A Neopagan Theology (2): Theology & Neopaganism

Theology is the science of Deity and of the relations between Deity and the universe. The term comes from the Greek words theos, meaning “deity,” and logos, which means “discourse.” In the narrow sense, theology has to do with the nature of Deity, but in a broader sense it covers the entire range of issues concerning man's relationship to Deity. Unfortunately, due to historical and cultural developments, the terms "theology" and "Christian Theology" are often used interchangeably in the Western world, although theology is not exclusive to Christianity, and this lack in distinction sometimes leads to the false assumption that theology is particular to Christianity, which quite often leads to the bias opinion that theology is somehow an invalid form of inquiry and spiritual expression, because it is incorrectly assumed to be in opposition to the "Neopagan way."

The aim of theology is to ascertain the nature of Deity and the relations which exist between Deity and the universe, in order to display the results of such an inquiry in a rational unity, as related parts of an organic system of truth. Theology recognizes the relations between revealed truths and the principles which unite them into a comprehensive organic system. In theology, the arrangement of these revealed truths and their relations is not optional, but is determined by the nature of the material with which it is concerned. Just as science is not constituted by facts alone–it is facts plus relations–theology is revealed truths (i.e. facts) in addition to and in conjunction with their relations.

Theology is important to us because it organizes our particular Neopagan world view into a consistent and coherent system of thought which defines our particular faith and is able to accurately express its meaning in a systematic and rational manner. Without theology we could not logically and effectively defend our faith against attack, study it, live it, or effectively share it with anyone who might inquire concerning the nature of it, because the teachings of our faith would have no real meaning beyond the incoherent interpretation of the individual. In other words, theology is important to us because it organizes and expresses the revealed truths and relations necessary to the our faith.

The Three Principles of Theology

Our theology, and indeed all theology, is grounded in the existence of Deity (know to us as God/dess), the capacity of the human mind to know Deity, and the provision of the means by which Deity reveals Deity's self to man. There are six common objections which are made against these three basic foundational principles of theology:

Objection #1: Since Deity and these relations are objects apprehended by faith alone, they are not proper objects of knowledge or subjects of science.

Response: Faith is a higher sort of knowledge than that which can be obtained by mere sense perception, it is knowledge conditioned by divine affection; and therefore, faith and only faith can provide suitable and sufficient material for scientific theology. Faith furnishes us with an understanding of realities which are inaccessible to sense perceptions alone, and thus is the highest kind of knowledge which is manifest as an operation of man's higher rational nature.

Objection #2: We cannot know Deity because we can only know phenomena.

Response: There are two types of phenomena which can be known: mental and physical. We are able to know the underlying substance of these phenomena through them, and our minds unite these phenomena not only with the knowledge of their substance, but also the knowledge of space and time, cause and right, and other such knowledge which is in no way phenomenal. The fact that Deity is not phenomenal cannot prevent us from knowing Deity anymore than we are prevented from knowing those other things which are not phenomenal.

Objection #3: We cannot know Deity because we can only know what bears analogy to our own nature and experience.

Response: Similarity between the knower and the known is not the only means of acquiring knowledge, nor is past experience. We are able to know by difference as well as by likeness, and our past experience is not a measure of our potential experience nor of our possible knowledge. Even still, if this were true we might still know Deity as we are made from Deity (creatio ex deo) and thus are very similar in our nature and our ability to experience.

Objection #4: We cannot know Deity because we can only know that which we can perceive in the sense of forming an adequate mental picture or image.

Response: We both conceive and know many things which we cannot form a mental image of, and which have no known correspondence to any other sort within reality such as: force, law and space. It is entirely possible for us to know Deity despite our inability to form an adequate mental image of Deity, just as it is possible to conceive of and know force, law and space.

Objection #5: We can only truly know that which we know in whole and not in part.

Response: We know nothing in whole, as we know no single thing in all of its relations. As creatures which are currently in a finite, and consequently, fallible condition, we are incapable of obtaining the whole of a thing; however, merely because we cannot know the whole does not negate the acquisition or importance of knowing the part. If we do not acknowledge the value of partial knowledge, then we lose all value to all knowledge. We may know Deity in part because Deity is composed of parts, and this knowledge is adequate to the purposes of science.

Objection #6: The revelation of Deity is a purely subjective experience and can furnish no objective facts that would constitute proper material for science.

Response: "Objective facts" is merely a term given in reference to similar entities experiencing similar ocassions in a similar subjective manner, as all known conscious entities experience and measure (i.e. interpret) their external reality in a purely subjective manner (cogito ergo sum). What makes a fact seemingly objective and scientific is that it works; that is, its pragmatic application, and not some sort of objective truth. In other words, objective facts are merely subjective facts made to work in one's wholly subjective and presupposed frame of reference – a posteriori flows from that which is a priori. It must be remembered that it wasn't until someone was able to make rocks falling from the sky "work" within their own rational framework that science even considered such a revelation to be proper material for science. If one finds that the purely subjective experience of the revelation of Deity works (which itself is a subjective interpretation in accordance with one's very personal frame of reference), then it constitutes proper material for scientific inquiry.

The Basis of Our Theology

Our theology is primarily derived from that which is revealed in nature. Natural Theology is the summary and explanation of the content of Deity's self-revelations through nature. By nature, it is meant not only the physical realm, or truth in regard to properties, substances, laws and forces of the material universe, but also the spiritual realm, or truth in regard to intellectual and moral constitution, as well as the orderly arrangement of human society and history. The universe is a source of theology, and the systematic presentation of the truths derived from observation, history, or science constitute natural theology, or the theology of nature.

It must be remembered when dealing with natural theology that it is merely a tool used to adequately explain Deity's revelation. If a philosophical argument or scientific fact is adequately refuted, found to be false, or seemingly found to be false, it should be remembered that such a refutation does not necessarily have a bearing upon the truth of our faith or its teachings, indeed, even if all natural theology were refuted it would not necessarily have any bearing upon the truth of our faith. Man is a finite and fallible creature with limited knowledge, a tendency to error, and an ego which tends to seek out what it desires rather than what is. What man deems true today may be shown to be false tomorrow.

On Doctrine & Teaching

Although the concept of any sort of doctrine may seem alien to Neopagan thought, it is really just another way of saying, "that which is believed and taught." The word doctrine comes from the Latin doctrina, which is from docere, and means "to teach." Doctrine is properly understood as that which is taught and believed to be true by a group. In various ways many groups will sanction their own "official" teachings and doctrines.

Our doctrines are developed over time and are influenced by natural theology, spiritual enlightenment, physical and spiritual experience, scientific discovery, contemporary cultural contexts, and other specific theological factors. So understood, it should be noted that various interpretations of doctrine can be fallible, some can be false, and still others can be widely accepted until found to be inadequate or in error. A doctrine is merely an individual or group's interpreted teaching of the revealed truth. A doctrine which is later found to be inadequate is not a nullification of the revealed truth, but rather a potential nullification of the way that truth is currently interpreted or applied. The fact that different religions exist which teach varying and often conflicting doctrines is testimony to the fallibility of interpeted teachings of revealed truth, which we call doctrine.

It is our position that no doctrine can be said to be the absolute truth; therefore, in our Neopagan world view our doctrines are meant to be looked at as "guides" rather than rigid and unbending truths that must be adhered to at all costs.

Principles of Doctrinal Development

In general, there are seven principles we use in our doctrinal development. All doctrine should be analyzed through the extremely fine-tuned lense of revelation, experience, reason, utility, current human knowledge, and ethical and traditional considerations. The following principles are most often used, but are not necessarily the only criteria used in, the determination of our doctrine:

1. Revelation. The doctrine is of both a personal and natural revelation; and the doctrine is revealed by Deity to the mind of the individual or group and confirmed to be true in nature, in accordance with its proper context and content, as a whole.
2. Experience. The doctrine is in agreement with an individual's physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual experience; the doctrine is able to be reconciled with past experiences; the doctrine is inclusive of; that is, considerate of the experience of the whole; and the doctrine is in agreement with revelation.
3. Reason. The doctrine is reasonable as interpreted; the doctrine is coherent and consistent in context and content; the doctrine does not conflict with common sense in an unreasonable manner; and the doctrine is in agreement with revelation and experience.
4. Utility. The doctrine works in accordance with currently held beliefs and understanding; the doctrine is of practical use in spiritual growth and understanding; and the doctrine is in agreement with revelation, experience, and reason.
5. Contemporary Context. The doctrine is in accord with current human knowledge and understanding; and the doctrine is in agreement with revelation, experience, reason, and utility.
6. Ethical Consideration. The doctrine is not in conflict with an ethical consideration of the whole; and the doctrine is in agreement with revelation, experience, reason, and utility.
7. Tradition. The doctrine is considerate of the traditional understandings of the family; the doctrine is considerate of the traditional understanding of Paganism and Neopaganism; and the doctrine is in agreement with revelation, experience, reason, and utility.

Conclusion

Theology is important to us because it provides us with a logical and coherent system of beliefs for the purpose of guiding our spiritual enlightenment so as to cultivate the quality and enjoyment of conscious experience in the individual; and indeed, all which is within existence that is capable of benefiting from such spiritual growth. This is done through the development of doctrine which is brought about by observation, reflection, and an unceasing thirst for love and truth.

A Neopagan Theology (1): On Method & Inquiry

On Method & Inquiry

by Alraune

Philosophic Method

To undertake an honest inquiry into anything we must first begin by questioning what it is that we can know with the utmost certainty; that is, that in which we are most capable of holding the least amount of doubt concerning the surety of truth in regard to our knowledge. We are capable of ascertaining that this is where we must begin our inquiry for the simplicity of it, or rather, we can little doubt that if we are incapable of approaching the simplest and easiest of a thing we will most certainly fail to ascertain those things which are of greater complexity. This system of inquiry is known as methodic doubt (also known as hyperbolic doubt), and it is comprised of four steps:

1. The acceptance only of information which can be affirmed true with certainty.
2. The dismantling of truths into smaller units.
3. Solving the simpler problems first.
4. Making complete lists of further problems.

The system of methodic doubt was first used by the French philospher, mathematician, and physicist René Descartes. In brief, it was through this system Descartes deduced that, putting aside all perceived things, it would seem that there is but one thing which can be known with a higher sort of certainty than all other things, and that knowledge is: I am, I exist; I am that "I" am known by myself to be; or I think, therefore I am (cogito ergo sum). It is from this very simple and seemingly obvious; indeed, even seemingly insignificant conclusion, that two other conclusions were able to be further deduced, and what would come to be known as the Laws of Thought would be firmly established, or:

1. The First Fact – I exist.
2. The First Principle – Something cannot be that which it is not.
3. The First Condition – I am capable of knowing.

The Laws of Thought state that an individual can know they exist; that therefore they are capable of knowing; and that because one can know they exist and that they are capable of knowing, it becomes apparent that something cannot be that which it is not (e.g. both existent and nonexistent). These three primary truths must be accepted at face value; that is, as they are, or all manner of reason must necessarily break down.

Subjective Truth & The Axiom of Self

Descartes' famous deduction brought one other very important revelation to light; that revelation being that, all knowledge, and therefore truth, which we are capable of knowing, is purely of an idealistic nature. That is, everything which we think we know through both deduction and perception is restricted to the mind of self. In other words, it may be that there exists an actual material realm which is divorced from the realm of ideas, but even if such is the case, we are, as conscious individuals, entirely incapable of knowing such a realm actually exists with any degree of certainty without first accepting the inescapable truth that everything we know to be true is, in all actuality, purely of the realm of the mind.

Furthermore, this realm of ideas from whence we perceive and reason all things, is of a purely subjective frame of reference. It is not necessary that all things which exist must be of some sort of subjective idealism, but that all that we know of existence, as individuals, must be from the reference of our own subjective consciousness. In other words, so far as reason is concerned there is no escaping the fact that the root of all truth which any individual is capable of ascertaining is firmly predicated on subjectivity (i.e. the "I" in the Laws of Thought) and the reality of the realm of ideas (i.e. the "thinking" that the "I" is, or is doing).

Now, certainly there has been and there still exists some considerable debate regarding dualism and the mind-body dichotomy and the philosophies of materialism (from which physicalism eventually developed) versus idealism, and in this debate is contained the underlying question as to whether or not ideas arise from purely physical properties, physical properties arise from ideas, or there are in actuality two distinct realms of the physical and ideas; however, even if one were to suppose that ideas arise from the physical realm, it would not negate the fact that any philosophical position taken is necessarily predicated on subjectivity due to the a priori truth on which all empirical knowledge rests. That is, one cannot experience one's existence but rather one who exists experiences things. The existence of self is ultimately a very personal existential revelation on which all subsequent rational thought is based (i.e. the "I" who is thinking).

That being said, it is not necessary that at this time we rationalize what constitutes the body and the mind, how they interact; or indeed, if they even exist independent of one another, but rather only that we simply recognize that the subjective self is the starting point of that certainty of truth which we are most capable of obtaining.

Nature As Reference

Once we recognize that the subjective self is the axiom on which all our future knowledge rests we are then able to begin asking the next most obvious question which arises: What am I, or what is I, and where did that which I recognize to be I come from?

The answer to at least part of our question would appear to be readily apparent; in that, if I immediately recognize that there is something which I refer to as myself, then there must also be that which I consider not to be myself, or I; for the First Principle clearly declares that something cannot be that which it is not. What is that which differentiates that "something" which is "I" from that "something" which is not "I"? Self-awareness. The self is cognisant of what it is in contrast to what it is experiencing. Hence, we readily know that the self is present, and it is from that subjective frame of reference that self is also able to determine that something else is present which self is experiencing.

However, we know that experience is necessarily subjective, and therefore anything which the self experiences must be known through thought, and thus is deemed to be of the idealistic realm. We also know that in order to have an experience one must first exist, and thus is deemed to be of the physical realm; therefore, it must be concluded that thought is contingent upon the mind, and the mind is contingent upon thought. Now, it could be that the natural realm is merely thought eminating from the self, and thus, is not truly separate from it, but merely an action which the self takes; it could be that the idealistic realm is eminating from the physical self, and thus also not truly separate, but merely a process of the physical self; or it could be that the natural realm is entirely separate from the idealistic realm, but so far as the self is capable of knowing, the two are both necessarily separate and contingent upon one another. Thought cannot exist without first having the self, and the self cannot exist without first having thought. In other words, any sense of self requires thought, and any self-awareness requires the existence of self.

"I" am both a physical, that is existent being, and a being of ideas, and furthermore, I can know no other way in which any thing which exists can exist except both in the physical realm and the realm of ideas. Taken one step further, I cannot know with any degree of certainty the existence of any thing without also accepting the idea of that thing as a necessary contingent of its existence. Although there may be ideas without physical representations and there may be physical things without idealogical representations, I, and all logic and reason which is founded upon the First Fact and the other Laws of Thought which any individual rationing "self" uses, must accept that the most "I" am capable of knowing with the utmost degree of certainty, is that ideas and physical existence are necessarily separate realms or states which are contingent upon one another.

Thus, we may conclude that a second axiom of truth exists which is necessarily part of the axiom of the subjective self – nature. That is, nature and the subjective self are both two separate parts of the same whole.

This does not mean that a thing is both that which it is and that which it is not, which would violate the First Principle, but rather that there are two polar halves of the same whole: I and existence. Taken further, it then follows that there can be no existence without self-awareness, and that it may be that there can be no thing that exists which does not contain some sense of self – panpsychism.

In conclusion, we now have two frames of reference, which are contingent upon one another, by and from which we may obtain knowledge of a higher sort of certainty: the subjective mind of self and nature. The subjective mind of self looks to nature as a frame of reference concerning the truth of "what is".

Revelation in Nature

By using our method of inquiry and the consequential axioms which it yields, we are able to conclude with a higher sort of certainty than we have in all other things, that nature (i.e. the universe) is equipped to provide us with a reference whereby we might be guided toward an existential truth; that is, because nature is, in part, a representation of what is likely to be true, then it also likely contains, at least in and throughout the entirety of itself, part of the revelation of any truth which is.

It is because of this realization that we look to nature as a whole, and in its entirety, as a means by which to discern what is and should be and what is not or should not be. Among the many questions nature is able to aid us in answering are:

• Questions of truth and reason – Nature shows us that truth can only be known subjectively, and that reason is written into nature, of which the self is part, and that such reason essentially consists of logical consequence, or rather the relation between propositions as "either, or" and "if, then".
• Questions of reality and existence – Nature provides us with a reference by which we might determine what is real and what is existent, such as the necessary contingent (so far as the self is capable of knowing) of physical existence with that of consciousness.
• Questions of purpose and meaning – Through nature we can see that purpose and meaning are found in both individual liberty and interdependence, as parts of the whole, in which our own subjective experience plays a role in conjunction with its utility and support for the whole of existence.
• Questions of ethics, justification, and moral behavior – Nature, since we are part of it and it is part of us, clearly reveals to us that that which upholds the sustainment of the whole, to the greatest degree; that is, with the least degree of unnecessary hinderence and interference upon others, and sustains the self by means of the most positive experience possible, must be that which is justified and ethical.

Conclusion

It is by using this method of inquiry that we are able to develop our philosophical system from which is derived the systematic theological presentation and argument for our particular Neopagan belief system; that is, a set of logical and coherent revelations which culminate in a full blown system of faith and which underline the basis for our own subjective world view.

Bisexuality and Masculinity

I will be the first to admit that being bisexual, truly bisexual, and a man is a hard thing to swallow and an even harder thing to defend. Both men and women will either outright claim you are queer or they will secretly harbor suspiscions, and if so, they are both wholly and entirely wrong, so long as the man knows himself very well.

It is a double standard: a woman may be bisexual and it is accepted as such, but if a man claims such a thing suspiscions arise. Why? Is it not permitted for a man to emotionally and sexually express himself with his same gender and for only women to do so? Is it somehow "cooler" for women to be bisexual? Do women get excited less by the idea of two men having sex than men get excited at the thought of two women having sex? I doubt it! I know that both women and men want different things in this world, usually (a woman wants to be all and a man wants to have all), but if they have a desire for the opposite gender, then they most likely also have erotic feelings when perceiving two or more of that gender uniting in sexual activity. If for any other reason it is because sex between members of the same gender is something "bad" and "forbidden" for the opposite gender to perceive.

But I ask, "What is wrong with two men expressing themselves as two women might?" What is less beautiful or right about it? And why not see it as the same? Why is one driven upward in society as exciting (female bisexuality) and the other driven downward (male bisexuality)? Why the double standard? And why do more women not come out in support of bisexual men as men do for bisexual women? Is it that women are so into "being all" rather than "having all" that this is not the case, or is it something else? I wonder these things...

Granted, I have known a few women who are quite openly excited by the thought of a man being with another man, so this is not the case across the board; indeed I have dated women who encourage such sexual activity. Certainly, not the whole of society views bisexuality and masculinity as contradictory states of existence, nor has this ever been the case; in fact, in gladiatorial days it was quite common for the victor to sodomize the loser as an added show for the entire arena, which I am certain was much loved or it would not have been so common an occurrence. I can guarantee that if the women did not love it and the men did not also find it exciting, it would have rarely been an occurrence at all!

What makes anything about same gender sexual activity exciting to the opposite gender? Perhaps men love the beauty of female homosexual behavior and females love the power of male homosexual behavior? I do not know, but I do know there is a double standard.

On to me and my bisexuality...

I am quite secure in my bisexuality, although I do not advertise it to anyone but those who both have a need-to-know and who deserve to know, such as any partner I am with, particularly if I am in-love with them and wish for them to be in-love with the real me. It is hard being a man who is bisexual, but it is my place in life. I am capable of loving both genders and am capable of being sexually excited by both. I am able to express myself across the board and to allow others to express themselves.

Maybe I am just oversexed, or maybe I am just trying to be balanced in my life on many varied levels? I am no less a man, no more heterosexual and no more gay – I am bisexual. I am proud to be bisexual and I find myself at exactly where I should be and maybe even at a higher plane of evolution for being there. I am what I am. I am a bisexual man, secure in who he is and what he desires, as well as who he loves. I am a bisexual man and I am faithful, honest, and proud.

I love the woman I am currently with and I want to marry her and I can and want to be committed, but I am capable of loving and finding sexual fufillment in both men and women – this is true bisexuality. A common misconception of bisexuals, particularly men who are bisexuals, is that they are incapable of commitment and loyalty. Just because I can love both women and men, and I am able to find both women and men sexually attractive does not mean that I must act upon those feelings at all times. In that aspect, bisexuals are no different than heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Peace & Happiness,

Alraune

On Love

By Alraune

The definition of “Love” is one which has escaped human endeavor throughout the ages, but that does not mean it has not been attempted and, in some instances, very closely arrived at. It is my intention here to offer my own attempt at defining “Love,” if I may be afforded the opportunity by the dear reader.

First, it should be noted that “Love” is not an objective thing which can be accurately and adequately defined for all conscious entities, nor is it a purely subjective thing which can hold any definition, but it is much more of an interjective thing, meaning it by definition involves some sort of relationship.

I therefore propose that the definition of “Love” requires the inclusion of relationship; otherwise, it cannot and is not what we all know to be Love. 'Tis true one can love their self or love another without return, but a relationship of some sort, either superficial or between “me” and “I” must necessarily be in order to have any sort of Love.

I further propose that “Love” requires the recognition, acceptance, and desire for the unique characteristics of that other with which a relationship is being shared, and that varying degrees of Love can and do exist in direct correlation with the amount of recognition, acceptance, and desire entered into.

Finally, I propose that there is a difference between “loving” and “being loved.” The former is the degree of recognition, acceptance, and desire for another from the first person perspective while the latter is the degree of recognition, acceptance, and desire being felt by one in the first person perspective. “Love” is then, the condition of feeling “Love” for another (loving), or feeling “Love” from another (being loved), or being in-love (the reciprocal relationship of loving and being loved).

For the layman then, “Love” is what is experienced with someone whom you can be your true and naked self around, and who can be their true and naked self around you, and you both recognize, accept, and desire one another for exactly what you are individually and together.

True Love is the freedom to enter into a relationship without fear or reservation concerning who you are, and with no fear or reservation concerning who the other is, but rather acceptance and desire for one another.

This is the best definition for “Love” I have arrived at to-date, and I do not think it can be surpassed by me in any other way other than poetry and art and expression, for “Love” is a form of expression as well as feeling.

How else could I define “Love?”

Jennelle

I explode with joy and excitement,
I burst into flame,
I thirst to be me in you,
For you to be in me,
All fades and is nothing,
We are clarity and life,
I am alive, I am me!

You have become my breath,
I suck you in,
I soak you up,
You soak me up,
I am full and happy,
We are complete and one,
You are alive, I see!

You melt with my desire,
I consume you,
I experience you,
You experience me,
You are safe and warm,
We are united in being,
We are alive, we feel!

An ocean washes in,
I am calm in you,
You rage in me,
Our emotions stir,
We flow and ebb,
We bath in our delight,
We share total existence!

There is nothing else now,
Time ceases to exist,
Space is meaningless,
Life is purposeful,
We are, that we are,
All pain and sorrow fades,
Love has come, I awake!

It was all just a dream,
It was all just a dream.
We are not the dream,
We are the dreamers.

It's alright now,
The dream is over.
We have awoken in Paradise,
Lying beside one another.

The birds are singing,
Butterflies are everywhere.
The grass is soft,
The Sun is warm.

We frolic in the woods,
We laugh and sing.
We bathe in cool waters,
We share all things.

The Sun sets but we do not sleep,
We make love in the moonlight.
Our emotions rise into the sky,
In this place we find our being.

Sleep creeps in and we both grow scared,
Hold my hand! Hold my hand, my Love!
Together we can overcome,
Our love is far too strong!

We drift off to sleep in each others' arms,
I am asleep, but you awaken.
You cover me with a blanket, and all your love.
You kiss me, I moan in delight.

The Sun rises and we both are roused,
You are still there, I am still there.
We are in love, we are one.
I hold you close to my chest.

We are not the dream,
We are the dreamers!

We were not the dream,
We are the dreamers!

Hold my hand! Hold my hand, my Love!
Hold me tight, hold me close.
Cover me with your love,
I long to awaken beside you.

Love has come.

True Human Sexual and Relational Behavior

Definition. “Desirable” — any number of subjective and deeply personal perceptions

True human sexual and relational behavior is much like is describe in classical texts about sexual evolution and such liberal and modern texts on sexual evolution as 'Sex at Dawn' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá.

The woman wishes to be ejaculated within by as many “desirable” men as she possibly can within her fertility cycle, once she loses her fertility cycle she wishes to be ejaculated within only by “desirable” men which she trusts to be disease free, safe/loyal, and who are also fertile (she still hopes in technological society or supernatural salvation), although she will occasionally stray from that guideline if the male or female is extremely attractive (seeking 'pleasure'). Afterward, the major portion of her project becomes “self preservation” with the secondary hope of “help for her” along with a fertile and a “desirable” male.

Her “denial” stage is marked by the very real possibility of salvation and her realization of growing older, running out of time, and having become less biologically (and therefore instinctually) acceptable. She adapts and becomes more sexually “open” to compensate for her lack of “biological attraction” and becomes more sexually “liberal” At the same time the resourceful woman becomes more conscious of the end of things; and therefore the end of life, and becomes more spiritually “open” to love, and its many forms. She seeks to “give birth” through other means and seeks out “relationships” as a means to continue to “give birth.”

Eventually she accepts her circumstance in life and she desires someone she feels the most satisfaction and comfort in to be someone to die with or die loving. Her entire sexual, relational, and sexual moral belief system is eventually discovered as being based upon and centered around “giving birth” and “seeking pleasure.” The woman becomes fully conscious of herself!

Meanwhile, the male action is completely different. First the man seeks the women most easily had, then he seeks out the women most “desirable”, and then he seeks out the most :fertile” and otherly pleasant. He does this constantly and consistently, in a cycle. The male is as equally concerned with pleasure as he is reproduction, if not more concerned for the former. His primary concern is “relief of stress” followed by “survival through reproduction.”

It must be understood that the male “emotional” outlook is much different from the female “emotional” outlook. Men do not necessarily at FIRST feel their survival in the feminine sense. It may be more about “personal NOW preservation” than “later preservation,” but this is the dominant masculine view (I am confident any study would prove).

At first, men will likely act more on “attraction” and “mere pleasure” than on any sort of attachment. Next, as they grow older they will act more on “relationships”, attraction, interaction, and united states, because they will realize that although their seed is still good, their “appearance” in comparison to other young and fit men becomes increasingly difficult to counter-display. Although they “hold” the part, they no longer “look the part.” By doing this older men find a way to adapt to the still available women and find the “attraction” and “mere pleasure” which drove them and still drives them to begin with.

The infertile women find pleasure in their many available options, and the elder or infertile men, then find the same. Inevitably, both genders, if given sufficient thought, end up with bisexual and polyamorous tendencies due to life experience and the wisdom gained from it.

Hypothesis On Magick

Ordinarily and almost across the board, in Western society, many things chalked up to “magick” are dismissed as coincidence and/or psychological anomalies. I have pondered this thought and held this thought for many many years (mostly due to indoctrination in the Western education system), but I no longer think it may be true.

I base my conclusions largely on experience, but also upon logic. I do not think “magick” is something which can be, or is meant to be, understood via the traditional Western understanding of knowledge, but more upon experience and the knowledge gained through 'relationship.'

Most Western thinkers, especially psychologists and philosophers, would agree that there is something to be said for “we create our own reality”, but they would emphatically state this is minimal and possibly no more than 25% of true and objective reality, with most stating the percentage of reality created by subjective “opinion” is much less and therefore much less important. They would even go one step farther and state that those who believe otherwise must be either confused/mistaken or mentally-ill/insane. They base this upon their subjective opinion that materialism/physicalism as an axiom underlying their worldview is 100% correct – at least once you boil the “logic” down.

As I approach age forty and read, learn more, and experience more, as well as think more, I tend to be nagged to death by my own conscience to disagree and reevaluate the underlying axioms of this worldview.

“If” panpsychism is, or could be, true, “if” positive thought is recognized as a force within psychology, “if” modern physics admits the place of the observer, “if” parapsychologists have empirical evidence of psychic phenomena, and “if”various philosophers of consciousness (such as Christian de Quincy and/or Galon Strawson) could be correct in their assessments, then my personal subjective experience combined with rational analysis could very well be a heavy indication of something―another force—much more powerful than is, and has ever been, recognized by modern scientific thought.

In other words, I look back on various “experiences” and I cannot logically assign them to coincidence or any “natural” occurrence. Take the wonder and excitement of my teenage years for example – that which occurred was not chance, but much too perfect. I had a great early life, and I expect to have a much greater life as I go!

Too often I got what I placed my “intention” into, not just in my teenage years, but beyond – even now. These things were too often against chance occurrence, in my mind. How could I by chance “find beer” on many occasions as an underage teen deeply desiring such, be with two women or more at once, have the women I desire, experience the things I longed for, have the paranormal experiences I was excited to have, experience mystical/magical/paranormal phenomena, go through the things I thought “normal” occurrences in life, and generally get exactly what I either expected or longed for including those things indoctrinated and drilled into my head as “normal?”

This is too much for me. I cannot chalk this up to chance occurrence – I somehow made it happen. You would not understand unless you experienced it and been through it. Somehow, someway, I can, we all can, make a large portion of our reality despite the supposed objective reality – it has to be! Subjective “intention” must account for 50% or more of objective reality – it just seems such to me when I view it in light of experience.

The only other option is that what is “thought” to be uncommon is actually common, which means someone or something is screwing with us all, which, in my mind, is just as “crazy” as my hypothesis. Either “magick” is true, or someone knows the probabilities and possibilities of objective reality and they are using them to control us. Which do you believe, because it can only be those two – in my estimation. Something is going on “experientially” which requires explanation beyond the normal.

I cannot really explain my experienced reality, but I can state that when I look back it could not be mere chance. Somehow I made (or something listening to me or monitoring my experience made) a large portion of my reality, if not all of it, occur – this is the true definition of magic or the supernatural in most minds.

Just look! Tally it up! Take the good and the bad, evaluate it against what you desired, throw in a few other subjective things and LOOK! Something is going on!!! Either someone is working with you or against you – we all see it. Well, what if it is largely “you”?

This is my hypothesis on “magick” - we actually create a very large portion of our reality, but not necessarily all alone. Objective reality is merely an agreed upon subjective reality, but maybe and perhaps not even as deeply as we believe. Maybe it is more like 75% subjective and 25% objective makes reality or more towards the subjective, or at the very least 50/50? What “if?” There are plenty of experiential reasons to “know” this – we just lack understanding.

We do make our reality, but sometimes it takes time – which is maybe something else to consider, and perhaps something that remains taught but is entirely forgotten? There is certainly something going on and it should not be denied, but explored. Somehow we are actually “making” reality and not by the traditional scientific worldview in this present day and age. Something “larger” is going on! I feel it in the depths of my being – I “know” it.

Forget about what I said, just take your life and calculate “chance” against your own thoughts and “intentions” — see what YOU think. Experience tells me magick, to some degree or another, is true. It is completely obvious to me, especially after all these years of pondering and searching for “logical' evidence to potentially support what seems obvious. What can be more “logical” than searching for supporting evidence for what you know to be obvious, especially if you understand logic and axioms? You will be told it is wrong, but in actuality if you look at the core of what makes the scientific method you will KNOW the axioms and/or “assumptions” are the true reality of your thought-processes! You need only demonstrate them, and not necessarily consistently, if you agree one can change their mind and the “observer” is key.

The knowledge of the truth of “magick” is experiential, and that is how and the only way in which the truth of “magick” can ever be understood by the wise man or woman. “Magick” is experiential “knowledge”, which is another true form of knowledge and perhaps the only one.

Peace,

Alraune

Youtube, Digital Music, and the Next New Sound

Allow me to make a prediction... The next big thing in the music world is going to be an underground music movement, much like Punk but probably more in-line with rap/metal (a sound that crosses cultural barriers) which is grassroots and utilizes video and song as a means to promote individual liberty and the knowledge (aka 'philosophical underpinnings') necessary to truly understand it in a presentable, exciting, and instinctual manner. In short, this is precisely what the masses of youth desire and need.

It will be the movement of the 2010s, reaching into the 2020s, and likely will mirror much of the sixties and seventies of the twentieth century. Additionally, it will usher in a 'customized' fashion industry through the premise of individualism and artistic expression, and may even include the ability to exchange such artistic expression with those whom one desires to have a relationship (something like pins and patches, stickers, and similar items which can be customized yet exchanged or easily discarded as one's opinions evolve).

It is going to be something entirely unique, individualistic, yet communal. It will likely include respect and conscious reverence for the environment, yet emphasize individual liberty and the acquisition of knowledge which is characteristic of the Information Age. I base all of these conclusions on what I see, what is, and my personal ability to see the greater picture.

This music, of which this article is primary concerned, will be a new yet not entirely a new sound – its ability to cross cultural barriers will be much more important than its “newness.” It will be accompanied by videos packed with useful knowledge and information, even educational, yet which provide entertainment and visual instinctual fulfillment. Even live concerts will include this visual appeal and most 'followers' will be as interested, if not more interested, in the visual aspects of the music as they are in the music itself.

In other words, the new sound, or more appropriately 'experience', will be a holistic musical approach. Musicians in live performance may even go so far as to include smells as well as visual and audio stimulation in their performance, though this is the farthest stretch of my own imagination. By far the holistic sights and sounds will be the main attractions, which can be done on many levels not inclusive of the live performance.

The useful knowledge gleaned from the video along with the enchantment of the audio performance will be the key factor, without a doubt.

This new sound, indeed new experience, will likely have philosophical underpinnings (probably much along the lines of such geniuses as Christian de Quincy and Alfred Whitehead) and will appear to the older generations as much more like a cultural revolution than a musical movement; indeed, most truly influential music movements have a philosophical core and sociological objective.

The movement will probably evoke such thoughts as those held by the influential philosopher Jacques Ellul, but with a potential and offered solution which utilizes technology while promoting basic humanity, individualism, sustainability and ecological conscience. Indeed, it will be something entirely different and entirely fresh and youthful.

This catalyst of individualism with a communal consciousness will undoubtedly also offer a new sexual revolution – perhaps that of polyamory and a new understanding of human sexuality and identity. It is going to change society, perhaps globally, and alter perceptions. It will be the first truly global, yet grassroots movement, driven by the language of music and visual art. It is going to be an exciting time – Woodstock times a thousand. This is my prediction...

The State or “the man” will no longer be the Enemy, but the entire 'Old World Order' and “System' itself. Anything which stands in the way of individualism and one's individual position within the communal and holistic cosmopolitan sphere will be deemed wholly inadequate and backwards.

Prescription drugs will be frowned upon but not entirely condemned and holistic approaches will take presidence. Formally outlawed yet holistic drugs will become the “in” thing, and all things natural BEFORE man-made will be the overarching cry! “Nature” will be a big term, but with the inclusion of useful and holistically thoughtful technology.

The world is about to be turned upside down and undergo a major revolution due, for the most part, to the Information Age and the human influence upon it. Individualist hackers and computer geeks will become viewed as champions of freedom, religious and traditional political extremists will be labeled conformists and non-individualist thinkers as well as eco-terrorists, and those who embrace the 'Old World Order' will generally feel the same effects.

Certainly, governments will try to ride the tide, join and influence the movement, but it will be so diverse, so quickly, and so supported by lone wolves of the Digital Age that completely fooling the masses will be next to impossible. No government authority of the 'Old Order' will succeed in altering the course, simply because the seeds of individual liberty and how to recognize if one has such have already been planted as of this writing. Old methods of mass control will be practically useless for the mere reason that “thinking for oneself” will be the global call-to-duty.

This is the coming revolution, and as always, it will begin with art – the universal and unnameable expression. It will be the greatest moment in human history, effectively dissolving the remnants of Aristocracy and dismantling the entire system on which we are currently founded. It will not turn out as globalists and their think-tanks have thought, for humanity and the human individual, especially the mass of them as individuals, is much stronger and wiser than any model could ever predict.

I am optimistic about the future and I await the “new sound.”

There will be a rejection of nearly every supposedly necessary pillar of civilization in an effort to rewrite the entire formula. It will be an entirely new look at how things “can be” and how they “must be.” And it will start via the mass education of individuals about such things through the mass dissemination of music combined with visual art and practical knowledge via the means available in the Information Age – a movement which could never be stopped once started (and it is already beginning).

It is going to be an interesting time with many facets, especially as the 'Old World Rulers' attempt to compensate and maintain control or evoke small progressive steps and hatch multi-generational plans to regain control.

To be honest, I do not think the 'Old World rulers' and their “thinkers” understand the can-of-worms they have opened in allowing the Digital and Information Age to come into being in their arrogant hopes for complete and total domination, although some may have seen it coming and tried to warn their comrades of such. The individual human spirit is a powerful thing, and when allowed to work individually yet in mass it is unstoppable. We have already passed the precipice for controlling what is already unfolding and it will now be. Even a complete and total lock-down or gradual usurpation is doomed to failure – the Pandora's box of individual liberty and communal spirit has been opened and it cannot be closed. Perhaps, one may suppose, great men and women already knew this and allowed and encouraged it to happen?

Blessings and happy future,

Alraune

In Defense of Bisexuality

In Defense of Bisexuality & Why It is a Natural and Socially Beneficial Sexual Orientation

It is true that one might utilize the argument that only members of opposite genders may reproduce in a natural manner, and the argument can be made that this is the sole purpose of sexual activity, but to do so means that one must consider there to be no other purpose for sexual activity and that any means of sexual activity outside of that very small exception are unnatural in themselves. Kissing, caressing, licking, and other forms of sexual affection, as well as masturbation, oral and anal sex would all have to be considered unnatural sexual activities if one holds to this argument and philosophical position. Birth control would also have to be considered unnatural (including the ingestion of plants that naturally cause abortion), and a very extreme position would have to be taken to truly believe in and hold to this position on the nature of sexual activity.

I do not believe most reasonable people could truly take the aforementioned position on the nature and purpose of sexual activity, nor do I believe the evidence provided by Nature supports such a narrow viewpoint. In fact, nature shows us that kissing, caressing, many forms of sexual affection, masturbation, oral and anal sex are all wholly abundant and rampant throughout the animal kingdom, meaning they are both natural and normal forms of sexual expression and stimulation. Since this is so, it therefore follows, that Nature does not support the idea that sexual activity is merely for reproductive purposes. In fact, Nature appears to show that most sexual activity is initiated, guided, and driven by both the quest for self-pleasure and emotional and social interaction.

If Nature provides overwhelming evidence for various forms of sexual activity which cannot support and do not directly promote reproduction, then it logically follows that all forms of sexual activity are not designed or intended for such a purpose, but rather that some, indeed most forms of sexual activity, are designed and intended for non-reproductive purposes; and if they are intended for non-reproductive purposes, then the argument assuming that only sexual activity between members of opposite genders is natural and correct because of the necessity of both genders in reproduction becomes invalid and illogical. This is so because:

1. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than oral sex among members of opposite genders in that all the necessary components are there and the idea that all forms of oral sexual activity should take place between members of the opposite gender is merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider oral sex itself to be.

2. Anal sex between two male members is no less natural than anal sex between a male and a female in that, once again, all the necessary components are there for the precise same sort of sexual activity, and the concept that all anal sexual activity should only take place between members of the opposite gender is, once again, merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Furthermore, anal sex between two females is no less natural than anal sex between a female and a male, where the female takes the active rather than passive role. Anal sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider anal sex itself to be.

3. Kissing, caressing, and showing forms of sexual affection to the same gender is no less natural than kissing, caressing, and the showing of sexual affection to a member of the opposite gender, in that all the necessary components for indirect sexual stimulation and affection are present and capable of fulfilling the exact same purpose. Hugging, licking, petting, or passionately kissing a member of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider those forms of sexual affection to be in the first place.

It seems obvious to me that many forms of sexual activity are natural and for various reasons, some of which are not supportive of the idea that sexual activity is meant for the sole purpose of reproduction. However, of all forms of sexual activity, I do believe that the case can be made that anal sex is unnatural (in all cases) in that it almost always does immediate damage to the recipient, but this position can only be taken if one has concluded that immediate harm to the self is never a natural and acceptable condition of both self pleasure and social as well as emotional interaction. Such an argument could only be helped by evidence for permanent damage caused by either all forms or certain forms of anal sex. That is it! In my mind there is no other argument which could ever be leveled against any form of sexual activity which makes any logical sense other than that just mentioned concerning sodomy.

Personally, I believe sodomy and other forms of anal sex to be natural forms of sexual expression, but unfortunately I must admit I do not have any solid arguments for this sort of reasoning, at this time, at least in the form of arguments involving Nature.

I believe the evidence for heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual activity in Nature is overwhelming and very prevalent. All three forms of sexual activity are rampant everywhere within Nature and are therefore natural; however, I do not believe this is where the crux of the debate lies – it is actually a moral and social issue, which makes it not a debate as to whether or not certain forms of sexual activity and orientation are natural, but whether or not they are good for both society and the spiritual nature of humankind.

Perhaps the greatest argument against homosexuality (not necessarily bisexuality) is that it is a form of sexual activity which is harmful to the social organism, in that it does not promote or provide reproduction, which is essential to the continued evolution of a society. Fortunately, I do not need to confront this issue, as a true bisexual sexual orientation does not harm society in any way; in fact, the argument can be made, and will be made by me, that bisexuality is more helpful to society than either strict heterosexuality or strict homosexuality.

Bisexuality promotes both reproduction and birth control, which are both essential to an efficient and workable society. Bisexuality promotes birth control merely because it does not, by nature, view all sexual activity as for the sole purpose of reproduction, and it promotes reproduction because it certainly does not exclude the natural sexual intercourse of both genders which enables reproduction. In other words, true bisexuality does the very best and most efficient job for not only the individual (it provides the greatest options for sexual pleasure) but also the society (it provides and promotes the dual need of growth and control of growth within a society). In my mind, bisexuality is clearly the best option for any society and the greatest form of individual sexual expression provided by nature.

Furthermore, a true bisexuality is, it seems to me, the most beneficial means of social and emotional interaction, in that it allows for the greatest possible human expression and emotional interaction within any society, which can only promote and drive cohesion and commitment. What sort of evidences can be leveled against the natural existence of bisexual activity and orientation, or against the social utility and practicality of bisexuality? Much more could be said under either nature or society against strict heterosexuality or homosexuality than could ever be said of bisexuality. From the greatest logical viewpoint as well as very human and emotional viewpoint, bisexuality provides the greatest and most efficient means for all things which sexual expression and sexual necessity demand on both the natural and societal levels.

Bisexual expression promotes the greatest form of human expression in love and interaction, it aids in birth control, it promotes natural sexual behavior, it supports and promotes the natural drive for self replication, it provides the greatest spectrum of variation in experience and pleasure, it provides a great form of individual liberty and the expression thereof, it, by nature, promotes the concept of polyamory and open relationships which are arguably the best form of relationship for over-all social unity and natural selection. It is, in my mind, clearly the most natural and socially beneficial form of sexual expression and interaction. That is not to say that if one feels they should be strictly heterosexual or homosexual that they are somehow wrong or inferior, but that bisexuality seems to make the most sense in all truly intellectual examinations concerning nature, society, and sexual orientation and expression.

To me, bisexuality is the norm, and all other forms of sexual expression and orientation are either personal norms or social constructs. I believe the evidence and logical arguments overwhelmingly support bisexuality among non androgynous species. In fact, the very existence of androgynous species seems to promote bisexuality in nature by itself!

Should a male choose to sexually please or interact with a male, or a female choose to do such with a female, or a male and female choose to do such with one another, the natural evidence as well as the societal evidence seem to indicate to me that all of these choices are equaly valid, natural, and beneficial; however, the restriction of these forms of sexual activity to a specific "rightness" may arguably be considered harmful to the individual, the preservation of nature, and the benefit of all societies. In other words, to say that only men belong with women, men with men or women with women, is to say that only certain "kinds" of the same species belong interacting with each other in certain ways. Such a world view is ridiculous and the heart of bigotry, prejudice, and racism.

Granted, there is a strong argument against interspecies sexual expression (for those who prefer extremist positions and who will make bisexuality into total pan-sexuality), and I do not deny this or even attempt to argue against such, but species specific bisexual activity and sexual diversity is an entirely different matter. There really is no good argument against species specific pan-sexual activity on either the natural or social level. Bisexuality, seems to me, very human, very natural, and very socially beneficial. To go beyond the species specific level is to go beyond the initial examination and invalidates any argument against bisexual behavior, as it no longer becomes merely a question of bisexual expression but interspecies expression, which is an entirely different argument. Likewise, raising concerns of age and consent is not specific to the argument, and sex with minors of the opposite gender is not normally considered a sexual orientation specific debate, so why should any form of bisexuality concerning minors be included in the debate of the best and most proper or natural form of sexual expression?

It seems to me, that if there is a natural and normal form of sexual orientation and a correct and beneficial form of social sexual expression and activity, then bisexuality is the most natural and logical fit. In other words, in my mind, everyone is and should be bisexual to one degree or another dependent upon their individual needs and preferences. No other form of sexual expression provides the optimum means for self-pleasure, self-preservation, social interaction, the fulfillment of social and individual needs, and the greatest spectrum for the adequate expression of human emotion and interaction.

I am bisexual and this is the basis of my argument in defense of myself and those like me. Bisexuality is as normal and natural as it gets, in my opinion, and I really don't think any truly intellectual arguments can ever disprove that fact. If a male or female wish to be true to themselves they should, in my opinion, embrace and commit to their bisexuality, even if they have a preference in gender for whatever psychological or biological reasons. In fact, for homosexuals or heterosexuals to say we (bisexuals) are confused is more assinine than saying we are confused in our breathing – such people deny reality, in my opinion. If anyone is more right, it is the bisexuals, but I do not say bisexuality is the only and right way – only that if one must be, it must logically and socially be at least equivalent.

Bisexuality makes natural sense and it makes social sense. It is the greatest form of human emotional expression and love for other humans. Bisexuality benefits both the individual and their society on many levels. The only obsticle to true bisexual expression is the concept of monogamy, and consequently, it may just be monogamy which makes certain people believe one must either be homosexual or heterosexual and not ever bisexual. However, I will leave this debate to a later discussion on the natural and social truth and benefits of polyamory and open-social relationships – one I hope to take up at a later date.

Bisexuality is natural in that it is a great expression given from one to another, regardless of gender, it seeks to provide great pleasure and emotional interaction to all for all, and it helps society to both evolve through reproduction, and stabilize due to non-reproductive sexual behaviors. It is really the best of both worlds – balanced, harmonious, and beneficial!

Furthermore, it seems to me that members of the opposite gender, unless severely mentally wrecked by distorted social norms, always find the sexual interaction between members of the same gender sexually appealing and arousing. I submit that this is so because it is not only natural for both genders to show bisexual sexual expressions, but because it is natural for both genders to be sexually aroused by bisexual activity – we find it both normal and appealing unless taught otherwise by society. Even supposedly homosexuals will find sexual expression between a male and a female arousing unless taught to think otherwise! Likewise, supposed heterosexuals will always find the homosexual behavior of at least the opposite gender sexually arousing unless indoctrinated to feel otherwise. Can a man who loves seeing two women in an act of sexual expression be considered truly heterosexual, or a woman witnessing two men in an act of sexual expression, who finds it appealing, be considered truly heterosexual? How could a true heterosexual find a homosexual act appealing? And what supposed heterosexual would not find a homosexual act of the opposite gender appealing without social standards telling them they should not? Furthermore, what supposed homosexual could witness a heterosexual act and not be aroused in some manner or form unless they were taught or told they should not find such appealing?

I could be wrong, which makes things all that much more complicated, and I apolgize if my incorrect analysis insults you, but this is simply how I see it, and it does not detract from the force of my arguments – there is a place for bisexuality.

There are many arguments against bisexuality from both heterosexuals snd homosexuals – why I do not know. It seems that they both fear something in admitting it is normal and natural; however, I feel it is the normal and natural function of myself, so I offer this defense and argument. I believe all men and women are inherently bisexual and should be. I believe we, all humans should accept and learn to live with our bisexuality, regardless of which gender, if any, we prefer. I believe bisexuality is extremely beneficial to all individuals and to the progress of society. I further believe that anyone who denies their bisexuality denies their own human nature, which is bad for Nature and society, and such an attitude should be quietly observed and of concern to others (as it is not natural). We should not deny the feelings of those who feel they are strictly heterosexual or homosexual, but we should fear those positions if a bigoted and prejudice spin is being promoted by those individuals.

I realize I am in the supposed minority, but I believe this is all social show and most believe as I do, especially since the natural evidence and logic falls in the favor of those who think like me. So I present this argument here in the hopes that it will be spread forth either in its eintirety or in various personal forms. I give permission this instant for anyone to use this article in its entirety for whatever purpose or argument they choose, especially those who feel as I do and who wish to promote the validity of bisexuality!

I love both males and females equally, and I do not think this wrong, abnormal, or socially destructive. I think sexual expression to both men and women is moral and right, and I see no good argument against it. I believe we should all embrace our bisexuality, express it, and promote it. I think all social concepts against bisexuality or in thinking that a male is less manly or a female is less womanly because they practice bisexual behavior is insane, illogical, and bad for society and the ultimate preservation of nature.

Bisexuality is true human sexuality and I promote and support it.

The Natural Rights of All

These are the natural rights of all living things:

1. All conscious beings are born with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and any culture/society/civilization which attempts to hinder this beyond natural bounds is not only regressive, but criminal and terroristic in nature.

2. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to the free access, foraging, and harvesting of organic food for the sustainment, growth, nutrition and health of their individual mind and body. If a society must take possession of land in order to acquire what it deems as “progress” it does not have a right to do so in such a way that all living creatures may not exercise their natural right to such free access and use of organic medicines and foods. Furthermore, such activities of “progress” have a moral and ecological duty to give back to the Earth and all of its inhabitants a greater or equal share of free resources than what it took to acquire “progress”, or such activities may not be considered, by any right, to be a form of “progress”, but rather are and should be deemed theft and rape.

3. All living creatures have a natural right to hunt, fish, and/or harness other life forms, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence in such an unregulated manner as to allow the full sustainment of their individual livelihood in a free and unhindered manner. If a society/culture/civilization attempts to regulate this to the point where such cannot be done freely both inside and outside of society and/or in accordance with nature it amounts to regress of nature and is the equivalent of rape and theft.

4. All living creatures, capable by their very nature and existence, of acquiring and storing food and water for individual use in a natural manner which accords with their natural existance, within and for a definitive time frame in accordance with natural cycles in which such is plainly and absolutely necessary is entitled to do so, by nature, and any hinderance and attempt to control such a right is unnatural, anti-life, and pro-authoritarian.

5. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to free access and use of freshwater and saltwater resources for the purposes of self-sustainment, nutrition, hygiene, and medicinal application.

6. All living creatures, regardless of gender, but in accordance with natural processes, have the natural right to uncontrolled reproduction and/or the natural means of birth control and reproduction which are available by means of nature up to the point of actual birth.

7. All living creatures have a right to acquire, build, and utlilize natural means of shelter and warmth, according to their capability, without social/cultural/civil influence so long as such means are not a voluntary part of the society/culture/civilzation (meaning the individual being can opt entirely out if they so choose and are capable of such a choice). If such cannot be done without risk to society/culture/civilization, by virtue of intellect, the society/culture/civilization must be considered inferior, unadaptable, and flawed, as a superior form of existence should always be capable of existing without controlling or tampering with the supposed inferiority of a lesser state of existence. How can one claim "progress" if they must control (beyond their own individual and direct influence) what nature already declared favorable and evolved in accordance with local and natural ecological standards as a whole?

8. All living creatures have a natural right, by their very nature and existence, to the total, complete, and unrestricted freedom of movement in accordance with their natural abilities and knowledge, and no society/culture/civilization has a right to restrict such movement in members who have not volunteered to relinquish it.

9. All living creatures, especially those who require it, have a natural right to free and unhindered access to sunlight in accordance with nature and natural phenomena.

10. All living creatures have a natural right, in accordance with their very nature and existence, to the free use and access of natural and local resources, in accordance with their current individual needs, without hinderance, so long as such living creatures have not volunteered to give up such rights on behalf of a society/culture/civlization (meaning they can freely opt out). If any society/culture/civilization feels the need to hinder such access to involuntary members, such a society/culture/civlization is clearly inferior to the natural process and should be considered totalitarian and clearly flawed in character, outlook, and initiative.

11. All living creatures have a right, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence, to free and mutual association. Attempting to control the associations of any creature is an attempt to control that very creature, and amounts to ecological, individual, and social "regress" not "progress".

12. All living creatures, by virtue of the realization and knowledge of self-identity inherent in humans, have a right to their own body and mind. Furthermore, if we are to expect recognition and respect for the guidance of our own vessel we should do the same for all others by virtue of the same reasoning.

13. All living creatures, by their very nature and existance, have a natural right to defend all the rights which they deem existent in whatever manner they are capable of doing in accordance with their own individual nature and through their own individual actions.

14. All living creatures, through free association, have a natural right, in accordance with their individual means and existence, to choose to participate in or not participate in a human-made and manufactured society/culture/civilization, and not to be unnaturally hindered or punished for such a free decision.

15. All living creatures, in accordance with their nature and existence, have a right to free expression, free protest, free thought, and free belief by very nature of their ability to do or have such.

16. All living creatures have a natural right to legislate their own constitution and to reap the pleasures or suffer the consequences of the decisions they make in accordance with their core beliefs and principles.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of natural rights, but a list which is fair, level-headed and aware of natural phenomena as well as man's respective place in the environment. In this list a 'right' is defined as that which comes from nature and does not require social or political influence in order to sustain it as a right.

Proof of Panpsychism

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed (the First Law of Thermodynamics), emergence is impossible because something cannot arise out of something which did not already contain its characteristic (“ex nihilo, nihilo fio”) - true “wetness” cannot arise from the same elementary building blocks as true “dryness”, and so, conscious life cannot arise from material and unconscious existence, and entropy (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) states that converted energy will escape and be unrecoverable, and also that it will tend to be less orderly, yet life (specifically human) multiplies despite its need to consume life; therefore, consciousness must be arising from the energy already contained within the universe and that energy must already hold the quality or characteristic of consciousness, in some form, within it unless both energy and consciousness are being introduced from outside the system.

In other words, consciousness must have always been in existence as long as physical existence within this universe and been part-and-parcel to it in every instance, or there is another, likely intelligent force manufacturing both energy and consciousness from somewhere outside of our universe. Despite the possibility of multi-verses or deity, there is still the problem of creation from nothing, for both deity or randomness (“ex nihilo, nihilo fio”), meaning we are created essentially “ex deo” (despite one's definition of deity or otherwise as the building blocks). This means that panpsychism is not only the most logical assumption, but that it is the only logical option despite its seeming conflict with what is known as “common sense”, since common sense (and logic) both dictates the two main points of the argument set forth, and common sense, and therefore its physically verifiable assumptions, are also based upon physical perceptions which are predicated on the assumption that all which exists can be observed mainly via visual or auditory measurements (specifically via the scientific method) – certain forms of common sense can be manipulated by invalid assumptions.

A must always be the equivalent of A, B cannot arise from A alone, nor can A become multiples of A, yet A is both B and multiples of A; therefore A must be more than was assumed or an outside force is adding to A (in violation of the first premise); therefore, the answer must be that A is not perceived correctly, or the first premise is entirely wrong – either way, the first premise must provide both A, B, and multiples of A in itself and that would mean a complete rewriting or understanding of everything – like it or not.

Consciousness must necessarliy coexist with matter from the beginning.  God is not dead – we just have always looked too shallow.

Peace. Alraune.

On Society and Authority

Today, I watched as a young child, perhaps three of four, took a stick, which he had found, and began beating a bush with it. This made me think: if many would think this action wrong due to the unnecessary effects to the bush and owner's property, or if others would call this unnecessary violence, then how can any say we are born naturally peaceful or innocent? Furthermore, how do we know the child is wrong in what he is doing and we are correct in our assessment, and furthermore in correcting him? Finally, what does the act of the child (and therefore other acts which are deemed wrong or immoral) mean concerning the many beliefs of the afterlife and judgment if his actions are not learned, but natural?

Surely the child was only “having fun” and he was also driven to improve his motor skills, and likely he had no intentions of harm, but how can we know? If he did or did not have intentions of harm, would this mean that intentions and not actions are the fulcrum of judgment, or is it that our actions have consequences regardless of our intents and these consequences teach us right from wrong? And if proper actions must be learned through consequence or taught, then how can any say that humans (or any living thing) are inherently good? And if some would say we are born inherently bad or sinful, then from where does our goodness and morality emerge, for “from nothing, nothing comes”, and goodness and morality cannot come from badness, immorality, or indifference.

When I was a small child I got into a lot of trouble one day because some friends and I decided to build a fort in a neighbor's tree without their permission. We cut many branches in the tree and damaged it badly for the sake of fun. I learned this was wrong, and I even got to be a very scared five year old being interviewed by the state police. This happened because our society said it was wrong, but where did our society get this idea from? Was it learned through consequence? Did it emerge from a deep recess? Was it inherent, yet denied? Or was it created by the wrong, for the wrong, for all the wrong reasons?

I did not get into trouble for what I did to the tree, but I got into trouble that day because that tree was the neighbor's property. As a child I had no concept of anything like owning a tree. I had learned one can own a house, a toy, a car, furniture, a bed, and even a pet, but "owning a tree" or the very earth everyone walks on had never crossed my radar. The key phrase here, I think, is "I had learned".

There was nothing "naturally" wrong with what my friends and I did to the tree that day, in fact, any animal or natural force could have done the same and no police would have been called. Had an animal built a nest in the tree, insects come and devoured the tree, or a lightning strike or whirlwind come and destroyed the tree, no police would have been called despite the owner's belief that they "owned" the tree. So what is the difference between natural forces and the actions of a few small boys? The answer, I believe, is simply that small boys are humans, who are a part of a human society which invented the idea of "ownership", and thus, as small boys we were expected to learn the necessary and entirely created moral concept of recognizing and respecting "ownership". What we did was not inherently wrong, it was socially wrong.

This revelation, if true, leads to many other questions: Do social wrongs trump natural actions? Is there such a thing as a natural right or wrong? Can a social system be considered natural, since for instance, humans are a part of nature and humans are inherently social creatures? Is human society natural to the whole, or is it only natural to humans and, if so, are its moral guidelines and boundaries only applicable to humans? How can invented social standards justifiably override natural human actions, and where does this authority come from? Who decided that artificial social standards trump the concrete and natural? By what natural element is the idea of social law and acceptable behavior derived which allows for the artificial and often varying social standard to be elevated above the natural standard and still be rationed from out of the natural standard which is the only concrete point of origin from which one can begin to reason?

The problem here is very simple, yet not entirely obvious as to how it can be resolved, if it can even be resolved. Simply put, the social arises from the natural, yet it appears to turn the philosophical concept of superiors and inferiors or greater and lesser things on its head. How can the child come from their parent and justifiably claim to have a superior origin? What sort of reasoning is being used to assert the power of social law over what is otherwise deemed to be natural?

Is it that human social standards are not claiming to have a superior origin, but rather these various "systems" are claiming to have a superior future? If this is so, by what rational basis is this assertion being made? By what measure can one claim they are better, superior, or more pleasantly evolved other than by pure arrogance?

Society is a very complex structure, but the justification, and therefore necessity and purpose for it, lies in the answer to this problem: From where does it come; from where does it derive its authority; and can it justifiably claim both superiority and authority over its origin?

Finally, if social law is derived from the consent of those it governs, how can the governed be expected to consent to unnatural standards such as not stealing when hungry, the institution of marriage, peacefully accepting one's own offspring being taken by State institutions, consenting to the restriction of movement, the honoring of borders, and other social laws and customs which are nowhere to be found in nature? How can humans be expected to do what is not found in any nature, let alone human nature? What sort of madness is this unless the idea is to "change" human nature?

In my mind, most social laws and customs are entirely artificial, derived from nothing but human imagination, and therefore have no moral imperitive outside of human society. Some social laws and customs may indeed be based upon a sort of natural law which presides as an undercurrent in all things, but a very large portion of social laws and customs are as unnatural as a fetus in the womb of a male mammalian – they are insanely derived with highly unreasonable expectations, and it is quite probable that all social ills and problems can be traced to such unreasonable and unnatural expectations.

The only reasonable conclusion I am able to come to concerning the creation and implementation of seemingly unreasonable and unnatural social laws and customs is that they are intended to change human nature, but for whom or what, for what end, by what authority, and in accordance with what manner of reason? The answer may be pleasant or it may be too scary to face, for the only time humans try to change nature is when they intend to control it.

The purpose behind all social law and custom is control, this is obvious to anyone and agreed to be necessary by most; however, actually altering human nature rather than merely managing and containing it is an altogether different and potentially dangerous or disasterous undertaking. As individuals we owe it to ourselves, our environment, and our neighbors to question the wisdom of such an undertaking and to postulate not only the end result, but the "who", "what", "where", "when", "how", and "why" which lies beneath the surface of this undertaking. Altering human nature, if even possible, is something which should not be taken lightly, and we need to have an open discussion about it.

Peace,

Alraune