sages, had a word for this MS “footprint”, and it is:
B. Logos
The Greeks saw the OU divided into a non-conscious,
automatic functioning ( physis) conceived and
implemented by a divine intelligence and consciousness
( logos). The individual human intelligence ( nous) was
capable of coherent recognition and application of the
logos; each human was thus a microcosm of the
macrocosmic logos. As Raghavan Iyer relates:
In classical Greece the term nomos had to do with
measure. As early as Sophocles, agraphos nomos, the
unwritten law, had divine sanction, and with the later
Stoics it was grounded in nature ( physis) as the
immanent logos.
Nous for Anaxagoras was both a cosmological
principle as the source of all motion, and an immanent
principle in all living beings.
Diogenes qualified the principle, which he
denominated ær-nous, by replacing mechanistic
interpretations with the view that its activity is
intelligent and forms the best possible kosmos, and it is
expressed in the operation of a principle of measure
among all things.
In the later writings of Plato kosmos nœtos, the
intelligible universe, is both produced and ordered by
nous, which is inherent in all men.
Plotinus drew the implication that nous is
transcendent as the cause of kosmos nœtos and is
immanent in human beings, each of whom is therefore
a kosmos nœtos.
- 85 -
The Stoics concluded that the human nous is a
manifestation of cosmic nous.
Nous represents a binding-together of human
minds as rays from one central source of cosmic
intelligence. 35
Thus the logos may be described as the field which
enables the human intelligent consciousness ( nous) to
transcend the OU ( physis) and come into its divine being
as the MS.
As the human MS energizes and is energized by the
logos, it radiates its existence in both an active and a
passive way.
The active radiation, well-known to the Egyptians but
not so clear to the Greeks, is Xeper (hieroglyphic Xpr). It
is sensed by the individual experiencing it, but is
inherently difficult for others to perceive because it is
constantly remanifesting and enhancing the nous in
question. It is unique and unpredictable in each
individual, so the most that others may sense is that
something involved with the logos is transforming that
individual beyond the known and familiar.
The passive “footprint” of humanity’s encounter with
the logos is more easily seen by the intellectual and
emotional reactions it has engendered throughout the
course of history. One might suppose it to be a desirable,
exhilarating experience, but remarkably this has not been
the case. Failing to understand the divine dimension of
the logos, humans have more often than not reacted to its
presence in them with confusion and fear. This
uncertainty has not focused on the logos as a unique
principle, but rather upon its presumed purpose ( telos).
This has coalesced into extremes of absolute discretion
(or “free will”) vs. predestination (or “mechanization”).
35 Iyer, Raghavan, Parapolitics: Toward the City of Man. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1979, pages #54-55.
- 86 -
C. The Telos of Logos
The scope and discretion of the consciousness, the
Greeks contended, evidenced that each living being so
endowed was far more than a mere survival, gratification,
and reproduction mechanism. The self-aware mind
( nous) extends far beyond this, indeed far beyond the
discernible limits of the natural environment itself
( physis). There was of necessity a purpose to this
existence greater than the natural, whether divinely or
individually inspired ( logos). In individual humans the
Egyptians knew it as Xeper: the ever-expanding,
as telos - usually translated as “purpose” but referring not
to mere convenience or application, but to a being’s,
object’s, or process’ metaphysical fulfillment. Thus Xeper
or telos was not always readily apparent; it was a
profound, hidden magic which only the enlightened
consciousness could come to recognize and appreciate
(again, the logos).
Of the two terms, Xeper was by far the more elusive,
since it varied infinitely between particularizations,
especially conscious beings. Telos was less multifaceted,
looking for recognizable, predictable features in things or
even beings of an apparent relationship. Thus telos could
be ascertained through methodical, enlightened
discovery: the dialectic. (exemplified by Plato’s
Dialogues). Xeper, on the other hand, does not pre-exist
such as to be discoverable through examination; it is
spontaneous and unique to each entity. Other
enlightened intellects accordingly can sense it in its
manifestation only.
Thus while Xeper reveals no “map” or “program of its
unfolding, as it unfolds and expands it creates a
- 87 -
progressively more identifiable “trail” or “mirror” of itself
to the perceptive onlooker: its telos.
Again, telos refers to the “end” of a particular thing -
its most functional, efficient, and effective object in the
manifestation of its existence. Happiness and harmony
lie in discovering that end or activity for which a being or
thing is most precisely suited, then concentrating on that
telos.
Accordingly an initiate activating and maximizing his
personal Xeper should pay close attention to its
progressive revelation of telos, so that he does not expend
time or energy wastefully. 36
It is relatively easy to establish the telos of a pencil or
a table, and even of most natural animals. Humanity,
however, is another story altogether. Indeed once one is
sensitive to this principle, much of human history is
revealed to consist of confused and even violent
arguments and contests concerning it - though
noninitiates never see their irreconciliations through this
lens.
D. Historical Non- Telos: Free Will
As we have seen, Plato was a proponent of teleology:
the doctrine that final causes of phenomena exist.
Further that purpose and design ( logos) are a part of or
are apparent in nature. Further that phenomena are not
only guided by mechanical forces ( physis), but also move
towards certain goals of self-realization.
36 The [in]famous British mystic and magician Aleister Crowley is
well-known for his admonition: “Do What Thou Wilt shall be the
whole of the Law.” - which most assume to mean simply “do
whatever you want”. In fact he meant that one should first discover
one’s telos, then concentrate upon its fulfillment. “...
Thou hast no
right but to do thy will.” - Liber L #I-42
- 88 -
The opposite of teleology is mechanism, which
describes phenomena in terms of prior causes instead of
their presumed destination or fulfillment. [Modern
science is thus mechanistic.]
Mechanism may be further divided into “free will” vs.
“determinism” subcategories.
Free-will advocates say that humanity is completely
discretionary: that people are free do whatever they want
or allow one another to do, with no “higher standard” of
any sort involved beyond social consensus. Such
advocates tend to be religious atheists, and in their
societal extreme are inclined to anarchism. This position
ultimately demands a fallback to strict materialism,
including the denial of anything metaphysical in
humanity. Thus there is no “soul”; humans are mere
stimulus/response machines.
1. Sophism
The roots of this cold utilitarianism may be traced
back to 5th century BCE Greece, where the metaphysical
concepts espoused by Pythagoras and Plato were rejected
by a school of thought called Sophism. The Sophists,
most prominent of whom was Protagoras (c.490-420
BCE), maintained that “man is the measure of all things”,
a contention which Plato sought to refute in his
Republic. 37 To do so, Plato’s Socrates had finally to fall back on another metaphysical concept: nœsis, a
suprarational apprehension of the ultimate Good
( Agathon) and humanity’s inclination thereto.
Unsurprisingly this argument did not commend itself to
non-initiated minds unable to make sense of nœsis, so
the principles of sophism continued into such derivative
37 The complete statement attributed to Protagoras is: "Of all things
the measure is man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the
things that are not, that they are not."(DK 80B1)
- 89 -
Hellenistic variations as Skepticism, Epicureanism,
Stoicism, and Cynicism.
2. Skepticism
Skepticism, introduced by Pyrrho of Elis (360-270
BCE) and Timon of the Platonic Academy in Athens
(320-230 BCE), may be defined as the doctrine that any
true knowledge is impossible, or that all knowledge is
uncertain - a position that no fact or truth can be
established on philosophical grounds.
If nothing can be conclusively known, argues the
Skeptic, then virtue lies in avoidance of judgment and
thus of action. Beyond the individual, the community
( polis) is something to be reluctantly endured for
whatever relief from negative values it offers. It is not a
positive thing in itself.
In many ways Skepticism may be considered a
“clever” parody of the Socratic method. Socrates,
however, used a Skeptical approach towards knowledge
as a “clearing away the mental underbrush” device in
order to better employ logic. The Skeptics did not pursue
a similarly positive, constructive approach to the
acquisition of knowledge.
3. Epicureanism
Epicureanism was a philosophy of hedonistic ethics
that considered calmness untroubled by mental or
emotional disquiet the highest good, held intellectual
pleasures superior to others, and advocated the
renunciation of momentary gratification in favor of more
permanent pleasures. It was introduced by [and named
after] Epicurus of Samos (341-270 BCE), and it enjoyed
considerable influence among the Greek civilizations of
the Asiatic coasts.
- 90 -
Epicurus, a pantheist who rejected conventional
religion, felt that the aim of philosophy should be to free
humanity from fear of the gods, who, if they exist, are too
remote to concern themselves with human fortunes. He
rejected metaphysics, holding that humans can know
nothing of the suprasensual world. Reason, he said, must
accept the evidence of the senses. Epicurus considered
mankind a completely natural product - and mind only
another kind of matter. The soul can feel or act only by
means of the body, he maintained, and it dies with the
body's death.
Accordingly Epicurus considered virtue to be not an
end in itself, but rather the means toward happiness. He
recommended the simple, non-envious life of the country
peasant. “Everything natural is easily procured, and only
the useless is costly.” “Desires may be ignored when our
failure to accomplish them will not really cause us pain.”
Epicureanism thinks of happiness in a negative
fashion, i.e. freedom from pain. It considers wisdom as
an escape from the hazards and problems of life. It is a
nice philosophy for one able to pursue it, but few are. An
entire polis of Epicureans, to be sure, would cease to
function beyond Homer’s mythical Land of the Lotus-
Eaters.
4. Stoicism
Stoicism was a philosophical system holding that it is
man's duty to freely conform to natural law and his
destiny, that virtue is the highest good, and that the wise
man should be free from passion, equally unperturbed by
joy or grief. First introduced by Zeno, a somewhat
mysterious Phœnician/Egyptian (336-264 BCE), it was
later espoused by Chrysippus, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus,
and Marcus Aurelius of Rome.
- 91 -
Stoicism too was pantheistic: The world is the
embodiment of and is governed by the Logos
Spermatikos (seminal reason). All the OU is essentially
one, but matter is dynamic. The OU goes through cycles
of expansion and contraction, development and
dissolution. “God” is this entire process, not a being apart
from it. He is the “soul” of the OU, so to speak. Man is a
microcosm of the OU. When he dies, his soul survives
death as an impersonal energy. Ultimately this will be
reabsorbed into the OU energy.
Stoics denied the Skeptical contention that no
objective knowledge is possible, holding rather that a
wise man can distinguish reliable impressions
( kataleptika phantasia = “grasping impressions”) from
ethereal ones. Hence the Stoics thought it possible to
identify the OU as a single, integrated substance in which
human existence and behavior partake. Knowledge arises
through the senses, which are also the final test of truth.
Experience does not always lead to knowledge, for
perceptions may be distorted by passion and/or emotion.
Reason is the supreme achievement of humanity.
Since humanity is integral with the OU, goodness is
cooperation with nature. It is not the pursuit of pleasure,
which would subordinate reason to passion. If evil comes
to the good man, it is only temporary and not really evil,
since in the greater sense it is natural. The Stoic thus
accepts all fortunes and misfortunes of life calmly. He
seeks an absence of feeling in his thoughts and conduct.
Never
theless Stoicism does not excuse all events as
deterministic. The individual is still responsible for
virtuous or vicious choices, measured against a natural
approximation. The Stoic considers the “average man” a
dangerous fool governed by passions and emotions rather
than by virtue and reason. The Stoic disapproves of war
and slavery, and believes in humanitarianism and
equality of all humans as elements of nature. But he does
- 92 -
not advocate violent social revolutions or drastic policies
to attain these ends. Change must come “naturally”, not
artificially. Stoics sought harmony in society, which -
unlike Epicureans - they acknowledged as natural. The
Stoic ideal was a “world society” ( cosmopolis)
transcending regional divisions: one of Alexander's goals
for his empire.
5. Cynicism
A variant on Stoicism was the early Cynicism of
Antisthenes (444-365 BCE) and Diogenes (d. 323 BCE),
who advocated a rejection of worldly goods and
involvement and a concentration on virtue as the only
worthy goal. Cynicism's simple opportunism - taking
what life offers, for better or worse - was eventually
absorbed into the ethical posture of Stoicism.
6. Scholasticism
During the Christian Medieval and Renaissance
periods of European history, “free will” was condemned,
indeed literally demonized as the disastrous consequence
of Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of
Eden to acquire it by eating the fruit of its forbidden
tree. 38
Hence virtue and right-conduct during this era were
strictly decreed to be found in unquestioned adherence to
the post-Eden laws of God, and all that sinful humanity
could do was to learn and obey them.
38 That God had placed the tree there and given his human creatures
not even a hint of the dire consequences not just to them but to the
entire human race to follow them was and still is judiciously ignored
by Judæo-Christianity. In effect it reduced Eden to the most cruel
and sadistic of God’s jokes.
- 93 -
The “High Middle Ages” was not a particularly rich
time in terms of the cultural arts, save for architectural
ventures in the relatively severe and massive
Romanesque style, followed in the mid-12th century by
the Gothic (lighter and loftier construction, with greater