On Monday, a leaked Army operational security brief showed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and former CIA Director David Petraeus listed as two key examples of potential insider threats. As the Daily Caller reported at the time, admins of the Facebook page “U.S. Army W.T.F! moments” told The Daily Caller News Foundation this is the second time they’ve received a picture of this particular slide in the last six months. They posted the slide to their page Sunday.
The brief, marked unclassified, lists servicemembers Nidal Hassan, Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and Aaron Alexis as examples of threats. On the second row, the brief pictures Clinton and Petraeus. The text of “careless or disgruntled employees” echoes FBI Director James Comey’s description, “extremely careless,” of Clinton’s handling of top secret and classified information when she served as Secretary of State.
Following vocal public outcry, with some wondering if this was a joke, while others jumping on the army’s suggestion that Hillary is one of the bigger threats to nation’s security, moments ago the US Army said it was a mistake for a local unit to identify Hillary Clinton as a potential threat during a training presentation and has halted the practice.
“We have confirmed that the slide was developed 18 months ago and used locally as a part of a training presentation on best practices for handling classified material and maintaining operational security,” the US Army Training and Doctrine Command said in a statement cited by CNN. “As is common with Army training requirements, the local unit was given latitude to develop their own training products to accomplish the overall training objective.””
In a recent episode of the Science Channel’s “Unearthed” series, which aired Tuesday (July 12), the show covered a system used within the Great Pyramid to protect the King’s Chamber from intruders.
In studying theevolution of pyramid building, you see a gradual transition from simple burial mounds to mastabas, step pyramids, and finally, true pyramids. The two major factors driving this evolution were the belief in the afterlife and the fear of intrusion.
In this episode of Unearthed, they’re specifically focusing on a simple and yet, elaborate mechanism within the Great Pyramid that was used to prevent intrusion into the King’s Chamber.
Although this mechanism was already well-known, the reconstructive animations that the show provides bring the system to life, showing how the ancient Egyptians used specific niches and blocks beneath the pyramid walls for the mechanism.
In related news, the Egyptian Museum in Cairo is now displaying its oldest papyruses, dating 4,500 years ago, which detail the daily lives of the pyramid-builders.
Gary Lachman is one of today’s most respected writers on esoteric and occult topics. His many books — including Madame Blavatsky, Swedenborg, Jung the Mystic, and Rudolf Steiner — have received international acclaim.
His latest work is The Secret Teachers of the Western World and later this year he will release a biography of the writer and philosopher Colin Wilson.
Gary has appeared on many television and radio programs and is an adjunct professor in the Evolution of Consciousness at the California Institute of Integral Studies. A founding member of the band Blondie, he has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
I was delighted to interview Gary for Occultum.net this week and ask him some questions and discuss some subjects that I know many of our readers will be very interested in.
Hi Gary, and thanks so much for taking the time out to answer some questions for our readers here at Occultum.net.
Gary, if I could ask you, first of all, how is your upcoming Colin Wilson biography coming along?
I’ve just finished proof-reading Beyond the Robot: The Life and Work of Colin Wilson. It turned out to be much longer than I had anticipated, about twice as long in fact. Wilson had a long life and he wrote an enormous amount. His work is packed with ideas so there is a lot to write about. I’ve tried to keep an even pace between telling his story and exploring his ideas, but his life was so much his work that the two blend together, so it is a kind of biography of ideas. It will be coming out at the end of August along with a new edition of The Outsider that I’ve written an introduction to. Both are marking the 60th anniversary of The Outsider’s publication in 1956.
I was struck by the line at the end of Dreaming to some Purpose where Wilson writes, “I see my task as a writer to explore, and at times create what Rhea White calls ‘exceptional human experience’.” In your view, what will become Colin Wilson’s most important legacy?
I think Wilson will be recognized for developing an important philosophy of consciousness and for what he calls his “new existentialism,” an analysis of human experience based on meaning and purpose, rather than the negative conclusions reached by Sartre, Camus, and other “old” existentialists. Wilson spent his entire life trying to penetrate a central mystery of human existence, what he called the “paradoxical nature of freedom.” Human beings crave freedom more than anything else, but when we get it, we often don’t know what to do with it and it becomes a burden. This was something Wilson’s “Outsiders” experienced, and he devoted his life to cracking this riddle. He found clues in the work of Abraham Maslow, Edmund Husserl, Gurdjieff, and many others, but it was his own remarkable ability to synthesize these and add to them his own insights that make his work so important. One of his central themes, what he calls “Faculty X,” is, for me at least, a true recognition of a kind of “power” we have that we are not aware of having. It is a kind of power over time, an ability to grasp the reality of other times and places, instead of being stuck, as we usually are, in a very limited present. It is a kind of inner freedom and spaciousness that stretches out over time and history.
Throughout the ages, occult thinkers seem to have gravitated towards places where they can preach and experiment with their ideas away from the masses and within communities receptive to their philosophy. In this social media age do you think our next generation of radical thinkers will be the owners of Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, or is physical human contact essential for new thinkers within the esoteric movement?
There are aspects of esoteric teaching that are said to be able to be transmitted only from a teacher to a student, from one person to another. I would think this is true in the same sense that any good or inspiring teacher conveys something of his or her own charisma or personality to the student. And in some schools, this idea goes even further, with a special kind of energy or force passing from one to the other. This may be true. I can’t say I’ve experienced it, but I have read accounts of those who have. But such teachers are not easy to find and one has to be wary of poseurs. But the main ideas of what we may call esoteric philosophy can, I think, be conveyed on the printed page – or I guess computer screen these days. There is, of course, a difference between knowing intellectually and knowing experientially, but one can experience ideas as real, living powers, and they can have an impact on one as powerful as any sensory experience. I believe that what is important is to use our minds, to think actively, to feel ourselves as active agents trying to understand our world rather than passive recipients of sensory data. The internet makes an enormous amount of material that would be difficult to find available, but it is also crowded with a lot of rubbish. We need to develop our powers of discrimination accordingly. Many people join groups and embrace a teaching in order to avoid the inconvenience of thinking for themselves. Many think themselves out of any experience, feeling they “know it all.” Personally, I tend to be solitary. It’s nice to socialize, either in the real world or online, with people who share your interests, but the real work gets done on one’s own.
During an interview for Caretakers of the Cosmos with Miguel Conner a couple of years ago, you spoke about the importance of human interaction and repair, and the whole idea of Tikkun. There still seems to be a lack of traction when it comes to this concept. Is this fundamentally due to materialistic egotism or something else entirely?
The idea of tikkun or of somehow “repairing” the world has been around for some time but as you say it seems that in recent times there is little evidence of its efficacy. Well, I can’t argue with you about the obvious problems facing us in the outer world, environmental, social, economic and so on. The world is in a mess and there doesn’t seem to be anyone cleaning it up. I think Isaac Luria, the Cabbalist who developed the notion of tikkun, would agree, but I think he would point out that the world has been in a mess since creation– that, in fact, creation itself is a mess, or at least has a few kinks in it that God or whoever is responsible didn’t manage to sort out. That’s why we – man – appeared, in order to correct God’s mistakes. How good a job we are doing is at least debatable. But the work of tikkun is not the same as major operations to protect the environment or to limit greenhouse gasses, as important as imperative as these may be. It is more of a kind of inner work, in which each of us, on encountering the sparks of the divine that were captured by matter at the beginning of the world, are able to release them, so that they can return to their source. In doing this, our own souls are released too. It is a way of recognizing the spirit in others, in all things. If enough people were to practice it, then we would be able to work on the obvious repairs that need doing in the outer world. We can only hope they will.
The mystic philosopher Evelyn Underhill seems, like Wilson, to be quite overlooked within today’s esoteric community. I was struck by the cutting edge work of neuroscientist David Eagleman and his observations with respect to the restrictions of our biological senses and perception of ultimate reality. Underhill, Henri Bergson and, indeed, Aldous Huxley, all seem to have come to this conclusion long before we had such an advanced scientific understanding. Is the awareness of our biological limitation a higher, instinctive knowledge that comes from the mystic experience, in your opinion, or simply the result of a particular existential stage?
Yes, Evelyn Underhill’s work deserves to be better known. I first read her years ago and recently went back to her classic Mysticism when working on my most recent book The Secret Teachers of the Western World. I’ve visited her grave in the cemetery at Hampstead Parish Church a few times; A. R. Orage, editor of the New Age and a student of Gurdjieff, is buried there too, also the philosopher C.E. M. Joad. It was Bergson who first pointed out that there are very good evolutionary reasons why we don’t have a mystical consciousness all the time. If we had, we wouldn’t have evolved. Our brains, Bergson saw, do not produce consciousness, as some contemporary neuroscientists and philosophers of mind believe. Our brains are filtering devices for limiting the amount of reality into consciousness, for reducing the amount of consciousness available to our individual psyches. It is not, as the old existentialists and materialists of all sorts have said, that the world is meaningless. Far from it. It is positively overflowing with meaning, so much that if we were aware of it, we would be stopped in our tracks – which is exactly what happens to people who have mystical experiences or for whom for some reason the veils obscuring real reality are parted, and they truly see. In order to deal with the world, we need to limit the amount of information competing for our attention. So, Bergson argued, the brain evolved into a kind of editor, siphoning off “irrelevant” information and only allowing, as Huxley said, enough to enable us to get along on this planet. What seems to happen in mystical experiences is that for some reason, this filter is removed, and Reality appears in all its glory. That the filter was developed by the force behind evolution as a necessity suggests that as we become more capable of grasping and assimilating this excluded reality, our filter can ease up and allow more reality into our awareness. All spiritual exercises and disciplines are aimed in some way at achieving this. There is no sense in being overwhelmed by mystical experiences. We need to be able to grasp it, to understand it. Then slowly we will be able to absorb more reality and then we can do without out mental filters more.
I really enjoyed your Steiner biography and found your accounts of his willingness to understand opposing viewpoints very admirable. It seems Anthroposophy itself now encompasses many diverse ideas. What do you think Steiner would make of how his work is perceived today?
I’m sure Steiner would be pleased to see that the results of his practical work have grown immensely since he first laid down the basics of Steiner education, architecture, farming, medicine, therapies and so on. In that sense, his is probably the most successful esoteric teaching of the modern age. And I’m sure he would also be pleased to see that his more philosophical work, aimed at epistemology and the phenomenology of consciousness, has laid foundations for thinkers that came after him, such as Owen Barfield and Henri Bortoft. Bortoft, who sadly died a few years ago, especially focused his work on Goethe’s ideas about “imaginative knowing,” the kind of phenomenology of consciousness that emerges from his work on plant morphology. Steiner started with this and with it developed his ideas about “supersensible perception,” a perception of the inner world, of spirit. I think he could feel gratified that his work was being carried on in new ways and in new directions.
It seems one thing we tend to forget about esoteric philosophers is their broadmindedness and willingness to embrace new knowledge. In many cases, it is the followers of a particular path that create the dogma as opposed to the founder. Do you think this has happened to Jung, for example, and what would Jung himself have made of the Nag Hammadi texts? Although he was alive for their discovery, he seems to have pre-empted so much we have learned about Gnosticism since then.
Yes, the followers of a thinker or teacher can often be more royal than the king. Believers tend to want to protect their guru, which is understandable, especially in a time when teachers like Jung and others were subject to much criticism. It is unfortunate that what begins as a new, creative, vital current of ideas and insights can easily turn into a dogma and set of rules. This is unfortunate but it seems almost inevitable, and people like Swedenborg and Bergson and others have cautioned about it. Bergson talks about “dynamic” and “static” religion, and how the one transforms over time into the other. One thing I always do if I am speaking to a group devoted to one particular teaching, say Steiner or Jung, is to talk to them about others, include them in the conversation. We really don’t need to protect our little camps, but to find common ground among them. For example, Jung, Steiner, and Swedenborg all had what we would call “visionary” experiences – Jung’s “active imagination,” Steiner’s “Akashic record,” Swedenborg’s trips to “heaven and hell.” All were different, yet all shared certain similarities, all took place within what Henry Corbin called the “imaginal world,” an inner yet objective dimension of reality. So what can we learn if we compare their experiences and the means they used to have them? And Jung, you know, has one of the Nag Hammadi codices named after him. I’m sure he would take argument with some of the ways in which our understanding of Gnosticism and the Gnostics has developed, but he would be glad that we were still bothering about it. There is always a tension between wanting to maintain the original vision and exploring new avenues of thought. Dogma and routine are the hazard of one; losing sight of the original insight is the other. Each can help keep the other alive and vital.
Thanks so much for answering my questions, Gary. What can our readers expect from you in the near future in terms of books and projects?
I’m teaching an online course for the California Institute of Integral Studies on The Lost Knowledge of the Imagination, and I’ll be working on a book with that title in the coming months, and lecturing and giving talks here in London and elsewhere.
In a recent podcast interview, the libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson spoke about some of the issues of running for the U.S. presidency. In particular, he spoke about the fact that if you’re not in the polls and not in the debates, you’re unable to have any standing to win the presidency since you’re not able to obtain enough influence and not even capable of entering the paradigm of electability. In that way, the U.S. presidency is controlled by third party entities that create a stranglehold over the perception of the masses. It is no wonder, therefore, that a former president would claim the U.S. is an oligarchy and a study from Princeton University would provide evidence for it.
A great example of how these third parties can control the perception of the masses is the blatant media bias and neglect that was displayed during Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy. It was so blatant that it was even featured as a skit on The Daily Show.
Perception becomes reality. That’s the problem. However, this is a problem that can be solved through perceptional responsibility. It is the responsibility of individuals to correct disinformation and subversion. Unfortunately, since people aren’t well-versed in these matters, they do not understand how to prevent these issues. In their eyes, to ignore these things would only permit them but in reality, ignoring these matters is what disempowers them. To defeat the perception that comes to inform reality you must ignore that perception or not allow it to become accepted as reality.
For example, if theoretically, I don’t support Donald Trump then I won’t acknowledge his existence. I will not protest his presidential candidacy. I will not transfer information about him even if it were information that mocks him. In that way, I am not empowering him. Likewise, if I believe the U.S. is an oligarchy and therefore, feel no necessity to be involved in politics, then I do not speak about politics nor do I bother to vote or even talk about voting or not voting. By agreeing or disagreeing with it, you’re still perceptionally democratizing it into reality and therefore, empowering it whether you agree with it or not. It becomes the old cliche, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.” The mere exposure whether it’s good or bad allows for support to gather.
This type of thinking is always met with denial and resistance because people do not understand that the name of the game is perception and not necessarily the objective reality that we want to imagine when we envision these things. Even more complex is the irony of having to acknowledge these things so that others understand that they should not acknowledge them.
That is the biggest problem in the age of information, understanding how to navigate it and how to take perceptional responsibility.
These matters extend far beyond the political arena and enter our daily lives on a regular basis. If say, you share nothing but unverified news stories from fraudulent sources, constantly post negative thoughts, never contribute to the world in a positive way, etc… then you are lacking perceptional responsibility and are only harming other individuals who may be subjected to the false information and perception that you’re projecting.
The ongoing redefining of history and context is best epitomized by a recent editing project being conducted by WikiProject Christianity. According to Wikipedia itself, many entries pertaining to ancient history, spirituality and myth have become part of ‘WikiProject Christianity’ which is a “collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia.”
One particular example which has fallen victim to this revisionism is the Wiki entry for the history of the Chi-Ro symbol. (1.)
The Christian interpretation of the Chi-Ro is well described in the Wiki piece and we will not go into it here except to say that throughout his life Constantine was not a Christian so to say he used the symbol in any evangelical sense is contradictory to the facts. Most scholars agree that there is little to no evidence that Constantine even converted on his death bed. The only account of this comes from Eusebius who being a bishop and known as the “historian of the church” makes his bias hard to ignore. Unfortunately, much of the original and authentic Chi-Ro history has been selectively ignored in order to propagate a Christian bias, some of which we will look at here.
This symbol is mentioned in Plato’s Timaeus where he describes the Chi-Ro cross as being indicative of the world soul or Anima Mundi. This idea is reflected in the Hindu notion of Brahman and Atman as well as other ancient systems such as Taoism and Buddhism. (2.) The combination of the Chi and Ro stood for Chreston which means ‘good’ or ‘anointed’. Another example of pre-Christian usage is on coins dated to that of Ptolemy III (fl. 246-220 BCE), in which the Chi-Rho symbol is shown between the eagle’s legs on the reverse side.
Chrestos was also used in conjunction with the Greek god and goddess Hades and Persephone as oracles of the underworld as well as, and potentially more intriguing used to describe Hermes as a guide to the afterlife. (3.) (4.)
A prototype of the Chi Ro also occurs in a Neolithic pictograph dating thousands of years before the advent of Christianity and was documented by Dr. Walter O. Moeller in 1978.
Moeller writes, “The stick-man, which is also a Chi-Rho of sorts…has fingers at the ends of both arms, a line slanting down through the upright and a leg extending down from the upright to the right. The slanting line has been correctly identified as a spear and the whole figure, therefore, as a representation of a saviour-god. But in this case the deity cannot be the Christ but must be instead Odin-Wotan who hanged himself on a tree for nine days and nine nights with a spear in his side as a sacrifice to himself. The slanting line makes the stickman also a prototypal St Stephan’s Cross. Somewhat similar to this Neolithic symbol from Northern Europe is a stick-man figure from predynastic Egypt.” (5.)
Regular readers and students of world mythology will immediately spot the parallels between the Anima Mundi, as Plato describes the Chi-Ro and the figure of Odin and the world tree. We can continue this parallel of the primordial man on the world tree through Kabbalistic descriptions of Adam Kadmon.
Another pre-Christian deity associated with the Chi-Ro was Chronos who was the god of astronomical time among other attributes and identifications. This horizontal and vertical association again brings us neatly back to the axial properties of the Anima Mundi. (6.)
Unfortunately, this Christian revisionism project has potentially thousands of participants and is very difficult to correct; legitimate history is being whitewashed to fit the views and dogma of a relatively recent faith. In this context, we are all the poorer for the loss and corruption of our shared myths, art and cultural traditions.
Other Wiki entries to suffer the same revisionist fate are those of Easter and the Solstice among many others. In these particular examples, the astronomical and ancient Pagan origins have been excluded and refuted by biased sources. Hopefully by bringing attention to this revisionist project, historians, scientists and students and practitioners of other non-Christian faiths, as well as those of none, can try to counteract this.
(2.) Plato. Timaeus, 8.36b and 8.36c
(3.) Chrestos: a religious epithet; its import and influence : J. B. Mitchell. Williams and Norgate, 1880
(4.) Ancient Angels: Conceptualizing Angeloi in the Roman Empire by Rangar Cline. P. 94.
(5.) Hommages à Maarten J. Vermaseren (v. 2; Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1978) “Marks, Names and Numbers.”
From our favorite sports stars, music idols, to leading politicians, we accept a strange facade; the idea that someone just as fallible as we are has transcended our own capability. By accepting this, we surrender to the facade of leadership and become convinced that only they can do or be something which we cannot. It is, therefore, no wonder that so many accept the path of vicariousness and knowingly vote for the lesser of two evils as if there were no other option.
According to anthropologist Ernest Becker, the reason we are willing to surrender and accept the leadership role of another is because we allow ourselves to become seduced by their status since “they do not have the conflicts that we have; we admire their equanimity where we feel shame and humility… the leader wipes out fear and permits everyone to feel omnipotent.”
In Fritz Redl’s perspective on leadership, he believed the importance of leadership was in “the simple fact that it was he who performed the “initiatory act” when no one else had the daring to do it. Redl calls this beautifully the “magic of the initiatory act.” This initiatory act can be anything from swearing to sex or murder.” 
The initiatory act can work in many ways. For example, if an employee takes one more sick day off than allowed but isn’t punished then suddenly, several other employees will do the same. The employee commits the initiatory act and thus empowers the other employees to challenge the power dynamic of the employer. After all, what are they going to do, fire them all? On the flip side, it was once considered impossible to complete a four-minute mile but once it was finally completed, many other runners were suddenly breaking this supposedly impossible task, too. 
It would appear that someone committing the initiatory act almost magically makes it possible for others to do the same or allows them to be complacent within the comfort provided through the leadership asserted in the act. For most, the empowerment of the act is superficial and does not confer any real power but in some cases, such as the four-minute mile incident, it does through belief and inspiration. That is, after all, what leaders of our world provide to us, a sense of belief and inspiration in the direction that things are being taken or are promised to be taken.
Understanding this facade of leadership and the initiatory act can be very empowering and enlightening in your personal life. You will find that so often, all it takes is enough bravery to do a particular thing for it to suddenly and almost magically become possible and acceptable. If you learn how to wield the initiatory act in a responsible way, then you’ll find yourself the confident and active force in an often insecure and very passive world.
“Symbols are keyholes to doors in the walls of space, and through them man peers into Eternity…Symbolism, then, is the divine language, and its figures are a celestial alphabet… ”
Manly P. Hall (Lectures on Ancient Philosophy, pg. 357, 1984)
We can trace the origins of the labyrinth back to Ancient Greece, particularly Crete, and the well-known tale of the Minotaur. In this story, Queen Pasiphae and her union with a sacrificial bull, result in the birth of the Minotaur. The Minotaur was then placed within a vast and complex labyrinth, and each year the King sent 7 boys and 7 girls into it as a sacrifice to appease the Minotaur. During one of these years, Theseus, whose intention was to destroy the half-man/half-bull, entered the labyrinth with the children. He used a ball of twine, which he tied to the entrance, so that he could find his way back. Theseus then made his way through the labyrinth until he found the centre. At the centre of this grand design, Theseus found the Minotaur and the Minotaur was slayed.
However, how did the very idea of the labyrinth come to pass?
Philosophers have connected this complex, spiritual maze to the “Labyrinth Walk” (seekgod.ca), a lengthy journey of the soul with numerous twists and turns, with the goal being to arrive at the centre (the convergent point), to battle with one’s own inner beast or demon, as well as external negative influences and forces, and gain victory over the dark (the dark as a symbol for ignorance). In order to win this battle, one must have light from within (light as a symbol for wisdom; enlightenment), and so the journey must be repeated until success is achieved. This was taught in The Mystery Schools of the Ancients.
The labyrinth also has its roots in Paganism as the spiritual journey of the Initiate, as in Key 0 of the Tarot. It is the journey from Malkuth to Kether, and thus The Tree Of Life. We continue to repeat the journey until we have attained the ultimate illumination, in which The Hermit seeks to assist us when we are ready.
Yet, if we dig deeper, there is even more to the labyrinth…
“In the Kabbalistic tradition taken up by the alchemists, mazes filled a magical function which was one of the secrets attributed to Solomon. This is why the mazes in cathedrals, ‘those series of concentric circles broken at given points on the circumference to provide a strange and tangled pathway’, came to be called ‘Solomon’s Maze’. Alchemists saw them as images ‘of the whole task involved in the Work, with its major difficulties; an image of the path they needed to follow to reach the centre, arena for the two warring natures…”
“This explanation would run parallel with that provided by one of the teachings of ascetic mysticism – focusing upon oneself, along the thousands of paths of feeling, emotion and ideas; overcoming all that stands in the way of unalloyed intuition, and then returning to the light without becoming lost in the byways. To enter and to emerge from the maze might be the symbol of death and resurrection.”
“The maze also takes one to the centre of one’s self, ‘to some hidden, inner shrine, occupied by the most mysterious portion’ of the human personality. This conjures up the mens, the temple of the Holy Spirit in the soul at a state of grace; or again, the depths of the unconscious. Both can only be reached by consciousness after making many detours or by intense concentration, when that ultimate intuition is attained and everything becomes plain through some kind of enlightenment. Here in this crypt the lost oneness of being, scattered in a multiplicity of desires, is rediscovered.
“To reach the centre of the maze, like a stage in the process of initiation, is to be made a member of the invisible lodge which the maze- makers always shroud in mystery or, better still, have always been left to be filled by the finder’s own intuition…”
Additionally from the “Dictionary of Symbols” by Jack Tresidder, we find:
“…many labyrinths are unicursal, having no traps but leading sinuously along a single path. These were often used in early temples as initiation routes or more widely for religious dances that imitated the weaving paths of the sun or planets. They reappeared in patterns on the floors of medieval Christian churches as ‘roads to Jerusalem’ – paths symbolizing pilgrimage.”
Labyrinths in modern day became games for children and adults in puzzle books and toys, their sacred meaning lost to those not yet awake, however, what does hold true in any case is that they are puzzles.
We are the travellers, of the cosmic paths within the labyrinth. The labyrinth exists within us, as consciousness. To find our way we must look deep inside. All of the answers to everything you want to know, exist within you.
No matter what our beliefs and religions, we need only be concerned with the one source from whence we all came. All paths lead to the centre. We all know this to be truth. We follow our own personal truths, as unique individuals, yet all are correct as long as we follow the light. The name of the light is less important than the light itself. Look, and you will find the labyrinth in all cultures and belief-systems.
As Manly P. Hall wrote:
“…the way of salvation has been hidden within us…” (“The Mystical Christ”, pg. 248, 1951)
If the key to the Work is becoming more and more as the one source, then the labyrinth is the winding road that leads us there, to the centre, the middle-eye. The Labyrinth is a connection to the Divine, therefore, for everyone.
The next leap in technology and human capability will come with the endless possibilities of the Internet of Things and big data mining combined to create predictive models for the future.
Once the potential issues regarding security are resolved IoT will head the forefront of data mining. With countless devices connected to each other within an overarching network, it will be possible to locate and measure things to an astonishing degree based on the endless data that these networks will provide.
Big data already helps obtain a sense of casual foresight and that will expand with the integration of IoT into our daily lives. By analyzing the data and patterns that emerge we could begin to create theoretical models that could act as casual forecasts. Even the way you use your mouse could become a predictive variable in who or what is happening or could happen.
The necessity for proper regulation is of the utmost importance in regards to breaches of personal privacy but this movement is more about the well-being of humanity itself than the individual.
If we as a species have casual foresight we can save ourselves from foreign threats or even save ourselves from ourselves. That is the goal. In fact, data mining is already used to predict criminal hotspots and the ability to map criminality will only improve with time. Furthermore, as we transition into a global identity, there will be no desire or necessity to hide things because everyone and everything will be connected. You will be “they” and to harm or hide things would only come to the detriment of yourself.
It’s quite ironic that we desire to be understood but fear it at the same time, that we dream of people coming together and yet stifle the technology that would lead to exactly that. The movement toward more and more transparency is undeniable and unstoppable, though. This is the future.
“President Jimmy Carter says America, a once-free nation, is now an oligarchy, and that’s not just his opinion. It is provable, and backed up by the research of top political experts and scholars. An oligarchy is a government run by a small group of wealthy and influential people, rather than the majority. A Princeton University study, Affluence & Influence, by Martin Gilens, backs up former president Carter’s oligarchy statement about unlimited money in politics, such as allowed by Citizens United, upheld by the Supreme Court, as reported on Your News Wire.
“It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members.”
President Jimmy Carter points to the ideal, that our government’s Constitution was based on the concept of democracy and freedom, at least as freedom and democracy were understood in the eighteenth century. Modern understanding of those may vary, but that was the overall goal. America was to be a government “by the people, of the people and for the people.” Experts are saying that is not what we have today. Carter states this in no uncertain terms.
“So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”
President Jimmy Carter, who led the U.S. from 1977 to 1981, is not just making this up as he goes along. It has been well established, proved, and recorded painstakingly, as explained in the video below.
Martin Gilens’ book introduction begins with a quote by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.
“We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”
President Jimmy Carter is simply re-framing Gilen’s study, and putting it in terms that relate to the current situation. As Professor Gilens explains in the description of his book, those with money are the ones who influence politics, law making, and government policy.
“Can a country be a democracy if its government only responds to the preferences of the rich? In an ideal democracy, all citizens should have equal influence on government policy–but as this book demonstrates, America’s policymakers respond almost exclusively to the preferences of the economically advantaged.”
President Jimmy Carter is taking a stand against oligarchy made possible by large corporate and individual campaign contributions, which he says are allowing undue influence for the rich, and subverting the rights of ordinary Americans.
Martin Gilens set out to test this theory based on over 2,200 government policies from the mid-1960s to 2006. His study shows that the preferences of low and median income Americans have no effect on government policies while the preferences of those with income in the top 10 percent have far greater influence. Over time, this influence is increasing, regardless of presidential administration. Gilens’ work has withstood analysis well over the past few years and provides ample data to show that the affluent have more voice in government than the poor or average income groups.
President Jimmy Carter is simply stating a provable point defining oligarchy, not showing any disloyalty, but simply stating that wealth influences government policy.”