E
S
E
N
T



F
U
T
U
R
E
Feeling
AIR
Sensation Thinking
Intui ti on
WATER
EARTH
FIRE
IC
DES ASC
MC
2 4
6
8
b) only one “planet” can be on any one house.
HUMOROUS ASIDE 3:
Though the Handbook for the Humanistic Astrologer is recom-
mended for researches, do not look to it for snappy interpre-
tations of our cube. For example a yellow square in the upper
ri ght corner woul d represent Mercury i n the ‘ 6th’ . Just grab
an eyeful of what the HHA has to say about this placing:-
“The individual’s mind and associative perception should be
i nvol ved i n the creati ve rel ease of sel f through rel ati on-
shi ps”!
Does thi s mean you wi l l meet a tal l , dark stranger, I wonder?
l0. USING THE CUBE
l 0 . l Should we always begin with the cube in its orig-
inal state?
HUMOROUS ASIDE 4:
Do you know how to get back to its original state? - ho, ho.
l 0. 2 Stuart Kaplan suggests a tarot divination should
always begin with a tarot pack put into its correct order.
This is a “magical” viewpoint corresponding to a ban-
ishing ritual before the divination. I suggest that a more
purely divinatory viewpoint would be to see all previous
shufflings as part of a continuum of change.
l 0. 3 So you may decide not to restore the cube between
questions.
l 0. 4 Formulate your question and bear in mind which
type of question it is according to the distinction in par 7.
l 0. 5 Jumble the cube as you ponder the question.
,c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
l 0. 6 When feeling satisfied and ready place the new
jumbled cube squarely on a table before you.
NOTE: Depending upon your chosen system of interpre-
tation (see para.9) you will have either placed it ran-
doml y or ‘ ri ght way up’ .
l 0. 7 Your immediate answer now lies before you on the
“Front” face. Interpret i t accordi ng to your i ntui ti on
bearing in mind the following factors:-
A) Certain colours in certain positions
B) A preponderance of any colour
C) The same colour in 2 or more “houses” forming a
link between those houses
D) Any obvious patterns in the colours.
l 0. 8 The answer can be enlarged upon by considering
the other faces, eg. “LEFT” for past influences, “RIGHT”
for future, or for logical advice, and so on. The type of
question (determined in para.l0.4) will decide whether
all sides are to be considered. If they are then “FRONT”
could mean the situation as you see it and “BACK’ the sit-
uation as OTHERS see it. And so on.
l 0. 9 Other possible interpretations could stem from
viewing the six faces as opened out into a cruciform ‘net’
of the cube, and so on.
ll. CONCLUSION
l l . l The Hungarian Magic Cube lends itself to divina-
tion as it is a portable, clearly legible permutable set of
elements with a definite structure and with suggestive
l i nks wi th tradi ti onal symbol s. ,z
4
Magic
Cube
Di vi nat i on

5
Magic
i n t he
80s
l l . 2 Up to a point interpretation of the oracle is obvi-
ous. However the interpretation of each face is radical.
Several possibilities exist, but the model needs consid-
erable intuitive exploration before it can be accepted as
a new system of divination.
HUMOROUS ASIDE 5:
If anyone has the ti me to expl ore thi s why not contact me c\o
Arrow, and we wi l l get together to create the fi rst standard
textbook of cube divination. Remember: I have no time!
,:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
The eskimo shaman born aloft by an eagle.
He or she is the envy of many contemporary occultists.
But remember that the primitive world was a place of
uncertainty and hidden danger. Insofar as the original
aim of magic was to tame a hostile environment, who
should be considered the better magician: the primitive
shaman or the average citizen of the twentieth century?
Have we really lost our magic? Or have we simply
become so good at it that we suffer nostalgia for a
more uncertain and uncontrollable past?
5 - MAGIC IN THE EIGHTIES - WHERE TO NOW?
Fi rst publ i shed i n Arrow 13
I recall being quite pleased with this article, which was an
expansion of the theme of a talk I gave in Hemel Hempstead.
FOUR ILLUSTRATIONS
Please read these four illustrations carefully, and com-
pare your reactions to them, before reading the rest of
the arti cl e.
1. The spate of public interest in UFOs, telepathy,
metal-bending, dowsing and other paranormal phenome-
na continues, but it has not left us with a single body of
evidence that is capable of standing up to rigid scientific
scrut i ny.
2. A friend laments the decline of a mutual acquaintance:
once the finest young ritual magician around, he has now
given up all such interests and seems content with
respectable bourgeois pursuits like money-making and
the yacht club.
3. Crossing the street from my classroom, deep in
thought: suddenly woken by a screech of tyres. A car had
appeared, crazily slewed up onto the pavement.
(Appeared? Had it driven by, it would never have reg-
istered on my awareness; but as it was my memory
reminded me that I had seen it coming along the street.)
“Are you al l ri ght?” Nobody hurt, but one front wheel
sagged out at a horrible angle. “Jeez. Lucky that didn’t
happen a minute earlier - we were doing 70 on the
,,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
bypass” - the driver was now looking down at the wheel,
while I crawled under to look.
“You won’ t repai r that i n a hurry - ki ng pi n or some-
thing has gone right through,” I said, dusting down my
clothes. He was looking at me rather warily. I wondered
why, until his wife pointed her hand out of the window
and asked “Is this Eton College?”
“Yes. I teach here, that’s why I’m dressed like this,” I
looked down at my wing collar, white bow tie and tail
suit, realising how odd I looked, all the more so since the
fact that these clothes were working clothes rather than
special occasion wear meant that I had not thought twice
about crawling under a car in morning dress.
“Oh, that expl ai ns i t,” sai d the dri ver, l ooki ng rel i eved.
4. Most of the old vegetable varieties, apparently so
flavoursome in the memories of sentimentalists, will
soon be no more. Take peas for example: repeated tests
at the Institution laboratories showed that, once they had
been processed and canned, or frozen, not one of the con-
trol group was able to distinguish consistently between
the different varieties. So it makes sound sense to con-
centrate on those vigorous varieties most profitable to
the grower.
REACTIONS
If you did read these illustrations carefully as suggested,
congratulations - you are a more conscientious reader
than I usually am! But how did you react to them?

5
Magic
i n t he
80s
Statements l i ke the fi rst i l l ustrati on i rri tate me; but,
more importantly, they sadden me. Why? Because I
know they are true.
A lot of popular writing on the paranormal gives a very
different picture, it suggests that science is crumbling
under the onslaught of evidence. But the truth is that
science is only crumbling at the edges: if you study the
hard-core scientific reaction to the paranormal you will
find little or no change. Even John Taylor has withdrawn
a lot of his evidence.
Does this mean that “I don’t believe in” the paranormal?
No: as is argued in ‘Thundersqueak’ and in an earlier
article in this series, what I do not believe is that scien-
tific scrutiny is the Gateway to Ultimate Truth. Instead
I believe it to be a simple but extremely effective method
of banishment: the state of mind we evoke when we say
“let us look at these facts again very closely” is one
which forms a magic circle of certainty around us, a
magic circle expressly designed to exclude all mystery
and surprise. Try it next time a ghost is troubling you
- i t works more powerful l y than the pentagram ri tual .
So any attempt to produce laboratory evidence of the
paranormal is analogous to trying to persuade a clergy-
man that God created evil, by evoking Beelzebub within
the holy ground of his own church - the attempt is
doomed because such evil is by convention excluded from
that holy ground.
The second illustration could be depressing, especially in
the wake of the first one. Together they add up to a pic-
ture of the failure of the revolutionary hippy dream now
that we have woken to the harsh reality of the 80s. (In ,o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
fact thi s i l l ustrati on i s not needed ti l l l ater i n thi s arti-
cl e)
As for the third illustration: you may not know how to
react to this until it is put in context, and you know how
the writer intends to use it.
So what about the fourth illustration? This type of
statement annoys me. Why the hell should good vegeta-
bles be slaughtered on the altar of Economics? If pro-
cessing does destroy the difference, my solution is not to
give up tasty vegetables but rather to avoid processing
them - let’s eat them fresh so we can enjoy the differ-
ence! Do you agree?
REVELATIONS
To return to the third illustration and its purpose: part
of the reason it was included was simply to separate the
first and fourth ones with a lot of words! Having con-
fessed that, I would like to look back at the first and
fourth and put them side by side in our minds to see what
happens.
Does my reaction to the first illustration overwhelm my
reaction to the fourth one; so that they combine to form
a di smal pi cture of the i nvi nci bl e technol ogi cal
Juggernaut, crushing all nature and magic in its path?
Or does gastronomic pleasure carry more weight than my
regard for sci enti fi c truth?
In the latter case I might now see the first example as
exactly analogous to the fourth and come to a similar
iconoclastic conclusion: “if no evidence for the paranor-
mal is ever capable of standing up to scientific scrutiny
,,
5
Magic
i n t he
80s
then, rather than live without evidence of the paranor-
mal, I would choose to live without recourse to scientif-
i c scr ut i ny. ”
In purely practical terms that conclusion is not so very
revolutionary: after all, how many of us really do use
the scientific method in everyday life? Even in a high
technology environment it is seldom used: in fact the full
wei ght of sci enti fi c ri tual worki ng i s usual l y onl y
deployed in the face of danger, for example when testing
safety equipment, testing a revolutionary new hypothe-
sis or - above all - in paranormal research.
So scrapping science should be easy - but it is not. For
however seldom our ‘rational’ society actually uses the
sci enti fi c method, i t sti l l treats i t wi th sl avi sh respect.
This is even true of those of us who dislike the method and
will argue against it at every opportunity.
Just imagine that a surgeon has examined your child and
announced that only an immediate operation would save
its life, while a clairvoyant has told you not to let the
operation take place: in the fact of public opinion and
conditioning how many of us would dare to refuse the
surgeon?
Of course I would not suggest “scrapping” science, I
would only suggest that we could remove the scientific
method from its pedestal and put it carefully away as a
useful tool in case of real need. (If the pedestal now looks
a bit bare let’s put ‘Fun’ in the place of honour.)
However, the very fact that this resolution would be all
in the mind means that it would not be easy. To show how
,8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
deeply the old ideas are entrenched in our thought I will
now expl ore a l i ttl e further.
THE MAGICAL CHILD
Recently I read “The Magical Child” by Joseph Chilton
Pearce (who wrote ‘the Crack in the Cosmic Egg’), and
found the book full of interesting and important ideas.
If we use the word ‘education’ in the very broadest sense,
to include not only the whole upbringing and psychic
environment but also the conditions of birth and even the
prenatal experience; then the main message of the book
could be crudely stated as follows: ‘every human has a
natural capacity for magic, but traditional education in
our society crushes that capacity and destroys it.’
This idea is well in accord with the opinions of most
occultists. For example I have heard it said that there is
more magic in primitive societies than in ours because
they have not cut themselves off from nature as we have.
It is also often said that the best mediums or psychics are
found among simpleminded or backward folk, because
their very lack of intellect has saved their innate psychic
abilities from being swamped by rational logic.
Recently it has also been noted that the most able metal-
benders were youngsters, and it has been suggested that
this is so because such children have not yet had their
psychic abilities educated out of them.
All these examples carry a similar message, but how does
science respond to this message?
,,
5
Magic
i n t he
80s
Simple! Of course those kids produce the most puzzling
results, for we all know that mischievous youngsters are
more interested in fooling adults than they are in obey-
ing the strict disciplines of scientific method in order to
discover the truth. In any case, being immature, chil-
dren are more likely to be carried away by their imagi-
nations aren’t they?
What about pri mi ti ve soci eti es? Wel l , wi thout thei r
having the benefit of our superior knowledge of the uni-
verse, we can hardly blame them if they too get a little
carried away by their imaginations. As for those men-
tal defectives .... say no more!
Two different views of the same facts: let us call the first
view the ‘Romantic’ one, the second view the ‘Classic’
one, and put them in the boxing ring to see which wins!
CLASSIC V. ROMANTIC
There is no doubt in my mind that the first round goes to
the ‘Romantics’; for they win hands down on style.
Their argument touches on my golden nostalgic memories
of childhood’s magic moments. It also links with our
dreams of the Golden Age, the myth of the Noble Savage
and so on. Beside that the ‘Classic’ argument seems
arrogant, insensitive, tactless and boring.
So on to round two.
Good grief! After that clumsy start the ‘Classic’ argu-
ment has scored a knockout in round two! This is so sur-
prising that it calls for some careful explanation.
8c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Throughout the ‘Romantic’ case there is a common idea of
Nature being vanquished: the natural magic of childhood
being crushed by convention, the natural psychic abili-
ties of mankind having been castrated by the dogma of
rationality, and so on.
This idea appeals strongly to me as it has an obvious par-
allel with the picture of Nature’s destruction by technol-
ogy, put forward so vividly by the ecology movement.
This idea has a strong appeal to my latent mothering
instincts, but it has a weak spot in that it makes
absolutely no appeal to my not-quite-so-latent religious
instincts. I want to worship Nature, not protect her! I
look back to previous centuries when Nature was spoken
of as a mighty and terrible power, when men spoke of the
‘majesty’ of Nature and the ‘forces’ of Nature - protect-
ing butterflies feels a bit tame in comparison.
Returning to the Romantic argument, I find it hard to
respect man’s Natural Potential when I am told that it has
been so thoroughly defeated by reason, by convention, by
education and so on.
So how do I ‘beef up’ Nature to make her worshipful?
I do so by expanding her beyond the small view of Nature
as ‘all pretty flowers and furry creatures that technol-
ogy is threatening’. In the larger view man is included
in Nature; earthquakes, comets, supernovas and the pri-
mal big bang are also included in Nature.
On this scale there is no question of ‘Man versus Nature’
for man is just one of Nature’s little experiments: and if
Nature has chosen to mold mankind (by means of tech-
nology) into a club with which to batter the flowers and 8z
5
Magic
i n t he
80s
butterflies to death then it is sheer impertinence on our
part to suggest that this means that Nature has somehow
‘made a mistake’.
Similarly it is impertinent to suggest that man’ s ration-
al mind (another of Nature’s creations) has somehow
managed to destroy the Nature in us. A Goddess may per-
plex us, torment us, or destroy us, but she does not make
mistakes. Least of all does a Goddess depend upon us to
keep her alive. (It is my Religious Spirit speaking:
Rationalism would argue against that last sentence of
course! )
(In practi ce, despi te my feel i ng that the Ecol ogy
Movement has helped to debase Nature in our minds, I
still support it like mad - and refuse to buy goods
wrapped in paper bags whenever possible. Just how I
reconcile religion and daily life is material for another
art i cl e - bet t er st i l l , anot her l i f et i me - so I must ret urn
to the point without satisfying your curiosity on that
t opi c. )
I declare that the Romantic argument lost the second
round because it made the rather silly suggestion that
Nature, who created us, has made the mistake of allowing
us to develop ways of life, ways of thinking, etc. which
have defeated Nature herself. In comparison the Classic
argument does at least have the decency to suggest that
Nature’s progress is right - that adults do know better
than chi l dren, that advanced ci vi l i sati ons are an
improvement on earlier ones, that clever people are not
defective, and so on.
As referee I am far from impartial, I’m afraid. Despite
my grudging respect for the Classic argument I do not 8:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
like the company it keeps, for it is too often associated
with the argument that Magic does not exist. So I feel that
I must produce a new argument that is equal to the Classic
argument in round two, yet which fits in better with
what I want to believe.
THE THIRD APPROACH
A cheer, and Ramsey ‘The Crusher’ Dukes enters the
r i ng!
‘Why are simpletons more psychic?’ shouts the crowd.
‘Because they are simpletons’ answers Ramsey.
A puzzled silence.
‘Why are children better at bending metal?’ shouts the
crowd.
‘Because they are worse magicians’ mutters Ramsey.
Eh?
‘Why was there more magic in olden times?’ shouts the
crowd.
‘Because mankind was not yet very good at magic’ sighs
Ramsey.
Has he gone crazy? What is Ramsey trying to say?
If we begin with the last question which asks why there
was more magic in olden times (or in primitive societies

5
Magic
i n t he
80s
for that matter), the repl y was not that pri mi ti ve peopl e
are better magicians, but that they are worse.
This seems a crazy statement, but let us look at it with-
out preconceptions, and ask ourselves what was
mankind’s original incentive to do magic. Was it not
inspired by the wish to control the environment and gain
greater securi ty?
But it is surely arguable that mankind’s present prob-
lems partly stem from too great a feeling of security:
our environment has been tamed to the point that we feel
obliged to create silly weapons and invent ideological
enemies in order to put back the excitement in our lives.
So a Martian observer might be forgiven for feeling that
it is modern man who is the better magician, for it is a
modern man who has more thoroughly tamed his reality.
If we now reconsider the first question we can imagine
how the Martian observer would look upon simple-
minded psychics. Instead of seeing them as people with
an extra ability of their own, the Martian might see them
as people who had less control of reality, as incompetent
magicians whose magic circles were leaky.
If you are still not convinced, look back at the third
illustration quoted at the beginning of this article. Even
though I was not in that car - I was the schoolmaster -
the incident scared me.
Novice drivers soon learn to come to terms with certain
levels of risk - if you thought every oncoming driver was
likely to go mad and ram you, driving would become
impossible. They learn to trust their judgement.
8,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
At the time described my own judgement was not pre-
pared for the possibility that, in these days of sophisti-
cated engineering, stringent safety measures and yearly
MOT tests, a car could fail in such a lethal fashion with-
out any warning (had the car been going more than 15
mph it would certainly have rolled over).
The sight of that torn member disturbed me so deeply
that, five years later, it contributed towards a rather
illogical decision to trade my car for a motorcycle.(Note
also that the driver was disturbed by my clothing until an
explanation had been provided.)
Our modern way of life would be unbearable if we could
not depend upon metal to behave itself. Sometimes when
I was driving I used to think of Uri Geller and wonder
whether my fears about the front wheel linkage might not
create just the right mental state to cause the metal to
snap by telekinesis. It never happened, but rather than
accept this as evidence against telekinesis, I took it as
evidence that it was my Unconscious Will to survive.
This idea is supported by the following experiment:
sometimes, when feeling suicidal, I have chosen a clear
stretch of road (out of consideration for other users),
shut my eyes and fully opened the throttle of my 1000cc
motorcycle. In a few seconds of bellowing machinery and
arm-wrenching acceleration, existence begins to regain
its charm: and my eyes spontaneously open to reveal that
I have steered accurately while my eyes were shut (note
to my disciples: this variation of Spare’s Death Posture
i s stri ctl y for Ipsi ssi mi ). My Unconsci ous Wi l l to l i ve
has been invoked and has overcome the Conscious Will to
suicide. Indeed I have a theory that it is the Unconscious
Will that is the final arbiter as to who is going to be 8¸
5
Magic
i n t he
80s
ki l l ed on the roads - and not the Department of
Transport.
Remember that in the third illustration the car did not
collapse until it had slowed down: this fits my own expe-
rience that vehicles have a genius for breaking down at
the most awkward or embarrassing times, yet have an
equally uncanny knack for preserving life. Hence the
unusually high proportion of motoring stories which end
with the words: “if it had happened one minute earlier,
I wouldn’t be here to tell the tale”.
I had better leave this subject, for I would feel a right
idiot if tomorrow saw my remains being hosed off the
tarmac....
When the subatomic structure of matter is considered, it
appears to be so insubstantial as to suggest that the real
miracle is not the bending of metal by telekinesis, but
rather that we are so ready to trust our lives to its not
bending.
Observing the extent to which human belief can shape
human reality, I am tempted to suggest that the strength
of metal is not so much innate, as a consequence of our
Unconscious Will to preserve our own security. (Study
the hi story of metal l urgy i n thi s l i ght and you wi l l fi nd
that man’s inventions tend to run one step ahead of the
materials needed: copper is easily mined but too soft for
weapons; mix it with tin, an even softer metal, and you
get bronze - whi ch i s harder!)
So the child that can apparently bend metal by telekine-
sis is not really displaying magical powers so much as a
8o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
magi cal fai l ure ascri babl e to i mmature abi l i ty - i t has
simply failed to keep the metal rigid.
Primitive mankind cannot have felt as secure as we do in
their world - where a wolf could turn into a man or a
neighbour’s curse could sour the milk - so the same
argument would suggest that they witnessed more mira-
cles not so much because of a superior magical ability as
because they had not developed their magical powers as
completely as we have.
Similarly the medium who sees spirits and hears voices
is not displaying a special talent lost to ordinary people,
only a weaker ability to banish those spirits in order to
preserve everyday reality.
What of my second illustration, quoted at the beginning of
the article, of the young man who ‘lost his magic’?
We now have an alternative interpretation of this story.
In those glamorous days when he was apparently such a
great magician, he was in fact just a young seeker, in
search of his true path. Now he has found that path and
found, in the accumulation of money and status, a greater
certainty and security than he had before. For now his
magi c i s real l y worki ng.
IS THIS DEFENSIBLE?
So that is my argument, but I bet you don’t feel satisfied
by it! It seems a denial of all the dreams and hopes of the
occult revival; it makes magic sound so boring.
‘That cannot be the truth about magic,’ you say, ‘because
if we really were such brilliant magicians, we would
8,
5
Magic
i n t he
80s
surely not be feeling dissatisfied, and be searching for
more of what we call “magic”.
Really? Is this not just what one should expect? Is this
not just the well-worn story of the success that turns
sour?
Have we not all heard of the self-made millionaire who
ends his life in dreams of the good old days when he shared
a flat in the slums, or of the simple country girl who
married an international tycoon and spent her life
dreaming of the folks back home, or again of the pop star
who committed suicide?
Johnstone always stated that the deepest rut of all is suc-
cess. Now the war is over we spend a hell of a lot of time
reminiscing about it: the peculiar yearning for a return
to insecurity has been aptly described in French as nos-
talgie de la boue.
When I finished my training and was going to teach at
Eton my fellow student teachers tended to think I had
copped out: “doesn’t your conscience tell you that you
should really be teaching in a deprived area?” they
asked. This question made little sense to me unless the
asker really believed that money solved all problems -
that rich people never needed help. As it was, the diffi-
culties I encountered at Eton were no more superficial
than problems I had previously encountered in my more
humble existence.
In fact I sometimes felt a special calling to try to tackle
the miseries that beset, for example, rich Californians
because I feel these problems are not as trivial as some
people claim. What, I ask, is the point of trying to raise 88
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
the rest of mankind towards affluence when we have not
yet tackled the problems of affluence itself?
This then I propose as the problem of our age. It is not
that we have developed abilities which have cut us off
from our natural magical inheritance and left us high and
dry in a technological desert; instead it is that our very
magic has become too good.
Encapsulated in the Victorian Scientific world view we
have a model of reality rather too perfect and secure for
our own highly developed magical ability. We have
shaped the world too successfully and mankind is now
looking back wistfully to the good old days when we
weren’t quite so good at holding it all together and life had
more surprises.
Nature has not made a mistake, she has merely, as ever,
striven to excellence.
THE OCCULT DREAM
Could this be the reason why the occult dream of the 60s
has been so slow to realise itself? In those heady days
many would have predicted a parascientific revolution
before 1982 - what became of it?
I referred above to the “Vi ctori an sci enti fi c worl d-
view”: although the leading edge of scientific theory has
long since moved into much more mysterious territory,
I feel it is the Victorian idea which still dominates pop-
ular thought. People have heard of the uncertainties of
subatomic physics, but basically assume that it is all
going to be nailed down sooner or later to present once
more a nice mechanical picture.
8,
5
Magic
i n t he
80s
Indeed, returning to the idea of Unconscious Will, it looks
as if recent advances in science are a response to the
Unconscious Will of that small section of the population
who could not accept the narrow materialistic view,
whilst the failure of those advances to shatter material-
ism is a consequence of the more widespread Unconscious
Wi l l to preserve our securi ty.
If we had been right in believing that our present state of
rational materialism was a mistake, an evolutionary
sidetrack now needing to be retraced, then surely it
would have been easier to bring about the occult revolu-
t i on?
If we had been right in our early assumption that we only
had to become as little children in order to ‘enter the
Kingdom of heaven’, then surely individual enthusiasm
would have carried more of us across the abyss?
Instead there are an awful lot of people still wondering
where all the magic has gone, and too many people feel-
ing disappointed that all these years have passed and we
have still not seen the scientific establishment on its
knees before Uri Geller, begging for forgiveness.
I suggest that the reason that the ‘mistake’ was so diffi-
cult to put right is that it never was a mistake, but
rather an excess of success - and the deepest rut of all is
success.
THE AQUARIAN REVOLUTION
I have heard it said that we are living through a revolu-
tion; that mankind has discovered that it has lost its bal-
,c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
ance, lost its contact with Nature, and is now turning
back to the right path.
I do not believe this: when an individual makes such a
fundamental discovery about his own psyche it does pro-
duce a revolution, and I would expect the same in socie-
ty. But I do not see signs of revolution, instead I see
signs of festering: much more reminiscent of the indi-
vidual whose success has turned sour than of the individ-
ual who has seen the light. The revolution has not failed
- it simply has not begun.
True, there have been changes in public opinion, but they
are only the slow undramatic changes that accord with
the slow evolution of the Unconscious Will: although
many of us want the paranormal, we still need the secu-
ri t y of mat eri al i sm.
So if I can now talk about the Aquarian Revolution in the
future tense, rather than in the past tense, what will it
demand of us? Will it require that we turn back and
abandon our left-hemisphere, rationalist stance?
To return to the analogy of the individual, the question is
this: should the miserable rich man abandon his wealth
to become happy?”
Traditionally the answer is ‘yes’ - but I disagree (except
in cases when the wealth is abandoned in my direction).
That affirmative answer is based on two popular myths:
a) ‘He gave up all his money and spent the rest of his
life happily helping the poor’;
b) ‘He gave up all his money and devoted himself to
spi ri t ual progress’ . ,z
5
Magic
i n t he
80s
Really these are two versions of the same story: the
‘spiritual’ version is based on the duality of material
goods versus spirit, the ‘political’ version is based on
the duality of wealth versus poverty.
In each case the erroneous idea is to believe that misery
at one end of the scale implies happiness at the other end.
Anyone who tries this as a formula is liable to remain
imprisoned in the duality: for example the rich man who
‘drops out’ in search of enlightenment, yet ends up chas-
ing spiritual progress in just the same way as he used to
chase purchasable goods.
The falsehood of these two myths depends upon a subtle
shift of emphasis.
Consider the man who supposedly became happy by aban-
doning his wealth, then helping the poor: I suggest that
the truth was that the rich man, while still rich, became
very interested in helping the needy; so much so that he
happened to lose his money in the process simply because
it no longer concerned him greatly - for he had expanded
from the duality of poverty versus wealth.
However, to the rest of mankind, who are still trapped in
that duality, the first thing they notice is the lost of
money and so the story goes out that the rich man found
happiness by giving away his money and helping the
poor, rather than the truer story that happiness was
found by helping the needy - with the loss of wealth as an
incidental effect.
The same applies to the spiritual case: although it is easy
to find quotes about rich men not getting to heaven and the
need to abandon wealth and so on, I would guess that this ,:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
is very much a test of the faint-hearted. The loss of
wealth should be incidental; if it is done too soon and too
deliberately you are liable to retain a hang-up about the
act, and become the sort of spiritual disciple who thinks
‘I’m bloody well going to get my Nirvana before Brother
Fred, because his Daddy paid for him while I gave up my
Lamborghini to follow Mahatma Kote’.
Applying this free moral lesson to the problem discussed
earlier: I feel the need for a revolution, but I do not feel
that it will come about by looking back along our evolu-
tionary path. It is tempting to discourage early litera-
cy i n chi l dren (because l i teracy represses ‘ ri ght brai n’
thinking) and so try to make the children more ‘magi-
cal’, but I do not feel this is the answer.
What is needed is a new direction rather than an undoing
of past mistakes.
THE NEW DIRECTION
The true revolution comes when you break out of an old
duality, not when you simply change direction within it.
What we need is a new philosophy rather than an attempt
to recapture lost magic by resorting to wholefoods, real
education, restoring earth-contact and so on. Such
admirable pursuits are best adopted in their own right
rather than for ul teri or moti ves or for theoreti cal rea-
sons.
I, for example, am keen on whole foods: I choose whole-
meal bread because nine times out of ten I enjoy it more
than white bread; thus I am happier. If I had chosen
wholemeal bread on grounds of health, I would become a

5
Magic
i n t he
80s
victim of medical debate and those researches sponsored
by the Bread Board to prove that sliced white bread is the
only safe food on the market.
If I had chosen wholemeal as a gesture toward ‘small is
beautiful’ economic theory, I would remain forever
trapped in economic debate. (As it is, I remain for ever
trapped in my pursuit of sensual pleasure ... you cannot
wi n ! )
That is why, in Thundersqueak, and in this series of arti-
cles for Arrow, I have put emphasis on new forms of
belief. Those articles on Johnstone’s Paradox were not
so much an attempt to present a new Truth as to find a
new Hope.
The first illustration at the beginning of this article sug-
gested that none of the evidence for the paranormal could
withstand scientific scrutiny. Two typical reactions to
such a statement are:
a) ‘I always knew this occult stuff was nonsense’, or
b) to react angrily and take an anti-science stance.
Neither reaction offers any escape from the science-
versus-occul ti sm dual i ty.
Instead I suggested a change of attitude which amounted to
saying ‘GREAT! At last we have a choice before us! No
longer the victims of ‘magical’ forces, no longer (at
last!) the slaves of scientific dogma: this illustration
informs us that inconvenient paranormal phenomena can
be safely banished by adopting a scientific attitude! The
future of mankind can include a higher form of magic now
that we have learned to banish properly.’ ,,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
In this way the dualistic tension is released, science is
removed from its pedestal and put aside as a useful tool;
we are free and better armed to explore the future.
CONCLUSIONS
I have here and elsewhere in this article tended to use the
word magic in two senses: in a popular sense to refer to
the primitive, insecure state that is the opposite of ‘sci-
ence’, and in a higher sense which sees science as a tool
in the service of a greater magic. This is the same dis-
tinction that Crowley intended when he adopted the word
‘magick’ for the greater sense.
So I will summarise my theory thus: ‘as long as we chase
after magic, Magick cannot progress.’ And I present this
prediction for the coming Aquarian Revolution: ‘In the
sixties we became disillusioned with science. In the sev-
enties we devised an “alternative” - but it proved too
weak to topple the monolith. In the eighties we shall call
rati onal i sm/sci ence an “al ternati ve’ and i t wi l l be i ts
t urn t o f i ght f or survi val . ’
POSTSCRIPT
If a diabolist is a person who reverses the fundamental
symbols of the age - saying the Lord’s Prayer backward
and inverting the crucifix in times past - what does that
make me?
In this essay I began by proposing that we elevate ‘fun’
above ‘scientific method’; went on to suggest that the
ecology movement might be debasing Nature; dared to put
forward the idea that primitive peoples and children are

5
Magic
i n t he
80s
6 - THE TWILIGHT OF THE BLOKES - A MASCULIST
REVOLUTION
First published in Chaos International 6&7
The original of this essay was written at the beginning of the
80s and was to be the fi rst of a seri es of sketches for a
“Mascul i st Col umn” whi ch was i ntended to do for sexual pol-
i ti cs what Hugo l ’ Estrange’ s “Satani st’ s Di ary” does for the
occult (bugger all?). But good taste prevailed and the series
never found an outl et despi te several attempts to revi se i t.
While preparing this collection I came across some of the
Masculist Column on an old archive tape, and was able to sal-
vage this version. I was not sure whether it really belonged
in the collection, but Chaos International have since accepted
it for publication as a Ramsey Dukes article - so here it is.
I recal l a conversati on i n the earl y 70s wi th an
Australian history graduate who lamented the fact that
women played so small a part in history. To me that
seemed to say more about the limitations of history than
about the limitations of women’s role in society - sure-
ly a history of food or of clothing would be dominated by
women as much as a history of science or politics would
be dominated by men?
To that the Australian replied that I had unconsciously
revealed my contempt for women in the form of an
assumption that “food and clothing” was their rightful
domain.
This surprised me, who had always considered food and
clothing to be on a level with science, and all three to be
vastly more important than politics. We are what we eat,
and politics is only a vital matter at times when it
,,
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
inferior; outraged decency by hinting that Oxfam might
better devote its care to the wealthy; and finally sug-
gested that the Aquarian revolution had never begun.
So appalled am I by this revelation of mine own wicked-
ness, and such is the momentum of my sinfulness, that I
feel impelled to commit yet one more atrocity: an act so
base that the very editors of Arrow, nay Hugo l’Estrange
hi msel f, woul d shri nk back i n horror from i ts wi tness.
For I feel bounden to fall meekly to my knees, clutching
the Good Book to my breast and raising my eyes to heav-
en to pray for forgiveness for my evil deeds; and to sur-
render this most perfidious essay to the tender loving
mercy of the Lamb of God by placing it naked before my
readers that it may be stoned to death as is most fitting
for the redemption of its fallen soul.
,o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
addresses itself to the provision of food and clothing for
the needy.
Far from my demeaning women, I felt that the other had
revealed an unconscious contempt of matters I considered
to be “femi ni ne” by underval ui ng them rel ati ve to
“mascul i ne” mat t ers.
As a history graduate she found it hard to accept that I did
not equate formal history with ultimate truth so much as
just an arbitrary way of looking at the world, devised by
men in order to justify their antics. As far as I saw it, the
fact that women played a lesser role in such history was
not surpri si ng - i n fact i t was posi ti vel y to thei r credi t.
Conversationally we had reached an impasse. I had divid-
ed life into two categories, the “masculine” and the
“feminine”, and was perhaps gallantly but not deceitful-
ly claiming that I tended to value feminine activities
somewhat higher than the masculine activities which I
felt were often compensatory and shallow. The history
graduate valued my “masculine” activities most highly,
and felt therefore that I had insulted her sex by classify-
ing them in that way.
Society as a whole seemed to over-value those activities,
so Might was not on my side. The conversation ended: it
had lost its potential value as a passport into her knick-
ers... for she was a very beautiful history graduate.
The conversation left me with a sadness that went beyond
the sorrow of missed romance: it revealed how mine own
ideas were out of kilter with the norm. Did that mean I
was deluded? or could my ideas be “better”? In either
case I still had to face being the odd one out. ,8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
This essay attempts to explain my view: perhaps putting
it down on paper will reveal its strengths and weakness-
es more clearly.
TWO’S COMPANY
I begin with a general tendency to classify everything as
“yi n” and “yang”. In thi s I am fai rl y conventi onal , see-
ing yin as dark, earthy, watery, heavy, nourishing,
peaceful... and yang as light, fiery and airy, inspiring,
dynamic...
Next I assume that both those qualities are of equal
absolute value, and that both need each other and can only
exist because of each other.
Here I am still fairly conventional, but recognise that
there are people who would disagree and who believe that
yin is innately inferior to yang and that life’s purpose is
to purge oneself of the former and aspire toward the lat-
t er .
Next I translate yin as “feminine” and yang as “mascu-
line”. This is where trouble begins, because many peo-
ple then jump to the conclusion that I therefore believe
women cannot be fiery, inspiring and dynamic.
To explain why this is not so I need to make an arbitrary
distinction of distinctions by defining “male/female” as
separate from “mascul i ne/femi ni ne”. The former i s the
everyday distinction between men and women, the latter
is a distinction between underlying factors.
,,
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
The fact that I see masculine and feminine (yang and yin)
as being equal valued and utterly interdependent is
reflected in the way I see them tightly interwoven in the
fabric of existence.
Consider an analogy with positive and negative electric-
ity: it is almost impossible to demonstrate one or other
in isolation, because every atom of matter contains both
positive and negative components, but that does not mean
that the positive/negative concept is not a very useful
one.
Pure yin or pure yang cannot be demonstrated in real
life, certainly not in the form of any individual woman or
man, and yet our understanding can be enriched by the
careful use of these concepts.
I therefore see an individual human being as analogous
with an onion with many layers within, and each layer
alternates in polarity. This is again a fairly convention-
al view: the Jungians claim that a man has a feminine
soul (anima) while a woman has a masculine spirit
(animus), and so on. So a “male” is masculine on the
surface, but has a feminine soul, and the feminine soul
has a masculine spirit, which in turn has a feminine soul
and so on ad (practi cal ) i nfi ni tum. Whi l e a “femal e” i s
femi ni ne physi cal l y, mascul i ne etheri cl y, femi ni ne
mentally, masculine spiritually... and so on, depending
how one labels the layers of the onion.
That is a tidy masculine model of how I see things, and it
is easy to fault it with practical exceptions.
To explain why this is so I need to exercise my more
down-to-earth feminine qualities. If you actually take zcc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
the trouble to peel lots of onions you discover that they
are not perfect spheres of concentric shells: they are full
of i rregul ari ti es. Fi rstl y they can be l opsi ded, thi cker
here and thinner there. You peel off the outer skin, which
is thin and brown from exposure, and it does not always
reveal a perfect white interior: sometimes there is more
than one brown skin, or often the next layer is partly
thin and brown and partly thick and juicy and white. In
places the layer can be so thin that you see through it to
the layer beneath. And sometimes as you remove a layer
you find not one inner surface but two or more: the onion
has a double heart, a twinned or schizophrenic onion.
So also you find men whose masculine surface is flaky and
peeling, women whose inner spirit is hardened and
exposed, men with split personalities, people with
unbalanced and exaggerated strengths... That’s what
makes life, and peeling onions, so interesting. As it is, so
be it.
Such analysis applies not just to men and women but to
all phenomena. Food, for example, was described as fem-
inine. But, insofar as it enters into a body and gives it
life, it is playing a masculine fertilising role. And, inso-
far as the body then breaks it down and transmutes it, the
food is playing a feminine nourishing role...
Take another example: you are speaking to me at a party.
Words are leaving your mouth and entering my ear, so
you are masculine and I am feminine. But I am taking the
sounds you make and interpreting them, so I am mascu-
line and those sounds are feminine. The result is that
ideas are being expressed by you and received by me, so
you are masculine as the out-pourer and I am feminine
as the receiver. But the effect is that, by listening, I am zcz
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
making you feel important and respected, so emotionally
I am playing a masculine role by giving you confidence.
Now what you say has triggered off some ideas of my own,
so mentally I am feminine to your masculine fertilising
influence. However, by allowing myself to be educated by
you, I am contributing to improving your karma, so
spi ri tual l y I am pl ayi ng a mascul i ne i ni ti atory rol e...
Such analysis shows how tightly the masculine and fem-
inine are interwoven - cut anything open and you find
endless layers of each - but it also explains why I still
feel able to use masculine and feminine as general terms
to classify things on their surface value.
It explains to what extent I see the male (men) as mas-
culine, and the female (women) as feminine, and it also
explains the limitations that I see in such grouping.
How nice if all my readers were to respond to this either
by thinking “yes, he has described quite adequately the
way I see things”, or else “gosh, what a revelation! sud-
denly I understand something that has confused me for
year s! ”
What a pity if some readers instead think “I absolutely
agree - and that proves what rubbish all this women’s
l i b femi ni st cl aptrap i s!”, or el se “typi cal bl oody mal e,
to build up such a cumbersome rationalisation to defend
what is basically male prejudice”.
The first response would merely irritate me, while the
second would actually hurt me, so I had better say some
more on it.
zc:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
I am aware that one reason it might hurt me is because it
might be true - that awareness is part of the hurt. To
j udge whether i t i s true there i s l i ttl e poi nt i n exami n-
ing the analysis itself, instead I must ask my heart if it
feels good about the analysis... and it does.
Now that makes me think that my Goddess Within is not
at odds with my endeavours, but that is as far as it goes:
for perhaps she is a jealous Goddess with an interest in
putting down merely mortal womankind? Or perhaps,
like a busy housewife who, in response to a husband
enthusing about the significance of United Plastics bid for
Consolidated Biscuits, simply says “yes, dear” and gets
on with peeling her onions, so perhaps is my Inner
Goddess giving no more than tacit support to a crummy
thesis.
Thoughts like these alter the balance of reasons for writ-
ing this essay: it becomes less a masculine desire to teach
my enlightened viewpoint, more a request for society to
play the masculine role and judge me that I may know
where I stand.
THOSE WHO CAN...
So, back to the conversation at the point where the love-
ly Australian failed to fling her arms about me and cover
me with kisses.
I did not see history, as it is generally understood, to be
an absolute description of the past, instead I saw it as
just one of several compensatory games devised by men
to justify and occupy themselves. And, whereas I felt that
most women had shown perceptivity and good taste by
largely ignoring this game, there were some like this
zc¸
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
Australian history graduate who were taking it serious-
ly and feeling genuinely hurt that they had not been writ-
ten into the game.
This was were I was badly out of step. Not even those
women who saw history as a game would be likely to come
forward to argue such in public: the general view of soci-
ety in the early 70s was that history and politics and
other mal e i nsti tuti ons were “where i t’ s at”. I bel i eve
that is still the general view in the beginning of the 80s.
Rather than try to defend my basic thesis in an area about
which I know so little, I will choose a topic that I know
more about: engineering, for example.
The latest issue of “Technology” magazine (14 March
‘83) has the cover story “Where are the women engi-
neers?”. The corresponding article describes the short-
age of engineers and argues that girls should be actively
encouraged to pursue the subject. “Conditioning, stereo-
typed attitudes and active discouragement from studying
technical subjects all add up to the human shortfall in
British engineering” runs the heading. “Active encour-
agement” requi res posi ti ve pressure on l ess-than-wi l l-
ing girls, to counter what is seen as society’s stereotype
that technical subjects are “un-feminine” and so not
suitable for girls. “What is needed is a glamour factor”
explains the article.
Now I myself believe that technical subjects are “un-
femi ni ne” or rather that they are “mascul i ne”. In vi ew
of the previous account of how intricately and unevenly I
see yin and yang interwoven in existence, the reader will
deduce that I see no reason why any particular woman
should not therefore become an engineer, but on the other
hand I am not in the least surprised that the general zc,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
inclination among girls is not to study the subject. Nor
would I even justify this freedom of individual choice by
saying that some women are “less feminine” and should
therefore be free to study engineering, for I see no rea-
son why a woman need not be immensely feminine in all
obvious respects yet still have the particular masculine
mental streak that suits engineering - just as an other-
wise immensely male man might still fail to be a good
engineer.
In fact I am suspicious of the motives of those who deny
what seems such obvious truth! Turning to page 22 in the
same magazine we see a much less prominent article
“Engineers are let down by their education” with the
header “Survey also reveals engineers feel neglected by
empl oyers”.
This second article describes how engineers are frus-
trated and under-performing because industry treats
them as “back room boys” expected to solve problems
while the management, marketing and accounting whiz
kids take all the important decisions and get paid vastly
more.
Now this does ring true of my experience in the engi-
neering-based industries; and I strongly suspect that the
feeling extends to scientists as well as engineers.
Although scientists can partly compensate by associating
with the glamour of those “scientific breakthroughs”
that capture the public imagination, the vast majority of
them experience life as “back room boffins” at the
mercy of a better paid and more responsible administra-
ti on.
zc¸
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
The cover article states that girls have a “false and unat-
t ract i ve” vi ew of engi neeri ng, i t t al ks of t hei r “i n-bui l t
prej udi ce” agai nst i t, and thei r “stereotyped atti tudes”.
The suggestion is that teenage girls are fluffy little
things blown hither and thither on the winds of sexist
fashion, and that a new wind of engineering glamourisa-
tion is needed to puff them in the right direction.
However, the survey in the second article would suggest
a second possibility: that engineering’s un-glamourous
image is based on reality, and that girls are making a
wise choice in resisting technical subjects.
As the overall tone of the article is “engineering needs
our women”, rather than “women would benefit from
engineering”, it begins to sound like a repeat of what
happened to the secretariat. A secretary used to be an
extremely responsible position in the longhand days, and
it remained a jealous male preserve until the advent of
typewriters. As the job began to deteriorate into an end-
less round of mindless typing, women were encouraged to
fill the role. The secretariat has now become a female
preserve - and a humble one at that.
So it looks as if the urge to recruit women engineers is
basically another example of the male tendency to recruit
women to take over any work once it loses its “yang”
excitement and turns to “yin” drudgery. The fact that the
article was penned by a woman does not deny this
impression: as my opening example suggested, the ebb
and flow of yin and yang works at many deep levels and it
is a very yang simplification to reduce it to a surface
“battle of the sexes”.
zco
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Indeed, what the engineers’ sense of inferiority boils
down to is the simple universal rule: “Those who can, do.
Those who can’t, organise those who can.”
To be more precise, but to extend beyond the industrial
environment in the above paragraphs, the rule is this:
“those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. And those who
can’t teach, administer.”
This rule is often interpreted as a cynical joke - which
can therefore be repeated but never taken seriously. I
suggest that it reflects a natural order of things.
Take a primal human out of the jungle and it is a pretty
useless object - it doesn’t have a woolly fleece, it does-
n’ t make honey, i t i sn’ t al l that strong or swi ft - al l that
Jehovah could do with such a creature in the Garden of
Eden was to give it dominion over other creatures.
Mankind’s very lack of evolutionary specialisation has
lead to our taking a dominant role.
Returning to present society: anyone who has had to
endure too many lectures by “leading experts” will
realise that a good teacher needs to be someone who can
identify with the audience’s difficulties: although a
teacher should have a good grasp of it, the message will
get across better if the teacher has also had to struggle
with the subject. Again, in industry and public service I
have heard it said that “old so and so is too useful in the
research department, we can’t afford to let him waste his
ti me on admi ni strati on”.
But these examples are weak rationalisations of what
seems to be a fundamental and universal fact of existence
- that those who have a vital ability will tend to get on zc,
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
with it, while those who lack such ability will tend to
teach or organise others.
The fundamental nature of this rule is shown by the way
that it extends beyond the strict use of the words
“teacher” and “organiser” into a general statement
about human (and, for all I know, divine) behaviour.
When science and engineering are not on pioneering
ground, they can be very un-glamourous. The respective
remedies suggested in the two articles are:
1) to recruit women to take over the drudgery and
relieve the men for fun jobs, and
2) to transform engineers into decision makers.
I suspect that both solutions are doomed to fail in the long
run because they both go against nature. There will
always be exceptions to the rule “those who can, do”, and
there will always be women with the right gifts who feel
secure enough in their own femininity to become engi-
neers, but it would be unwise to shape policies around
exceptions rather than around general principles.
I don’t believe for a minute that the women who wrote the
cover article was consciously engaged in a plot to exploit
members of her own sex. Instead I believe that she had
been brought up to think that masculine activities were
better than feminine ones, so a shortage of women engi-
neers was interpreted to mean that women were being
held back from the best jobs.
Whereas the other article revealed the fact that engi-
neering is now a second-class activity, and that women
can consider themselves well out of it. Just as they can zc8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
consider themselves lucky not to have become a major
part of man’ s hi story.
THOSE WHO CAN’T...
The trouble with the above argument is that the people
most likely to accept it are the people who like the status
quo and want to keep it as it is. Those most likely to reject
it are those eager for change, like my Australian revolu-
ti onary.
Because I prefer revolutionaries to those who like the
status quo, I need to hastily move on to how I see evolu-
tionary change in the role of the sexes.
Why are women (subject to all the individual excep-
tions) generally found in a subservient role? As in the
case of engineers, it is surely a consequence of the gen-
eral law already stated: “those who can, do”. That leaves
the men free to take the lead.
Remember that we are still a youngish species, with
plenty more evolving to do. Until very recently the
prime function of humankind has been to survive and
multiply. I admit that male humans have slightly greater
strength and aggression, and that this has helped slight-
ly towards survival, but its significance pales to nothing
beside the female ability to bear children.
A tribe of women co-operating together would have
enough strength, intelligence and skill to survive as well
as most mixed tribes - provided they were not limited by
beliefs about their own inferiority. Only a handful of
males would be needed to provide semen for such a tribe
of amazons, all further males would be surplus.
zc,
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
But nature has provided this surplus of males: half of
mankind are virtually useless in terms of propagation.
Knowing deep down that they “can’t”, men have devised
an endless array of substitutes: art, philosophy, reli-
gion, fighting... plus of course teaching and administra-
tion (not to mention the institution of monogamy which
provides every male with the chance of employment - a
little kingdom of his own).
Wi thout any real l y i mportant responsi bi l i ti es to hol d
them back, the male sex has put so much into these sub-
stitutes that they now totally overshadow the original
purpose of life. Like the engineers who can no longer
appreciate the value in their “back room” work once
they have seen the Marketing Director drive to work in a
Porsche, many women have lost touch with their real
importance in the light of all the glamourous phantasies
men have devised.
Men may rule the world, but it is women who have made
i t .
Women made the world? Reverence for such excellent
masculine phantasies as history and science makes it
hard for some people to accept that we live in a world
created by women. But just look at the facts.
The world we live in is the world we experience, and the
way we experience the world is programmed within the
first four years of life. By the time we have learned to
speak we have laid down the entire structure of reality,
a reality that is merely fleshed out in later life.
This basic structure is laid down in the years we spend
with mother. It is a structure she gives us but, because zzc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
it is laid down at a pre-verbal level, it is not necessar-
ily the structure she would consciously wish to give us.
She may have read a book on child care full of advice on
how to teach a baby, or she may be a convinced christian,
but none of these conscious attitudes will provide more
than a surface gloss to the deep unconscious attitudes and
assumptions about the world which the child picks up
from her behaviour, her moods and her gestures in these
formative years.
Woman made this world, and woman made it in her own
image. The world shows every sign you would expect of an
entity made by women but administered by men.
If men had made this world, it would be orderly. Instead
we find that just about every institution devised by men
- rel i gi on, phi l osophy, l aw, pol i ti cs, technol ogy - i s an
attempt to impose some order on a profoundly chaotic
world. The very fact that there are two sexes has a sus-
piciously feminine ring to it: men prefer unity and would
have stuck to one sex and got it right (they would prob-
ably have had us laying eggs in warm sand and leaving
them to hatch in the way turtles do). Quantum mechanics
is just the latest in a long history of nature’s affronts to
men’s attempts to explain her away.
Indeed everywhere you penetrate beneath the crust of
male compensatory institutions and touch the matter of
real i ty i tsel f, you fi nd the confusi ng fi ngerpri nts of
woman.
Those who can, do. Women make this world, and find
themselves enslaved by their own essential role. They
are back room girls.
zzz
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
Those who can’ t, administer. Men rule this world
because, poor things, they have nothing better to do. The
advantage of being useless is that you are unhampered by
responsibility, so you are able to put a lot into whatever
compensatory activities you devise.
The company director who does not have any manufactur-
ing or design skills is free to handle the company as an
abstract financial entity, so he does it rather well and
leaves the more useful members of the company fuming
at his glittering success. And if a man does not have any
organisational skills he will still seek something to com-
pensate for hi s i nabi l i ty to create thi s worl d: he wi l l try
to excel in art, writing, ideas...
You see, if you can’t make the world, you can at least
make somethi ng you cal l “hi story”.
Another way of creating a role for yourself is to attempt
to impose some order on the chaos of existence by
expl ai ni ng i t sci enti fi cal l y, or i n rel i gi ous terms. And i f
you do have a creative streak and are unable to create the
world, you can at least create a worl d as an arti st, wri ter
or f i l m maker.
Hero, wise man, artist, poet... men act out a myriad
roles and try to forget that the clearest expression of
these archetypes lies not in their lives, nor even in any
male mind, but rather in the female subconsciousness.
Mother has even created the stereotypes for their rebel-
l i on.
No wonder the role of mother and housewife sounds un-
glamourous beside the dazzling array of masculine alter-
zz:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
natives devised by men. No wonder my Australian friend
felt hard done by.
But all I seem to have done so far is to justify the status
quo. I have yet to explain why I think it is evolving.
THE GREAT MALE ROBBERY
As was suggested three paragraphs back, male compensa-
tory roles do a good job in bolstering male esteem - so
much so that women themselves envy them. They also
help us to forget our basic inability. Yet they remain just
a compensation for the real thing.
The more you excel as scientist, mystic, artist or what-
ever, the more you are liable to be haunted by the real-
isation that you have become an example to others with-
out having successfully quenched the basic internal
hunger which drove you to excel in the first place.
Sooner or later every man seems to glimpse that it is all
just play. What is really wanted is the ability to make
thi s worl d, to create real i ty.
Just as women have been relentlessly and unconsciously
superimposing stereotypes onto existence - even when
they consciously despise those stereotypes - so also have
men been relentlessly and unconsciously undermining
their decorative status by trying to get their hands onto
the creative act.
Consider the feeding bottle. It means a baby can be fed
without a breast, and so it means a man can feed a baby.
The way is paved for significant male intervention in
those formative years. Consciously men resist this, for
zz¸
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
they have been brought up by Mother to consider baby
suckling to be woman’s work, yet the institutionalised
male mentality has done much to force artificial baby
milk onto the world.
The way for change is being paved; and note how the male
unconscious drive reveals itself most clearly in its
institutions, whereas the female unconscious mind is
expressed more clearly in moods and actions - which is
the way the female structure of reality has been pro-
grammed into us in our mothers’ arms.
Consider also how the male has become involved in deliv-
ery. Despite conscious revulsion by individual males for
the blood and agony of the birth process, the institution-
alised male has almost outlawed the home delivery.
Without looking at statistics I would bet that most babies
in Britain were delivered by male doctors while the
mother lay in a semi-drugged state.
Consider the statistics which have been quoted as to how
the modern baby spends more time in front of television
(which is, we are also told, a male institution) than in
its mother’s arms. The baby is increasingly being “pro-
grammed” through male eyes.
Even when the modern mother does interact, to what
extent is she influenced by the fashionable writings on
chi l d care? In my (fai rl y recent) parental days that
meant books by male experts.
The more that an “expertise” in baby care is evolved, the
more justified a woman feels in putting her child in the
hands of experts at an earlier age. In the past that could
only mean a wet nurse, now it is more likely to be a zz,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
kindergarten run by a local authority according to the
latest pedagogical practices.
Surpri si ngl y, even the i dea of the “nucl ear fami l y” wi l l
serve to break the seal between mother and child. The
family unit (as opposed to “family” as clan or dynasty)
is a modern idea hardly significant before the late 19th
century and i t i s probabl y therefore a patri archal
invention, and the idea that “a child needs a family” is
beginning to take the place of the earlier idea that “a
child needs a mother”.
This too paves the way for greater participation by
fathers and other children in the baby’s upbringing, and
the original idea that a nuclear family demanded a full-
time mother begins to take second place as the concept of
“f ami l y” grows st ronger i n i t s own ri ght .
There is still a long way to go toward the test-tube baby
which makes no demands at all on the woman, and yet men
are beginning to sense that their old dreams of homunculi
and the creation of life are growing closer, while women
are beginning to get a corresponding sense of what it
means to be redundant.
And this is where the evolution feeds itself: because of
that unconscious sense of growing redundancy, that loss
of certainty about woman’s vital creative role, an
increasing proportion of women will feel the need for
substitute glories.
Rather than resist the male usurping of the creative
role, they begin to welcome the chance it gives them to
indulge more freely in those exciting substitutes they
zz¸
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
have so long envied. They would actually prefer to go back
to work than to stay at home and bring up baby!
In a world made by men, it would be women who would
feel driven to justify themselves by teaching, by admin-
istrating, by being artists, mystics and seers. Men would
now be too busy to do anything but envy their exciting
games.
MALE PRESERVE US
The change I see beginning to take place is that babyhood
is becoming less and less a female preserve as men get
their hands onto those formative years. Already men are
beginning to play a small part in creating the world and
this involvement will accelerate as the possibility of
relieving busy women of pregnancy and creating test-
tube babies grows closer.
I also see little female resistance to this evolution,
because the other side of the coin means a lightening of
female responsibility for existence, coupled with a drive
to compensate for very deep feelings of redundancy, and
this will mean an exciting new era for women.
Any resistance to this change is more likely to come from
men who find they are increasingly involved in the back-
room labour of world-creation. Like those dejected engi-
neers, they will tend to overlook the fact they are now
more valuable than women, and will merely envy the
glamourous games women will begin to play.
The immediate temptation is to see this change as a grad-
ual but basically straightforward reversal of roles: a
future where women dominate existing public positions,
zzo
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
the Law, the Arts, Education, the Media... a world like
ours except that women make the history while men are
heavily involved in mundane technological husbandry. A
world with plenty of exceptions of both sexes, of course,
but no more so than there were in the man-administered
worl d.
But we should consider a little more carefully before
accepting such a simple idea. Would you really expect
women to start going to war just as men used to?
Remember, we are now considering a man-made world:
not just a reversal of roles in our present world. So what
would be the characteristics of a man made world as dis-
tinct from the traditional woman-made world?
Adolph Hitler’s vision of the Third Reich is probably a
good starting point, as is Huxley’s Brave New World. The
first example seems frightfully unattractive, because it
is tainted by memories of the horrors perpetrated in an
attempt to create the ideal envisioned by Hitler. Why
were the means so appalling in view of what must at least
be acknowledged as a well-meaning end intention?
The answer of course is that the basic ideal of the Third
Reich was not in itself that bad, it is just that a chaotic
woman-made world refused to accept such regimentation
and the frustration of trying to impose order reduced the
Rei ch to brutal i ty.
This is an archetypal pattern: the more a creed or phi-
losophy has “order” as its aim, the more thuggery and
chaos it will invoke.
zz,
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
The Thatcher government came in on the “law and order”
promise, and has invoked more violence than ever.
Scientology is a movement that initially promised to cre-
ate order in our minds (the aim being to become “clear”
of all tangles in one’s psyche) and yet something very
similar to a brutal fascist state was created in the move-
ment. And the most far-out movements of the sixties,
like the Manson Family and the Process, had roots in the
scientology philosophy.
The general rule seems to be this: if you try to force
order on the world - whether by a Law and Order legis-
lation, by military pressure, by psychological coercion
or whatever - the world will react in such a way as to
brutalise you. The reason for this is because it is still
largely a world made by woman in her own image, and it
resists regimentation.
So what would happen if the world was man-made?
In that case it would not be fundamentally a chaotic world.
In place of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle there
could be no more than a Principle of Slight Residual
Doubt - if that. The laws of physics would be known in a
man made world.
It would be a tidy, neat and predictable world with well
ordered weather: no droughts, tempests or famines,
except when the occasional commemorative tempest is
organised in a small enclosure as a sort of public specta-
cle.
A man-made world would be so very different. It is
extremely unlikely that there will be two sexes in the
future. Two i s a number that i s extremel y i rri tati ng to zz8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
men, and this fact is used by women for manipulative
purposes, as in the old trick of offering two ghastly
alternatives (“do we go to your parents this Christmas,
so I can spend the rest of the year moaning that we never
go to my parents, or do we go to mine, so I can spend the
rest of the year asking why my parents always have the
burden of entertai ni ng us?”).
Ideally in a male world there would be just one sex, but
possibly this will be compromised by having a whole
range of sexes - ul tra-butch, l i mp-wri sted fop, beard-
ed lady, crumpet etc etc - each with its own union, reg-
ular newsletter and membership privileges. Any number
except two, please, in view of the male saying “two’s
company and three, thank heavens, is none”.
A man-made world would be a fair world, a rational
world with an emphasis on clear choice in place of all the
fatalistic nonsense of Mother Nature and the Norns.
Servicing such a world will be like playing a vast game
of mul ti -di mensi onal chess, and i t wi l l requi re al l the
resources of male thinking. That is why men will soon be
too essential to be wasted on history, politics, art and all
such fl uffy pursui ts.
In our present chaotic women-made world most things
get blamed on Fate, but in a man-made world there will
be only cause and effect. This will demand a huge bureau-
cratic structure to maintain existence, and the role of
husbanding such a reality will demand all the “mascu-
l i ne” ski l l s l i ke accounti ng, engi neeri ng, programmi ng
and so on.
zz,
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
Whereas women used to be trapped in the vital role of
“housewife”, men will find now themselves trapped in
the equal l y vi tal rol e of “worl dhusband”.
So what will women do? What sort of roles will they cre-
ate for themselves?
There will, of course, be a temptation to take on the old
male roles: to become lawyers, policemen, scientists etc.
But insofar as those roles were an attempt to impose
order onto chaos, those roles will rapidly become redun-
dant as the man-made world comes into being. A fair,
liberal world full of “sensible” people would not need
policing in the same way that the present world needs it.
The need will not be to impose order onto chaos, instead
it will become necessary to bring some rhythm and flow
to a world that is increasingly in danger of crystallising
and stagnating.
This is a role that women would identify with. As an
example of a man-made microcosm (within our present
woman-made world) consider the bachelor flat, or the
gentleman’s club. Although the former might not look
ti dy, i t wi l l have a basi c underl yi ng order to i t - there i s
probably a precise relationship between the placing of
the piles of washing up in the sink and the number of days
it has been there. Few things give women so much satis-
faction as to be able to sweep into such a world and rev-
olutionise it with new furnishings, and a frenzy of re-
arrangement.
This, then, will be the underlying theme of the part
women will play in a man-made world. Instead of trying
z:c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
to impose order onto chaos, they will be trying to invoke
chaos into the order.
Taking the police as example: instead of a group of men
patrolling the streets to discourage unruly elements,
there will be women going around trying to stir up com-
munity activities in a world where most people increas-
ingly want to sit quietly at home and watch television.
Even i f sti l l cal l ed “the pol i ce”, they wi l l be more a sort
of state Women’s Institute, busy organising fetes and
fund-rai si ng acti vi ti es to j ol l y us up.
The legal profession would give way to a sort of coun-
selling service. Politics would be not so much a question
of diplomatic peace-keeping as a sort of moral strip-
tease to stir up a bit of passion in a complacent world (cf
Mary Whitehouse and Margaret Thatcher when she gets
on her “tradi ti onal val ues” hobbyhorse).
The arts will be less deeply affected, because the impulse
will remain the same: it will still be an attempt by those
excluded from the primal act of creation to find other
ways to exercise the creative impulse.
And a religion dominated by female bishops would focus
less on attempts to bring order into creation, and more on
bringing a sense of wonderment, joy and mystery into a
very explicable universe.
OVER THE TOP, LADIES!
So that is the revolution that I see. It begins with a grad-
ual male usurping of the baby-minding role.
z:z
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
This in turn leads to women beginning to feel the sort of
profound sense of uselessness that has always haunted
men, and so they are increasingly driven to justify
themselves in the world by other means. This drive gives
them energy.
This in turn increases the pressure for men to take over
the process of birth and, as the new generations grow up,
the world is increasingly populated with people whose
elemental world view was programmed by men instead of
by women.
As a man-made world would be structured on rational
choice and “fairness” rather than blind Fate, women will
find it easier to take the chances that have so long been
denied them; meanwhile men will be increasingly tied
down in the tedious task of maintaining and servicing a
world where nothing can be blamed on “Lady Luck” any
more.
As women step into the key roles in society, they find that
the world is no longer what it was, and those key roles
are subtly shifting: instead of an unruly world demand-
ing a rod of iron, they are increasingly taking over a
heavily structured world that demands inspiration and
excitement.
Just as “little women” used to struggle to keep the home
fires burning while men fought wars to conquer an
unrul y pl anet, so wi l l “l i ttl e men” be struggl i ng to pre-
serve their crusty institutions while women rush about
invoking “change for change’s sake” (cf the impact of
Thatcher on the legal profession etc).
z::
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
A REVOLUTION WITH BALLS... OR ONE THAT IS BALLS?
Now that is how I see it, but of course that is just a neat
male model of what must really be a frightfully confused
situation beginning, as it does, in a chaotic female world.
Firstly there will be a residual tendency for women to
want to do things just as the men used to do them, having
been brought up to believe that was “right”. Like the
engineering woman and my history graduate, they will
want mal e rol es i n thei r tradi ti onal form.
Then there will be the tendency for men to feel threat-
ened by this usurping of what they consider to be their
roles, with a resulting resistance or backlash to be
expected in the form of outbreaks of neo-butch heroism
or tyranny. This backlash will weaken, of course, as
male children are increasingly taken out of the hands of
mot hers who i nst i nct i vel y program t hese heavi l y
polarised sexual roles.
Then there will be the confusion of the sexes already
described: the women who are naturally competent in
masculine activities, and the men with such a strong
“motheri ng” streak that they bri ng up baby wi th al l the
assumptions that a women would have given it.
Then there will the residual exceptions: women so broody
by nature that they will refuse to give up their tradi-
tional role, and men with so little inner creative spark
that they will rather rule someone else’s world than
create their own.
In other words it will be just as easy in future to find
exceptions to prove that men really rule the world, as it
z:¸
6
The
Twi l i ght
of t he
Bl okes
z:¸
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
is has been possible in the past for some people to find
exceptions to prove that, behind it all, women really rule
the world.
Although the writer of this essay can find plenty of signs
that this gradual Masculist Revolution is well under way,
and that its roots go back to the Age of Reason when women
began seriously to follow male advice on child rearing
rather than pl aci ng ful l trust i n “women’ s mysteri es”,
there are just as many signs that the whole idea is a load
of nonsense.
So, even if true, it will be such a confused and long drawn
out process that no-one will notice it happening: each
generation will accept the world they are born into and
will assume that to be the natural and immutable order of
things.
Therefore there is little point in this essay. Its only
value is in its attempt to sort out mine own bizarre
assumptions.
What do you think?
My Goddess Within just says “yes, dear”... and I see tears
sparkling among the many little circles of sliced onion...
z:,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
In re-presenti ng thi s ol d pl ate from the Astrol oger Of The
Ni neteenth Century, am I gi vi ng i t l i fe?
or simply calling up the dead?
If Jesus or a creati ve arti st does i t, we say the former. If
a magi ci an or commerci al arti st does i t, we say the l atter.
So what does the following essay do for
Johnston’ s Paradox?
7 - JOHNSTON’S PARADOX REVISITED
(With disputatious footnotes by Mormegil Draconis)
Fi rst publ i shed i n Arrow 15
Thi s seemed to be the essay where I fi nal l y got i t ri ght: my
fi rst three attempts at expoundi ng Johnston’ s Paradox
seemed to have failed, or fallen on stony ground, but this one
created some response.
Fi rst there were the “di sputati ous footnotes” recorded here,
wi th my l etter of repl y. Then there was an arti cl e by
Starwing to which I responded (see the next section). Both of
my l et t ers of repl y were publ i shed i n Arrow 16. Af t er t hat I
fel t Arrow must have had i ts fi l l of Johnstone’ s Paradox, and
I resolved to put it all down in a book (Words Made Flesh,
whi ch came out i n 1988).
I thi nk i t was the i nterest generated by the i l l ustrati ve story
in this article which gave me the idea of including the story
about the Minister for Technology and the Pope in Words Made
Flesh (see Chapter 14 in this book).
Knock knock ...
“Hello, you must be Johnstone’s Paradox ...
“Who the hell are you and what d’you want? ...
“How are you keeping, Johnstone’s Paradox? Putting on
weight? Hair going grey? Teeth falling out? ...”
The other day an occultist friend of long standing spoke to
me on the subject of Johnstone’s Paradox (see articles in
Arrows 8, 9 and 10) as follows:
z:o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
“It’ s al l terri bl y neat and cl ever, but do you real l y
bel i eve i n i t ?”
Isn’t it wonderful what close friendship can engender?
Like the story (apocryphal, presumably, for I am about
to invent it) of the two Great Ipsissimi who used to meet
regularly in a quiet corner of the Saville Club to discuss
Great Cosmic Truths, the Work of the Brotherhood and
the Worlds Beyond the Abyss.
During a lull in one such conversation Ipsissimus A gazed
at his coffee spoon for a silent half-minute then sudden-
ly spoke. “There is something I have been longing to ask
you for many years, Ipsissmus B. tell me, do you think
you would ever be able to bend a spoon like this by
telekinesis under laboratory conditions?”
So it is that a friend of long standing, and of long under-
standing, a friend who has read and absorbed SSOTBME
and ‘Thundersqueak’, can still ask me if I “really believe
in” Johnstone’s Paradox!
My reply, which I am about to summarise, revealed that
I had lost none of my old skill at evading such questions.
WHO IS THE GREAT BELIEVER?
The question of what I myself believe is not very impor-
tant. The world of the future has always been shaped by
those who believe the hardest, so the important question
of the future age is ‘what class of people are the strongest
bel i evers?
The bad news is this: occultists are definitely not the
strongest believers at present. There is still amongst
z:,
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
occultists too much looking towards the borderline of
science for theoretical and evidential support; in other
words they are still asking permission of science to
believe in magic. (The slightly nervous questions about
the distinction between Black and White Magic that per-
sist in public meetings show that there are many who are
also still asking permission of religion to believe in
magic.) And in my last essay, on Magic in the Eighties,
I gave the example of the ardent occultist who finds a
beloved one is on the threshold of death, and who has to
choose between orthodox medical advice to operate and a
psychic’s advice not to do so. How many would uphold
their occult beliefs in such circumstances? [1]
I would propose two candidates for the Hardest Believer
Cup. One is the American Bible Belt Creationist. I do not
have any direct experience of this group, so will pass it
by for the present. The other candidate is the ‘hard-
headed’ rati onal i st, the ‘ goats’ of the Soci ety for
Psychical Research.
You need only read the anti-paranormal writings of such
people in, say, the correspondence columns of New
Scientist to realise that here are believers of the first
magnitude; here is a rock solid defensive position that
would need rather more than Flower Power to break its
wal l s.
The mortar that holds these walls intact is exceptionally
strong because it consists of a very basic, elementary
philosophic assumption, a principle of universal econo-
my called Occam’s Razor. This principle, crudely
expressed, says that the fewer things you believe exist,
the better. Two examples show how this works in prac-
tice. z:8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
First consider creation: if science can definitely prove
that the known laws of physics were capable of bringing
about the Big Bang, creating stars, planets, forming our
earth and developing a life upon that earth which would
eventually evolve into mankind, then there is no need to
believe in a Creator who formed me in his own image as
described in Genesis. We already believe in the laws of
physics so, provided they can do the job, we do not need
God as well.
Secondly consider spoon bending. If we restrict ourself
to reliable filmed evidence of spoon bending, and a pro-
fessional conjuror points out that there were moments
when the spoon was out of sight, and that (by taking
advantage of such moments) he is able to duplicate the
feat by trickery; then there is no need to believe in
telekinesis. For we already believe in human deception,
we even believe that this sometimes takes place uncon-
sciously, and we already believe in the unreliability of
hearsay; therefore we need not also believe in telekine-
si s.
This principle is then the binding strength of the ratio-
nalist position. It owes its strength to the fact that it is
such a simple, fundamental principle that it tends to be
taken for granted rather than consciously used. It is
almost more of an instinct than a philosophical princi-
ple.
Notice, however, that its greatest strength is as a defense
of the status quo. However militant and attacking the
sceptic sometimes seems, his position’s real strength is
defensive. For it begins with (for example) the laws of
physics as the accepted belief, and then decides that we do z:,
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
not need God. Anyone who had never heard of physics, and
who believed wholeheartedly in a God who was a bit of a
handyman, would be quite able to use the same principle
to dismiss the laws of physics as unnecessary. So why
does this not happen more often? [2]
The answer [3] is that the rationalist view has dominat-
ed Western thought for about 400 years and is now so
entrenched in our culture and language that even the
child of the most zonked-out hippy family probably
assumes that, for example, sunrise is inevitable rather
than a daily gift from a thoughtful and very reliable
deity.
This is why the present day occultist cannot use the same
principle to such advantage. Although I have demon-
strated in these essays, and in SSOTBME and
Thundersqueak, how magical theory can provide alterna-
tive explanations to scientific theory, that are just as
neat and sometimes even more economical; the argu-
ments lose their strength because we all already believe
in scientific explanations. We may resist this belief,
but in vain, for it is, so to speak, already in our blood.
Consider the example from SSOTBME of the magician
who suffers from traffic lights always being red when he
is in a mad rush, and who decides to remedy the situation
by meditating himself into calmness in order to reduce
the number of red traffic lights to normal.
The scientist laughs at his ‘remedy’ as a piece of psycho-
logical deception and ‘proves’ this is so by counting the
number of red traffic lights next time he himself is in a
mad rush. He finds merely an average number and so
z¸c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
deduces that the apparent surfeit of reds was in fact a
delusion, and the magician’s ‘magic’ has done nothing.
However the magician in turn can now laugh at the sci-
entist, pointing out that the scientist had merely per-
formed the self-same magical act: by deciding to objec-
tively count traffic lights when in a mad rush, the scien-
tist had calmed his consciousness and therefore reduced
the number of red traffic lights to normal just as the
magician had done.
Some people who read such examples of mine find them
‘ al l very cl ever’ , but a bi t out of touch wi th real i ty. I
suggest that this is because, although they can recognise
how well balanced my argument was, they know deep
down that traffic lights are worked by automatic electri-
cal systems that would not adjust themselves to one indi-
vidual motorist’s thoughts when there are thousands of
others on the road all in different degrees of haste. [4]
HOW DO THEY DO IT?
Granted that the strength of the rationalist position is
mainly defensive, how then has it gained so much terri-
tory from magic and religion?
The answer I have previously suggested is that occultists,
for example, tend to waste so much energy trying to
attack the well-defended rationalist position rather than
getting on with strengthening their own territory; and
that from time to time they fall back exhausted and let
rati onal i sm march forward.
Once upon a time physics had shown itself to be awfully
good at explaining simple laboratory processes in mech-
z¸z
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
anistic terms, but was still a bit flummoxed by magnet-
ism - because this force was able to act at a distance. So
occultists got terrifically excited about magnetism and
created a whole magical theory on etheric forces, animal
magnetism and so on, in an attempt to storm the citadel
and grab a bit of that delicious scientific respectability.
But they eventually fell back in disarray and the laws of
physics extended to cover magnetism.
Then there was the feeling that science could not answer
all questions because it could never explain Life itself. A
theory was created of a Vital Force invading the dead
world of matter, and again it tried to become scientifi-
cally respectable.
At each stage in the spread of the rationalist domain there
are some of us who recognise the obvious fact that science
does not yet know (all) the answers and who decide to set
up camp on such unmapped territory. If we then turn to
face science and attempt to attack from that viewpoint we
exhaust ourselves in attacking a well defended position,
and are eventually overrun.
If only our education would allow us instead to ignore
science and get on with improving our own camp, then
something very different might happen. We might cre-
ate a new universe, invisible to science and so in no dan-
ger of being overrun.
Instead of this the retreat is continued. Science buttoned
up Life, and so next the human mind was taken as the
‘unmapped’ territory. Then computers entered our
lives and so magic retreated into the non-automatic
process of the human mind. Now intelligent systems are
z¸:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
being created, and we shift camp to the creative/mysti-
cal processes of the human mind.
From a rationalist viewpoint the worlds of magic and
religion are being driven back into an ever shrinking
territory, and there is no obvious reason why this
retreat should not continue towards vanishing point. [5]
SUPPORTING VOICE
My exposition of Johnstone’s Paradox lost some of its
impact through being based upon predictions as to what
computers might be capable of in the future, rather than
what you can now buy over the counter. So the more I
can support these predictions the better will I strength-
en my case.
Here then are three recent predictions from ‘more
respectable’ sources which are relevant to my thesis.
The first is that the US government is poised to decide
whether to make bi ol ogi cal computers a nati onal
research priority. What is suggested is a form of organ-
ic computer rather closer to living matter in construc-
tion and supposedly “a billion times denser and faster”
than the boring old silicon chips. This news item, quot-
ed from “Technology” magazine, considerably narrows
the gap between present-day computers and the working
of the human brain.
The second comes from a television documentary on com-
puter graphics in the aid of cartoon animation. It was
shown how a computer with relevant data on human
anatomy, together with an initial and final picture of,
say, a man raising his hat, was able to ‘instantly’ create
z¸¸
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
all the in between pictures needed to make a smooth ani-
mated sequence.
As an extension of this useful, but limited, ability we
were told of a full length cartoon film now being created,
about life on a robot mining settlement on the asteroids.
What was being done was to map all the features of this
imaginary world into the computer’s memory then to
program the computer to output a visual display of any
required sequence of movements within that world. Say
it was necessary for the film to move the camera down
the long high street towards an advancing band of menac-
ing invaders; then, all the relevant details having been
entered, the computer would produce a perfect t.v.
sequence of this scene on its screen: a visual film of a
total l y i magi nary worl d.
The third prediction comes from an article, in New
Scientist I believe, attacking the need for manned jour-
neys into further space. It predicted that we would be
able to fit sensors onto our unmanned probes that
matched our own human senses of sight, sound, touch and
so on, and that the information they collected could be
either recorded and brought back, or else transmitted
back to earth and replayed directly into an ‘armchair
astronaut’s’ brain. He would then experience the trip
just as if he had been present on it - but without the dan-
ger or the added freightage.
It was also suggested that the same technique could be
used recreationally: a delicate, bedridden geriatric who
regrets never having gone hang-gliding in his youth
could pay the current world champion to hang-glide off
the top of Mt. Blanc with a similar sensory recorded on
his back. It could then be replayed into the geriatric’s z¸,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
brain and he would be right out there, the wind cutting
his cheeks and ruffling his hair, the clouds swirling
past, the butterflies in his stomach and the sensation of
swooping downwards ...
Now put these three predictions together. You have a
computer creating an imaginary world, like the second
one, but it is a bio-computer and so the world it creates
is as finely detailed, as imaginatively rich and as beauti-
ful as any created by the human brain. Then, instead of
i nputti ng recorded i nformati on from the ‘ real worl d’
i nto that geri atri c’ s brai n, you i nput i nformati on from
our imaginative bio-computer. And he will find himself
l i vi ng a dream, i n an ‘ i magi nary’ worl d that i s utterl y
real to his senses. [6]
This combined model takes us a long way towards my
assumptions in the Johnstone’s Paradox articles.
Let me now make my own prediction. Rather than go into
tedious detail for the sake of realism, I will present it in
dramatic form and assume that Arrow readers are capa-
ble of abstracting the essential points of this prediction.
PREDICTION: THE AQUARIAN REVOLUTION
It was the year BLEEP. Occultism and Religion were
almost extinct.
Sales of Aquarian Arrow had dropped from eight figures
to five figures, to thousands and now the magazine offices
were up for sale. Natives of tropical countries, who used
to burn offerings and pray to their gods to keep storms
and earthquakes at bay, now rang up the local meteoron-
z¸¸
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
omists and seismonomists departments and asked them to
create clement weather and to stabilize the earth’s crust.
The early public outcry against the unimaginative and
inhuman face of computers was finally quelled when
critics universally acknowledged that MUZAK IV’s New
World Symphony made the entire output of Beethoven
look like a rather tepid cup of over-weak tea in a plastic
beaker from a British Rail platform vending machine.
The electrostatic inkjet paintings of Sylvie IX07 made
Rubens look ‘decidedly naive’, and, since the arrival of
G-KLOWN’s comedy talkshow, no-one was any longer
interested in repeats of such predictable and humourless
programs as Monty Python or the Goon Show.
The few remaining dissident voices were being silenced.
The Archbishop of Neasden, cornered by the Minister for
Technology in a Soho night club, said that he was fully
aware of the triumphs of science and cybernetics and yet
despite that knowledge he awoke each day with a strong
conviction that ‘there still remains some central mys-
tery as yet untouched by science’.
‘ Don’ t worry about i t’ repl i ed the mi ni ster for technol-
ogy, ‘we know all about that feeling. It is caused by an
imbalance in the nodular cortex resulting in an overpro-
duction of hyperbleemoid hormone. Just take these
tablets, here, and the condition will be cured overnight.’
‘Ah yes’ retorted the Archbishop, ‘but the point is that I
have no wish to cure the so-called condition’.
‘I appreciate that’ replied the minster, ‘this second con-
dition is also well understood. The two drops of antibol- z¸o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
shene-3 that I secretly introduced into your last drink
wi l l have el i mi nat ed your probl em by t omorrow
l unchti me.’
And so it came to pass that only one non-rationalist
remained, only one person who still daily praised his
Creator at sunrise and invoked the Great Ones at sunset.
He was mocked by a world that could not understand his
faith.
Why invent a divine creator when new universes were
being daily created by science to entertain the masses on
sensorama sets? What achievement of man was there
that had not been excelled a billion times over by the dig-
ital logic of GENIAK V? [7]
But still the mystic resisted. ‘You have conquered and
reproduced the whole world’ said he ‘but you have yet to
conquer my soul’.
The minister for technology was just dying to dose the
mystic with antibolshene-3, but GENIAK V took him gen-
tly aside and reminded him of a certain passage in a book
called ‘1984’. Here was the last mystic in the history
of mankind: for him no ordinary defeat would suffice.
So, a few months later the minister visited the mystic
and invited him to spend a sabbatical fortnight at public
expense in a newly created sensorama universe.
‘No fucking fear, you can stuff your bloody dreamworlds’
said the mystic.
Whereupon the minister sighed and prepared to depart
with the words ‘well, you have shown me one thing. For z¸,
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
all your defiant believing, you have not got enough
courage in your convictions to test them against our
“bl oody dreamworl ds”.
Unable to resist such a taunt the mystic agreed to the
minister’s suggestion.
The next day he was ‘reborn’ into a lovely land, inhabit-
ed by a people of great warmth and humour. To his joy
he found that the sense of wonderment and reverence for
nature was sti l l thri vi ng i n thi s worl d.
And there he met Krystal of the Seven Moons, princess of
the tribe. And they fell utterly and hopelessly in love.
Now any of you who have every been carried away by a
great fi l m, and fal l en temporari l y i n l ove wi th the
shortlived and merely two dimensional hero, or heroine,
will perhaps understand what happened to that mystic in
his blissful fortnight spent breathing the same air,
treading the same earth, sharing the same laughter with
that most perfect embodiment of everything he adored.
And having yourself walked alone from the cinema into
the wet streets and the queues for buses, will realise how
the mystic felt on being recalled from his sabbatical.
‘I wanna go back’
‘But come now,’ the minister smirked ‘surely you can-
not want to trade the real world, the world given to you
by your beloved Creator, for one of our “bloody day-
dreams”?
‘Yes, I do’ z¸8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
‘But all that you have experienced is merely permuta-
tions of digital information input by our scientists. Even
Krystal i s j ust a program’
Jerked into tears by the mention of that name the mystic
sobbed ‘Whatever she is I want nothing but to share that
real i t y wi t h her. ’
His was the age-old dilemma of the princess who falls in
love with the gipsy, or the lord who falls in love with the
exiled courtesan - only a little more poignant.
‘Well, if you insist,’ sighed the minister for technology.
‘But you will have to sign a refutation of all your beliefs
before you go - we cannot have anyone saying that we had
coerced you, can we? It just happens that I have a copy
here ...’
And thus it came to pass that the last mystic was elimi-
nated from the universe. The worlds of magic and reli-
gion had been squeezed into a smaller and smaller space
by the creations of art and science. (I have especially
worded that sentence for those who have read SSOTBME
and who will see its additional significance).
Now that shrunken world has imploded and the result was
to be...
A BIG BANG!
For what had been proved as that there is absolutely
nothing in our universe that cannot be re-created in a
sub-uni verse by an orderi ng of i nformati on i n thi s uni-
z¸,
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
verse. But by Occams Razor this means the number of
universes is likely to bet be limitless.
Now, wait a minute, surely Occam’s Razor does not
encourage us to believe in lots of universes when only one
is needed?
The point is that we have already created a second uni-
verse in this story. Occam’s Razor tells us that time is
limitless, unless we have already located its limits (for
why otherwise believe in those limit?) So once we have
shown that we can create a universe we either accept that
this has happened indefinitely already or else we have to
believe in some special ‘principle of exclusiveness’ that
makes us the one and only first-time universe creators.
Although Occam’s Razor would prefer fewer to more uni-
verses, it is actually powerless to restrict the number.
This is because a ‘principle of exclusiveness’ would add a
whole new dimension to the space of possibilities,
whereas a multiplicity of universes merely extends a
dimension that has already been shown to exist. (Just as
the sceptic finds it easier to believe a whole armoury of
deceit on Uri Geller’s behalf - including a radio receiv-
er in his tooth - than to believe in a tiny bit of psychic
power).
As a result, we have shown it can be done, we must now
either prove that it has not already been done, or else
believe that it has been done ‘often’.
In other words it is now very unlikely that our own uni-
verse was not itself created by beings of another uni-
verse which lies ‘outside our time and space’ quite liter-
z,c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
ally. And the burden is now transferred to the rational-
ist to prove otherwise.
Note that future generations in Krystal’s world will have
a myth on the lines of ‘angels of God the Creator who found
the daughters of men were fair and sought to lie with
them. For this they were banished from the Kingdom of
Heaven’.
That wi l l be thei r versi on of the Mi ni ster’ s l i ttl e ruse.
But does not such a myth already exist in our own uni-
verse?
I did mention that the other group of hard believers were
the creationists, didn’t I? They too would shape the
future if we let them.
JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX
This then is my scenario for the Aquarian Revolution: an
explosive rebirth of mystical wonderment following the
compression of the worlds of magic and religion into the
black hole of Johnstone’s Paradox.
My previous articles have explained by this event would
utterl y turn the tabl es on rati onal i sm; but, to refresh
your memory (and I fear that such refreshment is called
for) here are some examples.
Let us say you are creating a universe, a sophisticated
version of that cartoonist’s world described earlier, and
you need to create a field of grass. Now there are fifty-
three million grass plants of different sorts in that field
- are you going to laboriously programme each one in
turn? Not when you remember that each and every grass
z,z
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
plant is a vastly complex organism involving highly
involved chemical processes etc. etc. Any programmer
would advise you to work more along the following lines.
First you create an undifferentiated GRASS program,
containing all the characteristics common to all species
of grass. Then you create a second set of programs, one
to each type of grass.
For example the COUCH program will call up the GRASS
program but input into various parametric values spe-
cific to couch grass, a creeping rootstock, a certain shape
of leaf and so on.
But you still have not created a single green plant, not
until you go to the next stage and create programs for
each individual plant.
For instance COUCH 1397 calls up a file of information
about the soil conditions at location 1397, it then inputs
this into the COUCH program, together with information
from a file of meteorological conditions, and the nature of
neighbouring plants, and the resulting output is a com-
plete description of the grass plant that would grow in
that position.
Thus you have created a field of grass by the most eco-
nomical means: to have programmed those plants inde-
pendently would be a ludicrously uneconomical deploy-
ment of information.
Suddenly a being from your created universe walks into
your created field. It treads on the grass plant at loca-
tion 1397 and breaks it. It bends over and calls upon the
‘soul’ of the plant to forgive this act. It stands upright z,:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
and with eyes half closed addresses itself to the ‘couch
angel’ and promises co-operation. Then it throws up its
hands in ecstasy and hails the presence of the Great
Archangel of Grass. And you, the creator of this world,
are falling about with laughter.
For you know that the whole grass thing is just a nifty bit
of programming; so all this rubbish about ‘souls’,
‘angels’ and ‘Archangels’ splits your sides.
But think again. What does the being mean by the ‘soul’
if not the reality that lies behind the manifestation? It
has merely given a name to the program COUCH 1397,
and called it the ‘soul of this plant’.
What does the being mean by the ‘angel of couch’ if not an
archetypal immaterial couch plant, and would not the
form of that ‘angel’, were it perceptible, be the form of
a perfect couch plant undifferentiated and unstunted by
any contact with actual material conditions? In other
words, it is the program COUCH.
Similarly what is the Great Archangel of Grass if not the
program GRASS?
This suggests that, once we have accepted that our own
reality is probably a programmed creation, then the
principle of economy no longer says ‘manifestation can
be explained without the assumption of angels, gods and
souls, therefore we shall not believe in them’; instead it
says ‘a world created without angels, gods and souls
would be so absurdly uneconomical that the onus is no
longer on the believer to prove that they exist, but on the
unbeliever to prove that they do not’.
z,¸
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
I am told that a biologist called Rupert Sheldrake has
written a book in which he postulates an ‘M-field’ that
psychically links all beings of the same species: so that
if a germ in Australia for example learns something the
information may be instantly transmitted to a similar
germ in England. Apparently the horrified reaction of
the editor of Nature was that the book ought to be burned
for suggesting such rubbish.
But once the universe had been seen as a programmed
creation then the onus would be on the editor of Nature to
prove that no such link exists. Because a world where
nearly identical entities were in no way linked by a com-
mon program would be such an absurdly uneconomical
world that Occam’s Razor would barely allow it.
For it is not the ‘M-field’ which would be the redundant
hypothesis, some such connection is inevitable in the
nature of such a universe; no, the redundant hypothesis
would be the mysterious ‘principle of isolation’ appar-
ently demanded by the editor of Nature. Why on earth
should such a principle exist?
In this model the mystic’s feeling of ‘oneness’ is the
obvious truth - while our everyday sense of isolation
and independence is now the greater puzzle. [8]
Similar arguments to show the inevitability of astrolo-
gy, all systems of divination, reincarnation and so on
have already been given in my earlier articles.
The point is that once our universe is seen in this new
light, then the whole of magical theory is no longer an
outlaw fighting for breathing space outside the reach of
Occam’s Razor. Instead it becomes the fundamentally z,,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
acceptable ‘truth’ and the mighty old rationalist view-
point is suddenly the outlaw.
This then is the nature of that magical Big Bang.
LETS FACE IT CHAPS
O.K., lets cut out the airy-fairy speculation and be
utterl y pragmati c.
Those of you who try to believe in higher worlds, occult
powers and the like...doesn’t it just break your heart that
no-one has taken up the Great Randi’s challenge? A
cheque for several thousand pounds for anyone who can
convincingly demonstrate paranormal powers? Doesn’t
it just break your heart every time human achievements
are belittled by the achievements of machines?
Then become a champion of Johnstone’s Paradox! The
only occult theory that makes you feel better every time
that the scientific establishment deals magic a crushing
blow! The only occult theory that is specifically
designed to survive the collapse of all occult theory! Vote
for Johnstone’s Paradox!!
What theory could be more in keeping with the spirit of
the Aquarian Age? For the Big Problem of Aquarius
(symbolised by the Leo-Aquarius opposition) is the
problem of the individual versus the collective. How can
the individual find its place in the collective without loss
of individuality? But, as I explained in an earlier arti-
cle, Johnstone’s Paradox will transform this dilemma.
Being part of one vast programmed creation ensures a
definite position for the individual within the collective
z,¸
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
- there can be no ‘outsiders’. But on the other hand it
dramatically increases each individual’s significance.
As I explained in that article, there is no longer any the-
oretical reason why a lonely meditator on a mountaintop
cannot find out as much about the universe as can a
mul ti -mi l l i on pound government research program.
Being parts of a Whole gives us all equal access to the
Whole, however humble we may be.
So do I ‘really believe in’ Johnstone’s Paradox? Well, I
try. And it pays.
BEWARE OF TEMPTATION
Talking of the Age of Aquarius - well I was, even if you
were not - I must give a warning. Beware of thinking as
follows:- Ramsey Dukes is a nobody of no great magical
attainment, so I’m blowed if I am going to believe his
crummy theori es.
This is the same error as the one which states that,
because Aleister Crowley was obviously no saint, there-
fore Crowleyanity is a wicked thing to believe in.
Aquarius is the sign of the Collective, so the old princi-
ples of the cult of personality may no longer be relevant.
To take a rather flattering example for comparison: as
far as I know Einstein, for all his clever theories, could
not spl i t an atom to save hi s l i fe. Al l the ol d “i f-you’ re-
so- cl ever - t hen- why- ai n’ t - you- r i ch?” t est s of
respectability may no longer apply. It may now be nec-
essary to judge a theory in its own right rather than in
the light of its expounder’s saintly bearing.
z,o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
There are at present thousands of prophets, all tuned into
different wavelengths and all receiving different ver-
sions of the truth, and I am one of those prophets.
If Johnstone’s Paradox prevails it is unlikely to be
because I become the world champion sick-healer or
spoon bender. Instead It will be because more and more
people just happen to tune into the same wavelength.
Einstein has profoundly influenced our view of the world,
but he never made a single atom bomb.
Well goodbye Johnstone’s Paradox. Thanks for the chat
and it’s good to see you looking so well.
MORMEGIL’S FOOTNOTES
[1] The phrasing of this question insults the intelligence of the
occultist. It assumes that he is motivated by an infantile
desire to ‘believe in’ something. This is the coin of religion
and superstition, not of occultism and magic. Allopathic med-
icine is quite unreliable, but psychism even more so. If med-
icine were a true technology like mechanical or chemical
engineering, the choice would be easy. As it is, confronted
wi th two suspect bel i ef systems, the occul ti st had best di s-
dain both.
[2] But it did happen - remember Galileo?
[3] The answer i s nothi ng of the sort. The ‘ answer’ merel y
restates the posi ti on, i t does not account for i t. The real
answer is that science has won its ground fairly by backing
up i ts theori es at every stage wi th useful technol ogy whi ch
not only increases human choice and control but also validates
the overall scientific model as being consistent within its own
t erms. I n t he uni versal darkness whi ch preceded t he
z,,
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
Renaissance there was no such touchstone. It can of course be
argued that the ‘ l aws of nature’ were not di scovered but cre-
ated by the pioneers of science, for the magical reference
frame i s seni or to al l bel i ef systems, al l maps of real i ty bei ng
abstractions resting on human experience. If that holds good
the conscious forces (if any), the Magi, behind the rise of sci-
ence were simply better magicians than there competitors.
They got i t ri ght , t hat ’ s why t hey won.
[4] Surel y Ramsey i s not denyi ng that traffi c l i ghts are
worked by automati c el ectri cal systems? If the magi ci an’ s
pl oy real l y worked, i t were better attri buted to an al i gnment
or serendi pi ty i n hi s own i nterface wi th the mechani cal worl d
rather than some mickey mouse magical trick whereby he
tel eki neti cal l y i nterferes wi th the mechani sm of the l i ghts.
Feasibility aside, the worthlessness of such an ability would
increase in direct proportion to the numbers employing it. If
we want to overcome traffi c l i ghts we can al ready smash
them up, or merely ignore them. We do not choose to. The fab-
ri c of comparati ve certai nty on whi ch our ci vi l i sati on i s
based is to be transcended, not negated.
The rationalist’s success in his own terms could also be seen
as serendipity, but based on his own unconscious certainty
that the normal averages would prevail. Such a control mech-
ani sm may wel l operate to l i mi t sci enti fi c di scovery by gi v-
i ng coherence wi th exi sti ng knowl edge pri ori ty over expan-
sion of that knowledge. Not a bad principle - the tree grows
sl owl y but the wood i s hard - oak, not l arch.
[5] Not so: the retreat i s not toward vani shi ng poi nt but
toward i nfi ni ty. There i s no shortage of mystery i n the cos-
mos. Mystery in the commonplace sense merely implies igno-
rance and unsolved problems. A Mystery in the specialised
terminology of magic is defined as ‘A truth Beyond Reason’ -
qui te another matter. Bogus ‘ mysteri es’ rooted i n mere i gno-
rance only comfort and confuse us. There is NO END to the
possi bi l i ti es for growth and expl orati on i n an i nfi ni te cos-
mos/chaos. There are, of course, l i mi ts to the Real m of rea-
z,8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
son as we presently employ it. What Ramsey sees as an
i ncursi on by rati onal i sm i nto the shri nki ng ‘ mystery pl ay-
ground’, I see as a progressive liberation of the occult
phi l osopher from di stracti ng tri vi a. The true occul ti st i s not
retreating; his search is aided by the elimination of mere con-
fusions and falsehoods. The ‘occultist’ who responds like a
child deprived of a toy is no philosopher at all. Occultism is a
search for the truth, not a substi tute for mi ckey mouse.
Science cannot tell us where that truth is, but it can help us
by showi ng us where i t i s not. Sci re = ‘ to know’ ; ‘ but wi th
the sword destroyeth he’ .
[6] Perhaps for the sake of simplification, Ramsey ignores a
vi tal di sti ncti on here: the geri atri c can onl y passi vel y expe-
rience the sensation of the hang glider pilot. To experience a
uni verse, i t i s surel y necessary to i nteract wi th i t, to have
power of choi ce and effect. Thi s i s vi tal l y i mportant for i t
calls into question the whole reciprocal nature of love. It is
the difference between the Great Work and the Great Wank.
[7] There is an obvious answer to this question, and that is
‘the digital logic of GENIAK V’!
[8] This argument will not do. The case for cybernetic econ-
omy stands all right, but the assumption of random modifica-
tions of the higher programs by impacts on the lower violates
a basic principle of programming, and indeed of common
sense. This is not to condemn Sheldrake’s hypothesis, but
neither does it compel an onus of proof on the editor of
Nature. Our current model of the supporti ng i nfrastructure
suggests that al l l evel s of programmi ng, whi l e l ogi cal l y cor-
responding to Ramsey’s model, are physically implemented
via local mechanisms such as DNA. There is nothing in infor-
mati on theory as yet to account for any al ternati ve struc-
tures - perhaps Sheldrake has begun to discover some, and
when we know enough about them to explain why one random
impact affects the whole set while another does not, we shall
have understood the software of the universe. Maybe. Until
z,,
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
that time comes the editor of Nature is justified in his scep-
t i ci sm.
MY RESPONSE TO THE FOOTNOTES
(publ i shed i n Arrow 16)
Dear Mormegil Draconis,
Thank you for your critical comments. It was such a
delight to find my Johnstone’s Paradox article being
taken seriously in public, that I will try to do more than
simply jump to defend myself on the points you raised.
Your fifth point, that the retreat before rationalism is a
retreat to infinity rather than a retreat towards a van-
ishing point, reveals that you are one of those who does
not ‘need’ Johnstone’s Paradox.
There are those, however, who feel that the universe is
ultimately finite: those subatomic physicists who seek to
find the truly fundamental particles of matter, and who
do not expect them to be infinite in number, those cos-
mologists who postulate a finite ‘curved’ universe, the
writer of a New Scientist article who recently considered
the possibility that Science might end in the foreseeable
future for lack of unexplored territory. And is not the
driving force behind scientific endeavour the desire to
discover THE secret of the universe rather than to
remove another skin from an infinite onion?
Such i deas subtl y effect certai n men-i n-the-street l i ke
mysel f who fel t a l i ttl e sad (rather than “l i berated from
... distracting trivia”) when science found no Man on the
Moon or life on Mars, and would rather that Mars had
z¸c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
been found littered with old beer cans, or something
equally perplexing.
Rather than defend this slightly wimpish position I see it
as a disease and suggest Johnstone’s Paradox as a (home-
opathic) remedy, because it says “if the universe is
indeed finite in this sense, then (far from being boring)
wonderful mysteri es are i mpl i ed.”
At the same time we must not forget that, if the condi-
tions of the Paradox do not arise (e.g. matter proves infi-
nitely divisible and therefore not able to be modelled),
then it does not matter, for the remedy is no longer nec-
essary.
This leads to your first point: quite right, I apologise for
this insult to a healthy occultist. What I had in mind was
the (not uncommon) occultist who suffers from the above
disease. A rather plaintive effort to believe in something
to cheer up an apparently drab universe is a symptom of
the terminal stages of this disease, and this disease is
rather more prevalent than occultists would admit in
their positive moments.
Mind you, such terminal cases might not respond to my
suggested remedy, they might need stronger medicine
( Wor l d War 3?)
About your fourth point, concerning traffic lights: I had
not wanted to repeat too much from SSOTBME which, as I
read it, later considers the point you make. I had hoped
that my phrasing, though short, had indicated some
awareness of these points. So, on behalf of other readers,
I can thank you for dwelling on them.
z¸z
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
Point 8: about random inputs on lower programs result-
ing in modification of higher programs. Thank you, I had
fallen victim of my own desire not to exhaust my reader
with elaboration. What I omitted to mention was the sig-
nificance of evolution.
My hierarchical model as described (lower programs
calling up higher programs) would not violate your
“basi c pri nci pl e of programmi ng”, but nei ther woul d i t
evolve unless some modification of higher programs was
allowed for. I agree the traffic should be mostly “down-
ward” in order to preserve the structure, but suspect
that suffi ci entl y urgent, or si gni fi cantl y common (to
filter out the “random”) messages would get back to the
higher programs.
A possible illustration of this lies in the common occult
tradi ti on that, for exampl e, “get ri ch” spel l s wi l l not
work when ul ti matel y geared toward sel f-gl ori fi cati on,
whereas similar spells on behalf of another person, or
the good of mankind, have a better chance of success (but
no guarantee, alas, for my football coupon, dedicated to
saving Hexteth Motorcycles from the Receiver, bore no
f r ui t ) .
If we assume that the magic works by invoking the high-
er programs, then we can agree that selfish motives
activate the “armour” mechanism that isolates the indi-
vidual from the cosmos, whereas altruistic motives de-
activate it, so that messages pass easier upward.
Similarly, one greedy mammal trying to reach the ten-
der treetop leaves gets nowhere, but generations of them
evolve into giraffes.
z¸:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Here our debating positions are reversed since point 3:
on the ‘phone I gathered that you were happier to accept
the biological necessity for building in the isolating
‘ armour’ - and so to j usti fy the edi tor of ‘ Nature’ -
where I am more interested in the questions beyond it.
I never doubted that the editor of Nature was justified in
his doubts, and that Sheldrake is a ‘crank’ under the
present world-view. What I say is that a general
acceptance of Johnstone’s Paradox would reverse their
positions.
This somehow leads me to the third point you make when
I attempt to explain why Science has overtaken Religion
as an assumed reality.
In context I think my ‘answer’ is an answer - though I
agree that it does pose further questions. Here I see a
difference in viewpoint between us, the difference
between “progress” and “hi story repeats”.
I incline toward a cyclic view of history - seeing science
as having stepped into religion’s shoes and getting ready
to repeat religion’s mistakes; you incline toward a pro-
gressive view - seeing science as having liberated us
from rel i gi on.
I emphasise ‘incline toward’ because I do not want to
waste ti me by arti fi ci al l y pol ari si ng our atti tudes. I for
example am not so stupid as to deny progress, so I extend
my cycles into progressive spirals in practice. If I get
ti me I wi l l wri te an arti cl e for thi s Arrow remi ndi ng
how I start from a cyclic view of history (rather than a
progressive one).
z¸¸
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
The “darkness” you mention before the Renaissance was,
I suspect, radiant to those with infra-red vision (those
who might grumble about the “coldness” after the
Renaissance?).
As I argued in Thundersqueak I am not convinced that sci-
entific method has generated any useful innovations
whatsoever. As always, people have ideas: nowadays
they prepare them for publication by knitting them into
scientific terminology, in previous ages they wove them
into magical or poetic terminology, or knitted them into
rel i gi ous termi nol ogy (“kni tti ng = one-di mensi onal ,
weaving = two-dimensional”, seems a suggestive dis-
ti ncti on to me i n terms of l eft and ri ght brai n thi nki ng).
Your point 2, like point 4, I had intended to imply in my
own wording.
Your point 6 - can I get away with my later inserted
cl i ppi ng as parti al answer? [this was a reference to a
newl y created i nteracti ve game where the pl ayer
becomes the main character in a film] It was the sort of
thing that I had in mind. I’d rather deal more carefully
with points 7 and 8.
The remai ni ng poi nt 7 i s real l y tri cky. I ask “what
achievement of men was there that had not been excelled
a billion times over by the digital logic of GENIAK V” and
your answer is “the digital logic of GENIAK V”.
Knowing your ability to travel through time and space I
would warn against your materialising in the year
BLEEP, or you may be arrested for contempt of court
because of that remark which amounts to a judgement on
an ongoing court case. z¸,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
You see GENIAK V emerged from the womb-unit of GENI-
AK IV as a result of a dirty weekend spent with MUZAK III.
GENIAK IV was built by GENIAK III, who was in turn
designed by GENIAK II who was in turn designed by GENI-
AK I. GENIAK I was designed by one John Smith, who only
built it in defiance because everyone said it would not
work.
The problem is this: GENIAK IV is on trial for murder.
John Smith was also arrested and held responsible for
the fruit of his creation. His defence argued that Smith
had done his best for GENIAK IV by sending him to be edu-
cated at Eton and that the fact that it had been corrupted
during secret night jaunts to Soho was outside his con-
trol. The prosecution said that Smith should have
imbued his creations with greater moral fibre, and dis-
missed this defence.
John Smith committed suicide in despair; whereupon the
prosecution, now eager for blood, arrested his parents
because they had created the “obviously guilty” John
Smith. His parent’ lawyers managed to unearth proof
that GENIAK IV had led an exemplary life until a chance
involvement in a slight motorcycle accident after being
struck by lightning. They argued that later aberrations
could therefore be ascribed to chance, not bad program-
ming.
Meanwhile GENIAK V joined the debate by pointing out
that, under old testament law, the sins of the fathers
could be visited on their sons, so GENIAK V went on to
point out that it was perfectly clear on reading the bible
that we were all guilty anyway (the Original Sin) and z¸¸
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
that this universe was in fact created as a penal colony
for a “higher” reality. (Hence the absurdity of a death
penalty - it amounted to chucking people out of prison
because they did not behave themselves within it.) The
whole case has become a public scandal - hence my advice
to keep out of it.
That’s it, Mormegil, I must save some ink for Starwing.
Mormegi l repl i es: -
Perhaps, indeed, the scientific method did not contribute
nearly as much to the coherent structuring of ideas as we
have come to believe. What concerns me more is that
Science did not find it necessary to break the fingers, flay the
hides and fry the flesh of those who chose to formulate their
thoughts in other modes.
I l i ke t he “kni t / weave” di chot omy - but you have f orgot t en
“cram”: I refer no l ess to Lysenko than to the medi aeval
schoolmen. Ideas which must be crammed into an orthodox
framework, not because that framework i s the wi dest chan-
nel of social communication, but because to depart from it
invites the knock on the door at 3 a.m. are not going to be
very good ideas.
In our present soci ety, where, l et us admi t i t, sci enti fi c
humanism has become the popular belief-system, we have a
vast technology at the service of all ideas: the same
machines, the same warehouses, the same paper mills, con-
tribute as much to the promulgation of Tanith Lee, Tolkien and
Cordwainer Smith as to that of the New Scientist.
The fact that Arrow has a rather l ower ci rcul ati on than the
New Scientist is not due to unfair persecution, but to the
perennial fact that the spear head aristocracy of ideas is
al ways smal l , coupl ed wi th the more speci fi c fact that the
z¸o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Edi tors/Producers of Aquari an Arrow coul dn’ t sel l vasel i ne
in an isolated US Navy base.
Your concluding paragraphs on my point 7 are at first sight
pure shameless Houdini, and in view of the conciliatory tone
of the rest of thi s di al ogue I am i ncl i ned at fi rst to treat them
as a graceful retreat, and l eave i t at that.
On closer inspection, though, I think they rather avoid the
more abstract underlying argument. You seem to be credit-
ing the GENIAK computers with a capacity to generate more
syntropy than was i ni ti al l y programmed i nto them. Thi s
moves them from the category of machines into the category
of l i fe-forms. Al l ’ s fai r i n l ove and sci ence-fi cti on, maybe,
but there is no shred of evidence in the current state of the
art of cyberneti cs to support thi s i dea, and I fi nd the al l too
widespread popular notion that this is possible is a pernicious
myth, which fuels popular paranoia about computers.
A computer is a tool for deferring complex decisions and
speeding up their execution. It does in fact have an almost
miraculous effect on human affairs because it shifts the ratio
between attention and effectiveness by order of magnitude,
and attention is the hardest currency in the universe. But
you do not get out of a computer anything which you have not,
in a sense, put in. You must have foreseen and grasped every
category of possi bi l i ty, al though obvi ousl y not al l the speci f-
ic recombinations which may be possible. In this sense,
therefore, John Smi th’ s achi evement remai ns necessari l y
greater than the greatest achievement of GENIAK V - in fact,
John Smith’ s achievement is by definition always exactly one
step more than GENIAK’s, and the more GENIAK achieves, the
more John Smith has achieved.
I labour this point because I find the popular tendency to
regret technological achievement on the grounds that it
appears to demean the human a deplorable and infantile atti-
tude. It is a whine.
z¸,
7
Johnston’ s
Paradox
Revi si t ed
z¸,
8
The
St ar wi ng
Di al ogue
If your sense of achievement can only hold up its head by
handicapping the competition and crying ‘no-fair! when some-
one else appears to do it better, it is not worth much. All the
while this nonsense is indulged, we mask the discovery of
that true Achievement which is uniquely human, and unique
indeed to each one of us - the blood of our hearts and the
unfolding of our own life process. No computer - indeed, no
other human - could be Mormegil Draconis: and even if my
whol e nat ure were “model l ed” or “si mul at ed” on a comput-
er, it would be no more in principle than a photograph or a
biography. Only a human life can create that unique human
l i f e.
I am a little perturbed at your account of the Year BLEEP. It
would seem that social norms are going to deteriorate if par-
ents are to be held responsible for the crimes of their prog-
eny. Surely, though, John Smith’s parents could have passed
the buck back to their parents, and so on until we hit someone
who i s safel y dead? Better sti l l , al l cri mes (and l i kewi se al l
achievements) could thus be shovelled back to the First
Cause. We have now demolished the notion of personal
responsi bi l i t y ent i rel y.
I would suggest that innocent computers should not be
exposed to violent pornographic works like the Bible.
z¸8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
John Hancock, born 1986 at the Cape, spent his boyhood in Canada, his teens
in the English Midlands, and the last year or two of his life in London. He
drowned himself in Regent’s Canal at the age of 22, leaving a considerable body
of poems, essays allegorical stories and drawings - including this one published
in the Golden Hind Vol 1 No 2. The title reads:
GOD OF ISRAEL, THE FIRST GOD CREATING FROM HIS OWN BODY ADAM & EVE,
THRUSTING THEM AWAY FROM HIM THAT HE MAY CONTINUE HIS INWARD TURN-
ING SEARCH FOR HIS GOD, WHO IN THE FORM OF A WINGED SOUL IS FLYING
INTO THE BEYOND.
8 - THE STARWING DIALOGUE
Fi rst publ i shed i n Arrow 16
The last Johnstone’s Paradox article (Johnstone’s Paradox
Revi si ted) actual l y prompted a l i ve response. Fi rstl y i t was
pri nted i n Arrow 15 wi th edi tori al footnotes added by
Mormegil Draconis, and secondly there was an article by
Starwing in the same edition raising interesting questions
about the story of Krystal and her rel ati onshi p wi th the Last
Mysti c. Arrow 16 contai ned two substanti al l etters from
Ramsey Dukes, the fi rst repl yi ng to Mormegi l ’ s footnotes,
the second repl yi ng to Starwi ng’ s arti cl e. Both were pri nted
as di al ogue wi th further responses from thei r respecti ve
addressees.
The Starwing letter is long enough to count as an article in its
own right, so it is included here for the sake of completeness.
But the limitation of space means that the Mormegil dialogue
and Starwing’s own words have not been included. Curious
readers will have to get hold of the relevant back issues of
Arrow (numbers 15 and 16).
Dear Starwing,
Thank you for your interesting and flattering comment on
my Johnstone’s Paradox article. What had I in mind for
the relationship between the Last Mystic, his image in
the ‘dream world’ , and Krystal?
In the early sixties I heard a talk by Gregory in which he
suggested that future computers, of some form or anoth-
er, would be able to reproduce the human mind. By this
he meant that it would for example be possible to hold
conversation in depth with such a computer and have no
way of telling that you were not speaking to a human
being. The next step, he suggested, would be to model an zoc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
already existing human being. But how could such a model
imitate my every utterance, gesture and reflex perfect-
ly, unless it also possessed an identical consciousness of
self In other words my mind would now be existing with-
in the computer.
So what I was imagining in my story was a computer of
such ability, but larger so that it could contain the con-
sciousness of a whole world of beings, together with a
model of the world they inhabited. This was Krystal’s
world and, to her, it would seem very bit as real as our
world does to us.
But to the Last Mystic it was just invisible information
fl ow i n the i nteri or of a computer, unti l he ‘ materi-
alised’ into that world. This was done in two stages: brain
scanners read the information from his brain into com-
puter memory and his mind and body were then modelled
by the computer, which then devised a suitable entry into
Krystal’s world (e.g. descent from a flying saucer) that
would not do violence to the laws of that world (i.e. would
match the existing programs).
Secondly the Mystic’s body was isolated and replaced with
sensory input from the model within Krystal’ s world.
This ensured that the memory of the experience would be
recorded in the physical brain. If this were not done the
two (i ni ti al l y i denti cal ) mi nds woul d di verge i nto two
different minds as physical body and computer model
lived out their different experiences.
Then the Mystic descended into Krystal’s world and lived
there until the flying saucer came back for him a fort-
ni ght l ater (i n Krystal ’ s ti me). He then returned to hi s
physical body with all the usual amount of memory recall zoz
8
The
St ar wi ng
Di al ogue
of his fortnight’s holiday, plus a few bruises and other
“psychosomatic stigmata” resulting from the struggle to
get him to re-enter the flying saucer.
But what about Krystal? Once the computer had had the
i nput from the Mysti c, i t di d a “computer-dati ng” j ob
and sought an “i deal ” partner from Krystal ’ s worl d.
With a whole planet of beings to choose from it did a
superb job.
Had none been sufficiently close to the ideal it would have
been able to arrange one anyway by selective breeding,
for the timescale within Krystal’s world was not neces-
sarily the same as ours: so a few generations might pass
in an hour or two.
Krystal was a “best fi t”, rather than a perfect Ani ma,
because it was desired that the Mystic should fall in love
with someone within the existing dreamworld. To have
created a whole new world to contain a perfect Anima for
the Mystic would have been a bit expensive, and to have
created and entered an Anima into the dreamworld would
have meant that the love affair would have been between
two ‘angels’ rather than an ‘angel’ and a ‘human’: this
would have made it less poignant.
Having explained a little more clearly what was in my
mind when I wrote the article, I have “answered” your
comment insofar as it would have been conversationally
impolite to have remained silent. But also recognise that
you have raised other more basic questions and that the
answers to these may never be known by me: in fact,
thanks to your reply, studying the implications of
Johnstone’s Paradox is no longer the lonely preserve of
one man. So may I take this opportunity of writing in zo:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
more general terms, to encourage others to research
along these lines?
First a point of clarification that is very obvious, but can
be overlooked by those who miss the early argument:
Johnstone’s Paradox says absolutely nothing about the
way in which our world was created, why it was created,
i ts rel ati onshi p wi th the other real i ty, whether we were
created consciously or by accident, or whatever. All it
says is that, if the reductionist “nothing but” theory of
the universe eventually triumphs, then, instead of
destroying Mystery, it will suggest an even greater
Mystery. This is because it would then seem that our
universe is not “real” in any absolute sense, but is an
image created by the ordering of information in another
universe which lies outside our space and time.
That is where Johnstone’s Paradox begins and ends. The
fun starts when we (arbitrarily) accept the conclusion
and see what possibilities it opens up. This interesting
line of meditation I recommend to Arrow readers.
Basically you can set off in three directions, but each
casts light on the other. You can re-study scripture, his-
tory and myth in the light of the assumption that this
world is as described above: this “academic” approach
throws light on a lot of puzzles. Or you imagine how
future people in our world might use their ability to
create new worlds: this “science-fiction” approach is a
great creative exercise, and throws up delightful paral-
lels. Thirdly you can explore the possibilities in a pure-
ly abstract, philosophical manner.
Here are some examples of questions posed by the last
approach. Was there ever a first universe from which all zo¸
8
The
St ar wi ng
Di al ogue
the others have descended? If there was, was it a complex
universe like ours, or was it a universe of unimaginable
si mpl i ci ty (l i ke the ori gi nal bi nary uni verse of Spencer
Brown’ s “Laws of Form”) from whi ch i ncreasi ngl y
complex universes have evolved? If there was not a first
universe, but an infinite chain, is that chain evolving
with time, or is it an unimaginable circle (the serpent
eating its tail) so that the last universe ever creates the
first universe - outside time. Another question concerns
the existence, or not of free will in this programmed
universe; and was our universe created deliberately by
conscious being(s), or did it evolve automatically from a
previ ous uni verse? Then what i s the rel ati onshi p
between the universes? Does a higher universe react
with, manipulate, or enjoy feedback from a universe it
has created?
This philosophical enquiry throws up a multitude of pos-
sibilities, and very few obvious restrictions. One way of
sorting this multitude is to move to the academic
approach, and study existing evidence to see how it sup-
ports these possibilities.
Begin by the simple assumption that our apparent real-
ity is in fact an illusion created by information pro-
grammed in a different universe outside our space and
time, but let us make no assumptions about the possible
beings that created it. Even this very simple assumption
throws a lot of light on certain debates.
For a start it gives a new understanding of the tradition-
al view that the world of matter is all illusion. As I
explained in the second Johnstone’s Paradox article
(essay 2 in this book) this simplest assumption justifies
synchronicity and all systems of divination, it also sup- zo,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
ports reincarnation, telepathy, telekinesis; and in the
forth article (essay 7) 1 explained how it supported the
concept of angels, archangels and gods that permeate our
reality. Again, in the third article (essay 3) I showed
how the bizarre and apparently paradoxical findings of
particle physicists seem much less bizarre when you ask
yourself what sort of discoveries might be expected to be
made by beings in a programmed reality when they tried
to analyse the basic elements of their reality.
Now extend your exploration by considering the possi-
bility that beings from a higher reality might be able to
interact with our reality. The curious behaviours of fly-
ing saucers - the associated folklore of “men in black”,
telepathic communications and paranormal phenomena -
all make more sense if we see them as invasions from a
higher universe, rather than from a far distant star.
Similarly all the “chariots of the gods” theories of Von
Daniken can be retold, with certain paradoxes resolved,
if we assume that those early settlers came from the
higher universe, rather than from our outer space.
If you accept the evidence of advanced scientific thinking
that is reflected in ancient structures like Stonehenge,
and wonder why such mastery did not lead to an early
technological revolution, one answer is that these struc-
tures were designed by shipwrecked astronauts from a
higher civilisation who were doing their best to exercise
thei r hi gher i ntel l ect i n the crude worl d i n whi ch they
were trapped. But this answer poses other problems:
why no remains of their vehicle? Why no return visits
before the TV cameras or reliable witnesses? So let us
replace these stories of spacemen with the story of a
higher universe that became overcrowded (or otherwise
uninhabitable) and whose inhabitants chose to abandon zo¸
8
The
St ar wi ng
Di al ogue
their old bodies and continue their consciousness in new
bodies within newly created universes. Then may of the
old problems physical are resolved, for these travelers
came from “outside of space and time”.
Next one can reconsider mystical writings in the light in
the possibility that their writers may have gained some
awareness of the true nature of our programmed uni-
verse, but bearing in mind that they lived in the days
before computer science had given them a language with
which to describe this awareness. In the second article
(essay 2) 1 considered the creation theories of Rudolf
Steiner, and of the Kabalists, in the light of this idea. I
also modelled such themes as the birth of Christ, divine
inspiration and the meaning of one’s True Will.
Fi nal l y l et us turn to the “sci ence-fi cti on” approach.
Think what we might do if we were able to create sub-
universes, and see what the results would be. In the forth
article (essay 7) 1 told the story of the Last Mystic, and
pointed out how his descent into the sub-universe left it
with a myth about angels and the daughters of men which
sounds strikingly like the one that already exists in our
worl d.
So let me leave you with my latest science fiction future,
and I will embellish it with italicised comments to
explain how our decisions when creating a sub-universe
cast light on certain metaphysical problems which haunt
the denizens of that subuni-verse.
The Brave New World had arrived. World government had
abolished war, technology had abolished famine, con-
trolled the elements and eliminated crime - well almost.
You see, there was a snag. The population density was zoo
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
such that nearly all available space was required for food
production, and life extension demanded a very low
bi rth-rate, because of the rel ati vi sti c l i mi ts to space
colonisation.
As a result there was a very stable society that was a
haven to those too stupid to ask for more than food and
entertainment; it was also a haven to those evolved sages
who needed peace to explore their inner selves and to
aspire to mystical bliss.
But it was hell to a middle class who were clever enough
to want challenge, but not clever enough to create their
own challenges. This middle class was a potentially dan-
gerous, disruptive element that could all to easily resort
to crime unless there was some way of elevating them by
education.
How used an army to train its men in the past? By set-
ting up assault courses to force them to tackle hardship.
But no assault course could ever match a solo battle
against the elements, so soldiers used to be abandoned in
the wilderness armed with only a knife and a ground-
sheet. Surviving a week in these circumstances taught
things that no ordinary assault course could teach. All the
same, no soldier was ever fully fledged unless he had
some experience of active wartime service.
So how could this dangerous middle class be educated
now? Challenge them with elaborate assault courses,
devise competitive team games and you educate them up to
a point. But what can take the place of the Outward Bound
school? There was not much real challenge in climbing
Ben Nevis in January anymore, because firstly the
weather men no longer allowed dangerous weather there; zo,
8
The
St ar wi ng
Di al ogue
and secondly the whole mountain was covered with
pheronome sensors which could detect a frightened
human and automatically launch a robot rescue helicop-
ter within seconds. (This system was necessary to pro-
tect the hordes of trippers). So how can we present a real
challenge in such an ordered world?
The answer is to devise the ultimate ‘total commitment’
assault course: ie an “Outward Bound” universe!
The universe that is created is a harsh one, with “nature
red in tooth and claw” (hence ‘the problem of Evil’) .
Evolution was directed towards the creation of a suitable
android vehicle - the “ homo sapiens” (hence “man cre-
ated in God’s image”. Also Steiner’s suggestion that
archetypal Man pre-existed in a higher world, so that
physical animals can equally be viewed as incomplete or
overspeci al i sed fragments of the human (mysti cal
view), or as evolutionary forerunners of the physical
human (sci enti fi c vi ew)) .
Once a human species was evolved, how was it to be used?
One possibility would be to allow your trainees to control
a human body like a puppet. This might be educational,
but it would be no more than a glorified “board game”. It
would be better for the trainee’s consciousness to enter
into the human body, to feel its physical pain and pleas-
ure. This would be to use the world like an assault
course; a much better educational experience, but still
limited because the mind would know it was just an
assault course and would be likely to commit suicide or
otherwise withdraw when the struggle got too bad.
But there is a third possibility: to leave the mind of the
human as it is, but to mount it as a rider mounts a horse. zo8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
This is the greatest challenge because it leaves you with
a vehicle (the human being) that is utterly committed to
i ts worl d, i t puts the ri der i n a very cl ose rel ati onshi p
wi th the human (yet without damaging the human’s
essentially “earth-bound” nature because:
a) the rider is utterly dependent upon the vehicle and at
i ts mercy, but
b) the rider has the possibility of ‘taming’ his vehicle
and gaining a measure of control over it. )
So this is how the middle classes were educated in a spe-
cially constructed “school of life”. Depending upon the
individual’s record to date he would be allocated a certain
l evel of handi cap i n hi s next round or “i ncarnati on” (i e
Karma from previous incarnations) .
El Vismit, for example, had a series of rather tough
incarnations (as a slave in Athens, as a poor Celt under
Saxon invasion, as an Elizabethan street minstrel) and
had learned a lot about resisting hardship, but had devel-
oped rather antisocial habits. For this and other reasons
he was told he must now endure an incarnation into a
fami l y of i dl e-ri ch soci al i tes.
So El Vismit studies the form for a while, weighing up the
various vacancies, seeing which which fit him best,
which offer the greatest challenges or chances for
Karmic improvement, and eventually puts in the highest
bid for a particular foetus.
Thus Elvis Smith came to be born into Hollywood’s jet-
setting Smith family. Elvis was, for reasons of genetics
and early background, a rather tough and antisocial
character. This is why El Vismit chose him: a compatible
nature would be more open to communication. But this zo,
8
The
St ar wi ng
Di al ogue
caused a lot of problems in his socialite childhood milieu
and Elvis became rather violent.
El Vismit found himself on a bucking bronco during
Elvis’ teens. But after dropping out of high-school, and a
disreputable year of petty crime in slum areas, Elvis
found himself drawn towards social work. This was El
Vismit’s first big success: one reason why he had bid so
high for this incarnation was that he saw all along that
once he had got Elvis’ body out of his family circle and
into the slums, then he had a chance to communicate with
i t (or gi vi ng i t a gl i mpse of i ts True Wi l l) .
A long hard struggle developed between Elvis, his chosen
work, and his family background. One thing that encour-
aged him (though he never told anyone else) was an old
gypsy clairvoyant who told him he had been an
Elizabethan street minstrel, a poor Celt, and a Roman
slave in former lives. Before he died, Elvis at last man-
aged to reconcile his family to his social work, and some
of the family fortune was diverted into charitable trusts.
This restored El Vismit’s Karmic balance considerably,
but El Vismit was still sorry that another incarnation
had passed without the body having any real Knowledge
and Conversation of its Holy Guardian Angel: Elvis had
begun to sense El Vismit, but had never actually realised
hi m.
It took two more incarnations before El Vismit managed
to awaken his steed, and another five before he managed
an almost totally conscious incarnation and lead a human
being into Buddhahood. Then and only then was El Vismit
wise enough to be released as a free citizen of his own
worl d. z,c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Note that El Vismit had to pay for his incarnation: the
currency was Karma, and even the meanest incarnation
costs a lot. El Vismit’s less advanced brethren might have
to opt for an animal incarnation for more elementary
practice. Very incomplete souls can often enter Elvis’
world in a purely abstract capacity as spirits or demons.
But the most sought after prize is a human incarnation
( cf. Jung’s VII Sermones which suggest that the Gods are
many, but men are few, and that numberless Gods await
the human state) and these di scarnate spi ri ts wi l l try to
grab the reins if they can (cf possession and obsession) .
The horse and rider analogy is perhaps a good one, but I
do not think that El Vismit has the power to dismount
before death: he is utterly committed and is at the mercy
of his own failure. Elvis is well able to resist El Vismit
and follow his “lower” nature alone, but he will do so
under difficulty, feeling the jerk of the reins and the pain
of the spurs but without understanding their message.
If these obstacles, and the subtle sense of aimlessness or
dissatisfaction goad him into some measure of co-opera-
ti on wi th hi s ‘ hi gher sel f’ (cf individuation) then a
greater sense of purpose arises. But a life is not neces-
sarily any easier, because El Vismit has his own Karmic
debts to pay: you do not break in a horse in order to leave
it grazing, but in order to fulfil some task. The more this
co-operation is developed the more Elvis becomes one
wi t h El Vi smi t (cf. the development of a soul that can
reincarnate as described by Gurdjieff. It is not the lower
El vi s that wi l l rei ncarnate, onl y that part of hi m whi ch
manages to identify with El Vismit). A very advanced
being could hit jackpot and reincarnate consciously (cf. z,z
8
The
St ar wi ng
Di al ogue
some Buddhist ideas). Note also that there is co-opera-
ti on rather than ri val ry between those, l i ke El Vi smi t, i n
human incarnation: the more enlightened humans there
are the better chance each rider has of taming his steed
i n thi s or future i ncarnati ons.
So that is one theory thrown up by the Science-fiction
approach. I mentioned early on that the three different
approaches are complimentary and can cast light on each
other: my italicised comments give give some idea of how
this approach could provide insights to fuel the academic
approach. Two examples will illustrate how the academ-
ic approach can cast light on this model: the myth of
Atlantis and the concept of the Devil,
The myth of Atlantis suggests that, in prehistory, there
was a precociously advanced civilisation but that it
turned bad and was virtually wiped out. This would sug-
gest that the fi rst attempts by our creators to “enter”
our universe were misjudged. Once the world had evolved
a suitable human vehicle for their purposes, they begun
by doing the obvious thing: instead of forming an uncon-
scious link with the human mind as suggested, they
entered into a conscious rapport and lived directly in the
human mind.
This produced a much more dramatic raising of con-
sciousness, and this terrific evolutionary boost led to a
technically and socially precocious civilisation in a
primitive world. Unfortunately they did not make suffi-
cient allowance for the strength of the minds they had
entered, the strong feelings that had evolved in their
created universe, and this “lower nature” in some cases
overwhelmed the higher mind that had entered it. This
corruption spread and caused the collapse of Atlantis. z,:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
But the lesson was learned: from then on the higher mind
stood behind the scenes in the unconscious and directed
the evolution of the lower mind in this slower, but in the
long term safer way as suggested in the El Vismet story.
Now about the Devil......
My basic assumption all along is that the programmed
ordering of information leads to the creation of some
form of consciousness. So the world that was created is
itself a conscious entity; this consciousness is the
‘supreme god’ of that world. Now the creators of this
worl d i ni ti al l y had thei r own pl ans for i ts use, but
unfortunatel y thei r creati on proved rather wi l ful , i t
would not co-operate and began to cause trouble in their
worl d. As ‘ puni shment’ for thi s pri de, or for thei r own
protecti on, they cut off i ts i nputs i nto thei r worl d. In
other words Lucifer was cast out of heaven.
In his turn Lucifer has fought back, instilled an element
of his own willfulness into the most highly evolved
species in the world. As a direct result of this he managed
to repulse one invasion of ‘his’ territory when he cor-
rupted the Atlanteans, now his creators have been forced
into more subtle methods to win back their territory:
they are trying to lure mankind into enlightenment.
The creators have invested to much into their creation,
and love it too much, just to “pull out the plug”. By a
cleverly low-profile guerrilla attack they managed to
slip Jesus into the works despite a wholesale massacre of
babies: but they only succeeded because everyone was
z,¸
8
The
St ar wi ng
Di al ogue
expecting the invasion to take the form of a conquering
king at that time.
Now, as Mary Stewart Relfe assures us, the antichrist is
once more in full control and his message is as follows:
1. You, mankind are being used. This ‘higher nature’
that tries to ‘elevate’ mankind is no more working for
manki nd than the ‘ hi gher nature’ i n the fl our mi l l whi ch
sets out to refine the flour into white flour.
I, on the other hand, am one of you. I’m not an outsider,
but part of the same creation. So shake off these so called
‘divine influences’ and follow me. I will show you that
your true self lies within this world, not in some higher
world. And don’t worry, nobody is going to pull out the
pl ug” .
In repl y our creators say “Luci fer can onl y l ook
inwards, he does not know the full details of the Divine
Plan we have for you. Trust us, after all even he trusts
us not to pull out the plug”.
The philosophical approach makes its own contribution
here, by asking “was this world really created for the
purpose of educating the likes of El Vismit, or was it cre-
ated for some other purpose which was thwarted by
Luci fer’ s ‘ fal l ’ ? If so i s El Vi smi t’ s educati on a by-
product of a genuine battle to conquer territory created
by Luci fer si nce hi s fal l ?”
Picking with Discrimination’ s Medicated Chopsticks
through my verbal diarrhoea, you discover that I have
invented a model of our reality that offers interesting
insights into the nature of creation, of free will, of True
z,,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Will, of Karma, of Evil, of spiritual attainment and of
diarrhoea.
But I myself have so exhausted myself in the process that
I have quite lost track of what I was writing about. And
it’s bed time.
So best wishes from
Ramsey Dukes
z,¸
8
The
St ar wi ng
Di al ogue
The problem with any fourfold scheme is that it tends to be
resolved by our minds into pairs of opposites, and this leads
to confl i ct or rej ecti on. Perhaps the answer i s to use the
scheme rather than think about it? An orienteer makes good
use of his compass without getting into tangles about the
‘ Nort h/ Sout h di vi de’ or ‘ East / West ’ di sput es.
Though some folks despise neat, oversimple models or prin-
ciples, the SSOTBME model in this chapter has been a useful
compass to me because i never spent much time worrying
whether, for exampl e, economi cs was art or sci ence. Yet i
do recognise the this problem with fourfold schemes, and
the book ‘The Good The Bad The Funny’ presents my solu-
ti on.
z,o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
9 - CHAPTER NINE OF SSOTBME REVISITED
Fi rst publ i shed i n Arrow 17
The success of Johnstone’s Paradox Revisited must have
gone to my head, as I decided to look back at some other ideas.
In this case I chose my ropey predictions in Chapter Nine of
SSOTBME (original edition) to see if a bit of fudging could
i mprove on them. I sti l l qui te l i ke the arti cl e that resul ted.
The media’s perception of the hippy phenomenon of the 60s
seems quite bizarre to me, and quite out of step with obser-
vation and individual opinion. This is is typified by a cranky
statement I heard on tel evi si on thi s week: “the 60s di dn’ t
change anything - things are worse now”! (I hope the
“nuclear button” never gets into the hands of people who
believe that things are unchanged when you make them
wor se. )
I see profound changes spreading like ripples from the 60s.
Mrs Thatcher could never have become Prime Minister in the
sati ri cal atmosphere of the l ate fi fti es and earl y si xti es - her
chauvinism and moral crusading would have been laughed out
of court. Hippy ideology has taught us that it is ok to have
principles and that you can turn back the clock at the same
ti me as you turn i t forward. The worl d i s ful l of si gns that
people have learned these lessons - even if many of them
have responded by with principles which oppose those of the
hippies, and a desire to turn the clock back to the wrong
moments.
To the media there would be only one proof of success for the
60s: if we had become locked in time with no further change
of fashion, or philosophy, and if psychedelic music had domi-
nated the charts for evermore. It i s the ol d dream of i mpos-
i ng the stamp of your wi l l i rrevocabl y on exi stence, and the
medi a sti l l l i ve i n that dream. I hear tv barons descri be thei r
hobby as “the most powerful medi um i n the hi story of ci vi l-
z,,
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
isation”, but when you ask why they show so much rubbish
on television they are quick to point out that they are at the
mercy of the “rati ngs” and the adverti sers. So much for
power: all I see is a deluded system tossed about like froth on
the surface of deep tides totally beyond its grasp.
This old dream - of the powerful manipulator who moulds his-
tory to hi s wi l l - cannot survi ve i n face of what we know
about the unpredictability of turbulent systems. We cannot
now believe in the old duality of those who are working for
good and those who are working for evil, because to make any
change is to invoke uncertainty. The new duality is between
those who wish to keep things as they are, and those who
wish change. Mrs Thatcher is an unwitting avatar of chaos.
I see many changes since the 60s: the fact that they are not
precisely, or even approximately, the changes that the hip-
pies wanted to see does not deny their existence.
It i s often poi nted out that the worl d i s more materi al i sti c,
rather than less so now. But I do not yet see a whole-heart-
ed embraci ng of the materi al worl d, al l I see i s a hysteri cal
outward expressi on of shal l ow greed - the sort of reacti on
one would expect from a person of troubled conscience.
Somewhere I wrote that the aggressi ve revol uti onary mood
of the mid-70s did not feel like genuine revolution to me, it
felt more like something that a schoolmaster would recog-
nise: society was behaving like a class of lively kids who
were tryi ng to provoke teacher i nto di sci pl i ni ng them.
In the same way I cannot respect today’ s materi al i sti c atti-
tudes: they are too much on the surface and too hysterical:
they look more like the behaviour of adolescents who have
been brought up to believe in spiritual values and who are
rebelling against them in order to provoke God into manifes-
tati on. They have more of the qual i ty of hysteri cal behavi our
before the bomb drops, than any genuine reappraisal of the
val ues of materi al exi stence.
z,8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
The gurus of the 60s have given us their messages and they
have sunk home. “Home” i s, however, far from the surface
that deni es i t.
Johnstone’s Paradox Revisited - my article in Arrow 15
- actually provoked a response! This was so encourag-
ing that I decided to dig around for something else worth
revisiting, and came up with the following.
During 1982 I realised that the focus of my interests had
shifted from occultism to the performing arts: nothing
very sudden or extreme, indeed I would have overlooked
the slight change of balance were it not for a growing
impression that the public in general were losing their
fascination with the occult. Several occultist friends
were feeling disillusioned, bookshop keepers reported a
drop in sale of occult books, and such Festivals as ‘Mind
& Body’ seemed to be losing their popular support. I was
reminded of Chapter Nine in SSOTBME.
To save repeating myself I must reproduce the argument
as scantily as possible: that won’t make it very convinc-
ing, but why should I assume that you want to be con-
vinced?
SSOTBME
Any conscious act/thought involves
a) data to be processed,
b) a way of processing it.
Firstly the data: this can come from two directions,
ei ther from ‘ wi thout’ or from ‘ wi thi n’ . Data from
‘without’ comes via the senses: I call this ‘observation’.
z,,
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
Data from ‘within’ comes via memory, prejudice, inspi-
rati on etc: I cal l thi s ‘ i ntui ti on’ .
Secondly the data processing: You can link ideas logical-
ly, rationally: I call this ‘logic’ . Or you can link them
aesthetically, quickly sensing things which ‘go together’
even when the logical link between them is very obscure:
this process I call ‘feeling’.
Two methods of input (observation and intuition) com-
bine with two types of processing (logic and feeling) to
give four kinds of thinking which I call Magical, Artistic,
Religious, Scientific. Remember two things: firstly any
division into just four categories must be very coarse, so
do not interpret these four terms too precisely; they are
very broad categories, but I still think the four words
used are fairly appropriate. Secondly, all human think-
ing is an elaborate mixture of all elements, so these four
categories really only indicate directions, like North
South East West, rather than watertight compartments.
Many wondrous secrets of the universe are distilled for
the amazement and delight of the enquiring reader from
this simple idea in SSOTBME, and in the original edi-
tion’s Chapter Nine it is considered in evolutionary
terms as follows.
THE PERSONAL CYCLE
A new born baby has very little store of memories and
prejudices, so it is very much an observer as opposed to
intuitive. And it processes its observations more by feel-
ing than logic (‘big soft pink things are to be sucked’).
Thus we begin our lives as ‘magical’ thinkers.
z8c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
By the age 4-5 we have built up an inner world of mem-
ories which begins to overwhelm observation and shift
the emphasis toward intuition, but we still have not
mastered real logic. So we evolve into ‘Artistic’ think-
ing, a golden age when we live out myths of fairies and
dragons and can believe in them when we want to: the
armchair is a space ship when we play with it.
Around 9 or so the growing sense of intuition has over-
whelmed feeling and the reasoning power grows stronger.
Sti l l l i vi ng off our ri ch i nner worl ds, we be i nner worl d
of memories which begins to overwhelm observation and
shift the emphasis toward intuition, but we still have not
mastered real logic. So we evolve into ‘Artistic’ think-
ing, a golden age when we live out myths of fairies and
dragons and can believe in them when we want to: the
armchair is a space ship when we play with it.
Around 9 or so the growing sense of intuition has over-
whelmed feeling and the reasoning power grows stronger.
Sti l l l i vi ng off our ri ch i nner worl ds, we begi n to won-
der why things are as they are. This rather serious-
minded phase of ‘Religious’ thinking lasts until after 13
when logic grows to dominate intuition, and a growing
awareness of the outside world moves us into ‘Scientific’
thinking: ‘just give me one good reason why I can’t stay
out all night,’ demands the teenager.
To a rationalist the above passage is just a rather quaint-
ly worded model of the evolution of thought through var-
ious primitive stages towards ‘adult, rational thinking’.
But I argue that this cycle does not stop at adolescence. I
recall how my own observation grew so strong that I
began to notice the flaws in scientific thought and the
areas of life it could not explain away: so I inclined z8z
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
toward magical thinking as a student, at the age when so
many of us become interested in the occult. After 23 or
so we once more act out myths - the Young Man with
Sports Car, the Newlyweds, etc. - until the ‘saturn
return’ and the approaching age of 30 makes us once
more seriously question our real purpose in life.
The cycle moves on - but becomes less and less clearcut,
because most of us will have developed a natural bias
towards one of the four directions, which tends to
obscure the shifting emphasis in adult years.
THE GENERATION CYCLE
Now occult cycles tend to ‘nest’, like wheels within
wheels: each sephiroth contains a whole tree of life, each
sign contains the germ of the whole zodiac. So this cycle,
which does one circuit in one generation, might lie inside
a bigger cycle which runs at one quarter of the speed. Is
there any evidence of this?
Let us consider the recent occult revival; did it not last
for about one generation? Now I know that the real occult
revival is not totally dead, something lives on, but let us
isolate exactly what it is that has flared up an died away
so quickly.
Surely it is this: between the early sixties and the
beginning of the eighties the public got its kicks from
occultism; sensational coverage of parascience, lurid
exposes of witches, books on black magic and record cov-
ers l i ttered wi th occul t symbol i sm.
But if we go back four generations (I assume about 18
years for a generation, but it might have been more like
z8:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
21 years in the past) we reach the Edwardian age before
the first world war. Theatre posters of that age are so
rich in occult symbolism (bowls of incense, Egyptian
gods etc.) that this ‘art nouveau’ style was actually one of
the main sources of inspiration for the recent psychedel-
ic style. This was the age when the Golden Dawn attract-
ed public attention and so many occult orders briefly
fl ouri shed.
Why this flirtation with the occult? As the previous
(late Victorian) generation of theatre posters reveal a
craze for public scientific demonstrations, it suggests
that the Edwardian occult revival could have been a reac-
tion against late Victorian materialism; just as the
hippy generation reacted against 50s materialism.
And the late Victorian public flirtation with science had
followed the rise of Darwinism, and what must have
looked like the fall of religion.
Tracing the cycle backward I would expect to find an
early Victorian ‘artistic’ boom (perhaps this set the
style for ‘Victoriana’?) and before that another occult
revival. Sure enough, I find evidence that in the early
1820s fashionable society was obsessed with spiritual-
i sm.
So let us trace this apparent cycle forwards to the pres-
ent. After world war one public excitement moved from
magical to artistic expression, and there came the roar-
ing twenties which saw the popularisation of so many
modern art movements, an obsession with dancing and
jazz, and a spate of publicity stunts like long-distance
flying records, dancing marathons etc.
z8¸
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
Out of this crazy spell the public emerged into a more
serious mood. They evolved toward religious thinking
for kicks, and this showed in a growing dedication to
political movements: the communists, fascists and green
shi rts of the thi rti es and earl y forti es.
After world war two, technology seemed to offer enough
wonders to make the public forget politics. The Festival
of Britain was a festival of technology, and this ‘scientif-
ic’ obsession lasted until the first sputniks, and it began
to fade in the early sixties.
So, in terms of this cycle, we are in a position equivalent
to the position around 1920. At the end of world war one
the Luton town hall was burned down by angry ex-sol-
diers who had returned from the trenches to find they
were unemployed, and their women had grown independ-
ent.
I see some parallels; I see some differences. The punks
are surely the spiritual heirs to the dadaists: those
fi ercel y anarchi c ‘ anti -arti sts’ who, for exampl e, hel d
exhibitions of ‘junk’ in public lavatories. I note that so
much present day pop music is monotonously dance-
rhythmic, whereas ten years ago we used to sit cross-
legged to listen to our music, and occasionally murmur
such biting critical comments as ‘far-out, man!’ I also
witness a growing tendency for record-breaking stunts
as a route to fleeting fame.
On the strength of this slender evidence, dare I make
predictions? Of course not! Oh, what the hell, here
goes....
z8,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
PREDICTIONS
First question: Does this mean the end of occultism?
Was the whole magical revival a mere passing fad?
Not at all. When we reacted against 50s materialism we
did not throw away our transistor radios, we were mere-
ly less inclined to show them off. There was surely more
widespread technology about in 1970 than in 1950;
more electronics in our music, more portable radios and
so on. But we used these gadgets (sometimes a little
coyly) rather than raved about them, as we would have in
the ‘ super-soni c, ul tra-mi dget j et-propel l ed’ days of
the fi fti es.
Now I do not really believe that the ‘great occult explo-
sion’ we have witnessed has really given birth to many
great adepts as yet. It was mostly a lot of froth.
In 1970 the general public attitude was to get frightful-
ly excited if you met someone who ‘actually practiced
witchcraft’; to talk for ages about ‘mysterious psychic
powers’; and to be proud to believe there might ‘really
be something in astrology’.
I can see the time coming shortly when people will dis-
cover than many of their acquaintances are witches,
actually practice yoga for fifteen minutes a day, or have
the gift of recognising astrological types, but that they
‘never bothered to mention the fact’. Occultism will be
practiced, rather than talked about.
So my first prediction for the 80s is that sales of occult
books will not recover, but that the books bought will be
z8¸
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
rather better used than those bought in the recent past.
Occultism will become a rather more everyday matter.
Secondly, what about this revival of fascination with the
arts? There should be a growth of new movements in the
arts if the cycle runs true to form. Now I find this very
interesting, because it is all too easy to believe that there
can be nothing left in the way of artistic expression that
was not tried out in the 1920s. So what could be total-
l y new?
Let us consider new art forms rather than movements.
Two totally new art forms emerged into the thirties:
radio and cinema. There has not been any other really
new art form si nce. (TV i s onl y real l y mi ni -ci nema,
whatever its fans try to claim for it, and electronic
music also dates from the earlier era).
At the end of world war one both film and radio were, to
the general public, little more than technical diversions
for low-brow amusement. By the beginning of the thir-
ties it was possible to go to the cinema for a profoundly
moving experience, and radio serials could keep families
on tenterhooks for night after night. Two great new art
forms had come of age.
Now I can immediately think of one 19890s technical
diversion that is far from being Great Art: video games
are i n thei r i nfancy.
Video games bore me to death, but I see potential.
Dungeons & Dragons is an attempt to lead the soul on a
mystery quest, an initiatory journey akin to that trod by
the celebrants at Eleusis. But it is so crude.
z8o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
The essential difference between video games and televi-
sion lies in the vital ingredient of spectator interaction.
That is why they could claim to be a totally new art form,
where television could not. When this interaction grows
more subtle, amazing possibilities could emerge.
Imagine a video game machine which could make judg-
ments about the person playing it, based upon such con-
siderations as:
a) how fast he reacts to different stimuli,
b) how boldly or tentatively he pushes the buttons,
c) changing skin resistance as certain words or situ-
ations are presented on the screen,
d) freudian slips etc.
Such a machine could present a tailor-made series of
ordeals that would amount of an initiatory journey for
each individual player.
The trouble with present-day occult initiation is the
cynical realisation that the adept at whose feet you sit is
probably only human, all too human: how would you feel
about a machine that can analyse you in minutes and out-
wi t you at every turn?
I predi ct that by the year 2000 [woops!hasn’t happened
to me yet! The games hardware hasn’t yet incorporated
the skin resistance ‘lie detector’ into the joy-stick to
monitor the players level of arousal] we will be able to
come out of a games arcade with tears on our cheeks,
souls in a turmoil of wonderment, - every bit as pro-
found and fruitful as the wonderment engendered by a
great fi l m or pl ay.
z8,
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
Third question, and I’ve kept the most lurid one to the
end, what are the prospects for ‘over the top’ occultism?
The recent revival of occultism owed a lot to those sensi-
ble, down-to-earth occultists who showed the public that
we were not all crazy.
The essence of the typical positive magazine article on
the occult ten years ago was as follows: ‘I was so sur-
prised to find that in my quiet little neighbourhood, there
should actually be a group of people who took an interest
in these weird ideas, that it took me some time to pluck
up courage to go along to one of their meetings. There I
had my second surprise: far from being a bunch of wild-
eyed whackos they were all really nice down-to-earth
people from all walks of life: a teacher, a computer
salesman, a bank clerk, a psychologist, three house-
wives. And I heard more straight commonsense being
spoken in that group than I’d heard for a long time else-
where’ .
Yes, occultism earned respect because decent occultists
publicly divorced themselves from ‘those lunatics that
give occultism a bad name’; yet this repeated denial of
those lunatics is now in danger of becoming a mechanical
catch phrase. By playing so safe, are we perhaps throw-
ing away too much?
Here follows an outrageous invocation: ‘O ye big, hairy,
wild-eyed mega-thelemites of 1973, all ye sons and
reincarnations of the Beast, come back, for All is forgiv-
en! ’
How dare I perpetrate this outrage? Because I argue
thus: granted that 99% of those mega-thelemites might z88
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
have been mere empty shells of ego inflation being born
aloft on the spume of public sensationalism, then they
will never answer my invocation anyway; because they
will simply collapse before the laughter of the rather
more cynical public of the 80s.
On the other hand if some bearded, becloaked and wild
eyed being does storm into the public arena with a fusil-
lade of smoke bombs and a twirling of magic wands, call-
ing itself the Antichrist, claiming to know the secrets of
the universe (and being prepared to sell them for some
extortionate sum of money) then my immediate 1983
reaction might not be ‘that lunatic is giving occultism a
bad name’ but rather ‘Wow! I admire such courage’. [ Al l
hai l Mari l yn Manson!]
I can see the progression of public crazes from science,
through magic, to art in these terms: a person grows
weary of the stol i d know-al l -the-answers certai nti es of
rationalism; nervously he approaches magic in search of
the miraculous.
Relief! his fears were unfounded! Magic is not madness;
he finds an acceptable alternative to rationalism but,
alas, the very sensibleness of magic eventually begins to
pall; perhaps it was madness that was really wanted all
along?
So we progress into the artistic craze and it lasts until a
growing sense of guilt, or something, leads us out of it.
In these terms the ‘over the top’ magician could have a
real place in the 1980s. [Perhaps those ‘Satan’ scandals
of the late 80s and early 90s fitted the bill?]
z8,
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
Consider again the transition from Edwardian occultism
to the roaring 20s. Some time after writing the Book of
the Law, Aleister Crowley decided to give up magic and to
concentrate his attention on poetry, mountain climbing
and such pursuits.
But in the 20s he re-emerged to fame as the ‘wickedest
man in the world’. How much was his own innate degen-
eracy, as his detractors would have it, and how much was
a genuine response to the need of the age?
It does not just take courage to go ‘over the top’, it takes
humility. Recently Ramsey Dukes, in financial straits,
saw Jupiter and Venus about to bestow their generous
favours upon certain sensitive points of his horoscope.
So he made a pact with Fate and filled in a football pool
coupon, saying ‘make me a pools millionaire and I will
buy a mansion, fill it with weirdies, devise a ‘heavy
metal’ magical philosophy to make Kenneth Grant read
l i ke Beatri x Potter, and announce mysel f as he
Ant i chri st . ’
However Fate, with a remarkable show of good taste,
walked by and left Ramsey Dukes in financial straits.
Ramsey reckons that was because of his unconquered ego:
amongst all the glare of publicity, the scandal, the out-
rage and the money, Ramsey would not have been able to
resist the temptation of letting out the fact that, beneath
it all, he was still basically quite a nice person. In fact
Ramsey was not prepared to sacrifice All for the Cause.
Raspberries on toast.
So that is my third prediction: although the mainstay of
occultism in the 80s is going to be very practical and z,c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
‘ unexci t i ng’ [the ‘New Age’ fitted the bill on that
account], there will be a definite place open for a small
but very intense brand of ‘over the top’ magic.
AQUARIAN AGE
Now I have written at length about a fleeting human cycle
of merely 75 years duration. In view of our high expec-
tations of the occult revival in 1970, does this mean I
have made a mockery of the Age of Aquarius?
If you believe that wearing a kaftan, smoking dope while
sitting cross legged and saying ‘far out man’ is truly the
be-all of the Age of Aquarius then I would agree that in
1982 the last remains of the Age of Aquarius were final-
ly scraped off the greasy plate of public adulation into the
pedal bin of history. (Don’t be misled by this cynicism:
I do think that the hippy craze was very important.
What I am saying is that it was ‘eighteen years’ impor-
tant, not ‘two thousand years, important.)
But if you can recognise those facets of the occult revival
which are merely transitory and, having isolated them,
can turn to see what remains, then a very different pic-
ture emerges.
We have looked at the SSOTBME cycle at the human level,
let us now look at it at a slower, cosmic level and see if
Ramsey can flog a little more juice out of his poor, hard-
pressed theories. Faster moving cycles are more fun,
but the soul does yearn for more depth.
What happened to the Age of Aquarius? Around 1970 it
was very tempting to equate the coming of the Age of
Aquarius with the flourishing hippy movement. The
z,z
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
trouble with so doing is that the waning of the hippy
movement then suggests the waning of the Age of
Aquarius.
Personally I feel that people expect too much too fast of
the Age of Aquarius, and I predict that most of us will go
to our graves still not knowing what its significance will
be, or whether it has ‘really begun’. In the first part of
this essay I argued that the hippy movement was not so a
symptom of the 2000 year Age of Aquarius, as an 18-20
year generational effect: a much more fleeting and triv-
ial cycle, but still one well worth considering simply
because it was much more immediate and relevant to
everyday affai rs. It arose from consi deri ng the
SSOTBME model in a personal, human evolutionary con-
text.
Before saying any more about historical cycles I should
point out that my emphasis on cycles is not meant to deny
a progressive view of history. A spiral of evolution is a
useful concept, and such a spiral (or helical) motion can
be analysed as the sum of a linear (progressive) and cir-
cular (cyclic) motion. My concentration on the cycles
could help us to recognise them for what they are, and
perhaps therefore make it easier in the long run to
recognise true progress where it exists.
THE COSMIC CYCLES
My cycle of about 75 years was made up of 4 generations
of about 18 years. It was a cycle based on a ‘human’
timescale. But a 2000 year Age of Aquarius exists not
on a human, but on a ‘cosmic’ level. If the SSOTBME
cycle is relevant to that level, then which of the four
z,:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
states is most appropriate to the Age of Aquarius:
Religion, Science, Magic or Art?
Those of us too heavily programmed to equate the Age of
Aquarius with the events around 1970 might jump to
reply ‘Magic’, but I would not agree.
The air signs are traditionally associated with logical
reasoni ng, and the equi nocti al precessi on through
Aquarius to Capricorn, i.e., through Air to Earth, is very
suggestive of the SSOTBME cycle progression from logic
to observation through the ‘Science’ sector. Uranus, the
ruler of Aquarius, is also ruler of science, invention,
electronics, etc. I know there is a traditional attribution
of ‘Uranus the Magician’, but surely that is more a ref-
erence to the ‘magic of science’ or the working of won-
ders than to truly magical working.
So I would expect the Scientific spirit to rule the Age of
Aquarius. In this case the previous age would have been
rul ed by the Rel i gi ous spi ri t - i s thi s true? I thi nk
there can be little doubt as to this. The last two thousand
years have been dominated by what I called the
‘ Rel i gi ous’ spi ri t - whether i n the form of rel i gi on per
se, or i n the form of strong pol i ti cal convi cti on.
Religion has been taken very seriously, to an extent that
makes the religions of the pre-christian era seem com-
paratively frivolous. Most of the wars of the Age of
Pisces have been fought from a basically religious or
pol i ti cal moti vati on.
By contrast it is easy to believe that wars of the two
thousand years before the Age of Pisces were fought not
so much for religious reasons as for greed. There is a
definite impression in that era of one nation becoming z,¸
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
fascinated by another nation’s culture, and its treasures,
and going to war in order to gain those treasures.
Certainly the Romans were fascinated by the Greek cul-
ture, and Alexander’s conquests are popularly associated
with his collection of all the wisdom of the world into the
great library he founded.
So I suggest that, true to the model described earlier, the
phase that precedes the Religious phase is the ‘ Artistic’
phase. The two thousand years before Christ were ruled
by the Artistic spirit, the last two thousand years have
been ruled by the Religious spirit, and the Age of
Aquarius is due to be ruled by the Scientific spirit.
If the Age of Aquarius really is to be the Age of Science in
these terms, how has it come to be associated so strongly
with the occult revival? As when we considered the
Personal and the Generational cycles I think the answer
lies in the nested cycle that makes one complete circle in
each two thousand year age: a cycle made up to four peri-
ods of five hundred years.
For the last five hundred years the dominant philosophy
has been the rationalist philosophy that I attribute to the
Science sector in the diagram. Since the sixteenth cen-
tury the earlier Religious ideas have been on the retreat,
in the face of the progress made by Scientific philosophy.
It is tempting to flatter ourselves into believing that this
rational philosophy is a brand new invention without
precedent among our primitive ancestors, who were
willing to bow down and worship just about anything it
seems. So it is surprising to find that the same scepti-
cal, rational philosophy was dominant two thousand
years ago. z,,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
In China at the time writers were making a mockery of
divination and astrology, using just the same sort of
arguments that Patrick Moore would use today. It has
been suggested that only their clumsy numerical system
held the Greeks back from developing practical steam
engines before the birth of Christ. And although ratio-
nalists like to think of alchemy as a primitive supersti-
ti on that gave bi rth to ‘ real ’ chemi stry, i t must be
remembered that alchemy itself grew out of the very
highly developed metallurgical technology of the pre-
Christian arabs.
What I am suggesting is that the rational Scientific phi-
losophy held a dominant position in the five centuries
before Christ which was similar to its position in the last
five hundred years. But, far from marking an end point
in human evolution, this Scientific philosophy evolved
into, or gave way to, a Magical philosophy of the Dark
Ages that spanned the next five centuries.
These were the centuries when the church was struggling
against Gnostic, Neoplatonic and other magical philoso-
phies. The following five centuries, until the year 1000
AD, bear the imprint of an Artistic philosophy: this was
the age of Chivalry, the age of King Arthur and the age in
which most fairy tales are set. Then from the eleventh
to the sixteenth century Religious philosophy ruled
men’s minds.
In this way we see that within the Age of Pisces we have
passed through four philosophical stages (readers with a
better knowledge of history than myself will see from my
cavalier use of historical generalisations that this is a
‘woolly theory’ that I am creating, but they need not dis- z,¸
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
miss it for that reason: when the wind of change blows
cold, nothing is more comforting than a woolly theory, so
long as it does not have too many holes in it.)
But even though Magic, Art, Religion and Science have
each taken turns to dominate man’s thinking, it is the
Religious spirit that has held the reins of power - a
manifestation of the Religious spirit.
In these terms the initial passage into the Age of Aquarius
would be marked by two changes that might at first seem
contradictory: a shift from the Religious spirit of the Age
of Pisces to the Scientific spirit of the Age of Aquarius,
coupled with a growth of Magical philosophy in place of
the Scientific philosophy of the last five centuries.
To resolve the apparent contradiction I will give some
examples of how this might happen.
SCIENCE INTO MAGIC
Consider the Arabic metallurgy that evolved into alche-
my. Before the birth of Christ it was a straightforward,
unmystical technology and it flourished thanks to the
open minded, freely communicating rational philosophy
of that time, and also thanks to its valuable application to
the coining of metal currency and the protection against
counterfeiters.
But around the time of Christ this technology became
increasingly cloaked in secrecy. It seems that the rulers
for whom the metallurgists worked felt driven by greed
(typical of the Artistic spirit of the old Age of Aries) and
desire for political power (contributed by the Religious
z,o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
spirit of the new Age of Pisces) into hushing up the tech-
nologists and forcing them to work in secret.
But the Scientific method depends upon a free exchange of
information; when this is forbidden it begins to develop
Magical tendencies. Cloaked in secrecy and coded in sym-
bols, Arabic science evolved into Alchemy.
Now I can see a similar tendency in modern science. It
has grown so useful that, as before, it is in danger of
becoming muffled.
As before we have the repressive effect of political power
(thanks to the remnant of the Religious spirit of the Age
of Pisces) which tries to imprison scientists into secret
establishments - this is not only done by national gov-
ernments, it is also practiced by commercial combines -
but curiously enough the coming rulership of the Age of
Aquarius by the Scientific spirit is also contributing to
this decline. This is because science has been encouraged
to grow so fast that it becomes the victim of its own divi-
sive, fragmenting tendencies. Even when not repressed,
scientists find it increasingly difficult to communicate
with each other simply because their work has become so
specialised.
This fragmentation and isolation sets the stage for the
decline of Science and the Growth of Magic.
Traditionally, any unusual scientific discoveries, or
controversial experimental results produced in obscure
laboratories, have usually been published and have
either been accepted by the scientific fraternity or else
(as so happens in the case of parascience) they have
proved unacceptable elsewhere and have therefore been
discredited. This process of free communication has z,,
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
tended to sift out anomalies and preserve the purity of
accepted scientific fact.
But if this process is frustrated, so that future scientists
will be working in ever greater isolation, then curious
mutations of accepted scientific fact will no longer be
automatically aborted. Research workers in secret
defence laboratories, who find they can detect enemy
submarines with a dowsing rod, will go on being able to
detect them in this way; and will learn to develop and
extend this skill, shielded from the common scepticism of
the sci enti fi c fraterni ty. (No doubt they wi l l eventual l y
get round to fasting, burning incense and invoking
appropri ate dei ti es to sharpen thei r sensi ti vi ty!)
Another route by which Science could evolve into Magic
lies along the increasing dependence upon statistical evi-
dence as ever soggier ‘soft sciences’ are evolved. As
explained in SSOTBME, once you start to make predic-
tions upon a basis of previous statistical correlation
alone - without constructing any theoretical causal
framework - then you are being no more scientific than
an astrologer who learns to interpret charts from expe-
rience. This is true however impressive sounding are
the figures quoted.
Similarly the advertising agency that offers to replace
your ‘haphazard, unprofessional approach’ with an ‘up-
to-the-minute, scientific promotional strategy’ and does
so by giving your brand name a ‘new image’ to ‘optimize
positive consumer reaction’; by suggesting a fresh new
colour scheme based on bright tints with ‘proven high
sti mul us response’ ; by l i tteri ng your adverts wi th
trendy imagery in order to ‘redefine the catchment cat-
egory by maximizing appeal at a lower age band’; this z,8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
advertising agency, for all its fancy pseudo-scientific
j argon, i s si mpl y i nvoki ng Mercury to hel p your busi-
ness to prosper.
But the interesting point is that, in none of these three
examples does anyone actually admit to doing Magic, nor
even allow themselves to believe in such nonsense! Why
i s thi s?
I suggest that this is a symptom of the presiding
Scientific spirit of the new age: just as the Magic of the
Age of Pisces was so often safely cloaked in the mantle of
Religion, or Religious terminology, so will the accepted
magic of the Age of Aquarius be ever wrapped in pseudo-
sci enti fi c j argon.
As a matter of interest on this score, when I suggested
that in the Age of Aries major wars were fought in the
‘ Arti sti c’ spi ri t of cul tural take-over bi ds, and i n the
Age of Pisces major wars were fought on ‘Religious’
grounds; we would then expect wars in the coming Age of
Aquarius to be fought on ‘Scientific’ grounds!
Does this mean that the trend-setting war for the coming
age was the Spanish Civil War, when the Nazis apparent-
ly entered the war not so much for political commitment
as in order to try out their new weapons?
And is this why, although we now publicly praise our
heroic veterans of the Falklands, at the time of the con-
flict there was actually more talk about how well our
previously untried weapons were performing in the
fi el d?
z,,
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
How long will the public put up with the omnipresent
uncertainty as to whether the world would survive a
nuclear war until, in despair, it demands that the ques-
tion be resolved in a practical test?
In other words, might not the next world war be less of
an ideological struggle but rather more of an experiment
in response to a group need to generate a catastrophe in a
world too heavily policed to allow for any minor revolu-
t i ons?
SUMMARY
In this essay I have looked at the trends accompanying the
transition into the Age of Aquarius, and I have isolated
three separate cyclic phenomena. Whether this has
clarified the question, or merely confused it is up to the
individual to decide. I feel that it has at least resolved
some paradoxes.
For one thing I was never totally happy with the idea that
came across in, for example, the musical ‘Hair’; the idea
that the Age of Aquarius was an age of groovy, turned on,
zonked out, free spirited Love. This hardly lined up with
my idea of the astrological sign of Aquarius as a fixed air
sign (in fact it sounded rather more like the idea of
Pisces than the clear, detached Aquarian ideal!).
The passing of the hippy era does not by any means mean
that it was a trivial fashion, but it does suggest that it
was not essentially linked to the Age of Aquarius. My
discussion of the Generational Cycle puts the hippy rev-
ol uti on i n i ts pl ace - wi thout tri vi al i si ng i t i n the way
loved by cynical journalists.
:cc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
The Uri Geller craze has abated, but still we see a
steady evolution towards Magical thinking in the sciences
- how does this fit in with the Age of Aquarius? My
‘philosophical’ cycle of four periods of five centuries
each would fit this apparent progression from Science
into Magic.
But why is it that we occultists are nevertheless denied
the satisfaction of seeing our subject granted official
recognition? I suggest that this is due to the Scientific
spirit of the Age of Aquarius, which will ensure that the
name of Science is ever revered, and that in coming cen-
turies occult movements will remain as ‘underground’
movements except when disguised in scientific jargon
(e.g. Scientology).
The same will be true of Religious movements: I suspect
they i n turn wi l l need to j usti fy thei r ‘ psychol ogi cal
validity’ if they are to be officially recognised.
The trouble with this essay is that I am ignorant of his-
tory and have made sweeping assumptions. Would a
careful study of history reinforce these ideas or would it
disprove them? Alternatively, was my ignorance a nec-
essary condition for clairvoyance?
[Actually, I’ve since said all this stuff much better in the
new revised edition of SSOTBME!]
:cz
9
SSOTBME
Revi si t ed
“Farewel l to Synthesi s” from the Gol den hi nd Vol 1 No 3 by
trickster-magus and master of illusions Austin Osman Spare
:c:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
10 - THE CHARLATAN AND THE MAGUS
First published in The Lamp of Thoth
This essay was written for reading out at a meeting of The
Soci ety, London, i n Spri ng 1984, hence i ts “l ecture” styl e
and hence the references to Ellic Howe, who was also a mem-
ber of The Society and who had been investigating the histo-
ry of the OTO in the same critical spirit as in his book about
the Golden Dawn.
It remai ns my favouri te essay, and i ts theme i s sti l l dear to
my heart .
Recently a friend read me a draft chapter of a novel he
was writing. It was a novel of a spiritual quest, and in
this chapter there was a chance encounter of the hero and
a group of bohemian extraverts at a cafe table: they
joined up for a meal and some wine together, and this
encounter was later destined to lead to the next clue in the
hero’s search.
I was asked for comment on the chapter, and one comment
that I made has since haunted me. I asked if this encounter
was a truly important signpost upon the hero’s spiritu-
al highway. It was. In that case my suggestion was that, at
the end of their meal together, the group should find
themselves slightly short of cash, to the effect that the
hero then felt obliged to foot the remainder of the bill.
Why did this seem right? Why did literary aesthetics
seem to require that an important step on the spiritual
path be marked by an element of roguery? not so much an
out and out swindle that would have turned the hero away
in disgust, but rather just that streak of caddishness that
would allow the group to order more wine than they could :c¸
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
afford, on the strength of an unconscious calculation of
the hero’s assets and his sense of generosity, or even his
fear of unpleasantness.
Why i s i t ri ght that an i mportant spi ri tual turni ng poi nt
should be just sufficiently tainted, as to give the hero
reason to pause before stepping forward? For might he
not well have spent the evening fuming that he had been
conned into paying the drinks, and decided to have no
more to do with his new-found acquaintances? and might
he not as a result have missed his chance?
If I sense that spiritual diamonds should always come
with a bit of muck upon them, am I only reflecting a cyn-
ical lesson that my own inadequate life has forced upon
me, or am I in fact tuning in to a vital cosmic principle?
For a start: was this idea of mine a purely personal aber-
ration? My first evidence to the contrary is that the
author agreed with my suggestion, and proceeded to write
i t i nto hi s next draft.
A TRICKY PROBLEM
The subject of this essay is literally a tricky one.
Normally I do not like to write about a subject until my
views on it are in some sense complete and “buttoned
up” .
In the case of the Charlatan and the Magus I am writing on
a topic that has haunted me for many years, but which is
far from being clarified. Indeed I will be asking more
questions than giving real answers. You may even miss
the point of what I am saying, and wonder if I am simply
pulling your legs.
:c,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of my subject:
perhaps it is right that I should assume the mantle of the
Tri ckster i n tryi ng to wri te about the Tri ckster?
There is, however, one problem that I can anticipate: a
problem best described by analogy. Look at the behaviour
of this pendulum...
[at this point the speaker produced a pendulum, made
from a thin rod with a bar magnet on the bottom end, and
allowed it to oscillate in the magnetic field of a powerful
magnet placed on the table top]
... Notice how its motion is deflected because of opposing
magnetic poles.
The demonstration I really wanted to show you was
rather less portable: it was of a billiard table with a
slight dip in its surface. A ball rolling across that table
and towards that dip would be deflected in a similar fash-
ion to the pendulum. But in this case the motion could be
more easily looked at in two different ways.
From our point of view, as outside observers, the ball
has been very obviously been deflected from the straight
and narrow under the influence of forces connected with
the distortion of the table’s surface. However we can
instead put ourselves imaginatively in the ball’s posi-
tion, and argue that there has been no deflection.
For the definition of a straight line on a billiard table is
that it is the path a ball will roll along unless some out-
side force acts upon it. The ball knows only the two
dimensions of the table’s surface, it does not have our :c¸
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
superior knowledge of the third dimension, and the fact
that the surface is warped in that dimension. So, as far as
the ball is concerned, it has simply rolled along a
strai ght l i ne.
This relativistic argument can be adapted to the demon-
stration of the pendulum: on the one hand we, as outside
observers, can argue that we have seen a pendulum being
deflected by a magnetic force; on the other hand we could
imagine that the pendulum has simply continued upon
what IT thinks is a straight line, because it does not
realise that its local universe has been distorted by a
strong magnetic field.
The analogy that I wish to suggest is this: that just as the
pendulum’s field of movement can be locally distorted by
a powerfully charged magnet, so also can a human’s field
of reason be distorted by a powerfully charged concept.
And in the vicinity of that concept reason can run along a
path that appears warped to an outside observer, yet
appears perfectly straight to the thinker.
Consider a theologian of a past age listening to a brilliant
discourse upon the nature of angels. He is no idiot, he
uses his full knowledge and powers of logic to analyse
what is said, and he is very impressed. That is, until a
chance remark exposes the speaker to be a protestant
hereti c.
Suddenly his whole discourse is so suspect as to be
worthless. As outsiders to a world so heavily charged
with concepts of godliness and heresy, we see that the
listener has been deflected through a complete U-turn as
soon as he approached the realisation that the speaker
was a heretic. :co
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
As outsiders we see a U-turn. But what if we were part
of that theologian’s world? Would we be able to provide a
logical explanation as to why the speaker’s being a
heretic means that he incapable of saying anything
worthwhile about angels?
In other words would we be able to describe the forces
that deflected the theologian’s reason? Or would we take
his reaction so much for granted, that we would refuse to
recognise that his reason HAD done a U-turn?
Do you see the problem?
Well, consider a more contemporary example. The
famous scientist who decides to investigate the paranor-
mal and so arranges a laboratory seance with Minny
Blenkinsop the Flower medium who is at present the big
name amongst spiritualists because of her amazing abil-
i ty to materi al i se fl owers from the spi ri t worl d. The
scientist, after several interesting experiments, catches
Minny smuggling a bunch of violets into the laboratory in
her bloomers. He abandons the experiments forthwith.
I wonder if, in some future age, we might not judge the
scientist’s dismissal of the fraudulent medium to be just
as arbitrary as the theologian’s dismissal of the heretic?
Could our attitudes change to that extent? or is mankind
doomed to lose its apparent ability to make endless fun of
its ancestors?
In SSOTBME I argued that Good versus Evil was the dom-
inant concept of the Age of Pisces, because the spirit of
that age was the religious spirit. And I predicted that the
dominant concept of the Age of Aquarius would be Truth :c,
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
versus Illusion. Now I would like to revise my opinion.
Good versus Evil is always the most heavily charged con-
cept in men’s minds: the difference is that in the Piscean
age “Good” = “God” and “Evi l ” = “the Devi l ”, whi l e i n
t he new age “Good” = “Trut h” and “Evi l ” = “I l l usi on”.
So, when in this essay I attempt to turn our attention to
the very nature of illusion and our response to it, I am
attempting something that makes great demands upon my
audience. And I will need to return again and again to this
analogy. If, instead of averting our gaze in disgust, we
turn to face the Charlatan, then we are doing the psycho-
logical equivalent of a physical investigation in the
vicinity of a Black Hole.
MAGUS OR TRICKSTER?
Who are the great occult figures of this century?
Bl avat sky, St ei ner, Besant , Crowl ey, Gurdj i ef f ,
Rajneesh... Those present might add names like Mathers
and Westcott to the list; the layman might add Uri Geller
and some of the recent gurus from the East. But is there
a single name that is untainted by the smell of charlatan-
r y ?
Whether it is actual fraud - as in Blavatsky’s faked
spiritual phenomena, the holy dust of a recent guru, or
the forged cipher manuscripts of the Golden Dawn - or
whether it is sheer roguery - as in the life of Crowley or
Gurdj i eff - or whether i t i s a most unspi ri tual apti tude
for making easy money - as in most gurus from the East:
whatever form it takes I defy anyone to find a stainless
saint among occult leaders. Even the impeccable
Krishnamurti was created out of scandal. And Lemuel
Johnstone didn’t even have the decency to exist.
:c8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
This is the problem that has haunted me for so long. So let
us examine it straightaway in the light of my analogy.
How did you react to my observation about the occult
leaders? There are two standardised reactions.
The first is to think “well of course they were all char-
latans. That is all occultism is: just a great big con
game”. This is the sceptic’s response.
The second is to think “oh, hell, not another debunking
essay”. This is the reaction of the defensive believer.
A third reaction, the reaction of the committed believer,
is to think, for example, “he’s quite right about all those
other cranks, but surely he has heard that those stories
about Madame Bl avatsky were merel y trumped-up
charges...” and then to regurgitate a mass of evidence that
other historians seem to have overlooked. Or to argue
that “he is right about all those second- rate masters,
but doesn’t he realise that Crowley was simply wise
enough to understand people and to know what compro-
mises are necessary when dealing with the masses...” and
to go on with a most ingenious argument that does not
quite fit all the facts.
All three responses, are liable to totally colour your
whole attitude to this subject. Each reaction amounts to a
deflection from the straight path. All three are so natu-
ral that I cannot yet ask you to resist them, all I ask is
that you pause a moment to think which response is
nearest to your own. To be conscious of your inclination
is the first step towards independence.
What sort of independence might we hope to gain? :c,
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
In Anita Mason’s novel about Simon Magus there is a
lovely portrayal of the rational mentality struggling to
adapt to a world that was slipping into magical thinking.
I have argued elsewhere (SSOTBME and an article in
Arrow 17) that we are at present witnessing a transfor-
mation from an era of basically rational to an era of
basically magical thinking, and that the last time that
this happened was around the birth of Christ - the dif-
ference being that last time it all happened in the name of
religion, while this time it is happening in the name of
science.
In The Illusionist we are at one point lead through the
mental contortions that lead to one character becoming
able to say “I believe because it is absurd”. This is done
too convincingly to be summarised here.
The point is this: how many of us would be able to do the
equivalent? When you discover that your favourite guru
has got feet of clay, the natural reaction is either to deny
the evidence, or to desert your guru in anger or con-
tempt. How many of us could say “I follow him BECAUSE
he is a charlatan?”
But how ridiculous! I have overstated my case, gone too
far too soon. I have taken you too close to that black hole,
and now perhaps you are wondering if this essay is a
spoof! Some careful repair work needs to be done.
Consider the psychical researcher, one of Freud’s circle
described in J. Webb’s The Occult Establishment, who
abandons experiments with a promising medium when he
catches her cheating. This attitude is so normal as to
demand no justification. But will it always be so? Since :zc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
pondering this problem I have begun to find such behav-
i our i ncreasi ngl y pecul i ar.
Consider instead the upright citizen, president of the
local Round Table, Chairman of the local school’s Board of
Governor’s, and so on. He has three children, a mock
tudor house and a happy marriage. Then he finds that his
wife is cheating on him. What does he do?
If his shame is so great that he at once arranges for a
divorce, or even leaves for another job in another part of
the country, we would say that he has over-reacted. By
the standards of today he is trying to live out an absurd-
ly unrealistic ideal of perfection. And yet a century ago
such action would seem too normal to need any justifica-
tion. Why was it accepted?
I think that even today we would find such a rigid code
very powerful in the outer world: such behaviour would
impress society by its sheer audacity, and such a man
would have a good chance of reaching the sort of social
heights described. But what we would also recognise is
that such behaviour is vastly less productive in the more
“inner” world of human relationships. The man would
end up as a very lonely success story, because he refused
to face the world as it really is.
As my good friend The Hon. Hugo C. St.J. l’Estrange said
on the occasion of his first divorce, at a time when the
society columns were dragging his name through the
mi re: “when wi l l manki nd grow out of i ts fl i rtati on wi th
Christian ethics, and face the fact that the Great Cosmic
Principle is not to do what is right and honourable, but
to do what is wrong in STYLE.”
:zz
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
So what of the scientific researcher who approaches the
universe with such cleanliness and honour that the first
hint of trickery is often the end of the matter? As in the
last example, this attitude has resulted in considerable
successes, does this mean that we should therefore admit
that it is proven? or is this very success an obstacle to
further progress?
Might we not grow out of this scrupulous approach and
find, as in the last example, that although the puritan
approach may have great power in the outer world, such
behavi our i s much l ess producti ve i n the more “i nner”
worl d of spi ri t ual devel opment . I s t he rat i onal i st
approach to the occult also destined to lead to a lonely loss
of contact with the world as it is?
“But that is an unfair comparison” says the researcher,
“for the medium’s reliability is CENTRAL to what I am
investigating, whereas that wife’s reliability is a side
issue.” Try telling that to the man who once stood beside
his wife and shared vows at the altar!
CLEAN HANDS?
Yes, I really mean it. I really am suggesting that perhaps
t here i s a f undament al l i mi t at i on i n t he rat i onal
approach. Not just a slight practical limitation, but a
fundamental one.
Too often we approach the occult in the same scrupulous
spirit. Because we believe in an absolute truth, we set
our sights on it and are in danger of missing the reality.
I am sure that, in terms of sheer numbers, the majority
of mankind probably subscribes to some religion that
:z:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
insists that the world is an illusion; even our own scien-
tists are increasingly making it seem like an illusion.
And yet, when we want to find out about the world, so
many of us still choose to seek the answers among those
who search for absolute truth. Might you not find out
more about the nature of an illusion by following those
who deal with illusions? Might not the spiritual path lead
through the world of mountebanks and charlatans, rather
than away from it?
Consider the tarot pack. The 22 trumps are often spoken
of as symbolising the path of spiritual progress. So does
the series start with a High Priest? or the authority of
an Emperor? No, it begins with a Fool dressed in rags,
and the next card is of a Juggler or common street magi-
cian (at least until recent packs improved his image a
bi t ) .
Another example. Imagine that for some reason, (per-
haps because you are on the run from the secret service)
you find yourself forced to start a new life as an unknown
stranger in a some big city’s slums, or even worse in
some South American or Far East shanty town. You have
nothing but the clothes you stand up in, however you do
have an offer of help. Two offers to be precise.
The first offer comes from the very learned Professor
Wiesenstein of Edinburgh University. He offers to put his
entire sociological and psychological researches at your
disposal, including his brilliant papers on “Emerging
Social Structures in the South American Shanty Town”,
on “The Psychology of Aggression in the Urban
Underworld” and so on.
:z¸
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
The other offer comes from Rico The Razor, a small-time
pimp and petty crook, who says “Stick wiv me, mate,
n’ I’ l l show yer around”.
Somehow you know that both offers are equally sincere,
but that you may only accept one of them. What I am sug-
gesting is that Rico’s offer should be given serious con-
sideration.
So often the artist who thinks deeply about the world,
finds himself drawn to the fairground and the circus for
his inspiration. Might not we too take our eyes away from
the dream of the Magus, and take another look at the
Charlatan?
The moment that this bold decision is taken, you hit dif-
ficulties. Don’t panic! As any seeker knows, if the way is
hard it is probably the right way. You see, as long as you
were seeking a Magus, you found only a world full of
Charlatans. But now that you set out to find a real,
wholehearted occult charlatan, you discover that they are
all so bloody high-minded.
Again, is it my own craziness, or am I right in feeling
that this very fact is a vital clue that we are on the right
path? If the transition from charlatan to magus can be so
swift, does it not confirm that we are living out our inner
states, that the world is illusion and we are getting clos-
er to the Master of Illusions? Woops, again I’ve gone
ahead too fast!
:z,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
IN SEARCH OF THE CHARLATAN
So where do we seek the charlatan? In my search I decid-
ed to take a tip from the second trump of the Tarot pack,
and become an associate of the Magic Circle.
First I went to the public library to read some recent
books on conjuring. One observation struck me at once:
the number of conjurors who felt that their art was going
through a lean phase at present. Some blamed this on tel-
evision.
Only in one book was the problem discussed at greater
length: “Entertaining With ESP” by Doc Shiels. Doc sug-
gested that the reason that conjuring no longer draws the
crowds, is that the public now knows too well that it is
all just trickery. Nobody is naive enough to believe in
magic anymore.
One hundred years ago, although few people really
thought you could create a rabbit in a hat, there was at
least a belief in the mysterious wisdom of the east, that
could create amazing hypnotic illusions. And there was
also the chance of some unknown inventor creating a sci-
enti fi c mi racl e i n hi s back room (wi thout The Mi l i tary
swooping in to claim it). In other words there was just
the slightest streak of public openness to the miraculous.
And this made conjuring great.
To support his theory he pointed out that there was one
area of conjuring that was still as healthy as ever: name-
l y mental i sm, or the art of faki ng extra-sensory per-
ception. He suggested that the strength of mentalism lay
in the fact that this was one area of magic where the pub-
lic still had that streak of belief: perhaps telepathy IS
:z¸
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
possible? In this respect it was suggested that conjurors
had been their own worst enemies: by trying so hard to
dissociate themselves from the fake spiritualists, they
had lost their roots in the public imagination. They had
become too scrupulous.
Sure enough, I found that most conjurors are pathetical-
ly scrupulous. I even witnessed mentalists who began
their act not with a lecture on the mysterious powers of
the human mind, but with a sort of disclaimer to the
effect that they claimed no superior powers, and that the
act we were about to see would be performed merely by
ingenious trickery. The effect was about as appetising as
an EEC regulation ingredients list on a sauce bottle. What
the man was saying was that his act would not present any
challenge to the spectators, except that of trying to guess
how it was done. We were to be presented with a series of
puzzles.
The trouble is this: we all enjoy a book of puzzles, but
etiquette demands that the answers should appear in the
back of the book. Here was a set of puzzles devoid of such
rel i ef - for conj urors are not onl y scrupul ous about
occult disclaimers, they are also scrupulous about keep-
ing their secrets.
This was to me a sound reason why the public image of the
conjuror seems to be more that of an irritant, than of a
significant artist. Perhaps you are so used to the image of
the conjuror as the man in the loud jacket who does
clever things against tasteless background of feeble
jokes, that you cannot see why I should expect conjuring
to be si gni fi cant? But i f you thi nk about i t, i sn’ t conj ur-
ing a most amazing concept? The art of creating apparent
i mpossi bi l i ty, the purest mani pul ati on of i l l usi on; were :zo
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
it not such a red herring I would be tempted to divert into
an argument that this playing with illusion was in fact
the original source of ALL art.
I also found the greatest intensity of anti-occult scepti-
cism amongst conjurors. Uri Geller was despised with an
anger that reeked of jealousy: “How could the public rush
to see such a pathetic magic demonstration, when your
average conjuring professional can barely scrape a liv-
ing?” To me the answer seemed obvious.
Uri Geller did not become famous for providing an amus-
ing evening’s diversion; he became famous for having
opened a crack in the public’s sense of reality. For a year
there was a new topic of conversation in the public bar,
people began to look at the world and wonder about it. In
terms of quantity, if not quality, he was probably the
greatest sti mul us to popul ar phi l osophi si ng si nce
Einstein. Yet these conjurors were blind to his real
achievement, seeing only details of poor technique. When
this close inspection provided no explanation of Geller’s
success, they resorted to the old explanatory scapegoat:
publ i c gul l i bi l i t y.
So much for the Magic Circle as a hotbed of charlatans:
instead of finding Geller’s disciples I found his detrac-
tors. But in the library there was a most interesting type
of book: anonymous books wi th ti tl es l i ke “The
Confessions of a Medium”.
These books are rather crudely written accounts of how
to be a fake psychic. They describe ways of picking up
clues from a person’s appearance, mannerisms and
clothing, and how to use those clues to colour a few gen-
eralised statements that are designed to sound-out the :z,
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
client’s problems. Step by step the client is milked for
information, while the medium is apparently uttering
great wisdom; then these facts are finally revealed to the
astonished client - who goes away to tell the world about
the medium’s amazing psychic gift.
Why were these books kept in the library? and why
indeed are such books ready sellers in the scrupulously
honest world of conjuring? I have only heard them rec-
ommended as “giving useful hints on the presentation of
a mental act” - but anyone who starts such an act by dis-
claiming all occult powers has certainly not learned his
techniques from these sources!
My guess is that these books are wonderfully reassuring
to the opponents of the occult, and that is why they are
popular. Read them, and you will never again be
impressed by a clairvoyant; when astonished friends tell
stories of great psychics they have met, you will respond
with a knowing smile. These books, written by the very
people who made a living out of faking clairvoyance, are
the ultimate defense against a belief in the paranormal....
except for one curious anomaly.
A CAUTION
Before I unveil that anomaly, and while you are all trem-
bling on the edges of your seats, may I remind you of my
pendulum analogy?
What do you think so far? Has my revolutionary thesis
shattered your world? are you fuming at my affrontery?
You are much more likely to be thinking along these
lines: “Of course he is basically right, unless you are
prepared to face up to the worst, you will never really
:z8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
get to the roots of the human condition. Nobody should
expect any guru to be utterly perfect. And I suppose that
parascientists might lose worthwhile evidence if they
make absolutely no allowance for human weakness.”
If that is what you think my essay is getting at, then too
late! You have passed the danger zone and already been
deflected. Try harder next time and meanwhile here are
some more clues as to what to look for.
Nothing in that version of my thesis was at all revolu-
tionary: it made this essay no more than a plea for toler-
ance. Am I suggesting that parascientists, instead of dis-
missing their subjects at the first sign of fraud, should
learn to swallow their pride, breath a heavy sigh, give a
little lecture on honesty and the principle of objective
scientific truth... then allow the experiments to continue
under sl i ghtl y stri cter control s? Woul d that be revol u-
tionary? No: I suspect that parascientists have already
adopted some such approach. Is it progress? No, not REAL
progress.
Imagine that you are the errant wife of that respectable
citizen I described. But, instead of being faced with
instant divorce and banishment, you find that your so-
perfect husband is prepared to brace himself against his
public disgrace, and is willing to give you a little lecture
and a second chance to prove yourself. Is this progress?
Perhaps you might at first feel relieved and penitent, but
wouldn’t you come to see this patronising generosity as
just another face of his frustrating and sterile perfec-
tion? He has given way, but only to confirm that his
saintliness is so saintly that it can even move with the
:z,
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
times. Apparent progress serves as a blind to obscure the
real probl em.
And I would say the same of a parascientist who “under-
stands” human instincts and takes care not to over-react
to lapses into deception. By extending scrupulousness, a
feeling of progress is achieved. Paradoxically, that feel-
ing of progress is the most unscrupulous cheat of all. We
can only begin to face that paradox at a distance, when we
remember that more evil has been committed in the name
of Christ than ever was in the name of Satan. Paradox is
another manifestation of the black hole that deflects
thought.
I needed to remind you of that danger before continuing,
as the next part of this essay is most important.
ILLUSION HOLDS THE KEY
What was the anomaly in The Confessions of a Medium?
This book confirms the sceptic’s claim that most psy-
chics are unscrupulous con-artists; it gives an actual
account of the tricks used, and was written by someone
who made a living out of their use. Read these accounts
and you will never again be impressed by a clairvoyant.
Reading these books must be as reassuring to the anti-
Geller brigade as witchcraft confessions were to the
Inqui si ti on.
So much so, that few people seem to notice the anomaly,
which is that the writers of these books so often them-
selves believed in clairvoyance! I find that weird.
You see we are not dealing with simple-minded souls who
are so dazzled by their own spiritual beliefs that they
::c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
cannot recognise what they are doing; the writers of
these books are involved in a more or less cynical exer-
ci se i n mani pul ati ng publ i c gul l i bi l i ty i n order to make
money. They know all about the subtle, even subliminal,
ways of reading another person, and yet they still man-
age to believe in genuine psychic experience.
One writer, having lead the reader through all the tech-
niques, and having described how to practice them until
proficiency is gained, says that the process becomes
almost unconscious with practice: you look at your
clients and immediately just KNOW things about them.
Yet at times you will find information springing to mind
that could not possibly be deduced from outward signs -
you experience flashes of genuine psychic ability.
The last chapter in the Doc Shiels book I mentioned, was
a chapter on genuine ESP. It was devoted to simple draw-
ing-room experiments in telepathy, the dowsing pendu-
lum, psychokinesis and so on, but done as straight
experiments without any chicanery to fake the results. I
was i ntri gued by the wri ter’ s j usti fi cati on for i ncl udi ng
these in a book of fake psychic effects: he said that the
aftermath of a conjuror’s mentalism act was a good time
for genuine ESP experiments, because he had found in his
own experience that it produced good results. A demon-
stration of fake magic powers seemed to make the spec-
tators more receptive to genuine psychic influences - for
Doc Shiels believed in genuine psychism.
It was this last observation that struck me more than any
other in this quest, for I would not have anticipated it.
Putting myself in a parapsychologist’s shoes, I would
have said that a demonstration of blatantly fake psychism
would have sharpened people’s scepticism, and made ::z
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
them LESS open to psychic influence. From an occultist’s
point of view, surely the conscious intent to deceive is
not the best setting for the invocation of one’s subtler
senses? And yet Doc Shiels says it is; and those fake
mediums seem to suggest that the long term practice of
fake clairvoyance can lead to the genuine thing.
How would you feel if a friend asked you to give a talk on
some semi-occult topic, like astrology or dowsing, to a
small group of laymen, and you were then approached by
someone who introduced himself as a professional
astrologer. This person took you aside and made the fol-
lowing proposition. He would come to your talk as an
apparent stranger who was rather hostile to the subject.
He would challenge you to prove that astrology was not
bunk and he would produce his horoscope and demand an
interpretation. You were then to take the chart, study it
thoughtfully, then denounce your heckler as a fraud.
Holding up the chart you would rattle off a brief charac-
ter sketch (supplied secretly by our friend) then point
out that the character was clearly not that of the man in
the audience, who was obviously a Geminian and almost
certainly born on a certain day two years earlier when
Saturn was in .... And at that prearranged moment the
man in the audience would blurt out “but that is
absolutely incredible! Not only have you accurately
guessed my birth-date, but you have also seen through
my test, and perfectly described my wife’s character, for
i t was real l y her chart ! ”
How would you react to this proposition? I think that,
practical joking aside, most people would be horrified by
it. If they were on the sceptical side they would feel that
there is too much trickery in this field anyway, and the :::
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
last thing they want is to pollute a serious discussion of
the subject with such a fraud. If on the believing side
they would be most unwilling to taint their art in this
way. “But it would make your audience so RECEPTIVE”
says your tempter, “that could only be constructive in
the long run”. Get thee behind me Satan!
In fact I find this idea amazingly revolutionary. The
whole fabric of the sceptic’s technique - do a control test
on the famous psychic, catch them cheating once or twice,
then publish an expose - falls to bits if we say that Uri
Geller HAS to perform a few tricks in order to bring
through the influence. For now you have to prove not just
that he sometimes cheats, but that he never does anything
but cheat!
Let us take the story of Geller’s trickery nearly to its
limits: let us imagine that just once, as a lonely young
man, Uri Geller stared at a spoon and it genuinely curled
up before his very eyes. It was only when he found that
other people were so amazed and incredulous of his claim
that he realised what potential it had for a public sensa-
tion. Unfortunately, he never managed to do it again.
However he was so determined, that he went ahead and
devised ways of faking the effect, and has been doing it
ever since.
This version of the story might seem like an almost total
vindication of the sceptical position, but of course it is
not. As was suggested in SSOTBME, a rational world-view
is so brittle that it needs only a single miracle to shatter
it. A scientist would almost rather accept that Geller can
ALWAYS bend metal, than accept that he did it just once.
For science is only happy amidst the repeatable: the
fl eeti ng si ngul ari ty i s i ts worst ni ghtmare. ::¸
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
So here is my biggest bombshell: by actually faking
magic, we might discover magic. Not just that we should
be less scared of the charlatan, less inclined to flee his
presence; but that we should actually take lessons from
hi m.
THE FOOTPRINTS OF THE TRICKSTER
Are you reeling under the impact? Are you falling back
in your seats, gasping and goggle-eyed?
If you are not, might I suggest that it would be worth
making a little more effort? Embrace wonderment! One
conjuror I met who did actually believe in the psychic,
shared something with me that is rare among conjurors:
he confessed that when he saw a really brilliant conjur-
ing trick, he preferred not to find out how it is done, but
would rather just delight in the magic. Somehow that told
me something positive about the nature of magical expe-
rience. It isn’t easy to explain what or why.
Allow yourselves to be amazed, or you will miss a lot.
Some people may be so unconsciously defensive, howev-
er, that it is once again to late... they will once more
bypass the black hole and be unwittingly deflected with-
out feeling a thing. In case this is true in your case, let
me try to explain how it happened, to give you a better
chance of escaping from this mechanism on the next time
round.
You might not have PREDICTED that openly fake psychic
effects could be a good preparation for genuine psychic
effects, nor that a study of how to cheat people could lead
to genuine powers: you might even have been surprised
::,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
by the revelation. But it only takes a little thought, and
you soon realise that it isn’t so surprising after all. It is
very easy to rationalise. For example: you could argue
that the fake medium becomes so used to his act that he
does it unconsciously, even off-duty he is picking up
clues about people; and occasionally these unconscious
fragments can well up and surprise even himself. The
victim of his own techniques, he thinks he is becoming
genuinely psychic.
In this way, any surprise in this essay can be easily ban-
ished. But what are we doing in the process? Faced with
the unfamiliar, how are we to respond to it? Either it fits
the framework of our thinking - in which case it is no
longer unfamiliar - or it does not. If it does not, then we
ei ther l eave i t - thi s i s the mi racl e that cannot fi t our
world, with nothing to hang on it slips between the
structure and falls into oblivion and is forgotten - or else
we try to make a fit. Something has to change: unless we
are at a cri si s poi nt i t i s unl i kel y that our structure wi l l
change, so usually it is a question of dismantling then
adapti ng, rebui l di ng, recreati ng the unfami l i ar unti l i t
fits our framework. Now we are comfortable with it...
but the miracle has gone.
Rationalisation is always possible, just as anything can
be banished with a good enough Sword. The question is
this: how often do you consciously choose to banish, and
how often is it an automatic reaction, and therefore a
deception?
We have found the footprints of the trickster, and we
have found them very close to home.
::¸
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
The point I am trying to express always slips out of my
reach. I too am deflected by that warping of reality. The
real point of highest charge, the black hole of maximum
distortion, is where the Good-Bad axis crosses our world.
If the Christ-Satan axis is detached from this Good-Bad
axis, it becomes a simple choice between two types of
deity, one of the spirit and one of the earth; all the
excruciating paradoxes that Hugo l’Estrange and Dr
Sigismund Galganspiel wrestle with in their discourses,
are born of the attempt to say “Evil be thou my Good”.
If we could now detach the Truth-Illusion axis from the
Good-Bad axis I suspect that it would begin to look like
the simple choice between Hygiene and Fertility. Until
those two words are in turn rationalised, you may catch
a glimpse of the vital, active relationship that I am try-
ing to convey: Hygiene versus Fertility. When removed
from the Good-Bad axis, the word “versus” sounds more
like a game than a life and death battle between emotion-
ally charged opponents.
EXPLORING IN PRACTICE
Two practical points are emerging from this quest.
Firstly a negative one: do not be too easily put off by
fraud, or you will risk losing what you seek. Secondly a
positive one, experiment with deception itself. Be a
charlatan!
I will flesh out this unusual second approach with two
examples.
One branch of mentalism - definitely at the seamy end -
is called in conjuring circles “contact mind reading”. An
example of this is to ask a person from the audience to
::o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
hide an object while you are out of the room. When you
return you hold the person’s hand lightly and ask him to
concentrate on the hidden object. You then become aware
of very small, unconscious muscular forces in the per-
son’s hand; and these will direct you toward the hidden
object.
It takes courage to stick your neck out by attempting such
a sensitive task in front of a group of people, but all
authorities agree that once you have taken the plunge you
will quickly become proficient at it. You become so pro-
ficient that it ceases to be a conscious process: hold his
hand and you really feel you are being lead by direct
thought power! But some authorities claim that you no
longer need to hold his hand, one hand on his shoulder is
sufficient, or even a short length of chain, with him
holding one end and you the other.
This is beginning to sound like real mind reading. Sure
enough, the next phase is marked by those writers who
describe feats of telepathy or even precognition when
there is no longer any physical contact between per-
former and assistant. [See Nelson’s ‘Hellstromism’ p
21]. By practi ci ng fal se mi nd-readi ng, the conj uror
develops the real thing.
I feel like saying “hands up all those who had a go at
dowsing, but gave it up because you found it was so easy
to consciously effect the pendulum’s motion”! Perhaps
you should, instead of giving up, have explored this very
ability: practiced “cheating” until you became very good
at it; doing it with eyes averted, doing it blindfold, doing
it with a pendulum on the end of a stick or hanging inside
a bottle so as to be less easy to control. The end point
might have been... the real thing. ::,
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
As in the case of the contact mind reader, we can ratio-
nalise one useful mechanism at work. Faking is more fun
than scrupulous experimentation. If your psychic prac-
tices are restricted to 15 minutes intense meditation a
day, there is less incentive to keep it up than there is for
the charlatan who can enjoy his developing skills, be
encouraged by the spectators’ amazement and requests to
“do it again”. But, after what was said earlier, I must not
encourage such rationalisation.
The second example is less exciting, but it is my own, so
I can say more about the actual experience of it.
As a schoolboy I discovered Hodson’s lovely book on The
Kingdom of the Gods. Enjoying the luscious pictures of
tree spirits and landscape gods, I wanted to share the fun,
but never managed to see them. Through the sixties I
sometimes experimented with various techniques for
increasing sensitivity and developing auric vision, but
with no notable success. I suppose I was always more or
less consciously haunted by the danger of self deception:
at what point do you begin to kid yourself, become
uncritical? I was fleeing from the charlatan.
Around 1981 I rediscovered the book and, being in a des-
perate frame of mind, tried again. But, as with someone
who has attained zen, a tree remained obstinately a tree,
however I squinted at it. Then one day I stood by my
favourite hawthorn and thought as follows: “What a pity
I cannot see trees’ auras. If I could, I wonder what sort of
aura this one would have? Hmm. I feel it ought to be a
fai rl y vi vi d red, from cri mson to scarl et, but shot
through with a network of gold strands. Yes, that would
::8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
suit it. Then what about that tree over there? oh no, def-
initely yellowy green in wispy hanging folds.”
What was I doing? I was seeing auras, but not REALLY
seeing them, only imagining them in the sort of way you
might imagine how a bare room of a new house might look
when it is furnished, how it would look after being deco-
rated. How odd to think that this sort of pseudo-seeing
was just the sort of deception that I had so long steered
clear of, in my early attempts to REALLY see REAL auras.
And yet an interior designer’s whole income depends upon
these ‘unreal’ imagined images. Just as the writers of
those fake psychic books were people whose livelihood
depended upon what they were doing: desperados more
akin to Rico the Razor than to Professor Wiesenstein.
My new-found game flourished: every tree has a differ-
ent aura, yet similar species have similar styles. I have
resisted the temptation to try to test this discovery, to
try to prove that I am not just responding to visual clues
as to the type of tree, because it is a growing and delight-
ful diversion. I no more want to dissect it than I want to
dissect a pet kitten. I want to enjoy it. If another person
describes the aura differently, it would not bother me,
because I find this type of perception is more akin to the
perception of character than of outer form: in the sense
that two people might begin by describing a third per-
son’s personality in totally differing terms; yet when
they collaborate they arrive at some sort of common
description.
If you can catch the spirit of this approach, you will
catch another glimpse of that charlatan. The approach is
blatantly unscrupulous and amoral, the very stuff of
deception, yet it is also paradoxically down to earth and ::,
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
elementary: you just do it, you don’t stop to theorise
about WHAT you are doing. Just like the trickster whose
every action is suspect, but who so clearly knows his way
around, and makes a living where others simply panic.
I cannot claim that the gift has any practical use, but it
was very refreshing to note how quickly it developed once
I had got over the initial hurdle of accepting it on its own
t erms.
A FLIGHT FROM REASON?
This essay is developing a wave formation: a series of
forward steps, between which I rush back to defend the
rear. Here goes again. I will describe another of the
forces that deflect one’s mind in the vicinity of a black
hole.
You may have l abel l ed me as an anti -rati onal i st.
Labelling is another technique for handling the unfamil-
iar. It does not depend upon dismantling and rebuilding
the unfamiliar, in the way of rationalisation, nor does it
j ust al l ow i t to sl i p away, l i ke i gnori ng. It i s more aki n
to casting a net to catch the unfamiliar, then leaving it
hanging in the net on some corner of your structure.
Unlike rationalisation, this does not destroy the original
object; unlike ignoring it does not let it go free. It hangs
suspended in its net and is no part of your structure, and
it is left, because it is no longer a threat.
So to label this essay as anti-rationalist, is to once more
be deflected from the central mystery. I must cut myself
out of this net.
:¸c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Far from being anti-rationalist, I sometimes feel that I
am the one person left on earth who knows the real value
of reason, of science, of the academic approach. It is a
wonderful Sword of Banishment, yet so many seem to
confuse it with a Cup of Plenty!
The essential value of reason, or the scientific approach,
is that it stops things happening. This is an utterly vital
function in a world where most people would agree that
too much is happening too fast. The remedy lies right
under our noses, yet we create the problem by asking
science to do the one thing it has never been able to do,
that is to make things happen. As a result a million char-
latans have stepped into science’s shoes and we never
give them their due.
As was argued in Thundersqueak, it is ludicrous to
describe the aeroplane as a wonder of science. The Wright
brothers were not scientists, they were bicycle makers.
On the day of their historic first flight they invited the
American Scientific establishment to attend, and the
Establishment quite rightly refused to waste time with
cranks who were attempting the blatantly impossible. As
a consequence, the plane flew. If only scientists had left
Uri Geller alone.
As someone who has worked in the aircraft industry, I
can assure you that a plane flies despite science, not
because of it. Yet I am not belittling science, merely see-
i ng i ts true contri buti on. To be utterl y preci se, i t i s
magic that makes the plane fly, and what science does is
to STOP IT FROM CRASHING.
Indeed the nearest approach made by strict scientific
ri gour i nto the “real ” worl d, i s vi a the safety i ndustry. :¸z
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
As reason is the great destroyer - in order to pull you
clear of that dreaded Good-Bad whirlpool I will rephrase
that remark - as reason is the excellent and much need-
ed destroyer, we should direct it with the care it
deserves.
What a pity that man’s hunting instincts are driving
impressive and exciting creatures like tigers into obliv-
ion. If only the big-game hunters could redirect their
urges into hair-raising safaris across the London sky-
line, in pursuit of starlings and pigeons. Then we would
not only be able to keep our tigers, we could also suffer
less bird shit.
And what a pity that the scientist insists on chasing the
paranormal to its doom, and the historian cannot redirect
the urge to shatter myths. They do it too well. Our very
own Ellic Howe has delighted us with his skill in stalking
the OTO, to the point where there was only one place of
safety left for it - namely non-existence.
Such skills must not be wasted, for there is real work for
the sword in this world. Several billion pounds are being
spent on a cruise missile deterrent, might not some of
that money go towards an undercover operation with the
collaboration of the secret service? I suggest taking the
psychologists out of the parascience field and dropping
them behind the Iron Curtain in order to discover the
value of Cruise. How deterred by it does your typical
Russian military officer feel? Knowing how emotional
russians can be, I want figures of how many soldiers
burst into tears, how many resigned from the army, how
many committed suicide when Cruise was announced.
There is much to do, for I also want some accurate quan- :¸:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
titative index of deterrence: I want to know the exact
deterrent-value of every million pounds spent. I want to
know which is the greater deterrent to world war three:
a multi billion pound satellite warfare program, or a
late, wet and rather cold spring in Moscow.
And Ellic, your talents are being wasted on an endangered
species. The world is crying out for skills like yours, and
a far greater challenge awaits you. Instead of chasing the
OTO into oblivion, how about directing your attention
towards the communist conspiracy within the Labour
Party, or the National Front conspiracy behind the
Tories? Or why not go for the Big One, and prove once and
for all that the CIA is a myth? And please, can I have my
OTO back? it was fun.
I would like to be seen as reason’s champion, not its
detractor. Am I yet free of that net?
GETTING REAL
I di d warn that, i n order to wri te about the Tri ckster, i t
might be necessary to assume his mantle: now the time
has come to pack up my box of tricks. That would usual-
ly signify that a hasty retreat was in the offing: for when
people return to reality at the end of his illusions, an
angry reaction is liable to set in. But in this case it is the
nature of illusion itself that is being studied, so I’ll stick
around.
The trick that has been played on you is the old trick of
presenting a world in black and white: the white light of
Truth, of Good, of Hygiene, against the blackness of
Illusion, of Bad, and of Fertility. The subject was far too
tricky to be tackled without such a trick. But now we
:¸¸
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
awake from the dream, this essay’s wave-form acceler-
ates to a frenzied rippling of light and dark, and all out-
l i nes are l ost unti l they re-form i n the worl d’ s true
colours. What might almost have seemed clear at times,
now passes through chaos.
This is because the rational approach is not scrupulous
after all! And yet the very confusion of the situation is
somehow a beacon of hope to the traveller, for it recalls
the many-layered hypocrisies of highly religious or
politically motivated people. In other words, the fact that
the rational approach is going to turn out to be riddled
wi th decei t, wi l l ‘ ri ng true’ . There i s somethi ng fami l-
iar about the path, and that is reassuring. So where is the
rational approach unscrupulous?
James Webb writes on the tricky subject of Hitler’s
involvement with the occult - an area where there are so
many rumours that the historian needs to be extremely
careful . Was Grei ner tel l i ng the truth i n hi s i ntervi ew
with Daim? I quote “In his account of their interview,
Daim altered some details to test Greiner, and sent the
memorandum for the engineer to sign: Greiner corrected
the details Daim had changed”. So a trick serves as a test
of truth! When I think of the many complex ways an indi-
vidual might respond to finding himself misquoted, I am
amazed at the flimsiness of this test of historical truth.
Yet as soon as the academic approach leaves the ivory
laboratory and faces the real world, it almost seems as
though deception is its only tool. Non- laboratory psy-
chological experiments nearly always seem to involve
people doing something whose apparent purpose is a blind
for the real test - eg the complex questionnaire to fill in,
when it is only the subject’s speed of writing that is :¸,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
being tested. Last week a television film showed a road
test at the vehicle research laboratory: the lorry was
quivering away on a hydraulic test rig, and the engineer
explain that it was experiencing a recording of a stretch
of British A-road. He took a different disk from storage,
fed it to the microprocessor, and now the lorry was
bouncing like mad - for this was a recording of a stretch
of desert highway in the middle east. Lorries being test-
ed in their dreams, not on real roads! Our future, in
world war three, depends entirely upon weapons that no-
one has been able to test under war conditions!
The very idea of objectivity is a trick; the researcher
imagines he is in a sort of condom that gives infinite sen-
sitivity to what he is studying, yet perfect protection
against contaminating the subject.
So that is where our pursuit of the charlatan ends:
Illusion has an alias, he calls himself Truth.
Mercury-Hermes, the di vi ne tri ckster, i s the god of
thieves and rogues, but also the god of businessmen and
scientists. His first trick was the best: he taught us lan-
guage.
Many yards of language now stretch out before me, and I
wonder why I did it. But I was looking for a remedy,
Mercury is also the god of healers.
KEEP THE FLAME BURNING
To return to my first question: how do you respond when
your spiritual quest leads to fraud and illusion? When
your hopeful pilgrimage to His Inestimable Holiness
Swami Sri Chapati, whose adverts in Prediction spoke of
the secrets of the universe, leads you to an east-end
:¸¸
1 0
The
Charl atan
and the
Magus
11 - STRESS ANALYSIS OF A TWISTED KNICKER
Thinkers on the Occult Path
Fi rst publ i shed i n Arrow 18
At the time this essay seemed like an honest attempt by me
to rationalise a difficult emotional shambles that I had fallen
i nto. However i t was not wel l recei ved by those who sti l l
sensed a vein of bitterness in it that I had failed to transcend.
I recently attended a seminar by Liz Greene on Jung’s
psychological types, related to the four elements in
astrology. One reason for my interest was to see how
Jung’s four-fold analysis of human types might relate to
the four-fold scheme in SSOTBME - an Essay on Magic.
There were obvious similarities, even though one is a
description of types of PEOPLE whereas the other is a
description of types of WORLDVIEW, but how neatly do
the two schemes line up? For example: what drives a
person to explore beyond the confines of the accepted sci-
entific worldview, and experiment with, say, the magi-
cal approach? Is it that they are such natural ‘Feeling’
types that they choose an approach that encourages this
talent; or are they such fossilized ‘Thinkers’ that they
seek in magic to develop the area where they sense that
they are lacking?
I have met both types in the ‘occult world’, but would
love to know if my experience agrees with other people’s.
This article is less a statement of a new theory, than a
collection of observations put forward for comment.
:¸,
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
cockney whose ashram occupies a seedy flat above an
Indian take-away? Do you react in anger and disgust, or
do you make the best of a bad job and go back laughing to
your friends, to expose the old rogue in much humorous
descriptive detail?
I sometimes wonder whether, in my childhood when I felt
the first calling to the mysteries of the occult, I might
have built a little shrine deep in my soul, lit with many
candles. Later sophistication buried that shrine and it
was forgotten. But I rather suspect that, each time my
dreams turn to dust, another candle is snuffed out in that
sanctum; and that my anger or laughter is but a mask to
hide the disappointment.
The remedy I sought was this: to hope for a new approach,
that in future each time a Great Occult Master turns out
to have bad breath and wandering hands, I might find not
one less, but one more candle burning in my shrine.
Amen.
:¸o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
marks: eg the essay urging political moderation, written
by a kid who belongs to the British Movement, but is
trying to pass an exam marked by a master known for his
Liberal sympathies.
The book is a marvellous survey of the most delightful
19th century occult cranks and magi, but is written with
such an eye on academic respectability that it overshoots
the mark. The result is the sort of tight-arsed academic
phrasing that might be expected of a book written in the
mid-fifties: the sort of writing that would never dare say
‘he saw visions of the Virgin Mary’, but would always be
forced to say ‘he purported to see visions...’, the sort of
writing that is scared of too-popular phrases, and can
only handle them between the tweezers of quotation
marks.
When reading the sequel, the Occult Establishment, once
again the style was tantalisingly bogus. Once again there
was an academic respectability that was a little too good
to be true, typified by such wheezy phrasing as:
“Joseph Greiner is not a witness on whose authority one
would care to rely heavily.... with the greatest reserva-
tions, let us look at Greiner’s story.” and such in-group
arse-l i cki ng as:
“Some apology may seem necessary for returning to the
Protocols [of the Learned Elders of Zion] after the study
by Professor Norman Cohn.” in which one can almost
hear the ‘chink’ of the High Table port decanter being
unstoppered.
I was becoming convinced that Webb was striving to
impress, but could not really see why such a competent :¸,
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
WEBB OF NO INTRIGUE
Anyone who is weary of all the excitement of the occult
scene, and in need of some really tedious roughage on the
subject to balance their diet, is recommended to read
James Webb’s ‘The Occult Establishment’.
Ploughing through this bloated heap of ill-connected
information I found my mind - starved of ideas - killing
time by trying to analyse the book’s awfulness. Imagine a
large Kenneth Grant book stripped of its slime and its
glamour, and you get some idea of Webb’s style of writ-
ing. As with Grant, Webb’s first book on the occult - The
Flight from Reason - was not so bad, presumably because
a first book is more likely to have been shaped by the
comments of editors, whereas later books do not have to
work so hard to be published.
Note that my comments on this book are brazenly sub-
jective, for reasons that will later become clear. You
could also say that I am bound to be biassed against a
writer whose first book on the occult is titled ‘the Flight
from Reason’ (true, I would have preferred a more bal-
anced title such as ‘Occultism - a Valiant Struggle
Against the Fetters of Reason’), but there is more to it
than that.
The Flight from Reason was quite a good read, because the
subject matter was so interesting that it shone through
the bad style. But what was wrong with the style? It is
not easy to pin down, because the book was not badly
written in the sense of being bad grammar, or clumsy, or
ill-constructed; it was just that there was something
subtly bogus about it. As a retired schoolmaster, I found
myself reminded of essays written in order to gain
:¸8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
judgements are inextricably mixed up with the facts in a
way that makes it hard to draw any clear conclusions.
When he tells us to look at Greiner’s story with the
‘greatest reservations’, then I am left in confusion, for
my greatest reservation is not to look at it at all. When
he speaks of occultists who inhabit a universe which
“obeys a logic that is unlike that of the rationalist uni-
verse of mutually agreed discourse and cannot be under-
stood as logical in its terms” I am sure that the word
‘logic’ means something different to him, something less
precise but more value-laden.
So I felt confident that Webb was a Feeling type. My mis-
take had been to assume unconsciously that an apparent-
ly dry, sceptical book on the occult must be the work of a
Thinker. Once I stopped judging it by the quality of its
argument, the book was much easier to read.
I also remembered being caught the same way before:
when I expected the editor of a Rationalist Association
magazine to be rational! In fact he was the least coherent
arguer I have ever met. He certainly gave the impression
of being a man of very strong and clear feelings who had
been brought up to believe that only the Thinking prin-
ciple was manly and true. Unfortunately he seemed to
have so little understanding of this principle, that a blind
advocacy of the rationalist creed had to play the substi-
tute role.
Another example is Patrick Moore: someone with the
superficial public image of being a learned expert, yet
notorious for his embarrassing emotional outbursts on
the subject of astrology!
:,z
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
author woul d al l ow thi s stri vi ng to rui n hi s work.
Meanwhile I attended Liz Greene’s seminar on the psy-
chological types.
Like most tidy theories, the theory of the four types can
be quite difficult to relate to the real world: it seems so
neat on paper, but not quite so neat when you apply it to
real peopl e (I’ l l return to thi s probl em l ater); so the
most useful function of such a seminar is that it can help
to bridge that gap. How, for example, do you recognise a
‘ Feel i ng’ type? Is he a fl uffy, gushy, anti -i ntel l ectual ?
Probably not.
The problem is that we are not raised under laboratory
conditions: other pressures exist. For example, there is
a social pressure for males not to show their Feelings,
and for females not to show their Thinkings. So a natu-
rally feeling male might attempt to repress his Feeling
side and pretend to be a Thinker, just as a thinking
female might pretend to be a feeler. This is only one of
many confusing factors: but I will isolate it for the pur-
pose of this essay.
As Liz Greene explained, a Feeling type is not necessari-
ly one that never makes an intellectual statement, but the
intellectual statements they make will tend to appear
‘wrong’ to thinking types, somehow awkward, exagger-
ated or illogical. As she said this, I at once thought of the
book I was struggling with, and her words seemed to
expl ai n my di ffi cul ty.
The great value of Webb’s books lies in the mass of
interesting facts he divulges, but it is very hard at times
to see any clear thread of ideas linking them - as if Earth
were compensating for lack of Air. Rumour and value- :,c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
upper floor of a two storey house, this image can be mis-
leading when it comes to exploring the boundaries
between conscious and unconscious. It can be better to see
the unconscious as a jungle, in which there is a clearing
containing a human settlement - which symbolises a
conscious mind.
Each settlement has its own character. For example, dif-
ferent settlements have mastered different skills. One
settlement may have distinguished itself by its mastery
of agriculture, another by its domestication of animals
for food. Another may be especially distinguished by its
craftsmanship, another by its sophisticated social struc-
ture. Note that all these examples amount to a domestica-
tion of some wild element from the jungle: something has
been brought into the clearing and tamed for the good of
the settlement.
Note also that, just because a certain community is very
well developed in one capacity, it does not mean it can
forget the other elements. As you stand in the sun-kissed
cornfields of an agricultural community it is tempting to
think that they have no problems from unruly animals;
but that communi ty may wel l l i ve i n terror of the
marauding jungle creatures that raid by night.
The analogy with the four types is based upon the fact that
different people have to a greater or lesser degree
‘tamed’ the four elements of Thinking, Feeling, Intuition,
and Sensation. Although some ‘clearings’ are larger than
others (ie it is perhaps possible to have a greater or
lesser extent of consciousness) it is extremely unlikely
that anyone could naturally have tamed all four equally.
Such is the difficulty of the struggle to consciousness,
that most people only tame one or two elements; in par- :,¸
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
So how many other Feeling types are there in the cranki-
er extremes of the rationalist establishment? And does
symmetry suggest that we should expect to find Thinkers
in the occult fold?
It is understandable how social pressures could drive a
Feeler, especially a male Feeler, to try to ‘prove him-
self’ in a Thinking world. And, because a Feeler is less
‘differentiated’ at the Thinking end, this is liable to pro-
duce a grotesque parody of rationalism (as in the second
example) or at least a slightly quirky academic style (as
in the case of James Webb). But why should a Thinker
become interested in the occult?
There is less social stigma attached to being a Thinker
(though an extreme Thinker who was a woman might be
unconsciously pressurised into acting a more Feeling
role), so it is more likely that a Thinker would be not so
much pressurised into an interest in the occult, as drawn
into it by some inner urge to balance himself. This is
perhaps a more healthy incentive than the outward pres-
sure to conform, so we would not necessarily expect to
find occult Thinkers taking such weird forms or standing
out so obviously as the Feeling ‘rationalists’. So what do
we look for?
THE FOUR TYPES
This essay is based upon MY understanding of Jung’s four
psychological types: unless the reader shares my vision,
it could lead to misunderstanding. So I will digress to
explain how I see this distinction.
Different circumstances demand different maps. Although
the conscious mind can sometimes be pictured as the
:,:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
pressures for the Feelers and Intuitives to try to ‘prove
themselves’ in their opposing elements.
If we cannot fall back on such simple formulae as ‘if he’s
a lawyer, he must be a Thinker’, how then can we iden-
ti fy the types?
Because the ‘tamed’ elements run so smoothly, it is easy
to overlook them at first; it is the wild, untamed ele-
ments that tend to be most obvious to a third party. As in
the case of James Webb: it was not his sound value judge-
ments that fi rst struck me, but rather hi s appal l i ng
‘ l ogi cal ’ j usti fi cati on of them.
This is what is so awful about such rationalists: they
denounce some occultist as a fraud, but do it so stupidly
that ‘sensible’ Thinking occultists react by leaping to
their colleague’s defence; but this reaction is the
Thinker’s undoing, for very often the occultist does turn
out to be a fraud - it was not the value-judgement that
was at fault, but merely the grotesque attempt to support
i t wi th ‘ reason’ !
Patrick Moore makes an ass of himself when he argues
that astrology is bunk because ‘ the sun cannot ever be
“in” Aquarius because Aquarius is a cluster of stars way
beyond the solar system’ (as if astronomers never spoke
of the sun being ‘in’ the sky!). However he is quite right
to oppose the naive acceptance of a subject that appears to
reduce human complexity to a ‘mechanical’ addition of
simple ingredients.
I would also be angry if I heard a hard-line Freudian
sneering at Jung for thinking that everyone was either a
‘ l awyer, a soci al worker, an arti st, or a techni ci an’ :,¸
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
ti cul ar i t i s most di ffi cul t to si mul taneousl y master two
opposing qualities (eg Thinking plus Feeling, or Intuition
plus Sensation).
The idea of this analogy is to offset a too-simple picture
of there being ‘just four sorts of people’. On first
acquaintance with the theory of four types, it is tempting
to assume that the Thinkers are all lawyers and academ-
ics, the Feelers are all social workers, the Sensation
types are al l techni ci ans and craftsmen, and the
Intuitives are all artists. If we were all reared under
laboratory conditions, it might turn out that way; but in
fact things are much less stereotyped.
For a start, the analogy helps to remind you that a
Thinker is not necessarily a person who is devoid of
Feeling. As in the case of the crop- growing community
described, it is easy to marvel at the cool logic of a
Thinker and imagine that such a person has transcended
all emotional problems - but the wild beasts of the jun-
gle can still cause pandemonium. Although he may not
even know what you mean by the word ‘feeling’, the
Thinker can be utterly at the mercy of the elements that
lie outside the conscious ‘clearing’.
Similarly, the Sensation type is not totally lacking in
ideals, it is just that this element is liable to swoop down
in the form of an angelic visitation or an obsessive ide-
alogical conversion. The Intuitive artist may well spend
more time agonising about his poverty than creating
great art, and the Feeling type can make a fool of himself
by being hooked on rationalist ‘arguments’. There might
be less difficulty if all four elements were equally prized
by society; instead, as suggested earlier, there are strong
:,,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
How, then, are we to recognise the Thinkers in the occult
world? According to the above description, we should
expect them to stand out more for their chaotic Feeling
natures than for their logical arguments. Having myself
come across plenty of such unruly Feelings, I am inclined
to believe that there is a healthy proportion of Thinkers
in the occult world!
THE TINKER’S CUSS
I started this article by explaining that I was not trying
to lay down any new theory, but rather was putting for-
ward mine own observations for comment. This applies
particularly to this section. As will become clear, the
first example of an occult thinker betrayed by his
‘undifferentiated’ Feeling nature... is myself.
For several reasons this makes all my further observa-
tions suspect. Firstly, am I merely projecting? seeing in
others’ everyday emotional problems a phantom that is
really mine own? Secondly, as birds of a feather flock
together, has my experience of the occult world been
restricted to those most like myself? making my obser-
vati ons true but untypi cal ? Thi rdl y, am I real l y wri ti ng
t hi s art i cl e (I ’ l l expl ai n t hat l at er)?
In view of such doubts let us proceed “with the greatest
reservations” as Webb would say! I have been aware of
two modes of undifferentiated Feeling, and a third mode
which I take to be a state of partial recovery.
When speaking intimately to some people, you find your-
self treading very cautiously. It is as if you are in a jun-
gle and aware of a great python of untamed Feeling lurk-
ing in the treetops and ready to swoop down and crush you
:,,
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
when I know he said nothing of the sort. But, if I could
control my wrath, I would do well to admit that no theo-
ry should be held blameless for the misinterpretations
that it might engender.
It is worth digressing to ask why anyone should want to
fall back on such simple formulae as ‘if he’s a lawyer he
must be a Thinker’. Such formulae are a substitute for
thought itself. Any scheme that analyses phenomena into
a four-fol d cruci form ‘ map’ i s al most certai nl y a
Thinker’s scheme (I suspect that Feelers analyse in
threes, if at all, but won’t pursue that thought). Such
schemes tend to be abused by non-Thinkers who look for
formulae to do their Thinking for them.
After Liz Greene’s excellent discussion of the practical
ramifications of Jung’s theory of types, I felt that I
understood much better. But one or two people said ‘oh
dear, I am more confused than ever’. My guess is that
they were people with undifferentiated Thinking. To give
a simple analogy: if you told such a person for the first
time about the compass points, they would tend to inter-
pret the directions as a simple formula - eg ‘North is
where its cold, South is hot, West is where they speak
English with a drawl, East is where they speak funny
languages’. If you then say that you would build a house
on the North side of a valley because it is warmer (fac-
ing South), they would respond with ‘but now you are
muddling me’!
Both Thinkers and non-Thinkers agree that Truth must
be simple, however the true Thinker is more likely to
understand that the practical manifestations of Truth can
at the same time be far from simple.
:,o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
reckon that BOTH modes stem from undifferentiated
Feeling.
The danger of not recognising the symptoms is that these
modes are infectious. They do not spread like a virus, so
much as like static electricity - in the sense that each
mode tends to induce the opposite mode in those who come
close to it. In an intimate relationship, the ‘electrostatic
potential’ can mount to such a level that all other activ-
ity or communication is overwhelmed.
Having lived through both modes on several occasions, I
think I am well qualified to describe the process from
both viewpoints. To shorten the account, I will label the
‘wild’ mode as the Waterfall mode, and the ‘reserved’
mode as the Glacier mode. As was suggested above, contact
with the Waterfall tends to make you tread very careful-
ly: in other words, it tends to freeze you into a Glacier.
You do not feel very good about this, but you can hardly
blame yourself, because you see other people reacting in
the same way.
This is awful to the Waterfall: the very fact that nearly
everyone tends to freeze on them, makes each new freeze
the more painful. There is a tendency to remember peo-
pl e you met i n your pre- (or l esser) Waterfal l days,
people who did not freeze so fast, and idealise their mem-
ory; for they seem so much more substantial and ‘real’
compared wi th those ‘ superfi ci al ’ , ‘ repressed’ , or
‘over- polite’ Glaciers that now surround you. Depending
how much of a Thinker you are, you are more or less
inclined to try to explain to these Glaciers how it is their
upbringing, or society’s conventions that make them so
repressed, rather than face the fact that contact with a
Waterfall is the biggest repression of all. Yet, as with all :,,
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
if you make one false move. With such people your mind
races ahead of conversation, trying to avoid the emotive
topics, picking words carefully lest the dreaded Feeling-
serpent be aroused from its fitful slumber.
Other people can be quite the opposite: in intimate con-
versation they are models of controlled reserve. Instead
of a jungle, you find yourself on smooth paving slabs in a
well-ordered courtyard. You admire this triumph of dis-
cipline, but find yourself wincing from occasional jabs of
pain. It is difficult to locate the source of these agonies,
and you begin to suspect that you have some chronic ail-
ment, and feel increasingly guilty about entering this
perfect sanctuary in such a diseased state. The truth is
that those jabs of pain come from tiny asps which lurk in
the cracks between the paving slabs.
A third type is much rarer: it is the person who has
analysed themselves to the point where their Feeling
nature is like a romping dragon in a corral, saying ‘ride
me if you dare’. The crushing python, the poisonous asp,
and the romping dragon are, I guess, one and the same
beast, namely undifferentiated Feeling. But the last form
seems a partially domesticated and therefore ‘better’
form to me - even though it seems to evoke disgust from
people in the other two modes. As this third is less of a
problem, I will concentrate on the first two modes in this
essay.
I use the word ‘mode’ instead of ‘type’. So extremely
‘opposite’ are these two modes that it is tempting to see
them as two different types of people. What is worse, it
is easy to be fooled by the superficial appearance and
think that the first mode is a ‘Feeling Type’ as opposed to
the second mode that is a ‘Thinking Type’, whereas I :,8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
But, just as the extreme Waterfall has developed a neu-
rotic reaction to the inevitable fact that most other peo-
ple either automatically flee from their presence or
freeze over, so also has the extreme Glacier developed a
nervous response to the endless flood of Waterfalls that
cleave to their cool calm: the Glacier freezes on the
Waterfall. The Glacier has no wish to offend, in fact the
Glacier knows that, from his apparently superior posi-
tion, he ought to be able to help the Waterfall who obvi-
ously has problems (this is a typical start, but there are
variations). So the Glacier is polite and helpful, but
treads carefully in order not to hurt the Waterfall’ s
feelings. As a Waterfall has only one kind of feeling, and
that is a hurt feeling, this means the Glacier must with-
hold ALL feeling: this is the freezing process.
Unfortunately, even a Glacier has feelings. So the need to
repress them in the presence of a Waterfall is hard on
the Glacier, and those feelings tend to express themselves
unconsciously; those are the tiny asps that lurk and sting
the other person.
For a start, the Waterfall often approaches the Glacier
from an inferior position; so every escalation of the
Glacier’s reserve helps to emphasise that very inferior-
ity: the more carefully the Glacier handles the Waterfall,
the more of a cripple the Waterfall feels, the more the
Glacier flees the Waterfall’s suffocating presence, the
more undesirable the Waterfall feels. A Glacier is an
expert at ‘damning with faint praise’; not through mal-
ice, but as an automatic result of blocked Feeling: all
praise is faint unless it is supported by a drop of Feeling.
:¸z
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
such illusions, it has a considerable vein of truth, and
this does not make a Glacier in a close personal relation-
ship with a Waterfall feel any better.
So why does the Glacier not become a second Waterfall in
these circumstances? The Waterfall tells him that he is
‘repressed’, that he is only half alive because his feel-
ings are not flowing, that he cannot offer any REAL human
communication because of this. The Glacier knows this is
true, or is fast becoming true. So why does he not just
‘ unfreeze’ ?
I think the reason is because all the Waterfall’s talk
about ‘REAL’ communication is largely cosmic bullshit.
Assuming that it is undifferentiated Feeling that is in fact
speaking, and bearing in mind that such ‘wild’ uncon-
scious processes are not known for their keenness to
unite humans in meaningful discourse, then we see that
both the Waterfall and the Glacier are basically doing the
same thing: they are keeping other humans at a distance.
Aiming a fire-hose of Feeling at someone is every bit as
effective at keeping them at bay as is surrounding your-
self with ice; and to kid yourself that such a fire-hose is
a genuine ‘communication’ is absolute rubbish. I have
been faced with a Waterfall screaming ‘why can’t you
accept me as I really am?’, when nothing would have
reassured me more than a glimpse of the real person I
knew that was hidden behind all the foaming torrent of
emotion. So what of the other side of the story?
If some personal problem has made you a bit emotional,
then a Glacier can seem a thing of wonder. While you
swing from rage to depression, here is someone who
remains an oasis of calm common-sense. So you cleave to
them. :¸c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
So the battle rages: the Waterfall putting ever greater
pressure on the Glacier in the hope that the ice will
fi nal l y shatter, and the Gl aci er ever goadi ng the
Waterfall to pour out those feelings which have now
grown so bitter that the Glacier would never dare to
express them hi msel f. The effort of restrai ni ng a
Glacier’s mounting feelings is exhausting: both parties
grow tired in a close relationship, but the Glacier espe-
cially so. Perhaps the non-expression of feeling by day
means that the Glacier is more dependent on his dreams?
Certainly sleep does become an issue, as the Glacier
wants to go earlier and earlier to bed while the Waterfall
seems maliciously to choose this very time to demand a
‘meaningful’ confrontation. These battles may have some
part in the Cosmic Plan, but they are most destructive on
the purely personal level.
I have described some of the negative pressures that
drive people into these roles, but there are also positive
enticements. Pure evil has never gained much hold on
mankind, it always needs an element of good to bait the
t rap.
Although the ‘wrong’ committed by a Glacier is subtle and
hard to define, the rewards are comparatively straight-
forward. When you emerge from a hellish session with a
Waterfall, it is a relief to unburden your troubles on
others - for a Glacier is usually good at explaining
another person’s awful behaviour. You find that everyone
is very sympathetic, quick to condemn the Waterfall and
to congratulate you for being so patient with such a mon-
ster. This is very encouraging to a Glacier who, minutes
earlier, was wondering if he was going round the bend.
But when you have heard it all for the zillionth time, and
your emotional life is still a shambles, society’s adula- :¸¸
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
The Glacier’s initially superior position can also mean
that the Glacier is superficially less hung-up at the
social level: while the Waterfall is agonising about
whether he dare inflict his tedious presence upon the
magnificent Glacier TWICE in one week, the Glacier will
drop a casual invitation to ‘drop round anytime’. But
there is an ambiguous message here: while, on the one
hand, the Waterfall wonders if the invitation to come
‘anytime’ means that the Glacier perhaps really likes the
Waterfall, the Glacier, on the other hand, thinks that he
must keep the invitation as easy-going and open as pos-
sible, in order not to give the Waterfall too strong an
impression that his presence is actually WANTED!
These ‘double messages’ can be very subtle: the last time
I struggled to comprehend why a Glacier’s kind smiles
evoked such tumultuous feelings in me, I suddenly
realised that even in a dim light they were delivered with
contracted pupils - normally an unconscious sign of hos-
ti l i ty or cauti on.
The Glacier is always fair and reasonable; the Waterfall
admires this, but if the Waterfall has a jealous nature
the Glacier will start to be fair and reasonable about he
Waterfall’ s rivals, when the Waterfall would much
rather hear some bitchy gossip about them!
At an unconscious level there is now only one topic of
conversation:
Waterfal l : “Look, am I real l y as awful as I feel ?”
Glacier: “Er... nice weather we’re having...”
:¸:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
that a Waterfall suckles, and in return for sustenance
there is the glow of being significant on some cosmic
stage: even if you feel insignificant, you are somehow
IMMENSELY insignificant.
As an aside, I should point out to those Waterfalls that,
when a Glacier storms out unable to stand their torrents
a minute longer, he does not go away ‘to have a ball’. Even
if the Glacier is at an all-night party, he is probably
standing alone against the wall, peacefully wondering
why it is that he can only really love the Waterfall in her
absence!
I have described some of these symptoms at great length,
because I am curious to know if they are as common as I
suspect. Some of my friends have similar experiences -
but is this just the reason they are my friends?
Meanwhile, while writing this essay, my attention was
drawn to two books describing similar symptoms.
WE’RE NOT ALONE!
In Rosenblum’s ‘Astrologer’s Guide to Counselling’, in
the chapter on ‘The Troubled Love Relationship’ there is
the following passage:
“One of the most common conflicts I have observed... is
the following: one of the partners feels that the other is
neglecting the expression of care, sensitivity, or emo-
tionality. The other person feels that the partner is
exaggerating or making excessive demands and withdraws
even further. This turns into a battle of “the demander”
versus “the withholder”. Both are convinced of the cor-
rectness of their position, and the assertions of each only
:¸¸
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
tion grows less satisfying. You will run from adviser to
adviser, in the hope of finding one person who can tell
you what YOU are doing wrong.
Although the Waterfall’s atrocities are much more obvi-
ous and easy to describe, the rewards for being such a
‘monster’ are very subtle and insidious. It is a form of
drug addiction. Your torments and your sacrifices have a
sort of l arger-than-l i fe, i ntoxi cati ng sweetness that
cannot be conveyed in words, but is best compared to
certain passages of music, like the passages in Wagner’s
‘Tristan and Isolde’ that mount up and up in yearning
spirals without offering any release.
This is so insidious that it is first noticed only as a with-
drawal symptom. The Waterfall does have occasional
moments of calm, unmolested by surges of feeling. But
these moments do not come so much as a haven of peace,
as an icy desert. When the thundering music of your
emotions is withdrawn, life is suddenly dry, dead and
soulless. Minutes earlier you were an actor on a cosmic
stage of superhuman feeling, and now the cold reality of
your existence reveals that you are dreadfully ordinary.
Whereas the Glacier is reassured to find that he is not
alone in his troubles, the Waterfall would like to be the
one and only lover in the world.
Once a woman who was suckling a babe described to me
the agreeable sensation as a sort of golden glow in the
solar plexus. When a Waterfall sits alone and seethes at
the thought of the wonderful time his Glacier is now
enjoying in the glittering company of all those other
magnificent Glaciers, his misery is laced with that gold-
en glow. I am reminded of the mediaeval idea of the witch
that suckles demons: those bitter thoughts are the demons :¸,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
The Iceman is a ‘psychopathic’ figure who has no feel-
ings, cannot be touched emotionally. He gives the
Gorgon’s outrage no value. ‘He says icy things like “I
don’t wish to discuss this any further”. He tells the
Gorgon that she is being irrational and over-emotional,
and makes clear his revulsion toward her. He says,
“When you’ve quieted down and can behave like a
civilised human being, then we’ll discuss it.” But usual-
ly he won’t discuss it at all...’. Liz Greene associates the
Iceman with Uranus.
Liz Greene claims that she has yet to see a relationship of
any importance where these figures do not surface in
some form. ‘The dynamic between these two is terrify-
ing, not least because these two figures can emerge in two
people who actually love each other and don’t want to feel
like that... It’s like possession... Although they are not
personal they feed on personal grievances... they can
destroy any relationship, no matter how astrologically
well matched...’
I recognise much of the Waterfall and Glacier in this, and
realise that the most extreme, or likely situation is when
the Waterfall is the woman, and the Glacier is the man.
But know also this need not be - even in a relationship as
described by Liz Greene, a close observer will notice
moments of sudden reversal, when the man breaks down
or loses control, and the woman immediately turns to ice.
This is to me a sure sign that the two modes are a ‘tuning
in to’ or ‘possession by’ some cosmic polarity, rather
than any personal business of the two people concerned.
Sure enough, when the audience asked Liz Greene if the
sexual roles could be reversed, she replied that they can. :¸,
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
reinforce the fears and conflicts of the other. Although
both feel securel y “rati onal ” i n thei r posi ti on, the emo-
ti onal fact i s that “the demander” i s usual l y over-react-
ing because of some childhood wound or unmet need,
whi l e “the wi thhol der” i s unconsci ousl y provoki ng the
partner because of fears of intimacy and being con-
trol l ed..’
For ‘demander’ read ‘waterfall’ and for ‘withholder’
read ‘glacier’, and it sounds like a generalised account of
what I have described.
At the other end of the scale, more particular than gen-
eral , i s Li z Greene’ s descri pt i on (i n her ‘ Chart
Compari son’ l ecture i n the ‘ Jupi ter/Saturn Lectures’ )
of the two archetypal figures that she names ‘the Gorgon’
and ‘the Iceman’. The passage is too long to quote, so I’ll
pick out some relevant ideas from it.
The Gorgon is the ‘shadow’ or extreme, unacceptable
limit of the feminine principle, and the Iceman is the
equivalent for the masculine principle.
The Gorgon ‘is an image of outraged, violated nature. I
think it is very difficult for a woman to actually recog-
nise when the Gorgon appears, because one simply falls
into her, becomes her. Men spot it instantly.... Her sur-
face complaint may be typical “How could you have hurt
me?” or, “If you really loved me you wouldn’t have done
that.” Underneath is a deep, ancient bitterness. It is the
bitterness of women feeling used, humiliated, trodden
upon... It is the thing so many men fear in women, and it
is the thing women do not wish to recognise about them-
selves’. Liz Greene associates the Gorgon with the planet
Pluto in astrology. :¸o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
matters, two people best equipped to be mutually helpful
end up being mutually destructive, or at least baffling.
I am inclined to see the Gorgon and the Iceman as the most
specific forms of the Waterfall and the Glacier, just as
the Demander and the Withholder are the most general
forms.
An interesting portrayal of an Iceman figure is given in
Dion Fortune’s novel ‘the Demon Lover’. (The contract-
ing pupils of the cold Justin seemed a bit far-fetched
until I recalled my experience of a Glacier who smiled
wi th contracted pupi l s!) But i n thi s novel , wri tten
before the discovery of Pluto, there was no Gorgon
response. This raises the intriguing question to the
astrologically-minded: has the Iceman become a more-
or-less accepted part of our civilisation already, where-
as the Gorgon is a comparative newcomer to our aware-
ness (and therefore even more ancient, if you see what
I’ m getti ng at)?
This might explain why it was easier to describe what
the Waterfall did ‘wrong’, whereas the Glacier’s wrongs
seemed more subtle and harder to define. We are already
living in a partially glaciated world - to the Gorgon’s
even greater DISGUST. I hate to admit it - but perhaps
women really do have the bigger burden!
Typical Iceman stuff this: out there is a world of suffer-
ing, and here am I making polite jokes and discussing the
‘intriguing questions’ raised. As I hinted earlier, who is
writing this article? me, or the Iceman who wishes to
freeze my last Gorgon invasion?
:¸,
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
The Iceman can take over a woman’s animus. ‘He’s actu-
ally cutting the woman herself down, at the same time as
he’s saying cold things to the partner... He punishes the
woman’s femininity and cripples her feeling. Usually
he’s projected on a man, but you can catch him inside,
criticising and cutting down... It says “I don’t believe in
possessiveness, relationships ought to be free from emo-
tional scenes and demands... I find emotion weak and dis-
gusting”. That’s the voice. Unfortunately it doesn’t sit
very well in the feminine psyche. There’s an incredible
touchiness about it. a real defensiveness... it often takes
months and months and months before that woman will
actually acknowledge that she hurts, or feels fear, or is
l onel y or vul nerabl e.’
By way of comparison, (said he, gazing detachedly into
the far distance) I must confess that the times that I have
harboured the Gorgon have been times when my custom-
ary, disarming butchness and objectivity have been
somewhat wanting.
It is also true that, although I have been both Glacier and
Waterfall, the two modes have not hit me equally. The
Glacier mode does seem to have deeper roots. I could
hardly describe my experience of the Waterfall mode as
‘controllable’, but in later years I have been more aware
that when it happens it is ‘not me’. Instead of becoming a
full-blooded Gorgon, I become a sort of battle-ground
where an innate Iceman attempts to control an erupting
Gorgon. This inner battle probably gives me a curious
outer manner, as I blow hot and cold; but this is only
conjecture, for I suffer too much inner turmoil to be able
to judge how I look! Such behaviour is probably most
disconcerting to a female Iceman, who harbours a simi-
lar battle but with the roles reversed. As usual in such :¸8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
information that helps to clarify what it is that you are
seeking on that path can be of value.
The Gorgon and the Iceman appear to be denizens of a
world that receives more recognition amongst occultists
than among the general populace, so if there is any chance
of redeeming these figures, then we had better seek to do
so in our own lives - before the battles they fight with-
in us erupt into the greater population.
The Uranian Iceman aligns well with the image of the
soulless researcher who tackles nature as a box of inan-
imate puzzles, the scientific establishment that places
truth above conscience. That establishment does not con-
trol the weapons it creates, instead they are in the hands
of pol i t i cal groupi ngs t hat grow dai l y more l i ke
Plutonian Gorgons in the way they behave. The danger is
that these two principles may eventually go into battle
with their very own elements - Uranium and Plutonium.
Rather than end on such a political note, I would like to
dedicate this essay with affection to all those Waterfalls
that have nearly drowned me, all those Glaciers that have
frozen me out, and any other perplexed people who have
wondered what the hell is going on inside my head!
:oz
1 1
St r ess
Anal ysi s
of a
Twi st ed
Kni cker
SO WHAT?
The fact that these two books describe the sort of behav-
iour I have noted, and describe it as being commonplace,
serves to reinforce my observation. But it does not real-
ly answer the other questions: is this more likely to hap-
pen to Thinking types than to Feeling types? and does it
especially often happen to those interested in the occult?
The Gorgon and the Iceman, as described by Liz Greene,
are such powerful figures that I doubt that anyone could
resist them in a really close relationship; but I cannot
believe that a Feeling type would be as vulnerable to such
‘possession’ as the Thinker - who is more inclined to tie
his defences in knots as he tries to explain away what is
happening.
Both authors make the problem sound utterly universal;
but both are astrological counsellers, and perhaps people
who would consult such counsellers are more likely to be
open to an interest in the occult?
So the possibility that the rationalist establishment is
rich with Feeling types trying to play butch, and the
occult establishment is rich with Thinking types trying
to balance themselves, remains intriguingly open. But
does it matter?
To return to my first three examples: James Webb com-
mitted suicide, the Rationalist press man went round the
bend, and I am sure that Patrick Moore loses another
marble each time an interviewer confuses the disciplines
and calls him an ‘astrologer’. This does suggest that there
is an element of strain in trying to be what one is not.
Insofar as the occult path is a path of self-discovery, any
:oc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
12 - SIR GARETH AND THE BEAST
A ri tual dramati sati on of the hi story of Si r Gareth of
Orkney, conceived and enacted on Dragon Hill, Uffington
Fi rst publ i shed i n Arrow 19
This had its origins in a group magical working of the Celtic
current, where we recei ved “at random” the name of a
Knight and of a Quest and were asked to form a ritual that
expressed the two i n combi nati on. I recei ved “Si r Gareth”
and “The Dragon”, so I read up Sir Gareth and went to Dragon
Hill at Uffington for inspiration. There, beneath blue skies on
the patch of earth where nothing grows, I conceived the idea
for thi s mystery pl ay on the story of Si r Gareth.
NARRATOR: Step back in time to a younger land where
people were few and Nature not man ruled the landscape.
Across the open moorland we see a lady in black and scar-
let on a fine black horse, pacing with the steady gait that
tells of many miles to travel. Her long red hair is held
with a jewelled headband, and her head is held high in
scorn.
Four paces behind is a young man on a piebald horse; a
fine enough horse, but somehow ill-fitting its young
rider who seems too ungainly on its back. So also with
the young man’s attire: it is of noble quality, yet his
broad shoulders have outgrown it. His shield and helm
are of good workmanship, but do not belong together.
From time to time he reaches nervously to touch his
sword as if surprised by its presence at his side. He
speaks imploringly to the lady’s scornful back, in a high,
anxious tone that belies his size and strength.
:o:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
We move closer to this scene, and we merge with the lady.
The young man is now therefore talking to us.
G: My name is ...
No, I would rather not tell my name. I’m sorry, it must
seem rather silly of me; the least I can do is try to
explain why. I suppose it’s a question of evading pre-
conceptions.
I was born of a noble family, and brought up as a gentle-
man. A gentleman’s education is a harsh process, geared
to breaking wild young souls into an ideal that few can
ever match.
One of Nature’s stranger tricks is occasionally to bear an
old soul in a young body. Harsh lessons, well aimed to
mould the wilful passions of youth, merely served to bind
my old soul and drive it in upon itself.
I knew that I longed to be a knight. What I did not know
was whether this was my soul’s true will, or just an
i mpri nt of my upbri ngi ng.
As I came to Camelot, I envied the blind confidence of my
friends, that they could step into this wonderland and
straightway demand arms. I had no such certainty. I
was even fearful of their expectations and refused to give
my name or family. Instead of arms I begged for time;
to be tolerated for a year while I tried to get myself
together.
I was permitted to work in the kitchen under that bastard
Kay...
:o¸
1 2
Si r Garet h
and the
Dragon
LINET: It fares thee ill to speak thus of a worthy knight,
ki tchen scrubber.
G: I am sorry, my Lady, you are absolutely right. But I
can hardly thank him for his treatment...
LINET: They say he called you ‘Handy Pandy’. I think
that’ s rather funny.
ALL: We think that’s rather funny!
G gazes dejectedly at his large hands: The joke has long
grown wearisome. But I suppose he has fed me well
enough.
Anyway, when my Lady Linet arrived at court, telling of
fair Lady Lioness who needed a champion, I sensed my
destiny.
Was I ready? Was I right? One thing I had learned in my
year was that sheet thinking never answered such ques-
tions. So I swallowed doubt and fear, and asked leave to
play the part.
Thus it is, my Lady Linet, that I am accompanying you to
Castle Perilous.
Lady Linet?
Lady Linet!
LINET crossly: What is it now?
:o,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
G sheepishly: It’s just that I hoped that, if I explained
myself a bit, you might grant me the favour of looking at
me occasionally.
LINET: What are you talking about now?
G: You mean you haven’t been listening?
LINET: It’s quite enough to put up with the smell of
onions, without having to listen to your prattle too. Do
shut up, kitchen boy.
ALL: Yes, do shut up, kitchen boy!
NARRATOR: The sky grows dark, the land grows black.
Forbidden to share his burden the young man grows fear-
f ul .
In this black land they find a black banner on a black-
thorn tree, beside it a black shield and spear. A great
black horse stands by, tethered to a black stone whereon
is seated a black knight. The slow chomping of the horse
accompanies the chattering of the young man’s teeth.
KNIGHT: Who goes there?
LINET quietly: Look, boy, he’s not on his horse. So if you
make a bolt for it now, you might just get by safely.
G. What sort of coward do you take me for?
KNIGHT: Ah! Fair Lady Linet! So you have a champion
for your Lady Lioness?
:o¸
1 2
Si r Garet h
and the
Dragon
LINET: No such luck. It’s rather embarrassing, actual-
ly; this kitchen knave has tagged onto me and I don’t seem
able to get rid of him. You wouldn’t oblige, would you?
(Gareth seethes)
KNIGHT: If he has the courage to stay while I prepare
myself! We’ll soon see him on his way.
NARRATOR: The young man and the Knight face each
other. The Lady steps her horse backwards to a safe dis-
tance.
The young man seethes, then attacks the knight like a
maniac, overwhelming him and slaying him. The Lady
turns her back.
G: I did it! My Lady, did you see that!
LINET: I didn’t have to watch such an embarrassing dis-
play of bad taste, did I? But I suppose a knave would be
expected to take advantage of a knight when his horse
stumbles.
G: My Lady! It was a fair clean fight and I proved myself
the better!
LINET: Oh that’s what you think, kitchen boy!
ALL: Oh that’s what you think, kitchen boy!
NARRATOR: Wearily the young man puts on the Black
Knight’s armour and mounts his black horse. The
armour is barely large enough, but the match of arms and
mount does the lad better justice. As if aware of this, he :oo
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
now holds his head higher as he gallops to catch up the
Lady; only to falter once more at the sight of her scorn-
ful averted gaze.
Now the land grows greener, till they approach a green
thorn tree, where there waits a green knight. He sees
them first, and recognises the black armour of his
brot her.
KNIGHT: Ho there, Lady Linet! So my brother is now
your consort I see!
LINET: No such luck, sir. Your brother lies slain at the
hands of this treacherous knave that has pinched his
armour and ...
(Gareth seethes)
KNIGHT: Enough said! He shall die for his villainy!
G: Good sir knight, it wasn’t at all like that. Just let me
explain ... please!
NARRATOR: The young man gazes imploringly at the
Green Knight and at the Lady. As the knight charges, the
young man is incensed by the Lady’s scorn and turns to
face his attacker.
A bloody battle ensues, and rages until the young man has
the Green Knight at his mercy. Exulting in his power the
young man slowly unlaces the knight’s helmet to slay
hi m.
:o,
1 2
Si r Garet h
and the
Dragon
KNIGHT: Good sir! You have proven yourself a worthy
knight in battle, pray show yourself a gentleman by now
granting me mercy!
G: No way. Unless the lady chooses to plead on your
behal f?
LINET: What ridiculous presumption for a knave.
ALL: Oh what presumption for a knave!
NARRATOR: The young man feigns a lethal stab and the
knight shrieks. The lady, shaken, steps forward crying
‘no!’. The young man gets up and with a low bow releas-
es hi s vi cti m.
The lady now turns her horse angrily and canters ahead.
We follow her towards a magnificent white tower all
decked out for a great tournament. There a Red Knight
sees her approach, and see the galloping figure in black
armour catch her up.
KNIGHT: Is that my brother the Black Knight?
LINET: No, it’s just some rubbish kitchen boy from
Art hur’ s court .
KNIGHT: Oh well, perhaps he’s care to pop in for a
dr i nk?
LINET: You might just be interested to hear that he not
only mugged one of your brothers for his armour, but
then went to disgrace your other brother.
:o8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
KNIGHT: That does put a rather different complexion on
the matter, I must say. HOIST YOUR ARMS, VARLET!
NARRATOR: Once more the protesting young man found
himself locked in bloody combat. The sound of the lady
cheering on his opponent brought out the beast in him and
soon the Red Knight lay grovelling for mercy. This time
the young man looked straight at the lady and raised his
vi sor qui zzi cal l y.
LINET crossly: Oh all right! It doesn’t matter all that
much anyway!
NARRATOR: Let us, like true gentlemen, avert our gaze
from the lady’s shame...
LINET: Hisssss
NARRATOR: ..... and pass on to their approach to a land all
blue. As before the lady leads scornfully, waxing elo-
quent on her favourite topic.
LINET: ... and how I came to be lumbered with this stink-
ing kitchen knave is utterly beyond me. Why I ...
G: But ...
LINET: Shut up, oaf, can’t I get a word in edgeways?
As I was trying to say ...
NARRATOR: But the strangeness of the blue land casts its
spell over them. The lady falls silent and they continue
thus. It is the young man who eventually speaks, quiet-
l y . :o,
1 2
Si r Garet h
and the
Dragon
G: My Lady, why do you ever rebuke me? Have I not done
all I can to serve you as a true gentle-knight? As the way
gets harder, how I long for a word of encouragement;
something to tell me that I’m on the right lines.
Narrator: For the first time the lady turns to face her
follower. Her scorn no way diminished, she speaks.
LINET: Look here, Peeler, I grant you’ve proved your-
self so far, against a bunch of other meatheads, but now
I’m warning you. You’re into the big time now. This
blue bugger now thundering towards us is really smart.
It would need more than just big biceps and beginner’s
luck to lay him low, I promise you. So why don’t you
just turn back, like a good little kitchen boy, and run like
hell before he catches you?
G: My Lady, I’ve said it a hundred times if I’ve said it
once: I’m sticking to my word, come what may.
LINET more softly: What sort of a lad are you? I’ve been
an absolute bitch to you and yet you insist on taking it
like some fairytale nobleman. Please turn back.
Look, you’re a pain in the arse, but I honestly don’t want
to see you hurt anymore. And this Blue Knight is really
mean.
G: If you know knew how scared I have been. It was only
the pain of your harsh words that gave me strength.
There were times enough when I was ready to flee, but
one more jibe from you seemed to evoke a wildness in me
that I never knew existed. I can only thank you for what
you have revealed to me. :,c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
NARRATOR: The young man hesitates anxiously, but too
late. The Blue Knight is upon him and battling with all
his might. The young man regains his courage in the
conflict, and once more presses on to victory. This time
the lady is quick to grant her mercy for the Blue Knight’s
l i f e.
Our two companions are now within reach of the Castle
Perilous. Indeed, that night word reaches Lady Lioness
of their arrival, and she sends a message of encourage-
ment and a fine dinner to fortify them for the coming day.
Now we find the lady and the young man riding side by
side, talking in low tones as if not to arouse the choler of
this blood red landscape.
LINET: Look, I’m feeling really bad for getting you into
this situation. Turn back now, and I’d quite understand.
G. I’d never forgive myself.
LINET: Well, here’s one tip: this next Knight may have
the strength of seven men at his best, but in fact his
strength increases till noon, then begins to fall off in the
afternoon - I thi nk i t’ s somethi ng to do wi th hi s l i ver -
so if you hang around a bit you will have a better chance
of catching him at an off moment.
G: No way. I’m going to take him as he comes.
LINET: You don’t have to prove anything to me, you know.
G: I still have to prove it to myself.
:,z
1 2
Si r Garet h
and the
Dragon
LINET: I’m beginning to wish I’d been a good girl and
stayed at home doing embroidery. Aren’t you scared?
G: Look, can’t we change the subject? Tell me about Lady
Lioness.
LINET: She’s really your type. She read Moral
Psychology with the Franciscans.
G: Oh, thanks.
LINET: No, really, you’ll like her. And she’ll like you.
I only fear you may get carried away too quickly. I sup-
pose that is why I’ve tested you so harshly.
Just look at that castle, doesn’t it give you the creeps?
G: Madame, I’m going through hell in this hot, red land.
I wish the good knight whose armour I’m wearing had
known a little about the heat absorption properties of
black bodies. I also wish he’d made it easier to get it off,
for my bowels are troubled with fear.
LINET coyly: So shall I say some more bitchy things to
make you angry again?
G: Thanks, but it isn’t quite the same now. Tell me more
about your sister instead.
Hey, what the hell is that?
LINET: Some forty odd previous contenders, now hang-
ing, rotting in the trees. I told you this knight had no
mercy.
:,:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
G: The bastard, the absolute bloody bastard!
LINET quickly: Oh, that’s nothing! You should hear what
he does to little children...
G: Just wait till I get my hands on that bastard!
KNIGHT: Halt, you two!
So my Lady Linet has found another champion! Another
little hopeful to swat and hang in my collection!
G pointing with his spear at the hanging corpses: What’s
the meaning of this, you bastard!
KNIGHT laughs mockingly: My, a pocket philosopher!
What’ s the “meani ng” eh?
Might I ask your “meaning”, knave? What can be the
“meaning” of death? Methinks the last part of your
question contains the answer to the first part, considered
anal yt i -
G: Shut up, and fight!
NARRATOR: The young man charges like a mad bull, and
the Red Knight coolly sidesteps and cuffs him on the
shoulder. The young man staggers, then regains his
composure.
A mighty battle ensues. All day they fight, at times rest-
ing to gather strength, and suck segments of oranges. At
such times the young man sobs and shakes with weariness
and loss of blood, but the lady points to the castle and says
her sister is there at a window, waving encouragement. :,¸
1 2
Si r Garet h
and the
Dragon
With that the young man each time rises again and tells
the Red Knight to raise his bloodied arms once more.
Each time the Knight rises more uncertainly, till at last
he falls in battle not to rise again. The young man flops
onto him, gasping, and begins to lift his dagger to strike.
KNIGHT: Good sir, you have well proven yourself in bat-
tle to be the mightiest in the land. I beg you, good sir,
now show equal standing as a gentleman, and let me live!
G: You must be joking, you cruel bastard! Just explain
those forty brave knights swinging in the trees, and why
you didn’t spare their lives, if you can!
KNIGHT with renewed energy at the joy of having some-
one to listen to him after all these years: Well, it’s like
this you see. That’s the last thing I ever really wanted to
do, but I once loved a lady, and she absolutely insisted I
commit all these atrocities ...
G: Gosh, you poor thing! How beastly! I know just what
you mean, Ladies do make us do the most dreadful things,
don’t they?
LINET: Hissss
NARRATOR: And so the young man and the Red Knight help
each other to their feet, shake hands, and swear undying
friendship. The young man tidies himself up a bit then
rushes eagerly to the castle.
It is locked.
:,,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
He tries every door, but the doormen say they’ve had
their orders. In despair he shouts to Lady Lioness. A
voice replies from behind the door.
LIONESS: Be calm, good sir. Full nobly have you fought
for me, but your admission is not timely.
Depart hence, and aspire to the innermost secrets of
knighthood. Return in a year’s time and I shall be wait-
i ng i n j oy.
G: A year! How could you! I’ve given the best blood in
my body to get here.
LIONESS: Believe me, my champion, I do not say this to
taunt you. How could your longing ever exceed mine? I
swear that I will think only of you for these twelve
months. Please wring my heart no longer, go forth and
grow in wisdom.
NARRATOR: Muttering a thousand curses on the ways of
womenfolk, and temporarily certain that the whole wide
world holds not one drop more of undiscovered wisdom,
our hero trudges into the sunset.
So do we have to wait a year to hear the outcome?
Not so. For curiosity overcomes wisdom in Lady Lioness’
breast. She hatches a plot to discover her champion’s
real identity. The outcome of this ruse might have been
foreseen: she meets her champion in a nearby castle and
their love is at once confirmed. The young man has never
seen Lady Lioness at close quarters, so does not realise
who she is.
:,¸
1 2
Si r Garet h
and the
Dragon
G to himself: Gosh, isn’t she terrific! If only this
Lioness woman was half as good as her, I’d really have
something worth waiting for next year!
NARRATOR: Unable to contain her rapture, Lioness con-
fesses all. The lovers embrace in ecstasy.
G: When?
LIONESS: Tonight!
G: Where?
LIONESS: In this hall!
G: How?
LIONESS: I’ll come to you!
G: DARLING!
NARRATOR: Behind the curtain Lady Linet shakes her
head and sighs. Only magic can save the situation now.
We find her stirring strange potions in a cauldron.
LINET: Why do I always get the unpopular parts?
ALL: Don’t worry, Linet, you’re one of us!
NARRATOR: That night finds the young man pretending to
be asleep in the hall. The sight of Lady Lioness in her
ermine mantle ends the pretence. Eagerly they embrace.
At the point where Modesty reaches to draw the curtain
we stay her hand. For lo! a thousand flames light the hall
and a knight is suddenly there calling challenge. :,o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
The young man springs to his feet and grabs his arms.
The fight is bitter. Our hero is the victor but, maddened
in his lust, he hacks off the knight’s head and hurls it out
of the window, before collapsing wounded on the floor.
His recovery is hardly hastened by the sight of Lady Linet
sticking the knight back together again.
Ten days pass before the lovers can repeat their secret
tryst. This time the young man has his sword at the
ready. But it does him no good. The flaming knight
fights with superhuman strength and delivers a wound
most grievous to a loving man, before falling to the young
man’ s fury.
ALL: Alas, poor youth.
NARRATOR: Alas for those whose ardour bypasses wis-
dom. It was Lady Linet who, by herself playing the
Dragon, evoked the Dragon power in our hero. It was she
who saw how he slowly learned to control the power, to
the point where he was match for the wiliest opponent.
In his final battle he even learned to raise the power
through love as well as hatred.
But did that mean that he was ready for his Lady Lioness?
Oh no! For this phantom knight of a thousand flames was
just the vision of his own Dragon power, revealed to him
through Li net’ s craft.
And did it serve his love? No, it merely came between
him and his lady. She should have trusted her earlier
wisdom, and kept him at bay till this lesson had been less
pai nful l y l earned.
:,,
1 2
Si r Garet h
and the
Dragon
Can we expect him now to understand?
Perhaps the answer awaits some future people: an older
Albion heavily populated with older souls: uncertain
knights who also beg their rulers for food and games,
instead of recognition and adventure. Perhaps they too
will only know the Dragon power through its evocation in
mob enthusiasm? Perhaps they too will ignore their
feminine wisdom?
Or Perhaps they will at last find this mystery’s solution,
where our young man has failed?
G: No! Let me speak once more!
There’s nothing like lying wounded for giving a young
man time to reconsider. I see now how Lady Linet was
ri ght al l al ong, bl ast her!
It was that same Dragon that came between Lioness and
me, and I set out to kill it. Yet the oldest tales tell not of
killing dragons, but of cutting off their heads. No ordi-
nary act of butchery. Some even say it cannot be
achieved by men, but only by the merciful assistance of
the Archangel Michael. Be that as it may, men have
always interpreted the tale in terms of killing the beast.
But it alone knows that it cannot be killed: every piece
hacked off by raging men merely spawns further Dragons
of i ts ki nd!
So what is this ‘cutting off the Dragon’s head’? In the
gentlemanly art of breaking in young horses, we were
told not to ‘give the wild horse its head’, lest it should
run amok. To love a horse was to know when to be its
‘head’. :,8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
So was the tale of cutting off the Dragon’s head rather
more an instruction to deny it total freedom, never to let
it run amok? The “middle way” that always sounds so
bori ng - unti l you actual l y try to put i t i nto practi ce.
Armed with this pearl of wisdom I felt ready to get my
hands on lovely Lioness once more. But fate had other
plans: My Lady was summoned to Camelot.
It appeared that ‘Mummy’ had turned up at Arthur’s
Court and spilled the beans about my oh-so-noble back-
ground.
Before my Lady left, we made hasty plans for my ‘come-
back’: she was to organise a bumper tournament, and I
was to turn up incognito and sweep the field. I guess I
still had something to prove!
Anyway, we did it. I was bloody marvellous that day,
knocking down knights like skittles, but this time strict-
ly to the Queensbury Rules of a tournament. I never
quite knew when I should stop and unmask myself - it
always seemed that I needed just one more victory to
really show them - but fortunately someone recognised
me and blew my secret before I made a real fool of
mysel f !
So there we were, hugs and kisses all round and, of
course, the hand of my Lady Lioness in marriage.
I have cut a long story short, for I know you are really
more interested in Dragons. And I’m quite sure that
you’ve had enough of the prattling of a kitchen boy.
:,,
1 2
Si r Garet h
and the
Dragon
13. BLAST YOUR WAY TO MEGABUCK$ WITH MY SECRET
SEX-POWER FORMULA
Love that ti tl e. Just had to put i t i n for the sake of gi vi ng the
book a nice name.
But what shall the essay be about?
Someone sai d i t woul d sui t my styl e i f, havi ng gi ven that ti tl e
to the collection, no essay of that name were to appear in the
book - but I feel that would be a bit naughty. I must make an
effort and imagine that I have actually been commissioned by
someone to write an article on a particular magical topic.
Troubl e i s, I don’ t have a secret sex power formul a.
Ok, you don’t believe me. You think I’m only saying that to
keep the secret secret.
Well, I’ve never had megabuck$: it’s taken me ages to scrape
up the cash even to publish this book and I know I’ll probably
have to sell at a loss to get rid of the thing in the end.
That’ s why I l i ke the ti tl e. It’ s so i roni c.
I really suppose this has to be an article about magical effec-
tiveness. So here goes.
I love the occult literary cliche where the listless and
disenchanted young seeker gets into conversation with a
mysterious stranger in a seedy secondhand bookshop...
and finds that he or she has been “chosen” by a highly
secret and exclusive international elite who use occult
knowledge to shape world history for the benefit of
mankind - in the face of inhuman evil forces, of course.
The Rosicrucian dream.
:8z
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
Even if this particular kitchen boy just happens to be ...
SIR GARETH OF ORKNEY!
:8c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
I gave up hopeful hanging around secondhand bookshops
years ago. The rule of thumb seems to be this: the more
occult knowledge, the less magical power; the more mag-
ical power, the more ignorance and bigotry.
In fact, the only way to make megabuck$ in the occult is
to take some brai n-numbi ngl y si mpl e pri nci pl e l i ke
transcendental meditation and sell it like crazy.
I have actually tried quite hard to make megabuck$ by
magic. Don’t laugh, but this very book is a last dying
ember of a dream that I tried to realise back in 1970. If
Thatcherism gets to heaven before me, and wordly suc-
cess becomes the criterion for admission, then I am
doomed to eternal damnation for sure - along with near-
ly every occultist I know.
Does that sound like the final condemnation of magic? The
deathbed revoking of a lifetime wasted in occult studies?
Can humanity now forget the magical quest for the delu-
sion and folly that it so patently has been proven to be by
this confession coming from a leading occult theorist
(well, someone once called me that)?
Let’s get this in perspective. I also went through a reli-
gious phase as a child, and I didn’t find religion very
effective either. In fact the same laws seemed to apply:
religious awareness seems to be in inverse relationship
to worldly effectiveness. And you only make megabuck$
with religion by flogging pap.
I have also tried to make megabuck$ scientifically - and
know a number of fellow Cambridge graduates who have
put even more effort into such endeavour but with little
obvious success. :8:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Funnily enough, my only glimpse of relative wordly suc-
cess has come through the application of art. Putting on a
decent act in interviews, and coming up with a few cre-
ative ideas for proposals, have together earned me more
modest bucks than all of magic, religion and science put
together. But never megabuck$.
So the real conclusion of this experience must be that
humanity should finally forget all about religion and sci-
ence as well as magic... and try a bit harder at art.
Alternatively, humanity should stop drawing sweeping
conclusions based on daft criteria.
As usual I am reminded of Jung’s classification into psy-
chological types with its division into two polarised
pairs: sensation versus intuition; thinking versus feel-
ing.
Development in one of each pair seems to militate against
development of its opposite. If a sense of personal power
comes from a well-developed feeling nature, then we
expect that sense of power to be lacking in a well devel-
oped thinking nature. Thus we find that those who have
great knowledge can seem rather ineffectual - and it
makes no difference whether it is occult, scientific or
any other type of knowledge.
Curious, really, in view of the fact that the information
industry keeps insisting that “knowledge is power”.
Perhaps it is - just as much as matter is energy - but
that in both cases it takes one hell of a lot of application
to transform between the two states. It is as difficult to
make a lump of matter reveal its energy as it is for a :8¸
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
knowledgeable man to reveal any great power. And when
people are wielding power they tend to come across as
thi ck as bri cks.
Similarly it is a common observation that the intuitive
person is not very good at handling practical affairs -
like the cliche of the brilliant artist who cannot make
money. And those who are good at making money tend to
show very l i ttl e i magi nati on i n usi ng i t.
So if I fail to become rich despite the application of
magic, religion, science and art, perhaps it is not magic,
religion, science and art that have proved ineffective, but
rat her mysel f ?
And if I fail in love, perhaps it is not magic, religion,
science and art that have proved powerless, but rather
mysel f ?
In each case the fact that I end up with more knowledge
and wisdom, rather than results, says more about me
than my methods.
Perhaps there are many thoughtful intuitives drawn to
magic because they seek an unconscious balance of their
natures, and that the poverty and wordly ineffectiveness
of many magicians is a reflection of their nature more
than it is a demonstration of magic’s ability?
It is particularly in England that we witness this prob-
lem. Magicians in some other countries seem to have less
difficulty in holding down good jobs, becoming reason-
ably rich, or achieving some sort of eminence. So per-
haps national character plays a role too.
:8,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Aries is the traditional astrological ruler of England, and
it does reflect in a certain pioneering spirit that likes to
start up new ideas or projects but is not very good at
carrying them through to the finish. We rather pride
ourselves on having good ideas that other nations exploit,
and there is a certain self-defeating streak that sees
wordly success as somewhat vulgar. That aligns with the
creative artist who struggles to make money while deeply
despising it.
I suspect that the historic success of the British Empire
owed a lot to, say, the greater tenacity of the Scots (ruled
by Cancer) although one would expect the Aries nation to
take the credit.
This is beginning to look pretty bad. Myself and English
occultism are doomed to failure. So what the hell are we
all doing?
I know a German magician who really is quite proficient
at making money and achieving success, and I have heard
hi m procl ai m “magi c i s about power”.
Certainly if I think back to earliest childhood hopes about
magic there was a yearning to be able to make things
happen: to be able to point one’s finger and make enemies
crumble or thunder rumble, to wave one’s wand and turn
lead into gold at a stroke. With greater maturity this
persisted as a more general desire to be successful, to
“prove” magic by achieving more than the non-magi-
cian... and so on.
But once one got really into studying real books on real
magic all that started to look a bit kitsch. One was on the
spiritual path now. Instead of doing a spell to make the :8¸
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
girl next door fall in love with you, it was considered
more comely to transmute one’s base desires and become
a higher initiate (perhaps then she would love you?).
The question of power seems to be forgotten at this stage
of development. In its place there is the idea of transfor-
mation, or of perfecting oneself.
Indeed, when you consider the number of occultists for
whom magical practice consists of meditation, seasonal
rituals and “celebrations” rather than doing spells to
make things happen, the idea that “magic is about
power” might seem far-fetched. Even when an effect is
desired, it is likely to be something vague and open ended
l i ke “pl anetary heal i ng” i nstead of “megabuck$”.
At this level it is tempting to dismiss the idea that magic
is about power and making things happen as a childish or
uneducated view, whereas “real” magicians know better.
They’ve grown out of those naive desires - or so they
t hi nk.
My experience of the Abramelim operation lead me back
through these layers. When I was preparing to do it I was
of course not interested in the final chapters which gave
the magical squares for doing spells: flying through the
air, summoning an army, knowing secrets, finding
treasure etc. I could see such spells as pure superstitious
nonsense and that the real magic lay in the earlier chap-
ters with the careful work, the purification and the ded-
ication. I was not going to do this with any delusions about
becoming a miracle-worker, it was all about becoming a
wise magician.
:8o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
However, six months of solid magical endeavour is a
great revealer. After a while I made the embarrassing
discovery that part of me still did want to be able to do
spells just like the book said. I’d unearthed that child in
me. The child that resented growing up because it equat-
ed maturi ty wi th di si l l usi onment.
It said the reason I didn’t want to do spells was because I
was afraid they would not work. As long as I directed my
magical endeavour into vague things like “spiritual
advancement ”, “wi sdom” or “i mprovi ng t he worl d”
then I could go on kidding myself that it was working. But
if I tried to blast my way to megabuck$ I would be rap-
idly disillusioned.
I suspect that quite a lot of today’s magicians are doing
the same thing: limiting themselves to a form of magic
that cannot fail because it has no clear standards of suc-
cess. So when the German magician said “magic is about
power” he was not speaking as a naive soul who had not
yet learned about “real grown up” magic, instead he was
reminding his audience of something that had been swept
under the carpet.
This is one of the contributions that Chaos Magic has made
(for he was a chaos magician): it has reacted against the
wishy-washy tendency in New Age magic and reminded us
that the impulse to make things happen is not childish,
but should be respected and restored to its place in magic.
This is healthy because it clears a certain amount of
bullshit. If you want the girl next door to fall in love with
you it might be better to do a spell than to repress the
urge on moral grounds. In the first case either your spell
will fail (in which case you have learned something about :8,
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
your technique) or else it will work (in which case you
are almost certainly about to learn something about the
longterm folly of all such spells). If, however you deny
the impulse “because it is creates bad karma to interfere
wi th another’ s wi l l ”, then you are l i abl e to sl i p i nto such
hypocrisy as I suggested above: going for spiritual per-
fection because you unconsciously believe it will make
you more loveable. It’s the old story about going out and
being prepared to make mistakes with your eyes wide
open - rather than sitting at home playing safe.
So I respect the view that magic is about power, but do
not think it represents the whole truth.
Austin Spare said some harsh things about ceremonial
magicians in his Book of Pleasure. In fact he went a bit
over the top, probably because of his recent contact with
the remains of the Golden Dawn crowd. But I did like his
observation that “their practices prove their incapaci-
ty, they have no magic to intensify the normal, the joy of
a child or healthy person, none to evoke their pleasure or
wisdom from themselves”.
I parti cul arl y l i ke “to i ntensi fy the normal ”. Consi der
the following question: what would be your idea of the
perfect party? It i s natural to start to thi nk i n terms of
a fine, warm evening, a big building with lots of garden
and a lake, brilliant music with a live band, lots of drink
and good food, fascinating people and so on. But think
again: it would be quite possible to get all that together
and still have a party that failed to swing.
On the other hand, there are times when a few unlikely
people get together in an odd place, someone lights a fire,
:88
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
and a few tins of beer are all that is needed to create a
magical, memorable evening.
In the first case the impulse is to make a good party by
creating the conditions for it. That is like exerting mag-
ical power to make something happen.
In the second case it “just happens” that you catch the
spirit of a good party, and a dull evening is transformed.
That is an example of the other aspect of magic: magic as
transformati on.
If you accept that the real aim is to make life good, then
magic that can transform the dullest moment into pleas-
ure, magic that can “intensify the normal”, magic that
can make even poverty seem like fun... such magic is
every bit as valuable as the power magic that would make
you rich. So if a group of wierdoes choose to prance about
at Stonehenge in order to “celebrate Gaia” or whatever,
and if they thereby enjoy an experience of Stonehenge
that is far more intense and magical than that of the
average tourist who goes there, then I would be the last
to condemn them for having “wishy washy” magical
objectives.
Think of the dreariest possible situation - let us say
commuting to work in a dull office on a wet winter
Monday morning and getting caught in a traffic jam. Note
that I am not describing the worst possible situation, but
simply the dreariest - it is dreary because it is so ordi-
nary and commonplace.
So the first thing to realise is that the situation is not
actually that bad in terms of absolute human agony: any
Siberian prison camp victim, any person dying in the :8,
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
desert during the Gulf War, or anyone undergoing torture
in a South American gaol would give anything to be trans-
ported into the peace and comfort of a warm car in a
London traffic jam with nothing worse to look forward to
than a dull day in a boring office. You could call it Heaven.
So here is one simple example of the power of transfor-
mation magic: if you are able to evoke ghastly scenes of
horri bl e al ternati ve si tuati ons as you si t i n your traffi c
jam on a wet Monday morning, then you might come to
believe that you are in Heaven.
If that sounds a bit too much like hard work, try this
example. The same office, the same traffic jam and the
same time, but there is one big difference: you have just
fallen madly in love with one of your colleagues who
works in that office and have been waiting all weekend for
the rapture of his or her company. Now your heart is
singing in the rain - and you are indeed in Heaven. The
dreary situation has been turned to gold by the magic of
transformati on.
As a child I used to be fascinated by the Surrealist move-
ment. I loved to read about cafe society between the wars,
and I used to think what fun it must have been when there
was all that revolutionary fervour and intellectual stim-
ul ati on i n the ai r - “i f onl y i t was l i ke that nowadays”.
This was, of course, sheer nostalgia - another powerful
agent in the magic of transforming dull reality into gold.
Twice I have spoken on this subject to a group of people,
and what I did at this stage was to ask them to close their
eyes and listen carefully. I then describe our present
situation from the nostalgic viewpoint of, say, thirty
years in the future. “It must have been the early 90s - :,c
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
yes, there was talk of the Gulf War, a sense of urgency
and change as old empires collapsed and re-shaped, a
feeling of expectancy as the millennium approached... we
came together, from many walks of life, we came togeth-
er in the name of magic to explore new and challenging
ideas...” and so on.
I then point out to them that nothing I have said about our
situation is actually false, all I have done is to miss out
the commonplace facts as we experience the present
moment - such as a sense that the seats are uncomfort-
able, that the speaker is going on too long and lunch is
getting delayed, that the audience is the same old crowd
who turned up last year...
“You are looking at the world through rose coloured
glasses” is how a cynic would put it, but then I explain
that most people who use that expression fail to under-
stand the real effect of rose coloured glass. They imagine
that it superimposes a nice colour on the scene, a colour
that does not belong there. However, this is optically
incorrect: all rose-coloured glass can do is to filter the
transmitted light and remove every colour except rose. It
simply reveals the rosiness that is there by removing all
other colours: that is the scientific actuality. So I argue
that rose coloured spectacles do not give a falsely opti-
mi sti c vi ew of real i ty, they si mpl y (from a rosy poi nt of
vi ew) reveal the truth.
So, when I make my audience close their eyes and I weave
a magically entrancing picture of our present situation,
I argue that I am not putting a false glamour onto a dull
everyday reality. Instead I am revealing the magic that
real l y i s ever-present .
:,z
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
Going back to that bored commuter. A very clever pho-
tographer could follow him to work and catch just the
right shot - the frustration of a bored commuter in
today’s modern city - and it could become an award-win-
ning cover for a colour magazine. Has the photographer
somehow artificially “glamourised” the scene, or has he
rather (as I am suggesting) focussed in on the archetyp-
al essence that really exists in that situation? The latter
explanation fits the actual mechanics of the photograph-
ic process far better than the former one.
That is to me a vital part of the magic of transformation:
it is less often an aggressive act that imposes a new state
or experience, more often a question of an alchemical
distillation of the quintessence of what actually exists.
So if a bunch of New Age wierdoes talk about “contacting
power” as they prance about and wave crystals on
Glastonbury Tor, then I laugh at them merely for the joy
of laughing at archetypes - and I do not automatically
assume that they are deluded people who only enjoy what
they are doing because they have lost touch with and
denied the realities of this brutal existence. The power
and magic of Glastonbury Tor is really there - if only
because every moment and every place is full of the
magic of sheer being - and I salute any process that might
lead to rediscovering or revealing such magic.
I have described a sort of evolution.
We begin with magic as a natural (and therefore not
unhealthy) desire to exercise power.
Experience teaches us that we need to work first upon
ourselves before exercising power, and so the idea of self :,:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
transformation becomes paramount. This good in itself,
but it can become an excuse for no longer interacting
with the world: so much aware now of our own limita-
tions we no longer dare to exercise power even when it is
needed - we are afraid to do magic in case it doesn’t work.
So a revival of power magic is a welcome and positive
step that revives the spirit of magic - unless it encour-
ages us to deny the validity of transformational magic.
The latter then reminds us that there can be limits to
power and that it is also important to accept things as
they are in order to make the best of what is.
There seem to be two polarities at work here: idealism
versus realism and control versus acceptance. Idealism
wants to impose better things, either by exercising
power to make things happen, or else by nurturing
transformation; realism does not have to mean strangling
power by wallowing in life’s awfulness, it can equally
mean looking for what is good in order to nurture its
growth. The i nteracti on of the fi rst pol ari ty wi th the
polarity of control/acceptance leads to these differences
of colour.
IDEALISM AND REALISM
Looking back over the years, are you aware of times when
the air positively crackled with excitement at the feeling
that things were changing, the world becoming a better
place, that you had at last found your real direction, a
purpose for l i vi ng?
And do those times contrast with periods of emptiness,
when dreams are shattered, disillusionment sets in and
:,¸
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
the world seems not only to have rejected all the hopes
you had but, what is worse, seems to have corrupted
those very hopes and bred monsters from them?
You see this in society. The 60s dream becoming 70s dis-
illusionment becoming 80s greed. A psychedelic revolu-
tion that spawned a load of megastar addicts who either
di e or turn i nto anti -drug preachers (why can’ t they
admit that they might have needed the drug experience to
become what they now are?). A Marxist revolution that
settles down to totalitarianism.
It is so often a “revolution” that provides the excite-
ment, yet which breeds monstrous forms in reality - and
that provides the clue. For Uranus is the planet of
Revolution in astrology.
Uranus is a very ancient god in Greek mythology - way
back before Jupiter and all that crowd. Out of Chaos came
just two gods: Gaia, Goddess of Earth, and Uranus, God of
Sky or Heaven. Two polar extremes drawn by their very
oppositeness.
Gaia would seduce Uranus who would descend on Gaia and
impregnate Her. Many children were born, but they were
monstrous children, grotesque giants. Uranus, having the
vision and purity of a Sky God, was appalled by the ugli-
ness of these children. They seemed like a corruption of
the divine essence with which he had fertilised Gaia, like
a mockery of all He had dreamed of giving Her. So he used
to ki l l these chi l dren - al l of them.
Gaia loved Uranus and could see that He wanted to give Her
something better, but She from Her practical point of
view began to realise that She was ending up with noth- :,,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
ing at all. It’s all very well insisting that none of these
children are good enough - but She would rather have a
monster than just a dream of perfection.
So She ganged up with Her latest monster child called
Chronos and warned Him in advance of His probable fate.
So Chronos armed Himself with a sharp sickle and, when
Uranus came to get Him, cut off Uranus’ balls and
chucked them into the sea.
Thus emasculated, Uranus fell from power and Chronos
became the new King. But you know how it is with abused
children: He developed the same habit and took to eating
his kids until Jupiter started the next revolution and
became the final Sky God...
Meanwhile, back in the sea, the testicular creativity that
Uranus had lost expressed itself in a last autonomous act:
his balls transformed into the Love Goddess Venus who
was then born from the waves...
That is such a brilliant myth, so bulging with cosmic
truth. Taking the example of Marxism: a bright new
vision descending on earth and impregnating mankind
wi th revol uti onary fervour. It gi ves bi rth to many l i ttl e
squabbling groups which are strangled by their own ide-
alism. Anyone who has attended revolutionary meetings
where all is well until actual practical propositions are
put into action and then no-one can agree anymore, will
know what I mean by that last sentence. But one such
child, Bolshevism, has the cunning to castrate its father,
to banish the visionaries and usurp the throne of world
communism. Although Marxism becomes utterly dis-
credited in the process, something has survived in the
form of those cast-off testicles. Maybe it is the gentle, :,¸
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
caring vision of Socialism that rises from the waves to
seduce the other governments of the world?
If you, gentle reader (ok, I know you are actually a psy-
chopathic hired mass murderer for an international ter-
rorist organisation, probably crazed on amphetamines
and blood as you read this, but I guess you have your gen-
tler moments too), only knew the vision that has
inspired my writings in this collection of essays. Idea
upon idea that came to me like scintillating streaks of
lightning dazzling the dark - each one the sort of idea that
merited a great book, a great public debate, a new world
movement. But look at the result: filtered through my
own language ability, dragged onto paper, flogged round
publishers and eventually spun into some sort of shape
by my poor old Mouse... even as I write these words I am
strangling my children! Even in this paragraph I have
included an assumption about the reader that will alien-
ate me from tight-arsed academic respectability.
Bless Li Greiner who reviewed Words Made Flesh in
Gnosis, and pointed out the self-defeating quality of my
own bitterness. I hope my letter to him gave some idea
that there is a form of love in Uranus’ destruction of His
own children - a sadness that I have not done justice to
my vision which makes me want to tear up the canvas -
and that makes publication an even greater trial. It is a
very Aries thing and, as suggested above, a very English
thing to do - because it is so clear to any outsider how
English inventors manage to ruin their own work at the
same time as cursing the world for not taking it up.
Bright little companies botching their marketing and
splitting up to spawn other bright little companies. The
eternal on-going revolution that results in us staying
always so much the same. Oh this septic isle. :,o
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Anyway, there’ s a sort of maturi ty i n putti ng forward
my very pain as yet another bright idea. I do feel that the
myth of Uranus is very potent because it shows so clear-
ly the love/hate between the ideal and the real, between
Fire and Earth, Wand and Disk, or between intuition and
sensation - as you will. I feel that it has been a major
factor in human affairs and that it would now be the most
i mportant factor were i t not for the ri se of rel ati vi ty
written about in another essay (The Law Is For All) in
the next volume in this series.
In that essay I argue that Perfection has had its day. If we
take magic as an example: there is a traditional problem
of old Aeon magic and it goes like this -
I want to be rich, happy, sexy, powerful....
Hey! I’ve discovered this thing called “magic” that can
make you rich, happy, sexy, powerful...
Wow! I’ve been reading about magic and I’ve discov-
ered that it’s really quite simple to become rich,
happy, sexy, powerful... as long as you do one thing -
you have to become perfect first.
So how do you know when you’ve made yourself per-
fect?
Oh shit. You know you are perfect when you no longer
WANT to be rich, happy, sexy, powerful...
Now modern magic, as typified by chaos magic, is no
longer dominated by notions of perfection. In Pete
Carroll’s Liber Chaos he does not exhort the aspirant to :,,
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
first perfect themself; instead he provides formulae
which relate one’s magical effectiveness to a number of
factors such as the probability of the outcome happening
by chance, the relative strength of the magical link, and
one’s own ability to achieve gnosis.
So I do not see the clash between perfection and reality
being so much the central problem of magic now. In its
place I see the clash between ecstacy and deliberation.
ACCEPTANCE AND CONTROL
In Pete Carroll’s equations of magic referred to above,
the effective magic factor is proportional to the amount
of gnosis - which we can loosely translate as ecstacy for
the purpose of this essay - but it is also proportional to
the lack of conscious awareness.
This is the problem I see in modern magic. To be really
effective and powerful you need to be in a highly ecstatic
state of gnosis and with very little conscious awareness.
In its extreme state that grows very close to lack of all
control .
From the point of view of power magic this paradox is a
bit disturbing: to exercise real power you need to aban-
don control of that power. For the magic of transforma-
tion it is less worrying because you are not so much aim-
ing to control situations as to open yourself up to accept
their true essence - and the flow of power that results is
just an expression of that magic. This paradox seems to
be as deeply ingrained as the uncertainty principle - a
real l i mi tati on i n mani festati on.
:,8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Whereas the last section dealt with the polarity of the
Wand of Idealism and Will impacting the Disc of Matter
and Realism, this section looks at the struggle of the
Sword of Analysis and Control versus the Cup of
Acceptance and Ecstacy.
As before, I see this as an important problem for human-
ity, and this one is becoming even more important now -
because the rise of information and other technologies is
presenting governments with greater opportunities for
control than ever before, while the pursuit of such con-
trol seems to invoke paranoia in government and in the
people it invokes ecstatic wildness and drunkenness of
the senses.
As without, so within. I was very struck when I read the
biography of L Ron Hubbard, founder of Scientology. In
the early 50s he presented the world with a simple form
of psychotherapy that promised a new age. Recognising
that our unconscious minds held enormous power, but
that the power was trapped and convoluted like a knotted
mass of serpents because of past conditioning, Hubbard
proposed simple techniques that would allow individuals
to untie those knots and release the full potential of the
human mind. We were told that this would lead to people
becomi ng “cl ear” - a sort of superhumani ty for the
coming age.
But what in fact happened? Instead of a new generation of
clear people, the snakes in the unconscious seemed to
writhe into ever tighter knots. The techniques grew more
complex and bizarre and the practitioners themselves
grew paranoid. The movement became crazy.
:,,
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
Some people realised the essential value of the basic ideas
and left before things got too bad. For example, a couple
who founded The Process. They were very intelligent
people out to avoid the same mistakes - and yet their own
movement turned crazy as did several other offshoots of
Scientology.
It is as if the very desire to “clear” and control the
wilderness of the unconscious jungle will lead to a furi-
ous reaction. This is so predictable that, whenever I hear
of some new movement promising to unlock inner poten-
tial and bestow mastery, I am confident that the move-
ment wi l l eventual l y turn total i tari an or col l apse i nto
crazed ci vi l war.
Isn’t this supposed to be still the age of reason? even
when we feel crazy we now know enough about human
emotion, genetic factors, environmental conditioning and
psychology to explain it all away. Yet rave parties, pop
concerts and political demonstrations unleash as much if
not more hysteria than the world has ever witnessed.
When I saw the film of the Doors, I recognised so much of
the myth of Dionysus in the figure of Jim Morrison. Sure
enough, one of the characters in it shook his hand and said
“I have played music with Dionysus”. I then read the
Penguin Classics version of the play The Bacchae and was
very struck by what was said in the introduction to that
wor k.
Unlike Uranus, Dionysus was not an ancient god. In fact
he seems to have arrived very late - at a time when
Greece was becoming very civilised. The suggestion was
made that Dionysus arose as a shadow to civilisation - his
worship was an ecstatic rebellion against the growing ¸cc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
bureaucratic control of the state and the arrogance of
humanity’s emerging consciousness.
That was what made the myth so relevant to today. Once
again the principle of Control is making huge gains - we
know so much - and at the same time as it turns us into
a flock of passive, controlled machines it evokes a primal
wildness that threatens to overturn the whole of civili-
sation. The greater the control and the further we are
from Nature, the crazier the reaction becomes - as in
our most sophisticated modern cities. The more conscious
the control, the greater the disorder it seems to invoke.
The normal tendency seems to be to identify with control
and to project the wildness - people in England will talk
in awed tones about the latest madness sweeping America;
people in the country tremble at the thought of inner city
violence; townsfolk stay in their cars rather than walk
in the country alone or at night. I suspect that even the
footbal l hool i gan - the terror of suburban Bri tai n - has
a sense that they are only playing at violence and that
there are others who...
In fact I have a fantasy about turning up looking fright-
fully prim and proper in a pub where football hooligans
are tanking up for a battle. I know the temptation to play
up to someone who looks game to be shocked - half the
tabloid press’ coverage of ultraviolence owes its exis-
tence to outrageous claims made by kids wanting to be
quoted in the papers - so in my fantasy they would let rip
wi th al l the “yer we’ re gonna ki l l the wops” “can’ t wai t
ter smash a few faces” and all that. Whereupon I would
turn to them with silky smoothness saying “perhaps I
can help” and start handing out several tons of high
velocity automatic rifles, bazookas, hand grenades, nerve ¸cz
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
gas rocket launchers and so on. At which point the kids go
pale with shock and splutter “you can’t do that!”
The pleasure in this fantasy is this: we were playing the
game of control versus wildness, me being the gentleman
and evoking their loutishness in response. I then crack
the game by behaving so outrageously that they are now
forced into shocked disapproval. They were hooligans on
the outside, preparing to put the boot into my sensibili-
ties, whereas I have turned out to be an inner hooligan
who puts the boot into their expectations of a gentleman.
Get it?
You see I believe that the hooligan actually needs an inner
sense of decency and fair play in order to be so good at
outwardly rebelling against it. The wildest yobs often
grow i nto the stri ctest di sci pl i nari ans.
The object of the example is to show that taking sides in
a cosmic battle is not such a simple business as it seems.
If you take sides with law and order you may encourage
the very opposite.
Avoid the simple idea that the State was a smoothly fun-
tioning, civilised machine into which Dionysus burst
like a wild raging animal. On the contrary, Dionysus took
the form of a very gentle and effete young man - the
hippy, not the beast or guerilla fighter. His religion took
the women of the town out into the country where they
forgot their duties and returned to blissful communion
with nature. It was only when Pentheus sent out the sol-
diers to haul them back that the women turned nasty and
feral, tearing up animals and men with their bare hands.
¸c:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Dionysus Himself was a very still and quiet figure who
seemed to invoke madness around Him. Pentheus himself
goes crazy - the madness is latent in the government and
Dionysus seems merely to release it.
Control justifies its dominion by positing insane wild-
ness as its opposite. That is in itself mad, because the
true opposite of control is acceptance.
We may no longer bow down before a notion of perfection
in this relativistic Aeon of Horus, however perfection
has been with us for a long time and it is still rooted in
our unconscious minds. No longer worshipped it turns
into a monster - the perfect ideal of Uranus is the mon-
ster it creates - and we fear it. As children we imagined
that grown ups were perfect, they never did anything
naughty like having sex. That once inspiring ideal is now
a tyrant as we become adolescent - we don’t want to give
up sex and be perfect, boring adults.
Society actually fears Utopia, because it is perfect. New
York, for example, is such a civilised place that its cit-
izens need all the violence and crime in order to prove to
themselves that this isn’t really heaven. Try telling New
Yorkers that you feel safe walking their streets and they
act quite hurt. Centuries of puritan tradition believing
that life has to be a struggle is all you need to make sure
people will continue to create hell around themselves
rather than fal l i nto perfecti on. Utopi a, everyone
i nsi sts, woul d be steri l e - forgetti ng that i f i t was ster-
ile it would not be Utopia.
The Aeon of Horus challenges us to become gods. That is
scary because we have for centuries insisted that god is
perfect. Our sense of perfection is the greatest monster ¸c¸
1 3
BLAST
Your Way
To
Megabuck$
Let there be light
by Robert Fludd
¸c¸
1 4
The
Magi ci an
and the
Hi gh Pri est
of all, so we kill it whenever it is likely to be realised.
Our revolutions are self-defeating because the game of
balancing control and acceptance is still infected with the
old difficulty of idealism versus reality. The game is once
more a battle.
CONCLUSION
What the hell am I rattling on about? It’s something to do
with reasons why some of us are not frightfully good at
making things happen - and perhaps we can blame it all
on the gods...
Anyway, I got a bit carried away as I always do on my last
chapter. This may not look like a last chapter, but some-
thing went wrong with the otherwise historical sequence
and the 13th essay was missing so I decided to write this
to fill the gap and give the book a nice title.
Whoopee! almost the end of this volume. I’m so grateful
to Temple Press for playing Gaia to my Uranus - and I
promise to try really hard not to kill the book by getting
too cranky.
¸c,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
14 - THE MAGICIAN AND THE HIGH PRIEST
This is another version of the Minister for Technology and the
Pope story which I referred to in Words Made Flesh. It was
shortened and made more mysterious as a stand-alone sci-fi
story for some competi ti on. The most si gni fi cant di fference
i s t hat i t carri es t he st ory of ‘ our’ worl d f orward t hrough
the bi rth of Chri st to present ti mes. It assumes that the pre-
cursor to the big bang was an implosion under gravity of a
hydrogen cloud - this idea is now out of date, but it does not
affect the basi c concept of the story.
In the beginning the word was “RUN”.
In the four dimensional continuum ten to the power of
seventy eight randomly distributed hydrogen atoms were
subject to the laws of particle physics, and began imper-
ceptibly to drift together under mutual attraction. As
they came closer the forces grew stronger and they fell
ever faster towards a centre which was as yet nothing,
but which would become all.
Thus was unity born from chaos.
That centre was the womb of chaos and it was, momen-
tarily, all of chaos as the atoms collided, coalesced fused
and gave forth blazing light. Now hydrogen was no longer
alone; from it was created a heavier, more complex com-
panion in helium.
Thus was duality born from chaos.
Yet dual i ty was pre-exi stent i n spi ri t, for al l thi s was
witnessed by two: the Knowing One who knew all secrets,
and who revealed them to his lord the Holy One. Together
¸co
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
they passed everywhere and saw all; the Knowing One was
exultant, but the Holy One was aghast.
From the fire were born nebulae, from the nebulae were
born suns, around the suns were formed planets; and the
planets cooled.
Thus was the many born from primal chaos.
The Knowing One said to the Holy One “This universe is
my gift to you”, and the Holy One knew fear and doubt.
They were standing on one planet watching its sun sink
crimson through a poison atmosphere beyond a leaden
sea. “This is where it will happen”, he said, “the condi-
tions are perfect. Wait and see”. The Holy One studied
him and wondered what moved him. “I will leave you
alone now, just to prove it.”
Hearing those words, the Holy One sensed danger and
decided to take pre-emptive action.
There is a tablet, it is square. A finger touches it, the
finger of the Holy One. Where the finger touches, light
blazes forth to reveal a word engraved upon the tablet:
“HOLD”.
The light reflects on the gleaming surface of a red sphere
as hands grasp the sphere and lift it to uncover the sil-
ver hair on the head of the Holy One.
He goes to the door of the small chamber, locks it on the
inside and stands a moment in silent prayer. Then he goes
over to the body of the Knowing One, removes the simi-
lar red helmet and places it to one side, examines the face ¸c,
1 4
The
Magi ci an
and the
Hi gh Pri est
closely, returns to his couch, replaces his own helmet,
lies back and touches another button. The word “RUN”
now shines as the word “HOLD” vanishes.
Thus was the Knowing One cast out of heaven for his
pride, and locked in the illusion of matter.
On discovering his fate, the Knowing One was furious and
perplexed. The Holy One replied that one who knew so
much could surely deduce the reason for his punishment,
but perhaps lacked the courage to admit it? The Knowing
One raged but, because only the Holy One had the power to
return to heaven, he had to be subtle: he pleaded that this
universe was the innocent gift of a loving servant. The
Holy One replied that he now had an eternity to prove it;
and he renamed him Lucifer, the Cunning One, because he
had revealed much.
Together they watched life spontaneously evolve within
that sea. Lucifer was exultant and the Holy One aghast.
Millions of years rolled by and they witnessed a cruel
planet growing green and fruitful. They saw slithery
things emerge, evolve, grow legs, grow fur and grow
beautiful. Out of beauty evolved humour, and Lucifer
laughed at the antics of the apes.
Alone or together, they passed freely among these crea-
tures.
One day they stood on a grassy slope and watched a hairy
hominid at play, endlessly banging stone upon stone,
“like a soulless machine” in the bitter words of the Holy
One. But the creature produced a spark and made fire; and
Lucifer turned triumphantly to his master and added “a
machine that knows what it is doing!”
¸c8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
The Holy One wept inwardly as they crouched to share the
f i r e.
From that day Lucifer trod carefully and tried to please.
As they came and went among the people of this world, he
watched his master’s reactions closely. There was much
to delight them in this innocent world, but The Holy One
seemed fretful, suspicious.
To the Holy One this seeming penance was more sinister
than open opposition; he felt undercurrents of evil. Then
it happened: as he appeared casually to some tribesmen,
they fell back in fear, threw themselves at his feet, and
named him “God”. He vanished in a clap of thunder, and
raged after Lucifer.
Lucifer too showed fear. It had seemed only fair to share
the knowledge of their creation with the creatures; he
had only told the truth. God spat out the word “fair” like
viper’s venom and held Lucifer by the throat till all was
revealed.
By stepping to and fro in time it had been possible to
speak to the fairest of the womenfolk in every tribe. No
harm was done, for it was easy to turn back time to undo
this innocent act... But he was suddenly speaking to
emptiness.
The High Priest jabs the “HOLD” button and whips off his
helmet. Stepping over to his Magician’s comatose body he
checks it cursorily, then paces up and down. He tries to
pray, hopelessly. Then he returns to the console and says
“I wi sh to create a program”.
¸c,
1 4
The
Magi ci an
and the
Hi gh Pri est
A soft voice replies “Then please answer the following
questions. One, what is the name of the intended pro-
gr am?”
The High Priest scratches his head in confusion.
“If you are unaccustomed to programming, may I explain
that this name is a simple reference for your own con-
venience: any word or phrase, not commencing with a
numeral, and of not more than ten syllables.”
“Er, Michael?” he shrugs, and “URMICHAEL?” appears
on the screen.
“No, j ust ‘ Mi chael ’ ”.
“Now please give a brief functional description of the
program. ”
The High Priest strokes his chin like one milking his
memory, then begins. “A program to enforce ‘read only’
access to the low level software so as to inhibit reversals
of experienced time....”
Lucifer hit a wall of fire, a flaming blade that hacked his
consciousness into blazing shards. Tumbling backwards,
he struggled to disentangle subjective effects from prob-
able causes. He recognised to his horror a thoroughly
amateurish piece of tampering with the software. It was
his turn to rage after God. The people huddled together for
shelter as the tempests shrieked around them.
Lucifer called God a clumsy, meddling imbecile. Did he
realise what he had done? Every single action on this ¸zc
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
universe lead to an endless chain of consequences, now
there was no hope of undoing any of them. Limitless suf-
fering had been unleashed. Detailed knowledge of the most
intricate workings of this program was needed before
anyone should dare experiment on it!
God had done what had to be done. After all these aeons was
Lucifer still insisting that knowledge was the only rele-
vant factor?
Lucifer screamed that he was talking about RESPONSI-
BILITY, and God replied that it had been worth waiting
eight billion years to hear that word in this context.
What did God want? Lucifer would do anything to be
released from this prison of illusion. It was no good
answering such questions directly, because the trickster
who could feign a universe would be infinitely skillful at
feigning correct responses. God wanted truth of a differ-
ent order from sheer knowledge: “look into your heart!”
“Al l I see i s anger!”
“That i s better than nothi ng!”
Shaking his head and retiring meekly, for God still held
the key, Lucifer swore to himself that God would pay for
hi s fol l y.
Thus was mankind cast out of Paradise.
There was famine, plague, war, flood, pestilence and
tyranny. God struggled to spread enlightenment and hope,
but learned caution in the face of mounting complexity.
There were signs of sabotage: signs of Lucifer most sub- ¸zz
1 4
The
Magi ci an
and the
Hi gh Pri est
tly foiling his efforts, as if to ensure that mankind would
visibly suffer the full consequences of God’s involve-
ment.
Worse by far were the acts of contrition: when Lucifer
tried to win favour by helping mankind. He had faith in
education: sharing the secrets of magic with men of
influence, and never comprehending why they chose to
use this knowledge to gain dominion over illusion, rather
than to relieve suffering.
At such times God too yearned to end it all and return to
heaven. “Is this really the same mind?” he wondered,
“or has the scanner helmet misread the Magician’s brain
structure and modelled a demon?”
Together as students they had signed a petition condemn-
ing the use of brain surgery on violent criminals, and the
use of drugs for political ends; yet this Lucifer had been
tampering with the software of a whole world, as if it
were a toy, in order to create a false paradise. What had
happened to conscience? Who was it that had risked his
neck to attack the priesthood’s missionary proselytising
as an act of cultural genocide? Was it the same mind who
now tried to teach savages the secrets of the universe?
Had he ever had a conscience or had he simply been play-
ing politics back in heaven?
There was less time to ponder such problems, now that
life circumscribed the globe, and evil never slept. If
education was the answer, then it had to be a moral edu-
cation. As it was impossible to fully predict the conse-
quences, it was clearly safest to isolate those being edu-
cated; and the only justifiable solution was to find a tribe
¸z:
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
that had nothing to lose: a tribe in slavery and under the
threat of genocide.
There was suddenly no alternative but to commit one of
those acts of conscience that Lucifer would call “irre-
sponsible meddling”. Seeing the rich girl approaching,
God remained invisible but threw a small pebble so that
it landed among the rushes. There was a splash, the baby
cried out, and Pharaoh’s daughter looked to see what the
noise was.
Thus did the children of Israel became the chosen race.
With the passing of time the system gained inertia.
As matter, then life, then intelligence, and now social
structures evolved, the equations grew more complex and
the computations longer, so that subjective time in the
inner universe ran slower relative to time in heaven. As
the second law of thermodynamics spread disorder there
were ever-growing demands on memory, so objective
time in the inner universe also ran slower. It became
increasingly difficult to defy the ‘laws of nature’ and act
directly as the universe of meaning became more tightly
kni t .
On the other hand there was greater feedback in the sys-
tem. In early days a miraculous intervention would
become a tribe’s jealously guarded secret; now new
empires were appearing whose structure allowed wider
communication. Action in one area could now be trans-
mitted across continents, and could even be amplified and
exaggerated in the process.
¸z¸
1 4
The
Magi ci an
and the
Hi gh Pri est
A new approach was needed, and God discussed it with
Luci f er.
Lucifer explained that it would be madness.
Apart from the sheer limitation of incarnating in this
hellish world, there was the time factor. Because of the
relationship with their bodies in what he chose to call
“the real world”, they had been able to endure many bil-
lions of years here, as in a dream. But to incarnate would
be to subject oneself totally to this experience of time:
each year of incarnate life would weigh like a full year,
a year of hell.
Hearing this, God felt even more certain that he must do
it, and still Lucifer failed to understand.
Thus was God made man.
Christ bit his tongue to stifle screams as the nails drove
into the palms of his hands. Even now Lucifer was whis-
pering to him, begging him to give up and get them both
out of this world: “one little miracle, and we could both
be back in the real world enjoying a nice cup of coffee.”
Lucifer triumphed: he heard the words “my God, why
hast thou forsaken me”, and knew he’d won at last.
His campaign had been conceived twenty years ago in real
time, when development began on a revolutionary com-
puter of unprecedented power. He had realised that it
offered the first ever chance to model the entire creation
of a universe from randomised initial conditions, assum-
ing only the known laws of physics. For the first time the
court magicians could prove something long argued with ¸z,
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
the priests: namely that such a universe would develop
life, intelligence, humanity, and would therefore prove
God and spirit to be totally redundant concepts.
A stunning triumph, and one that would mark the end of
the priests’ political dominance.
This triumph left Lucifer in despair, and he could not
understand why. There was a sense only of anticlimax.
His victory had been a forgone conclusion even as they
first entered this universe. He had wanted to leave the
Priest to it, and get straight back to the real world to seek
some other novelty to distract a bored mind - for win-
ning the battle of a lifetime would leave a big hole in one’s
sense of purpose.
Instead he’d been trapped in his own game, and spent
millions of years toying with an illusion created for
someone else’s edification. Observing the increasingly
humanistic colouring of the Priest’s ideas as time passed,
merely spelled out the inevitability of his defeat.
So dejected was Lucifer, that he fell on his knees at the
feet of Christ Deceased, confessed everything and begged
for a return to heaven. He even promised to erase the
program and tell no-one what he had done.
To his amazement, Christ laughed as he had not laughed
for aeons.
You don’t forget the death of God that easily. But anyway,
Christ had found God reborn: in Lucifer’s mind! Or, more
strictly, in the unconscious mind of the Magician.
¸z¸
1 4
The
Magi ci an
and the
Hi gh Pri est
Lucifer made some progress towards understanding;
Christ assured him he would finally get the point if he
would only incarnate as the Antichrist; but Lucifer shud-
dered at the thought of incarnating, and put off the dread-
ed day.
And Christ had another worry: he recalled the Magician
once claiming that programming was still an art: howev-
er clear the mathematical structure, one could still
recognise the hand of its creator in a program.
Had the Magician programmed rather more of his uncon-
scious into this world than he’d intended?
The High Priest keys “HOLD”, removes his helmet and
goes over to the Magician’s body. He searches around the
couch, finds the briefcase, takes the Magician’s keys, and
opens it. He is searching for something he noticed this
morning in real time. It is gone.
He frowns, then runs his hands over the Magician’s
clothing. He has found it: an automatic pistol. It is loaded.
The High Priest takes the cartridges one by one, puts
them to his mouth, bites each bullet and tugs it free. He
pockets the bullets, replaces the blank cartridges in the
magazine, replaces the pistol, returns to his couch,
replaces his helmet, lies back, and keys “RUN”.
Christ has an appointment with Lucifer.
“What are they doi ng i n that bunker?”
“Wait and see.” ¸z,
1 4
The
Magi ci an
and the
Hi gh Pri est
The Magician had intended to convince the High Priest
that there could be no qualitative distinction between this
godless, mechanistic world and the real world they lived
in. Aeons of living with this model, and one short lifetime
actually incarnate within it, had convinced the High
Priest that there was indeed no distinction. Therefore God
was dead, a fallacy to be outgrown by intellectual
advancement. But although he himself had felt that dis-
ti ncti on between ‘ real ’ and ‘ arti fi ci al ’ worl ds bei ng
eroded, Lucifer had not...
Lucifer consistently made an unconscious distinction
between this world, which he was perfectly prepared to
destroy once it had served his purpose, and the ‘real’
world, in which he behaved as a man of feeling and con-
science. Lucifer, as programmer, knew too much about
this world to give it any validity. His very knowledge had
formed a barrier to feeling.
Trapped within Lucifer’s unconscious mind, their God
had declared this world a godless abomination. Lucifer’s
very knowledge had made him a devil to this world.
Christ realised that this was the lesson that had to be
understood before the helmet was replaced to update the
Magician’s neural network, and so release Lucifer from
what he had himself prejudged to be an illusion.
Christ laughed once more and said that, now God had risen
again for him, so would God rise again for this world.
Thus God, as Christ, did.
It was a turning point although, after eight billion years,
one could not expect the turn to be fast or dramatic. ¸zo
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
319
Advertisement
MORE
FROM THE
MOUSEHOLE
The following pages reveal further titles from
The Mouse That Spins which are now being
made available via the Weborama web pages
or as hard copy

The desert sun blazed down as they waited among the cacti
that fringed the compound. This universe had grown very
complex, Christ realised. He who had once raised moun-
tains and parted the Red Sea would now find it hard even
to create a rainstorm. But if he did, it would be instant-
ly recorded worldwide. Lucifer was speaking again.
“But the real understanding came when I realised WHY I
wanted to commit suicide. The victory was hollow because
all along I hadn’t been fighting the priesthood, but the
warlords! They’re the real enemy. Do you know what this
computer is officially for? It’s been developed for the
army! The greatest achievement of all time being handed
over as a plaything for dumb soldiers and stupid politi-
cians! Rather than face that directly, I must’ve decided
that a world without religion would be a world without a
devil, and therefore a world without war. Look! there it
goes...”
Christ turned and witnessed the first atom bomb being
exploded. He sighed “So, if these people destroy them-
selves, you get your cup of coffee early. Otherwise we
stay till they create their own universes and learn for
themselves what we now know. By that time this world
will be running so slowly that we’ll be due to leave any-
way. Either way, you and I go back to heaven united in the
name of peace and hope - ok?”
The digitised simulacra of a High Priest and a Court
Magician shook hands and embraced in the desert as the
mushroom cloud obscured the sun.
¸z8
BLAST
your way to
Megabuck$
Ramsey
Dukes
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
THE GOOD
THE BAD
THE FUNNY
DE ARCANO NOSTRAE SANCTISSIMAE
MIRABILISQUE TRINITATIS, EIUS POTESTATE
SANANDI ET REDIMENDI VIM STATISTIS - AD
QUAE EXCOGINATIO EIUS CONTRIBUTIONIS
ULTIMAE AD MAGISTERIUM MAGICAE ARTIS
NOSTRAE ADDITA EST
by
Adamai Philotunus
This book, written in 1992 under the pseudonym Adamai
Philotunus (which was true at the time), addresses the
question of dualistic thinking and proposes a trinitarian
solution.
When someone says “call me old-fashioned if you will,
but I’m afraid I cannot go along with this absurd notion
that a child must never be controlled because it might
harm its so-called creativity”, then the person has
merely defined their self in terms of what they are not.
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
320
Yet we gain a clear impression of their views, despite the
fact that it would hard to find anyone in the world who
does “go along with this absurd notion that a child must
never be controlled because it might harm its so-called
creativity” - least of all in the teaching profession
where, however progressive the ideals, there is real
experience of the need to focus pupils’ attention.
Defining oneself by a non-existent category to which one
does not belong is surprisingly common. It could be great
fun, except that people spoil it by getting steamed up
about it and go to war in the hope of finding evidence of the
existence of the category on the non-membership of
which their self-definition has been constructed.
It is an example of humanity’s deeply ingrained tendency
to think in twos as polarised pairs. Many people are
aware of this difficulty, but the usual suggestion is that
we should resolve the difference by seeking an underly-
i ng uni ty.
Adamai Philotunus does not see this as a solution, for
surel y the dual i ty sprung from uni ty i n order to gi ve i t
dynamism? Why reject such a gift by turning back to
uni t y?
He asks instead what would life would be like if we had
been brought up to believe, not in a duality of God and
Devil, but in a trinity of God, Devil and Trickster?
The plan is to publish this three-fingered v-sign to
polarised thought just as soon as some money has been
recouped on the book you are currently reading.
OK?
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
321
323
Fi r st publ i shed i n 1974, SSOTBME i mmedi-
at el y est abl i shed i t sel f as a semi nal t ext of
t he magi cal r evi val .
A thinking person’s guide to the unthinkable that ran to a
second UK edition, a German edition, two Polish editions
and the best-known US edition with an Austin Osman
Spare print of “The Blase Bacchante” on the cover.
The book became an essential text for the Chaos Magic
current, which it partly inspired. At the other end of the
magical spectrum, it was a significant influence upon the
later New Age movement through its clear exposition of
the extent to which our world is shaped by our beliefs.
Long since out of print, SSOTBME is now available as an
internet edition. What’s more, it has been brought right
up to date and enlarged with additional commentary to
over150 pages (over 200 in the screen edition) by
Ramsey Dukes - sorry about that, Fireclown!
• The difference, and the relationship, between science,
art, religion and magic.
• The nature of magical theory - with examples from
alchemy, astrology, ritual magic, Feng Shui, tarot
reading and other systems of divination.
• A discussion of the role of sacrifice, of demons, of
cyber-ani mi sm and i ni ti ati on.
• A concise and comprehensive survey of every aspect of
modern magic and its place in our world.
It’s a new, definitive magical grimoire for the 21st cen-
tury, and it’s available now from web-orama.com
SSOTBME - REVI SED - an essay on magi c
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
SSOTBME - AN ESSAY ON
MAGIC
is now
REVISED
“How magnificently perverse of Ramsey Dukes to
release this, the "Diamond Sutra", the "Magnum Opus",
the "Philosopher's Stone" of magical thought, as a £3 e-
book! ” Pete Carroll
"perhaps the best-ever book on magical theory"
Tom Graves
“The book that put the magic back in magic”
Gerald Suster
“A cl assi c” Li Grainer in Gnosis
“This book made me realize I was a magician, not insane.
Or at least both a magician, and insane. Great, funny, a
Grimoire disguised as an essay, only 96 pages long (I
like short books, and often, short women), as well as the
best book to give to people if you want them to think you
are smart and goofy, as opposed to stupid and psychotic.
Find it. Buy it. Read it blind drunk the first time, maybe
the second time too...” ‘
Fireclown’ s basic booklist’ from the Internet
322
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
325
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
324
Thi s i s a DI SREPUTABLE book,
by The Mouse That Spi ns
The Mouse That Spins
A name that marks a new dawning in mankind’s relentless quest
f or mast ery of t he wri t t en word.
A name synonymous with the finest in key leading-edge concepts
packaged i n the l atest state-of-the-art Bound Off-l i ne Opti cal -
input Knowledge Systems (BOOKS).
A name that has transformed one corner of a bedroom in a fourth
floor flat in the ancient capital of England into an International
Centre of Publishing Excellence.
A name that has seni or pl ayers i n the worl d’ s maj or fi nanci al
markets appearing at work dressed in mouse costumes and
speaking with squeaky voices in a desire to acquire honour by
association.
I n short - just a name.
The Mouse That Spins’ dedicated team of publishing professionals - boasting no less
than fifteen man-years of occasional publishing experience between him - is proud to
announce the creation of an important new imprint to head its global thrust into semi-
nal occult niche markets of the 21st century... TMTS DISREPUTABLE.
“In presenting TMTS DISREPUTABLE to our public” explains Ramsey Dukes, Managing
Editor in the European Division of the Magickal Subsection of the Contemporary Topics
Department, “we aim to deploy the full weight of The Mouse’s considerable financial,
technical and creative resources in our determination to bring to the world a product
just that little bit worse than anyone else’s”.
T MTS D ISREPUTABLE...
A COMMITMENT TO DECADENCE
THE NAKED, SHOCKI NG TRUTH BEHI ND THE I NTER-
NATI ONAL SATANI C CONSPI RACY
No question was more hotly debated by the International
Satanic Executive in the mid 70s than this: should they
come out into the open, or should they continue to cor-
rupt civilisation discreetly from behind the scenes?
No voice will be better remembered than that of the
Honourable Hugo CStJ l’Estrange, Minister for Moral
Decline and grand old man of British Satanism, arguing
that the election of Margaret Thatcher was a clear signal
that his country was weary of 60s idealism and was
crying out for True Evil to lead the way forward.
Because of this stirring appeal, Satanism went public -
with Hugo l’Estrange’s “Satanist' s Diary” appearing as
a regular column in Aquarian Arrow. No-one could deny
the ensuing moral and spiritual decline throughout our
society consequent upon this exercise.
In this volume we present the entire unexpurgated
Satanist’s Diary in all its evil glory. Here you can meet
such vile personages as: Dr Sigismund Galganspiel,
Minister for Absolute Evil; Miss Florence Dashwood, of
the Cheltenham Ladies’ Lilith Association; the Very
Irreverend Dr Eival B Myeghud DSat, DipDiab, MDem
Bishop of the Church of Eternal Damnation; Dr Wunlita
Suzuki, Bodhisattva of the Nez School; Ernest Synner,
Student Representative... and others too revolting for
words.
TH E H ELLGATE CH RO N ICLES
FIF TEEN YEARS O F SIN AN D CO RRUP T IO N
The
content of this publication has been
examined by the Inspectorate (and processed by the
Expectorate) of the International Satanic Standards
Association in accordance with procedures ISSA/B333-666
and the filth contained within its pages has been cer-
tified to be absolutely unmitigated.
I
S
S
A
S
EA L OF A P
P
R
O
V
A
L
Avai l abl e
i n hard
copy f rom
bookshops
or
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
327
Avai l abl e
i n hard
copy f rom
bookshops
or
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
326
What I did
in my holidays
Essays on Black Magic,
Satanism, Devil Worship and
other ni ceti es
Vol ume Thr ee
of t he col l ect ed essays of
Ramsey Dukes
I s i t ok f or a nat i onal government t o nego-
t i at e wi t h t er r or i st s?
Shoul d we be prepared to make a pact wi th
t he demon Terrori sm - or shoul d we remai n
forever sworn to the demon No
Compromi se?
This is a book about demonolatry.
It was never meant to be: it began as a cobbling together
of all the essays and stuff written in the last seven
years. But it turned out to have a pretty consistent
theme.
A theme that begins with Crowley’s “Aeon of Horus” and
the new, Thelemic morality. From that viewpoint
demonic pacts are re-appraised: are they not a negotia-
t i on with the demonic, as opposed to sworn allegiance?
Many old and new demons lurk on these pages: black
magi c, sexi sm, el i ti sm, satani sm, publ i shers, prej u-
dice, suicide, liberalism, violence, slime, bitterness,
old age, war and the New Age.
These demons hold keys to power and wisdom.
They are prepared to negotiate.
Are you?
I SBN 1- 869928- 520
Fi rst edi ti on, 1998, publ i shed i n col l abora-
tion with The Mouse That Spins (TMTS) by:
Mandrake of Oxford.
410pp Felstead 80gsm paper, stitch bound.
Now available from any BAD bookshop at
£18
Or from Mandrake of Oxford, PO Box 250,
Oxford OX1 1AP. UK
ht t p: / / www. compul i nk. co. uk/ ~mandr ake/
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
329
WORDS MADE
FLESH
or
INFORMATION
IN
FORMATION
(virtual reality, humanity and the cosmos)
By
Ramsey Dukes
In this ground-breaking book Ramsey Dukes proposed a
virtual reality model of the world and argued that there
were strong practical and emotional reasons - as well
as philosophical and psychological reasons - why this
should become our predominant world-view as well as
the ultimate magical paradigm.
Since the book was first published, virtual reality has
become.... um, er.... reality. This edition retains the
original text but adds three further essays from Duke’s
collected essays to update the story since the original
edition.
Available from occultebooks.com in both screen-opti-
mised and printer optimised editions
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
328
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
331
Also
available
as e-book
f r om
occultebooks
.com
t he
mouse
t hat
spins
330

BLAST your way to megabuck$ with my SECRET sex-power formula
By Ramsey Dukes Originally published by Revelations 23, England, 1992 This electronic edition published by El-cheapo for The Mouse That Spins First e-book edition 2000 ISBN: 1-903548-00-5
© The Author asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form without prior permission of publishers. One printed copy allowed for individual use (not for re-sale) All persons, situations in this book are fictitious, Any resemblance is purely coincidental, so let’s all have a good laugh about it, OK?

BLAST
your way to megabuck$ with my

SECRET

sex-power formula
...and other reflections upon the spiritual path. Being the second volume of collected essays with introductory material

by

Ramsey Dukes
E-books available at web-orama.com books@web-orama.com / publisher@el-cheapo.com

THE MOUSE THAT SPINS

BLAST

your way to
Megabuck$

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

INTRODUCTION ABOUT THIS E-EDITION

vi vii

11 - STRESS ANALYSIS OF A TWISTED KNICKER Thinkers on the Occult Path 12 - SIR GARETH AND THE BEAST

237 262

1 - JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX 2 - A NEW MUDDLE OF THE ONIVERSE (JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX, PART II) 3 - THE ANTS IN THE PANTS OF THE DANCING WU LI MASTERS 4 - NOTES TOWARDS THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE HUNGARIAN MAGIC CUBE AS A SYSTEM OF DIVINATION 5 - MAGIC IN THE EIGHTIES - WHERE TO NOW?

1

13. BLAST YOUR WAY TO MEGABUCK$ WITH MY SECRET SEX-POWER FORMULA 14 - THE MAGICIAN AND THE HIGH PRIEST ADVERTISEMENT - more books from tmts

281 306 319

11

44

61 74

6 - THE TWILIGHT OF THE BLOKES - A MASCULIST REVOLUTION 97 7 - JOHNSTON’S PARADOX REVISITED 8 - THE STARWING DIALOGUE 9 - CHAPTER NINE OF SSOTBME REVISITED 10 - THE CHARLATAN AND THE MAGUS 126 160 177 203

Mal. containing the earlier material. I know I’ve been promising this stuff for ages. The first essay in this volume was written in 1980 and the last must have been about 1986 because it is a story derived from the book Words Made Flesh. so I’d like to say “thank you” to all those who have inspired them! ABOUT THIS E-EDITION The Revelations 23 Press edition sold out long ago so this e-edition is a straight re-issue of the contents. and I am grateful for the chance to reproduce them here. The intention is to provide two versions: one optimised for treading on-screen using sans-serif fonts and shorter pages. I may correct the odd typo if I find them. but it reflects the harsh reality that the earlier material was not written on a word processor.BLAST your way to INTRODUCTION In this volume and the following “What I Did In My Holidays” are collected all the essays and material that Ramsey Dukes has written post Thundersqueak . at a later date. Most of the articles have already been published in magazines. but reformatted.excluding the full-length books “Words Made Flesh” and “The Good The Bad The Funny”. Intro Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins . the other optimised for printing out using Caslon font and B5 pages. The next volume takes up essays written since Words Made Flesh and up to the time of publication. this is described as the “second volume” of collected works because it is intended to produce volume 1. The most obvious exception is the essay “Blast Your Way To Megabuck$” which was added later to give this volume a nice title. but it only really became possible because Temple Press injected a shot of publishing competence into my shaky Mouse operation. The material is included here in approximate chronological order. Very often these essays were written in response to discussion with someone who has commented on earlier work. because it is of some interest to see how the ideas develop with time. This seems a bit eccentric. So very grateful thanks. Although the first to be published. and may have to be keyed in by hand because my OCR system has problems with old fabric ribbon typescript.

What is more this identical situation will be repeated indefinitely elsewhere in the universe.  . reading this same article in an identical magazine.BLAST your way to 1 . although the probability of any one star system having the right conditions to support the creation of organic compounds might seem negligibly small. In other words. nevertheless the universe itself contains such a vast number of stars as to make the overall probability of life elsewhere very high. paradoxical extension which depends upon accepting the materialistic belief that all matter is based upon a finite number of elementary factors. In that case. this possibility again becomes absolutely certain. 1 Johnston’s Paradox Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Is there life elsewhere in the Universe? PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST blasting his way to megabuck$ The usual answer to this question is to argue that. The first extension of this argument is to say that. although the probability of exactly reproducing our own world must seem too small to be worth considering. and which was eventually written up in the Book “Words Made Flesh”. in an infinite universe. somewhere out in space there is a reader identical to yourself.JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX First Published in Arrow 8 This is the first of a series of articles about the theory I called “Johnston’s Paradox”. then life elsewhere becomes absolutely certain. if the universe is infinite. our existence proves the probability to be non-zero and so. There is also a second.

but also an infinite universe. If you think that this is impossible. but instead must assume that everything we perceive is but a motion of matter. that weakens the impact of this paradox and makes it inferior.) The next step is to program into a computer not just one mind. according to the basic assumption. then the probability of our own existence dwindles to zero .BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The assumption of a finite number of elementary factors in matter is important to this paradox because. to what I call ‘Johnstone’s Paradox’. and emotional and ‘spiritual’ nature . (The arguments in support of this view are discussed more fully in Thundersqueak. then you are denying the mechanistic view of the world. together with all their perceptions of their environment. Johnstone’s paradox begins with the assumption of a mechanistic materialist universe. It is this need for the double assumption of not only the finite basis of life. when our computers are powerful enough. no more than a by-product of the action of the human brain. and the computer’s ‘core’ is sufficiently large. fall in love. in my mind at least. either by saying that there are some elements of human existence which can never be reduced to codeable information. to program the entire structure of a human brain into a computer and so reproduce a human mind in ‘mechanistic’ form. What must be realised is that we then will have not just a computer as ‘clever’ as a human. bear children. to the people inside the dream it will seem utterly real. dream life. but even by the early seventies simple dream worlds were being created.and so the fact of our existence demonstrates the action of a ‘higher power’ than probability. In that case it will become possible. What neater solution to the ultimate over-population problems. Provided sufficient data has been programmed in. but one with the full human personality. In fact. for example. He even raised the question as to whether he felt guilty when he switched the machine off! What Johnstone suggested was that. the first steps in this direction have already been taken. but a whole society of human minds.for what we call ‘spirit’ is. In Edinburgh they programmed a two-dimensional geometrical space in which a rudimentary ‘mind’ meandered around exploring its ‘world’. so that they can share a common ‘dream’ world within the computer. Of course nothing so intricate as a human. then to recreate entire new universes in this way and disperse the people’s ‘souls’ into this new level 1 Johnston’s Paradox   . grow old and go on holiday all within that ‘dream’ world just as in the real world. they will be able to communicate. What must now be realised is that. then surely it will be done. if this process is indeed possible. although to us their world is a ‘dream’ world. if we reject the materialist notion and accept that there could be an infinite subdivision of life. according to built-in ‘laws of nature’. or else by saying that the basic elements of existence are infinite and so could never by fully encoded. or even an animal mind has been reproduced. In such a universe we cannot bring in ideas of ‘spirit’ or ‘etheric force’ from outside. In Cambridge the mathematician Conway devised a two-dimensional ‘game’ called ‘Life’ which produced a growing and evolving pattern in the computer.

In particular. But what about the assertion with which this article began? Although there is speculation as to whether any intelligent beings exist within communicating distance of our solar system. then any one ‘real’ universe would spawn a huge number of sub-universes. In that case. and yet with certain fundamental differences. it is very unlikely that our own universe should just happen to be a ‘real’ one . using the probabilistic style of argument quoted earlier. 1 Johnston’s Paradox   .and so on. a very great number of highly advanced cultures must have developed.in the works of fiction writers adds force to the argument.. it will also take place a great many times. Not only will this act of creation take place when it becomes possible. in the universe as a whole. So we would not expect the average sub-universe to obey identical laws to the real universe that contains it. The real interest would come from studying the result. Amongst them many will be far beyond us in technical ability. if the mechanistic world view is correct.it is much more likely to be a sub-universe.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins of reality? What greater art form could there be in a mechanistic world than to create a whole new universe or ‘sub-universe’ within a machine? The owner could at any point tune into this sub-universe and witness the rise and fall of cultures. As with fantasy novels.though in a very complete and so far ‘unreal’ form . Our universe will then spawn a myriad sub-universes. The fact that this has already been done . so an obvious and economical experiment would be to create a world where the memory files of individuals are not totally erased on death. In view of what was said earlier we should expect the number of these sub-universes to be very large. If the differences are too great then the sub-universe would contain beings so utterly different as to be incomprehensible and uninteresting.. but are used as a basis for a future personality. the general assumption is that. if we assume the real universe to be utterly ‘rational’. ‘What would be the nature of a typical sub-universe?’ Johnstone asked. So what Johnstone is suggesting is that. it is highly probable that the average subuniverse would contain a small but significant element of ‘irrationality’.. In that case it becomes highly likely that the creation of subuniverses has already begun. Surely it would not exactly duplicate the real universe? Only in the earliest stages of development would a highly evolved rational being be interested in reproducing another identical universe. we know from our initial assumption of a materialist world that there would be no such thing as reincarnation.. especially when we realise that within some of those subuniverses there will already be cultures sufficiently advanced to create sub-universes. the greatest interest would be in creating a universe with a lot in common with reality. individuals and races. lives of great heroism or tragedy would be there for the watching. For example.

when it surveys a townscape. Putting the two parts of this argument together gives us Johnstone’s Paradox. it would be interesting to make it ‘real’ in our model. As I stated above. While it does this it is building up its own inner ‘map’ of the cosmos. For example it has learned that its own house is made up of oblong rooms inside and has presumably noted a similar feature in all other houses visited. I offer this as consolation in a world that is preparing for nuclear war.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins As we know that mysticism would be rubbish according to the initial assumptions.that all co-temporal events are linked . Therefore we believe that it would reproduce. It also incorporates video. IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT WE ARE LIVING IN A MECHANISTIC UNIVERSE’. Sure enough. as Crowley put it: AUMGN. Perhaps 1 Johnston’s Paradox   . Between them they have developed a small portable device with a view to creating such a new ‘universe’. Provision has been made for extending facilities over the years but already the device has been given a certain amount of automotive power to explore ‘the real world’. future developments may be along rather different lines from what we now call ‘computers’. is one which would be utterly reproducible. So. Or. Perhaps some people will have little time for such a speculative argument as I have given. unlike some religious or magical universes.would not only be an interesting addition to the mechanistic model. tactile and other sensors which provide the input for a general learning program. To summarise: we should perhaps not let ourselves be too limited by our present idea of what constitutes a ‘computer’ and simply say that a mechanistic universe. sooner or later. their device incorporates a sophisticated ‘parallel processing’ system. A very good friend of mine and her husband began to experiment along the lines outlined in this article. it might also prove to be a much more economical use of computer time than a model which had to store a universe of random ‘coincidences’. it will ‘know’ that all the visible buildings contain oblong rooms. This is overcome by a process of ‘extrapolation’. this multiplicity makes it extremely unlikely that we are privileged to be living in the original universe. they will want it to be brought down to earth before they will feel it has any value. What is more it would reproduce indefinitely with indefinite more or less subtle variations from the original model. (In view of the assumed economy in nature that last point adds a special significance to the argument that will not be pursued in this short article). audio. which means that in it large numbers of operations are performed simultaneously rather than in a linearly programmed form. At first one might think that it can never complete this map until it has travelled and observed everywhere in the universe. namely that: ‘IF REALITY IS UTTERLY MECHANISTIC. In other words we must add a little magic to our new universe to make it more exciting. However. The synchronistic theory of divination .

and therefore coloured by. there is something in us that could direct the evolution of our own universe. Accordingly he has made an unusual effort to pander to the device’s needs . We can also witness the evolution of those universes. that fundamental map.. As the device has early learned that it gets what it wants it should later develop a ‘success’ type personality. perhaps. for his device was clearly bound to develop a powerful ego-sense despite his efforts! You might as well say it was his device’s essential being which was inducing him to behave towards it the way he was. Sure enough it had Sun Mercury Mars and Venus all in the first house! So I pointed out to the husband that he need not have tried so hard to compensate for his inadequacies. So. His little device was busy creating its own world out of fragments of our world.. From the above example it can be seen that the device’s inner world may deviate a little from ‘reality’. What is more we can observe that. For example. My friend’s husband has taken this into account by attempting to ensure that at least its ‘world’ will be an improvement on ‘reality’. for I have never been tempted to accept the mechanistic view. those people who still believe in the traditional mechanistic universe are now growing increasingly dogmatic and cranky as their numbers dwindle. So we should respect its universe as much as our own. Perhaps the ‘real’ universe also evolves in this way? . He hopes thereby to ensure that the fundamental ‘world map’ will be a benign one. an awful lot of those subuniverses are far from being themselves rational. with tongue in cheek I drew up a horoscope for the moment when their device was first granted autonomy.after all it is hard to see how any civilisation living near the sea could ever have believed the world was flat in view of the evidence of their eyes. however rational the ‘reality’ may be. but try to allow it as much magic as we could. In view of this example we can now see how this world we live in already contains several thousand million subuniverses. Most interestingly of all. This is of more than passing importance because all later experience will be processed within. and was going about it in the same way as we developed our own universes in our own childhood. unlike its creators. rather than say that his behaviour towards it was going to determine its essential being.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins at a later date it will come across a trapezoidal or circular room and incorporate that possibility into its universe. Now basically I have no time for Johnstone’s Paradox.and so on.often rushing to solve its problems or extricate it from awkward situations before any ‘distress’ symptoms show. 1 Johnston’s Paradox   . he himself is prone to inferiority feelings and knows that nothing ever comes without a struggle least of all gratitude. For example. Not to be outdone by me he pointed out that this apparent inversion of cause and effect was much more in keeping with a universe which was being ‘worked out’ within a greater ‘machine’ than it was appropriate to our present ideas as to the nature of time and space.

A NEW MUDDLE OF THE ONIVERSE (JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX. That state somehow correlates with that curious inversion of Jung’s VII Sermons Ad Mortuous. The argument given might have seemed rather abstract to some readers so. in the second half of the article. What does that directing. which states that. PART II) First published in Arrow 9 The first Johnston’s Paradox article was a bit terse for such a wide ranging idea. If an article on an occult topic is published in a fairly serious journal it tends to provoke an opposition which is blatantly dogmatic.g. To all intents and purposes their little device is just a baby boy. and wonder what reality lies outside it all. ‘magic is nonsense’ implies that magic probably exists. Or.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins e. then there are moments when I approach dizzily towards a new state of mind. nit-picking or utterly blind to the facts. so I expanded it a lot for this one. I brought it down to earth with a more homely example. But it was not until a later article (Johnstone’s Paradox Re-visited) that I really began to explain it properly. have concealed the revolutionary nature of their work by conducting their experiments ‘invisibly’. Such outbursts should be easy to dis  . When I look around me and try to realise that all I see is a construct of past conditioning. Now I would like to extend this last step towards demonstrating how such apparently abstract philosophical speculations can impinge upon real life and be of help or inspiration to at least some occultists and magicians. in keeping with the principles of Thundersqueak. to allow magic to grow in it despite our scientific culture. obtuse. then it is extremely unlikely that we are living within such a reality. where the world of Gods and Demons is ascribed as the ‘outer world’. THE SHADOWS OF SCEPTICISM I am sure that I am not alone in finding certain statements by self styled ‘rationalist sceptics’ very annoying. Is this cold world around me then my ‘inner’ world? Are these the thoughts which ‘estrangeth from being’? 2 . is it the machine itself or is it the ghost in the machine? Could it be that this True Will is so elusive because it is what remains when all that we now consider to be real has been stripped away? Further research along these lines is up to the individual reader. if ultimate reality is as mechanistic as is suggested by the presentday anti-occult materialists. for my friends. if you prefer. 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse In the last issue of Arrow I presented the argument for ‘Johnstone’s Paradox’.

a) The pure sceptical intellectualism of Gemini. but has to cover everything. For example the behaviourist theory of psychology is no longer seen as a convenient tool for some purposes. who turns a blind eye and hopes they will go away .she discusses the Jungian concept of ‘the shadow’ in astrological terms.that polar nature which opposes one’s normal expression and comes to be rejected and therefore autonomous.ie. Taking these three examples. b) The down-to-earth Virgo nature lapses occasionally into a Piscean escapist muddle. In her book Liz Greene explains this in terms of the Jungian ‘shadow’ . and it is the nonrecognition of this fact that leads to its negative ‘shadow’ manifestation. In the latest book she further illustrates how each sign contains a certain ‘shadow’ potential according to its own nature. In her earlier book on ‘Saturn’ she had pointed out how that planet can play the part of the shadow in a person’s chart.‘I’m too busy to waste time on such obvious nonsense’. For the sake of this essay I will limit myself to this last ingredient of the shadow . but many of us actually find them irritating. Why should trivial statements by apparently silly people upset us in this way? In Liz Greene’s latest book . in an introductory chapter. For illustrative convenience I will use the astrological terminology and ask: ‘what characteristics do we associate with the rationalist scientific thinker?’ Without going too deeply into what is only intended to be a step in my argument I will suggest the following three factors as examples.the search for one all-embracing principle. what characteristics might we expect from the ‘shadow’ of such thinkers? a) The pure logical ‘game-playing’ of Gemini could slip into the Sagittarian hunger to find connections . For example . it should be easy to see how otherwise reputable thinkers are 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse   . She also. b) The critical. c) The dispassionate iconoclasm and search for truth of Aquarius. talks about one’s ‘shadow sign’. For example the sceptic who refuses to admit well documented occult phenomena.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins miss.. She illustrates how any sun sign native can occasionally lapse into a nature corresponding to the worst features of the polar sign. down-to-earth discrimination of Virgo.with the off-puttingly down-market title of Star Signs for Lovers . Bearing in mind that I am not making any absolute statements about the horoscopes of materialists.an alternative way of saying the same thing might be to note that Sun in Aries in the usual geocentric system necessarily implies Earth in Libra in the more ‘abstract’ heliocentric system. the sign opposite in the zodiac. c) The individualistic. The ‘shadow sign’ is the polar sign to the sun-sign . but simply using the astrological language for convenience. free-spirited Aquarian nature can lapse into a debased Leonine totalitarianism having found its own truth it will force others to live by it.under pressure the dynamic pioneering Aries man can reveal himself as an indecisive muddler who desperately wants to be liked (ie the lowest traits of Libra).

If you can allow me the same degree of oversimplification as before. there is a little part of you which does not really believe in magic? That suggests that the real reason you try to believe in magic is simply spite . and I would like the rest of my readers to stop and to think. the answer lies in our own shadows. or any form of occultism. I will illustrate in the same language. His concern was that the scientific world view had grown sterile and suffocating and that many people would be looking for a way out. The sort of thinking I have ascribed to the Sagittarius occultist would play a very important part in this transition. however much we explain them away.does he not have at the back of his mind a Geminian cynic. Can you face up to the fact that. In view of this we should all be able to relax and ignore these unfortunate outbursts. So will all ‘born witches’ get on with their spells. although you love to listen to rumours of secret government research into parapsychology. quietly asking him whether there is any ‘real proof’. searching for the unifying principles behind all phenomena thereby to win his freedom from them . He was happy to leave the ‘born magicians’ to get on with it. deep down inside you. quietly reminding him that perhaps his magic is only self deception?   . know-all smugness of the materialists? That points out that.BLAST your way to capable of such absurd reactions when commenting on parascience. for every step towards acceptance of parascience. we still find the opinions of such people very irritating . vastly more research is actually being done into chemical and surgical techniques of character manipulation? That. despite Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins A new muddle of the Oniverse THE OCCULTIST’S OWN SHADOW Appropriately enough for lovers of symmetry.because you hate the authoritarian. In his mind the natural successor to a scientific world view was a magical world view (as is explained in the penultimate chapter of SSOTBME). Lastly there is the Sagittarian occult philosopher. computer science leaps forward a mile? That. But can we? Don’t we in fact find that. on the run from his own inferiority feeling of being ‘just one of the crowd’ (the lowest manifestation of Aquarian universality)? How the deep and dedicated penetration into life’s mysteries bestowed by Scorpio so often results in a group which exploits those findings for the material gain of Taurus.dare I say even ‘disturbing’? Why is this so? 2 It is towards this last problem that Johnstone’s work was most particularly directed. Have you not observed how the mystical Piscean character of some occult groups can be a cover for an undercurrent of the lowest Virgoan critical backbiting? How the kingly Leonine Thelemite can sometimes show as a Mr Average. In which case we should expect the corresponding ‘shadow’ to be very active at the same time. please.

he did not really believe in the Wisdom of the ancients. Realising this fact freed him.whereas acceptance should in theory lead to a transmutation. For example. and yet had always held back in his search.. and had ended up at the feet of some egotistical junky. Walking alone one fine day he dared to ask himself what did he really believe? Swiftly came the answer that ‘magic was bunk’ and the ‘rationalists were right’.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins what we like to believe about flying saucers.. they were less woolly than the rationalists’ attempts to explain away the coincidence as a ‘form of self deception’. he came to recognise that the real enemy was in his own mind. Those who do not know this shadow are blessed. the Loch Ness Monster or flying saucers . and not feel they do not have one! For many years he had been hoping to find a ‘secret chief’ or adept who would transform his life. Instead he examined the answer more closely. his horoscope told him recognisable things about himself. Some will angrily deny it: of these there are some who will later come to admit what they dare not at first. And so it went on. of occultism was too full of accounts of those who had dedicated their lives to the search for a master. for all your raving about the Establishment’s ‘blindness’. Suddenly he could see that fundamentally he had never believed in such wisdom: the history. and he was able to construct his own magical theory based upon that fact. He realised that he did believe that the universe was slightly more ‘connected up’ than the materialists would allow. all the barricade of beliefs he had sheltered behind was crumbling away until he came to the point where something real remained. but they should look elsewhere for their own shadow. the bulk of government spending is on weapons of destruction rather than interstellar communication? Finally that suggests to you that.   . Part of him did not believe in magic at all. or else miss the chance of further advancement. We fear to do so because we fear that ‘acceptance of’ means ‘surrender to’ . Fortunately he resisted the temptation just to smack himself and forget this lapse. This was his shadow’s weak point then . nor in the Geller phenomenon.his world was rather more ‘connected’ than materialist theory would allow. One of Johnstone’s pupils realised that he was engaging too much of his thinking life in imaginary arguments with a very dogmatic rationalist he had once crossed words with.if not the literature. they could just be right after all? and soon they will have the necessary drugs or brain surgery to make you admit the fact? Some of you will recognise the reality. of what I have suggested. the strength. Although they were rather woolly statements. 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse THE WAY TO TRANSFORMATION What is one supposed to do about the ‘shadow’? By all accounts there comes a time in every progressive life when one is forced to accept it. True. In trying to see why he was so obsessed by thoughts of attacking these other beliefs.

If you begin to believe in the computer model of the brain. philosophical confirmation of the model. and proceeding to deduce wonders from it. so does Johnstone’s method so often begin by assuming the most objectionably mechanistic world view. (The fact that. once you started to believe it.) Apart from this outside evidence there comes an inner. that we are in fact living in a dream within some giant computer. Thirdly the model gives us an image of how there can be a creator of this universe. Music please. if the whole universe is a dream being worked out within a computer then the ancient view that matter is ‘maya’ or illusion can be reconciled with the fact that it seems so real to us. all this becomes credible if we are all part of one transcendent machine. A new muddle of the Oniverse LIVABLE REALITIES Is this idea of the world a ‘liveable reality’? Johnstone called a world view a ‘liveable reality’ if.. you find the advance of computer science equals an advance of administerial bungling is quite beside the point.. 2 I believe the answer is ‘yes’. as was once the view that all the troubles of the world were caused by Jews. As the alchemical process begins with the black state. as does Jung’s path to liberation begin with the recognition of the shadow. then the chances are that we and our whole apparent universe are in fact just such a model. JOHNSTONE’S PATH Here is one individual solution to one individual problem. you begin to find a lot of evidence for it. If we accept it we find that we can begin to reconcile what was seen as the most arrogant materialist assumption with certain very ancient mystical teachings. or apparent action at a distance. In particular we are now concerned with the example that I wrote about in the last issue of Arrow which says that if reality is mechanistic and so able to be duplicated by a sophisticated machine. it began to prove itself true. if you don’t believe the model. Livable realities need not be nice. or even sensible to outsiders: obviously the materialist world view was liveable. and you find that the advance of computer science is gradually eroding man’s uniqueness. For example. and the ascent of the middle pillar begins with the path of Saturn. who are also parts of that dream.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Thus he gave up tilting at windmills and came in his turn to sit at the feet of an egotistical old junky.   . Secondly this model confirms the mystical view of the one-ness of the universe: whereas it is hard to see how the disjoint ‘real’ materialist universe can be reconciled with astrology. What we want to do is to explore more general techniques for transmuting our own inner fears and doubts. and how that creator can live outside time and space as we know it.

a readjustment between the known and the un-known. If it were generally accepted there would be a renewed sense of awe and mystery. the less magic that exists in the meta-reality. and what resemblance has it to that creator’s own universe? Here I have presented a world model which opens up a vista of new possibilities. The way inward is as powerful as the way outward.BLAST your way to THE HONEYMOON If you allow yourself to live within this reality for a while it begins to show many such advantages. One way to economise would be to cut back on redundant phenomena. Having recognised the advantages let us now explore the idea a little. The computer may not be made of silicon chips. trajectory. At first we can say nothing of the meta-universe. it is perhaps not unreasonable to assume that certain fundamental principles might still apply: for example the principle of economy in nature. and we immediately turn our back on these gifts and ask questions about the meta-universe beyond. suddenly become possible. so below. EXPLORING THE MODEL It is typical of human curiosity to begin by wondering who or what created this world. If we assume that drop of rain had objective existence then that one drop is made up of an enormous amount of information. and that the computer in which we exist is necessarily made of silicon chips. except that it was capable of conceiving this universe. As above. So many traditional beliefs about the world. and this is highly desirable in an age where the bureaucracy of the super state is threatening to crush us all. then it means that it is ultimately possible for introspection to reveal as much about the universe as a multi-billion pound government research project. the more likely that magic will have been programmed into the reality. It would be unwise to assume that the meta-world is composed of the same elements as ours appear to be. How does it bestow that dignity? If my individual consciousness is part of one vast machine that includes the whole universe. These examples illustrate that this world view has certain advantages. this belief bestows greater dignity and power upon the individual. What is more. All our physical laws might be arbitrary constructs of some artistic crank. the physical properties of the liquid and the 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins   . the impact on the pane. As was explained in the last article. What at first sight seems to be a rather cramped and sterile world view gradually unfolds to reveal a world much larger and more mysterious than ever seemed possible before. that previously one hardly dared to believe in. Unless you look up at the pane that drip will only have registered as a sound in your consciousness. However. but it is likely to try to make best use of its capabilities. A scientist with time to waste could make a lifetime’s study of its formation. Perhaps as you read this you hear a drip on the window pane which tells you that it is beginning to rain.

BLAST
your way to

Megabuck$
Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

constituent particles etc. Yet its only impact on your consciousness was to make a sound which tells you it is raining. So it would be an obvious economy to do without the ‘actual’ raindrop and simply reproduce the impact of its noise on your consciousness. There are assumed to be many more drops of rain falling on your roof - but unless they are going to be noticed why give them ‘real’ existence in the model? This is the version of reality which says that the tree in the courtyard does not exist unless someone is perceiving it. Instead of running the whole universe in your model you only run the phenomena which are due to impinge upon consciousness at some time. But in the example of the tree, how does the tree cease to exist when you look away from it? It needs to be kept in store for later perceptions, so it might just as well continue to ‘exist’. Did the far side of the moon exist before the spacemen went there? It need not have done, but, as it eventually needed to be created, perhaps it was planned in advance and kept in store to give consistency to the model. Returning to our drip on the pane, how does the machine calculate how to make exactly the right noise at the right time? If this is to be done for every drop that is to be perceived, perhaps (for reasons given the next paragraph) it is in the long run simplest to model the whole event of the raincloud, even when only a tiny part of the model is going to impinge on consciousness.

As this modelling is what we mean by ‘existence’, this would suggest that perhaps the whole cloud does exist even if we only perceive one drop from it. Another way of economising would be to cut back on the number of independent parameters in the universe. If every molecule has its own independent existence, if every created being is an island, then the amount of information stored is staggeringly huge. But what if the universe was instead built out of permutations of a limited number of factors, as described in the essays on the I Ching (for example Ta Chuan in Book II of the Wilhelm version). Then it could happen that all simultaneous events being based on permutations of a smaller set would be linked, despite their spatial separation. In this case it could begin to make sense to judge a person’s make-up by the position of the stars at their birth, or, when a problem is present in your mind, to seek a solution to it in the ‘chance’ layout of tarot cards, of yarrow stalks, of planetary positions or any other oracle. In such a world phenomena like telepathy or dowsing become possible without any need for any perceptible means of transmission of information. The whole notion of ‘coincidence’ takes on a different meaning in this model. Another economy would be to avoid completely scrapping souls at death, by refurbishing them for re-use. In other words to programme reincarnation into the universe.

2 A new muddle of the Oniverse





BLAST
your way to

Megabuck$
Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

An interesting thing about the above arguments is that the principle of economy in nature is the very one which so often inspires scientists to reject occult phenomena eg: ‘If our model adequately describes human behaviour without invoking the idea of a ‘soul’, then there is no ‘soul’. But in this case we find the principle of economy being applied to the number of independent variables in nature suggests the likelihood of a whole range of ‘unacceptable’ occult phenomena! The reason why the fact has not been more obviously apparent has been suggested in Thundersqueak, and in an article on ‘Parascience’ in an earlier issue of Arrow. We cannot make any certain assumptions about the metauniverse, but if we tentatively assume that the principle of economy applies then we can make some suggestions about the nature of this universe. Some of these will not be possible to verify without gaining access to the original ‘program’, others might prove verifiable by experiment.

If this universe has been created let us continue to assume it was ‘deliberately’ created, in which case it can be assumed to have some sort of ‘value’. We then ask what could be the value of creating an utterly deterministic universe in comparison with a non-deterministic universe? The former might be created with one particular ‘end’ in view - in other words a universe created to calculate a solution to da particular problem. But looking at the complexity of existence one cannot help but feel that the means are over-elaborate to justify such an end. So, if we are bold enough to assume any sense of ‘art’ exists in the meta-universe, then it seems likely that life is not utterly pre-determined, for a non-deterministic universe is so much more valuable. So how much freedom is there? Anyone who chooses to observe soon realises just how much apparent free will is in fact not free - just how stereotyped much of our lives can be. But what is here being questioned is those occasions when a decision is made in full consciousness how true is our apparent freedom of choice in such cases? The difficulty is to imagine how one could build freedom into the system. One solution is suggested near the end of this essay, but until then we will satisfy ourselves by seeing how little freedom we need to build it. Let us say I feel hungry. In this case I might eat a chocolate biscuit that is handy. Or else I might think ahead and not eat it because I am planning to have a slap-up lunch in half an hour. Or else I might go further and eat it, in

2 A new muddle of the Oniverse

FREE WILL Another question that springs to mind is the question of free will. Does this computer model of the universe deny free will? Are all our actions utterly determined by the automatic working out of the initial conditions (including of course the built in illusion that our will is free)? Again we will have to make some ‘wild’ assumptions about the meta-universe when we ask why this one was created.




BLAST
your way to

Megabuck$
Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

order to save having to spend so much on lunch. Or I might not eat at all until the next day as a gesture towards third world starvation, or as a cleansing fast. My consciousness can operate on any decision at many different levels. Perhaps at every level the correct decision is utterly determined, but freedom consists simply of a freedom to move from level to level, and expansion of consciousness means an expansion of one’s thinking to embrace more levels - and so win greater freedom. What is suggested is that a universe with some degree of freedom built-in would be more ‘valuable’ or ‘interesting’ than a totally deterministic universe and so more likely to be created.

universe is the computer this is rather pointless. In the case of a non-deterministic universe it is especially pointless, because two runs on the same input might lead to different outcomes. Any changes made in a non-deterministic universe will involve a lot of risk. The safest course is not to make clumsy changes from outside, but to enter into the universe itself in order to make the change. Only by becoming a human and accepting the limitations of a human existence could the creator hope to fully appreciate what changes are needed, and only as a human, working within the system, can changes of sufficient subtlety be brought about - even if one might be crucified in the process. One snag is that the more of the godlike consciousness is carried into the body, the less easy it is to totally enter the human condition. So possibly subsequent world teachers have attempted to direct the course of history with only a comparatively hazy realisation of their true status. For instance they might see themselves as beings from another star system, or as humans ‘possessed’ by a god. Or even just perceptive thinkers. This model sheds new light on World Teachers and Sons of God.

2 A new muddle of the Oniverse

DIVINE INTERVENTION A universe which allowed freedom might be more worthwhile, but it would also need much more careful adjustment. Indeed it would be very difficult to adjust it at all from ‘outside’. Let us imagine that ‘god’ never meant us to find out about nuclear power so soon, what can he do about it now? The obvious answer is to re-program the laws of physics to annul nuclear reactions - but that would produce catastrophic changes at every level of existence. Destroying all nuclear establishments would quite likely panic the politicians into another war ... and so on. The only way of predicting the outcome of any change from outside would be to do a computer run, and as the

A BIGGER, OR A SMALLER WORLD? Those were just a few examples to show that we can still speculate about the nature of the universe even though we know nothing of the meta-world in which it was created. These examples should have given some idea of how open the possibilities are. Earlier I suggested how a belief in





or whatever. and we have found that conclusion to be full of magic.that of man as a machine . because they feel that I have replaced a mysterious transcendent Creator by some nasty know- Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins all egghead scientist in a white coat who has constructed our universe within a computer just for a cold-blooded experiment? Then stop! Whoever suggested a ‘nasty know-all scientist’ as the Creator? That figure came out of your own mind: he is the very shadow we set out to overcome and he is trying to sabotage our efforts by getting back to the controls. how then does it benefit the individual? We have transformed the apparently most constricting and sterile theory of materialist science . The findings of science are seen as part of a huge game. Step by step he could approach that transcendent core of his being that must contain. 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse OLD WINE. As each advance in machine intelligence is made the initiate would. You are tempted to reject this model because the shadow has taken up residence within it. Only the last one comprises matter. By this means we have transformed the twentieth century occultist’s ‘shadow’ and got it to co-operate with us. Rudolf Steiner in his book Occult Science gives a long and tedious chapter on the evolution of the universe . discount the corresponding faculties in his mind and look towards what remains. or be. the Moon stage is rarified . The only thing that kept me going through this detailed and tedious account was the recognition that it paralleled the cabalistic account of creation where the entire creation process of the Tree of Life is repeated in four worlds . in his meditation. built this universe must have had abilities far beyond our present abilities .BLAST your way to this model could benefit society by widening our horizons. goes through an entire evolutionary cycle until it reaches its ultimate expression before being re-born at the next stage. Myself I do not see this model in these terms.not evolution since the ‘big bang’ but evolution before there was even any material existence. as Johnstone would say.. or ‘seed’ of the next world. but all the same some readers may have read this far and still feel cheated by this world model.a little like the dream world and the Sun and Saturn stages are correspondingly even less corporeal. In fact whoever. and here is why. At each stage the universe is born.the Malkuth or ‘fruit’ of each world becoming the Kether. his True Will.the Saturn. At great length he describes four levels of creation . Sun. Moon and Earth stages. The computer model of the universe need only limit us if we kid ourselves that the present day computers represent the ultimate possibility. ‘Flowers now grow in the dust’.so who knows what undiscovered possibilities have also been created in our universe? This suggests a possible route towards the discovery of our True Will: the elimination of all that is automatic or mechanical in our nature. and are no longer seen as attacks on cherished beliefs.. The possibilities are wide open.by extending it to its logical conclusion. then we   . At each of the four levels the Tree is descended as far as Yesod.

It is only this last cycle of evolution which has been acknowledged and studied by contemporary science..IN NEW BOTTLES I begin by skipping the description of the birth of manifestation from out of the Unmanifest. I will simply call it a World of Possibilities.not just a three- 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse . skipping the detailed justification of the model as it will be familiar to many readers. we find that this new World of Ideas evolves from its own formless chaotic seed into a fully developed world in ten stages which echo the ten evolutionary stages of the previous world.the creation of a whole new order of reality. we can look back on the earlier three worlds and get a better feeling for the immensity of each stage. Each of the previous three stages marks the complete development of a complete universe . being initially just the Image of Matter. From Briah is born Yetzirah . Created as formless chaos. This is dealt with in Crowley’s article Berashith. The creation of the tenth sephirah is described as a ‘fall’ . This world was not created as a completed entity.a world we might describe as a ‘dream world’. From that seed evolved the world in ten stages symbolised by the ten sephiroth of the Tree of Life . only ‘Kether’. and the enormous timescale involved. From this seed grew a world or universe called Atziluth. The World of Possibilities has given birth to the Possibility of an Idea. This Idea of an Image is the formless chaotic seed from which the World of Images evolves .with which I assume the reader is familiar. namely ‘matter’. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins This tenth sephirah is now the seed. With the birth of Malkuth in Briah we find that the World of Ideas has given birth to the Idea of an Image. So we find the Tree of Life repeated in Briah. According to tradition this evolution followed a regular course as far as the ninth sephirah. Knowing how dull such Kosmic Speculation can be I will present only a very brief summary of the process. this matter evolves and our universe is created in ten stages. and again the final stage is a ‘fall’ to a new order of existence. or Kether of the next world which is called Briah. This fall is as catastrophic a step as the original creation of Kether from the Unmanifest. as it contains nothing even as definite (or limited) as an abstract idea. This world is usually called the world of ‘archetypes’ or ‘gods’ but. The archetypal pattern having been set in Atziluth. When Malkuth is created out of Yetzirah it marks the creation of a new order of existence. the initial seed. the World of Archangels or the World of Ideas. Once again there are ten stages and a fall.BLAST your way to are told comes the ‘fall’.the World of Images.. a change of state which sets an abyss between Yesof and Malkuth.   . Sufficeth to say that from out of the Unmanifest came the seed of manifestation. But at that point came a crisis. The Tree of Life is repeated in Yetzirah. Bearing this in mind. was created.

When particle physicists look closely at the structure of our existence they get back beyond rock hard matter to reveal entities which are no more substantial than images to us. But to us their dreams will be a concrete reality . So this world is ‘complete’ on the cosmic timescale. But consider. So could the creation suggested above not be a model for the creation of our own world of matter? Might not the images or Angels of Yetzirah have discovered the structure of their own level of reality. It is this immense pre-creation which Steiner so wordily described as seen by his own spiritual vision. and have assembled that knowledge. music has been seen as the very foundation of our existence. a whole new order of reality. to create a universe of matter? To their ‘outsiders’ eyes they were merely constructing an Image of Matter.the flow of electrons in the circuit of a computer. If music can be coded into binary logic perhaps consciousness can too? In that case the time could come when this World of Matter will be capable of creating a new world. What we want to do now is to feel our way towards a better understanding of this creation. On the vast timescales we have been considering we can say we now live in a ‘complete’ world. even if it is not ‘perfect’ or ‘exhausted’ on our own timescale.a veritable Dream World. This then is the traditional cabalistic story of creation. One can begin to respect those scientists’ claims in the light of what they have achieved so far. The World of Matter will have given birth to a whole new order of existence. In view of the many stupid things said in the name of science we must not be too quick to accept this claim. for example. Might not the Archangels or Ideas of Briah have structured the logic of 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse   . What is more this reproduction is not a shoddy third rate reproduction . Within this complete universe there are now beings (certain computer scientists) who claim that we are approaching the possibility of re-modelling our very physical existence in the form of binary computer logic.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins day ‘tooling-up’ job of a creator whose real aim was to make our present reality. Though taking second place to live music. As such it is probably familiar to most readers. When beings have evolved within that new universe they will be only able to speculate about our World of Matter which to them will be ‘beyond time and space’ . From formless chaos the World of Matter has evolved a structure. to us it is a reality. but now music has been reproduced in digital form. digital sound reproduction. Music is often considered the most spiritual of the arts. Within a ‘computer’ of hitherto undreamed of vastness a set of laws governing a new submaterial world could be programmed and the initial cloud of sub-matter ‘created’. it has at least attained that second place in a very short time. and that structure is sophisticated enough (in the form of Man) to examine the World of Matter itself. Why should a new order of reality be created? By what sort of method might it be possible to create the ‘solid’ world of matter from out of the ‘insubstantial’ world of dream? To answer these questions let us come back to our present situation. that logic.instead it is now setting a new standard of qual- ity that surpasses earlier techniques.

ie in a restricted universe containing fewer sceptical minds .and so there was more room for miracles in the correspondingly looser structure. For example this law would explain why the incidence of miracles increases as we go back in history to times when there was less scepticism about miracles. (The accepted explanations for these two facts are that a) people were sillier in the past and b) lonely people are either silly or liars). To do so would have required a computer just as big as the final ‘mother’ computer.to merely Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins input the initial conditions and to permit the universe to evolve itself. In the story those new worlds were created and modelled into a ‘completed’ form. In that case the myriad human souls would each be put into memory store. being a true ‘fall’ to a new order of existence. What then about the ‘why’ of creation? In Thundersqueak there is a discussion of a short story in which such an act of creation takes place as the ultimate solution to a population crisis.BLAST your way to their own level of existence to create the Image World of the Angels? And so on? Do we now begin to have an understanding of the ‘how’ of creation? Such a fact of creation would well justify the gap between the tenth sephirah and the other nine.and that they lose their credibility when later published. or ‘limbo’ until the universe had evolved an appropriate body for each to inhabit. or relationships between entities on one world (rather than those entities themselves) forming the ‘matter’ of the next world. It would also explain the fact that the most striking modern psychic phenomena seem to occur at odd moments when there are few witnesses . The structure. In ancient times when only the main 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse   . The world picture is like the creation of a pen and ink drawing: the fine cross hatching and shading is still being slowly filled in. To do so would have involved an appalling amount of preliminary calculation . In this model the ancient world was less ‘worked out’ for example human consciousness had not yet crystallised the laws of physics . Our model begins to sound even closer to that described by Steiner! This idea of each universe being a ‘working out’ or evolution from an initial set of conditions provides a possible mechanism for Johnstone’s Law of General Psychic Relativity which is discussed in Thundersqueak. just as the relationships between transistors rather than the transistors themselves form the ‘matter’ of robot consciousness. For this reason I suggest that it would be more realistic to follow the course I have here described .every grain of sand and every blade of grass in every planet in every world would have had to be pre-calculated. instead a series of parallel universes were created within a computer and the peoples’ consciousness was programmed into those new realities. Briefly stated this law says that the inertia of any region of the universe is a function of all the conscious beliefs in that universe. The limitations of the physical universe were too great for the human masses to be transported to other habitable planets.

without attaining our own mastery of mobility. Horse and rider together became one greater entity.one reason to create a new reality. there was not room enough for Uri Geller to overthrow the scientific status quo. They realised that something else was needed before they could extend their mastery. and have an interest in the new reality of a quite different order to the ‘artistic’ curiosity which we considered earlier and in the last article. When viewed in close up we can see the spaces between the lines and there is still room to make changes. the idea of machine consciousness is still not easy to grasp so instead I will assist the imagination by saying that these wise men turned to the wild creatures and. This was not easy. Having created this ‘new reality’ they had to learn to mount and ride these horses.or even to sabotage the scheme by distracting and panicking the horses in an attempt to dislodge their rightful riders. with new power to rule the land and bring order to the world. If everyone started to believe in the model I am now describing we might all be riding around on non-polluting broomsticks in a century or two! Overpopulation . we go alone into the wilderness and keep our mouths shut. For the sake of consistency I should now say that they created machines for transport. For the horses had evolved a consciousness of their own and could put up considerable resistance. Why should a dream world create a world of matter in this way? If Yetzirah is as we picture it with the freedoms of a dream world. Could this story suggest another type of relationship between the World of Images and the World of Matter: 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse   . But those few horses that learned to ignore these distractions. is because it is possible to ignore the whole picture and focus on your own private corner of it. created horses. It is the idea that beings from the previous order of reality could somehow come to populate the new level to enter as ‘souls’ into the new ‘bodies’. however. and that something was ‘mobility’. In this case the previous reality would partake in. by selective breeding. not if we are prepared to change the picture rather than to squeeze new details into the one that science has given us. The fact that we can still witness miracles if. for example. Now the picture is more detailed and so less flexible. Imagine that the present evolution of mankind had taken a slightly different course. why should the ‘angels’ choose to enter into the limitations of physical existence. The situation was even more difficult because there were also plenty of less wise men who were eager to grab the reins themselves . Such was their wisdom that certain of them began to feel their limitations. to put on the burden of a material body? Perhaps the following analogy will suggest a possible reason. but first I would like to draw attention to an intriguing idea that the last model has suggested. A civilisation of what we would consider to be ‘cripples’ had evolved and provided some very wise men.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins outlines were complete there was more freedom to alter the picture. Does this mean then that the age of magic is passed? No. to overcome them and to gain rapport with their riders. were able to achieve a new freedom. Another more interesting reason will be considered in the next paragraph.

The struggles and obsessions described in Thundersqueak are the lower demons of Yetzirah scrabbling to incarnate by gaining a foothold in our souls. a substantial body of tradition claims that this material universe in fact marks a lowest point of evolution and that the future holds an involution back towards godhead.is something that is prized by the angelic beings.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins that the angels needed to cloak themselves in matter in order to complete their work? In this case we are their vehicles. Could this idea simply be a reflection of inadequate imagination on the part of previous generations? being unable to imagine anything more ‘solid’ than matter and not understanding the true nature of the creative process. The ability to create a new universe in the way I have suggested would be tantamount to having that knowledge. The cabalistic model shows so great an understanding of the process that it is most reasonable to accept that it was based on knowledge that had been input from the ‘higher’ worlds. did they therefore just assume that the end had been reached? I feel that this was not so. rather than bodies who have grown too numerous. buffeted by demons and doubts and blinkered by our own sense of identity. After all the discovery of atomic fusion amounts to a discovery of how to erase certain A new muddle of the Oniverse   . Truly the details are too numerous for anyone’s knowledge: what was suggested was that we might be approaching the position of knowing all the basic laws of existence. What I am asking is ‘can we see possibilities in our present condition which will help us to understand what might have happened before? Does this throw light on the ‘why’ of creation? As to the future there is a major doubt.that is the direction in which we are progressing.albeit an ‘illusion’ and a ‘limitation’ . In this model we find that our physical existence . Until we each find our True Will and join forces with our Holy Guardian Angel. we will never find that true freedom. An article in New Scientist in the 70s suggested that soon Science might come to know everything. Therefore I am inclined to trust the assertion that the future lies towards the spiritual rather than down towards a new creation. 2 Like the wise men we pictured on the angelic plane might not our leading thinkers feel compelled to create a new reality in order to extend the battle onto new territory to widen their horizons into a whole new order of reality? Actually I am not really engaged in making predictions at this point. Although it seems very reasonable for creation to continue ever downwards. whilst men are few’. To have that knowledge and yet to have failed to create the perfect society . although it might read like it. As is suggested in Jung’s VII Sermones Ad Mortuos ‘numberless gods await the human state’ or ‘the gods are many. What then of our religious feelings? How small and frustrating our vaster universe would seem to those most advanced thinkers who first reached that understanding! Here is a different sort of ‘overpopulation’: minds who have grown too big for the material world.

In this model we are already half way through evolution . Nowhere is the beginning of all possibilities.for whom and by whom the world of angels was created? And beyond that lies the Kingdom of gods before we once more can merge with the unmanifest. At the end of our journey we were back where we started. finite and curved as is the universe of matter .feel your thoughts and perceptions as processes in the vast machine of a unified universe. then. But is it true? Johnstone never explained any particular model in terms of its truth. For what happens when we attain unity with the guardian angel? It is just the first step. Philosophy with the emphasis on ‘philo’ instead of ‘sophy’. Surely the appropriate approach for the Age of Horus? As was promised in the first section I have tried to present the idea in a form that is helpful to the individual. our forthcoming development of computer technology is not destined to lead evolution down along an endless chain of realities. or finding one’s True Will consists of turning away from the hubbub of obsessions around us. but who found that. Go out and look at the world. It appears that the universe of belief must be closed. We turned round and set off in the opposite direction towards the idea of man as machine. According to this traditional view. So what we did was call that Doubt’s bluff. according to our cabalistic model. from whence we can begin the ascent back to godhead. Instead it will be the key to the understanding of our own evolution. For then the ascent can begin in earnest. with the four worlds and each human with his own ‘guardian angel’. only the first stage of which is the return to one-ness with our angelic nature. At the beginning of this essay I addressed myself to those of us who would have liked to embrace a traditional model of man’s make-up. It has got us nowhere. But that is what is so interesting. and the path to initiation commences.just as would be expected in our model! Our argument has got us where we wanted. 2 So what have we achieved? Our new approach has got us nowhere. The world becomes fresh and full of a new mystery and potential. a nagging voice of doubt was always heard over their shoulder. A new muddle of the Oniverse CONCLUSION We have ended up right back at the traditional cabalistic world view. We witness the re-birth of Reality. for that ‘angelic’ world must itself be mastered.but it is an evolution that is seven times bigger than the evolution now recognised by science. As you do so try to live this new model of reality .   .BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins files in the computer memory. Self cultivation. whenever they faced it. but only in terms of its ability to foster this re-birth and give joy. hope and freedom. Only when local thoughts in the machine are quelled does there come awareness of the higher nature. and higher bodies. The knowledge that we are gaining as to how we could create a new universe is not a red herring so long as that knowledge opens our eyes to the true nature of our own existence. But can that happen until the angel has realised its own oneness with its own inner archangel . which are trying to possess us.

“Have not my walls already repulsed Spiritualism.” answered his valet. “I have nothing to fear!” the old King bellowed.. The youth farted nervously. The King stepped back alarmed.” The youth bit his lip nervously but spoke firmly. Whereas you are yourself an old and hidebound tyrant who hides behind fortifications and ignores his people’s changing needs. Around the city the King had built mighty fortifications to protect his realm. “How dare you. a world religion that (for once) actually depends upon the co-operation of scientific advance. Now the people were prosperous and well fed thanks to the King’s wise policies. For that you will die a traitor. “this challenger comes not from without.” The two stood facing each other in silence. Hearing the people’s cries of complaint. awkwardly wielding a sword. Theosophy. along the way. Geller and the Psychedelic invaders from the East? No-one will take my throne from me!” “But Sire. The King grew older. but now the people felt cramped by these walls. “You cannot kill me. but the mighty walls kept them at bay. As a young man he had appeared as a saviour to the people. choked in the confines of their own prosperity. young warriors had come from other lands to challenge the Kingship. defeating the tyrant that oppressed them and bringing new freedom and hope.. Restraining his wrath he quietly but firmly spoke.” Whereupon the King drew his sword and spake again. just the sort of good value that my readers have learned to expect! At this a callow youth burst into the room. is. a mere stripling. and harder on these claimants. challenge a mighty warrior who has fought and conquered to build this reality. One day the King’s valet announced the presence of a new challenger to the throne. Yet they were not content. whereas I have been practising daily for this challenge.” said the youth. I am sure.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The fact that. I have laid the foundation of a whole new philosophy of existence. 2 A new muddle of the Oniverse ANALOGUE A mighty King ruled the land. “For my father was an idealistic and vigorous warrior who defeated the tyrant Religion in single combat. UFOs. Gurdjieff. for I am your own father!” “You are not my father. angry.   . “I am the challenger!” he cried.” “Remember only that you have not faced a challenger on equal terms for over one hundred years.

It is beginning to seem that a particle is not so much a solid object as a collection of possibilities. Theorem One: when a regular contributor to a magazine starts writing much about her\himself it is indeed time she\he stopped writing. Having emptied the contents of my brain onto the pages of Arrow in the form of two concluding articles on ‘Johnstone’s Paradox’ I had decided that Ramsey Dukes’ literary days were done and it was time to concentrate on weightier matters such as copulation and the size of my bank balance. What physicists wanted was to find the basic ‘Lego’ bricks from which all matter could be built. ‘confusions’ is a little closer. Last year I celebrated this bold decision by buying The Tao of Physics to read . Pluto was opposing my Sun. whereupon my nostrils flared and flecks of foam appeared upon my lips. In particular it describes the bizarre conclusions that have been drawn from their behaviour . This book describes physicists’ attempts to discover the fundamental units of existence. Arrow readers were doomed to another article from my pen. If the simplest units of matter are so very immaterial. A. a particle is constantly splitting and re-forming in a dance of ‘virtual particles’ (‘virtual’ because they break and re-form too quickly for observation or measurement).the fundamental particles . In fact it seems that particles can under different circumstances divide and reform in a whole lot of ways. Sorry about the rather flip introduction . I was trying to give up writing at the time. First Published in Arrow 10 Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins As it was the more recent of the two volumes to fall drained of wisdom from my sweaty grasp.BLAST your way to 3 . It is even said that.. from that moment.‘conclusions’ is too strong a word. so I was actually trying to give up almost everything. I will concentrate my attention on the Dancing Wu Li Masters. As mentioned. even when not colliding. Having discovered that colliding particles tend to reform into different particles as if they were in fact complex bodies.and later The Dancing Wu Li Masters.I was parodying the way certain columnists in the New Scientist used to write (can’t think why). since the time when it was discovered that what were presumptuously called ‘atoms’ turned out not to be fundamental after all. the next one in this book is about something else). they wondered whether any truly fundamental particles could be identified from which the others could be constructed. Little did I then realise that.   .THE ANTS IN THE PANTS OF THE DANCING WU LI MASTERS. It was while reading the latter that I came upon the passage about ‘Bell’s Theorem’ quoted below.. It describes the newest candidates . accelerated in a certain direction and then colliding or otherwise react- 3 Ants in the Pants This is the third Johnstone’s Paradox article (don’t give up.and their very peculiar behaviour. what about our conceptions of time and space? We talk of a particle being generated at one point.

This rather ‘Eastern’ idea is too unfamiliar to the West to have had any chance of becoming popular. 5) There are other possibilities such as a ‘many worlds’ theory. secondly if we cause it to pass through photographic emulsion we find a definite trail marking the particle’s passage. Is it really the same particle that moves from A to B? Our intuition that this is so is supported by various observations. 2) That something conveys information between the particles and it does so much faster than the speed of light. if we look at it too closely the solid trail breaks into a series of dots. Instead I will economise on literary effort by quoting several passages from the book itself. Firstly the particle seems to obey the laws of motion between A and B.. To cut a long story short we come to Bell’s Theorem.BLAST your way to ing at another point. I do not intend to flaunt my ignorance of the subject by trying to expound further. a physicist at the European Organisation for Nuclear Research in Switzerland zeroed in on this strange connectedness in a manner that may make it the central focus of physics in the future. all they can admit is that at some point in the given time interval a particle was present at each of the points in question. Bell’s Theorem was reworked and refined over the fol-   . where individual molecules of the sensitive material have been activated.. This idea is also unpopular. all registering positively. 4) Bell’s Theorem suggests that the universe is in fact a whole.. In the case of the photographic emulsion. 3 Ants in the Pants THE QUOTES Quote l ‘In l964 J S Bell. Physicists no longer feel confident in claiming that from this we can reach any conclusion about the motion of the particle between each molecule. l) a totally predetermined universe (whatever the experimenter thinks he is doing in fact the outcome was Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins decided before he even started). that apparently isolated objects and events are in fact linked within a fundamental structure that lies beyond our perception. This is the same conclusion that I deduced from Johnstone’s Paradox in the previous articles. as a possible deduction from Johnstone’s Paradox in the last article. and that is dangerous in an area of study where the observations we make appear to be profoundly affected by the way we make them (and so by the assumptions upon which we base our search). Instead of a continuous locus through space we have a string of billions of separate particle detectors. However these ‘laws of motion’ are a pre-existing assumption in our thinking. B. 3) That apparent separation in space-time is in fact an illusion. This unpopular idea was suggested. and I hope argued out of. Having found evidence that there is apparently an instantaneous transfer of information between separate localities (a particle at one point seems to know what is happening elsewhere) this suggests several possibilities.

What we perceive depends upon what we look for. What we perceive determines what we believe.) To sum up: I found in this book a strong case to support the ideas of my last article ‘A New Muddle of the Oniverse’. In other words the whole is always greater than the sum of its parts. That was what I suggested.. but the world as we see it is not the machine itself. To make up for this travesty I will recommend you all to buy “The Dancing Wu Li Masters’ to get the whole story. according to quantum mechanics is . but something of a different order of reality .’ (‘Bell’s’ Theorem indeed! Why not ‘Dukes’ Theorem? Sure I said it six years after Bell but.’ (That the universe is an interconnected wholeness is tantamount to saying that the universe is one huge machine... What we believe is based upon our perceptions. as the book points out. as usual. not a structure built out of independently existing unanalysable entities. I at least am predictable). 3 Ants in the Pants   . To explain why is the purpose of this article. but rather a web of relationships between elements whose meanings arise wholly from their relationship to the whole.in the same way that a calculation in a computer is of a different order of reality to the actual computer circuitry. What we look for depends upon what we think. In other words the linking mechanism behind phenomena lies not in the physical world but in a different (‘higher’) level of reality which we might as well call ‘etheric’ ‘astral’ ‘spiritual’ or whatever.. What we think depends upon what we perceive. In short. This book too suggests that the connection between particles exists outside physical reality. What we take to be true is what we believe. at a deep and fundamental level. One of the implications of Bell’s Theorem is that.’ (It is just as well Arrow has limited circulation .’ Quote 4 ‘In short the physical world.. I present my case.. Does this not support my suggestion?) Quote 5 ‘“Reality” is what we take to be true..BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins lowing ten years until it emerged in its present form. What we take to be true is our reality. such time differences are merely a function of one’s space-time perspective.’ Quote 3 ‘According to Sarfatti’s theory. unlike fundamental particles.) Quote 2 ‘Thus one is led to a new notion of unbroken wholeness which denies the classic idea of analyseability of the world into separately and independently existent parts. In the last article I suggest this might be so. in the form of an analogy (thus confirming that.. the ‘separate parts’ of the universe are connected in an intimate and immediate way.I’ve a nasty feeling I might owe the author some money for so much quoting. Bell’s Theorem and the enlightened experience of unity are very compatible. the wave function of the photon pair is at a ‘higher level of reality’ than the wave functions of the separate photons . What we believe determines what we take to be true.

a ‘2’ particle (digit) in the ‘units’ orbit. one so powerful that its internal processes have achieved the state of forming a conscious and coherent universe in the way that I have suggested might be possible in these articles. So that you do not dismiss my thesis too hastily I have asked you to avoid this too obvious and crude picture of the clever computer.BLAST your way to THE ANALOGY For this analogy I am going to ask you to imagine that you have a sort of super Hewlett Packard programmable calculator. ) For example the atom 32. Some of these humans (programmes) are scientists and they seek to discover the laws of their universe. Or perhaps these 3 Ants in the Pants Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins   . But first I must make an apology. on the other hand they have particles orbiting both sides of the nucleus (inside and outside as it were). and break. In recent years they have actually managed to isolate these atoms (numbers) for the first time. (In other words numbers ( a t o m s ) consist of an unchanging decimal point (nucleus) around which cluster digits ( p a r t i c l e s ) in definite positions ( o r b i t s ) . With our present state of development of. They consist of an unchanging nucleus around which exist a cloud of particles which fall into discrete orbits. and attitude towards. So what?) Inside this calculator of yours is a universe. computers I know that I can expect a negative reaction when I try to suggest that our universe might exist in the ‘mind’ of a mighty cosmic computer. for the rest of this section I will write normally when writing in terms of the little universe inside your calculator but will write in italics when re-describing it as seen by us outsiders). (We cannot go on with all these inverted commas. but they have da definite internal structure. They have long speculated that it might be made of indivisible ‘atoms’. All objects ( calculations) in their world are in fact made of these atoms (numbers) . his own rules. But now I am going against my word and asking you to fall back on just such a picture.’ (Notice already certain fundamental differences between this analogy and our universe: their ‘atoms’ are one dimensional. nothing in the ‘tenths’ orbit and a ‘1’ particle in the ‘hundredths’ orbit. in particular to find what matter (calculations) is made of. while ours are three dimensional. to our outside eyes) just ‘calculations’. the ‘objects’ in this universe are ‘really’ (ie. All through this series of articles I have told you NOT to make the assumption that the machinery of the universe is as crude as our present understanding of the word ‘machine’. because I believe that anyone who has understood the previous two articles will not by now fall into the trap of thinking ‘Does this idiot really believe the universe is NOTHING BUT a super Hewlett Packard calculator!’ (A True Master knows when to make. However they have gone on to discover that atoms are not in fact indivisible. The conscious beings or ‘humans’ in this universe are ‘really’ just very complex ‘programmes’.0l consists of a ‘3’ particle ( digit) in the ‘tens’ orbit.

2.0l down into different atoms such as 3l+1.01 and so on.1. It was after this last revolution that the ‘new physics’ was formulated. and so on. -2. They have discovered ten particles 0. But having discovered that atoms are not the indivisible units of the universe they want to know what is. in R2. In fact there is a sense in which it can be said that any one particle includes every other one! Argument is still raging as to whether particles can even be ascribed individual existence . He raised the question as follows. They have found. back in the real world we are falling about with laughter as we listen to these idiots trying to make experiments on digits as if they were billiard balls! Some of them seem to be getting towards the point. Scientists were forced to admit that these particles did not obey the laws of ‘macroscopic’ matter.4.6. in R3 and so on in turn.0l and make the 3 particle jump to other orbits to make 302. but this hope was soon shattered when Finkstein in the same year broke a ‘1’ into ‘3’ and a ‘2’ (since then it has been split into a ‘7’ and a ‘-6’ and two ‘-4’s’ and a ‘9’.5. then a 9 appears in R2 . Obviously the ‘particles’ must be.. Register Rl to register Rl2 we know that a measuring instrument placed in any intermediate register will record a 9 during the interval of movement.in what sense is a 9 in one atom different from a 9 in another atom. and many other combinations). for example.‘particle physicists’ . They have also matched the dreams of their ancient alchemists by breaking 32.0l and so on.3. however.01.for example 9 can split into three 3’s or 7+2. 3002. but it is no longer valid to say it is the ‘same 9’.. that they can add energy to the atom 32. There was a flurry of excitement when one team in the Bloggsland Institute of Technology confirmed a theory that all particles can be made up of just three. or to speculate that it has any real existence in the unmeasured ‘spaces’ between registers. Unfortunately these particles have proved not to be themselves indivisible .) At a recent conference the new doubts were brilliantly outlined in Blenkinsop’s paper.have since made a lot of experiments with atoms. 0 and 1. 30+2+. say. 3+3+3. When a particle is moved through space (ie ‘rolled up the register’ through a series of memory stores) it is no longer valid to argue that it is a discrete physical entity actually following a one dimensional locus in space. A 9 will appear in Rl.this tells us nothing about the nature of what 3 Ants in the Pants   ..8 and 9 of which nine possess ‘antiparticles’ -1. or are they both just two manifestations of a sort of ‘9 Field’ that pervades all of reality? (Meanwhile.BLAST your way to inner particles should be called the nucleus and the decimal point seen as just a boundary?) A new breed of scientists . -3 to -9. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins For example any particle such as a ‘9’ is really not so much a ‘solid’ material entity as a matrix of probabilities or ‘virtual particles’ (7+2.0l. All we can say is that in the progress of a ‘9’ from. etc etc in the case of a ‘9’). namely 1.7. A 9 appears in Rl.

tears of laughter on their faces. from 301 to 3001 say. “No!. The ‘principle’ he is struggling to define as Kali is simply the pulse that clears a memory register . “ I c a n ’ t show you them for they are . say let us consider this reality to be the manifestation of non physical (‘spiritual’) principles. or ‘angels’ or ‘ideas?. Let’s listen to the so-called occultists. as tears of have given way to tears of sorrow for poor Duke and his frustrating debate with the scientists.those two orbits might exist. But what is the point? they would not be aware of what had happened!) 3 Ants in the Pants THE CONCLUSION We must now abandon this phantasy. you could call them ‘gods’. something he can ‘feel’ as an element of his own being... which is sort of the Principle of Destruction.” “You mean that” laughs a scientist. they are not looking at the r e a l building blocks of the universe. Similarly when a 3 jumps to a different orbit in an atom. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The scientists.. go back to their laboratories to see if a vast input of energy is capable of converting 9 into 9 million.. something he can recognise at a vastly more complex macroscopic level. Then there is Kali. well . instead listen to his counterpart in our ‘real’ Ramsey Dukes. (The joke is growing stale. Ramsey Dukes.) Duke Ramsey argues that the scientists are not looking in the right place. Oh dear. I can only feel them. “For example there is the Moon. we can detect it as an electrical pulse in the circuits of the calculator .ie. and recognise their physical manifestations.BLAST your way to happens between Rl and R2’ for ‘between Rl and R2’ is a concept with no measurable existence. but the space between them has no real meaning.. pointing at the sky. as outsiders.if only we could talk to him! We know exactly what he means by an ‘idea’ for.. yet something none of his kind will ever directly know in what they call ‘reality’.” The scientists roar with laughter. We would just love to ‘teach those scientists a lesson’ by pressing the ‘All Clear’ button that would destroy their entire world at a stroke. as predicted by theory.something with no ‘physical reality’ in his world of numbers and calculations. well. The nearest I can get to describing these principles is by using the word ‘ideas’ (in the past they were called  . let’s turn away from the scientists and listen to another group of loonies in this ridiculous universe. (Poor old Duke Ramsey .. then it is not meaningful to talk about its movement between the hundreds and thousands orbits’ . not exactly.” (laughter) “I mean more the Principle of Femininity and Change.. but only its ‘illusionary manifestations’! “Show us the real ones then!” jeer the scientists.. as represented by a certain nobleman called Duke Ramsey. I cannot show you any of these things because they don’t have any physical existence. as it were”. laughter Ramsey Let us world -  I.

energy and thought has gone into physics since the ‘new physics’ was created. is as fundamental to our existence as the debate about the existence of quarks is meant to be. we operate at the level of ‘6’ there are only 6 symbols forming three pairs (Moon-Saturn. This is only true when we know what we are doing. perhaps most precisely outlined in the Kabalistic model of the Tree of Life in the four worlds. the Moon is now the Sun’s representative (this is seen at the ‘l2’ level of the rulerships of the zodiac signs when each symbol of the 6 splits into a ‘positive’ and a ‘negative’ except for ‘Moon’ which becomes ‘Moon’ and ‘Sun’ (Cancer and Leo)). microcosmic representation of the world (Tree of Life. then we are doing rather less. money.tell me. At this level the polar opposite of Moon is not Sun. When we operate at the level of Duality there are only two symbols. In that case why is so much more attention paid to the latter question? The answer is that the technology of physics is at present better developed than the technology of magic. By ‘study’ I mean more than just ‘memorising’. I Ching. ‘angels’ and so on). and if we can recall how much time. Holy Cube or any personal private system) we are actua l l y doing what the scientists are t r y i n g to do. but Saturn. To take an example using the symbols of astrology:To take an example using the symbols of astrology. These are polar opposites. Venus-Mars). (The government of Bloggsland has just put forward a hundred million pounds for the building of a more powerful particle accelerator . they have nothing in common. now that I can see that the obvious theoretical barriers to this act have been dissolved. What does this alteration in the status of the Moon tell us about the Principle of the Moon itself? The answer to this question. I mean active meditational and observational research into the relationships between parts. Tarot.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins ‘Gods’. however. as described in the previous article. if we merely study these subjects in the form of ‘dead dogma’ and in terrified awe of our sources. Sun and Moon. No doubt there were occasions early in this century when Einstein dreamed of exploding an atom bomb over his most dogmatic opponents. or at least the further ideas prompted by this question. To quote again from The Dancing Wu Li Masters: 3 Ants in the Pants   . so big headed and so insulting to our elders as to suggest that in this century it is only in the last decade that magical philosophy has begun to be accepted on the sort of scale where it could have any chance of growing to rival physics. I too would love to levitate the Pentagon by chanting a mantra. Mercury-Jupiter. This is an ancient and well used view of reality. what did you do with your last hundred million pounds?) If we can be so presumptuous. At this level the sun is not included. When we set out to devise a symbolic. When. When scientists struggle to locate the basic particles of existence we hope they are having fun because we would like them to get something for their labours. far from being the ‘opposite’ of the Moon. then we can see how far there is to go in our own work. Arrow Readers.

The last phase I recall was an obsession with ‘thrill seekers’ ‘the love generation’ and so on. In other words in this world a ‘human’ might possess a ‘non-physical aura’. In particular a concentration by a ‘human’ upon a particular locality might well extend the ‘aura’ into that locality. Therefore I must continue upon the slow road: I must wait until the deductions from Johnstone’s Paradox are generally accepted before I perform my ‘miracles’. ‘novelty’ and ‘getting about’. What do I see in this apparently irrational progression? In astrological terms I see a progression from ‘Venus’ towards ‘Mars’.BLAST your way to 3 ‘A powerful awareness lies dormant in these discoveries: an awareness of the hitherto-unsuspected powers of the mind to mold ‘reality’. As for the curious unpredictable behaviour of particles under observation. So long as their opinions matter I am not completely free of them and so my ‘reality’ is still bound partially by their rules. b) it could make predictions. I must fall back upon my analogy. encroach upon or make use of memory stores outside of the boundaries of its own ‘physical body’. when will the theory be sufficiently developed to make its own predictions? What sort of predictions can it make? Recently I have read political comments to the effect that in recent years we have become obsessed with ‘hard men’ ‘brute force’. But how will this show? A return to expansion? A revival of sporting values? A religious revival? Obviously there is work to be done! Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Ants in the Pants POSTSCRIPT A word to those who see in the ‘new physics’ a denial of my thesis. In these essays I have tried to show how my ideas do fit the facts. What series of symbols has ‘Venus’ followed by ‘Mars’ and what is the symbol preceding both of them? Answer: a ‘Mercury’ phase.’ But I am still caught in the web of maya: as long as I wish to confound the sceptics. If the information that makes up the ‘particle’ is to share memory space with the observ  . in some of its working. Einstein’s model gained acceptance because a) it fitted the facts. The question of ‘free will’ requires a whole essay on its own. As suggested earlier let us crudely assume a correspondence between physical locations and individual memory locations in the machine. it reveals that their opinions matter to me. In this case the ‘programme’ that makes up a so-called ‘human’ might well. but I have at least touched upon it in my last article. The technology must grow slowly alongside the theory. ‘tough policies’ etc. In this case the locality is an observation point for a ‘particle’ experiment. Sure enough we had this in the form of an obsession with ‘newness’. rather than the other way round. What therefore can we predict for the future? Answer: an obsession with Jupiterian values. arguing that a ‘world machine’ implies a fully determined universe rather different from the crazy mystical universe of the Wu Li Masters.

Two developments have occurred since writing this piece. I was employed as a technical writer for the first time.2 The set should preferably be “structured” for easier assimilation by the human mind (eg. more or less. The other is that someone has written a booklet on the use of the cube for divination: I believe it is called “The Oracle of Light”.   . or suggest.NOTES TOWARDS THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE HUNGARIAN MAGIC CUBE AS A SYSTEM OF DIVINATION First published in Arrow 11 This is a bit different. WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR DIVINATION: l. In other words the apparent ‘crazy mystical’ nature of these particles is in fact a projection of our own ‘crazy mystical’ nature. So I decided to write this in approved Ministry of Defence technical documentation format. 4 Magic Cube Divination Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins l . the 78 tarot cards as upper bound?) nor too few (eg.though this correspondence need not be exact. the relationships between the astrological symbols. 4 .l A permutable set containing not too many members (eg.4) and I bought one but am not laughing. Bleep.. the various attributions of the tarot cards etc. other traditional symbols .3 Ideally the members of the set should link with. l. and it went to my head a bit.. Is not the dilemma between the particle and wave theories not just a projection of Hadit and Nuit respectively? The solution to the mysteries of the new physics lies within ourselves.) l.nor can I remember what system it recommended. it is our physical selves that are unreal. I bought a copy. but cannot find it . then it is hardly surprising that the observer should affect the observation. the 8 trigrams which needed to be extended for the I Ching system).BLAST your way to ing ‘human’ programme. One is that a 4x4x4 magic cube has been produced (see para 9.

2 Yes. a reaching forward and a shrinking back towards yourself)   . and so on. 6 colours equally distributed. The same is true of the other colours.l It is a portable (note especially the midget key ring cubes now available at .l 6 faces and 6 colours. the 6 faces form 3 opposing PAIRS. 3.. back= FEELING (cf. 4. fixed & mutable” perhaps? and to Steiner’s 3 functions of “willing. NOTE 2: The above limits on the permutability need not invalidate the system.3 So we have 3 spatial dimensions (up-down. 3.5 Let us imagine the cube upright before us and allocate meaning to its 3 directions as follows: Up.BLAST your way to 2.PART 1 4. On the contrary they could suggest a structure that is in itself meaningful cf. The key ring cubes are smaller than the Rider Traveller’s Tarot yet perfectly legible and easy to manipulate. 4.. WHAT CAN THE MAGIC CUBE OFFER? where a Sagittarius ascendant MUST indicate a Gemini seventh house cusp.3 The permutations are not totally random. NOTE 1: The above means it can always be meaningful to talk about a “correct” orientation of the cube. the “weighing up” motion of the balance) Front. in astrology 4. leftright.. WHAT DOES THE MAGIC CUBE CONSIST OF? 3. front-back) and a positive and negative face in each dimension. however the cube is permuted. down = WILL (cf.. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS . here? Is there any structure 4 Magic Cube Divination Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins 2. feeling and thinking”? 4. for example: a ) there can only be 6 white squares in all. 3. salt & mercury” corresponding to the astrological “cardinal. immediately suggesting 3 POLARITIES (+ and -).l A cube whose 6 faces are made up of 9 (3x3) coloured squares. b ) The centre squares on each face do not move relatively to each other.. c ) Certain other fixed relationships between adjoining squares on edges exist. right= THINKING (cf.2 A rotation of the faces produces an extremely large number of possible permutations of these coloured squares in a way that is not too predictable (so not liable to conscious “fiddling” of answers. the upright rod or phallic symbol of will) Left.) permutable set. 4..4 What does “3” offer? Alchemical “sulphur.

BLAST your way to 4. Yang WILL FEELING THINKING Change Repulsion Analysis 5.l.Analysis. blue. Feeling reaching toward you. 5. Synthesis . However the labels had stretched and distorted on being pulled off. the Moon Venus.Repulsion.7 The 6 colours are white. Repulsion. 6. Yellow. yellow. PRACTICAL STEP . PRACTICAL STEP .Change. Suggested attribution is as follows:Brown Green Blue 4.6 Yin Polarise the triplicity as follows:5. The face that is not for you to see. It is the “first impression”.   . So the astrological association of Moon with Subconscious would not fit here. red and green. If the cube speaks to you here surely is the answer. Red.3 BACK: Red. eg. NOTE 3: These 6 symbols clearly LINK with the astrological planets but need not be congruent with them. but this does not negate the tarot. but the face that others first see.l Place your re-coloured cube the correct way up in front of you and acquaint yourself with it by meditation upon its polarities and relative positions. White. On completing this step I had a cube whose harmonious balance of colours was much more pleasing to Libran aesthetic sensibilities.2 6.2 FRONT: Green. 6. Attraction. Blue. However the colours are self adhesive labels which may be removed and replaced. for it is the only one directly facing you.l We find that cubes are coloured wrongly for our purposes. Rest . Mercury 6. so the result was offensive to Virgoan aesthetic sensibilities. For example the Moon in this scheme is the antithesis of Saturn and therefore represents both the luminaries. Green. For example the very dynamic trump card of The Chariot seems an odd attribution to Cancer as described in a popular sun-sign guide. Brown. Attraction . This is the face that is truly yours. brown. It is the closest face.8 = Rest Change = Attraction Repulsion = Synthesis Analysis = White = Red = Yellow Bottom = brown Top Left side = blue Right side Front (toward you)= green Back (away) HUMOROUS ASIDE: l What traditional link does this suggest? Answer: the 6 planets as polar pairs. they merely give thought for meditation. Mars Jupiter. Saturn. Such anomalies do not destroy a system.2 Re-colour your cube as follows:= = = white yellow red 4 Magic Cube Divination Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Rest Attraction Synthesis 4. Feeling reaching away from you. Mars. Venus.

a side you do not see. A question of the form “What would happen if I..3 8. Hidden unconscious factors. ie. should not the Analysis Mercury face be on the left because when we look at it we are facing the right? Should not the Moon be down and Saturn be up? and so on. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS .. Analysis. 7. left brain verbal thought.l Cube positive.5 RIGHT: Yellow.l Set up the cube before you again and continue the meditation in the light of the above.. like BACK.” where we approach the cube as an authority. the higher nature is here spoken to.l In para. 6.2 are dispelled can one proceed. 7.. 8.3 Only when such doubts as those in 8.l What can we make of a 3x3 grid? 4 Magic Cube Divination   . PRACTICAL STEP .3 9. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS .7 DOWN: Brown. The Moon.2. diviner positive.2 To answer this we must ask how the cube is viewed.3 The difference surely lies in the style of the question as follows:7. Change.” or “should I do this.2 As a microcosm: In which case we can pick it up and examine it as we see fit.l As an authority: In which case it stands before one and speaks.2 Cube negative.. 9. ie. Synthesis. 7. Mercury. The left represents the past.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins 6. Saturn. right brain thoughts. Does this mean they should not be read in divination? 7. If the cube is speaking to you then this face must be a message to the non-verbal half of the brain. and we have no right to probe those areas it does not reveal to us.4 LEFT: Blue. 7.2. Upward motion of the Will.2 In particular explore the relative positions eg. Jupiter. 8. 8. non-verbal.3. The crown of the cube. diviner negative.3. 6. Thinking as revealed when you move to the right. Downward motion of the Will..” or “Who will be victorious. Rest.2 7. light.. Again. but here no-one sees it. 6 we noted that certain faces were hidden. Here the cube is speaking to your logical brain. Thinking as revealed when you move to the left.6 UP: White.” where the cube is expected to encapsulate a situation which will then be studied from all angles by the diviner. inertia or resistance. A question of the form “Please advise me.. Aspiration. The right represents the future. 6. Here the diviner is active. 7.

then that middle square can be discounted as just a “marker”.BLAST your way to 9. as in C F Russel’s Holy Cube. therefore.2 into:- Graphology offers one answer with its analysis PAST PRESENT FUTURE Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins does double duty . and the 3 small squares on each edge to “cardinal.7 SCHEME A.8 SCHEME B. HUMOROUS ASIDE 2: We are.eg some such scheme as the following: FIRE 4 Magic Cube Divination UPPER MIDDLE LOWER This could be a useful scheme.3 Numerology. However it is again not d i r e c t l y relatable to 8 house astrology because: a) in our system any “planet” can be repeated up to 9 times. If only.so I do not recommend this scheme unless this problem can be overcome (eg by isolating meaning according to adjacent squares on other faces). WATER Sensation EARTH 9. fixed. This would mean that a certain coloured face would represent the corresponding “planet” upon the cusp of the appropriate house. as follows:8 ASC 2 IC MC 6 DES 4  9.6 This reduces our 3x3 to a square of eight squares.l0 Here is the most promising scheme. 9. However we do not. This might suggest a meaning for the 9 positions. we had a 4x4 division we would be laughing.5 However reference to NOTE l means that so long as we always replace the cube in its correct orientation as determined by the middle square of each sides.  .4 Astrology. Ascribe the middle of each side to an element and the corners to their synthesis . I have seen the numbers one to nine ranged in a 3x3 box (as in Austin Coates’ book). An eightfold scheme. Ascribe the 4 sides of the square to the four elements. But it is not a good scheme as each corner square 9. as described in the Handbook for the Humanistic Astrologer. not laughing 9. Use 8 house astrology. Feeling Intuition AIR Thinking 9. mutable” and you have represented the l2 signs of the zodiac.9 SCHEME C. 9. 9.

BLAST
your way to

b) only one “planet” can be on any one house. HUMOROUS ASIDE 3:
Though the Handbook for the Humanistic Astrologer is recommended for researches, do not look to it for snappy interpretations of our cube. For example a yellow square in the upper right corner would represent Mercury in the ‘6th’. Just grab an eyeful of what the HHA has to say about this placing:“The individual’s mind and associative perception should be involved in the creative release of self through relations h i p s ”! Does this mean you will meet a tall, dark stranger, I wonder?

l0.6 When feeling satisfied and ready place the new jumbled cube squarely on a table before you. NOTE: Depending upon your chosen system of interpretation (see para.9) you will have either placed it randomly or ‘right way up’. l0.7 Your immediate answer now lies before you on the “Front” face. Interpret it according to your intuition bearing in mind the following factors:A) Certain colours in certain positions B) A preponderance of any colour C) The same colour in 2 or more “houses” forming a link between those houses D) Any obvious patterns in the colours. l0.8 The answer can be enlarged upon by considering the other faces, eg. “LEFT” for past influences, “RIGHT” for future, or for logical advice, and so on. The type of question (determined in para.l0.4) will decide whether all sides are to be considered. If they are then “FRONT” could mean the situation as you see it and “BACK’ the situation as OTHERS see it. And so on. l0.9 Other possible interpretations could stem from viewing the six faces as opened out into a cruciform ‘net’ of the cube, and so on. ll. CONCLUSION ll.l The Hungarian Magic Cube lends itself to divination as it is a portable, clearly legible permutable set of elements with a definite structure and with suggestive links with traditional symbols.

4 Magic Cube Divination

Megabuck$
Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

l0. USING THE CUBE l0.l Should we always begin with the cube in its original state? HUMOROUS ASIDE 4:
Do you know how to get back to its original state? - ho, ho.

l0.2 Stuart Kaplan suggests a tarot divination should always begin with a tarot pack put into its correct order. This is a “magical” viewpoint corresponding to a banishing ritual before the divination. I suggest that a more purely divinatory viewpoint would be to see all previous shufflings as part of a continuum of change. l0.3 So you may decide not to restore the cube between questions. l0.4 Formulate your question and bear in mind which type of question it is according to the distinction in par 7.


l0.5

Jumble the cube as you ponder the question.



BLAST
your way to

Megabuck$
Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

ll.2 Up to a point interpretation of the oracle is obvious. However the interpretation of each face is radical. Several possibilities exist, but the model needs considerable intuitive exploration before it can be accepted as a new system of divination. HUMOROUS ASIDE 5:
If anyone has the time to explore this why not contact me c\o Arrow, and we will get together to create the first standard textbook of cube divination. Remember: I have no time!

5 Magic in the 80s

The eskimo shaman born aloft by an eagle. He or she is the envy of many contemporary occultists. But remember that the primitive world was a place of uncertainty and hidden danger. Insofar as the original aim of magic was to tame a hostile environment, who should be considered the better magician: the primitive shaman or the average citizen of the twentieth century? Have we really lost our magic? Or have we simply become so good at it that we suffer nostalgia for a more uncertain and uncontrollable past?





BLAST
your way to

5 - MAGIC IN THE EIGHTIES - WHERE TO NOW?
First published in Arrow 13 I recall being quite pleased with this article, which was an expansion of the theme of a talk I gave in Hemel Hempstead.

bypass” - the driver was now looking down at the wheel, while I crawled under to look. “You won’t repair that in a hurry - king pin or something has gone right through,” I said, dusting down my clothes. He was looking at me rather warily. I wondered why, until his wife pointed her hand out of the window and asked “Is this Eton College?” “Yes. I teach here, that’s why I’m dressed like this,” I looked down at my wing collar, white bow tie and tail suit, realising how odd I looked, all the more so since the fact that these clothes were working clothes rather than special occasion wear meant that I had not thought twice about crawling under a car in morning dress. “Oh, that explains it,” said the driver, looking relieved. 4. Most of the old vegetable varieties, apparently so flavoursome in the memories of sentimentalists, will soon be no more. Take peas for example: repeated tests at the Institution laboratories showed that, once they had been processed and canned, or frozen, not one of the control group was able to distinguish consistently between the different varieties. So it makes sound sense to concentrate on those vigorous varieties most profitable to the grower.

5 Magic in the 80s

Megabuck$
Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

FOUR ILLUSTRATIONS Please read these four illustrations carefully, and compare your reactions to them, before reading the rest of the article. 1. The spate of public interest in UFOs, telepathy, metal-bending, dowsing and other paranormal phenomena continues, but it has not left us with a single body of evidence that is capable of standing up to rigid scientific scrutiny. 2. A friend laments the decline of a mutual acquaintance: once the finest young ritual magician around, he has now given up all such interests and seems content with respectable bourgeois pursuits like money-making and the yacht club. 3. Crossing the street from my classroom, deep in thought: suddenly woken by a screech of tyres. A car had appeared, crazily slewed up onto the pavement. (Appeared? Had it driven by, it would never have registered on my awareness; but as it was my memory reminded me that I had seen it coming along the street.) “Are you all right?” Nobody hurt, but one front wheel sagged out at a horrible angle. “Jeez. Lucky that didn’t happen a minute earlier - we were doing 70 on the

REACTIONS If you did read these illustrations carefully as suggested, congratulations - you are a more conscientious reader than I usually am! But how did you react to them?




BLAST
your way to

Megabuck$
Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

Statements like the first illustration irritate me; but, more importantly, they sadden me. Why? Because I know they are true. A lot of popular writing on the paranormal gives a very different picture, it suggests that science is crumbling under the onslaught of evidence. But the truth is that science is only crumbling at the edges: if you study the hard-core scientific reaction to the paranormal you will find little or no change. Even John Taylor has withdrawn a lot of his evidence. Does this mean that “I don’t believe in” the paranormal? No: as is argued in ‘Thundersqueak’ and in an earlier article in this series, what I do not believe is that scientific scrutiny is the Gateway to Ultimate Truth. Instead I believe it to be a simple but extremely effective method of banishment: the state of mind we evoke when we say “let us look at these facts again very closely” is one which forms a magic circle of certainty around us, a magic circle expressly designed to exclude all mystery and surprise. Try it next time a ghost is troubling you - it works more powerfully than the pentagram ritual. So any attempt to produce laboratory evidence of the paranormal is analogous to trying to persuade a clergyman that God created evil, by evoking Beelzebub within the holy ground of his own church - the attempt is doomed because such evil is by convention excluded from that holy ground. The second illustration could be depressing, especially in the wake of the first one. Together they add up to a picture of the failure of the revolutionary hippy dream now that we have woken to the harsh reality of the 80s. (In

fact this illustration is not needed till later in this article) As for the third illustration: you may not know how to react to this until it is put in context, and you know how the writer intends to use it. So what about the fourth illustration? This type of statement annoys me. Why the hell should good vegetables be slaughtered on the altar of Economics? If processing does destroy the difference, my solution is not to give up tasty vegetables but rather to avoid processing them - let’s eat them fresh so we can enjoy the difference! Do you agree?

5 Magic in the 80s

REVELATIONS To return to the third illustration and its purpose: part of the reason it was included was simply to separate the first and fourth ones with a lot of words! Having confessed that, I would like to look back at the first and fourth and put them side by side in our minds to see what happens. Does my reaction to the first illustration overwhelm my reaction to the fourth one; so that they combine to form a dismal picture of the invincible technological Juggernaut, crushing all nature and magic in its path? Or does gastronomic pleasure carry more weight than my regard for scientific truth? In the latter case I might now see the first example as exactly analogous to the fourth and come to a similar iconoclastic conclusion: “if no evidence for the paranormal is ever capable of standing up to scientific scrutiny





BLAST
your way to

Megabuck$
Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

then, rather than live without evidence of the paranormal, I would choose to live without recourse to scientific scrutiny.” In purely practical terms that conclusion is not so very revolutionary: after all, how many of us really do use the scientific method in everyday life? Even in a high technology environment it is seldom used: in fact the full weight of scientific ritual working is usually only deployed in the face of danger, for example when testing safety equipment, testing a revolutionary new hypothesis or - above all - in paranormal research. So scrapping science should be easy - but it is not. For however seldom our ‘rational’ society actually uses the scientific method, it still treats it with slavish respect. This is even true of those of us who dislike the method and will argue against it at every opportunity. Just imagine that a surgeon has examined your child and announced that only an immediate operation would save its life, while a clairvoyant has told you not to let the operation take place: in the fact of public opinion and conditioning how many of us would dare to refuse the surgeon? Of course I would not suggest “scrapping” science, I would only suggest that we could remove the scientific method from its pedestal and put it carefully away as a useful tool in case of real need. (If the pedestal now looks a bit bare let’s put ‘Fun’ in the place of honour.) However, the very fact that this resolution would be all in the mind means that it would not be easy. To show how

deeply the old ideas are entrenched in our thought I will now explore a little further.

5 Magic in the 80s

THE MAGICAL CHILD Recently I read “The Magical Child” by Joseph Chilton Pearce (who wrote ‘the Crack in the Cosmic Egg’), and found the book full of interesting and important ideas. If we use the word ‘education’ in the very broadest sense, to include not only the whole upbringing and psychic environment but also the conditions of birth and even the prenatal experience; then the main message of the book could be crudely stated as follows: ‘every human has a natural capacity for magic, but traditional education in our society crushes that capacity and destroys it.’ This idea is well in accord with the opinions of most occultists. For example I have heard it said that there is more magic in primitive societies than in ours because they have not cut themselves off from nature as we have. It is also often said that the best mediums or psychics are found among simpleminded or backward folk, because their very lack of intellect has saved their innate psychic abilities from being swamped by rational logic. Recently it has also been noted that the most able metalbenders were youngsters, and it has been suggested that this is so because such children have not yet had their psychic abilities educated out of them. All these examples carry a similar message, but how does science respond to this message?





BLAST
your way to

Megabuck$
Ramsey Dukes
the mouse that spins

Simple! Of course those kids produce the most puzzling results, for we all know that mischievous youngsters are more interested in fooling adults than they are in obeying the strict disciplines of scientific method in order to discover the truth. In any case, being immature, children are more likely to be carried away by their imaginations aren’t they? What about primitive societies? Well, without their having the benefit of our superior knowledge of the universe, we can hardly blame them if they too get a little carried away by their imaginations. As for those mental defectives .... say no more! Two different views of the same facts: let us call the first view the ‘Romantic’ one, the second view the ‘Classic’ one, and put them in the boxing ring to see which wins!

Throughout the ‘Romantic’ case there is a common idea of Nature being vanquished: the natural magic of childhood being crushed by convention, the natural psychic abilities of mankind having been castrated by the dogma of rationality, and so on. This idea appeals strongly to me as it has an obvious parallel with the picture of Nature’s destruction by technology, put forward so vividly by the ecology movement. This idea has a strong appeal to my latent mothering instincts, but it has a weak spot in that it makes absolutely no appeal to my not-quite-so-latent religious instincts. I want to worship Nature, not protect her! I look back to previous centuries when Nature was spoken of as a mighty and terrible power, when men spoke of the ‘majesty’ of Nature and the ‘forces’ of Nature - protecting butterflies feels a bit tame in comparison. Returning to the Romantic argument, I find it hard to respect man’s Natural Potential when I am told that it has been so thoroughly defeated by reason, by convention, by education and so on. So how do I ‘beef up’ Nature to make her worshipful? I do so by expanding her beyond the small view of Nature as ‘all pretty flowers and furry creatures that technology is threatening’. In the larger view man is included in Nature; earthquakes, comets, supernovas and the primal big bang are also included in Nature. On this scale there is no question of ‘Man versus Nature’ for man is just one of Nature’s little experiments: and if Nature has chosen to mold mankind (by means of technology) into a club with which to batter the flowers and

5 Magic in the 80s

CLASSIC V. ROMANTIC There is no doubt in my mind that the first round goes to the ‘Romantics’; for they win hands down on style. Their argument touches on my golden nostalgic memories of childhood’s magic moments. It also links with our dreams of the Golden Age, the myth of the Noble Savage and so on. Beside that the ‘Classic’ argument seems arrogant, insensitive, tactless and boring. So on to round two. Good grief! After that clumsy start the ‘Classic’ argument has scored a knockout in round two! This is so surprising that it calls for some careful explanation.




Least of all does a Goddess depend upon us to keep her alive.that adults do know better than children. I still support it like mad . etc.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins butterflies to death then it is sheer impertinence on our part to suggest that this means that Nature has somehow ‘made a mistake’. Has he gone crazy? What is Ramsey trying to say? If we begin with the last question which asks why there was more magic in olden times (or in primitive societies   . A Goddess may perplex us.better still. ‘Because mankind was not yet very good at magic’ sighs Ramsey. Just how I reconcile religion and daily life is material for another article .and refuse to buy goods wrapped in paper bags whenever possible. despite my feeling that the Ecology Movement has helped to debase Nature in our minds. yet which fits in better with what I want to believe. has made the mistake of allowing us to develop ways of life. that advanced civilisations are an improvement on earlier ones. A puzzled silence. and Ramsey ‘The Crusher’ Dukes enters the ring! ‘Why are simpletons more psychic?’ shouts the crowd. which have defeated Nature herself. 5 Magic in the 80s THE THIRD APPROACH A cheer. Eh? ‘Why was there more magic in olden times?’ shouts the crowd. I’m afraid. that clever people are not defective. ‘Why are children better at bending metal?’ shouts the crowd.) I declare that the Romantic argument lost the second round because it made the rather silly suggestion that Nature. torment us. ways of thinking. but she does not make mistakes. Despite my grudging respect for the Classic argument I do not like the company it keeps. ‘Because they are simpletons’ answers Ramsey. Similarly it is impertinent to suggest that man’s rational mind (another of Nature’s creations) has somehow managed to destroy the Nature in us. or destroy us. In comparison the Classic argument does at least have the decency to suggest that Nature’s progress is right . (It is my Religious Spirit speaking: Rationalism would argue against that last sentence of course!) (In practice. who created us. As referee I am far from impartial.so I must return to the point without satisfying your curiosity on that topic. ‘Because they are worse magicians’ mutters Ramsey. and so on. So I feel that I must produce a new argument that is equal to the Classic argument in round two. another lifetime . for it is too often associated with the argument that Magic does not exist.

The sight of that torn member disturbed me so deeply that. Indeed I have a theory that it is the Unconscious Will that is the final arbiter as to who is going to be 5 Magic in the 80s   . If we now reconsider the first question we can imagine how the Martian observer would look upon simpleminded psychics. shut my eyes and fully opened the throttle of my 1000cc motorcycle. So a Martian observer might be forgiven for feeling that it is modern man who is the better magician. existence begins to regain its charm: and my eyes spontaneously open to reveal that I have steered accurately while my eyes were shut (note to my disciples: this variation of Spare’s Death Posture is strictly for Ipsissimi). Even though I was not in that car . This seems a crazy statement. Sometimes when I was driving I used to think of Uri Geller and wonder whether my fears about the front wheel linkage might not create just the right mental state to cause the metal to snap by telekinesis. If you are still not convinced.BLAST your way to for that matter). and ask ourselves what was mankind’s original incentive to do magic.I was the schoolmaster the incident scared me. I have chosen a clear stretch of road (out of consideration for other users). but rather than accept this as evidence against telekinesis. when feeling suicidal. in these days of sophisticated engineering.) Our modern way of life would be unbearable if we could not depend upon metal to behave itself. stringent safety measures and yearly MOT tests. the reply was not that primitive people are better magicians. This idea is supported by the following experiment: sometimes.(Note also that the driver was disturbed by my clothing until an explanation had been provided. Was it not inspired by the wish to control the environment and gain greater security? But it is surely arguable that mankind’s present problems partly stem from too great a feeling of security: our environment has been tamed to the point that we feel obliged to create silly weapons and invent ideological enemies in order to put back the excitement in our lives. driving would become impossible. My Unconscious Will to live has been invoked and has overcome the Conscious Will to suicide. for it is a modern man who has more thoroughly tamed his reality. the Martian might see them as people who had less control of reality. Novice drivers soon learn to come to terms with certain levels of risk . They learn to trust their judgement. In a few seconds of bellowing machinery and arm-wrenching acceleration. It never happened. as incompetent magicians whose magic circles were leaky. look back at the third illustration quoted at the beginning of this article. I took it as evidence that it was my Unconscious Will to survive. it contributed towards a rather illogical decision to trade my car for a motorcycle. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins At the time described my own judgement was not prepared for the possibility that. Instead of seeing them as people with an extra ability of their own. but let us look at it without preconceptions. a car could fail in such a lethal fashion without any warning (had the car been going more than 15 mph it would certainly have rolled over). five years later. but that they are worse.if you thought every oncoming driver was likely to go mad and ram you.

Primitive mankind cannot have felt as secure as we do in their world .which is harder!) So the child that can apparently bend metal by telekinesis is not really displaying magical powers so much as a magical failure ascribable to immature ability . but rather that we are so ready to trust our lives to its not bending.. of the young man who ‘lost his magic’? We now have an alternative interpretation of this story. for I would feel a right idiot if tomorrow saw my remains being hosed off the tarmac.BLAST your way to killed on the roads . quoted at the beginning of the article. Similarly the medium who sees spirits and hears voices is not displaying a special talent lost to ordinary people.’ you say. and you get bronze . In those glamorous days when he was apparently such a great magician. ‘because if we really were such brilliant magicians. For now his magic is really working. What of my second illustration. Observing the extent to which human belief can shape human reality. 5 Magic in the 80s Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins IS THIS DEFENSIBLE? So that is my argument. mix it with tin. in the accumulation of money and status. it makes magic sound so boring. it appears to be so insubstantial as to suggest that the real miracle is not the bending of metal by telekinesis. I wouldn’t be here to tell the tale”. I had better leave this subject. he was in fact just a young seeker. we would   . yet have an equally uncanny knack for preserving life. Hence the unusually high proportion of motoring stories which end with the words: “if it had happened one minute earlier. a greater certainty and security than he had before. in search of his true path.where a wolf could turn into a man or a neighbour’s curse could sour the milk . Remember that in the third illustration the car did not collapse until it had slowed down: this fits my own experience that vehicles have a genius for breaking down at the most awkward or embarrassing times.and not the Department of Transport. Now he has found that path and found. an even softer metal.. but I bet you don’t feel satisfied by it! It seems a denial of all the dreams and hopes of the occult revival.. only a weaker ability to banish those spirits in order to preserve everyday reality.so the same argument would suggest that they witnessed more miracles not so much because of a superior magical ability as because they had not developed their magical powers as completely as we have. (Study the history of metallurgy in this light and you will find that man’s inventions tend to run one step ahead of the materials needed: copper is easily mined but too soft for weapons. When the subatomic structure of matter is considered. as a consequence of our Unconscious Will to preserve our own security. I am tempted to suggest that the strength of metal is not so much innate.it has simply failed to keep the metal rigid. ‘That cannot be the truth about magic.

but basically assume that it is all going to be nailed down sooner or later to present once more a nice mechanical picture. for example. rich Californians because I feel these problems are not as trivial as some people claim. striven to excellence. Now the war is over we spend a hell of a lot of time reminiscing about it: the peculiar yearning for a return to insecurity has been aptly described in French as nostalgie de la boue. It is not that we have developed abilities which have cut us off from our natural magical inheritance and left us high and dry in a technological desert. or of the simple country girl who married an international tycoon and spent her life dreaming of the folks back home. Encapsulated in the Victorian Scientific world view we have a model of reality rather too perfect and secure for our own highly developed magical ability. Nature has not made a mistake. is the point of trying to raise the rest of mankind towards affluence when we have not yet tackled the problems of affluence itself? This then I propose as the problem of our age. the difficulties I encountered at Eton were no more superficial than problems I had previously encountered in my more humble existence. I ask.   . instead it is that our very magic has become too good. Really? Is this not just what one should expect? Is this not just the well-worn story of the success that turns sour? Have we not all heard of the self-made millionaire who ends his life in dreams of the good old days when he shared a flat in the slums. In fact I sometimes felt a special calling to try to tackle the miseries that beset. We have shaped the world too successfully and mankind is now looking back wistfully to the good old days when we weren’t quite so good at holding it all together and life had more surprises. and be searching for more of what we call “magic”. As it was.what became of it? I referred above to the “Victorian scientific worldview”: although the leading edge of scientific theory has long since moved into much more mysterious territory. she has merely. People have heard of the uncertainties of subatomic physics. This question made little sense to me unless the asker really believed that money solved all problems that rich people never needed help. What. or again of the pop star who committed suicide? Johnstone always stated that the deepest rut of all is success. I feel it is the Victorian idea which still dominates popular thought.BLAST your way to surely not be feeling dissatisfied. When I finished my training and was going to teach at Eton my fellow student teachers tended to think I had copped out: “doesn’t your conscience tell you that you should really be teaching in a deprived area?” they asked. 5 Magic in the 80s Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins THE OCCULT DREAM Could this be the reason why the occult dream of the 60s has been so slow to realise itself? In those heady days many would have predicted a parascientific revolution before 1982 . as ever.

The revolution has not failed . an evolutionary sidetrack now needing to be retraced. and is now turning back to the right path.and the deepest rut of all is success. If we had been right in believing that our present state of rational materialism was a mistake. I do not believe this: when an individual makes such a fundamental discovery about his own psyche it does produce a revolution. then surely individual enthusiasm would have carried more of us across the abyss? Instead there are an awful lot of people still wondering where all the magic has gone.but I disagree (except in cases when the wealth is abandoned in my direction). 5 Magic in the 80s THE AQUARIAN REVOLUTION I have heard it said that we are living through a revolution. True. rationalist stance? To return to the analogy of the individual. what will it demand of us? Will it require that we turn back and abandon our left-hemisphere. then surely it would have been easier to bring about the occult revolution? If we had been right in our early assumption that we only had to become as little children in order to ‘enter the Kingdom of heaven’. we still need the security of materialism. but rather an excess of success . that mankind has discovered that it has lost its bal-   . I suggest that the reason that the ‘mistake’ was so difficult to put right is that it never was a mistake. lost its contact with Nature. So if I can now talk about the Aquarian Revolution in the future tense. and I would expect the same in society. instead I see signs of festering: much more reminiscent of the individual whose success has turned sour than of the individual who has seen the light.it simply has not begun. That affirmative answer is based on two popular myths: a) ‘He gave up all his money and spent the rest of his life happily helping the poor’. but they are only the slow undramatic changes that accord with the slow evolution of the Unconscious Will: although many of us want the paranormal. and too many people feeling disappointed that all these years have passed and we have still not seen the scientific establishment on its knees before Uri Geller. But I do not see signs of revolution. ance. b) ‘He gave up all his money and devoted himself to spiritual progress’. returning to the idea of Unconscious Will. there have been changes in public opinion. whilst the failure of those advances to shatter materialism is a consequence of the more widespread Unconscious Will to preserve our security. the question is this: should the miserable rich man abandon his wealth to become happy?” Traditionally the answer is ‘yes’ . begging for forgiveness. rather than in the past tense. it looks as if recent advances in science are a response to the Unconscious Will of that small section of the population who could not accept the narrow materialistic view.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Indeed.

so much so that he happened to lose his money in the process simply because it no longer concerned him greatly . Such admirable pursuits are best adopted in their own right rather than for ulterior motives or for theoretical reasons. am keen on whole foods: I choose wholemeal bread because nine times out of ten I enjoy it more than white bread. I would become a   . became very interested in helping the needy. In each case the erroneous idea is to believe that misery at one end of the scale implies happiness at the other end. then helping the poor: I suggest that the truth was that the rich man. to the rest of mankind. If I had chosen wholemeal bread on grounds of health. restoring earth-contact and so on. but I do not feel this is the answer. yet ends up chasing spiritual progress in just the same way as he used to chase purchasable goods. thus I am happier. Applying this free moral lesson to the problem discussed earlier: I feel the need for a revolution. while still rich. real education. 5 Magic in the 80s THE NEW DIRECTION The true revolution comes when you break out of an old duality. Anyone who tries this as a formula is liable to remain imprisoned in the duality: for example the rich man who ‘drops out’ in search of enlightenment. However. because his Daddy paid for him while I gave up my Lamborghini to follow Mahatma Kote’. rather than the truer story that happiness was found by helping the needy .BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Really these are two versions of the same story: the ‘spiritual’ version is based on the duality of material goods versus spirit. The same applies to the spiritual case: although it is easy to find quotes about rich men not getting to heaven and the need to abandon wealth and so on. It is tempting to discourage early literacy in children (because literacy represses ‘right brain’ thinking) and so try to make the children more ‘magical’. the ‘political’ version is based on the duality of wealth versus poverty.for he had expanded from the duality of poverty versus wealth. for example. What is needed is a new direction rather than an undoing of past mistakes. The loss of wealth should be incidental. but I do not feel that it will come about by looking back along our evolutionary path. The falsehood of these two myths depends upon a subtle shift of emphasis. not when you simply change direction within it. the first thing they notice is the lost of money and so the story goes out that the rich man found happiness by giving away his money and helping the poor. who are still trapped in that duality. I. and become the sort of spiritual disciple who thinks ‘I’m bloody well going to get my Nirvana before Brother Fred.with the loss of wealth as an incidental effect. if it is done too soon and too deliberately you are liable to retain a hang-up about the act. Consider the man who supposedly became happy by abandoning his wealth. What we need is a new philosophy rather than an attempt to recapture lost magic by resorting to wholefoods. I would guess that this is very much a test of the faint-hearted.

I remain for ever trapped in my pursuit of sensual pleasure . you cannot win!) That is why. and in a higher sense which sees science as a tool in the service of a greater magic. (As it is.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins victim of medical debate and those researches sponsored by the Bread Board to prove that sliced white bread is the only safe food on the market. and in this series of articles for Arrow. Neither reaction offers any escape from the scienceversus-occultism duality. we are free and better armed to explore the future. insecure state that is the opposite of ‘science’. Instead I suggested a change of attitude which amounted to saying ‘GREAT! At last we have a choice before us! No longer the victims of ‘magical’ forces. This is the same distinction that Crowley intended when he adopted the word ‘magick’ for the greater sense.’ And I present this prediction for the coming Aquarian Revolution: ‘In the sixties we became disillusioned with science.. no longer (at last!) the slaves of scientific dogma: this illustration informs us that inconvenient paranormal phenomena can be safely banished by adopting a scientific attitude! The future of mankind can include a higher form of magic now that we have learned to banish properly. in Thundersqueak..’ 5 In this way the dualistic tension is released.but it proved too weak to topple the monolith. or b) to react angrily and take an anti-science stance.saying the Lord’s Prayer backward and inverting the crucifix in times past . I would remain forever trapped in economic debate. Two typical reactions to such a statement are: a) ‘I always knew this occult stuff was nonsense’. The first illustration at the beginning of this article suggested that none of the evidence for the paranormal could withstand scientific scrutiny. If I had chosen wholemeal as a gesture toward ‘small is beautiful’ economic theory. dared to put forward the idea that primitive peoples and children are   . In the eighties we shall call rationalism/science an “alternative’ and it will be its turn to fight for survival. Those articles on Johnstone’s Paradox were not so much an attempt to present a new Truth as to find a new Hope. science is removed from its pedestal and put aside as a useful tool. Magick cannot progress. CONCLUSIONS I have here and elsewhere in this article tended to use the word magic in two senses: in a popular sense to refer to the primitive. In the seventies we devised an “alternative” . I have put emphasis on new forms of belief.’ Magic in the 80s POSTSCRIPT If a diabolist is a person who reverses the fundamental symbols of the age . went on to suggest that the ecology movement might be debasing Nature.what does that make me? In this essay I began by proposing that we elevate ‘fun’ above ‘scientific method’. So I will summarise my theory thus: ‘as long as we chase after magic.

To me that seemed to say more about the limitations of history than about the limitations of women’s role in society . So appalled am I by this revelation of mine own wickedness. For I feel bounden to fall meekly to my knees. and all three to be vastly more important than politics. and was able to salvage this version. that I feel impelled to commit yet one more atrocity: an act so base that the very editors of Arrow.A MASCULIST REVOLUTION First published in Chaos International 6&7 The original of this essay was written at the beginning of the 80s and was to be the first of a series of sketches for a “Masculist Column” which was intended to do for sexual politics what Hugo l’Estrange’s “Satanist’s Diary” does for the occult (bugger all?). outraged decency by hinting that Oxfam might better devote its care to the wealthy.surely a history of food or of clothing would be dominated by women as much as a history of science or politics would be dominated by men? To that the Australian replied that I had unconsciously revealed my contempt for women in the form of an assumption that “food and clothing” was their rightful domain. This surprised me. and politics is only a vital matter at times when it   . But good taste prevailed and the series never found an outlet despite several attempts to revise it. but Chaos International have since accepted it for publication as a Ramsey Dukes article . While preparing this collection I came across some of the Masculist Column on an old archive tape.THE TWILIGHT OF THE BLOKES .so here it is. 6 The Twilight of the Blokes I recall a conversation in the early 70s with an Australian history graduate who lamented the fact that women played so small a part in history. 6 . would shrink back in horror from its witness. and such is the momentum of my sinfulness. I was not sure whether it really belonged in the collection. We are what we eat. clutching the Good Book to my breast and raising my eyes to heaven to pray for forgiveness for my evil deeds.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins inferior. and to surrender this most perfidious essay to the tender loving mercy of the Lamb of God by placing it naked before my readers that it may be stoned to death as is most fitting for the redemption of its fallen soul. and finally suggested that the Aquarian revolution had never begun. who had always considered food and clothing to be on a level with science. nay Hugo l’Estrange himself.

dynamic. The conversation left me with a sadness that went beyond the sorrow of missed romance: it revealed how mine own ideas were out of kilter with the norm. As a history graduate she found it hard to accept that I did not equate formal history with ultimate truth so much as just an arbitrary way of looking at the world. but recognise that there are people who would disagree and who believe that yin is innately inferior to yang and that life’s purpose is to purge oneself of the former and aspire toward the latter. and that both need each other and can only exist because of each other.. and was perhaps gallantly but not deceitfully claiming that I tended to value feminine activities somewhat higher than the masculine activities which I felt were often compensatory and shallow. seeing yin as dark. watery. Here I am still fairly conventional.. The conversation ended: it had lost its potential value as a passport into her knickers. nourishing. the fact that women played a lesser role in such history was not surprising .. and yang as light. I felt that the other had revealed an unconscious contempt of matters I considered to be “feminine” by undervaluing them relative to “masculine” matters. for she was a very beautiful history graduate. The Twilight of the Blokes   . inspiring and dynamic. In this I am fairly conventional. As far as I saw it. This is where trouble begins. The former is the everyday distinction between men and women. The history graduate valued my “masculine” activities most highly. I had divided life into two categories.in fact it was positively to their credit. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins TWO’S COMPANY I begin with a general tendency to classify everything as “yin” and “yang”.. Far from my demeaning women. To explain why this is not so I need to make an arbitrary distinction of distinctions by defining “male/female” as separate from “masculine/feminine”. the latter is a distinction between underlying factors. earthy... inspiring. and felt therefore that I had insulted her sex by classifying them in that way. Next I translate yin as “feminine” and yang as “masculine”. the “masculine” and the “feminine”. heavy. devised by men in order to justify their antics.BLAST your way to addresses itself to the provision of food and clothing for the needy. Did that mean I was deluded? or could my ideas be “better”? In either case I still had to face being the odd one out. Conversationally we had reached an impasse. Society as a whole seemed to over-value those activities. because many people then jump to the conclusion that I therefore believe women cannot be fiery. so Might was not on my side. fiery and airy. 6 This essay attempts to explain my view: perhaps putting it down on paper will reveal its strengths and weaknesses more clearly. Next I assume that both those qualities are of equal absolute value. peaceful.

So a “male” is masculine on the surface. certainly not in the form of any individual woman or man. As it is. The result is that ideas are being expressed by you and received by me. and so on. But I am taking the sounds you make and interpreting them... insofar as it enters into a body and gives it life. But the effect is that. Pure yin or pure yang cannot be demonstrated in real life. and the feminine soul has a masculine spirit. depending how one labels the layers of the onion. masculine ethericly. and peeling onions. and it is easy to fault it with practical exceptions. I therefore see an individual human being as analogous with an onion with many layers within.. but that does not mean that the positive/negative concept is not a very useful one. Food. and each layer alternates in polarity. insofar as the body then breaks it down and transmutes it. so I am masculine and those sounds are feminine. If you actually take the trouble to peel lots of onions you discover that they are not perfect spheres of concentric shells: they are full of irregularities. Such analysis applies not just to men and women but to all phenomena. was described as feminine. So also you find men whose masculine surface is flaky and peeling. That’s what makes life. and so on. To explain why this is so I need to exercise my more down-to-earth feminine qualities.. Firstly they can be lopsided. Take another example: you are speaking to me at a party. women whose inner spirit is hardened and exposed. because every atom of matter contains both positive and negative components. But. people with unbalanced and exaggerated strengths. feminine mentally. While a “female” is feminine physically.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The fact that I see masculine and feminine (yang and yin) as being equal valued and utterly interdependent is reflected in the way I see them tightly interwoven in the fabric of existence. so be it. it is playing a masculine fertilising role. In places the layer can be so thin that you see through it to the layer beneath. masculine spiritually. thicker here and thinner there. so interesting. the food is playing a feminine nourishing role. I am 6 The Twilight of the Blokes   . which is thin and brown from exposure. And. You peel off the outer skin. This is again a fairly conventional view: the Jungians claim that a man has a feminine soul (anima) while a woman has a masculine spirit (animus).. which in turn has a feminine soul and so on ad (practical) infinitum. a twinned or schizophrenic onion. That is a tidy masculine model of how I see things. or often the next layer is partly thin and brown and partly thick and juicy and white. for example. and it does not always reveal a perfect white interior: sometimes there is more than one brown skin. And sometimes as you remove a layer you find not one inner surface but two or more: the onion has a double heart. Consider an analogy with positive and negative electricity: it is almost impossible to demonstrate one or other in isolation.. but has a feminine soul. so you are masculine as the out-pourer and I am feminine as the receiver. so you are masculine and I am feminine. men with split personalities. by listening. and yet our understanding can be enriched by the careful use of these concepts. Words are leaving your mouth and entering my ear.

. whereas I felt that most women had shown perceptivity and good taste by largely ignoring this game. The first response would merely irritate me. or else “typical bloody male. while the second would actually hurt me. Such analysis shows how tightly the masculine and feminine are interwoven . So. How nice if all my readers were to respond to this either by thinking “yes. I did not see history. to be an absolute description of the past. but that is as far as it goes: for perhaps she is a jealous Goddess with an interest in putting down merely mortal womankind? Or perhaps. instead I must ask my heart if it feels good about the analysis.. so spiritually I am playing a masculine initiatory role. and it also explains the limitations that I see in such grouping. I am aware that one reason it might hurt me is because it might be true . to build up such a cumbersome rationalisation to defend what is basically male prejudice”. like a busy housewife who. by allowing myself to be educated by you. However. simply says “yes. back to the conversation at the point where the lovely Australian failed to fling her arms about me and cover me with kisses.. so mentally I am feminine to your masculine fertilising influence. he has described quite adequately the way I see things”. And. what a revelation! suddenly I understand something that has confused me for years!” What a pity if some readers instead think “I absolutely agree .BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins making you feel important and respected. more a request for society to play the masculine role and judge me that I may know where I stand.. I am contributing to improving your karma.and that proves what rubbish all this women’s lib feminist claptrap is!”.. It explains to what extent I see the male (men) as masculine.but it also explains why I still feel able to use masculine and feminine as general terms to classify things on their surface value. so emotionally I am playing a masculine role by giving you confidence. Thoughts like these alter the balance of reasons for writing this essay: it becomes less a masculine desire to teach my enlightened viewpoint.cut anything open and you find endless layers of each . instead I saw it as just one of several compensatory games devised by men to justify and occupy themselves. in response to a husband enthusing about the significance of United Plastics bid for Consolidated Biscuits. Now what you say has triggered off some ideas of my own. and it does.. and the female (women) as feminine. so I had better say some more on it.that awareness is part of the hurt. there were some like this   . as it is generally understood. or else “gosh. so perhaps is my Inner Goddess giving no more than tacit support to a crummy thesis. Now that makes me think that my Goddess Within is not at odds with my endeavours. To judge whether it is true there is little point in examining the analysis itself. 6 The Twilight of the Blokes THOSE WHO CAN. dear” and gets on with peeling her onions.

In view of the previous account of how intricately and unevenly I see yin and yang interwoven in existence. the reader will deduce that I see no reason why any particular woman should not therefore become an engineer.just as an otherwise immensely male man might still fail to be a good engineer. In fact I am suspicious of the motives of those who deny what seems such obvious truth! Turning to page 22 in the same magazine we see a much less prominent article “Engineers are let down by their education” with the header “Survey also reveals engineers feel neglected by employers”. 6 The Twilight of the Blokes   . Now this does ring true of my experience in the engineering-based industries. This second article describes how engineers are frustrated and under-performing because industry treats them as “back room boys” expected to solve problems while the management. stereotyped attitudes and active discouragement from studying technical subjects all add up to the human shortfall in British engineering” runs the heading. This was were I was badly out of step. Although scientists can partly compensate by associating with the glamour of those “scientific breakthroughs” that capture the public imagination. “Conditioning. I will choose a topic that I know more about: engineering. “What is needed is a glamour factor” explains the article. but on the other hand I am not in the least surprised that the general inclination among girls is not to study the subject. Not even those women who saw history as a game would be likely to come forward to argue such in public: the general view of society in the early 70s was that history and politics and other male institutions were “where it’s at”. and I strongly suspect that the feeling extends to scientists as well as engineers. Nor would I even justify this freedom of individual choice by saying that some women are “less feminine” and should therefore be free to study engineering.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Australian history graduate who were taking it seriously and feeling genuinely hurt that they had not been written into the game. I believe that is still the general view in the beginning of the 80s. The corresponding article describes the shortage of engineers and argues that girls should be actively encouraged to pursue the subject. marketing and accounting whiz kids take all the important decisions and get paid vastly more. the vast majority of them experience life as “back room boffins” at the mercy of a better paid and more responsible administration. The latest issue of “Technology” magazine (14 March ‘83) has the cover story “Where are the women engineers?”. for I see no reason why a woman need not be immensely feminine in all obvious respects yet still have the particular masculine mental streak that suits engineering . Now I myself believe that technical subjects are “unfeminine” or rather that they are “masculine”. Rather than try to defend my basic thesis in an area about which I know so little. to counter what is seen as society’s stereotype that technical subjects are “un-feminine” and so not suitable for girls. “Active encouragement” requires positive pressure on less-than-willing girls. for example.

and their “stereotyped attitudes”. Mankind’s very lack of evolutionary specialisation has lead to our taking a dominant role. the ebb and flow of yin and yang works at many deep levels and it is a very yang simplification to reduce it to a surface “battle of the sexes”. and that girls are making a wise choice in resisting technical subjects. The fact that the article was penned by a woman does not deny this impression: as my opening example suggested. in industry and public service I have heard it said that “old so and so is too useful in the research department. teach. And those who can’t teach. but to extend beyond the industrial environment in the above paragraphs. The secretariat has now become a female preserve . The suggestion is that teenage girls are fluffy little things blown hither and thither on the winds of sexist fashion. However.” This rule is often interpreted as a cynical joke . rather than “women would benefit from engineering”. it doesn’t make honey. and it remained a jealous male preserve until the advent of typewriters. As the overall tone of the article is “engineering needs our women”.and a humble one at that. it begins to sound like a repeat of what happened to the secretariat. Indeed. Those who can’t. what the engineers’ sense of inferiority boils down to is the simple universal rule: “Those who can. the message will get across better if the teacher has also had to struggle with the subject. I suggest that it reflects a natural order of things. Take a primal human out of the jungle and it is a pretty useless object . do. and that a new wind of engineering glamourisation is needed to puff them in the right direction.all that Jehovah could do with such a creature in the Garden of Eden was to give it dominion over other creatures. the rule is this: “those who can. But these examples are weak rationalisations of what seems to be a fundamental and universal fact of existence . women were encouraged to fill the role.it doesn’t have a woolly fleece.” To be more precise.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The cover article states that girls have a “false and unattractive” view of engineering. the survey in the second article would suggest a second possibility: that engineering’s un-glamourous image is based on reality. So it looks as if the urge to recruit women engineers is basically another example of the male tendency to recruit women to take over any work once it loses its “yang” excitement and turns to “yin” drudgery. Those who can’t. A secretary used to be an extremely responsible position in the longhand days. do. it talks of their “in-built prejudice” against it. it isn’t all that strong or swift . organise those who can. As the job began to deteriorate into an endless round of mindless typing. administer. Again.which can therefore be repeated but never taken seriously. Returning to present society: anyone who has had to endure too many lectures by “leading experts” will realise that a good teacher needs to be someone who can identify with the audience’s difficulties: although a teacher should have a good grasp of it. we can’t afford to let him waste his time on administration”.that those who have a vital ability will tend to get on 6 The Twilight of the Blokes   .

do”. it is surely a consequence of the general law already stated: “those who can. divine) behaviour. for all I know. while those who lack such ability will tend to teach or organise others. Whereas the other article revealed the fact that engineering is now a second-class activity. with plenty more evolving to do. Those most likely to reject it are those eager for change. all further males would be surplus. I suspect that both solutions are doomed to fail in the long run because they both go against nature. The fundamental nature of this rule is shown by the way that it extends beyond the strict use of the words “teacher” and “organiser” into a general statement about human (and. but it would be unwise to shape policies around exceptions rather than around general principles. I don’t believe for a minute that the women who wrote the cover article was consciously engaged in a plot to exploit members of her own sex.. Only a handful of males would be needed to provide semen for such a tribe of amazons.provided they were not limited by beliefs about their own inferiority. they can be very un-glamourous. do”. like my Australian revolutionary. Until very recently the prime function of humankind has been to survive and multiply. 6 The Twilight of the Blokes Megabuck$ THOSE WHO CAN’T. The respective remedies suggested in the two articles are: 1) to recruit women to take over the drudgery and relieve the men for fun jobs. A tribe of women co-operating together would have enough strength. intelligence and skill to survive as well as most mixed tribes . and there will always be women with the right gifts who feel secure enough in their own femininity to become engineers. I admit that male humans have slightly greater strength and aggression. Remember that we are still a youngish species. I need to hastily move on to how I see evolutionary change in the role of the sexes..BLAST your way to with it. and that women can consider themselves well out of it. and that this has helped slightly towards survival. and 2) to transform engineers into decision makers. Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins   . The trouble with the above argument is that the people most likely to accept it are the people who like the status quo and want to keep it as it is. When science and engineering are not on pioneering ground. Instead I believe that she had been brought up to think that masculine activities were better than feminine ones. but its significance pales to nothing beside the female ability to bear children. There will always be exceptions to the rule “those who can. so a shortage of women engineers was interpreted to mean that women were being held back from the best jobs. Why are women (subject to all the individual exceptions) generally found in a subservient role? As in the case of engineers. Because I prefer revolutionaries to those who like the status quo. Just as they can consider themselves lucky not to have become a major part of man’s history. That leaves the men free to take the lead.

This basic structure is laid down in the years we spend with mother. Those who can. but it is women who have made it. Indeed everywhere you penetrate beneath the crust of male compensatory institutions and touch the matter of reality itself. her moods and her gestures in these formative years. because it is laid down at a pre-verbal level. men have devised an endless array of substitutes: art. but none of these conscious attitudes will provide more than a surface gloss to the deep unconscious attitudes and assumptions about the world which the child picks up from her behaviour. philosophy. If men had made this world. Woman made this world. Instead we find that just about every institution devised by men . 6 The Twilight of the Blokes   . or she may be a convinced christian.a little kingdom of his own). They are back room girls. the male sex has put so much into these substitutes that they now totally overshadow the original purpose of life. By the time we have learned to speak we have laid down the entire structure of reality. technology . religion. it is not necessarily the structure she would consciously wish to give us. Men may rule the world. Quantum mechanics is just the latest in a long history of nature’s affronts to men’s attempts to explain her away. you find the confusing fingerprints of woman. But just look at the facts.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins But nature has provided this surplus of males: half of mankind are virtually useless in terms of propagation. Like the engineers who can no longer appreciate the value in their “back room” work once they have seen the Marketing Director drive to work in a Porsche. She may have read a book on child care full of advice on how to teach a baby. a reality that is merely fleshed out in later life. Knowing deep down that they “can’t”. and find themselves enslaved by their own essential role. and the way we experience the world is programmed within the first four years of life. Women make this world.religion. fighting. do. philosophy. Women made the world? Reverence for such excellent masculine phantasies as history and science makes it hard for some people to accept that we live in a world created by women. The world we live in is the world we experience. The very fact that there are two sexes has a suspiciously feminine ring to it: men prefer unity and would have stuck to one sex and got it right (they would probably have had us laying eggs in warm sand and leaving them to hatch in the way turtles do). It is a structure she gives us but.. Without any really important responsibilities to hold them back. The world shows every sign you would expect of an entity made by women but administered by men. law. it would be orderly. politics.. many women have lost touch with their real importance in the light of all the glamourous phantasies men have devised. and woman made it in her own image. plus of course teaching and administration (not to mention the institution of monogamy which provides every male with the chance of employment .is an attempt to impose some order on a profoundly chaotic world.

Consider the feeding bottle. writing. but rather in the female subconsciousness. Men rule this world because. or in religious terms. And if you do have a creative streak and are unable to create the world. the more you are liable to be haunted by the realisation that you have become an example to others without having successfully quenched the basic internal hunger which drove you to excel in the first place. Sooner or later every man seems to glimpse that it is all just play.. artist or whatever. writer or film maker. you can at least create a world as an artist. Consciously men resist this.. so he does it rather well and leaves the more useful members of the company fuming at his glittering success. No wonder the role of mother and housewife sounds unglamourous beside the dazzling array of masculine alter- natives devised by men. No wonder my Australian friend felt hard done by. It means a baby can be fed without a breast. Hero.so also have men been relentlessly and unconsciously undermining their decorative status by trying to get their hands onto the creative act. for   . What is really wanted is the ability to make this world. to create reality.even when they consciously despise those stereotypes . male compensatory roles do a good job in bolstering male esteem . I have yet to explain why I think it is evolving.. The company director who does not have any manufacturing or design skills is free to handle the company as an abstract financial entity. The way is paved for significant male intervention in those formative years. The more you excel as scientist. mystic. Another way of creating a role for yourself is to attempt to impose some order on the chaos of existence by explaining it scientifically. Yet they remain just a compensation for the real thing. The advantage of being useless is that you are unhampered by responsibility. you can at least make something you call “history”. Mother has even created the stereotypes for their rebellion. poet. You see.so much so that women themselves envy them. artist. Just as women have been relentlessly and unconsciously superimposing stereotypes onto existence . 6 The Twilight of the Blokes THE GREAT MALE ROBBERY As was suggested three paragraphs back. ideas. men act out a myriad roles and try to forget that the clearest expression of these archetypes lies not in their lives.. they have nothing better to do. But all I seem to have done so far is to justify the status quo. if you can’t make the world. And if a man does not have any organisational skills he will still seek something to compensate for his inability to create this world: he will try to excel in art. They also help us to forget our basic inability. wise man. administer. poor things.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Those who can’t. nor even in any male mind. so you are able to put a lot into whatever compensatory activities you devise. and so it means a man can feed a baby.

whereas the female unconscious mind is expressed more clearly in moods and actions . to what extent is she influenced by the fashionable writings on child care? In my (fairly recent) parental days that meant books by male experts. even the idea of the “nuclear family” will serve to break the seal between mother and child. the institutionalised male has almost outlawed the home delivery. yet the institutionalised male mentality has done much to force artificial baby milk onto the world.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins they have been brought up by Mother to consider baby suckling to be woman’s work. while women are beginning to get a corresponding sense of what it means to be redundant. There is still a long way to go toward the test-tube baby which makes no demands at all on the woman. we are also told. and note how the male unconscious drive reveals itself most clearly in its institutions. The family unit (as opposed to “family” as clan or dynasty) is a modern idea hardly significant before the late 19th century and it is probably therefore a patriarchal invention. and the idea that “a child needs a family” is beginning to take the place of the earlier idea that “a child needs a mother”. and the original idea that a nuclear family demanded a fulltime mother begins to take second place as the concept of “family” grows stronger in its own right. the more justified a woman feels in putting her child in the hands of experts at an earlier age.which is the way the female structure of reality has been programmed into us in our mothers’ arms. that loss of certainty about woman’s vital creative role. Consider also how the male has become involved in delivery. an increasing proportion of women will feel the need for substitute glories. In the past that could only mean a wet nurse. Rather than resist the male usurping of the creative role. and yet men are beginning to sense that their old dreams of homunculi and the creation of life are growing closer. Consider the statistics which have been quoted as to how the modern baby spends more time in front of television (which is. Despite conscious revulsion by individual males for the blood and agony of the birth process. This too paves the way for greater participation by fathers and other children in the baby’s upbringing. Without looking at statistics I would bet that most babies in Britain were delivered by male doctors while the mother lay in a semi-drugged state. And this is where the evolution feeds itself: because of that unconscious sense of growing redundancy. The baby is increasingly being “programmed” through male eyes. now it is more likely to be a kindergarten run by a local authority according to the latest pedagogical practices. they begin to welcome the chance it gives them to indulge more freely in those exciting substitutes they 6 The Twilight of the Blokes   . a male institution) than in its mother’s arms. Even when the modern mother does interact. Surprisingly. The more that an “expertise” in baby care is evolved. The way for change is being paved.

.   . Why were the means so appalling in view of what must at least be acknowledged as a well-meaning end intention? The answer of course is that the basic ideal of the Third Reich was not in itself that bad. 6 The Twilight of the Blokes MALE PRESERVE US The change I see beginning to take place is that babyhood is becoming less and less a female preserve as men get their hands onto those formative years. the Media. I also see little female resistance to this evolution. This is an archetypal pattern: the more a creed or philosophy has “order” as its aim. Like those dejected engineers. by administrating. coupled with a drive to compensate for very deep feelings of redundancy. So what would be the characteristics of a man made world as distinct from the traditional woman-made world? Adolph Hitler’s vision of the Third Reich is probably a good starting point. it is just that a chaotic woman-made world refused to accept such regimentation and the frustration of trying to impose order reduced the Reich to brutality. because the other side of the coin means a lightening of female responsibility for existence.. they will tend to overlook the fact they are now more valuable than women. but no more so than there were in the man-administered world. Education. and will merely envy the glamourous games women will begin to play. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins the Law. of course. and this will mean an exciting new era for women. A world with plenty of exceptions of both sexes. by being artists. the Arts. The immediate temptation is to see this change as a gradual but basically straightforward reversal of roles: a future where women dominate existing public positions. it would be women who would feel driven to justify themselves by teaching. mystics and seers. because it is tainted by memories of the horrors perpetrated in an attempt to create the ideal envisioned by Hitler. we are now considering a man-made world: not just a reversal of roles in our present world. the more thuggery and chaos it will invoke. Would you really expect women to start going to war just as men used to? Remember.BLAST your way to have so long envied. as is Huxley’s Brave New World. a world like ours except that women make the history while men are heavily involved in mundane technological husbandry. Men would now be too busy to do anything but envy their exciting games. The first example seems frightfully unattractive. Already men are beginning to play a small part in creating the world and this involvement will accelerate as the possibility of relieving busy women of pregnancy and creating testtube babies grows closer. They would actually prefer to go back to work than to stay at home and bring up baby! In a world made by men. Any resistance to this change is more likely to come from men who find they are increasingly involved in the backroom labour of world-creation. But we should consider a little more carefully before accepting such a simple idea.

and has invoked more violence than ever. Any number except two. regular newsletter and membership privileges. is none”. and it resists regimentation. crumpet etc etc . by psychological coercion or whatever . but possibly this will be compromised by having a whole range of sexes . bearded lady. in view of the male saying “two’s company and three. tempests or famines.the world will react in such a way as to brutalise you.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The Thatcher government came in on the “law and order” promise. except when the occasional commemorative tempest is organised in a small enclosure as a sort of public spectacle. Scientology is a movement that initially promised to create order in our minds (the aim being to become “clear” of all tangles in one’s psyche) and yet something very similar to a brutal fascist state was created in the movement.whether by a Law and Order legislation. Ideally in a male world there would be just one sex. So what would happen if the world was man-made? In that case it would not be fundamentally a chaotic world. 6 The Twilight of the Blokes   . In our present chaotic women-made world most things get blamed on Fate. A man-made world would be so very different. Servicing such a world will be like playing a vast game of multi-dimensional chess. In place of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle there could be no more than a Principle of Slight Residual Doubt . It would be a tidy. so I can spend the rest of the year moaning that we never go to my parents. as in the old trick of offering two ghastly alternatives (“do we go to your parents this Christmas. thank heavens. And the most far-out movements of the sixties. The general rule seems to be this: if you try to force order on the world . like the Manson Family and the Process.if that. The reason for this is because it is still largely a world made by woman in her own image. This will demand a huge bureaucratic structure to maintain existence.ultra-butch. It is extremely unlikely that there will be two sexes in the future. a rational world with an emphasis on clear choice in place of all the fatalistic nonsense of Mother Nature and the Norns. Two is a number that is extremely irritating to men. programming and so on. please. so I can spend the rest of the year asking why my parents always have the burden of entertaining us?”). had roots in the scientology philosophy. and this fact is used by women for manipulative purposes. and the role of husbanding such a reality will demand all the “masculine” skills like accounting. neat and predictable world with well ordered weather: no droughts. and it will require all the resources of male thinking. politics. by military pressure. limp-wristed fop. The laws of physics would be known in a man made world. That is why men will soon be too essential to be wasted on history. engineering. A man-made world would be a fair world. but in a man-made world there will be only cause and effect. art and all such fluffy pursuits. or do we go to mine.each with its own union.

or the gentleman’s club. Few things give women so much satisfaction as to be able to sweep into such a world and revolutionise it with new furnishings. This is a role that women would identify with. Politics would be not so much a question of diplomatic peace-keeping as a sort of moral striptease to stir up a bit of passion in a complacent world (cf Mary Whitehouse and Margaret Thatcher when she gets on her “traditional values” hobbyhorse). A fair.there is probably a precise relationship between the placing of the piles of washing up in the sink and the number of days it has been there. because the impulse will remain the same: it will still be an attempt by those excluded from the primal act of creation to find other ways to exercise the creative impulse. The need will not be to impose order onto chaos. there will be women going around trying to stir up community activities in a world where most people increasingly want to sit quietly at home and watch television. and a frenzy of rearrangement. The legal profession would give way to a sort of counselling service. LADIES! So that is the revolution that I see. instead it will become necessary to bring some rhythm and flow to a world that is increasingly in danger of crystallising and stagnating.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Whereas women used to be trapped in the vital role of “housewife”. And a religion dominated by female bishops would focus less on attempts to bring order into creation. Although the former might not look tidy. of course. Taking the police as example: instead of a group of men patrolling the streets to discourage unruly elements. and more on bringing a sense of wonderment. men will find now themselves trapped in the equally vital role of “worldhusband”. be a temptation to take on the old male roles: to become lawyers. joy and mystery into a very explicable universe. those roles will rapidly become redundant as the man-made world comes into being. it will have a basic underlying order to it . will be the underlying theme of the part women will play in a man-made world. It begins with a gradual male usurping of the baby-minding role. policemen. Instead of trying to impose order onto chaos. they will be more a sort of state Women’s Institute. But insofar as those roles were an attempt to impose order onto chaos. then. liberal world full of “sensible” people would not need policing in the same way that the present world needs it. they will be trying to invoke chaos into the order. So what will women do? What sort of roles will they create for themselves? There will. busy organising fetes and fund-raising activities to jolly us up. The arts will be less deeply affected. 6 The Twilight of the Blokes OVER THE TOP.   . Even if still called “the police”. As an example of a man-made microcosm (within our present woman-made world) consider the bachelor flat. scientists etc. This.

as male children are increasingly taken out of the hands of mothers who instinctively program these heavily polarised sexual roles. women will find it easier to take the chances that have so long been denied them. with a resulting resistance or backlash to be expected in the form of outbreaks of neo-butch heroism or tyranny. and so they are increasingly driven to justify themselves in the world by other means. as it does. they will want male roles in their traditional form. having been brought up to believe that was “right”. Then there will be the tendency for men to feel threatened by this usurping of what they consider to be their roles. As women step into the key roles in society.. the world is increasingly populated with people whose elemental world view was programmed by men instead of by women. so will “little men” be struggling to preserve their crusty institutions while women rush about invoking “change for change’s sake” (cf the impact of Thatcher on the legal profession etc). they find that the world is no longer what it was. in a chaotic female world. they are increasingly taking over a heavily structured world that demands inspiration and excitement. of course. This in turn increases the pressure for men to take over the process of birth and. This drive gives them energy. Then there will be the confusion of the sexes already described: the women who are naturally competent in masculine activities. A REVOLUTION WITH BALLS. Then there will the residual exceptions: women so broody by nature that they will refuse to give up their traditional role. This backlash will weaken. as it 6 The Twilight of the Blokes   . but of course that is just a neat male model of what must really be a frightfully confused situation beginning. and those key roles are subtly shifting: instead of an unruly world demanding a rod of iron. Just as “little women” used to struggle to keep the home fires burning while men fought wars to conquer an unruly planet. as the new generations grow up. and the men with such a strong “mothering” streak that they bring up baby with all the assumptions that a women would have given it. and men with so little inner creative spark that they will rather rule someone else’s world than create their own. In other words it will be just as easy in future to find exceptions to prove that men really rule the world. As a man-made world would be structured on rational choice and “fairness” rather than blind Fate. OR ONE THAT IS BALLS? Now that is how I see it. Like the engineering woman and my history graduate.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins This in turn leads to women beginning to feel the sort of profound sense of uselessness that has always haunted men. meanwhile men will be increasingly tied down in the tedious task of maintaining and servicing a world where nothing can be blamed on “Lady Luck” any more. Firstly there will be a residual tendency for women to want to do things just as the men used to do them..

we say the latter. If a magician or commercial artist does it.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins is has been possible in the past for some people to find exceptions to prove that. So. and that its roots go back to the Age of Reason when women began seriously to follow male advice on child rearing rather than placing full trust in “women’s mysteries”. am I giving it life? or simply calling up the dead? If Jesus or a creative artist does it. Therefore there is little point in this essay.. we say the former. Although the writer of this essay can find plenty of signs that this gradual Masculist Revolution is well under way. What do you think? My Goddess Within just says “yes. Its only value is in its attempt to sort out mine own bizarre assumptions.. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited  In re-presenting this old plate from the Astrologer Of The Nineteenth Century. dear”. it will be such a confused and long drawn out process that no-one will notice it happening: each generation will accept the world they are born into and will assume that to be the natural and immutable order of things. there are just as many signs that the whole idea is a load of nonsense. and I see tears sparkling among the many little circles of sliced onion. So what does the following essay do for Johnston’s Paradox?  . behind it all. even if true... women really rule the world.

9 and 10) as follows:  WHO IS THE GREAT BELIEVER? The question of what I myself believe is not very important. Knock knock . which I am about to summarise. but do you really believe in it?” Isn’t it wonderful what close friendship can engender? Like the story (apocryphal. can still ask me if I “really believe in” Johnstone’s Paradox! My reply. or fallen on stony ground. and of long understanding.. There is still amongst  . “There is something I have been longing to ask you for many years.. revealed that I had lost none of my old skill at evading such questions. so the important question of the future age is ‘what class of people are the strongest believers? The bad news is this: occultists are definitely not the strongest believers at present. a friend who has read and absorbed SSOTBME and ‘Thundersqueak’.. Johnstone’s Paradox? Putting on weight? Hair going grey? Teeth falling out? .” The other day an occultist friend of long standing spoke to me on the subject of Johnstone’s Paradox (see articles in Arrows 8. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins This seemed to be the essay where I finally got it right: my first three attempts at expounding Johnston’s Paradox seemed to have failed... tell me. “How are you keeping. presumably. which came out in 1988). with my letter of reply. During a lull in one such conversation Ipsissimus A gazed at his coffee spoon for a silent half-minute then suddenly spoke. “Who the hell are you and what d’you want? . The world of the future has always been shaped by those who believe the hardest. Then there was an article by Starwing to which I responded (see the next section). After that I felt Arrow must have had its fill of Johnstone’s Paradox. and I resolved to put it all down in a book (Words Made Flesh. do you think you would ever be able to bend a spoon like this by telekinesis under laboratory conditions?” So it is that a friend of long standing..JOHNSTON’S PARADOX REVISITED (With disputatious footnotes by Mormegil Draconis) First published in Arrow 15 “It’s all terribly neat and clever.BLAST your way to 7 . Ipsissmus B.. but this one created some response. “Hello. First there were the “disputatious footnotes” recorded here. I think it was the interest generated by the illustrative story in this article which gave me the idea of including the story about the Minister for Technology and the Pope in Words Made Flesh (see Chapter 14 in this book). you must be Johnstone’s Paradox .. for I am about to invent it) of the two Great Ipsissimi who used to meet regularly in a quiet corner of the Saville Club to discuss Great Cosmic Truths. Both of my letters of reply were published in Arrow 16. the Work of the Brotherhood and the Worlds Beyond the Abyss.

One is the American Bible Belt Creationist. and who has to choose between orthodox medical advice to operate and a psychic’s advice not to do so. so will pass it by for the present. we even believe that this sometimes takes place unconsciously. It owes its strength to the fact that it is such a simple. the better. The mortar that holds these walls intact is exceptionally strong because it consists of a very basic. elementary philosophic assumption. (The slightly nervous questions about the distinction between Black and White Magic that persist in public meetings show that there are many who are also still asking permission of religion to believe in magic. then there is no need to believe in telekinesis. Two examples show how this works in practice. the correspondence columns of New Scientist to realise that here are believers of the first magnitude. Notice.) And in my last essay. It is almost more of an instinct than a philosophical principle. provided they can do the job. a principle of universal economy called Occam’s Razor. I do not have any direct experience of this group. the ‘goats’ of the Society for Psychical Research. The other candidate is the ‘hardheaded’ rationalist. that its greatest strength is as a defense of the status quo. however. crudely expressed. This principle is then the binding strength of the rationalist position. here is a rock solid defensive position that would need rather more than Flower Power to break its walls. and that (by taking advantage of such moments) he is able to duplicate the feat by trickery. Secondly consider spoon bending.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins occultists too much looking towards the borderline of science for theoretical and evidential support. and we already believe in the unreliability of hearsay. on Magic in the Eighties. If we restrict ourself to reliable filmed evidence of spoon bending. However militant and attacking the sceptic sometimes seems. and then decides that we do Johnston’s Paradox Revisited   . say. For it begins with (for example) the laws of physics as the accepted belief. fundamental principle that it tends to be taken for granted rather than consciously used. we do not need God as well. says that the fewer things you believe exist. For we already believe in human deception. You need only read the anti-paranormal writings of such people in. then there is no need to believe in a Creator who formed me in his own image as described in Genesis. therefore we need not also believe in telekinesis. planets. 7 First consider creation: if science can definitely prove that the known laws of physics were capable of bringing about the Big Bang. in other words they are still asking permission of science to believe in magic. I gave the example of the ardent occultist who finds a beloved one is on the threshold of death. We already believe in the laws of physics so. This principle. his position’s real strength is defensive. and a professional conjuror points out that there were moments when the spoon was out of sight. creating stars. How many would uphold their occult beliefs in such circumstances? [1] I would propose two candidates for the Hardest Believer Cup. forming our earth and developing a life upon that earth which would eventually evolve into mankind.

I suggest that this is because. He finds merely an average number and so deduces that the apparent surfeit of reds was in fact a delusion. for example. and who believed wholeheartedly in a God who was a bit of a handyman. sunrise is inevitable rather than a daily gift from a thoughtful and very reliable deity. Consider the example from SSOTBME of the magician who suffers from traffic lights always being red when he is in a mad rush. The scientist laughs at his ‘remedy’ as a piece of psychological deception and ‘proves’ this is so by counting the number of red traffic lights next time he himself is in a mad rush. they know deep down that traffic lights are worked by automatic electrical systems that would not adjust themselves to one individual motorist’s thoughts when there are thousands of others on the road all in different degrees of haste. Some people who read such examples of mine find them ‘all very clever’. However the magician in turn can now laugh at the scientist. how then has it gained so much territory from magic and religion? The answer I have previously suggested is that occultists. would be quite able to use the same principle to dismiss the laws of physics as unnecessary. We may resist this belief. Once upon a time physics had shown itself to be awfully good at explaining simple laboratory processes in mech-   . Although I have demonstrated in these essays. that are just as neat and sometimes even more economical. for it is. [4] 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited HOW DO THEY DO IT? Granted that the strength of the rationalist position is mainly defensive. how magical theory can provide alternative explanations to scientific theory. tend to waste so much energy trying to attack the well-defended rationalist position rather than getting on with strengthening their own territory. So why does this not happen more often? [2] The answer [3] is that the rationalist view has dominated Western thought for about 400 years and is now so entrenched in our culture and language that even the child of the most zonked-out hippy family probably assumes that. although they can recognise how well balanced my argument was. so to speak. for example. and the magician’s ‘magic’ has done nothing. and in SSOTBME and Thundersqueak. but a bit out of touch with reality. and that from time to time they fall back exhausted and let rationalism march forward. the arguments lose their strength because we all already believe in scientific explanations. but in vain. the scientist had calmed his consciousness and therefore reduced the number of red traffic lights to normal just as the magician had done.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins not need God. already in our blood. Anyone who had never heard of physics. This is why the present day occultist cannot use the same principle to such advantage. pointing out that the scientist had merely performed the self-same magical act: by deciding to objectively count traffic lights when in a mad rush. and who decides to remedy the situation by meditating himself into calmness in order to reduce the number of red traffic lights to normal.

Then there was the feeling that science could not answer all questions because it could never explain Life itself. This news item. animal magnetism and so on. What is suggested is a form of organic computer rather closer to living matter in construction and supposedly “a billion times denser and faster” than the boring old silicon chips. Then computers entered our lives and so magic retreated into the non-automatic process of the human mind. together with an initial and final picture of. So the more I can support these predictions the better will I strengthen my case.because this force was able to act at a distance. Now intelligent systems are being created. considerably narrows the gap between present-day computers and the working of the human brain. If we then turn to face science and attempt to attack from that viewpoint we exhaust ourselves in attacking a well defended position. and there is no obvious reason why this retreat should not continue towards vanishing point. and again it tried to become scientifically respectable. But they eventually fell back in disarray and the laws of physics extended to cover magnetism. So occultists got terrifically excited about magnetism and created a whole magical theory on etheric forces. was able to ‘instantly’ create   . Here then are three recent predictions from ‘more respectable’ sources which are relevant to my thesis. and are eventually overrun. A theory was created of a Vital Force invading the dead world of matter. From a rationalist viewpoint the worlds of magic and religion are being driven back into an ever shrinking territory. If only our education would allow us instead to ignore science and get on with improving our own camp. say. rather than what you can now buy over the counter. quoted from “Technology” magazine. and so next the human mind was taken as the ‘unmapped’ territory. but was still a bit flummoxed by magnetism . [5] 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited SUPPORTING VOICE My exposition of Johnstone’s Paradox lost some of its impact through being based upon predictions as to what computers might be capable of in the future. At each stage in the spread of the rationalist domain there are some of us who recognise the obvious fact that science does not yet know (all) the answers and who decide to set up camp on such unmapped territory. It was shown how a computer with relevant data on human anatomy. invisible to science and so in no danger of being overrun. The first is that the US government is poised to decide whether to make biological computers a national research priority. and we shift camp to the creative/mystical processes of the human mind. in an attempt to storm the citadel and grab a bit of that delicious scientific respectability. The second comes from a television documentary on computer graphics in the aid of cartoon animation. Science buttoned up Life. a man raising his hat. We might create a new universe.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins anistic terms. Instead of this the retreat is continued. then something very different might happen.

touch and so on. Say it was necessary for the film to move the camera down the long high street towards an advancing band of menacing invaders. but limited. Now put these three predictions together. Occultism and Religion were almost extinct.. Sales of Aquarian Arrow had dropped from eight figures to five figures. [6] This combined model takes us a long way towards my assumptions in the Johnstone’s Paradox articles. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited PREDICTION: THE AQUARIAN REVOLUTION It was the year BLEEP. but it is a bio-computer and so the world it creates is as finely detailed. The third prediction comes from an article. you input information from our imaginative bio-computer. Rather than go into tedious detail for the sake of realism. Let me now make my own prediction. He would then experience the trip just as if he had been present on it . who used to burn offerings and pray to their gods to keep storms and earthquakes at bay. in an ‘imaginary’ world that is utterly real to his senses. Blanc with a similar sensory recorded on his back. like the second one. or else transmitted back to earth and replayed directly into an ‘armchair astronaut’s’ brain. the computer would produce a perfect t.. the clouds swirling past. to thousands and now the magazine offices were up for sale. bedridden geriatric who regrets never having gone hang-gliding in his youth could pay the current world champion to hang-glide off the top of Mt. As an extension of this useful. Natives of tropical countries.BLAST your way to all the in between pictures needed to make a smooth animated sequence. and that the information they collected could be either recorded and brought back. the butterflies in his stomach and the sensation of swooping downwards . now rang up the local meteoron  . And he will find himself living a dream. What was being done was to map all the features of this imaginary world into the computer’s memory then to program the computer to output a visual display of any required sequence of movements within that world.v. all the relevant details having been entered. attacking the need for manned journeys into further space. It was also suggested that the same technique could be used recreationally: a delicate.but without the danger or the added freightage. ability we were told of a full length cartoon film now being created. It predicted that we would be able to fit sensors onto our unmanned probes that matched our own human senses of sight. about life on a robot mining settlement on the asteroids. sequence of this scene on its screen: a visual film of a totally imaginary world. It could then be replayed into the geriatric’s Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins brain and he would be right out there. You have a computer creating an imaginary world. I will present it in dramatic form and assume that Arrow readers are capable of abstracting the essential points of this prediction. as imaginatively rich and as beautiful as any created by the human brain. sound. instead of inputting recorded information from the ‘real world’ into that geriatric’s brain. the wind cutting his cheeks and ruffling his hair. in New Scientist I believe. Then. then.

Whereupon the minister sighed and prepared to depart with the words ‘well. The Archbishop of Neasden. only one person who still daily praised his Creator at sunrise and invoked the Great Ones at sunset. Why invent a divine creator when new universes were being daily created by science to entertain the masses on sensorama sets? What achievement of man was there that had not been excelled a billion times over by the digital logic of GENIAK V? [7] But still the mystic resisted. Just take these tablets. since the arrival of G-KLOWN’s comedy talkshow. The electrostatic inkjet paintings of Sylvie IX07 made Rubens look ‘decidedly naive’. and the condition will be cured overnight. ‘No fucking fear. cornered by the Minister for Technology in a Soho night club.BLAST your way to omists and seismonomists departments and asked them to create clement weather and to stabilize the earth’s crust. and. The few remaining dissident voices were being silenced. said that he was fully aware of the triumphs of science and cybernetics and yet despite that knowledge he awoke each day with a strong conviction that ‘there still remains some central mystery as yet untouched by science’. ‘Don’t worry about it’ replied the minister for technology. It is caused by an imbalance in the nodular cortex resulting in an overproduction of hyperbleemoid hormone. no-one was any longer interested in repeats of such predictable and humourless programs as Monty Python or the Goon Show. a few months later the minister visited the mystic and invited him to spend a sabbatical fortnight at public expense in a newly created sensorama universe. Here was the last mystic in the history of mankind: for him no ordinary defeat would suffice. So. ‘You have conquered and reproduced the whole world’ said he ‘but you have yet to conquer my soul’. The early public outcry against the unimaginative and inhuman face of computers was finally quelled when critics universally acknowledged that MUZAK IV’s New World Symphony made the entire output of Beethoven look like a rather tepid cup of over-weak tea in a plastic beaker from a British Rail platform vending machine. here.’ And so it came to pass that only one non-rationalist remained. The two drops of antibol- Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins shene-3 that I secretly introduced into your last drink will have eliminated your problem by tomorrow lunchtime. but GENIAK V took him gently aside and reminded him of a certain passage in a book called ‘1984’. you can stuff your bloody dreamworlds’ said the mystic. ‘I appreciate that’ replied the minster. you have shown me one thing. The minister for technology was just dying to dose the mystic with antibolshene-3.’ ‘Ah yes’ retorted the Archbishop. He was mocked by a world that could not understand his faith. For 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited   . ‘we know all about that feeling. ‘but the point is that I have no wish to cure the so-called condition’. ‘this second condition is also well understood.

. will perhaps understand what happened to that mystic in his blissful fortnight spent breathing the same air. ‘I wanna go back’ ‘But come now.’ the minister smirked ‘surely you cannot want to trade the real world. And they fell utterly and hopelessly in love. if you insist. (I have especially worded that sentence for those who have read SSOTBME and who will see its additional significance)..’ And thus it came to pass that the last mystic was eliminated from the universe. To his joy he found that the sense of wonderment and reverence for nature was still thriving in this world. sharing the same laughter with that most perfect embodiment of everything he adored. for one of our “bloody daydreams”? 7 ‘But all that you have experienced is merely permutations of digital information input by our scientists. the world given to you by your beloved Creator.. you have not got enough courage in your convictions to test them against our “bloody dreamworlds”.only a little more poignant. The next day he was ‘reborn’ into a lovely land.’ sighed the minister for technology.. Now any of you who have every been carried away by a great film. The worlds of magic and religion had been squeezed into a smaller and smaller space by the creations of art and science. And having yourself walked alone from the cinema into the wet streets and the queues for buses.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins all your defiant believing. princess of the tribe. Even Krystal is just a program’ Jerked into tears by the mention of that name the mystic sobbed ‘Whatever she is I want nothing but to share that reality with her.we cannot have anyone saying that we had coerced you. Johnston’s Paradox Revisited A BIG BANG! For what had been proved as that there is absolutely nothing in our universe that cannot be re-created in a sub-universe by an ordering of information in this uni  ‘Yes.’ His was the age-old dilemma of the princess who falls in love with the gipsy. will realise how the mystic felt on being recalled from his sabbatical. Unable to resist such a taunt the mystic agreed to the minister’s suggestion. Now that shrunken world has imploded and the result was to be. inhabited by a people of great warmth and humour. ‘Well. or the lord who falls in love with the exiled courtesan . ‘But you will have to sign a refutation of all your beliefs before you go . I do’ . can we? It just happens that I have a copy here . treading the same earth. and fallen temporarily in love with the shortlived and merely two dimensional hero. or heroine. And there he met Krystal of the Seven Moons.

we must now either prove that it has not already been done. Occam’s Razor tells us that time is limitless.including a radio receiver in his tooth . to refresh your memory (and I fear that such refreshment is called for) here are some examples. didn’t I? They too would shape the future if we let them. but. Note that future generations in Krystal’s world will have a myth on the lines of ‘angels of God the Creator who found the daughters of men were fair and sought to lie with them. As a result.BLAST your way to verse. That will be their version of the Minister’s little ruse. wait a minute. Although Occam’s Razor would prefer fewer to more universes. it is actually powerless to restrict the number. a sophisticated version of that cartoonist’s world described earlier. My previous articles have explained by this event would utterly turn the tables on rationalism. In other words it is now very unlikely that our own universe was not itself created by beings of another universe which lies ‘outside our time and space’ quite liter- ally. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins JOHNSTONE’S PARADOX This then is my scenario for the Aquarian Revolution: an explosive rebirth of mystical wonderment following the compression of the worlds of magic and religion into the black hole of Johnstone’s Paradox. Now there are fiftythree million grass plants of different sorts in that field . And the burden is now transferred to the rationalist to prove otherwise. or else believe that it has been done ‘often’. surely Occam’s Razor does not encourage us to believe in lots of universes when only one is needed? The point is that we have already created a second universe in this story. But does not such a myth already exist in our own universe? I did mention that the other group of hard believers were the creationists. and you need to create a field of grass. we have shown it can be done.are you going to laboriously programme each one in turn? Not when you remember that each and every grass   .than to believe in a tiny bit of psychic power). unless we have already located its limits (for why otherwise believe in those limit?) So once we have shown that we can create a universe we either accept that this has happened indefinitely already or else we have to believe in some special ‘principle of exclusiveness’ that makes us the one and only first-time universe creators. For this they were banished from the Kingdom of Heaven’. Now. This is because a ‘principle of exclusiveness’ would add a whole new dimension to the space of possibilities. But by Occams Razor this means the number of universes is likely to bet be limitless. Let us say you are creating a universe. (Just as the sceptic finds it easier to believe a whole armoury of deceit on Uri Geller’s behalf . whereas a multiplicity of universes merely extends a dimension that has already been shown to exist.

Similarly what is the Great Archangel of Grass if not the program GRASS? This suggests that. and called it the ‘soul of this plant’. not until you go to the next stage and create programs for each individual plant. and would not the form of that ‘angel’. Then it throws up its hands in ecstasy and hails the presence of the Great Archangel of Grass. and the resulting output is a complete description of the grass plant that would grow in that position. Suddenly a being from your created universe walks into your created field. etc. Then you create a second set of programs. It bends over and calls upon the ‘soul’ of the plant to forgive this act. it is the program COUCH. For example the COUCH program will call up the GRASS program but input into various parametric values specific to couch grass. For instance COUCH 1397 calls up a file of information about the soil conditions at location 1397. What does the being mean by the ‘angel of couch’ if not an archetypal immaterial couch plant.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins plant is a vastly complex organism involving highly involved chemical processes etc. be the form of a perfect couch plant undifferentiated and unstunted by any contact with actual material conditions? In other words. gods and souls would be so absurdly uneconomical that the onus is no longer on the believer to prove that they exist. Thus you have created a field of grass by the most economical means: to have programmed those plants independently would be a ludicrously uneconomical deployment of information. it then inputs this into the COUCH program. were it perceptible. one to each type of grass. a certain shape of leaf and so on. For you know that the whole grass thing is just a nifty bit of programming. ‘angels’ and ‘Archangels’ splits your sides. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited   . are falling about with laughter. together with information from a file of meteorological conditions. But you still have not created a single green plant. It treads on the grass plant at location 1397 and breaks it. once we have accepted that our own reality is probably a programmed creation. First you create an undifferentiated GRASS program. and the nature of neighbouring plants. And you. gods and souls. Any programmer would advise you to work more along the following lines. the creator of this world. But think again. instead it says ‘a world created without angels. therefore we shall not believe in them’. What does the being mean by the ‘soul’ if not the reality that lies behind the manifestation? It has merely given a name to the program COUCH 1397. containing all the characteristics common to all species of grass. a creeping rootstock. so all this rubbish about ‘souls’. but on the unbeliever to prove that they do not’. It stands upright and with eyes half closed addresses itself to the ‘couch angel’ and promises co-operation. then the principle of economy no longer says ‘manifestation can be explained without the assumption of angels.

. the redundant hypothesis would be the mysterious ‘principle of isolation’ apparently demanded by the editor of Nature. no.doesn’t it just break your heart that no-one has taken up the Great Randi’s challenge? A cheque for several thousand pounds for anyone who can convincingly demonstrate paranormal powers? Doesn’t it just break your heart every time human achievements are belittled by the achievements of machines? Then become a champion of Johnstone’s Paradox! The only occult theory that makes you feel better every time that the scientific establishment deals magic a crushing blow! The only occult theory that is specifically designed to survive the collapse of all occult theory! Vote for Johnstone’s Paradox!! What theory could be more in keeping with the spirit of the Aquarian Age? For the Big Problem of Aquarius (symbolised by the Leo-Aquarius opposition) is the problem of the individual versus the collective. Those of you who try to believe in higher worlds.while our everyday sense of isolation and independence is now the greater puzzle. Apparently the horrified reaction of the editor of Nature was that the book ought to be burned for suggesting such rubbish. For it is not the ‘M-field’ which would be the redundant hypothesis. This then is the nature of that magical Big Bang. The point is that once our universe is seen in this new light. Johnstone’s Paradox will transform this dilemma. But once the universe had been seen as a programmed creation then the onus would be on the editor of Nature to prove that no such link exists.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins I am told that a biologist called Rupert Sheldrake has written a book in which he postulates an ‘M-field’ that psychically links all beings of the same species: so that if a germ in Australia for example learns something the information may be instantly transmitted to a similar germ in England. reincarnation and so on have already been given in my earlier articles. How can the individual find its place in the collective without loss of individuality? But. [8] Similar arguments to show the inevitability of astrology. occult powers and the like. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited LETS FACE IT CHAPS O. Instead it becomes the fundamentally acceptable ‘truth’ and the mighty old rationalist viewpoint is suddenly the outlaw. then the whole of magical theory is no longer an outlaw fighting for breathing space outside the reach of Occam’s Razor. lets cut out the airy-fairy speculation and be utterly pragmatic. all systems of divination.K. Why on earth should such a principle exist? In this model the mystic’s feeling of ‘oneness’ is the obvious truth . Being part of one vast programmed creation ensures a definite position for the individual within the collective   . as I explained in an earlier article.. some such connection is inevitable in the nature of such a universe. Because a world where nearly identical entities were in no way linked by a common program would be such an absurdly uneconomical world that Occam’s Razor would barely allow it..

the choice would be easy. It assumes that he is motivated by an infantile desire to ‘believe in’ something. If Johnstone’s Paradox prevails it is unlikely to be because I become the world champion sick-healer or spoon bender. This is the same error as the one which states that. and I am one of those prophets.  MORMEGIL’S FOOTNOTES [1] The phrasing of this question insults the intelligence of the occultist. but he never made a single atom bomb. so the old principles of the cult of personality may no longer be relevant. Well goodbye Johnstone’s Paradox. Beware of thinking as follows:. there is no longer any theoretical reason why a lonely meditator on a mountaintop cannot find out as much about the universe as can a multi-million pound government research program. therefore Crowleyanity is a wicked thing to believe in. And it pays. [2] But it did happen .remember Galileo? [3] The answer is nothing of the sort. In the universal darkness which preceded the  . so I’m blowed if I am going to believe his crummy theories. not of occultism and magic. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited BEWARE OF TEMPTATION Talking of the Age of Aquarius . I try.Ramsey Dukes is a nobody of no great magical attainment.I must give a warning. As I explained in that article. it does not account for it. Einstein has profoundly influenced our view of the world. This is the coin of religion and superstition. for all his clever theories. It may now be necessary to judge a theory in its own right rather than in the light of its expounder’s saintly bearing. So do I ‘really believe in’ Johnstone’s Paradox? Well. If medicine were a true technology like mechanical or chemical engineering.there can be no ‘outsiders’. could not split an atom to save his life. All the old “if-you’reso-clever-then-why-ain’t-you-rich?” tests of respectability may no longer apply. Thanks for the chat and it’s good to see you looking so well. the occultist had best disdain both. Aquarius is the sign of the Collective. The ‘answer’ merely restates the position. Allopathic medicine is quite unreliable. Being parts of a Whole gives us all equal access to the Whole. but psychism even more so. The real answer is that science has won its ground fairly by backing up its theories at every stage with useful technology which not only increases human choice and control but also validates the overall scientific model as being consistent within its own terms. Instead It will be because more and more people just happen to tune into the same wavelength.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins . all tuned into different wavelengths and all receiving different versions of the truth. confronted with two suspect belief systems. because Aleister Crowley was obviously no saint. To take a rather flattering example for comparison: as far as I know Einstein. There are at present thousands of prophets.well I was. As it is. even if you were not . however humble we may be. But on the other hand it dramatically increases each individual’s significance.

They got it right.perhaps Sheldrake has begun to discover some. ‘but with the sword destroyeth he’. The rationalist’s success in his own terms could also be seen as serendipity. but it can help us by showing us where it is not. Maybe. behind the rise of science were simply better magicians than there competitors. not negated. are physically implemented via local mechanisms such as DNA. we shall have understood the software of the universe. [7] There is an obvious answer to this question. Feasibility aside.the tree grows slowly but the wood is hard . It can of course be argued that the ‘laws of nature’ were not discovered but created by the pioneers of science. There is nothing in information theory as yet to account for any alternative structures . [6] Perhaps for the sake of simplification. Mystery in the commonplace sense merely implies ignorance and unsolved problems. or merely ignore them. of course. I see as a progressive liberation of the occult philosopher from distracting trivia.oak. for the magical reference frame is senior to all belief systems. To experience a universe.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Renaissance there was no such touchstone. Our current model of the supporting infrastructure suggests that all levels of programming. Scire = ‘to know’. The true occultist is not retreating. and when we know enough about them to explain why one random impact affects the whole set while another does not. If that holds good the conscious forces (if any). it is surely necessary to interact with it. the Magi. [5] Not so: the retreat is not toward vanishing point but toward infinity. It is the difference between the Great Work and the Great Wank. There is NO END to the possibilities for growth and exploration in an infinite cosmos/chaos. not a substitute for mickey mouse. Bogus ‘mysteries’ rooted in mere ignorance only comfort and confuse us. There is no shortage of mystery in the cosmos. The case for cybernetic economy stands all right. [4] Surely Ramsey is not denying that traffic lights are worked by automatic electrical systems? If the magician’s ploy really worked. his search is aided by the elimination of mere confusions and falsehoods. This is vitally important for it calls into question the whole reciprocal nature of love. Not a bad principle . it were better attributed to an alignment or serendipity in his own interface with the mechanical world rather than some mickey mouse magical trick whereby he telekinetically interferes with the mechanism of the lights. the worthlessness of such an ability would increase in direct proportion to the numbers employing it. but the assumption of random modifications of the higher programs by impacts on the lower violates a basic principle of programming. to have power of choice and effect. Until 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited   . and that is ‘the digital logic of GENIAK V’! [8] This argument will not do. but neither does it compel an onus of proof on the editor of Nature. A Mystery in the specialised terminology of magic is defined as ‘A truth Beyond Reason’ quite another matter. limits to the Realm of rea- son as we presently employ it. but based on his own unconscious certainty that the normal averages would prevail. There are. We do not choose to. and indeed of common sense. all maps of reality being abstractions resting on human experience. Ramsey ignores a vital distinction here: the geriatric can only passively experience the sensation of the hang glider pilot. not larch. The ‘occultist’ who responds like a child deprived of a toy is no philosopher at all. while logically corresponding to Ramsey’s model. Such a control mechanism may well operate to limit scientific discovery by giving coherence with existing knowledge priority over expansion of that knowledge. that’s why they won. What Ramsey sees as an incursion by rationalism into the shrinking ‘mystery playground’. Science cannot tell us where that truth is. Occultism is a search for the truth. If we want to overcome traffic lights we can already smash them up. This is not to condemn Sheldrake’s hypothesis. The fabric of comparative certainty on which our civilisation is based is to be transcended.

I can thank you for dwelling on them. been found littered with old beer cans. concerning traffic lights: I had not wanted to repeat too much from SSOTBME which. I had hoped that my phrasing. had indicated some awareness of these points.BLAST your way to that time comes the editor of Nature is justified in his scepticism. This leads to your first point: quite right. Rather than defend this slightly wimpish position I see it as a disease and suggest Johnstone’s Paradox as a (homeopathic) remedy. because it says “if the universe is indeed finite in this sense.. as I read it. who feel that the universe is ultimately finite: those subatomic physicists who seek to find the truly fundamental particles of matter. those cosmologists who postulate a finite ‘curved’ universe.” At the same time we must not forget that. It was such a delight to find my Johnstone’s Paradox article being taken seriously in public. Your fifth point. the writer of a New Scientist article who recently considered the possibility that Science might end in the foreseeable future for lack of unexplored territory. then it does not matter. matter proves infinitely divisible and therefore not able to be modelled). reveals that you are one of those who does not ‘need’ Johnstone’s Paradox. What I had in mind was the (not uncommon) occultist who suffers from the above disease. on behalf of other readers. for the remedy is no longer necessary. later considers the point you make. that the retreat before rationalism is a retreat to infinity rather than a retreat towards a vanishing point. distracting trivia”) when science found no Man on the Moon or life on Mars.g. they might need stronger medicine (World War 3?) About your fourth point. then (far from being boring) wonderful mysteries are implied. or something equally perplexing. though short.. So. and this disease is rather more prevalent than occultists would admit in their positive moments. Thank you for your critical comments. that I will try to do more than simply jump to defend myself on the points you raised. There are those. I apologise for this insult to a healthy occultist. if the conditions of the Paradox do not arise (e. and would rather that Mars had   . And is not the driving force behind scientific endeavour the desire to discover THE secret of the universe rather than to remove another skin from an infinite onion? Such ideas subtly effect certain men-in-the-street like myself who felt a little sad (rather than “liberated from . and who do not expect them to be infinite in number. Mind you. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited Megabuck$ MY RESPONSE TO THE FOOTNOTES Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins (published in Arrow 16) Dear Mormegil Draconis. A rather plaintive effort to believe in something to cheer up an apparently drab universe is a symptom of the terminal stages of this disease. however. such terminal cases might not respond to my suggested remedy.

Here I see a difference in viewpoint between us. I incline toward a cyclic view of history . or significantly common (to filter out the “random”) messages would get back to the higher programs.seeing science as having stepped into religion’s shoes and getting ready to repeat religion’s mistakes. I for example am not so stupid as to deny progress. I never doubted that the editor of Nature was justified in his doubts. What I say is that a general acceptance of Johnstone’s Paradox would reverse their positions.seeing science as having liberated us from religion. I agree the traffic should be mostly “downward” in order to preserve the structure. have a better chance of success (but no guarantee. Here our debating positions are reversed since point 3: on the ‘phone I gathered that you were happier to accept the biological necessity for building in the isolating ‘armour’ . Similarly. but suspect that sufficiently urgent. so I extend my cycles into progressive spirals in practice. the difference between “progress” and “history repeats”. whereas similar spells on behalf of another person. Thank you. dedicated to saving Hexteth Motorcycles from the Receiver. My hierarchical model as described (lower programs calling up higher programs) would not violate your “basic principle of programming”. whereas altruistic motives deactivate it. and that Sheldrake is a ‘crank’ under the present world-view. “get rich” spells will not work when ultimately geared toward self-glorification. you incline toward a progressive view . but generations of them evolve into giraffes. A possible illustration of this lies in the common occult tradition that. for example. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited   . but neither would it evolve unless some modification of higher programs was allowed for. bore no fruit). then we can agree that selfish motives activate the “armour” mechanism that isolates the individual from the cosmos. one greedy mammal trying to reach the tender treetop leaves gets nowhere.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Point 8: about random inputs on lower programs resulting in modification of higher programs. What I omitted to mention was the significance of evolution. so that messages pass easier upward. If I get time I will write an article for this Arrow reminding how I start from a cyclic view of history (rather than a progressive one). for my football coupon. or the good of mankind. If we assume that the magic works by invoking the higher programs. alas.and so to justify the editor of ‘Nature’ where I am more interested in the questions beyond it. I emphasise ‘incline toward’ because I do not want to waste time by artificially polarising our attitudes.though I agree that it does pose further questions. This somehow leads me to the third point you make when I attempt to explain why Science has overtaken Religion as an assumed reality. In context I think my ‘answer’ is an answer . I had fallen victim of my own desire not to exhaust my reader with elaboration.

radiant to those with infra-red vision (those who might grumble about the “coldness” after the Renaissance?). Knowing your ability to travel through time and space I would warn against your materialising in the year BLEEP. now eager for blood. John Smith committed suicide in despair. Meanwhile GENIAK V joined the debate by pointing out that. Your point 2. and dismissed this defence. or knitted them into religious terminology (“knitting = one-dimensional. like point 4. seems a suggestive distinction to me in terms of left and right brain thinking). They argued that later aberrations could therefore be ascribed to chance. who was in turn designed by GENIAK II who was in turn designed by GENIAK I. I ask “what achievement of men was there that had not been excelled a billion times over by the digital logic of GENIAK V” and your answer is “the digital logic of GENIAK V”. His defence argued that Smith had done his best for GENIAK IV by sending him to be educated at Eton and that the fact that it had been corrupted during secret night jaunts to Soho was outside his control. I’d rather deal more carefully with points 7 and 8. or you may be arrested for contempt of court because of that remark which amounts to a judgement on an ongoing court case. As I argued in Thundersqueak I am not convinced that scientific method has generated any useful innovations whatsoever. who only built it in defiance because everyone said it would not work. I had intended to imply in my own wording. whereupon the prosecution.can I get away with my later inserted clipping as partial answer? [this was a reference to a newly created interactive game where the player becomes the main character in a film] It was the sort of thing that I had in mind. I suspect. John Smith was also arrested and held responsible for the fruit of his creation. 7 You see GENIAK V emerged from the womb-unit of GENIAK IV as a result of a dirty weekend spent with MUZAK III. not bad programming. As always. The problem is this: GENIAK IV is on trial for murder.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The “darkness” you mention before the Renaissance was. people have ideas: nowadays they prepare them for publication by knitting them into scientific terminology. the sins of the fathers could be visited on their sons. Your point 6 . The prosecution said that Smith should have imbued his creations with greater moral fibre. The remaining point 7 is really tricky. in previous ages they wove them into magical or poetic terminology. GENIAK IV was built by GENIAK III. under old testament law. arrested his parents because they had created the “obviously guilty” John Smith. GENIAK I was designed by one John Smith. so GENIAK V went on to point out that it was perfectly clear on reading the bible that we were all guilty anyway (the Original Sin) and Johnston’s Paradox Revisited   . His parent’ lawyers managed to unearth proof that GENIAK IV had led an exemplary life until a chance involvement in a slight motorcycle accident after being struck by lightning. weaving = two-dimensional”.

Mormegil replies:Perhaps.in fact. indeed. maybe. and I find the all too widespread popular notion that this is possible is a pernicious myth. put in. therefore. and in view of the conciliatory tone of the rest of this dialogue I am inclined at first to treat them as a graceful retreat.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins that this universe was in fact created as a penal colony for a “higher” reality. John Smith’s achievement remains necessarily greater than the greatest achievement of GENIAK V . are not going to be very good ideas.hence my advice to keep out of it. Your concluding paragraphs on my point 7 are at first sight pure shameless Houdini. You must have foreseen and grasped every category of possibility. I labour this point because I find the popular tendency to regret technological achievement on the grounds that it appears to demean the human a deplorable and infantile attitude. although obviously not all the specific recombinations which may be possible. not because that framework is the widest channel of social communication. I think they rather avoid the more abstract underlying argument. John Smith’s achievement is by definition always exactly one step more than GENIAK’s. Tolkien and Cordwainer Smith as to that of the New Scientist. but there is no shred of evidence in the current state of the art of cybernetics to support this idea. I like the “knit/weave” dichotomy . I must save some ink for Starwing. we have a vast technology at the service of all ideas: the same machines. coupled with the more specific fact that the Editors/Producers of Aquarian Arrow couldn’t sell vaseline in an isolated US Navy base. You seem to be crediting the GENIAK computers with a capacity to generate more syntropy than was initially programmed into them. which fuels popular paranoia about computers. in a sense. but to the perennial fact that the spear head aristocracy of ideas is always small. It does in fact have an almost miraculous effect on human affairs because it shifts the ratio between attention and effectiveness by order of magnitude. But you do not get out of a computer anything which you have not. where. This moves them from the category of machines into the category of life-forms. the more John Smith has achieved. The fact that Arrow has a rather lower circulation than the New Scientist is not due to unfair persecution. and attention is the hardest currency in the universe. but because to depart from it invites the knock on the door at 3 a. the same paper mills.it amounted to chucking people out of prison because they did not behave themselves within it. contribute as much to the promulgation of Tanith Lee.m. Ideas which must be crammed into an orthodox framework. All’s fair in love and science-fiction. What concerns me more is that Science did not find it necessary to break the fingers. That’s it. and the more GENIAK achieves. In our present society. (Hence the absurdity of a death penalty . the same warehouses. though. In this sense. the scientific method did not contribute nearly as much to the coherent structuring of ideas as we have come to believe.but you have forgotten “cram”: I refer no less to Lysenko than to the mediaeval schoolmen. Mormegil. flay the hides and fry the flesh of those who chose to formulate their thoughts in other modes. 7 Johnston’s Paradox Revisited   .) The whole case has become a public scandal . It is a whine. A computer is a tool for deferring complex decisions and speeding up their execution. scientific humanism has become the popular belief-system. On closer inspection. let us admit it. and leave it at that.

though. He drowned himself in Regent’s Canal at the age of 22. leaving a considerable body of poems. No computer .the blood of our hearts and the unfolding of our own life process. 8 The Starwing Dialogue  John Hancock.indeed.including this one published in the Golden Hind Vol 1 No 2. his teens in the English Midlands. THE FIRST GOD CREATING FROM HIS OWN BODY ADAM & EVE. essays allegorical stories and drawings . WHO IN THE FORM OF A WINGED SOUL IS FLYING INTO THE BEYOND. and so on until we hit someone who is safely dead? Better still. and the last year or two of his life in London.could be Mormegil Draconis: and even if my whole nature were “modelled” or “simulated” on a computer. it is not worth much. spent his boyhood in Canada. no other human . born 1986 at the Cape. Surely. and unique indeed to each one of us . It would seem that social norms are going to deteriorate if parents are to be held responsible for the crimes of their progeny. I am a little perturbed at your account of the Year BLEEP. John Smith’s parents could have passed the buck back to their parents. all crimes (and likewise all achievements) could thus be shovelled back to the First Cause.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins If your sense of achievement can only hold up its head by handicapping the competition and crying ‘no-fair! when someone else appears to do it better. I would suggest that innocent computers should not be exposed to violent pornographic works like the Bible. Only a human life can create that unique human life. We have now demolished the notion of personal responsibility entirely. THRUSTING THEM AWAY FROM HIM THAT HE MAY CONTINUE HIS INWARD TURNING SEARCH FOR HIS GOD. it would be no more in principle than a photograph or a biography. The title reads: GOD OF ISRAEL. All the while this nonsense is indulged. we mask the discovery of that true Achievement which is uniquely human.  .

it would seem very bit as real as our world does to us. of some form or another.THE STARWING DIALOGUE First published in Arrow 16 The last Johnstone’s Paradox article (Johnstone’s Paradox Revisited) actually prompted a live response. together with a model of the world they inhabited. The Starwing letter is long enough to count as an article in its own right. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins already existing human being. the second replying to Starwing’s article. and Krystal? In the early sixties I heard a talk by Gregory in which he suggested that future computers. This ensured that the memory of the experience would be recorded in the physical brain. But how could such a model imitate my every utterance. Secondly the Mystic’s body was isolated and replaced with sensory input from the model within Krystal’s world. to her. unless it also possessed an identical consciousness of self In other words my mind would now be existing within the computer. his image in the ‘dream world’. the first replying to Mormegil’s footnotes. So what I was imagining in my story was a computer of such ability. would be able to reproduce the human mind.BLAST your way to 8 . Firstly it was printed in Arrow 15 with editorial footnotes added by Mormegil Draconis. and secondly there was an article by Starwing in the same edition raising interesting questions about the story of Krystal and her relationship with the Last Mystic. Curious readers will have to get hold of the relevant back issues of Arrow (numbers 15 and 16). The next step. Thank you for your interesting and flattering comment on my Johnstone’s Paradox article. But the limitation of space means that the Mormegil dialogue and Starwing’s own words have not been included. What had I in mind for the relationship between the Last Mystic. If this were not done the two (initially identical) minds would diverge into two different minds as physical body and computer model lived out their different experiences. But to the Last Mystic it was just invisible information flow in the interior of a computer. he suggested. would match the existing programs).e. This was done in two stages: brain scanners read the information from his brain into computer memory and his mind and body were then modelled by the computer. until he ‘materialised’ into that world. Arrow 16 contained two substantial letters from Ramsey Dukes. By this he meant that it would for example be possible to hold conversation in depth with such a computer and have no way of telling that you were not speaking to a human being. would be to model an   .g. so it is included here for the sake of completeness. He then returned to his physical body with all the usual amount of memory recall 8 The Starwing Dialogue Dear Starwing. Both were printed as dialogue with further responses from their respective addressees. This was Krystal’s world and. gesture and reflex perfectly. but larger so that it could contain the consciousness of a whole world of beings. which then devised a suitable entry into Krystal’s world (e. descent from a flying saucer) that would not do violence to the laws of that world (i. Then the Mystic descended into Krystal’s world and lived there until the flying saucer came back for him a fortnight later (in Krystal’s time).

why it was created. its relationship with the other reality. whether we were created consciously or by accident. history and myth in the light of the assumption that this world is as described above: this “academic” approach throws light on a lot of puzzles. and sought an “ideal” With a whole planet of superb job. Was there ever a first universe from which all 8 The Starwing Dialogue Had none been sufficiently close to the ideal it would have been able to arrange one anyway by selective breeding. Thirdly you can explore the possibilities in a purely abstract. Once the computer had had the it did a “computer-dating” job partner from Krystal’s world. All it says is that. Having explained a little more clearly what was in my mind when I wrote the article. This interesting line of meditation I recommend to Arrow readers. but each casts light on the other. but is an image created by the ordering of information in another universe which lies outside our space and time. But also recognise that you have raised other more basic questions and that the answers to these may never be known by me: in fact. Basically you can set off in three directions. but can be overlooked by those who miss the early argument: Johnstone’s Paradox says absolutely nothing about the way in which our world was created. But what about Krystal? input from the Mystic. or whatever.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins of his fortnight’s holiday. because it was desired that the Mystic should fall in love with someone within the existing dreamworld. I have “answered” your comment insofar as it would have been conversationally impolite to have remained silent. for the timescale within Krystal’s world was not necessarily the same as ours: so a few generations might pass in an hour or two. studying the implications of Johnstone’s Paradox is no longer the lonely preserve of one man. You can re-study scripture. thanks to your reply. it will suggest an even greater Mystery. plus a few bruises and other “psychosomatic stigmata” resulting from the struggle to get him to re-enter the flying saucer. beings to choose from it did a more general terms. So may I take this opportunity of writing in   . Or you imagine how future people in our world might use their ability to create new worlds: this “science-fiction” approach is a great creative exercise. to encourage others to research along these lines? First a point of clarification that is very obvious. That is where Johnstone’s Paradox begins and ends. To have created a whole new world to contain a perfect Anima for the Mystic would have been a bit expensive. rather than a perfect Anima. and to have created and entered an Anima into the dreamworld would have meant that the love affair would have been between two ‘angels’ rather than an ‘angel’ and a ‘human’: this would have made it less poignant. then. The fun starts when we (arbitrarily) accept the conclusion and see what possibilities it opens up. Krystal was a “best fit”. if the reductionist “nothing but” theory of the universe eventually triumphs. This is because it would then seem that our universe is not “real” in any absolute sense. and throws up delightful parallels. instead of destroying Mystery. Here are some examples of questions posed by the last approach. philosophical manner.

and wonder why such mastery did not lead to an early technological revolution. Begin by the simple assumption that our apparent reality is in fact an illusion created by information programmed in a different universe outside our space and time. if we assume that those early settlers came from the higher universe. in the third article (essay 3) I showed how the bizarre and apparently paradoxical findings of particle physicists seem much less bizarre when you ask yourself what sort of discoveries might be expected to be made by beings in a programmed reality when they tried to analyse the basic elements of their reality. Again. telepathic communications and paranormal phenomena all make more sense if we see them as invasions from a higher universe. But this answer poses other problems: why no remains of their vehicle? Why no return visits before the TV cameras or reliable witnesses? So let us replace these stories of spacemen with the story of a higher universe that became overcrowded (or otherwise uninhabitable) and whose inhabitants chose to abandon 8 The Starwing Dialogue   . Similarly all the “chariots of the gods” theories of Von Daniken can be retold. or enjoy feedback from a universe it has created? This philosophical enquiry throws up a multitude of possibilities.the associated folklore of “men in black”. or not of free will in this programmed universe. one answer is that these structures were designed by shipwrecked astronauts from a higher civilisation who were doing their best to exercise their higher intellect in the crude world in which they were trapped. rather than from a far distant star. rather than from our outer space. with certain paradoxes resolved. telepathy. and very few obvious restrictions. If you accept the evidence of advanced scientific thinking that is reflected in ancient structures like Stonehenge. Now extend your exploration by considering the possibility that beings from a higher reality might be able to interact with our reality. or was it a universe of unimaginable simplicity (like the original binary universe of Spencer Brown’s “Laws of Form”) from which increasingly complex universes have evolved? If there was not a first universe. As I explained in the second Johnstone’s Paradox article (essay 2 in this book) this simplest assumption justifies synchronicity and all systems of divination. One way of sorting this multitude is to move to the academic approach. but let us make no assumptions about the possible beings that created it. and in the forth article (essay 7) 1 explained how it supported the concept of angels. manipulate. Another question concerns the existence. For a start it gives a new understanding of the traditional view that the world of matter is all illusion. telekinesis. but an infinite chain. was it a complex universe like ours. or did it evolve automatically from a previous universe? Then what is the relationship between the universes? Does a higher universe react with.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins the others have descended? If there was. and study existing evidence to see how it supports these possibilities. archangels and gods that permeate our reality.outside time. is that chain evolving with time. it also sup- ports reincarnation. and was our universe created deliberately by conscious being(s). or is it an unimaginable circle (the serpent eating its tail) so that the last universe ever creates the first universe . The curious behaviours of flying saucers . Even this very simple assumption throws a lot of light on certain debates.

This middle class was a potentially dangerous. All the same. divine inspiration and the meaning of one’s True Will.well almost. for these travelers came from “outside of space and time”. Finally let us turn to the “science-fiction” approach. The population density was such that nearly all available space was required for food production. because of the relativistic limits to space colonisation. Then may of the old problems physical are resolved. so soldiers used to be abandoned in the wilderness armed with only a knife and a groundsheet. it was also a haven to those evolved sages who needed peace to explore their inner selves and to aspire to mystical bliss. I also modelled such themes as the birth of Christ. no soldier was ever fully fledged unless he had some experience of active wartime service. but not clever enough to create their own challenges. But what can take the place of the Outward Bound school? There was not much real challenge in climbing Ben Nevis in January anymore. and pointed out how his descent into the sub-universe left it with a myth about angels and the daughters of men which sounds strikingly like the one that already exists in our world. World government had abolished war. In the second article (essay 2) 1 considered the creation theories of Rudolf Steiner. technology had abolished famine. Think what we might do if we were able to create subuniverses. How used an army to train its men in the past? By setting up assault courses to force them to tackle hardship. there was a snag. devise competitive team games and you educate them up to a point. Next one can reconsider mystical writings in the light in the possibility that their writers may have gained some awareness of the true nature of our programmed universe. and life extension demanded a very low birth-rate. controlled the elements and eliminated crime . Surviving a week in these circumstances taught things that no ordinary assault course could teach. In the forth article (essay 7) 1 told the story of the Last Mystic. So let me leave you with my latest science fiction future.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins their old bodies and continue their consciousness in new bodies within newly created universes. and see what the results would be. and I will embellish it with italicised comments to explain how our decisions when creating a sub-universe cast light on certain metaphysical problems which haunt the denizens of that subuni-verse. 8 The Starwing Dialogue   . You see. The Brave New World had arrived. As a result there was a very stable society that was a haven to those too stupid to ask for more than food and entertainment. disruptive element that could all to easily resort to crime unless there was some way of elevating them by education. but bearing in mind that they lived in the days before computer science had given them a language with which to describe this awareness. But it was hell to a middle class who were clever enough to want challenge. because firstly the weather men no longer allowed dangerous weather there. in the light of this idea. So how could this dangerous middle class be educated now? Challenge them with elaborate assault courses. and of the Kabalists. But no assault course could ever match a solo battle against the elements.

So El Vismit studies the form for a while. to feel its physical pain and pleasure. a much better educational experience. Thus Elvis Smith came to be born into Hollywood’s jetsetting Smith family. or as evolutionary forerunners of the physical human (scientific view)) . as an Elizabethan street minstrel) and had learned a lot about resisting hardship. Depending upon the individual’s record to date he would be allocated a certain level of handicap in his next round or “incarnation” (i e Karma from previous incarnations) . For this and other reasons he was told he must now endure an incarnation into a family of idle-rich socialites. and eventually puts in the highest bid for a particular foetus. for example. This is why El Vismit chose him: a compatible nature would be more open to communication. Also Steiner’s suggestion that archetypal Man pre-existed in a higher world. a rather tough and antisocial character. how was it to be used? One possibility would be to allow your trainees to control a human body like a puppet. with “nature red in tooth and claw” (hence ‘the problem of Evil’) . which offer the greatest challenges or chances for Karmic improvement. but had developed rather antisocial habits. Elvis was. So how can we present a real challenge in such an ordered world? The answer is to devise the ultimate ‘total commitment’ assault course: ie an “Outward Bound” universe! The universe that is created is a harsh one. had a series of rather tough incarnations (as a slave in Athens.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins and secondly the whole mountain was covered with pheronome sensors which could detect a frightened human and automatically launch a robot rescue helicopter within seconds. But this 8 The Starwing Dialogue   . This would be to use the world like an assault course. but it would be no more than a glorified “board game”. weighing up the various vacancies. This is the greatest challenge because it leaves you with a vehicle (the human being) that is utterly committed to its world. Evolution was directed towards the creation of a suitable android vehicle . for reasons of genetics and early background. This might be educational. so that physical animals can equally be viewed as incomplete or overspecialised fragments of the human (mystical view).the “ homo sapiens” (hence “man created in God’s image”. (This system was necessary to protect the hordes of trippers). but to mount it as a rider mounts a horse. Once a human species was evolved. But there is a third possibility: to leave the mind of the human as it is. El Vismit. seeing which which fit him best. as a poor Celt under Saxon invasion. it puts the rider in a very close relationship with the human (yet without damaging the human’s essentially “earth-bound” nature because: a) the rider is utterly dependent upon the vehicle and at its mercy. ) So this is how the middle classes were educated in a specially constructed “school of life”. but still limited because the mind would know it was just an assault course and would be likely to commit suicide or otherwise withdraw when the struggle got too bad. It would be better for the trainee’s consciousness to enter into the human body. but b) the rider has the possibility of ‘taming’ his vehicle and gaining a measure of control over it.

El Vismit found himself on a bucking bronco during Elvis’ teens. Very incomplete souls can often enter Elvis’ world in a purely abstract capacity as spirits or demons. only that part of him which manages to identify with El Vismit). Elvis found himself drawn towards social work. feeling the jerk of the reins and the pain of the spurs but without understanding their message. Elvis is well able to resist El Vismit and follow his “lower” nature alone. but El Vismit was still sorry that another incarnation had passed without the body having any real Knowledge and Conversation of its Holy Guardian Angel: Elvis had begun to sense El Vismit. But the most sought after prize is a human incarnation ( cf. then he had a chance to communicate with i t (or giving it a glimpse of its True Will) . 8 Note that El Vismit had to pay for his incarnation: the currency was Karma. but I do not think that El Vismit has the power to dismount before death: he is utterly committed and is at the mercy of his own failure. The more this co-operation is developed the more Elvis becomes one with El Vismit (cf. Then and only then was El Vismit wise enough to be released as a free citizen of his own world. and that numberless Gods await the human state) and these discarnate spirits will try to grab the reins if they can (cf possession and obsession) . It is not the lower Elvis that will reincarnate. and a disreputable year of petty crime in slum areas. but had never actually realised him. Elvis at last managed to reconcile his family to his social work. El Vismit’s less advanced brethren might have to opt for an animal incarnation for more elementary practice. and a Roman slave in former lives. A long hard struggle developed between Elvis. But a life is not necessarily any easier. Before he died. but he will do so under difficulty. But after dropping out of high-school. If these obstacles. and the subtle sense of aimlessness or dissatisfaction goad him into some measure of co-operation with his ‘higher self’ (cf individuation) then a greater sense of purpose arises. but men are few. This restored El Vismit’s Karmic balance considerably. It took two more incarnations before El Vismit managed to awaken his steed. a poor Celt. but in order to fulfil some task. Jung’s VII Sermones which suggest that the Gods are many. and even the meanest incarnation costs a lot. One thing that encouraged him (though he never told anyone else) was an old gypsy clairvoyant who told him he had been an Elizabethan street minstrel. his chosen work. The horse and rider analogy is perhaps a good one.BLAST your way to caused a lot of problems in his socialite childhood milieu and Elvis became rather violent. and his family background. because El Vismit has his own Karmic debts to pay: you do not break in a horse in order to leave it grazing. the development of a soul that can reincarnate as described by Gurdjieff. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The Starwing Dialogue   . and another five before he managed an almost totally conscious incarnation and lead a human being into Buddhahood. A very advanced being could hit jackpot and reincarnate consciously (cf. This was El Vismit’s first big success: one reason why he had bid so high for this incarnation was that he saw all along that once he had got Elvis’ body out of his family circle and into the slums. and some of the family fortune was diverted into charitable trusts.

By a cleverly low-profile guerrilla attack they managed to slip Jesus into the works despite a wholesale massacre of babies: but they only succeeded because everyone was   .. Note also that there is co-operation rather than rivalry between those. it would not co-operate and began to cause trouble in their world. just to “pull out the plug”. the strong feelings that had evolved in their created universe. I mentioned early on that the three different approaches are complimentary and can cast light on each other: my italicised comments give give some idea of how this approach could provide insights to fuel the academic approach. they cut off its inputs into their world. but in the long term safer way as suggested in the El Vismet story.. Once the world had evolved a suitable human vehicle for their purposes.. This corruption spread and caused the collapse of Atlantis. and this terrific evolutionary boost led to a technically and socially precocious civilisation in a primitive world. As ‘punishment’ for this pride. Unfortunately they did not make sufficient allowance for the strength of the minds they had entered. but unfortunately their creation proved rather wilful. and love it too much. So that is one theory thrown up by the Science-fiction approach.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins some Buddhist ideas). in prehistory. This produced a much more dramatic raising of consciousness. This would suggest that the first attempts by our creators to “enter” our universe were misjudged. or for their own protection. The Starwing Dialogue Now about the Devil. 8 But the lesson was learned: from then on the higher mind stood behind the scenes in the unconscious and directed the evolution of the lower mind in this slower. now his creators have been forced into more subtle methods to win back their territory: they are trying to lure mankind into enlightenment. So the world that was created is itself a conscious entity. As a direct result of this he managed to repulse one invasion of ‘his’ territory when he corrupted the Atlanteans. in human incarnation: the more enlightened humans there are the better chance each rider has of taming his steed in this or future incarnations. and this “lower nature” in some cases overwhelmed the higher mind that had entered it. there was a precociously advanced civilisation but that it turned bad and was virtually wiped out. My basic assumption all along is that the programmed ordering of information leads to the creation of some form of consciousness. In his turn Lucifer has fought back. The myth of Atlantis suggests that. this consciousness is the ‘supreme god’ of that world... like El Vismit. they entered into a conscious rapport and lived directly in the human mind. Two examples will illustrate how the academic approach can cast light on this model: the myth of Atlantis and the concept of the Devil. The creators have invested to much into their creation. In other words Lucifer was cast out of heaven. they begun by doing the obvious thing: instead of forming an unconscious link with the human mind as suggested. instilled an element of his own willfulness into the most highly evolved species in the world. Now the creators of this world initially had their own plans for its use.

you discover that I have invented a model of our reality that offers interesting insights into the nature of creation. In reply our creators say “Lucifer can only look inwards. the antichrist is once more in full control and his message is as follows: 1. on the other hand. nobody is going to pull out the plug”. of Evil. am one of you. by asking “was this world really created for the purpose of educating the likes of El Vismit. but part of the same creation. mankind are being used. I’m not an outsider. as Mary Stewart Relfe assures us. he does not know the full details of the Divine Plan we have for you. of spiritual attainment and of diarrhoea. of True Will. The philosophical approach makes its own contribution here.BLAST your way to expecting the invasion to take the form of a conquering king at that time. You. And it’s bed time. of free will. Trust us. I will show you that your true self lies within this world. But I myself have so exhausted myself in the process that I have quite lost track of what I was writing about. And don’t worry. not in some higher world. Now. I. So shake off these so called ‘divine influences’ and follow me. So best wishes from Ramsey Dukes 8 The Starwing Dialogue Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins   . or was it created for some other purpose which was thwarted by Lucifer’s ‘fall’? If so is El Vismit’s education a byproduct of a genuine battle to conquer territory created by Lucifer since his fall?” Picking with Discrimination’s Medicated Chopsticks through my verbal diarrhoea. of Karma. This ‘higher nature’ that tries to ‘elevate’ mankind is no more working for mankind than the ‘higher nature’ in the flour mill which sets out to refine the flour into white flour. after all even he trusts us not to pull out the plug”.

It is the old dream of imposing the stamp of your will irrevocably on existence. as I decided to look back at some other ideas. Yet i do recognise the this problem with fourfold schemes. This is is typified by a cranky statement I heard on television this week: “the 60s didn’t change anything . or philosophy. and this leads to conflict or rejection.even if many of them have responded by with principles which oppose those of the hippies. and if psychedelic music had dominated the charts for evermore. and the book ‘The Good The Bad The Funny’ presents my solution. for example. the SSOTBME model in this chapter has been a useful compass to me because i never spent much time worrying whether. The media’s perception of the hippy phenomenon of the 60s seems quite bizarre to me. and the media still live in that dream. In this case I chose my ropey predictions in Chapter Nine of SSOTBME (original edition) to see if a bit of fudging could improve on them.CHAPTER NINE OF SSOTBME REVISITED First published in Arrow 17 The success of Johnstone’s Paradox Revisited must have gone to my head. oversimple models or principles. To the media there would be only one proof of success for the 60s: if we had become locked in time with no further change of fashion. The world is full of signs that people have learned these lessons . Though some folks despise neat. I still quite like the article that resulted. I hear tv barons describe their hobby as “the most powerful medium in the history of civil- 9 SSOTBME Revisited Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The problem with any fourfold scheme is that it tends to be resolved by our minds into pairs of opposites.BLAST your way to 9 . Perhaps the answer is to use the scheme rather than think about it? An orienteer makes good use of his compass without getting into tangles about the ‘North/South divide’ or ‘East/West’ disputes. and quite out of step with observation and individual opinion. and a desire to turn the clock back to the wrong moments.her chauvinism and moral crusading would have been laughed out of court.   .things are worse now”! (I hope the “nuclear button” never gets into the hands of people who believe that things are unchanged when you make them worse. Mrs Thatcher could never have become Prime Minister in the satirical atmosphere of the late fifties and early sixties .) I see profound changes spreading like ripples from the 60s. economics was art or science. Hippy ideology has taught us that it is ok to have principles and that you can turn back the clock at the same time as you turn it forward.

Mrs Thatcher is an unwitting avatar of chaos. Firstly the data: this can come from two directions. rather than less so now. Several occultist friends were feeling disillusioned. but why should I assume that you want to be convinced? SSOTBME Any conscious act/thought involves a) data to be processed. than any genuine reappraisal of the values of material existence. the changes that the hippies wanted to see does not deny their existence. To save repeating myself I must reproduce the argument as scantily as possible: that won’t make it very convincing. or even approximately. So much for power: all I see is a deluded system tossed about like froth on the surface of deep tides totally beyond its grasp. In the same way I cannot respect today’s materialistic attitudes: they are too much on the surface and too hysterical: they look more like the behaviour of adolescents who have been brought up to believe in spiritual values and who are rebelling against them in order to provoke God into manifestation.the sort of reaction one would expect from a person of troubled conscience. bookshop keepers reported a drop in sale of occult books. and such Festivals as ‘Mind & Body’ seemed to be losing their popular support. “Home” is.   . But I do not yet see a whole-hearted embracing of the material world. This old dream . They have more of the quality of hysterical behaviour before the bomb drops. either from ‘without’ or from ‘within’.cannot survive in face of what we know about the unpredictability of turbulent systems.my article in Arrow 15 . because to make any change is to invoke uncertainty. I see many changes since the 60s: the fact that they are not precisely. however. it felt more like something that a schoolmaster would recognise: society was behaving like a class of lively kids who were trying to provoke teacher into disciplining them.of the powerful manipulator who moulds history to his will . b) a way of processing it. and came up with the following. I was reminded of Chapter Nine in SSOTBME. indeed I would have overlooked the slight change of balance were it not for a growing impression that the public in general were losing their fascination with the occult. We cannot now believe in the old duality of those who are working for good and those who are working for evil. 9 SSOTBME Revisited Johnstone’s Paradox Revisited .BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins isation”. The new duality is between those who wish to keep things as they are.actually provoked a response! This was so encouraging that I decided to dig around for something else worth revisiting. It is often pointed out that the world is more materialistic. but when you ask why they show so much rubbish on television they are quick to point out that they are at the mercy of the “ratings” and the advertisers. far from the surface that denies it. Data from ‘without’ comes via the senses: I call this ‘observation’. and those who wish change. During 1982 I realised that the focus of my interests had shifted from occultism to the performing arts: nothing very sudden or extreme. Somewhere I wrote that the aggressive revolutionary mood of the mid-70s did not feel like genuine revolution to me. all I see is a hysterical outward expression of shallow greed . The gurus of the 60s have given us their messages and they have sunk home.

I recall how my own observation grew so strong that I began to notice the flaws in scientific thought and the areas of life it could not explain away: so I inclined 9 SSOTBME Revisited THE PERSONAL CYCLE A new born baby has very little store of memories and prejudices. so do not interpret these four terms too precisely. Thus we begin our lives as ‘magical’ thinkers. Many wondrous secrets of the universe are distilled for the amazement and delight of the enquiring reader from this simple idea in SSOTBME. Artistic. But I argue that this cycle does not stop at adolescence. So we evolve into ‘Artistic’ thinking. but we still have not mastered real logic.’ demands the teenager. quickly sensing things which ‘go together’ even when the logical link between them is very obscure: this process I call ‘feeling’. like North South East West. Religious. and a growing awareness of the outside world moves us into ‘Scientific’ thinking: ‘just give me one good reason why I can’t stay out all night. Still living off our rich inner worlds. This rather seriousminded phase of ‘Religious’ thinking lasts until after 13 when logic grows to dominate intuition. And it processes its observations more by feeling than logic (‘big soft pink things are to be sucked’). rational thinking’. To a rationalist the above passage is just a rather quaintly worded model of the evolution of thought through various primitive stages towards ‘adult. we begin to wonder why things are as they are. Scientific. a golden age when we live out myths of fairies and dragons and can believe in them when we want to: the armchair is a space ship when we play with it. but I still think the four words used are fairly appropriate. so it is very much an observer as opposed to intuitive.BLAST your way to Data from ‘within’ comes via memory. rationally: I call this ‘logic’. Still living off our rich inner worlds.   . Secondly the data processing: You can link ideas logically. a golden age when we live out myths of fairies and dragons and can believe in them when we want to: the armchair is a space ship when we play with it. they are very broad categories. and in the original edition’s Chapter Nine it is considered in evolutionary terms as follows. but we still have not mastered real logic. so these four categories really only indicate directions. Remember two things: firstly any division into just four categories must be very coarse. inspiration etc: I call this ‘intuition’. rather than watertight compartments. Secondly. So we evolve into ‘Artistic’ thinking. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins By the age 4-5 we have built up an inner world of memories which begins to overwhelm observation and shift the emphasis toward intuition. all human thinking is an elaborate mixture of all elements. prejudice. Around 9 or so the growing sense of intuition has overwhelmed feeling and the reasoning power grows stronger. we be inner world of memories which begins to overwhelm observation and shift the emphasis toward intuition. Around 9 or so the growing sense of intuition has overwhelmed feeling and the reasoning power grows stronger. Two methods of input (observation and intuition) combine with two types of processing (logic and feeling) to give four kinds of thinking which I call Magical. Or you can link them aesthetically.

which tends to obscure the shifting emphasis in adult years. 9 SSOTBME Revisited THE GENERATION CYCLE Now occult cycles tend to ‘nest’. After world war one public excitement moved from magical to artistic expression. Tracing the cycle backward I would expect to find an early Victorian ‘artistic’ boom (perhaps this set the style for ‘Victoriana’?) and before that another occult revival. Theatre posters of that age are so rich in occult symbolism (bowls of incense. it suggests that the Edwardian occult revival could have been a reaction against late Victorian materialism. Why this flirtation with the occult? As the previous (late Victorian) generation of theatre posters reveal a craze for public scientific demonstrations.but becomes less and less clearcut. did it not last for about one generation? Now I know that the real occult revival is not totally dead.the Young Man with Sports Car. an obsession with dancing and jazz. dancing marathons etc. Sure enough. etc. which does one circuit in one generation. but let us isolate exactly what it is that has flared up an died away so quickly. . something lives on.until the ‘saturn return’ and the approaching age of 30 makes us once more seriously question our real purpose in life. and a spate of publicity stunts like long-distance flying records. lurid exposes of witches.) that this ‘art nouveau’ style was actually one of the main sources of inspiration for the recent psychedelic style. But if we go back four generations (I assume about 18 years for a generation. 21 years in the past) we reach the Edwardian age before the first world war. So this cycle. and there came the roaring twenties which saw the popularisation of so many modern art movements. The cycle moves on . And the late Victorian public flirtation with science had followed the rise of Darwinism. Egyptian gods etc. like wheels within wheels: each sephiroth contains a whole tree of life. might lie inside a bigger cycle which runs at one quarter of the speed. but it might have been more like   . Is there any evidence of this? Let us consider the recent occult revival. So let us trace this apparent cycle forwards to the present.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins toward magical thinking as a student. and what must have looked like the fall of religion. sensational coverage of parascience. just as the hippy generation reacted against 50s materialism. Surely it is this: between the early sixties and the beginning of the eighties the public got its kicks from occultism. the Newlyweds. because most of us will have developed a natural bias towards one of the four directions. books on black magic and record covers littered with occult symbolism. This was the age when the Golden Dawn attracted public attention and so many occult orders briefly flourished. After 23 or so we once more act out myths . I find evidence that in the early 1820s fashionable society was obsessed with spiritualism. at the age when so many of us become interested in the occult. each sign contains the germ of the whole zodiac.

rather than talked about.. But we used these gadgets (sometimes a little coyly) rather than raved about them. When we reacted against 50s materialism we did not throw away our transistor radios. ultra-midget jet-propelled’ days of the fifties. in terms of this cycle. I see some differences. and it began to fade in the early sixties. we were merely less inclined to show them off. to talk for ages about ‘mysterious psychic powers’. technology seemed to offer enough wonders to make the public forget politics. On the strength of this slender evidence. and their women had grown independent. or have the gift of recognising astrological types. So. and this ‘scientific’ obsession lasted until the first sputniks. PREDICTIONS First question: Does this mean the end of occultism? Was the whole magical revival a mere passing fad? Not at all. It was mostly a lot of froth. for example. There was surely more widespread technology about in 1970 than in 1950. and to be proud to believe there might ‘really be something in astrology’. man!’ I also witness a growing tendency for record-breaking stunts as a route to fleeting fame. more portable radios and so on. So my first prediction for the 80s is that sales of occult books will not recover. Occultism will be practiced. The punks are surely the spiritual heirs to the dadaists: those fiercely anarchic ‘anti-artists’ who.. dare I make predictions? Of course not! Oh. whereas ten years ago we used to sit crosslegged to listen to our music. held exhibitions of ‘junk’ in public lavatories. we are in a position equivalent to the position around 1920..BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Out of this crazy spell the public emerged into a more serious mood. but that the books bought will be 9 SSOTBME Revisited   . In 1970 the general public attitude was to get frightfully excited if you met someone who ‘actually practiced witchcraft’. here goes. and this showed in a growing dedication to political movements: the communists. I see some parallels. as we would have in the ‘super-sonic. but that they ‘never bothered to mention the fact’. After world war two. what the hell. At the end of world war one the Luton town hall was burned down by angry ex-soldiers who had returned from the trenches to find they were unemployed. I can see the time coming shortly when people will discover than many of their acquaintances are witches. The Festival of Britain was a festival of technology. fascists and green shirts of the thirties and early forties. They evolved toward religious thinking for kicks. I note that so much present day pop music is monotonously dancerhythmic. and occasionally murmur such biting critical comments as ‘far-out. more electronics in our music. Now I do not really believe that the ‘great occult explosion’ we have witnessed has really given birth to many great adepts as yet. actually practice yoga for fifteen minutes a day.

. At the end of world war one both film and radio were. an initiatory journey akin to that trod by the celebrants at Eleusis. to the general public.every bit as profound and fruitful as the wonderment engendered by a great film or play. souls in a turmoil of wonderment. Two great new art forms had come of age. b) how boldly or tentatively he pushes the buttons. Such a machine could present a tailor-made series of ordeals that would amount of an initiatory journey for each individual player.BLAST your way to rather better used than those bought in the recent past. Now I find this very interesting. Occultism will become a rather more everyday matter. whatever its fans try to claim for it. amazing possibilities could emerge. (TV is only really mini-cinema. based upon such considerations as: a) how fast he reacts to different stimuli. But it is so crude. By the beginning of the thirties it was possible to go to the cinema for a profoundly moving experience. That is why they could claim to be a totally new art form. When this interaction grows more subtle. Secondly. Imagine a video game machine which could make judgments about the person playing it. and radio serials could keep families on tenterhooks for night after night. Two totally new art forms emerged into the thirties: radio and cinema. Dungeons & Dragons is an attempt to lead the soul on a mystery quest. So what could be totally new? Let us consider new art forms rather than movements. The trouble with present-day occult initiation is the cynical realisation that the adept at whose feet you sit is probably only human. There has not been any other really new art form since. Video games bore me to death. 9 SSOTBME Revisited   . d) freudian slips etc. little more than technical diversions for low-brow amusement. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The essential difference between video games and television lies in the vital ingredient of spectator interaction. Now I can immediately think of one 19890s technical diversion that is far from being Great Art: video games are in their infancy. where television could not. all too human: how would you feel about a machine that can analyse you in minutes and outwit you at every turn? I predict that by the year 2000 [woops!hasn’t happened to me yet! The games hardware hasn’t yet incorporated the skin resistance ‘lie detector’ into the joy-stick to monitor the players level of arousal] we will be able to come out of a games arcade with tears on our cheeks. what about this revival of fascination with the arts? There should be a growth of new movements in the arts if the cycle runs true to form. and electronic music also dates from the earlier era). c) changing skin resistance as certain words or situations are presented on the screen. because it is all too easy to believe that there can be nothing left in the way of artistic expression that was not tried out in the 1920s. but I see potential.

all ye sons and reincarnations of the Beast. occultism earned respect because decent occultists publicly divorced themselves from ‘those lunatics that give occultism a bad name’. because they will simply collapse before the laughter of the rather more cynical public of the 80s. [ A l l hail Marilyn Manson!] I can see the progression of public crazes from science. And I heard more straight commonsense being spoken in that group than I’d heard for a long time elsewhere’. nervously he approaches magic in search of the miraculous. what are the prospects for ‘over the top’ occultism? The recent revival of occultism owed a lot to those sensible. alas. then they will never answer my invocation anyway. By playing so safe. a bank clerk. On the other hand if some bearded. [Perhaps those ‘Satan’ scandals of the late 80s and early 90s fitted the bill?] 9 SSOTBME Revisited   . becloaked and wild eyed being does storm into the public arena with a fusillade of smoke bombs and a twirling of magic wands. a psychologist. for All is forgiven!’ How dare I perpetrate this outrage? Because I argue thus: granted that 99% of those mega-thelemites might Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins have been mere empty shells of ego inflation being born aloft on the spume of public sensationalism. wild-eyed mega-thelemites of 1973. Yes. and I’ve kept the most lurid one to the end. the very sensibleness of magic eventually begins to pall. or something. Relief! his fears were unfounded! Magic is not madness. down-to-earth occultists who showed the public that we were not all crazy. a computer salesman.BLAST your way to Third question. perhaps it was madness that was really wanted all along? So we progress into the artistic craze and it lasts until a growing sense of guilt. claiming to know the secrets of the universe (and being prepared to sell them for some extortionate sum of money) then my immediate 1983 reaction might not be ‘that lunatic is giving occultism a bad name’ but rather ‘Wow! I admire such courage’. he finds an acceptable alternative to rationalism but. come back. leads us out of it. The essence of the typical positive magazine article on the occult ten years ago was as follows: ‘I was so surprised to find that in my quiet little neighbourhood. There I had my second surprise: far from being a bunch of wildeyed whackos they were all really nice down-to-earth people from all walks of life: a teacher. In these terms the ‘over the top’ magician could have a real place in the 1980s. three housewives. calling itself the Antichrist. through magic. that it took me some time to pluck up courage to go along to one of their meetings. yet this repeated denial of those lunatics is now in danger of becoming a mechanical catch phrase. are we perhaps throwing away too much? Here follows an outrageous invocation: ‘O ye big. hairy. there should actually be a group of people who took an interest in these weird ideas. to art in these terms: a person grows weary of the stolid know-all-the-answers certainties of rationalism.

devise a ‘heavy metal’ magical philosophy to make Kenneth Grant read like Beatrix Potter. Faster moving cycles are more fun. hardpressed theories. Raspberries on toast. cosmic level and see if Ramsey can flog a little more juice out of his poor. then a very different picture emerges. not ‘two thousand years. 9 SSOTBME Revisited AQUARIAN AGE Now I have written at length about a fleeting human cycle of merely 75 years duration. So that is my third prediction: although the mainstay of occultism in the 80s is going to be very practical and ‘unexciting’ [the ‘New Age’ fitted the bill on that account]. but the soul does yearn for more depth. saw Jupiter and Venus about to bestow their generous favours upon certain sensitive points of his horoscope. he was still basically quite a nice person. with a remarkable show of good taste. How much was his own innate degeneracy. important. in financial straits. In view of our high expectations of the occult revival in 1970. So he made a pact with Fate and filled in a football pool coupon. Aleister Crowley decided to give up magic and to concentrate his attention on poetry.’ However Fate. it takes humility. In fact Ramsey was not prepared to sacrifice All for the Cause. mountain climbing and such pursuits. But in the 20s he re-emerged to fame as the ‘wickedest man in the world’. What happened to the Age of Aquarius? Around 1970 it was very tempting to equate the coming of the Age of Aquarius with the flourishing hippy movement.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Consider again the transition from Edwardian occultism to the roaring 20s. saying ‘make me a pools millionaire and I will buy a mansion. can turn to see what remains. Ramsey reckons that was because of his unconquered ego: amongst all the glare of publicity. walked by and left Ramsey Dukes in financial straits.) But if you can recognise those facets of the occult revival which are merely transitory and. the outrage and the money. and announce myself as he Antichrist. does this mean I have made a mockery of the Age of Aquarius? If you believe that wearing a kaftan. fill it with weirdies. We have looked at the SSOTBME cycle at the human level. the scandal. (Don’t be misled by this cynicism: I do think that the hippy craze was very important. and how much was a genuine response to the need of the age? It does not just take courage to go ‘over the top’. as his detractors would have it. there will be a definite place open for a small but very intense brand of ‘over the top’ magic. Recently Ramsey Dukes. Ramsey would not have been able to resist the temptation of letting out the fact that. smoking dope while sitting cross legged and saying ‘far out man’ is truly the be-all of the Age of Aquarius then I would agree that in 1982 the last remains of the Age of Aquarius were finally scraped off the greasy plate of public adulation into the pedal bin of history. beneath it all. What I am saying is that it was ‘eighteen years’ important. let us now look at it at a slower. Some time after writing the Book of the Law. having isolated them. The   .

whether in the form of religion per se. states is most appropriate to the Age of Aquarius: Religion. Religion has been taken very seriously. Most of the wars of the Age of Pisces have been fought from a basically religious or political motivation. It arose from considering the SSOTBME model in a personal. but on a ‘cosmic’ level.e. By contrast it is easy to believe that wars of the two thousand years before the Age of Pisces were fought not so much for religious reasons as for greed.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins trouble with so doing is that the waning of the hippy movement then suggests the waning of the Age of Aquarius. Personally I feel that people expect too much too fast of the Age of Aquarius. and the equinoctial precession through Aquarius to Capricorn. So I would expect the Scientific spirit to rule the Age of Aquarius. Uranus. to an extent that makes the religions of the pre-christian era seem comparatively frivolous. human evolutionary context. and perhaps therefore make it easier in the long run to recognise true progress where it exists. or whether it has ‘really begun’. the ruler of Aquarius. The air signs are traditionally associated with logical reasoning. In the first part of this essay I argued that the hippy movement was not so a symptom of the 2000 year Age of Aquarius. If the SSOTBME cycle is relevant to that level. but I would not agree. But a 2000 year Age of Aquarius exists not on a human. and I predict that most of us will go to our graves still not knowing what its significance will be. invention. Magic or Art? Those of us too heavily programmed to equate the Age of Aquarius with the events around 1970 might jump to reply ‘Magic’. electronics. My concentration on the cycles could help us to recognise them for what they are. The last two thousand years have been dominated by what I called the ‘Religious’ spirit . but surely that is more a reference to the ‘magic of science’ or the working of wonders than to truly magical working. etc. In this case the previous age would have been ruled by the Religious spirit . I know there is a traditional attribution of ‘Uranus the Magician’. Science. A spiral of evolution is a useful concept. or in the form of strong political conviction..is this true? I think there can be little doubt as to this. then which of the four   . but still one well worth considering simply because it was much more immediate and relevant to everyday affairs. through Air to Earth. and such a spiral (or helical) motion can be analysed as the sum of a linear (progressive) and circular (cyclic) motion. i. as an 18-20 year generational effect: a much more fleeting and trivial cycle. Before saying any more about historical cycles I should point out that my emphasis on cycles is not meant to deny a progressive view of history. It was a cycle based on a ‘human’ timescale. is also ruler of science. There is a definite impression in that era of one nation becoming 9 SSOTBME Revisited THE COSMIC CYCLES My cycle of about 75 years was made up of 4 generations of about 18 years. is very suggestive of the SSOTBME cycle progression from logic to observation through the ‘Science’ sector.

and the Age of Aquarius is due to be ruled by the Scientific spirit. the phase that precedes the Religious phase is the ‘ Artistic’ phase. These were the centuries when the church was struggling against Gnostic. true to the model described earlier. far from marking an end point in human evolution. rational philosophy was dominant two thousand years ago. If the Age of Aquarius really is to be the Age of Science in these terms. and Alexander’s conquests are popularly associated with his collection of all the wisdom of the world into the great library he founded. Certainly the Romans were fascinated by the Greek culture. the age of King Arthur and the age in which most fairy tales are set. The two thousand years before Christ were ruled by the Artistic spirit. And although rationalists like to think of alchemy as a primitive superstition that gave birth to ‘real’ chemistry. it must be remembered that alchemy itself grew out of the very highly developed metallurgical technology of the preChristian arabs. In this way we see that within the Age of Pisces we have passed through four philosophical stages (readers with a better knowledge of history than myself will see from my cavalier use of historical generalisations that this is a ‘woolly theory’ that I am creating. So it is surprising to find that the same sceptical. until the year 1000 AD. 9 In China at the time writers were making a mockery of divination and astrology. It has been suggested that only their clumsy numerical system held the Greeks back from developing practical steam engines before the birth of Christ. and going to war in order to gain those treasures. the last two thousand years have been ruled by the Religious spirit. in the face of the progress made by Scientific philosophy. but they need not dis- SSOTBME Revisited   . Then from the eleventh to the sixteenth century Religious philosophy ruled men’s minds. Since the sixteenth century the earlier Religious ideas have been on the retreat. or gave way to. this Scientific philosophy evolved into. So I suggest that. using just the same sort of arguments that Patrick Moore would use today. how has it come to be associated so strongly with the occult revival? As when we considered the Personal and the Generational cycles I think the answer lies in the nested cycle that makes one complete circle in each two thousand year age: a cycle made up to four periods of five hundred years. a Magical philosophy of the Dark Ages that spanned the next five centuries. Neoplatonic and other magical philosophies. For the last five hundred years the dominant philosophy has been the rationalist philosophy that I attribute to the Science sector in the diagram. But. who were willing to bow down and worship just about anything it seems. bear the imprint of an Artistic philosophy: this was the age of Chivalry. and its treasures. The following five centuries. It is tempting to flatter ourselves into believing that this rational philosophy is a brand new invention without precedent among our primitive ancestors. What I am suggesting is that the rational Scientific philosophy held a dominant position in the five centuries before Christ which was similar to its position in the last five hundred years.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins fascinated by another nation’s culture.

it is also practiced by commercial combines but curiously enough the coming rulership of the Age of Aquarius by the Scientific spirit is also contributing to this decline. Cloaked in secrecy and coded in symbols. as before. any unusual scientific discoveries.this is not only done by national governments. or controversial experimental results produced in obscure laboratories. This is because science has been encouraged to grow so fast that it becomes the victim of its own divisive. nothing is more comforting than a woolly theory. It has grown so useful that. so long as it does not have too many holes in it. coupled with a growth of Magical philosophy in place of the Scientific philosophy of the last five centuries. freely communicating rational philosophy of that time. unmystical technology and it flourished thanks to the open minded. it is in danger of becoming muffled. Traditionally. spirit of the new Age of Pisces) into hushing up the technologists and forcing them to work in secret. In these terms the initial passage into the Age of Aquarius would be marked by two changes that might at first seem contradictory: a shift from the Religious spirit of the Age of Pisces to the Scientific spirit of the Age of Aquarius. To resolve the apparent contradiction I will give some examples of how this might happen. scientists find it increasingly difficult to communicate with each other simply because their work has become so specialised. Arabic science evolved into Alchemy. This process of free communication has 9 SSOTBME Revisited SCIENCE INTO MAGIC Consider the Arabic metallurgy that evolved into alchemy.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins miss it for that reason: when the wind of change blows cold.a manifestation of the Religious spirit. But around the time of Christ this technology became increasingly cloaked in secrecy. have usually been published and have either been accepted by the scientific fraternity or else (as so happens in the case of parascience) they have proved unacceptable elsewhere and have therefore been discredited.) But even though Magic. This fragmentation and isolation sets the stage for the decline of Science and the Growth of Magic. Even when not repressed. As before we have the repressive effect of political power (thanks to the remnant of the Religious spirit of the Age of Pisces) which tries to imprison scientists into secret establishments . But the Scientific method depends upon a free exchange of information. it is the Religious spirit that has held the reins of power . Before the birth of Christ it was a straightforward. when this is forbidden it begins to develop Magical tendencies. fragmenting tendencies. Religion and Science have each taken turns to dominate man’s thinking. and also thanks to its valuable application to the coining of metal currency and the protection against counterfeiters. Now I can see a similar tendency in modern science. It seems that the rulers for whom the metallurgists worked felt driven by greed (typical of the Artistic spirit of the old Age of Aries) and desire for political power (contributed by the Religious   . Art.

by littering your adverts with trendy imagery in order to ‘redefine the catchment category by maximizing appeal at a lower age band’. and in the Age of Pisces major wars were fought on ‘Religious’ grounds. once you start to make predictions upon a basis of previous statistical correlation alone . unprofessional approach’ with an ‘upto-the-minute. then curious mutations of accepted scientific fact will no longer be automatically aborted. burning incense and invoking appropriate deities to sharpen their sensitivity!) Another route by which Science could evolve into Magic lies along the increasing dependence upon statistical evidence as ever soggier ‘soft sciences’ are evolved. by suggesting a fresh new colour scheme based on bright tints with ‘proven high stimulus response’. shielded from the common scepticism of the scientific fraternity. or Religious terminology. As a matter of interest on this score. scientific promotional strategy’ and does so by giving your brand name a ‘new image’ to ‘optimize positive consumer reaction’.BLAST your way to tended to sift out anomalies and preserve the purity of accepted scientific fact. this Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins advertising agency. Similarly the advertising agency that offers to replace your ‘haphazard. and will learn to develop and extend this skill.without constructing any theoretical causal framework . in none of these three examples does anyone actually admit to doing Magic. As explained in SSOTBME. although we now publicly praise our heroic veterans of the Falklands. will go on being able to detect them in this way. (No doubt they will eventually get round to fasting. This is true however impressive sounding are the figures quoted. when the Nazis apparently entered the war not so much for political commitment as in order to try out their new weapons? And is this why. at the time of the conflict there was actually more talk about how well our previously untried weapons were performing in the field? 9 SSOTBME Revisited   .then you are being no more scientific than an astrologer who learns to interpret charts from experience. so will the accepted magic of the Age of Aquarius be ever wrapped in pseudoscientific jargon. who find they can detect enemy submarines with a dowsing rod. we would then expect wars in the coming Age of Aquarius to be fought on ‘Scientific’ grounds! Does this mean that the trend-setting war for the coming age was the Spanish Civil War. But the interesting point is that. when I suggested that in the Age of Aries major wars were fought in the ‘Artistic’ spirit of cultural take-over bids. Research workers in secret defence laboratories. is simply invoking Mercury to help your business to prosper. But if this process is frustrated. nor even allow themselves to believe in such nonsense! Why is this? I suggest that this is a symptom of the presiding Scientific spirit of the new age: just as the Magic of the Age of Pisces was so often safely cloaked in the mantle of Religion. so that future scientists will be working in ever greater isolation. for all its fancy pseudo-scientific jargon.

BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins How long will the public put up with the omnipresent uncertainty as to whether the world would survive a nuclear war until. I’ve since said all this stuff much better in the new revised edition of SSOTBME!] 9 SSOTBME Revisited SUMMARY In this essay I have looked at the trends accompanying the transition into the Age of Aquarius. turned on. was my ignorance a necessary condition for clairvoyance? [Actually. The trouble with this essay is that I am ignorant of history and have made sweeping assumptions. free spirited Love. Whether this has clarified the question. but it does suggest that it was not essentially linked to the Age of Aquarius. But why is it that we occultists are nevertheless denied the satisfaction of seeing our subject granted official recognition? I suggest that this is due to the Scientific spirit of the Age of Aquarius. the musical ‘Hair’. or merely confused it is up to the individual to decide. zonked out. Scientology). Would a careful study of history reinforce these ideas or would it disprove them? Alternatively. in despair. for example.   . I feel that it has at least resolved some paradoxes. For one thing I was never totally happy with the idea that came across in.g. it demands that the question be resolved in a practical test? In other words. and that in coming centuries occult movements will remain as ‘underground’ movements except when disguised in scientific jargon (e. detached Aquarian ideal!). might not the next world war be less of an ideological struggle but rather more of an experiment in response to a group need to generate a catastrophe in a world too heavily policed to allow for any minor revolutions? The Uri Geller craze has abated. the idea that the Age of Aquarius was an age of groovy. and I have isolated three separate cyclic phenomena.how does this fit in with the Age of Aquarius? My ‘philosophical’ cycle of four periods of five centuries each would fit this apparent progression from Science into Magic. The same will be true of Religious movements: I suspect they in turn will need to justify their ‘psychological validity’ if they are to be officially recognised. This hardly lined up with my idea of the astrological sign of Aquarius as a fixed air sign (in fact it sounded rather more like the idea of Pisces than the clear. but still we see a steady evolution towards Magical thinking in the sciences . My discussion of the Generational Cycle puts the hippy revolution in its place . which will ensure that the name of Science is ever revered. The passing of the hippy era does not by any means mean that it was a trivial fashion.without trivialising it in the way loved by cynical journalists.

the group should find themselves slightly short of cash. London. and this encounter was later destined to lead to the next clue in the hero’s search. I was asked for comment on the chapter. to the effect that the hero then felt obliged to foot the remainder of the bill. who was also a member of The Society and who had been investigating the history of the OTO in the same critical spirit as in his book about the Golden Dawn. It remains my favourite essay. It was. at the end of their meal together.THE CHARLATAN AND THE MAGUS First published in The Lamp of Thoth This essay was written for reading out at a meeting of The Society. and its theme is still dear to my heart.BLAST your way to 10 . and in this chapter there was a chance encounter of the hero and a group of bohemian extraverts at a cafe table: they joined up for a meal and some wine together. and one comment that I made has since haunted me. in Spring 1984. hence its “lecture” style and hence the references to Ellic Howe. In that case my suggestion was that. It was a novel of a spiritual quest. but rather just that streak of caddishness that would allow the group to order more wine than they could “Farewell to Synthesis” from the Golden hind Vol 1 No 3 by trickster-magus and master of illusions Austin Osman Spare   . Why did this seem right? Why did literary aesthetics seem to require that an important step on the spiritual path be marked by an element of roguery? not so much an out and out swindle that would have turned the hero away in disgust. 10 The Charlatan and the Magus Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins Recently a friend read me a draft chapter of a novel he was writing. I asked if this encounter was a truly important signpost upon the hero’s spiritual highway.

Look at the behaviour of this pendulum. 10 Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of my subject: perhaps it is right that I should assume the mantle of the Trickster in trying to write about the Trickster? There is. as to give the hero reason to pause before stepping forward? For might he not well have spent the evening fuming that he had been conned into paying the drinks. am I only reflecting a cynical lesson that my own inadequate life has forced upon me. on the strength of an unconscious calculation of the hero’s assets and his sense of generosity. Indeed I will be asking more questions than giving real answers. and allowed it to oscillate in the magnetic field of a powerful magnet placed on the table top] . as outside observers. Notice how its motion is deflected because of opposing magnetic poles. Normally I do not like to write about a subject until my views on it are in some sense complete and “buttoned up”. it does not have our The Charlatan and the Magus A TRICKY PROBLEM The subject of this essay is literally a tricky one.. or am I in fact tuning in to a vital cosmic principle? For a start: was this idea of mine a purely personal aberration? My first evidence to the contrary is that the author agreed with my suggestion. one problem that I can anticipate: a problem best described by analogy. or even his fear of unpleasantness. and proceeded to write it into his next draft. however.. In the case of the Charlatan and the Magus I am writing on a topic that has haunted me for many years.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins afford.   . The demonstration I really wanted to show you was rather less portable: it was of a billiard table with a slight dip in its surface. the ball has been very obviously been deflected from the straight and narrow under the influence of forces connected with the distortion of the table’s surface. You may even miss the point of what I am saying.. but which is far from being clarified. From our point of view. Why is it right that an important spiritual turning point should be just sufficiently tainted. made from a thin rod with a bar magnet on the bottom end. The ball knows only the two dimensions of the table’s surface. But in this case the motion could be more easily looked at in two different ways. [at this point the speaker produced a pendulum. and argue that there has been no deflection. and wonder if I am simply pulling your legs. A ball rolling across that table and towards that dip would be deflected in a similar fashion to the pendulum.. However we can instead put ourselves imaginatively in the ball’s position. and decided to have no more to do with his new-found acquaintances? and might he not as a result have missed his chance? If I sense that spiritual diamonds should always come with a bit of muck upon them. For the definition of a straight line on a billiard table is that it is the path a ball will roll along unless some outside force acts upon it.

and he is very impressed. because the spirit of that age was the religious spirit. That is. 10 As outsiders we see a U-turn. catches Minny smuggling a bunch of violets into the laboratory in her bloomers. so also can a human’s field of reason be distorted by a powerfully charged concept. it has simply rolled along a straight line. consider a more contemporary example. as far as the ball is concerned. So. as outside observers. He is no idiot. and the fact that the surface is warped in that dimension. we might not judge the scientist’s dismissal of the fraudulent medium to be just as arbitrary as the theologian’s dismissal of the heretic? Could our attitudes change to that extent? or is mankind doomed to lose its apparent ability to make endless fun of its ancestors? In SSOTBME I argued that Good versus Evil was the dominant concept of the Age of Pisces. on the other hand we could imagine that the pendulum has simply continued upon what IT thinks is a straight line. that we would refuse to recognise that his reason HAD done a U-turn? Do you see the problem? Well. Consider a theologian of a past age listening to a brilliant discourse upon the nature of angels. Suddenly his whole discourse is so suspect as to be worthless. He abandons the experiments forthwith. This relativistic argument can be adapted to the demonstration of the pendulum: on the one hand we. The scientist. after several interesting experiments. I wonder if. until a chance remark exposes the speaker to be a protestant heretic. And in the vicinity of that concept reason can run along a path that appears warped to an outside observer. But what if we were part of that theologian’s world? Would we be able to provide a logical explanation as to why the speaker’s being a heretic means that he incapable of saying anything worthwhile about angels? In other words would we be able to describe the forces that deflected the theologian’s reason? Or would we take his reaction so much for granted. As outsiders to a world so heavily charged with concepts of godliness and heresy. in some future age. we see that the listener has been deflected through a complete U-turn as soon as he approached the realisation that the speaker was a heretic. The analogy that I wish to suggest is this: that just as the pendulum’s field of movement can be locally distorted by a powerfully charged magnet. because it does not realise that its local universe has been distorted by a strong magnetic field. And I predicted that the dominant concept of the Age of Aquarius would be Truth The Charlatan and the Magus   .BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins superior knowledge of the third dimension. can argue that we have seen a pendulum being deflected by a magnetic force. The famous scientist who decides to investigate the paranormal and so arranges a laboratory seance with Minny Blenkinsop the Flower medium who is at present the big name amongst spiritualists because of her amazing ability to materialise flowers from the spirit world. yet appears perfectly straight to the thinker. he uses his full knowledge and powers of logic to analyse what is said.

not another debunking essay”. And Lemuel Johnstone didn’t even have the decency to exist. All three responses.as in the life of Crowley or Gurdjieff . I am attempting something that makes great demands upon my audience. the layman might add Uri Geller and some of the recent gurus from the East.or whether it is sheer roguery . then we are doing the psychological equivalent of a physical investigation in the vicinity of a Black Hole. And I will need to return again and again to this analogy. That is all occultism is: just a great big con game”. All three are so natural that I cannot yet ask you to resist them. Besant.rate masters. This is the sceptic’s response. or the forged cipher manuscripts of the Golden Dawn . How did you react to my observation about the occult leaders? There are two standardised reactions. To be conscious of your inclination is the first step towards independence. but doesn’t he realise that Crowley was simply wise enough to understand people and to know what compromises are necessary when dealing with the masses..or whether it is a most unspiritual aptitude for making easy money . Each reaction amounts to a deflection from the straight path.. Rajneesh. This is the reaction of the defensive believer. Steiner. Now I would like to revise my opinion.. are liable to totally colour your whole attitude to this subject. is to think.as in Blavatsky’s faked spiritual phenomena. The first is to think “well of course they were all charlatans. Even the impeccable Krishnamurti was created out of scandal. all I ask is that you pause a moment to think which response is nearest to your own. So. instead of averting our gaze in disgust.” and then to regurgitate a mass of evidence that other historians seem to have overlooked.  . Good versus Evil is always the most heavily charged concept in men’s minds: the difference is that in the Piscean age “Good” = “God” and “Evil” = “the Devil”. we turn to face the Charlatan. Crowley. 10 This is the problem that has haunted me for so long. while in the new age “Good” = “Truth” and “Evil” = “Illusion”.as in most gurus from the East: whatever form it takes I defy anyone to find a stainless saint among occult leaders. hell. “he’s quite right about all those other cranks. But is there a single name that is untainted by the smell of charlatanry? Whether it is actual fraud . Those present might add names like Mathers and Westcott to the list. The second is to think “oh.. the holy dust of a recent guru.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins versus Illusion. If. the reaction of the committed believer.” and to go on with a most ingenious argument that does not quite fit all the facts. A third reaction. when in this essay I attempt to turn our attention to the very nature of illusion and our response to it. but surely he has heard that those stories about Madame Blavatsky were merely trumped-up charges. for example. What sort of independence might we hope to gain?  The Charlatan and the Magus MAGUS OR TRICKSTER? Who are the great occult figures of this century? Blavatsky... Gurdjieff. So let us examine it straightaway in the light of my analogy. Or to argue that “he is right about all those second.

Then he finds that his wife is cheating on him. the natural reaction is either to deny the evidence. gone too far too soon. In The Illusionist we are at one point lead through the mental contortions that lead to one character becoming able to say “I believe because it is absurd”. I have taken you too close to that black hole. while this time it is happening in the name of science. I have argued elsewhere (SSOTBME and an article in Arrow 17) that we are at present witnessing a transformation from an era of basically rational to an era of basically magical thinking. The man would end up as a very lonely success story.” 10 The Charlatan and the Magus   .J. and so on. and that the last time that this happened was around the birth of Christ . But what we would also recognise is that such behaviour is vastly less productive in the more “inner” world of human relationships. Why was it accepted? I think that even today we would find such a rigid code very powerful in the outer world: such behaviour would impress society by its sheer audacity. or even leaves for another job in another part of the country. How many of us could say “I follow him BECAUSE he is a charlatan?” But how ridiculous! I have overstated my case. Hugo C. and such a man would have a good chance of reaching the sort of social heights described. But will it always be so? Since pondering this problem I have begun to find such behaviour increasingly peculiar. This attitude is so normal as to demand no justification. What does he do? If his shame is so great that he at once arranges for a divorce. a mock tudor house and a happy marriage. This is done too convincingly to be summarised here. at a time when the society columns were dragging his name through the mire: “when will mankind grow out of its flirtation with Christian ethics.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins In Anita Mason’s novel about Simon Magus there is a lovely portrayal of the rational mentality struggling to adapt to a world that was slipping into magical thinking. Consider instead the upright citizen. St. but to do what is wrong in STYLE. president of the local Round Table. Webb’s The Occult Establishment. one of Freud’s circle described in J.the difference being that last time it all happened in the name of religion. because he refused to face the world as it really is. and now perhaps you are wondering if this essay is a spoof! Some careful repair work needs to be done. and face the fact that the Great Cosmic Principle is not to do what is right and honourable. who abandons experiments with a promising medium when he catches her cheating. we would say that he has over-reacted. And yet a century ago such action would seem too normal to need any justification. Chairman of the local school’s Board of Governor’s. He has three children. or to desert your guru in anger or contempt. The point is this: how many of us would be able to do the equivalent? When you discover that your favourite guru has got feet of clay. By the standards of today he is trying to live out an absurdly unrealistic ideal of perfection. l’Estrange said on the occasion of his first divorce. Consider the psychical researcher. As my good friend The Hon.

on “The Psychology of Aggression in the Urban Underworld” and so on. as in the last example. I really am suggesting that perhaps there is a fundamental limitation in the rational approach. Another example. including his brilliant papers on “Emerging Social Structures in the South American Shanty Town”. Imagine that for some reason. or even worse in some South American or Far East shanty town. I really mean it. Not just a slight practical limitation. when we want to find out about the world. And yet. does this mean that we should therefore admit that it is proven? or is this very success an obstacle to further progress? Might we not grow out of this scrupulous approach and find. Because we believe in an absolute truth. The first offer comes from the very learned Professor Wiesenstein of Edinburgh University. we set our sights on it and are in danger of missing the reality. rather than away from it? Consider the tarot pack. whereas that wife’s reliability is a side issue. but a fundamental one. You have nothing but the clothes you stand up in. I am sure that. Two offers to be precise. (perhaps because you are on the run from the secret service) you find yourself forced to start a new life as an unknown stranger in a some big city’s slums. this attitude has resulted in considerable successes. that although the puritan approach may have great power in the outer world. Might you not find out more about the nature of an illusion by following those who deal with illusions? Might not the spiritual path lead through the world of mountebanks and charlatans. so many of us still choose to seek the answers among those who search for absolute truth. even our own scientists are increasingly making it seem like an illusion. He offers to put his entire sociological and psychological researches at your disposal. 10 The Charlatan and the Magus CLEAN HANDS? Yes. the majority of mankind probably subscribes to some religion that   . Is the rationalist approach to the occult also destined to lead to a lonely loss of contact with the world as it is? “But that is an unfair comparison” says the researcher. however you do have an offer of help. Too often we approach the occult in the same scrupulous spirit.” Try telling that to the man who once stood beside his wife and shared vows at the altar! insists that the world is an illusion.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins So what of the scientific researcher who approaches the universe with such cleanliness and honour that the first hint of trickery is often the end of the matter? As in the last example. it begins with a Fool dressed in rags. and the next card is of a Juggler or common street magician (at least until recent packs improved his image a bit). So does the series start with a High Priest? or the authority of an Emperor? No. such behaviour is much less productive in the more “inner” world of spiritual development. The 22 trumps are often spoken of as symbolising the path of spiritual progress. in terms of sheer numbers. “for the medium’s reliability is CENTRAL to what I am investigating.

if the way is hard it is probably the right way. as long as you were seeking a Magus. Nobody is naive enough to believe in magic anymore. n’I’ll show yer around”. Might not we too take our eyes away from the dream of the Magus. or am I right in feeling that this very fact is a vital clue that we are on the right path? If the transition from charlatan to magus can be so swift. that the world is illusion and we are getting closer to the Master of Illusions? Woops. To support his theory he pointed out that there was one area of conjuring that was still as healthy as ever: namely mentalism. Some blamed this on television. that could create amazing hypnotic illusions. there was at least a belief in the mysterious wisdom of the east. and become an associate of the Magic Circle. And this made conjuring great. Again. although few people really thought you could create a rabbit in a hat. But now that you set out to find a real. and take another look at the Charlatan? The moment that this bold decision is taken.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The other offer comes from Rico The Razor. is it my own craziness. You see. finds himself drawn to the fairground and the circus for his inspiration. mate. does it not confirm that we are living out our inner states. wholehearted occult charlatan. again I’ve gone ahead too fast! IN SEARCH OF THE CHARLATAN So where do we seek the charlatan? In my search I decided to take a tip from the second trump of the Tarot pack. And there was also the chance of some unknown inventor creating a scientific miracle in his back room (without The Military swooping in to claim it). is that the public now knows too well that it is all just trickery. Don’t panic! As any seeker knows. or the art of faking extra-sensory perception. a small-time pimp and petty crook. you found only a world full of Charlatans. One hundred years ago. What I am suggesting is that Rico’s offer should be given serious consideration. Somehow you know that both offers are equally sincere. who says “Stick wiv me. Only in one book was the problem discussed at greater length: “Entertaining With ESP” by Doc Shiels. you hit difficulties. He suggested that the strength of mentalism lay in the fact that this was one area of magic where the public still had that streak of belief: perhaps telepathy IS 10 The Charlatan and the Magus   . In other words there was just the slightest streak of public openness to the miraculous. First I went to the public library to read some recent books on conjuring. So often the artist who thinks deeply about the world. but that you may only accept one of them. Doc suggested that the reason that conjuring no longer draws the crowds. you discover that they are all so bloody high-minded. One observation struck me at once: the number of conjurors who felt that their art was going through a lean phase at present.

BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins possible? In this respect it was suggested that conjurors had been their own worst enemies: by trying so hard to dissociate themselves from the fake spiritualists. I found that most conjurors are pathetically scrupulous. he was probably the greatest stimulus to popular philosophising since Einstein. isn’t conjuring a most amazing concept? The art of creating apparent impossibility. the purest manipulation of illusion. but with a sort of disclaimer to the effect that they claimed no superior powers. The trouble is this: we all enjoy a book of puzzles. This was to me a sound reason why the public image of the conjuror seems to be more that of an irritant. if not quality. So much for the Magic Circle as a hotbed of charlatans: instead of finding Geller’s disciples I found his detractors. Uri Geller was despised with an anger that reeked of jealousy: “How could the public rush to see such a pathetic magic demonstration. but etiquette demands that the answers should appear in the back of the book. What the man was saying was that his act would not present any challenge to the spectators. that you cannot see why I should expect conjuring to be significant? But if you think about it. Sure enough. Yet these conjurors were blind to his real achievement. people began to look at the world and wonder about it. These books are rather crudely written accounts of how to be a fake psychic. and that the act we were about to see would be performed merely by ingenious trickery. The effect was about as appetising as an EEC regulation ingredients list on a sauce bottle.for conjurors are not only scrupulous about occult disclaimers. They describe ways of picking up clues from a person’s appearance. I even witnessed mentalists who began their act not with a lecture on the mysterious powers of the human mind. But in the library there was a most interesting type of book: anonymous books with titles like “The Confessions of a Medium”. they had lost their roots in the public imagination. Perhaps you are so used to the image of the conjuror as the man in the loud jacket who does clever things against tasteless background of feeble jokes. We were to be presented with a series of puzzles. and how to use those clues to colour a few generalised statements that are designed to sound-out the 10 The Charlatan and the Magus   . mannerisms and clothing. In terms of quantity. were it not such a red herring I would be tempted to divert into an argument that this playing with illusion was in fact the original source of ALL art. he became famous for having opened a crack in the public’s sense of reality. except that of trying to guess how it was done. seeing only details of poor technique. Here was a set of puzzles devoid of such relief . than of a significant artist. For a year there was a new topic of conversation in the public bar. They had become too scrupulous. When this close inspection provided no explanation of Geller’s success. I also found the greatest intensity of anti-occult scepticism amongst conjurors. Uri Geller did not become famous for providing an amusing evening’s diversion. they are also scrupulous about keeping their secrets. when your average conjuring professional can barely scrape a living?” To me the answer seemed obvious. they resorted to the old explanatory scapegoat: public gullibility.

but anyone who starts such an act by disclaiming all occult powers has certainly not learned his techniques from these sources! My guess is that these books are wonderfully reassuring to the opponents of the occult. and that is why they are popular.. you will respond with a knowing smile. instead of dismissing their subjects at the first sign of fraud. may I remind you of my pendulum analogy? What do you think so far? Has my revolutionary thesis shattered your world? are you fuming at my affrontery? You are much more likely to be thinking along these lines: “Of course he is basically right. you find that your soperfect husband is prepared to brace himself against his public disgrace. instead of being faced with instant divorce and banishment. except for one curious anomaly. Imagine that you are the errant wife of that respectable citizen I described. and is willing to give you a little lecture and a second chance to prove yourself. And I suppose that parascientists might lose worthwhile evidence if they make absolutely no allowance for human weakness. are the ultimate defense against a belief in the paranormal.. you will never really   . But.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins client’s problems. then too late! You have passed the danger zone and already been deflected.. Nobody should expect any guru to be utterly perfect.” If that is what you think my essay is getting at.who goes away to tell the world about the medium’s amazing psychic gift. and you will never again be impressed by a clairvoyant. Is it progress? No. then allow the experiments to continue under slightly stricter controls? Would that be revolutionary? No: I suspect that parascientists have already adopted some such approach. Nothing in that version of my thesis was at all revolutionary: it made this essay no more than a plea for tolerance. Why were these books kept in the library? and why indeed are such books ready sellers in the scrupulously honest world of conjuring? I have only heard them recommended as “giving useful hints on the presentation of a mental act” . written by the very people who made a living out of faking clairvoyance. breath a heavy sigh. Is this progress? Perhaps you might at first feel relieved and penitent.. then these facts are finally revealed to the astonished client . Try harder next time and meanwhile here are some more clues as to what to look for. not REAL progress. while the medium is apparently uttering great wisdom. get to the roots of the human condition.. and while you are all trembling on the edges of your seats. These books. give a little lecture on honesty and the principle of objective scientific truth. should learn to swallow their pride. Am I suggesting that parascientists. when astonished friends tell stories of great psychics they have met. but only to confirm that his saintliness is so saintly that it can even move with the 10 The Charlatan and the Magus A CAUTION Before I unveil that anomaly. Step by step the client is milked for information. unless you are prepared to face up to the worst. but wouldn’t you come to see this patronising generosity as just another face of his frustrating and sterile perfection? He has given way. Read them.

the dowsing pendulum. One writer. You see we are not dealing with simple-minded souls who are so dazzled by their own spiritual beliefs that they   . psychokinesis and so on. I was intrigued by the writer’s justification for including these in a book of fake psychic effects: he said that the aftermath of a conjuror’s mentalism act was a good time for genuine ESP experiments. that few people seem to notice the anomaly. as the next part of this essay is most important. We can only begin to face that paradox at a distance. was a chapter on genuine ESP. ways of reading another person. By extending scrupulousness. because he had found in his own experience that it produced good results. It was devoted to simple drawing-room experiments in telepathy. but done as straight experiments without any chicanery to fake the results. says that the process becomes almost unconscious with practice: you look at your clients and immediately just KNOW things about them. I would have said that a demonstration of blatantly fake psychism would have sharpened people’s scepticism. It was this last observation that struck me more than any other in this quest. Paradoxically. and was written by someone who made a living out of their use. Yet at times you will find information springing to mind that could not possibly be deduced from outward signs you experience flashes of genuine psychic ability. having lead the reader through all the techniques. Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins cannot recognise what they are doing. And I would say the same of a parascientist who “understands” human instincts and takes care not to over-react to lapses into deception. Apparent progress serves as a blind to obscure the real problem. The last chapter in the Doc Shiels book I mentioned. Read these accounts and you will never again be impressed by a clairvoyant. Putting myself in a parapsychologist’s shoes. and yet they still manage to believe in genuine psychic experience. even subliminal.for Doc Shiels believed in genuine psychism. Paradox is another manifestation of the black hole that deflects thought. So much so. and having described how to practice them until proficiency is gained. and made 10 The Charlatan and the Magus ILLUSION HOLDS THE KEY What was the anomaly in The Confessions of a Medium? This book confirms the sceptic’s claim that most psychics are unscrupulous con-artists. for I would not have anticipated it. the writers of these books are involved in a more or less cynical exercise in manipulating public gullibility in order to make money. it gives an actual account of the tricks used. which is that the writers of these books so often themselves believed in clairvoyance! I find that weird. that feeling of progress is the most unscrupulous cheat of all.BLAST your way to times. Reading these books must be as reassuring to the antiGeller brigade as witchcraft confessions were to the Inquisition. when we remember that more evil has been committed in the name of Christ than ever was in the name of Satan. They know all about the subtle. A demonstration of fake magic powers seemed to make the spectators more receptive to genuine psychic influences . I needed to remind you of that danger before continuing. a feeling of progress is achieved.

and perfectly described my wife’s character. He would challenge you to prove that astrology was not bunk and he would produce his horoscope and demand an interpretation. then denounce your heckler as a fraud.do a control test on the famous psychic. The whole fabric of the sceptic’s technique . surely the conscious intent to deceive is not the best setting for the invocation of one’s subtler senses? And yet Doc Shiels says it is. as a lonely young man. If they were on the sceptical side they would feel that there is too much trickery in this field anyway. to a small group of laymen. a rational world-view is so brittle that it needs only a single miracle to shatter it. but that he never does anything but cheat! Let us take the story of Geller’s trickery nearly to its limits: let us imagine that just once.. 10 The Charlatan and the Magus   . who was obviously a Geminian and almost certainly born on a certain day two years earlier when Saturn was in . and those fake mediums seem to suggest that the long term practice of fake clairvoyance can lead to the genuine thing. However he was so determined. You were then to take the chart. and has been doing it ever since. study it thoughtfully. “that could only be constructive in the long run”.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins them LESS open to psychic influence. For now you have to prove not just that he sometimes cheats. How would you feel if a friend asked you to give a talk on some semi-occult topic. Unfortunately. This version of the story might seem like an almost total vindication of the sceptical position. like astrology or dowsing. From an occultist’s point of view. A scientist would almost rather accept that Geller can ALWAYS bend metal. then publish an expose . but you have also seen through my test. Uri Geller stared at a spoon and it genuinely curled up before his very eyes. catch them cheating once or twice. most people would be horrified by it.. Holding up the chart you would rattle off a brief character sketch (supplied secretly by our friend) then point out that the character was clearly not that of the man in the audience. He would come to your talk as an apparent stranger who was rather hostile to the subject. Get thee behind me Satan! In fact I find this idea amazingly revolutionary. he never managed to do it again. If on the believing side they would be most unwilling to taint their art in this way. It was only when he found that other people were so amazed and incredulous of his claim that he realised what potential it had for a public sensation. for it was really her chart!” How would you react to this proposition? I think that. As was suggested in SSOTBME. “But it would make your audience so RECEPTIVE” says your tempter. For science is only happy amidst the repeatable: the fleeting singularity is its worst nightmare.falls to bits if we say that Uri Geller HAS to perform a few tricks in order to bring through the influence. and you were then approached by someone who introduced himself as a professional astrologer. that he went ahead and devised ways of faking the effect. practical joking aside.. This person took you aside and made the following proposition. than accept that he did it just once. And at that prearranged moment the man in the audience would blurt out “but that is absolutely incredible! Not only have you accurately guessed my birth-date. and the last thing they want is to pollute a serious discussion of the subject with such a fraud. but of course it is not.

and occasionally these unconscious fragments can well up and surprise even himself. It is very easy to rationalise.. Now we are comfortable with it. or you will miss a lot. he thinks he is becoming genuinely psychic. with nothing to hang on it slips between the structure and falls into oblivion and is forgotten . then we either leave it . nor that a study of how to cheat people could lead to genuine powers: you might even have been surprised by the revelation. It isn’t easy to explain what or why. Some people may be so unconsciously defensive. Not just that we should be less scared of the charlatan.this is the miracle that cannot fit our world. For example: you could argue that the fake medium becomes so used to his act that he does it unconsciously. But what are we doing in the process? Faced with the unfamiliar. less inclined to flee his presence. but the miracle has gone.. just as anything can be banished with a good enough Sword. Rationalisation is always possible.. so usually it is a question of dismantling then adapting. but would rather just delight in the magic. and we have found them very close to home. recreating the unfamiliar until it fits our framework. to give you a better chance of escaping from this mechanism on the next time round. gasping and goggle-eyed? If you are not. we might discover magic. Allow yourselves to be amazed. But it only takes a little thought. let me try to explain how it happened.in which case it is no longer unfamiliar . but that we should actually take lessons from him.or else we try to make a fit. and therefore a deception? We have found the footprints of the trickster. 10 The Charlatan and the Magus   . The victim of his own techniques.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins So here is my biggest bombshell: by actually faking magic. You might not have PREDICTED that openly fake psychic effects could be a good preparation for genuine psychic effects. might I suggest that it would be worth making a little more effort? Embrace wonderment! One conjuror I met who did actually believe in the psychic. shared something with me that is rare among conjurors: he confessed that when he saw a really brilliant conjuring trick. Something has to change: unless we are at a crisis point it is unlikely that our structure will change. they will once more bypass the black hole and be unwittingly deflected without feeling a thing. In this way. In case this is true in your case. If it does not. and how often is it an automatic reaction. how are we to respond to it? Either it fits the framework of our thinking .. he preferred not to find out how it is done. however.or it does not. that it is once again to late. and you soon realise that it isn’t so surprising after all. THE FOOTPRINTS OF THE TRICKSTER Are you reeling under the impact? Are you falling back in your seats. even off-duty he is picking up clues about people. The question is this: how often do you consciously choose to banish. any surprise in this essay can be easily banished. rebuilding. Somehow that told me something positive about the nature of magical experience.

[See Nelson’s ‘Hellstromism’ p 21]. the real thing. Be a charlatan! I will flesh out this unusual second approach with two examples. experiment with deception itself. and these will direct you toward the hidden object. By practicing false mind-reading. doing it blindfold. one of the spirit and one of the earth. One branch of mentalism . Sure enough. doing it with eyes averted. with him holding one end and you the other. I feel like saying “hands up all those who had a go at dowsing. unconscious muscular forces in the person’s hand. you may catch a glimpse of the vital. This is beginning to sound like real mind reading. Secondly a positive one. is where the Good-Bad axis crosses our world. are born of the attempt to say “Evil be thou my Good”. If the Christ-Satan axis is detached from this Good-Bad axis. When removed from the Good-Bad axis. doing it with a pendulum on the end of a stick or hanging inside a bottle so as to be less easy to control. You then become aware of very small. the word “versus” sounds more like a game than a life and death battle between emotionally charged opponents. hide an object while you are out of the room. the conjuror develops the real thing. or you will risk losing what you seek. The end point might have been. It takes courage to stick your neck out by attempting such a sensitive task in front of a group of people. but gave it up because you found it was so easy to consciously effect the pendulum’s motion”! Perhaps you should. If we could now detach the Truth-Illusion axis from the Good-Bad axis I suspect that it would begin to look like the simple choice between Hygiene and Fertility. have explored this very ability: practiced “cheating” until you became very good at it. An example of this is to ask a person from the audience to   .definitely at the seamy end is called in conjuring circles “contact mind reading”. it becomes a simple choice between two types of deity.. active relationship that I am trying to convey: Hygiene versus Fertility. the next phase is marked by those writers who describe feats of telepathy or even precognition when there is no longer any physical contact between performer and assistant. the black hole of maximum distortion.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The point I am trying to express always slips out of my reach. but all authorities agree that once you have taken the plunge you will quickly become proficient at it. I too am deflected by that warping of reality. one hand on his shoulder is sufficient. instead of giving up. Firstly a negative one: do not be too easily put off by fraud. When you return you hold the person’s hand lightly and ask him to concentrate on the hidden object. Until those two words are in turn rationalised.. The real point of highest charge. all the excruciating paradoxes that Hugo l’Estrange and Dr Sigismund Galganspiel wrestle with in their discourses. 10 The Charlatan and the Magus EXPLORING IN PRACTICE Two practical points are emerging from this quest. You become so proficient that it ceases to be a conscious process: hold his hand and you really feel you are being lead by direct thought power! But some authorities claim that you no longer need to hold his hand. or even a short length of chain.

because it is a growing and delightful diversion. however I squinted at it. it would not bother me. from crimson to scarlet. as with someone who has attained zen. I wanted to share the fun. yet when they collaborate they arrive at some sort of common description. Just as the writers of those fake psychic books were people whose livelihood depended upon what they were doing: desperados more akin to Rico the Razor than to Professor Wiesenstein. but shot through with a network of gold strands. after what was said earlier. because I find this type of perception is more akin to the perception of character than of outer form: in the sense that two people might begin by describing a third person’s personality in totally differing terms. to try to prove that I am not just responding to visual clues as to the type of tree. a tree remained obstinately a tree. But. My new-found game flourished: every tree has a different aura. we can rationalise one useful mechanism at work. If you can catch the spirit of this approach. only imagining them in the sort of way you might imagine how a bare room of a new house might look when it is furnished. that would suit it. Yes. definitely yellowy green in wispy hanging folds. how it would look after being decorated. But. I must not encourage such rationalisation. If another person describes the aura differently. in my early attempts to REALLY see REAL auras. How odd to think that this sort of pseudo-seeing was just the sort of deception that I had so long steered clear of. you will catch another glimpse of that charlatan. I feel it ought to be a fairly vivid red. there is less incentive to keep it up than there is for the charlatan who can enjoy his developing skills. If I could. but with no notable success. but not REALLY seeing them. tried again. The second example is less exciting. Then one day I stood by my favourite hawthorn and thought as follows: “What a pity I cannot see trees’ auras. I no more want to dissect it than I want to dissect a pet kitten. Through the sixties I sometimes experimented with various techniques for increasing sensitivity and developing auric vision. but it is my own. I suppose I was always more or less consciously haunted by the danger of self deception: at what point do you begin to kid yourself. but never managed to see them. Around 1981 I rediscovered the book and. being in a desperate frame of mind. The approach is blatantly unscrupulous and amoral.” What was I doing? I was seeing auras. be encouraged by the spectators’ amazement and requests to “do it again”. yet similar species have similar styles. Faking is more fun than scrupulous experimentation.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins As in the case of the contact mind reader. And yet an interior designer’s whole income depends upon these ‘unreal’ imagined images. Then what about that tree over there? oh no. As a schoolboy I discovered Hodson’s lovely book on The Kingdom of the Gods. I have resisted the temptation to try to test this discovery. the very stuff of deception. I wonder what sort of aura this one would have? Hmm. so I can say more about the actual experience of it. Enjoying the luscious pictures of tree spirits and landscape gods. If your psychic practices are restricted to 15 minutes intense meditation a day. yet it is also paradoxically down to earth and 10 The Charlatan and the Magus   . become uncritical? I was fleeing from the charlatan. I want to enjoy it.

is to once more be deflected from the central mystery. The remedy lies right under our noses. It is more akin to casting a net to catch the unfamiliar. or the scientific approach. between which I rush back to defend the rear. Unlike rationalisation. of science. nor does it just allow it to slip away. I must cut myself out of this net. I will describe another of the forces that deflect one’s mind in the vicinity of a black hole. not because of it. You may have labelled me as an anti-rationalist. On the day of their historic first flight they invited the American Scientific establishment to attend. This is an utterly vital function in a world where most people would agree that too much is happening too fast. it is magic that makes the plane fly. of the academic approach. Yet I am not belittling science.   . As someone who has worked in the aircraft industry. then leaving it hanging in the net on some corner of your structure. Labelling is another technique for handling the unfamiliar.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins elementary: you just do it. Just like the trickster whose every action is suspect. like ignoring. The Wright brothers were not scientists. To be utterly precise. and makes a living where others simply panic. As a result a million charlatans have stepped into science’s shoes and we never give them their due. unlike ignoring it does not let it go free. I sometimes feel that I am the one person left on earth who knows the real value of reason. they were bicycle makers. Here goes again. and what science does is to STOP IT FROM CRASHING. It is a wonderful Sword of Banishment. As was argued in Thundersqueak. but it was very refreshing to note how quickly it developed once I had got over the initial hurdle of accepting it on its own terms. I can assure you that a plane flies despite science. Far from being anti-rationalist. you don’t stop to theorise about WHAT you are doing. As a consequence. yet so many seem to confuse it with a Cup of Plenty! The essential value of reason. merely seeing its true contribution. but who so clearly knows his way around. and the Establishment quite rightly refused to waste time with cranks who were attempting the blatantly impossible. It does not depend upon dismantling and rebuilding the unfamiliar. is that it stops things happening. I cannot claim that the gift has any practical use. it is ludicrous to describe the aeroplane as a wonder of science. yet we create the problem by asking science to do the one thing it has never been able to do. is via the safety industry. If only scientists had left Uri Geller alone. Indeed the nearest approach made by strict scientific rigour into the “real” world. this does not destroy the original object. because it is no longer a threat. in the way of rationalisation. 10 The Charlatan and the Magus A FLIGHT FROM REASON? This essay is developing a wave formation: a series of forward steps. It hangs suspended in its net and is no part of your structure. So to label this essay as anti-rationalist. that is to make things happen. the plane flew. and it is left.

Instead of chasing the OTO into oblivion. or a late. for I also want some accurate quan- titative index of deterrence: I want to know the exact deterrent-value of every million pounds spent. of Bad. If only the big-game hunters could redirect their urges into hair-raising safaris across the London skyline. how about directing your attention towards the communist conspiracy within the Labour Party. how many committed suicide when Cruise was announced. we should direct it with the care it deserves.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins As reason is the great destroyer . That would usually signify that a hasty retreat was in the offing: for when people return to reality at the end of his illusions. and of Fertility.as reason is the excellent and much needed destroyer. can I have my OTO back? it was fun. against the blackness of Illusion. to the point where there was only one place of safety left for it . not its detractor. of Hygiene. Our very own Ellic Howe has delighted us with his skill in stalking the OTO. an angry reaction is liable to set in. it might be necessary to assume his mantle: now the time has come to pack up my box of tricks. They do it too well. Such skills must not be wasted. There is much to do. But now we   . and the historian cannot redirect the urge to shatter myths. The subject was far too tricky to be tackled without such a trick. I would like to be seen as reason’s champion. in pursuit of starlings and pigeons. your talents are being wasted on an endangered species. and a far greater challenge awaits you.namely non-existence. And Ellic. wet and rather cold spring in Moscow. so I’ll stick around. or the National Front conspiracy behind the Tories? Or why not go for the Big One. The world is crying out for skills like yours. I want figures of how many soldiers burst into tears. How deterred by it does your typical Russian military officer feel? Knowing how emotional russians can be. we could also suffer less bird shit. of Good. and prove once and for all that the CIA is a myth? And please. might not some of that money go towards an undercover operation with the collaboration of the secret service? I suggest taking the psychologists out of the parascience field and dropping them behind the Iron Curtain in order to discover the value of Cruise. What a pity that man’s hunting instincts are driving impressive and exciting creatures like tigers into oblivion. in order to write about the Trickster. Am I yet free of that net? 10 The Charlatan and the Magus GETTING REAL I did warn that. for there is real work for the sword in this world. The trick that has been played on you is the old trick of presenting a world in black and white: the white light of Truth. Then we would not only be able to keep our tigers. And what a pity that the scientist insists on chasing the paranormal to its doom. But in this case it is the nature of illusion itself that is being studied. I want to know which is the greater deterrent to world war three: a multi billion pound satellite warfare program.in order to pull you clear of that dreaded Good-Bad whirlpool I will rephrase that remark . Several billion pounds are being spent on a cruise missile deterrent. how many resigned from the army.

Last week a television film showed a road test at the vehicle research laboratory: the lorry was quivering away on a hydraulic test rig. Lorries being tested in their dreams. and the engineer explain that it was experiencing a recording of a stretch of British A-road. the researcher imagines he is in a sort of condom that gives infinite sensitivity to what he is studying. Yet as soon as the academic approach leaves the ivory laboratory and faces the real world. What might almost have seemed clear at times. Many yards of language now stretch out before me. Non.an area where there are so many rumours that the historian needs to be extremely careful. 10 The Charlatan and the Magus KEEP THE FLAME BURNING To return to my first question: how do you respond when your spiritual quest leads to fraud and illusion? When your hopeful pilgrimage to His Inestimable Holiness Swami Sri Chapati. and I wonder why I did it. He took a different disk from storage. will ‘ring true’.laboratory psychological experiments nearly always seem to involve people doing something whose apparent purpose is a blind for the real test . depends entirely upon weapons that noone has been able to test under war conditions! The very idea of objectivity is a trick. But I was looking for a remedy. when it is only the subject’s speed of writing that is being tested. So a trick serves as a test of truth! When I think of the many complex ways an individual might respond to finding himself misquoted. Daim altered some details to test Greiner. and that is reassuring. So where is the rational approach unscrupulous? James Webb writes on the tricky subject of Hitler’s involvement with the occult . this essay’s wave-form accelerates to a frenzied rippling of light and dark. fed it to the microprocessor. So that is where our pursuit of the charlatan ends: Illusion has an alias. the fact that the rational approach is going to turn out to be riddled with deceit. he calls himself Truth. and now the lorry was bouncing like mad . Was Greiner telling the truth in his interview with Daim? I quote “In his account of their interview. and sent the memorandum for the engineer to sign: Greiner corrected the details Daim had changed”. Mercury is also the god of healers. is the god of thieves and rogues. it almost seems as though deception is its only tool. the divine trickster. whose adverts in Prediction spoke of the secrets of the universe. There is something familiar about the path. In other words. His first trick was the best: he taught us language. Mercury-Hermes. leads you to an east-end   . yet perfect protection against contaminating the subject.eg the complex questionnaire to fill in. in world war three. This is because the rational approach is not scrupulous after all! And yet the very confusion of the situation is somehow a beacon of hope to the traveller. and all outlines are lost until they re-form in the world’s true colours. now passes through chaos. for it recalls the many-layered hypocrisies of highly religious or politically motivated people.for this was a recording of a stretch of desert highway in the middle east. but also the god of businessmen and scientists. not on real roads! Our future. I am amazed at the flimsiness of this test of historical truth.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins awake from the dream.

Amen. But I rather suspect that. There were obvious similarities. even though one is a description of types of PEOPLE whereas the other is a description of types of WORLDVIEW. The remedy I sought was this: to hope for a new approach. each time my dreams turn to dust. that in future each time a Great Occult Master turns out to have bad breath and wandering hands. to expose the old rogue in much humorous descriptive detail? I sometimes wonder whether. related to the four elements in astrology. but one more candle burning in my shrine. say. or do you make the best of a bad job and go back laughing to your friends. However it was not well received by those who still sensed a vein of bitterness in it that I had failed to transcend. I might find not one less. the magical approach? Is it that they are such natural ‘Feeling’ types that they choose an approach that encourages this talent. in my childhood when I felt the first calling to the mysteries of the occult. Later sophistication buried that shrine and it was forgotten. lit with many candles. and experiment with. and that my anger or laughter is but a mask to hide the disappointment. or are they such fossilized ‘Thinkers’ that they seek in magic to develop the area where they sense that they are lacking? I have met both types in the ‘occult world’. but how neatly do the two schemes line up? For example: what drives a person to explore beyond the confines of the accepted scientific worldview. 11 . but would love to know if my experience agrees with other people’s. 11 Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker I recently attended a seminar by Liz Greene on Jung’s psychological types. One reason for my interest was to see how Jung’s four-fold analysis of human types might relate to the four-fold scheme in SSOTBME . This article is less a statement of a new theory. than a collection of observations put forward for comment.STRESS ANALYSIS OF A TWISTED KNICKER Thinkers on the Occult Path First published in Arrow 18 At the time this essay seemed like an honest attempt by me to rationalise a difficult emotional shambles that I had fallen into.   . I might have built a little shrine deep in my soul.an Essay on Magic. another candle is snuffed out in that sanctum.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins cockney whose ashram occupies a seedy flat above an Indian take-away? Do you react in anger and disgust.

and can only handle them between the tweezers of quotation marks. When reading the sequel.The Flight from Reason . As a retired schoolmaster. or ill-constructed. You could also say that I am bound to be biassed against a writer whose first book on the occult is titled ‘the Flight from Reason’ (true.a Valiant Struggle Against the Fetters of Reason’). is recommended to read James Webb’s ‘The Occult Establishment’. but could not really see why such a competent 11 Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker   .” in which one can almost hear the ‘chink’ of the High Table port decanter being unstoppered. but is trying to pass an exam marked by a master known for his Liberal sympathies. I found myself reminded of essays written in order to gain Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins marks: eg the essay urging political moderation. The book is a marvellous survey of the most delightful 19th century occult cranks and magi.BLAST your way to WEBB OF NO INTRIGUE Anyone who is weary of all the excitement of the occult scene. but is written with such an eye on academic respectability that it overshoots the mark. but would always be forced to say ‘he purported to see visions.starved of ideas . whereas later books do not have to work so hard to be published. Note that my comments on this book are brazenly subjective. As with Grant.. The result is the sort of tight-arsed academic phrasing that might be expected of a book written in the mid-fifties: the sort of writing that would never dare say ‘he saw visions of the Virgin Mary’. but there is more to it than that. But what was wrong with the style? It is not easy to pin down. I was becoming convinced that Webb was striving to impress. the sort of writing that is scared of too-popular phrases.. and in need of some really tedious roughage on the subject to balance their diet. typified by such wheezy phrasing as: “Joseph Greiner is not a witness on whose authority one would care to rely heavily. The Flight from Reason was quite a good read. because the book was not badly written in the sense of being bad grammar. with the greatest reservations.killing time by trying to analyse the book’s awfulness. Webb’s first book on the occult . Once again there was an academic respectability that was a little too good to be true. or clumsy. it was just that there was something subtly bogus about it. Imagine a large Kenneth Grant book stripped of its slime and its glamour.. I would have preferred a more balanced title such as ‘Occultism . once again the style was tantalisingly bogus.” and such in-group arse-licking as: “Some apology may seem necessary for returning to the Protocols [of the Learned Elders of Zion] after the study by Professor Norman Cohn.was not so bad. the Occult Establishment. Ploughing through this bloated heap of ill-connected information I found my mind . presumably because a first book is more likely to have been shaped by the comments of editors.. written by a kid who belongs to the British Movement.’. let us look at Greiner’s story. for reasons that will later become clear. because the subject matter was so interesting that it shone through the bad style.. and you get some idea of Webb’s style of writing.

anti-intellectual? Probably not. I also remembered being caught the same way before: when I expected the editor of a Rationalist Association magazine to be rational! In fact he was the least coherent arguer I have ever met. How. As Liz Greene explained. for example. and for females not to show their Thinkings. The great value of Webb’s books lies in the mass of interesting facts he divulges. somehow awkward. so the most useful function of such a seminar is that it can help to bridge that gap. Meanwhile I attended Liz Greene’s seminar on the psychological types. Once I stopped judging it by the quality of its argument. When he speaks of occultists who inhabit a universe which “obeys a logic that is unlike that of the rationalist universe of mutually agreed discourse and cannot be understood as logical in its terms” I am sure that the word ‘logic’ means something different to him. just as a thinking female might pretend to be a feeler. I at once thought of the book I was struggling with. As she said this. do you recognise a ‘Feeling’ type? Is he a fluffy. This is only one of many confusing factors: but I will isolate it for the purpose of this essay. So a naturally feeling male might attempt to repress his Feeling side and pretend to be a Thinker. Rumour and value- judgements are inextricably mixed up with the facts in a way that makes it hard to draw any clear conclusions. When he tells us to look at Greiner’s story with the ‘greatest reservations’. a Feeling type is not necessarily one that never makes an intellectual statement. Like most tidy theories. but it is very hard at times to see any clear thread of ideas linking them . but the intellectual statements they make will tend to appear ‘wrong’ to thinking types. the theory of the four types can be quite difficult to relate to the real world: it seems so neat on paper. and her words seemed to explain my difficulty. Unfortunately he seemed to have so little understanding of this principle. Another example is Patrick Moore: someone with the superficial public image of being a learned expert. for my greatest reservation is not to look at it at all.as if Earth were compensating for lack of Air. So I felt confident that Webb was a Feeling type. For example. that a blind advocacy of the rationalist creed had to play the substitute role. there is a social pressure for males not to show their Feelings. yet notorious for his embarrassing emotional outbursts on the subject of astrology! 11 Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker   . gushy.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins author would allow this striving to ruin his work. but not quite so neat when you apply it to real people (I’ll return to this problem later). My mistake had been to assume unconsciously that an apparently dry. The problem is that we are not raised under laboratory conditions: other pressures exist. the book was much easier to read. then I am left in confusion. something less precise but more value-laden. sceptical book on the occult must be the work of a Thinker. He certainly gave the impression of being a man of very strong and clear feelings who had been brought up to believe that only the Thinking principle was manly and true. exaggerated or illogical.

this is liable to produce a grotesque parody of rationalism (as in the second example) or at least a slightly quirky academic style (as in the case of James Webb). so it is more likely that a Thinker would be not so much pressurised into an interest in the occult. And. and Sensation. For example. Although some ‘clearings’ are larger than others (ie it is perhaps possible to have a greater or lesser extent of consciousness) it is extremely unlikely that anyone could naturally have tamed all four equally. Feeling. Different circumstances demand different maps. Such is the difficulty of the struggle to consciousness. So I will digress to explain how I see this distinction. Note also that. Although the conscious mind can sometimes be pictured as the   .BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins So how many other Feeling types are there in the crankier extremes of the rationalist establishment? And does symmetry suggest that we should expect to find Thinkers in the occult fold? It is understandable how social pressures could drive a Feeler. As you stand in the sun-kissed cornfields of an agricultural community it is tempting to think that they have no problems from unruly animals. especially a male Feeler. because a Feeler is less ‘differentiated’ at the Thinking end. Each settlement has its own character. different settlements have mastered different skills. that most people only tame one or two elements. It can be better to see the unconscious as a jungle. this image can be misleading when it comes to exploring the boundaries between conscious and unconscious. it could lead to misunderstanding. One settlement may have distinguished itself by its mastery of agriculture. to try to ‘prove himself’ in a Thinking world. so we would not necessarily expect to find occult Thinkers taking such weird forms or standing out so obviously as the Feeling ‘rationalists’. Intuition. Another may be especially distinguished by its craftsmanship. in which there is a clearing containing a human settlement . just because a certain community is very well developed in one capacity. This is perhaps a more healthy incentive than the outward pressure to conform. as drawn into it by some inner urge to balance himself.which symbolises a conscious mind. another by its domestication of animals for food. it does not mean it can forget the other elements. another by its sophisticated social structure. The analogy with the four types is based upon the fact that different people have to a greater or lesser degree ‘tamed’ the four elements of Thinking. But why should a Thinker become interested in the occult? There is less social stigma attached to being a Thinker (though an extreme Thinker who was a woman might be unconsciously pressurised into acting a more Feeling role). but that community may well live in terror of the marauding jungle creatures that raid by night. Note that all these examples amount to a domestication of some wild element from the jungle: something has been brought into the clearing and tamed for the good of the settlement. So what do we look for? upper floor of a two storey house. in par- 11 Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker THE FOUR TYPES This essay is based upon MY understanding of Jung’s four psychological types: unless the reader shares my vision.

as suggested earlier. the Sensation type is not totally lacking in ideals. or Intuition plus Sensation). it might turn out that way. a social worker. instead. there are strong pressures for the Feelers and Intuitives to try to ‘prove themselves’ in their opposing elements. but in fact things are much less stereotyped.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins ticular it is most difficult to simultaneously master two opposing qualities (eg Thinking plus Feeling. As in the case of James Webb: it was not his sound value judgements that first struck me. but do it so stupidly that ‘sensible’ Thinking occultists react by leaping to their colleague’s defence. the analogy helps to remind you that a Thinker is not necessarily a person who is devoid of Feeling. and the Feeling type can make a fool of himself by being hooked on rationalist ‘arguments’. it is the wild. how then can we identify the types? Because the ‘tamed’ elements run so smoothly. it is easy to overlook them at first. On first acquaintance with the theory of four types. for very often the occultist does turn out to be a fraud .it was not the value-judgement that was at fault. it is just that this element is liable to swoop down in the form of an angelic visitation or an obsessive idealogical conversion. This is what is so awful about such rationalists: they denounce some occultist as a fraud. it is easy to marvel at the cool logic of a Thinker and imagine that such a person has transcended all emotional problems . an artist. However he is quite right to oppose the naive acceptance of a subject that appears to reduce human complexity to a ‘mechanical’ addition of simple ingredients. untamed elements that tend to be most obvious to a third party. The Intuitive artist may well spend more time agonising about his poverty than creating great art. Although he may not even know what you mean by the word ‘feeling’. I would also be angry if I heard a hard-line Freudian sneering at Jung for thinking that everyone was either a ‘lawyer. and the Intuitives are all artists. but this reaction is the Thinker’s undoing. the Sensation types are all technicians and craftsmen. The idea of this analogy is to offset a too-simple picture of there being ‘just four sorts of people’. the Thinker can be utterly at the mercy of the elements that lie outside the conscious ‘clearing’. but rather his appalling ‘logical’ justification of them. If we were all reared under laboratory conditions.but the wild beasts of the jungle can still cause pandemonium. or a technician’ 11 Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker   . it is tempting to assume that the Thinkers are all lawyers and academics. For a start.growing community described. he must be a Thinker’. There might be less difficulty if all four elements were equally prized by society. the Feelers are all social workers. Similarly. If we cannot fall back on such simple formulae as ‘if he’s a lawyer. but merely the grotesque attempt to support it with ‘reason’! Patrick Moore makes an ass of himself when he argues that astrology is bunk because ‘ the sun cannot ever be “in” Aquarius because Aquarius is a cluster of stars way beyond the solar system’ (as if astronomers never spoke of the sun being ‘in’ the sky!). As in the case of the crop.

am I really writing this article (I’ll explain that later)? In view of such doubts let us proceed “with the greatest reservations” as Webb would say! I have been aware of two modes of undifferentiated Feeling. they would respond with ‘but now you are muddling me’! Both Thinkers and non-Thinkers agree that Truth must be simple. and a third mode which I take to be a state of partial recovery. Such schemes tend to be abused by non-Thinkers who look for formulae to do their Thinking for them. I felt that I understood much better. then. As will become clear. This applies particularly to this section. but won’t pursue that thought). West is where they speak English with a drawl. is myself. South is hot. however the true Thinker is more likely to understand that the practical manifestations of Truth can at the same time be far from simple. I am more confused than ever’. I would do well to admit that no theory should be held blameless for the misinterpretations that it might engender. are we to recognise the Thinkers in the occult world? According to the above description. But one or two people said ‘oh dear. you find yourself treading very cautiously. they would tend to interpret the directions as a simple formula .. Firstly.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins when I know he said nothing of the sort. After Liz Greene’s excellent discussion of the practical ramifications of Jung’s theory of types. Any scheme that analyses phenomena into a four-fold cruciform ‘map’ is almost certainly a Thinker’s scheme (I suspect that Feelers analyse in threes. East is where they speak funny languages’. Such formulae are a substitute for thought itself.eg ‘North is where its cold. has my experience of the occult world been restricted to those most like myself? making my observations true but untypical? Thirdly. But. For several reasons this makes all my further observations suspect. the first example of an occult thinker betrayed by his ‘undifferentiated’ Feeling nature. but rather was putting forward mine own observations for comment. if I could control my wrath. we should expect them to stand out more for their chaotic Feeling natures than for their logical arguments. To give a simple analogy: if you told such a person for the first time about the compass points. Having myself come across plenty of such unruly Feelings. How. I am inclined to believe that there is a healthy proportion of Thinkers in the occult world! 11 Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker THE TINKER’S CUSS I started this article by explaining that I was not trying to lay down any new theory. It is as if you are in a jungle and aware of a great python of untamed Feeling lurking in the treetops and ready to swoop down and crush you   . if at all.. as birds of a feather flock together. It is worth digressing to ask why anyone should want to fall back on such simple formulae as ‘if he’s a lawyer he must be a Thinker’. My guess is that they were people with undifferentiated Thinking. If you then say that you would build a house on the North side of a valley because it is warmer (facing South). When speaking intimately to some people. am I merely projecting? seeing in others’ everyday emotional problems a phantom that is really mine own? Secondly.

it tends to freeze you into a Glacier. or ‘over. As this third is less of a problem. I guess. I will concentrate on the first two modes in this essay. and feel increasingly guilty about entering this perfect sanctuary in such a diseased state. I will label the ‘wild’ mode as the Waterfall mode. I use the word ‘mode’ instead of ‘type’. and the romping dragon are. You admire this triumph of discipline. The truth is that those jabs of pain come from tiny asps which lurk in the cracks between the paving slabs. I think I am well qualified to describe the process from both viewpoints. because you see other people reacting in the same way. the poisonous asp. rather than face the fact that contact with a Waterfall is the biggest repression of all. Depending how much of a Thinker you are. So extremely ‘opposite’ are these two modes that it is tempting to see them as two different types of people. Yet. people who did not freeze so fast. In an intimate relationship. trying to avoid the emotive topics. for they seem so much more substantial and ‘real’ compared with those ‘superficial’. With such people your mind races ahead of conversation. But the last form seems a partially domesticated and therefore ‘better’ form to me . They do not spread like a virus. but you can hardly blame yourself. A third type is much rarer: it is the person who has analysed themselves to the point where their Feeling nature is like a romping dragon in a corral. makes each new freeze the more painful. you are more or less inclined to try to explain to these Glaciers how it is their upbringing. You do not feel very good about this. one and the same beast. as with all 11 Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker   . or society’s conventions that make them so repressed. Instead of a jungle. so much as like static electricity . As was suggested above. What is worse.even though it seems to evoke disgust from people in the other two modes. Other people can be quite the opposite: in intimate conversation they are models of controlled reserve. you find yourself on smooth paving slabs in a well-ordered courtyard.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins if you make one false move. This is awful to the Waterfall: the very fact that nearly everyone tends to freeze on them. It is difficult to locate the source of these agonies. contact with the Waterfall tends to make you tread very carefully: in other words. and you begin to suspect that you have some chronic ailment. picking words carefully lest the dreaded Feelingserpent be aroused from its fitful slumber. To shorten the account. and the ‘reserved’ mode as the Glacier mode. Having lived through both modes on several occasions.in the sense that each mode tends to induce the opposite mode in those who come close to it. whereas I reckon that BOTH modes stem from undifferentiated Feeling. The crushing python. There is a tendency to remember people you met in your pre. namely undifferentiated Feeling. and idealise their memory. it is easy to be fooled by the superficial appearance and think that the first mode is a ‘Feeling Type’ as opposed to the second mode that is a ‘Thinking Type’.polite’ Glaciers that now surround you. The danger of not recognising the symptoms is that these modes are infectious. saying ‘ride me if you dare’. but find yourself wincing from occasional jabs of pain. the ‘electrostatic potential’ can mount to such a level that all other activity or communication is overwhelmed.(or lesser) Waterfall days. ‘repressed’.

11 But. A Glacier is an expert at ‘damning with faint praise’. from his apparently superior position. the more of a cripple the Waterfall feels. So the Glacier is polite and helpful. when nothing would have reassured me more than a glimpse of the real person I knew that was hidden behind all the foaming torrent of emotion. but as an automatic result of blocked Feeling: all praise is faint unless it is supported by a drop of Feeling. Assuming that it is undifferentiated Feeling that is in fact speaking. but treads carefully in order not to hurt the Waterfall’s feelings. Aiming a fire-hose of Feeling at someone is every bit as effective at keeping them at bay as is surrounding yourself with ice. that he cannot offer any REAL human communication because of this. so every escalation of the Glacier’s reserve helps to emphasise that very inferiority: the more carefully the Glacier handles the Waterfall. here is someone who remains an oasis of calm common-sense. or is fast becoming true. So the need to repress them in the presence of a Waterfall is hard on the Glacier. Unfortunately.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins such illusions. but there are variations). While you swing from rage to depression. the more the Glacier flees the Waterfall’s suffocating presence. not through malice. then we see that both the Waterfall and the Glacier are basically doing the same thing: they are keeping other humans at a distance. the more undesirable the Waterfall feels. and this does not make a Glacier in a close personal relationship with a Waterfall feel any better. and bearing in mind that such ‘wild’ unconscious processes are not known for their keenness to unite humans in meaningful discourse. So why does the Glacier not become a second Waterfall in these circumstances? The Waterfall tells him that he is ‘repressed’. then a Glacier can seem a thing of wonder. and to kid yourself that such a fire-hose is a genuine ‘communication’ is absolute rubbish. this means the Glacier must withhold ALL feeling: this is the freezing process. so also has the extreme Glacier developed a nervous response to the endless flood of Waterfalls that cleave to their cool calm: the Glacier freezes on the Waterfall. he ought to be able to help the Waterfall who obviously has problems (this is a typical start. I have been faced with a Waterfall screaming ‘why can’t you accept me as I really am?’. that he is only half alive because his feelings are not flowing. For a start. The Glacier knows this is true. As a Waterfall has only one kind of feeling. and those feelings tend to express themselves unconsciously. So you cleave to them. just as the extreme Waterfall has developed a neurotic reaction to the inevitable fact that most other people either automatically flee from their presence or freeze over. So why does he not just ‘unfreeze’? I think the reason is because all the Waterfall’s talk about ‘REAL’ communication is largely cosmic bullshit. The Glacier has no wish to offend. the Waterfall often approaches the Glacier from an inferior position. in fact the Glacier knows that.  Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker  . it has a considerable vein of truth. those are the tiny asps that lurk and sting the other person. So what of the other side of the story? If some personal problem has made you a bit emotional. even a Glacier has feelings. and that is a hurt feeling.

Although the ‘wrong’ committed by a Glacier is subtle and hard to define. but the Glacier especially so. and the Glacier ever goading the Waterfall to pour out those feelings which have now grown so bitter that the Glacier would never dare to express them himself. minutes earlier. on the one hand. it is a relief to unburden your troubles on others . the Glacier will drop a casual invitation to ‘drop round anytime’. thinks that he must keep the invitation as easy-going and open as possible. I suddenly realised that even in a dim light they were delivered with contracted pupils .normally an unconscious sign of hostility or caution. society’s adula- 11 Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker   . on the other hand. but they are most destructive on the purely personal level. quick to condemn the Waterfall and to congratulate you for being so patient with such a monster.BLAST your way to Megabuck$ Ramsey Dukes the mouse that spins The Glacier’s initially superior position can also mean that the Glacier is superficially less hung-up at the social level: while the Waterfall is agonising about whether he dare inflict his tedious presence upon the magnificent Glacier TWICE in one week.. the Waterfall admires this.. When you emerge from a hellish session with a Waterfall. You find that everyone is very sympathetic. These battles may have some part in the Cosmic Plan. in order not to give the Waterfall too strong an impression that his presence is actually WANTED! These ‘double messages’ can be very subtle: the last time I struggled to comprehend why a Glacier’s kind smiles evoked such tumultuous feelings in me. it always needs an element of good to bait the trap. The Glacier is always fair and reasonable. Pure evil has never gained much hold on mankind. nice weather we’re having.. but if the Waterfall has a jealous nature the Glacier will start to be fair and reasonable about he Waterfall’s rivals. The effort of restraining a Glacier’s mounting feelings is exhausting: both parties grow tired in a close relationship. the rewards are comparatively straightforward. But there is an ambiguous message here: while. Perhaps the non-expression of feeling by day means that the Glacier is more dependent on his dreams? Certainly sleep does become an issue. was wondering if he was going round the bend. as the Glacier wants to go earlier and earlier to bed while the Waterfall seems maliciously to choose this very time to demand a ‘meaningful’ confrontation.” So the battle rages: the Waterfall putting ever greater pressure on the Glacier in the hope that the ice will finally shatter.for a Glacier is usually good at explaining another person’s awful behaviour. I have described some of the negative pressures that drive people into these roles. the Glacier. when the Waterfall would much rather hear some bitchy gossip about them! At an unconscious level there is now only one topic of conversation: Waterfall: “Look. This is very encouraging to a Glacier who. am I really as awful as I feel?” Glacier: “Er. But when you have heard it all for the zillionth time.. and your emotional life is still a shambles. but there are also positive enticements. the Waterfall wonders if the invitation to come ‘anytime’ means that the Glacier perhaps really likes the Waterfall.

sensitivity. his misery is laced with that golden glow. 11 Stress Analysis of a Twisted Knicker WE’RE NOT ALONE! In Rosenblum’s ‘Astrologer’s Guide to Counselling’. as an icy desert. like the passages in Wagner’s ‘Tristan and Isolde’ that mount up and up in yearning spirals without offering any release.. he does not go away ‘to have a ball’. unmolested by surges of feeling. in the chapter on ‘The Troubled Love Relationship’ there is the following passage: “One of the most common conflicts I have observed. The Waterfall does have occasional moments of calm. When a Waterfall sits alone and seethes at the thought of the wonderful time his Glacier is now enjoying in the glittering company of all those other magnificent Glaciers. you are somehow IMMENSELY insignificant. the rewards for being such a ‘monster’ are very subtle and insidious. when a Glacier storms out unable to stand their torrents a minute longer. dead and soulless. As an aside. life is suddenly dry. in the hope of finding one person who can tell you what YOU