Egyptian Mysteries of God and Energy in Relation to Modern Geopolitics

God made the eye. It is not "evil." The mysteries of creation and energy are contained within it.

God made the eye. It is not “evil.” The mysteries of creation and energy are contained within it.

…I will show you a great mystery.

“The Cosmos moves within the very life of eternity, and is contained in that very eternity whence all life issues. And for this reason it is impossible that it should at any time come to a stand, or be destroyed, since it is walled in and bound together, so to speak, by eternal life.”
Asclepius III, 29c.

By: Jay

Energy is not something pondered by most, yet energy is one of the most fundamental aspects of reality and figures prominently in physics, metaphysics and theology.  But what might a fundamental aspect of metaphysics have to do with geo-politics?  Is there a correlation between energy and its process and social and political trends and movements? I think there is, and in this article I intend to lay it out.  Movement itself is energetic.  All movement represents energy in motion, from one state of affairs to another.  In theology we speak of God’s active energies or attributes are the ultimate causation and ground of being in the universe, meaning energy itself is the locus of power.  Speed also factors into this, since speed is a certain rate of energetic action.  Modernity has seen the increase of the speed of motion due to the advancement of technology: both matter, information and persons are all able to move much faster and in much greater quantity than ever before.

Before considering questions of modern and future energy expectations, I would like to highlight an argument I’ve made a few times now concerning the ancient Egyptian hermetic notions, and how their archetypal religious symbols encoded basic principles of quantum physics and the energetic process.  As many esotericists and traditionalist thinkers have commented, it seems as if ages or eras of history also partake of cosmic processes or aeons.  Eastern writers speak of “kali yuga,” where proper roles of hierarchy and caste are reversed.   Spengler spoke of civilizations as having an organic lifespan and Western man as “Faustian Man.”  My thesis here is that the cyclical process of energy itself gives a model of ages, too.  If movement is energetic, then history and time also reduce to energetic movement.

The basic triadic structure, utilizing the vesica pisces.

The basic triadic structure, utilizing the vesica piscis.

I have mentioned in the past that the rites of the gods encode secrets of nature.  One of the best examples of this is the mythology of Isis, Apophis and Osiris, whose mythology includes the principles of life and energy itself.  Isis is the feminine principle of nature/energy extended in space and time.  Apophis represents the principle of destruction and entropy, and Osiris represents the reemergence of energetic loss towards eternity to a higher state of eternality and immortality.   The ancient Near Eastern symbol of IAO was representative of this formula, and when considered in comparison to the Pythagorean monad, dyad and triad, the same imagery is found to encode the same formulae.  The point or monad extends to the dyad, with the two points connected forming a line.  The line either has a circumference drawn around it and/or extends to a third point.  It can also form a vesica piscis, or an eye.

The monad extends, utilizing the generative principle, forming IAO.

The monad extends, utilizing the generative principle, forming IAO.

The eye is also a circle with a dot in the middle, as well as a circle surrounding a point or an extended line.  This is the meaning of the obelisk in the circle, which, when viewed from above (as the gods would have seen it) is also a dot in a circle.  Quantum physicist Brian Greene discusses the fundamental energetic nature of reality as mirroring the binary computer model as follows:

Continue reading

Prajāpati-Purusa and Vedic Altar Construction

Vedic Altar

Vedic Altar

[Did you know the rites of the gods encode the secrets of mathematics and nature?  Did you know Newton believed this, too? I'd like to thank James Kelley for offering this amazing piece as a guest post. -Jay]

By: James L. Kelley

Though it is well known that the word “Purusa” denotes “the man” in Sanskrit,1 one Indologist pointed out that Purusa also means “[t]he original eternal man, the Supreme Being, and soul of the universe.”2 Despite the potential ethereality of the latter shade of meaning, a scan of Purusa passages in the Rgveda assures our firm grounding in both the cosmic and the concrete, for the Vedic texts reveal Purusa to be “a mortal individual rather than an essence or subtle being…”.3 The Rgveda, which many believe to be the world’s oldest scripture,4 contains further passages that reflect the more esoteric teachings about Purusa—the Cosmic Man—whose story offers unique insights into the origin and destiny of humanity.5

Now that the significance of Purusa as the Cosmic Man in Vedic literature has been indicated, we can now begin our study of Vedic anthropology by considering the work of Dr. Abraham Seidenberg (1916-1988), a man who had much to say about Purusa and about sacred mensuration.

Figure 1.  Abraham Seidenberg.1

Figure 1. Abraham Seidenberg.1

 Seidenberg: A Life in Numbers

Abraham Seidenberg was born on the 2nd of June, 1916, in Washington, D.C.  After graduating from the University of Maryland in 1937, he went on to get a doctorate in mathematics from Johns Hopkins University in 1943.  He taught at the University of California, Berkeley from 1945 until his retirement in 1987.  At various points throughout his career, Seidenberg held visiting professorships at institutions such as Harvard University and the University of Milan.  It was during a stint at the latter school that Abraham Seidenberg died.  The date was May 3, 1988.7 Seidenberg maintained a dual scholarly focus throughout his career. We will not elaborate on his substantial contributions to algebraic theory, choosing rather to zero in on the great mathematician’s work on the history of mathematics. Continue reading

Leibniz Plus John Dee = Golem Computers

An early diagram of Leibniz's based on the combinatory principles of Raymond Lull.

An early diagram of Leibniz’s based on the combinatory principles of Raymond Lull.

By: Jay

I have written before about the importance of Leibniz, especially when it comes to complex metaphysical questions.  Some have wondered in the past why I have seen him as important, and I want to explain what I began to notice several years ago.  This is not to say that I think all of his ideas are correct. Indeed, several of his ideas seem a bit strange, but there are definitely crucial insights and ideas handed down in the western tradition that Leibniz brought to light that would ultimately lead to the computational machine we call the computer. Certainly others were involved in this long process, such as Pascal and other mathematicians, but Leibniz occupies a central role.

As readers of my site may have noticed, my interview with James Kelley highlighted several questions surrounding figures of that era speculating on optics and the ability to influence men and nations for propaganda and psy ops purposes. Specifically, Dr. John Dee theorized different notions about magical mirrors that might be erected to influence others.  James Kelley offered the tantalizing idea that the “007” symbolism Dee used in his communiques with Elizabeth may be two mirrors with the seven occupying the point of light reflecting outwards, with the two 0s being mirrors placed like two mirrors would have been in the optical experiments of his day.  Kelley mentioned the theory of Dee being that the universe was a vast body of luminous light corresponding to the androgynous Adam Kadmon of Jewish Kabbalistic lore, and the light in the eye of the human being the means by which the rays that refracted off objects could thus transmit the emblems of information-knowledge into our heads.

Much needs to be said here. For one, this theory is very close to Aristotle’s view that the mind abstracts universals from the phantasm that enters the mind through sense experience.  In similar fashion, Enlightenment theorists, including the esoterists, were fascinated by these notions, as well as the Platonic illuminist theory of epistemology that Augustine argued for. Ron Nash has an interesting book contrasting the Augustinian and Thomistic conceptions of knowledge, with Thomas following Aristotle in the great synthesis more than Plato, though Aquinas did think he had synthesized the two by placing the archetypes of forms of things in the divine essence.  In this regard, Augustine’s illuminism is very similar to Aquinas’, as both seek to base human knowledge on the reflected analogies that are in man’s mind that lead him to a contemplative journey back to the One.

For both Aquinas and Augustine the archetypes or forms of things that are in the divine essence become a kind of mental path the convert must make, as he is led through life on the perilous quest to see the true nature of things in God, yet the fatal flaw that the East elucidates here is that the goal of this quest is to find the essence of God.  For Aquinas and Augustine, the foundation of natural and supernatural knowledge is the illuminating grace God gives to see the true forms of things in the absolutely simple divine essence.  Thus, for both theologians, the divine essence is literally spoken of as a kind of mirror of reality that the mind of man refracts, leading him from the creaturely analogies back to the true forms in the essence of the One, the divine essence of God, synonymous with the divine Mind.

This is divine exemplarism, but with a unique twist that distinguishes the western view from the eastern: Maximos the Confessor placed these archetypes or logoi as energies of God in the one Logos, not as the divine essence.  This has crucial implications for theology, but in terms of my focus here, there are massive implications for epistemology.   James has laid out many of these implications in his book Anatomyzing Divinity, but as he mentioned in our interview, there appear to be interesting parallels with the track of western civilization as its top scientists and philosophers like Bacon, Leibniz, Descartes, Dee and Newton take this alchemical-Platonic view of “trinities” everywhere and reverse engineer them into a technological idea of a great god computer, if you will.

For many Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers, the mind is a mirror of the world, capable of “imaging” anything in the world, and following the Platonic and Aristotelian theories of illumination, in a sense potentially infinite.  The form of any thing can enter the mind through the eye,  be stored in the mind and reproduced via memory, etc.  Thus for many of these thinkers, not only does it appear they had a mechanistic view of man as their presupposition for the scientific revolution, but a more esoteric notion of creating a computing machine.  With the assumption of man as a kind of biological machine, it was thus posited that a mechanical being might be created.

Readers will immediately think of the ancient kabbalistic legend of the Golem, the mechanical man that can be created with the proper symbols and magic.  Rabbi Isaac of Luria supposedly created one, being a master of the kabbalistic arts. However, rather than pass away into the bin of history as an unknown myth, I suspect that in the esoteric societies of Dee and Leibniz and company, the myth persisted, and when combined with these other theories of Augustino-platonic illuminism, Augustinian epistemic mirror emblemism, etc., the stage was set for the proposal of concepts that would evolve into the complex computing systems we now have.

In this article, I want to analyze some of the ideas of Leibniz.  We know that Leibniz was the founder of calculus, and particularly theories that would be instrumental for the creation of the computer, but are there esoteric ideas beyond mere mathematics at work?  Do the concepts of mirror-imaging and reflecting, the monadology, space and extension in Leibniz, demonstrate any possible connection to the what we see before us in these complex instruments known as personal computers? What about the ideas that Dr. John Dee had, as James Kelley as noted, that served to influence later scientists to create great eyes in the sky that could peer anywhere, as well as projecting images everywhere, propagandizing masses?  Continue reading

JaysAnalysis Interviews Author James Kelley

James is the author of Anatomyzing Divinity, published by Trine Day.

James is the author of Anatomyzing Divinity, published by Trine Day.

In this interview I was privileged to speak with author and researcher James Kelley.  James has published Anatomyzing Divinity and Realism of Glory to date, and has expertise in numerous subjects, from philosophy of science to literature to theology.  James explains his thesis on western esoterism and alchemy as a result of the Augustino-platonic tradition and absolute divine simplicity.  From there, we explore the nature of the papal system and church history, to Anglo-mystical imperialism with Elizabeth and 007 John Dee, as well as various ideas about the association of espionage and hermeticism.  Get Kelley’s Anatomyzing Divinity here.

To download the MP3,

Right Click and ‘Save As’

For JaysAnalysis’ other interviews go here!

Hume and Kant: The Synthetic A Priori Problem

Illustration of analytic and synthetic statements.

Illustration of analytic and synthetic statements.

[Note: This is an old paper I wrote that still holds up.  It shows the need modern philosophy has for metaphysics and exemplarism.]

By: Jay

The famed skeptic-empiricist, David Hume (1771-1776), concluded his An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding by declaring:

When we run over libraries, persuaded of these [his] principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask; does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.1

The arguments from Hume’s Inquiry admittedly forced Immanuel Kant to awaken from his “dogmatic slumbers” of uncritical metaphysical assumptions.2 The purpose of this paper will be to examine the reasons for these bold statements and to consider the chief epistemological and metaphysical point of contention between both philosophers.

Hume’s project is one of critical analysis. His goal is to question the assumptions philosophers had hitherto utilized in order to construct elaborate metaphysical systems. His principle example of criticism, possibly the most foundational assumption of speculative theorists in his day, is the concept of causality. Causality had been taken as a foundational axiom of reality: from Aristotle to the Schoolmen to Leibniz, causality was assumed to be a self-evident, universal, necessary law of reality.

Hume posits, however, that causality is not grounded in any rational, a priori argumentation: it is entirely unfounded. He writes,

In a word, then, every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause, and the first invention or conception of it, a priori, must be entirely arbitrary. And even after it is suggested, the conjunction of it with the cause must appear entirely arbitrary; since there are always many other effects, which, to reason, must seem fully as consistent and natural. In vain, therefore, should we pretend to determine any single event, or infer any cause or effect, without the assistance of observation and experience.3 Continue reading

Romanian Writer Ninel Ganea Interviews Jay’s Analysis, Pt 1

Chill and read.

Chill and read.

Romanian writer, philosopher, and member of the Von Mises Institute, Ninel Ganea interviewed me concerning my own thoughts surrounding a variety of issues.  Ninel runs  and is posting the interview in 3 installments.  Below is part 1.

Part 2 here

Part 3 here

Tell us a little about yourself. How did you discover Eastern Theology and how did you get involved in political philosophy, metaphysics, theology and conspiracy theory? Is there a common line between these things, beside intellectual curiosity?

I’m a writer with an (almost) Master’s Degree in philosophy and English. My central interests are religion, theology and espionage, as well as economics and geo-politics, and particularly how these fields interrelate. I was raised Baptist, but when I turned 18 I took a deeper interest in theology and church history. I attended a couple Bible schools, but that led to a long, indepth look at patristics, which eventually led me out of Protestantism.

I became a Roman Catholic ten years ago, but still had not developed a deep understanding of Eastern theology and the Eastern fathers. After spending time studying the various liturgies, I became interested in Eastern theology, as well as its unique view of Triadology, the essence/energy distinction, and its connection to theosis. Immersion in those issues led me into an abiding fascination with Orthodoxy theology, as well as with classical Jewish theology.

During my younger years as a Protestant, I read a lot of what might be considered fundamentalist critiques of entities like the United Nations and the New Age Movement. My mother was an editor and a librarian, so I was always surrounded by books. Those early critiques of the U.N., Marxism and world government I read as a teenager put me on a path towards amassing several shelves of books that might be called “conspiratorial.” However, as one learns over time, “conspiracy” is really just a synonym for the study of espionage, propaganda, geo-political machinations and history itself. That’s simply the way the world works: large entities, be they nation states, corporations or political parties, all conspire. My past is one of conservative politics, but as I’ve matured, I’m much more critical of both so-called American “parties,” especially after you read something like Dr. Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, which clearly demonstrates the Hegelian dialectical control and manipulation of the “two party system.”

Continue reading

Oblivion (2013) – Esoteric Analysis

Oblivion film poster

Oblivion film poster

By: Jay

Spoiler Alert

Oblivion is the summer’s first big sci fi blockbuster that opened to mixed reivews. Many movigoers and critics are expressing confusion and bewilderment, not understanding the plot. Others are calling it dull and uneventful, yet my conclusion is that they missed the film’s point.  While there are some legitimate questions as to plot points here and there, the narrative itself is not flawed overall in my estimation.  The key to understanding Oblivion is twofold: conspiracy theory and esoterism.  To be more precise, gnosticism and Platonism.

While “gnosis” arises often in JaysAnalysis reviews, there’s a reason why: it is a theme really and truly prevalent in so many Hollywood productions.  The reasons for this are manifold, but in the big picture, “Hollywood is an extension of gnosticism,” as one director put it.  Considering the Oblivion director’s previous work (Joseph Kosinski) with Tron Legacy, we can be assured that the themes are intentional, since they are the same in that work.  I have done an analysis of Tron Legacy here.

As a refresher, since JaysAnalysis has gained a larger audience over the last few months, gnosticism refers to the numerous heterodox, extra-eclessial Christian groups of the first three to four centuries.  Gnosticism encompasses a wide variety of sects with varying influences, ranging from Greek pantheism, polytheism, Platonism, far Eastern mysticism and various Christian texts.  One common thread in gnosticism, however, is the rejection of the God of Moses and the Jewish prophets as the “demiurge.”  In this view, the creator God is actually the devil because, it is believed, He has made man flawed and imposed death.  In this view, theology is reversed and man’s goal is salvation through gnosis or knowledge, leading to escape from this plane of existence.  Plato comes to mind here, with the famous dictum that the body is a prison. Continue reading

Jay’s Analysis – Eastern Theology Versus Latin Theology

What are the central differences between Latin and Eastern theology? Is there are common thread of difference that gives rise to two different approaches to divinity, knowledge, revelation and eschatology? Yes, I argue. I discuss Augustine, Aquinas, absolute divine simplicity as borrowed from Aristotle and Plato, the Logos, the Greek triad, I Am as “pure being,” Anselm, the analogia entis/chain of being, apophatic theology, theosis, created grace, divine energies, divine ideas, and the supposed ‘beatific vision.’

For the WMA audio file, right click

and “save as”

“By accepting the teachings of Plato on unchangeable species and identifying these with the Divine Essence, Augustine established the analogy between created and Uncreated, based on which he and the Franco-latins would research the Divine Essence through the in-world created icons of the uncreated archetypal species in God.” -Fr John Romanides, Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church I, p. 382

Jay’s Analysis Audio Discussion: Platonism Destroys Materialism

In this discussion, I detail what I argued in my recent article: Platonism as an esoteric tradition provides the complete refutation of rank materialism. From the archetypal forms of nature, to the necessity of their being a psyche, the mind of man is a mirror of all reality, and a mirror of the Divine Mind. For a written account, check out my article:

We the Platonists Shall Have the Victory Over the Materialists


For audio MP3, right click and “save as”

We Platonists Shall Have the Victory Over Materialists

The eternal One, the Dyad and the Triad.

The eternal One, the Dyad and the Triad.

By: Jay

Famous philosopher Thomas Nagel recently published a book questioning the hallowed dogma of strict, reductionist materialism.  I have not read the book, but a philosopher friend recommended it to me.  It’s nice to see someone daring to challenge the ridiculous control grid that is modern so-called academia.  In a similar vein this week, a friend set up a Google chat where I was able to meet an MIT professor and debate certain questions relating to materialism and Platonism.  While I have to tread lightly here, I want to make it clear that I am not advocating everything Plato taught.  However, in the course of debating academics and thinkers, appeals to the hallowed tradition of Platonism and mathematics seems to have some weight as an inroad.  I don’t think I made much progress in my discussion/debate with the MIT chap, but it illustrates for me further confirmation of the correctness of my own positions on metaphysics.

In the course of this conversation several ideas came to mind that highlight the impossibility of rank materialism.  Many of them have been highlighted here before, but it’s always good to rehearse them, since modernity is so committed to this dogma without question.  The first faulty presupposition is naive empiricism.  The scientific and academic establishment is still dominated by naive empiricism as its sole epistemological approach.  Believe anything you want, in fact, just so long as undergirding all of it is the ridiculous idea that “all knowledge comes through sense experience.”  This is the ancient error of the sophists, nominalists and Enlightenment empiricists.

Caught up in the populist ideas of their times, these strands of philosophers and thinkers simply assumed that the intellectual climate that fostered “progress” was and is only had in circles that adhere to this doctrine.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Since most in this school follow some form of what they would term “logic,” it is very easy to demonstrate that the claim “all knowledge comes through sense experience” is false by appealing to the sentence itself.  The claim itself is an exceptionally strong universal claim about both knowledge and metaphysics.  Given the propensity of those in this strand to bully theists for unsubstantiated claims, there is no possible way, on empirical grounds, to prove such a claim.  The claim itself necessarily entails a whole host of metaphysical preconditions, too, which are anathema to naive empiricism.   So the very dogmatic claim of naive empiricism, which even W.V.O. Quine, one of their own, showed was an impossible claim, is still quite impossible.  In fact, you can read David Hume himself, the grandfather of modern atheistic materialism, for an elaborate explanation of how empiricism necessarily entails radical skepticism and is therefore utterly destructive to all knowledge.  For example, in the Weekly Standard piece on Nagel’s recent workshop with materialists, we read: Continue reading