ISLAND OF THE BEAST – Chapter One

Click My Fiction for other chapters

LANDFALL

I’ve decided to start posting my longer stories. This is an
adventure chiller in about six weekly parts, at times terrifying,
but holding an important message. Hope you enjoy it.

**********

I thought I’d seen everything the sea could throw at me. Forty years of age, I’d been a seaman since I was seventeen. I’d seen the world. I’d seen every ocean, visited every bay, and experienced the delights and tragedies of every port. And I’d seen storms. At least, I thought I had. Until this …
‘It’s going to be a bad one, skipper,’ said Henchy, looking up at the gathering clouds. He was a lanky, sort of man, seemingly devoid of muscle. But I’d worked with him for many years. He could be relied upon.
‘Are we going to be alright, Capt Mortimer?’
The question came from Moira Jensen, blonde, thirty and beautiful. She had hitched a passage on my steamer. A roving PR exec from some unmentionable multi-national, her expertise was calming the anxieties of locals in the Third World. If the company wanted to relocate a factory for cheap labour and relaxed safety measures, Moira was the kind of woman who would pave the way. When she first came aboard, I didn’t like the woman. After all, how could a fair person do that?
‘I have to make a living,’ she had said during one heated discussion on the matter. ‘And so do they,’ meaning the aforementioned natives. And I could tell from her tone that maybe she had a conscience.
I looked through the bridge windows. The sky looked angry. The wind was beginning to blow. The sea rippled, then suddenly offered a wall of water to deluge us.
After it passed and we were in the trough, I smiled and offered false hope. ‘Of course we’ll be alright,’ I said.
She looked at me intently. Her face was taught. Then it relaxed. ‘Okay, Brad,’ she said, ‘I feel safe with you.’
I’d heard that before. From other women. It usually meant they weren’t. I suppose I’m not the type of person to trust.
I barked my orders for battening down. Henchy remained at the wheel while Fist and Rickets busied themselves. It wasn’t much of a ship, but I loved her and wanted to care for her. Eventually, Fist, a big, bald guy, came in, telling me everything was ready. Rickets had returned below. He was a sickly, little fellow, but like Henchy, there was more to him than his appearance suggested.
It was then that the heavens opened and the sky vented its anger. And less than a minute after that, the big wave came.

It was a clear, blue sky above me. I always found it amazing how nature showed its emotion. It could be so angry, like earlier. But then, after the storm, such a tranquil serenity, as if nature could never hurt you. But like people, nature lies. It had hurt me. It had hurt us all. And it had taken my ship.
We had all survived. Just. And now we stood, bedraggled and exhausted, on a golden beach.
‘You lied,’ said Moira, which I thought was rich coming from a PR exec.
I looked her up and down. Gone was the make-up, the confidence, the smart clothes, replaced by a raw, frightened woman. Several buttons were missing from her blouse, revealing a good cleavage. And the whole sight offered an aura of how I considered woman should be. Of course, that isn’t new man. We shouldn’t think like that, we’re told. Which just means all new men lie. Maybe Moira and I DO belong in this new world where everyone lies.
‘Yes,’ I said, ‘I lied.’
Henchy, Fist and Rickets had busied themselves again. It was a good crew that could operate with minimal orders. They’d say it was a good skipper who kept it all together, and I wasn’t about to disagree.
‘What now?’ asked Henchy.
I looked to the tree line, then at the sun. ‘We have plenty of time before nightfall. We need food, shelter. We need a signal fire. But most of all, we need to see what dangers there could be on the island.’
Which meant we had to split up. Quickly, we decided where to make camp – a clearing within the trees, just a short distance from the beach – and then I left the crew to make camp and make it safe. As for Moira and I, we headed for high ground. Take in the whole island. See what we were up against. And we soon realised we were up against quite a lot.

© Anthony North, March 2009

MASOCOLOGY – Chapter One

Click Thinkers’ Corner for other chapters

THE NON-ECO EGO

I’ve decided to start posting some of my major essays. This
first one will be in five weekly parts, and concerns an analysis
of deep history and psychology in order to out a possible
non-eco psychology that could lie at the heart of our green
problems. I hope you enjoy the experience.

**********

I used to pull the legs off crane-fly.
Most children do at one time or another. It’s part of growing up. They see it as fun. But on the inside, we could possibly see it as a statement of the evolving man flexing his power over nature.
I don’t want to pull the legs off crane-fly anymore. I’ve grown up – realised an ecological conscience – and no longer see the crane-fly as something to subdue. But far too many of us still want to pull the legs off crane-fly.
However, it’s too childish for a grown man to go about doing this form of mutilation, and it doesn’t give an adult much of a power surge. So they do far better in their power struggle with nature. They try to destroy planet Earth itself.

There can be little doubt that the human race is now facing environmental problems of such importance that we are putting our life on Earth at risk. Such dangers are all around us. We are interfering with the food chain, tampering with the mutualistic influences of nature’s balance, and driving species out of existence.
We are heating the planet through man-made fossil combustion and turning the rivers and seas into infested rubbish bins. Even our ideas of individualism and globalisation are destructive both to planetary and human nature itself.
However, it is equally apparent that we are incapable of doing a great deal about it other than trite cosmetics. There is a state of mind within mankind that refuses to accept the reality of danger until it smacks us in the face.
On the surface, the reason for this problem is obvious. Man is ruled by the Ego, a strange element of consciousness that allows us to delude ourselves that we are correct in what we do, even though, in an environmental sense, we rarely are.
The science fiction writer A E Van Vogt identified the impulse for our general egoism when he coined the term, ‘right man’. He is a man fuelled with a need for self-esteem, and will deny truths to uphold the rightness of his beliefs.
Should his egoism be threatened he reverts to violence, such as pulling the legs off crane-fly, or trying to destroy the planet. Man cannot be put down. His pride will not allow it. And pride is egoistic. But could our Ego be the sole reason behind our ecological madness?

American writer Theodore Roszak was of the opinion that through our globalisation the Earth is suffering from City Pox . In our industrialised city culture we eat up our resources in the name of consumerism. In his book ‘Voice of the Earth’ he states:
‘The culture of cities has become the planet’s only culture, all others lingering on as curiosities preserved for scholarly study … ‘
But what does he say of the actual development of cities? ‘Now thoroughly rationalised as ”normal” the city dates back to the fantasies of megalomaniac pharaohs and conquering god-kings. It was born of delusions of grandeur, built by disciplined violence and dedicated to the ruthless regimentation of man and nature. The walls and towers, pyramids and ziggurats of ancient cities were declarations of a wishful biological independence from the natural environmental.’
Roszak has, I believe, provided the key to our ecological madness. In the above he highlights three vital elements concerning the city. First, it is through the city culture that our industrialisation and consumerism was born.
Second, the concept of the city was due to our Ego – our delusions of grandeur. And third, the city was conceived as a barrier between man and nature. The city, through which history itself manifested, links our present ecological madness directly to our Ego and our apparent need to distance ourselves from nature.
But if Roszak is correct, why is this so?

Shrouded in the veil of prehistory, the city first rose as man’s greatest achievement some 7,000 years ago as an organizational and spiritual centre of agricultural economy. Prior to such an economy, man was enslaved to his natural environment . But with the discovery of agriculture, man made one of his most significant advancements.
Man had learnt to adapt nature to fit in with HIS plans instead of simply adapting to survive. Suddenly he had learnt to turn the tables on nature; or at least, realised that such a thing was possible.
The enormity of this discovery was well appreciated. This fact is recorded in early mythologies, the most prevalent theme being the idea that man was unique to nature, finally symbolised in the Creation Myth of Genesis, where man was created separate and given lordship over nature.
However, it would have been a notion fraught with difficulties for nature would have constantly reminded man of his fragility – the bad harvest, the drought, and myriad other natural phenomena which would have brought his early civilisations near collapse.
But a notion, once instilled, is impossible to put at bay. So man developed his society and advanced into history. He devised the city. But nature had another little shock in store for him.
The city, in western terms, first manifested in the ‘fertile crescent’ of the eastern Mediterranean, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, in modern day Iraq. The area was geographically perfect for such an outburst of civilization, in that it was fertile , flat and naturally irrigated.
However, the problem with such regions is that they are prone to flooding . Hence, even with his city, man became locked within an apparently vicious circle of conflict with nature, forever battling to retain his foothold with civilisation.
Indeed, it in widely accepted that the first form of large-scale construction involved the building of dams to hold back flood waters; and we simply have to look at the prevalence of flood-myths of the time and region – the Babylonian, Assyrian, Greek, Egyptian and, of course, the Biblical Flood – to see how almost apocalyptic fears of the power of flood impinged upon man’s psyche.

Try to picture the times.
Man had worked out that he was a cunning, ingenious animal. Something inside him told him that he had a greatness about him that could rise above nature. He had developed the city as a material representation of this might.
But still nature simply laughed at him and cut him down at a whim. Imagine being in a labyrinth. You know that, with a little reasoning, you can figure out how to escape, but you find yourself trapped, and suddenly you become anxious.
This was the lot of man at the time; a time, incidentally, when man developed religious representations of the very labyrinths I speak of. Perhaps, in the labyrinth, we see a psychological cry for help from a species, realising greatness, but approaching a form of madness in being unable to display, once and for all, such greatness.
He couldn’t understand that his attempts to rise above nature were nothing more than delusions of grandeur. Van Vogt recognised the psychological model for such delusions within his Right Man theory.
He noticed the prevalence of the syndrome within marriage. An apparently powerful man would marry, and the wife would become the target for his self-esteem. He would live as HE chose within the marriage, often being unfaithful, but would insist upon total loyalty from his wife.
He would try to subjugate her. And should any form of rebellion be displayed, he would beat her, forcing her back to submission. However, should the wife leave him, he is exposed for what he really is. The focal point of his self-esteem is gone and he becomes a psychological wreck.
The Right Man syndrome is so common that most people will know such a man. The syndrome is deeply embedded in the human race. And I suggest the syndrome is born from our original delusions as we tentatively rose out of the clutches of nature through the evolution of the city.
But in realising our greatness, we also birthed the insecurities to drive us on. We simply could not go back, so our bridgehead out of nature became a foundation made of quicksand. But we DID realise the route out of our increasing paranoia. The answer had always been there. As we shall see next week, man had only to look above his head.

© Anthony North, March 2009

POSSESSION – DEMONS & ANGELS

We think of possession as some evil, supernatural influence. This is why, in the modern world, it is ridiculed as non-existent, or simply the raving of the mad. But can a rational answer be given which can teach us a lot about ourselves?
I think it can. A good starting point is multiple personality. Here, the mind seems to fragment into a number of personalities, each taking it in turn to occupy the person. There are hundreds of documented cases.

They can be fascinating.

Many people seem to live their life quite naturally with such personality invasions, and each can seem a separate entity. But I’ve noticed, in many cases, a specific element within each personality.
They seem to reflect a specific emotion, or aspect, of the host. They can be specifically angry, sad, joyful, sexual, and many other traits. Indeed, it is as if it is not the mind that has split, but the specific emotions of the host.

This could have importance beyond the unexplained.

Consider, for instance, the serial killer. In many cases they seem to have separate personalities themselves. If married, a ‘normal’ personality can live a normal life, the wife even unaware of the truth.
The actual killer can be seen as anger in the raw. Once the murder has occurred, we often find a deep seated conscience which makes the killer carry out stupid errors, which eventually lead to capture, as if he wanted to be caught.

Could the serial killer be possessed?

Yet, not possessed by some supernatural influence, but a series of specific emotional fragments of his inner mind. It could be that there is a real ‘devil’ within.
Similarly, some people can appear absolute angels. Think of the monk, dedicating his life to service in God, totally subsuming all desires and emotions. Maybe it is not as difficult as it appears. The ‘monk’ personality simply sheds emotional baggage.

It can be seen in the evangelical movement.

In this case, they are filled with absolute joy, and nothing can touch them emotionally. Have they been touched by the ‘angelic’? Or have they simply discarded all other emotions?
We think of the mind as a coordinated whole. But the above suggests this need not be the case. Rather, the mind is a cauldron of conflicting emotions and traits, a particular fragment often rising within the ‘normal’ person.
Consider, for instance, sudden anger, where all other emotions disappear as you descend into a rage. Think, also, of the moments of pure, ecstatic joy, where nothing negative can touch you.
Are these moments of mild possession, when an emotional fragment escapes the confines of normality? If so, then the full blown possession is simply a matter of degrees. We all have the capacity to become devil or saint.

© Anthony North, February 2009

OCCULT & INDIVIDUALITY

Whilst I am not an occultist, I have studied its rituals and history for decades. I’m convinced it holds value for life and knowledge, in that it seems to me to be a continuance of deep spirituality that can trace its routes to the first religions.
There has been a distinct western occult tradition that arose out of the European period of questioning that stretched from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, and this did, in a way, pollute the original roots of the system.

The average occult adept is not a witch.

Rather, witchcraft has been described as the magic of the people, whereas the western occult adepts have been described as the ‘aristocrats’. And it is here where I think the pollution occurred.
The occult adept uses specific ritual to produce entities, do magic, and to discover the deeper meanings of consciousness and reality. I’m not interested, here, in what actually occurs, but the reason behind it.

Take Aleister Crowley.

Known as the ‘wickedest man in the world’, he died in 1947, following a full life of ‘occultism’, becoming one of the most influential occultists of all time. But there was more to Crowley than this.
Crowley was also a hedonist who considered himself to be a great poet. And he was also influenced by many non-occultists who classed themselves as decadent. And it is here where the pollution comes in.

Crowley did immense damage to the occult.

He severely changed the public’s perception from one of simple ignorance to downright hostility. And this was so because they mistook the decadent influence for the occult.
Infact, Crowley’s decadence seems to me to be predominant. And it was part of a movement in the occult where the adept’s individuality and ego rose above the original meaning of such practices.

This is seen in the entities manifested.

I’ve studied enough such ‘entities’, including Crowley’s, to realize that what is manifested in not so much some archetypal entity, but a direct representation of the adept’s ego.
In effect, occultism changed from a genuine exploration of deeper meanings, to an individualistic practice where it is themselves who are centre of the universe, and not some unrelated god-head.
This is counter to the influences from which the practice came due to the simple fact that occultism is supposed to be holistic and about the connectedness of man to the universe – ‘as above, so below’, as it were.
From the ‘mythological’ Hermes Trismegistos, right up to the instigation of the ‘legendary’ Faust, this seemed to be the case. But with Faust it began to change. We can, of course, argue this initial change was Christian propaganda, but not with Crowley.
Such deeper connectedness is identified in the ‘One’, the idea that the part and the whole are one and the same. But ‘one’ can also mean the individual. It seems to me that, with some occultists, only half the meaning of this word is understood. And public perception of occultism suffers because of it.

© Anthony North, February 2009

SACRED GEOMETRY

Have you tried my current affairs? Stay informed.
Also, fiction and poetry.

Sacred geometry is an ancient system of design and building based upon the harmonic relationship between man, nature and the universe. Virtually ignored by modern architects and designers, it was central to most ancient societies.
The practice concerns a worldview of pattern recognition, producing religious patterns and structures involving space, time and form. By working with such forms, insight can come regarding the nature of all.

It often involves mathematics.

Pythagoras realized the importance of this, and also showed how such harmonies work also with music. Hence, sacred geometry is a holistic practice. Even in ancient cave art, it is now known that pictures were drawn at ideal places for sound amplification.
These principles seem to have been instinctual in ancient times, but science is also discovering such harmonies. Indeed, it has led some to wonder at the incredible coincidences of exact balance that led to the universe in the first place.

Sacred design is therefore a reflection of the universe.

In this sense, perfection is vital to the process. Originally found in man’s expression of his relationship with Mother Earth, we find the earth mound. Later, math led to greater perfection in the pyramid, or other construction that aligned with the solstice dawn.
However, an understanding of this harmonic relationship can often cause too much complication in just what sacred geometry is about. I say this because ancient man seemed to realize such relationships, and design accordingly, through instinct.

The urge to perfection was just as great.

But such perfection was more about symbolism than mathematical design. It seemed to be more a physical representation of the spiritual, as is seen even today in the ‘form’ of a church. Shaped as a cross, when you walk into a church, you actually walk into the body of Christ.
Bearing this in mind, could it be that there is a far more important psycho-sociological understanding to be had from sacred geometry? I think there is – and an understanding that can tell us a great deal about ourselves, even today.

Sacred geometry gives a sense of permanence.

Whilst math became important in terms of geometric perfection, I think it is this sense of permanence that is primary. It said, in bold majesty, that this represents a system that is here to stay and is fundamental to who you are.
This anchors a particular society within a specific culture. You just have to look at cities through the ages to see it in operation. First, the temple was the biggest structure at its centre. In the west, this was replaced first by the cathedral, then the factory, and, today, the trade centre or bank.
In each case the prominent building reflects the society of the time, be it Christendom, industrial or super-capitalist. And whilst the last two certainly didn’t seem to have anything to do with sacred geometry, in this respect they do. Indeed, it suggests we are still, today, enslaved by the ‘sacred’ culture they instill in us.
But it also suggests a question. Does sacred geometry reflect the universe, or does it create, in us, a universal image of ourselves, and what we aspire to be? Perhaps we need to understand this as a possibility, and use it for the good rather than an unconscious form of control.

© Anthony North, November 2008

HOW TO EXPLAIN THE WEREWOLF?

A werewolf is said to be a person who, at times, turns into a wolf-like beast. Often occurring during the full moon, the term ‘lunacy’ is closely associated with the state. But is there a reality to the werewolf?
We actually know a great deal about them. This is because there have been many trials of werewolves in the past, usually executed for attacks on young children or lonely travelers in the forests.

Misidentification is an obvious possibility here.

Wolves used to roam our forests, and it would be easy, in superstitious times, to come to the conclusion that real wolf attacks were carried out by some person, particularly if he was socially excluded.
There is also a cultural inheritance to the werewolf. From prehistoric cave art we know of the chimera – a half man, half beast image. The shaman was thought to go on quests in the spirit world as an animal-form, and various hunting cults are thought to have dressed as the animal they hunted. The witch’s familiar is an obvious extension of this.

But there are other possibilities.

I find it interesting that most executed ‘werewolves’ were loners, poor, and on the fringes of society. Indeed, their psychology is very similar to what we would call a serial killer today.
Another important theme of werewolfery is the inclusion of a salve or potion taken, usually given to the ‘werewolf’ by a strange black horseman. If we take away the ‘culture’ of such episodes, do we see signs of a drug user and his pusher?

The werewolf suggests, to me, crime.

Are we simply dealing with criminal mentalities that are obvious today, but possibly having a deep influence in our historical past? But if so, why invent such ‘supernatural’ tales around them?
Perhaps the answer is that in a predominantly Christian society it was not believed that the human soul could be evil and depraved. The authorities simply could not accept such behaviour from a human being. Hence, it had to be the beast that did such things.

Of course, this isn’t the whole story.

Whilst I think it accounts for most cases of the werewolf, we have the condition known as lycanthropy, where the person seems to ape the characteristics of the wolf.
As yet, no lycanthrope has ever been accredited as having actually changed into a wolf, so the best answer to this is a form of psychology. One possibility is that such actions are a throwback to past evolutionary behaviour, when we were more animal-like. However, there is another possibility.
We are told that behaviour is encoded in our DNA. In deciding just what is responsible for human action, we talk of nature or nurture, the first this genetic inheritance, the latter our upbringing, environment, etc.
I’ve always thought, however, that there must be a third behavioural influence This is ‘culture’. Basically, if a culture produces a specific type of behaviour that is repeated over several generations, could it become similarly encoded in our DNA?
If so, then the above definitions of criminal behaviour would, over time, become an actual part of our behaviour. Which suggests that what we think of will, at some point in the future, become real – at a psychological level, at least.

© Anthony North, October 2008

HOW TO EXPLAIN DRAGONS

We have all heard of the Dragon. Known in culture worldwide, it is usually depicted as a huge reptile or snake with two pairs of legs and wings. Often associated with spirituality, it can also breath fire.
In eastern mythology it is often seen as benevolent, whereas to western culture, it is malevolent. Often known as a ‘worm’, warrior knights fight it, usually rescuing a fair maiden whom it had been guarding.

This is the story of George and the Dragon.

And the legend is repeated throughout parts of western Europe. It is a symbol of knightly purity and essential to the idea of chivalry. But this element of the legend is older than Christianity.
Beowulf does battle with the dragon, Grendel, in Saxon mythology. The ancient Greeks had the Hydra. The Dragon is often a symbol of war, and it appears in legendary names such as Arthur Pendragon. It is clearly a symbol of something monstrous which was defeated.

St Michael is essential to the mythology.

He is the patron saint of chivalry and commands God’s army. He is often depicted fighting the Devil in heaven, the Devil usually symbolized as a Dragon.
St Michael has many churches in England today, and they are often associated with leys – ancient tracks, sometimes seen as possessing magical energies, at others simply ancient pagan trade routes.

Do leys offer a hint of understanding?

In the east, the concept of ancient pathways are known as ‘dragon paths’, giving a clear association between the Dragon and the Earth itself. Earth and Dragon seem to be one and the same.
Seeing the Dragon as a serpent can be illuminating. Indeed, all the Dragon is is a monstrous form of serpent. And if we do so, we will find serpents in ancient mythologies throughout the world.

Usually, it is associated with Creation.

Serpents are usually the vessel through which the spark of life is placed upon the land, often caused by the passing of blood or semen. In this sense, the serpent has a clear ‘phallic’ representation.
Such mythologies are pagan. However, in monotheistic representations the serpent is still there, but seen as evil, tempting Eve into the process that leads to sex with Adam. Again we see symbolism of the spark of life through procreation.
Most ancient pagan religious forms were actually based upon fertility, offering a direct link between man and the environment upon which he relied. The fertility of nature was vital to his survival.
Here we find some interesting links, not only with pagan ritual, but also tying the serpent to the land. Thus, it is more than likely that the later representation of the Dragon was actually a symbol of ancient pagan religious forms.
Such fertility forms were ousted when Ego began to assert itself with the rise of the masculine warrior, finally expressed in the monotheist chivalric tradition. This meant the end of paganism as a predominant religious form.
Hence, knights slay Dragons throughout the land – or in other words, put down nature worship at every turn, placing churches of St Michael on their major sites. And as for that serpent itself?
Well, the ancient spin doctors demonised it into something horrendous and evil. And thus, the Dragon is malevolent in the west. But in the east, where religious forms are still well grounded in nature, it is benevolent.

© Anthony North, September 2008

HOW TO EXPLAIN GENETIC DIVINATION

There are many forms of divination, ranging from Palmistry to Astrology, Numerology to the I Ching. And let us not forget ancients such as the Auguries, who used to read your fate from animal entrails.
I’ve always had a healthy skepticism for such practices. I’ve not condemned them, but thought human psychology can account for them. However, I want to explore the possibility of deeper mechanisms behind such practices.

I’ll begin with my healthy skepticism.

Rather than man’s fate being slave to outside forces, such as the position of planets at birth, I’ve seen divination as a form of therapy and advisor. It works like this.
A person consults a practitioner and through a two way system of suggestion, the subject intuits, himself, what his unconscious is really after. Thus his path seems to open up as if destined, whereas he has simply been given the confidence to follow his real inner desires.

I still thing this covers most of the subject.

But even I have to admit there are annoying gaps in the idea, especially if we take much of divination at face value. Consider Palmistry, which claims much of your future is already mapped out in the lines of your palm. How is this possible?
Let us consider genetics. Now, genetics does map out a great deal of your life from conception, including physical attributes, possibilities of future illnesses and, if correct, leanings towards certain behaviour. Could it be possible that such ‘predestination’ could affect you in a wider way, such as the patterning of lines on your palm? Basically, could the palm be a physical map of your basic genetic make-up?

Genetics could hold the key to other areas, too.

Indeed, I think if we can highlight a genetic answer to even one part of divination, it could rationally be seen as important to the rest as well.
I say this because one of the main problems with divination is the sheer number of contrary and conflicting ‘systems’. Surely it would be more rational to identify a common thread between them all.

I think genetics CAN be applied in this sphere.

Consider Astrology – in particular, the various character types associated with the houses of the Zodiac. Is this due to the position of planets, or a spin-off from our genetic make-up?
We understand behaviour in terms of nature or nurture. How we turn out as people is said to be dependent upon what element is ‘in our genes’, and how big a part environment and upbringing plays.
I’ve never been happy with this easy duality. I’ve always thought there was a third element – namely, culture. For as well as being affected by elements in our personal life, we are also very much identified by the wider community or culture to which we belong.
This cultural input is above our individuality, and extends back in time beyond our lives. And bearing in mind the ‘behavioural’ element of genetics, could culture, over many generations, have an effect on our genetic make-up itself?
If we are prepared to accept this as a possibility, then cultural behaviour can be genetic in itself – such as the idea that being born in a particular house of the Zodiac will result in certain behavioural patterns.
Could this explain why a person is a typical Arian or Taurus? I still think the processes of suggestibility are essential to divination, but could it be that the suggestibility is also deeply entrenched in our genes themselves?

© Anthony North, September 2008

TT #17 – HOW TO EXPLAIN CONSPIRACY THEORY

Featuring Thursday Thirteen. Have you had a go yet?

13. We’re told the world is full of conspiracies. From the assassination of JFK to Diana, no icon is safe from them. From the fake Moon Landings to Alien technology, nothing is ever what it seems.
12. We’re told the world is full of conspiracies. Sinister Illuminati-style organizations work in the shadows, manipulating everything we do. No one is safe. No one is untouched. Everything is under control is a double-edged statement.

11. Conspiracies have happened in the past.

The Tudors and Stuarts in Britain were plagued by them, and much of the establishment of the UK was the result of them. But does that mean conspiracies still happen today as people think?
10. Yes, they do. But the problem is, we know about them – Watergate, Iran/Contra – we KNOW! This is because big organizations leak like a sieve. This is our best defence against real conspiracy – the very organizations that would love to conspire, but never get away with it.

9. I’m skeptical of conspiracy theories.

JFK was killed by a loner; Diana died in a tragic drunken crash. But isn’t that boring? We feed on the sensational, so we have a need to make things more than they really are.
8. It’s so easy to do. Infact, the average idiot can easily make a conspiracy theory. The reasons are many, but they begin with the simple fact that life is full of coincidences. We don’t like to think that they’re natural, so there has to be a human agent making the theory fit so nicely.

7. Modern media is then added to the recipe.

Itself infatuated with sensationalism, fact and fiction is merged in a relentless need to provide us with information. Whether that information is true or not is irrelevant to the sensationalism of ratings.
6. We live in a postmodern world. This is a world where barriers merge, where high and low culture mix; where the symbol is more important than the substance. It has eaten away at our ability to define things properly. Definites are bad – confusion reigns!

5. History is no help. History is not history at all.

It is contemporary events of the past initially written by the victors, and then re-written at intervals since, every rewrite infected with the ideas of the present placed on the past. So the past and present are fake. Information itself conspires against us.
4. Even an event is not itself. People witness an event, but all have a different idea of what happened. Soon, an event becomes an event plus the appreciation of it. Which appreciation? The one that gains the widest consensus. Reality, you see, is relative to what we want to see.
3. In such a psycho-social world, who do we believe? We can’t believe authority. So we believe the theorists, forever manipulating our minds and reality. Of course, it’s always been thus. But in the past we called it superstition. But of course, we’re not superstitious nowadays, are we? Yea, right!!!
2. Conspiracy theories are wrong. It’s just that the world is a confusing mass of dis-information. And it does, of course, assist those who DO conspire against us? But hang on a minute? Conspiracies are wrong but people DO conspire? Surely a contradiction?
1. No, not really. Conspiracy goes on all the time. It is better known as politics and entrepreneurial manipulations of the economy – in other words, Big Biz. But this is different to conspiracy THEORY. The latter is sensationalist rubbish, the former is how the world has always worked. But isn’t this a conspiracy theory in itself?
Absolutely. So do you see how conspiracy theories even make it impossible to describe how things have always been? Makes you wonder who likes conspiracy theorists the most – us, or Big Biz. For what a marvelous smokescreen they provide.

(c) Anthony North, August 2008

HOW TO EXPLAIN HEALING

So the guy lays his hands on you and you’re healed. Great! Life continues in full health, which is, in effect, a miracle. Which is why so many people are suspicious of healing.
But CAN it work? Can we rationalize a means of explanation? Well, the first hint is given by many healers when they say they don’t heal. What they do is give the patient the authority to heal themselves.

This offers an interesting angle.

We already know that a person can seem to feel better by a pure act of faith. This is known as the ‘placebo effect’, and can have up to a 30% effect on an ailment.
Hormones could also be crucial to an understanding. Many bodily functions are controlled by hormones, but it has been shown that the mind can also have an effect. We seem to have a distinct mind-body mechanism within ourselves.

The autonomic nervous system is also worth study.

This covers the ‘machine like’ function of your body. But phenomena such as vegal inhibition has shown that an attitude of mind can interrupt the system.
The discipline of biofeedback is important here. By concentrating on equipment that shows blood pressure, for instance, the discipline can teach the person how to control such function through intention.

Such abilities suggest a new understanding is required.

I’ve used the term ‘psycho-physicality’ to describe a borderland between ‘physical’ and ‘mental’ illness, showing that the two can actually merge, with mind having a definite effect on the physical.
Now, much healing is known as ‘faith’ healing. And what is faith if not a total belief that something can work, thus allowing ‘mind’ dominion over the body? However, I think we can take the concept much further than this.

We actually live in three realities.

We can look in the mirror and see ourselves as skin and bone. Below this reality there is our cellular form. And below this, we are all reducible to subatomic fuzz.
This third reality is thought to be one of ‘information’ – a kind of ‘software’. Could interaction at this level of reality in some way re-program what occurs further up the reality scale?
Some medical techniques already tamper at this level of reality, such as radiotherapy. And as these realities must, at some level, have an effect on each other, we could argue that what we can do at the level of ‘information’ could rise up the chain.
A further fact about these three realities is that as we move down the chain, we access greater ‘communality’, the subatomic being indistinguishable from the universe. Could this permit information to pass from one person to another, such as from healer to patient, thus affecting the program?
This is, of course, highly speculative. But to think of ourselves in terms of mind-body interaction, combined with the idea of ‘software’ at the root of our health, could open up new areas of research into both health, and healing in general.

© Anthony Norh, July 2008