On my problematic relationship with American post-fundamentalism…


There was a small blog silence here lately because I did move with my family from the city of Antwerp to the much smaller city of Lier, about which I might write more later, living in a pile of boxes waithing for the internet to be connected for a while. Now that things are becoming a tiny bit more stabilised I feel like writing again. And I thought I might  start with a short standalone post that I’ve been thinking of writing for a while now, about my weird online relationships with American ex- and postfundamentalist Christians. If I’d only be able to write short posts…

As a blogger who likes to write about religion (among other things) as a ‘post-evangelicalish evangelical’ I’ve been reading a lot of Christian blogs and articles, and a lot of them (in the English language) seem to come from the US. Which is sometimes problematic… (see also this post)

The US has a very different culture from Belgium, and sometimes it is hard to even understand certain views and reactions from either the ‘conservative’ or the ‘liberal’ side. Both don’t make sense to me sometimes, especially as a dichotomy. (Living in a land where ‘liberals’ and ‘socialists’ are the opposite of each other alone might make it hard to take American dichotomies very serious anyway…)

I might be an evangelical, but I don’t really have a fundamentalist background not do I always understand American culture. I did grow up in secular Flanders, in a post-catholic world in the last stages of the great American 20th century dechristianisation. (watch out America, you will have yours very soon!) My pentecostal background might have had some fundamentalist influences sometimes here and there that I lost along the way long ago myself, but still I find it hard and sometimes impossibfundamentalsle to understand American fundamentalism, or the ‘photo-negative’ version a lot of ex-fundamentalist bloggers seem to have (I’m not thinking of you here) that is as difficult to understand from a  non-fundamentalist POV as fundamentalism itself and completely tied to it, no matter how ‘liberal’.

(As I grew up in a secular country there is nothing new or exiting about atheism and stuff like that. Seen a lot of it and it never could interest me. It’s just another rusty tradition to me, with boring old farts in it -I think of our Belgian Etienne Vermeersch now for example-, but I’m sure it’s very new and exiting if you just escaped from a secluded world of fundamentalism… Grass-is-greener effects always work!)

What I find the most difficult to understand are people who find identity in what they are reacting against. If I feel no connection with fundamentalism, I won’t feel more connection to the opposite version of it. Invert black and white in a picture and you don’t get another picture, but the same version only in negative version. You can have adaptations of you picture all you want, but it will never be a new picture. And if there is one thing that moving beyond fundamentalism requires it’s finding a new picture, and a better story.

If all you have to say is just an anti-these to what you grew up with, you will just end up with a worldview parasitic to what you’re trying to get away from, and a parasite can never survive without its host…

The worst here is the ‘guilt by association’ tactics.  Some people seem to use those with anything that could also be said by fundamentalists. Yes, fundamentalists have a lot of things wrong, but they also will have a lot of things right like all humans. Saying ‘fundamentalists say this too’ to discredit something is pure nonsense, just as using that same logical fallacy with atheists or anyone else. It’s not because Hitler loved his dogs that dogs are of the devil. Guilt-by-association and ‘saying this could be linked to Y’ are always very nasty logical fallacies! No matter if Y are liberals, the papists of the Spanish inquisition, Lacanists, muslims or liberal/fundamentalist Americans.

This does not mean that I do not enjoy reading the writings of some very interesting ex/post-fundamentalist American Christians. (Like Lana Hope and Elizabeth Esther for example). If people go beyond the problems of the fundamentalist worldview and find a bigger picture, I can get into their thoughts and learn a lot from them.

I do recognise that everyone has a context and that no-one writes in a vacuum,  and I am willing to learn about every culture, be it American fundies or lost jungle tribes, but if people just invert their fundamentalism (or construct an inverted fundamentalism as some new atheists do) and promote that as universal they can only lose me. It’s not a break with fundamentalism at all for me either…  And completely irrelevant if you’re not from a fundamentalist background…

what do you people think?

peace

Bram

1 Corinthians 13 (III)


reLOVEutionWe continue with my meditations on 1 Cor 13, Pauls love chapter. See also part I and II.

The next verse is the last of the first part of this chapter, and goes on in the same way as verse 1 and 2 which we’ve already read:

If I give away everything I own,
and if I give over my body
in order to boast,
but do not have love,
I receive no benefit.

(I recommend you to read this several times and think about it in all its implications and everything else that comes up when you read this. Asking the Holy Spirit for guidance before you do this is not a bad idea either.)

Paul still talks about all we can have and do without having love. This time he says we can sacrifice all we have including our own body, but without love we will not benefit from it.

The interesting thing is that when we compare the 3 first verses, the first verse says that without love we will just be meaningless, the second verse says that we are nothing, and the third verse says we won’t get any benefit. We can’t bypass love as a Christian. Not with knowledge, nor with strong faith, nor with any sacrifice we could make.

In medieval times we did have places called ‘godshuizen’ (god-houses) in this part of Europe, in which poor people were given housing and food. Sounds very good, but in fact the whole idea was that the (rich) people who founded such things just did it because they wanted to be sure they would go to heaven after they died. If this was indeed the reason why they built those houses and took care of the poor without really caring for them, we can doubt that it did really work. Paul here seems to assume otherwise…

Without love we are nothing!

There is some ambiguity in the original meaning of the second part, so some translations speak about giving over the body in order to boast, while others speaking in giving over the body to be burned, but the principle stays the same. Modern people don’t bother much with giving up their body anyway, so I don’t know if this particular sentence is that relevant for us. We do seem to revere our body more than that we are willing to sacrifice it.

But what Paul says here is very important. We can give and sacrifice everything we have and more, if it isn’t out of love (or at least creates love in us in the process), it will not do any good to us.

I must think of one more thing here: Jesus quoting the prophet Hosea to the pharisees in saying “Go and learn what this saying means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice.’” (Matthew 9:13). Let that sink in, here is the Living bible version:

‘It isn’t your sacrifices and your gifts I want—I want you to be merciful.’

We need to be merciful. We need to be loving. Sacrifices of any kind are meaningless without love…

Without love nothing can ever mean anything at all…

So what is love? What characteristics does it have? That’s something for next time. (you can cheat by opening your bible though…)

Peace

Bram

Some thoughts on the myth that ‘men are visual’


For this post we’ll go fXXXurther where I left off in my post about John Piper and nudity a while ago. There was one subject that we had to address there: the myth that ‘men are visual’.

Why do I speak of a ‘myth’ here? I in no way inted to use the word ‘myth’ pejorative, since I do think myths can be something very positive. I use it here as an explaining narrative that is believed in a certain culture. Think of Greg Boyds use of the word in his book title ‘the myth of a Christian nation. A myth doesn’t even just explain, it also forms identity.

What is meant with visual here? It is used for being aroused most by the things that we see. If we let go of the subject of sex here we see that different personality types do react more to different senses and different ways of data-input. Some people are better in learning stuff when they hear it, others when they read it, or when they experience it, etc… This differs from person to person, and has nothing at all to do with sex or gender.

So some people are visual. Their eyes are their main way of getting information and impulses through so that it connects. Visual people will get more from paintings and video’s (or written texts) more than spoken words or music or so. But it’s always a matter of degree, all people that are not visually handicapped are ‘visual’. But some are more auditive, or even tactile, or…

If we look at it this way, the question arises why all men would be mainly ‘visual’ when it comes to sex as our myth says, compared to women who seem to be not visual at all?

The first thing I can say is that I don’t believe that this is true. I am not that visual sexually myself, touch and closeness are much more important to me. And I’ve heard and read women who described being visual in a way that went far beyond anything I understand. I don’t get physically aroused that easily just from seeing a person of the other sex that is more or less attractive at all…

Recently I read a blogpost from an American ex-fundamentalist girl that now lives in Europe that often writes very interesting stuff. I quote it here not to expose here in any way, but as an example of a woman that clearly is ‘visual’ while I am a man that isn’t at all, if this is ‘being visual’. (I do disagree with her on something important, but we’ll get to that later)

When I see a man, dressed and all, I do not look at his impressive jaw or deep grey eyes or strong hands.

I look at your muscles, and your hips, and your nose (guess why). And if I can’t see them cause you’re wearing some fancy t-shirt, let me assure you: I can perfectly well imagine you naked. And even worse: I do it. all. the. time.

When I look at a man, I don’t stare at his eyes because they reflect some promise of love and tenderness. I look at your chest and imagine what it would look like in dim light. I wonder if you have a “V” and then I wonder if it would look good on you (it doesn’t on everyone).

(..)

I have all the imagination I need to picture you naked, even when you’re fully dressed. You cannot escape it, no matter how you behave or what you wear or say or do. I do not care about your positive character qualities. Not one – tiny – little – bit.

I’ll go back to this quote later, but let’s for now just say that it should be evident from my own experience, from what she describes, and from the people I met in my life some people (men and women) are visual when it comes to sex, and some are less visual (also men and women).

So our ‘men are visual (and women not)’ myth fails blatantly as a myth that tries to explain something, and to form identity. But on the other hand, our society is indeed oriented towards the exploitation of the male gaze and the female sexiness. A lot of money can be made of that in the advertisement industry if people can abuse sexy female to sell about just anything unrelated to female humans.
We just have to always remember, like I said before, this is in no way a question of ‘hard-wiring’ but of ‘programming’. The visual stimuli that arouse a person sexually aren’t even fixed. We Westerners seem to be obsessed with female breasts, but in some cultures men are used to seeing naked breasts without ever connecting those with sex. In other cultures even the sight of a bare ankle or arm might be very sexy and considered quite inappropriate. So what we’re talking about here is just a cultural thing, and a form of conditioning that is formed when we grow up.

So I a way it’s only ‘just’ a learned thing, in another way it is a programmation that might be hard or in some cases impossible to get rid of in this lifetime, especially if all you ever see is affirmations of it. But in no way it is a question of being ‘hard-wired’

We are no robots, remember?

So, some men and women are more visual than others when it comes to sex, but men are conditioned to be visual (because that can be abused commercially easily, although there will be other reasons too), and in some environments women are said that they are not at all visual. Which is a lie, some women are as visual as the most visual men, while others aren’t. this is quite damaging to women who are visual sexually. It’s part of a bigger ‘men want sex, women want love, so women just give sex to feel loved’ myth that is equally damaging and dehumanising to both sexes. I’m a man, but if I have to choose between a world without sex and a world without (romantic) love, I’ll choose to let go of sex, not love. Not in a million years

Another thing that should be noted is the logical fallacy of taking one step too far in the quoted blogpost, which seems to be very common. Like I said, being visual means that we get aroused though things we see. That’s all it means. It does not mean that there has to be a second step of reducing the person you see and find attractive to a sex object that you can use in your fantasy. Those things DO NOT have to follow from each other. Nakedness is just nakedness btw, we focus way too much on connecting nudity with sex. And no it’s not because I see a (clothed or naked) woman that I find visually arousing that I automatically have to make the step to fantasize about having sex with her.

Being visual (easily visually stimulated) and having sexual fantasies about strangers easily are not at all the same thing!

But we do probably have to come back to the conditioning problem here. If you’re used to making that step, it has formed a conditioned reflex, and it might be hard to unlearn it or imagine that people would not make that step. As hard as it is for me to imagine that anyone would be so perverted to automatically make that step… It must be very tiring if people really have a reflex every time the see an attractive person that’s their type to have fantasies about having sex with that person. I’m glad I’m not in that situation at all…

Ah, neuroplasticity

It’s also generally quite hard to communicate about these things because everybody has only their own experience (and the acummulated input of a lifetime) as a point of reference, and most people easily assume everybody (or everybody of their own sex/gender) is like them. What I’ve learned is that this way of thinking will always cause painful misunderstanding…

The other problem with the quoted blogpost, and with other expressions of the pseudo-feminist idea that women should master stereotypical but problematic macho maledom is that what is emulated here is an aberration of maleness, not at all how men should be, and actually not healthy for anyone, male, female or otherwise; It’s something we should unlearn because it only leads to dehumanisation of the gender one is attracted to.

(And to very bad TV shows like sex and the city and idiotic pop songs.)

One last thing is that it seems to me that the American ‘purity culture’ (that I still don’t understand at all) seems to be really fixated on this stuff. It’s every man’s battle to be visual and see women and want to have sex with them and watch porn all the time. This whole obsession might be more a form of projected belief that aligns all men including those who don’t have the problem into believing this stuff and becoming it.

(And it’s equally damaging to girls in other ways)

Isn’t that the opposite of what we need?

Shalom

Bram

See also

meditating on sexy models
Some old critique to ‘true love waits’ and Joshua Harris…
on sexy porn models and human dignity
Man as an automatic leader and/or utterly untrustworthy animal?
On the sex-life of aliens and sexism here on Earth…
A purity culture I don’t know…
Nothing more natural than cross-gender friendships?
Jesus against the sexism of his time: Martha and Mary
On cross-gender friendships and Christians…
teenage flashback: I’m not flirting, but I might need a hug…
christians and cross-gender friendships
sexual dominoes vs the fruits of the Spirit

 

Some thoughts on Charles Forts ‘book of the damned’


“So, by the damned, I mean the excluded.
But by the excluded I mean that which will some day be the excluding.
Or everything that is, won’t be.
And everything that isn’t, will be
But, of course, will be that which won’t be” – Charles Fort

charles FortOne of more weird things that I found worth re-reading in the light of my year of demodernisation (and that probably also fits with my occultmergent series) is Charles Forts ‘book of the damned’ (PDF here, copyright is expired), a classic pioneering work in the field of the paranormal and so-called ‘anomalistics’. His work on this field is so important that the word ‘Fortean’ is sometimes used to refer to weird paranormal stuff..
The ‘book of the damned’ is his first and most known book. It’s a mind-stretching book that -although somewhat outdated from time to time and quite hard to read from time to time- I would recommend to anyone who wants to broaden his mind.

I must add that the most recommended parts are the introducing chapters. I can’t even remember if i read everything at all of the  rest even. He seems so obsessed with strange things falling out of the sky (frogs, fishes, black rain, organic matter, …) that it gets hard to follow why anyone would be that interesting in such things, even with the weird theorising in between that is quite amusing… I’ll let you find out for yourself what the super-sargasso-sea is…

Some of my readers will ask ‘Why on the third planet would anyone benefit from reading an old weird book about the paranormal?’ My first answer would be that it does always benefit one to read things that stretch your paradigm, from the myths of other cultures to outlandish philosophers, and the first part of this book surely reads as some of the more outlandish philosophers I’ve seen, and sometimes he’s equally hard to understand. Even though it’s never completely clear if Fort does believe everything he’s theorising himself, his philosophical framework is rather radical but very intelligent although not always that easy to get into, a weird form of monist thought.
Fort is equally interesting as much philosophers that made the ‘canon’, but I do see why he isn’t regarded as such. He’s not the kind of heretic that”s liked by the academic lovers of  their pet heresies. He is just too consciously anti-academic for that… But this is exactly why he is so interesting as a philosopher. Sometimes one has to look outside of the box to see what’s special about the things inside, and how we shouldn’t take anything inside for granted.  Fort, although writing in the modern time,  is very helpful in this regard. Although maybe a bit gaga sometimes…

But why I enjoy reading him is also for his weird writing style, his self-decaprivating humor and his weird and original lines of thought sometimes. Fort is a very good example of a real ‘free thinker’: not bound by any tradition, going against the grain of the zeitgeist and all orthodoxies of his time (he rails a lot against positivism for example)  And like all real free thinkers who use their own reading and make their won road by walking around with a machete instead of  taking a bus for tourists he might be wrong very often, but that doesn’t mean that his very original ways of thinking are not interesting… (Another really free thinker is the Christian anarchist Ammon Hennacy, whose autobiography can be read here, I recommend it too!)

What’s also very interesting in the thought of Fort, if we go to the content of his book, is the concept of ‘the damned’ that is so central to the book that it’s  used in the title. Those ‘damned’ are, like the opening makes clear quote, the excluded things that don’t fit in, in his book mainly the data that do not fit in the dominant scientific paradigm that are for that reason ignored and have no place at all. The ‘damned’ are the things that have no place in a worldview, that are unthought, that cannot exist even if they do and are therefore ignored. If they are encountered they get filed away because they cannot be processed. This is a very important concept that we don’t often think about.

I can not here for example that some things that Christians traditionally believe and practice have been reduced to ‘damned’ by the  current Zeitgeist, and even by some Christians. A lot of what is common in charismatic circles when it comes to the supernatural for example is ‘damned’ for example not just by modern scientific thought but also by a lot of more liberal Christians,  (and some cessationist for other reasons, but cessationism can very easily be halfway to liberalism or deism even). Everything supernatural is ‘damned’ for a lot of modern people, even so that those who do experienced are sometimes more or less gaslighted: My tradition says that science says that your experience is unvalid and that you might just be not only wrong but crazy if you don’t recant your ‘damned’ worldview… (My experience is that a lot of ‘emergent’ Christians that I met online react the same way on the supernatural. I guess that’s why I was the first to ever use the word ‘occultmergent’.)
A crucified messiah is an example of the ‘damned’ from the first century that was excluded but later on became excluding (not always in the best way. A resurrected Christ is the same now again for a lot of people.

Even the ‘box’ outside of which Fort moved was once damned: The then new science of experiment and observation (against which Fort rails a lot in his book, sometimes with reason and sometimes like a madman fighting mills that he things are giants) was excluded once and is now excluding.

Things that were excluding in the past are damned now.

There are much more examples of ‘the damned’ that we probably don’t see because we don’t have a frame of reference to notice them. Blinds spots in how we look at the world because we never have learned to see certain things and name them. Some of those things might be very important though…

(And as Christians we must ask the Spirit to open our eyes to the blind spots that come with being part of a certain culture and time. It is the task of prophets sometimes to put some of the damned in the light and give them their place back…)

peace

Bram

1 Corinthians 13 (II)


In this post we resume my meditations on 1 Corinthians 13 (see pt I here), Paul’s famous ‘love chapter’, and we do so by going to the next verse:

And if I have prophecy,
and know all mysteries
and all knowledge,
and if I have all faith
so that I can remove mountains,
but do not have love,
I am nothing.

We started out with a rather radical verse, and now we continue in the same vein, maybe even more radical. What Paul says here is that even with all prophecy, mysteries, knowledge and faith we are still nothing if we don’t have love. The love mentioned here is still the NT idea of loving God above all and fellow humans as ourselves, which includes our enemies. The full characteristics ofreLOVEution this love will be summed up in the second part of the chapter so we’ll arrive at that later. Paul is very clear hear. In the first verse he used metaphor and said that all languages of the world and beyond without love are just a noisy cymbal, but here he is very clear.

If I have no love I am nothing.

Let that sink in again.

If you have no love, you are nothing…

The things Paul sums up are what a lot of people are searching for. Prophecies are divine revelations, mysteries are hidden things we cannot know until we are initiated. Knowledge is something we all still search for. All our modern science and technology comes out of that search for knowledge.

All these things will not benefit us in the end if we don’t have love…

Interestingly Paul does add one more thing here: faith. His wording hereis a direct allusion to Jesus, who said that if you have faith like a mustard seed you can move a mountain with it. But without this love for God and fellow humans all faith is just psychology and magic. Faith is relational, and comes down to trust, and trust goes together with love here. We are to have faith in God, to trust God.

(The more I let this sink in the more I wonder about certain things I’ve seen in certain corners of the charismatic world. But I am not the one to judge)

I do not at all think Paul means that those things are unimportant, but he is quite clear that, for a Christian, love is important in such a way that we can have all the rest and still be nothing without it. Love is not just the law, it is both the way and the goal, though it will never be complete on this side of the New Heaven and Earth.

Without it we’re indeed nothing.

(Note also here that stuff like money and power are NOT even mentioned here. I do think Paul mentions things that do have worth for Christians here, and omits things we should not give too much attention to )

Peace

Bram

Some thoughts on thoughtform-creation


“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” (Albus Dumbledore in the last Harry Potter book)

(TW: warning for some weird occult stuff that can be pretty dark. )

Long ago, in what can be seen as a previous incarnation of my current  occultmergent-series, I had a post that should have kicked off a serieus called ‘reclaiming supernaturalism’, that in the end only lasted a few posts. But that first post was an interesting one, that got responses from some people in the ‘emerging church’ dialogue even. The question I explored in that first post  was something like ‘where do spiritual beings like angels and demons come from in an evolutionary creation’, a question I will go back to more comprehensively in a future post, but part of the answer might be an idea that I then didn’t even know about and which I will explore in this post: the creation of thoughtforms.

What are thoughtforms
It’s not that easy to provide a good defintion of thoughtforms, also because some sources do have their definition built upon rather specific views of the universe, which is often the case with new-age and occult stuff. The explanations can be sometimes contradictory, and the jargon can be quite diverse and sometimes just unreadable or weird (see here,  here, here, here, & here for example. If you feel the urge to read those links, don’t get too weirded out and don’t follow instructions for creating them please!) I will try to give a simple understanding of the idea that isn’t tied to a very specific tradition and that could work in my own worldview…

Most basically a thoughtform is a being that ‘emanates’ from strongly projected human thoughts. Or in other word, a being created (consciously or unsciously) by human very strong human will. (hmm…) If you’re still reading now we will look together at what this could mean…

Thoughtforms can be created by one person on purpose (like a tulpa or a servitor) or sometimes accidentally, or come up from a collective thought (an egregore). They can still need the person or group that created them and only exist for them, or in some cases get a life on their own and even become ‘gods’ (note the small letter ‘g’ here, we’ll speak about that later) according to some occultists.
(Let’s not here once more  that the terms can be quite diverse in their use, and they sometimes do get mixed-up in different writings… It’s not an exact science with standard definitions and SI-units…) But the basic idea is that the thouhtform is more or less a spiritual being that’s created by humans, and not a conjured demon or other spirit. Thouhtforms created for a purpose are sometimes destroyed after they did what they were made for btw.

But let’s start with the beginning to see what exactly what I mean…

tulpa
The first example of thouhtforms is the so-called ‘tulpa’, a word that comes from  Tibetan Buddhism and according to wikipedia stands for a “magic formation generated by a powerful concentration of thought, or a materialized thought that has taken physical form. It is created through meditation and a process of intense concentration and visualisation. The story of Alexandra David-Neel who saw the monks doing this and did her own experiments and created a tulpa that was hard to get rid of later is an example.

But not only buddhist monks are in the business of creating tulpas. The website www.tulpa.info , which describes tulpas as just a ‘psychological phenomenon‘ can teach you hou to create your own tulpa, and defines them like this:

A tulpa is a consciousness that is very much like your own, in that has its own opinions, preferences, personality and so on. It can communicate with you, can have its own form, and can understand you like no one else could. It can give you second opinions on things and come up with original ideas of its own. A tulpa lives inside your brain, very much like you do.
(here is a longer description)

Now, what is interesting here is that tulpas, while they are described as a ‘psychological phenomenon’, don’t always seem to stay just in the imagined world of one person, but sometimes seem to interact with other people too. Using this technique to make an ‘imaginary friend’ might end up with a being that seems neither and is hard to get rid of, as Alexandra David-Neel experienced if we believe her story.

Smurfette was created by Garamel to punish the smurfs, but the original recipe is too misogynist to publish here...

Smurfette was created by Garamel to punish the smurfs, but the original recipe is too misogynist to publish here…

servitors
The word servitor launches us back into the occult jargon, and more specific in the shady realm of chaos magic. A servitor is more or less a created spirit-being that is created to aid the magician in a certain way. What shocked me is how easy it is with the internet to find a lot of ‘how to’ manuals to create such things. (To which I will not link now, I linked enough weird stuff already) A servitor is created, and sometimes destroyed when it fulfilled its purpose, but it sometimes can break free from its creator and get a life on its own. (hmm, reminds me of another story, of God creating humans beings…)

A note can be made here on the creation of thoughtforms on purpose. Usually a very strongly projected will and visualisation are used as we have seen already, in combination with an altered state of consciousness or trance, as the meditation of the Tibetan monks provides. In Chaos magic this is called a state of ‘gnosis’, and the used rituals have not much more purpose than getting into this state.
(Unconsciously made thoughtforms are probably made in a trauma or other very extreme experiences, and will not just come up under normal circumstances)

Lower progenitors of thoughtforms
If we use the classification of chaos magic, we can go up from here to egregores (thoughtforms emanating from a group that we’ll talk about next) but also go lower. A servitor is supposed to have some kind of personality or at least agency, but there are lower forms of ‘projected thought’ that do not create such things at all, like sigils (I don’t advise you to go experimenting with those) and actually just strong habits. The (re)programming of habits in NLP (sometimes used in the advertisement industry) could be seen as a very rudimentary progenitor of thoughtform-creation then, or at least a primitive form of chaos magic.  In the same way can a meme (yes, a concept invented by Richard Dawkins himself) seen as simple non-occult rudimentary form of an egregore.

Egregores
An egregore (sometimes spelled egregor or egrigor) is, according to wikipedia, “ an occult concept representing a “thoughtform” or “collective group mind”, an autonomous psychic entity made up of, and influencing, the thoughts of a group of people. The symbiotic relationship between an egregore and its group has been compared to the more recent, non-occult concepts of the corporation (as a legal entity) and the meme.”  It’s not that wikipedia is generally the best source for information on the occult, but I do think this is a good definition.

The simplest form is just the group mind, collective thoughts of a group, corporation of church, or the strange ‘atmosphere’ some groups can have. So we can use the word more generally in a way that does not have to imply that a ‘psychic  entity’ is formed, but the word is also used for the psychic entity that can behave like a thoughtform going wild and doing its own will, and modern magicians have their own views on egregores, and how to use them for their own purposes.

Godforms
If we go further in the line of thought followed by chaos magic, we get a being that’s powerful enough to function as a god with small letter g. A god is thus seen as a a very powerful thoughform created by a tribe for example, and all rituals and worship do indeed make it stronger. It does not seem so unrealistic for example to see the tribal gods of the OT Canaanite people as such. (This also might explain why in some fiction deities (or Japanese kami) need followers and worship to be powerful.)

Now that we’ve gone through all of this you should be able to read this weird story about the time-stretching servitor Fotamecus (I recommend reading it as fiction, although it certainly wasn’t meant to be written as such. ) and see how the hierarchy of thoughtform-like beings from sigil to servitor to egregore and finally godform functions in the thought of chaos magic. And even though this seems not the darkest example of modern magick, I still don’t recommend experimenting with it, kiddo’s…

So, that was my exploration of the thougghtform, which stayed neatly in the theoretical realm. Note that all of this has just been a exploration of how those things are seen in certain occult traditions and how it COULD work, not a ‘. It seems very plausible to me that such things can exist in some form, but do I believe that thoughtforms are the sole explanation for all spiritual creatures, including the one we call the Christian God? Not at all, when it comes to the Creator the roles are switched, and we and all of creation could be seen as thoughtforms created and sustained by Gods thoughts… I also don’t see this explanation as an explanation of anything spiritual, even if it could explain a lot of things from certain ‘ghosts’ and ‘imaginary friends’ up to some cases of encouters with aliens(?) and certain ‘gods’. We humans are not the creators of everything that’s out there. Spiritual beings could be an emanation of other energy sources in nature for example, or independent creatures from God (no matter if the bioloical part of the universe did evolve or not), or even something completely different…

So, what do you people think?
Pure nonsense or is there something to is?

peace

Bram

1 Corinthians 13 (I)


I don’t know where my year of demodernisation is going, apart from trying to stay away from too much Dawkinsian naturalist fundamentalism and not ingesting too much American stuff at the same time. At the moment it might seem that I’m mainly exploring the occult, and sometimes going back to discussions about sex(ism) and stuff like that. I will try to go to completely different domains too though.

I thought it might be good, being a Christian blogger of sorts after all, to spend some time on the bible parts (and other texts probably) I’m trying to meditate on, and write rather short posts -or longer ones like this one- about them. So I will start in this post with a series on one of my favorite chapters of the bible, one of the most famous parts of Christian scripture: the famous ‘love chapter’ from the first letter of Paul to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 13;1
1 Corinthians 13 is maybe one of the most romanticised parts of the Christian bible, but it seems to me that both the importance and the depth of what Paul is telling us here are often understated. The consequences of this chapter are beyond what you’d think when you just read it superficially. That’s why I’m going to break this into small parts of one or more verses, to let every detail sink in.

We begin with the beginning:
If I speak in the tongues of men
and of angels,
but I do not have love,
I am a noisy gong
or a clanging cymbal.

Rosetta_Stone I do know a few languages. My native language is Dutch, and my second language is English (especially written English even). I do know a bit of French as a Belgian, can understand a little bit of Latin, and if I’d work on it I’d be able to read some old Greek again. And then there are languages in which I know only a few words. (My Japanese is better than my Russian, but still almost non-existing…)

There are a lot of human languages that are spoken today, and even more if we count the extinct ones in which texts still survive. One can spend a lifetime learning to still master only a fraction of them. And then there are the languages of angels, of which we do know nothing, and will never know anything, they use our languages to communicate with us, but I do know some Pentecostals believe some people who speak in tongues might have a ‘prayer language’ that’s not human but angelic.

It actually does not matter. We could know all languages of all language-using beings in the universe, but if we don’t have anything to say, it doesn’t matter.
It will all be worth nothing more than senseless noise. I do feel a bit offended as a drummer here that Paul uses cymbals and gongs here to signify something like ‘useless noise’, but it’s true that banging on a cymbal is always a lot of noise, and unless that noise does fit in some context, like a composition, or a ritual, or a lesson or practice for learning to do these things, we shouldn’t do it.

Someone once said to not break the silence unless you can improve it!

And what is the only way to improve the metaphorical silence? What is the only way to make those languages more than mindless noise?

Love

Yes, let that sink in, Love!

Anyone who knows the NT should not be surprised. Love is what it all is about according to Jesus. To love God with all that we are, and to love our neigbor as ourselves is the whole law. And it is the purpose of the law. It’s the Kingdom of God breaking in into this present age when we live in this love.

And nothing else makes much sense.

This goes deeper than I can realise and I’m only scratching the surface here,  so I think I have to meditate some more on this one verse before I go to sleep

Peace to you all

Bram