Current Aeonic Trends

a discussion of the aeonic trends of the present and near future.

in this case im following and basing my observations within the "psychohistory model" as proponed in the book "Liber Kaos" by Peter J. Carroll.

it seams to me as a relatively obvious assessment, that the spiritual movement of orthodox religion, i.e. contemporary Christianity is a dyeing experiment. That aeon appears to be in its last stages being replaced by the materialism and scientific modes that are in ever strengthening governance since perhaps the mid 17 hundreds. However there is also a clear increase in the magickal movement, directly unorthodox thought, mysticism, and method which extend beyond sciences current grasp.

so the question and speculation I put forth is, as is suggested in the aeonics section of the aforementioned book, will science peak and fall to magick. will science synthesize with magick and unite to form a hybrid subject based in highly complex quantum mechanics perhaps, or will magick trump and incorporate science, mysticism in a post apocalyptic world?. Or is it more likely that science and magick will war to an eventual end of magick without science, or science without magick?


the science fiction of our age seams to indicate something of the science magick hybrid, the magick of the day explained through logic and method (magick no more, but reality made super real by advanced methods)
Social trends would indicate that science will last a good 200-500 more years, likely killing itself, and falling into the magick dominant age.

I myself see the modern occult movement expanding into a mutual dance with the scientific one, things remaining mystical and unexplained, but supplemented by understanding of advanced sciences and understanding of the human mind.
I see a dark age for mankind.


your opinions on the matter?





fair days,
<.?.>

welcome the dark age

a shame no one weighed in with their ideas on the subject.

at any rate, I find myself looking more and more at where I see things going.

and its toward the doomsday situation, no no, by no means an end of the world, but more a... devolution.
Though I must say, I still cant get a solid idea of how long religion will hold out, so unstable it seams, yet.... it could hold on till its last gasp. trends certainly seam to be speeding its demise, more than just the common scientific re-consideration, and more than the de-moralizing of society that so many complain about. there seams to be a growing movement to discredit and destroy its foundations, specifically Christianity (and honestly, whether I am a product of my age, or it a byproduct of me, I cant say im not pleased with the movement)
but back to the specifics of the matter, I honestly see the fall of popular religion, that is to say it will fall out of prominence into a minority quirk, as soon as the next 20 or so years, and in as long as 200 years. this all dependant on any dramatic gestures that occur to speed or slow its decay.
I see the rise of science over that time, from the near past through perhaps as many as 500-1000 years hence. (science however being even less stable and prone to a far more complete obliteration) for science it all depends on the stability, and with the temperament of mankind as it is, I see its flame burning bright and scorching its maker and the unfortunate world or worlds that happen to be present.
this of course leaves the path clear for whoever is alive after, to follow with the more spiritualistic, or at that point scientific mysticism, in their new stone age, until of course in the movements of time thought goes back to gods.

and while I cant say as I believe anything interesting is really tied to such date, I may as well make a few peoples day and say that my, "gesture" the instability moment could easily be in 2012, in which case we could all be around for some interesting times.



again id like to ask, your thoughts on the matter?



fair days
<.?.>

Here is some interesting news from two major News sites: "Washington Times" and "World Tribune"
Washington Times: Atheism in Decline.
World Tribune: Atheism in Decline

The main result is that while Atheism is in decline, it doesn't mean that Christianity is on the rise. . .instead it is Paganism.

Lol. . .personally, I find it more fun to debate with pagans because they believe in something. And the friendly debates are much friendlier in my experience. Atheists would battle in the debate with ferocity because their central foundation of "no god" is being questioned and attacked, and therefore they feel cornered. A pagan on the other hand already believes in a deity or deities and doesn't feel too attacked by discussing the possibility of another god to add to the list. And sometimes they even have something inciteful and inspiring to add to the discussion. Overall, pagans are just more fun to debate with.

well, reawakening an old topic and maybe some renewed interest.

I tend to agree that its more interesting to talk with someone that believes in something rather than one who defends nothing.


That said, I am unquestionably agnostic---- pantheistic perhaps (though I’m not sure how that counts since I don’t account any of the pagan gods as supreme powers) Whatever the case for the existence of God, I believe there is ample evidence to support some first cause/supreme being/meaning in the universe -- is this thing a being as we would understand it? I doubt it -- but does a creator, or creation force exist? how could it not?

anyway, deviating from that bit of ranting into the proper bit of ranting I had in mind when I started this post.


Does it seam to anyone else the humans as a species are getting stupider on an almost daily basis?
-- now hear me out, this does bear relevance on the matter of aeonic trends, specifically on my speculation about science vs. magick vs. religion in the near future.
I don’t just mean personal intelligence, though I believe there is a strong argument that people are seriously lacking on that count en mass. Rather I refer to technological backwash-- the society we live in grows increasingly more complex, more specialized-- and at present there are enough people that know how to fulfill some necessary role in that ever expanding web of reliance’s. But suppose something catastrophic occurred? a famine or a disease or some large bombing or any of a number of large scale destabelizers... what then would happen? people are too dependant on each other-- and increasingly so with the passing of time --- how many would live, would know how to survive if the system collapsed? I’d venture a guess that less than 10% know enough of survival to make it if suddenly there were no supermarkets (take away electric, or more specifically gasoline and all the food processing plants stop--- harvesters cant run..etc.) no running water-- etc.

I liken it to a tree--- the base is strong, it's big and sturdy and hard to knock over.. then there are the larger branches, not so big.. not so hard to break but still very strong... but ever and ever smaller, the higher and further you get from that starting point the more frail it all is.

it seams to me that we are actually running a very uncertain race against progress--- the question is will our progress hit those branches to narrow to support any more weight (in which case we shall surely fall) or will we reach out far enough and find new stability (as eventually, if the system proves viable stability will occur--- for a time at any rate) ?


It all grows more tentative and dependant as time passes, all things growing more complex and specialized, and the potential for dramatic destruction ever greater-- our technology fuels the possibility for greater totalities of failure.


(this of course is why all beings must change--- over specialization breeds weakness -- and something stable or static is already dead -- more on this in another topic perhaps)



So, to summarize what I’ve just said, it seams more and more likely to me that entropy will win out on this system, and that we are indeed moving foreword at great speed towards a return to the primitive man--- and/or mankind is reaching out to an end point on his run-- when those who are still primates can have another go at the evolution game-- and the rest of us are something else altogether.


Thoughts?


Fair Days,
<.?.>

My first weigh-in here, so please be gentle.

Stealing copiously from Katya Walter, there are two different approaches to technology. The first is a either/or approach, demanding defined results from science with little to no regard for the impact on the society for which the technology was developed. We research nukes to kill a bazillion people, sure, but then later determine how to use it to power homes. This is a Western approach. The other approach is a both/and approach, blending together the psychosocial impact of technology with the derivation of technology. While I certainly make no claim to be an expert on Eastern history/culture/etc, this would appear to be the approach of the East. Ms. Walter indicates that the East developed technology more quickly and to the satisfaction of its population in the beginning largely because the West was busy trying to kill each other with whatever it developed. The reason behind the both/and approach to Ms. Walter is quite simple: there exists in the human mind a rational, logical, scientific mind and one that is the unknown, unknowable, and arcane. One fuels aggressive technological advance, while the other is fed by religion. The Western scientific approach ignores the darker, 'yin' side while the Eastern approach is careful to take both in mind.

With these concepts in mind, please consider what I believe. Western science has reached a plateau. Without profound social advancement (perhaps even a retrograde advance ) science can't go much further. It is an embattled art, as much tangled in legal and financial webs as it is in ethical ones -- stem cell research, anyone? Drugs that would be useful to the masses are locked in the cellars of Big Pharma because there isn't money to produce them, or the FDA won't let them be released. What is arguably the greatest invention in the past thirty years -- the Internet -- has failed to promote a great social change in any direction. Instead of a much-loved forum for town hall debates and public referendums, it is a medium for people to bitch about movies and share pornography. What other inventions can you consider? The integrated circuit chip? Birth control? We have a whole slew of new technological toys with which to play, but no real advances, nor will we. Without the inclusion of our 'yin' sides in the progression, we cannot advance.

However, magickal approaches to modern problems will be difficult to sell to the Masses, if at all. Consider: we are taught the scientific method in schools. There is a problem which we observe, formulate a hypothesis, test, and then evaluate for results. We have learned that if we combine chemicals A and B in such a manner we will get a yield of C, and this is as immutable as a sunrise or taxes. Quantum physics aside, it is impossible to quantify any magickal experience in such a fashion due to its nature. It is a phenomenon that exists at the pleasure of our psyche, through the manipulation of subtle energies that respond in an uniquely individualistic fashion. Sure, there has been some integration of scientific and magickal approaches -- acupuncture comes to mind -- but the key to acupuncture actually working lies not in the belief of the practitioner so much as in the belief of the afflicted. If it were so easy to produce magickal effects that are quantifiable *as* magickal effects (not something explainable such as sun dogs or bizarre atmospheric conditions), why hasn't one of us collected James Randi's cool million? More to the point, why would we want to bother? It is human nature to try to do as little work for as much gain as possible, and as soon as one of us outed ourselves as a true practitioner of the Art, we'd be lauded as Messiahs and shot shortly by some fearful fool.