…shall we carry on? 

A simple theory of the acausal that could be used to eventually form a couple, or a decent foundation of an esoteric philosophy is one that concerns metaphysics. That is, it is not – as many would assume – a scientific theory used to either explain some observed phenomenon or extend the theoretical frontiers of physics, but rather belongs to that “branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things/reality, including questions about being, substance, time and space, causation, change and identity. ”

In terms of ontology, one could suggest that the difference between living things and ordinary matter can be explained by postulating a bifurcation of being – causal and acausal – with living things, in contrast to ordinary matter, possessing both causal and acausal being. In terms of epistemology, let us suggest that this acausal being – that is, the nature (or physis, the ‘identity’) of living beings, including ourselves – can be discovered via developing our faculty of empathy, and that this ‘acausal knowing’ is different from but complementary to the ‘causal knowing’ known by observing, in a scientific manner, phenomenon and then, using denotation and theoretical models (including mathematical ones), explaining such phenomenon. 

Crucially, one (could) also positions a fundamental difference between “acausal knowing” and “causal knowing” in that acausal knowing is by its nature personal (‘subjective’, intuitive) – and cannot be abstracted out from the immediate moment of the personal knowing – while causal knowing is what we now term/describe by the term scientific (‘objective’, observational, impersonal) and, in contrast to acausal knowing, relies on denotation, abstractions, and theories. Thus, accordingly, to “know” – to understand – the physis of living beings, including our own physis as a human being, both acausal and causal knowing are needed.

However, it has also been speculated about what the nature of acausal being might be and about “the nature and extent and cause of the acausal connections between living beings that acausal-knowing reveals”. One speculation – which might also be fallacious – is “conceptualising the acausal as a n-dimensional acausal continuum (where n is greater than 3 but less than or equal to infinity) of acausal Space and acausal Time, in contrast to the causal geometrical Space and linear causal Time of the causal and 4-dimensional continuum of phenomenon familiar to us through sciences such as physics, chemistry, and astronomy. 

We use this “acausal realm” to not only explain the ‘supernatural’, and sorcery, but also to provide a raison d’etre for the hermetic, almost occult like, quest for gnosis. Thus, and for instance, decent suppositions include:

  1. that archetypes re-present (are types of) ‘acausal energy’ and that our ‘consciousness’ and unconscious are a nexus between the causal and the acausal; 
  2. that it is possible to develop our faculty of empathy via various odd techniques, such as rite of internal adept, the camlad rite of the abyss, and by a conscious – a willed – pathei mathos manifest in such things as ‘insight roles’;
  3. that such a development of such a faculty is an essential part of attaining ‘gnosis’: of acquiring a knowledge of Being and beings, and which knowledge includes understanding our own unique physis as an individual. 

Thus, a chance principle for use – founded on the wisdom that thousands of years of human living, hood societies, and paganism, has bequeathed to us – is that no amount of ‘scientific theories’ and of “reason/logic” and of ‘experimental evidence’ and ‘technology’ can offset the pathei-mathos – the personal understanding, learning, and knowing – that suffering, grief, empathy, and an individual hood society quest for gnosis, so personally provide especially if such pathei-mathos is of months, years, decades. For those who have so endured pathei-mathos know – sans words, sans denotation, sans theories – that the answers provided by ‘science’ and by ‘logic alone’ and by ‘experimental evidence’ and ‘technology’ are inadequate, insufficient to explain the nature of being, the nature of beings, and especially human physis. Without such pathei-mathos we simply cannot know – sans words, sans denotation, sans theories – our own physis, let alone that of others.

That’s all for now!!


    Leave a Reply

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

    WordPress.com Logo

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

    Google photo

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

    Twitter picture

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

    Facebook photo

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

    Connecting to %s