Experimental Proof Of Acausal Energy?

David Myatt

°°°°°°°°°

In a recent study published in the New Journal of Physics, {1} Gianmaria Falasco and others from the University of Luxembourg have reported that an analogous property called negative differential response is a widespread phenomenon found in many biochemical reactions that occur in living organisms. They identify the property in several vital biochemical processes, such as enzyme activity, and DNA replication.

We ourselves are inclined to speculate that this may be some initial proof of David Myatt’s conjecture about “acausal energy” and which energy is what makes living organisms “alive” and differentiates their matter from non-living matter.

In the 1990s Myatt conducted what were some rudimentary experiments involving living organisms and electrical resistance. He wrote that

“One field of experimental enquiry I pursued in the late 1990’s concerned trying to ascertain whether it was possible to usefully measure some physical property of a living organism (of a macro or micro type). One such physical property I explored was electrical resistance, and thus involved measuring the resistance of an organism on the macro level (as for example in a growing plant) and on the micro level (as in plant tissue) and then trying to ascertain whether that resistance changed under various conditions, such as when in close proximity to another living organism of the same and of a different type, and if so, how does that resistance vary with respect to the size or type of organism and to the distance between them. Of course, to be scientific each experiment had to replicated, as exactly as possible, many times in order to ascertain if there were any consistent, reproducible, results.

That set of experiments was never fully completed, due to a change in priorities following my arrest – and the seven hour search of my home – in early 1998 by Detectives from Scotland Yard. Which arrest formed part of what turned out to be a three year long international investigation into my political (and alleged paramilitary and terrorist) activities.” {2}

For those interested, Myatt’s acausal theory and its place in O9A esotericism is described in the texts available at Acausal Theory.

TWS Nexion
August 2019 ev

{1} https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ab28be
{2} https://davidmyatt.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/dwm-2014-questions.pdf

°°°°°°°

Article source:
https://wyrdsister.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/scientific-proof-of-acausal-energy/

°°°°°°°°°


Explaining The Acausal

Order of Nine Angles

O9A

Explaining The Acausal

 

A Metaphysical Theory

The theory of the acausal that is used by the Order of Nine Angles, and which forms one of the foundations of the O9A’s esoteric philosophy as well as The Star Game, was developed by David Myatt around 1972, and concerns metaphysics. That is, it is not – as some have assumed – a scientific theory proposed by Myatt in order to either explain some observed Phainómenon or extend the theoretical frontiers of physics, but rather belongs to that “branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things or reality, including questions about being, substance, time and space, causation, change, and identity.”

In terms of ontology, Myatt suggests that the difference between living things and ordinary matter can be explained by postulating a bifurcation of being – causal and acausal – with living things, in contrast to ordinary matter, possessing both causal and acausal being. In terms of epistemology, Myatt suggests that this acausal being – that is, the nature (or physis, the “identity”) of living beings, including ourselves – can be discovered (known) via developing our faculty of empathy, and that this “acausal knowing” is different from but complementary to the “causal knowing” discovered (known) by observing, in a scientific manner, Phainómenon and then, using denotatum and theoretical models (including mathematical ones), explaining such Phainómenon.

Crucially, Myatt also posits a fundamental difference between “acausal knowing” and “causal knowing” in that acausal knowing is by its nature personal (“subjective”, intuitive) – and cannot be abstracted out from the immediate moment of the personal knowing – while causal knowing is what we now describe by the term scientific (“objective”, observational, impersonal) and, in contrast to acausal knowing, relies on denotatum, abstractions, and theories. Thus, according to Myatt, to “know” – to understand – the physis of living beings, including our own physis as a human being, both acausal and causal knowing are needed.

However, Myatt has also speculated about what the nature of acausal being might be and about “the nature and extent and cause of the acausal connexions between living beings that acausal-knowing reveals” {1}. One of his speculations – which he admits might be fallacious  – is “conceptualizing the acausal as a n-dimensional acausal continuum (where n is > 3 but ≤ ∞) of acausal Space and acausal Time, in contrast to the causal geometrical Space and linear causal Time of the causal and 4-dimensional continuum of Phainómenon familiar to us through sciences such as physics, chemistry, and astronomy.

Acausality And The O9A

The Order of Nine Angles uses Myatt’s “acausal realm” to not only explain “the supernatural”, and sorcery {2}, but also to provide a raison d’etre for the occult, hermetic, quest for gnosis. Thus, and for instance, O9A suppositions include: (i) that archetypes re-present (are types of) “acausal energy” and that our “consciousness” and unconscious are a nexus between the causal and the acausal, a nexus symbolized by The Star Game {3} and the septenary Tree of Wyrd; and (ii) that it is possible to develop our faculty of empathy via various occult techniques, such as rite of internal adept, the camlad rite of the abyss, and by a conscious – a willed – pathei mathos manifest in such things as “insight roles”; and (iii) that such a development of such a faculty is an essential part of attaining “gnosis”: of acquiring a knowledge of Being and beings, and which knowledge includes understanding our own unique physis as an individual.

Thus, one of the principles of the O9A – founded on the wisdom that thousands of years of human living, and occultism, and paganism, has bequeathed to us – is that no amount of “scientific theories” and of “reason/logic” and of “experimental evidence” and “technology” can offset the pathei-mathos – the personal understanding, learning, and knowing – that suffering, grief, empathy, and an individual occult quest for gnosis, so personally provide especially if such pathei-mathos is of months, years, decades. For those who have so endured pathei-mathos know – sans words, sans denotatum, sans theories – that the answers provided by “science” and by “logic alone” and by “experimental evidence” and by “technology” are inadequate, insufficient to explain the nature of being, the nature of beings, and especially human physis. Without such pathei-mathos we simply cannot know – sans words, sans denotatum, sans theories – our own physis, let alone the physis of others.

M.K.
2014

{1} Towards Understanding The Acausal. e-text, 2014. See also Time And The Separation Of Otherness – Part One. e-text, 2011.

{2} See the O9A compilation Time, Acausality, The Supernatural, And Scientific Theories. pdf, 2014.

{3} The advanced star game was designed by Myatt to encourage “acausal thinking”; that is, to encourage the type of thinking that does not depend on denotatum, abstractions, or theories. It is interesting to note that several of those who worked with Alan Turing at Bletchley Park were good chess players (e.g. Hugh Alexander) who believed that skill in that game enabled them to make connections (and intuitive leaps) that otherwise they might not have done.

 


Article source: The Definitive Guide To The Order of Nine Angles (pdf, 54 Mb)


Understanding The Acausal

Editorial Note: This is Myatt’s recent (September 2014) revision of his original 2011 article.

David Myatt

David Myatt

 

Towards Understanding The Acausal

In essence, what I have termed the acausal is not a generalization – a concept – deriving from a collocation of assumed, ideated, or observed Phainómenon, but instead is just a useful term used to distinguish a particular perceiveration from other perceiverations. This particular perceiveration is the wordless knowing which empathy can reveal and which a personal πάθει μάθος often inclines us toward: a revealing of the φύσις (physis) of some beings, of the non-causal connexions which exist between living beings, and of how we humans – as beings possessed of consciousness – are not only an affective connexion to other living beings but also can consciously decide to cease to harm other living beings.

For convenience, this revealing has been termed acausal-knowing to distinguish it from the causal-knowing that results from observing Phainómenon.

Hitherto, the φύσις of beings and Being has most usually been apprehended, and understood, in one of three ways or by varied combinations of those three ways. The first such perceiveration is that deriving from our known physical senses – by Phainómenon – and by what has been posited on the basis of Phainómenon, which has often meant the manufacture, by we human beings, of categories and abstract forms which beings (including living beings) are assigned to on the basis of some feature that has been outwardly observed or which has been assumed to be possessed by some beings or collocation of beings.

The second such perceiveration derives from positing a ‘primal cause’ – often denoted by God, or a god or the gods, but sometimes denoted by some mechanism, or some apparently inscrutable means, such as ‘karma’ or ‘fate’ – and then understanding beings (especially living beings) in terms of that cause: for example as subject to, and/or as determined or influenced by or dependant on, that primal cause.

The third such perceiveration derives from positing a human faculty of reason and certain rules of reasoning whereby it is possible to dispassionately examine collocations of words and symbols which relate, or which are said to relate, to what is correct (valid, true) or incorrect (invalid, false) and which collocations are considered to be – or which are regarded by their proponents as representative of – either knowledge or as a type of, a guide to, knowing.

All three of these perceiverations, in essence, involve denotatum, with our being, for example, understood in relation to some-thing we or others have posited and then named and, importantly, consider or believe applies or can apply (i) to those who, by virtue of the assumption of ipseity, are not-us, and (ii) beyond the finite, the living, personal moment of the perceiveration.

Thus, in the case of Phainómenon we have, in assessing and trying to understand our own φύσις as a human being, assumed ipseity – a separation from others – as well as having assigned ourselves (or been assigned by others) to some supra-personal category on the basis of such things as place of birth, skin colour, occupation (or lack of one), familial origin or status (or wealth or religion), some-thing termed ‘intelligence’, physical ability (or the lack thereof), our natural attraction to those of a different, or the same, gender; and so on.

In the case of a primal cause, we have again assumed ipseity because implicit in such a primal cause is a causal progression of individuals: from what-we-are (or are said to have been created for or born as) to what-we-can-be if we follow the correct way or praxis as described or revealed, for example, by a religious prophet, teacher, group or by some authority. Thus, in Buddhism there is the supra-personal Noble Eightfold Way which it is said can lead to the cessation of dukkha and thus to nibbana; while in Christianity there are the supra-personal teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the gospels, a following of which it is said can lead the individual to eternal life in samayim/οὐρανός/caelum – the Kingdom of Heaven.

In the case of the perceiveration termed reason, there is again denotatum because of the assumptions – codified in certain supra-personal rules – whereby what is denoted by ‘true’ and what is denoted by ‘false’ may be ascertained and which ‘truth’ or falsity is also by that very denotatum supra-personal and ‘valid/invalid’ beyond the finite, the living, personal moment.

However, and in contrast to those three perceiverations, acausal-knowing is a direct and personal – an individual – revealing of beings and Being which does not depend on denoting or naming or causality or the assumption of a primal cause, and which knowing, being individual in φύσις and concerned with living beings, cannot be abstracted out from the living personal moment of the perceiveration. Thus, such a perceiveration – in respect of other human beings – does not and cannot involve and does not and cannot lead to any of the following: (i) any personal claim regarding possessing ‘the truth’ about some-thing; (ii) no ‘correct way or praxis’ or dogma or ideology which are assumed or believed to be applicable to anyone else; (iii) no understanding of or assumption of knowledge about others on the basis of assigning those others to some category or to some abstract form. Instead, there is only an intuition of the moment concerning one’s own φύσις and thus a wordless individual revealing of – a numinous knowing concerning – one’s own being and of one’s own relation to Being and to other living beings.

This particular revealing of beings and Being therefore means that our faculty of empathy – or more correctly, a developed faculty of human empathy – should perhaps be added to the four Aristotelian essentials [1], and which now five essentials can enable us to come to know both the reality external to ourselves and the reality of ourselves (our φύσις), as individuals. That is, it is the combination of causal-knowing and acausal-knowing that can incline us toward a knowing of Reality and thus which manifests thoughtful-reasoning, a reasoned or balanced judgement (σωφρονεῖν).

The nature of living-beings that empathy reveals is of Being coming-into-being through beings and manifest in the φύσις of those beings, and of the acausal connexions between all living-beings, sentient and otherwise, and this leads us to the understanding that our own self-identity, our separateness, and even our assumed uniqueness in causal Time and causal Space, are causal presumptions. That is, a product of Phainómenon, of only causal-knowing. Since such causal-knowing is incomplete, lacking as it does acausal-knowing, it would not seem to be a sound foundation to use in the matter of making ethical judgements, for such judgements should take into consideration what empathy reveals about Being and beings [2].

Acausal Postulations

It is possible, and certainly interesting although not necessary and possibly fallacious, to make some postulations regarding the nature of the acausal; that is, regarding the nature and extent and cause of the ‘acausal connexions’ between living beings that acausal-knowing reveals.

Such speculations are possibly fallacious because – while they may seem reasonable assumptions about the acausal – they (i) almost certainly impose assumed causal forms upon that-which, being acausal, might be and most probably is formless, and (ii) will of necessity involve denotatum and representation by some form of mathematics (either currently existing or yet to be developed).

Among the speculations that I have personally made in the past are the following. Of conceptualizing ‘the acausal’ as a continuum of acausal Space and acausal Time, in contrast to the causal geometrical Space and linear causal Time of the causal and four-dimensional continuum of Phainómenon familiar to us through sciences such as physics, chemistry, and astronomy. Such a speculation lead me to further postulate that this ‘acausal continuum’ could simply be ‘extra dimensions’ beyond four-dimensional causal space-time (a causal space-time currently conceptualized by mathematical models such as the one involving a Riemannian metric) with the cosmos therefore being an n-dimensional space-time of both causal and acausal dimensions where n (the number of dimensions) is greater than four but less than or equal to infinity, with the extra ‘acausal’ dimensions then offering an explanation for the difference in φύσις between living beings and ordinary matter. Which lead to another postulate regarding the existence of ‘acausal energy’ different from the causal energy known from sciences such as physics, and which ‘acausal energy’ is assumed to be what animates physical matter, imparting to that matter what we observe as life [3], with such animation not the result of some cause-and-effect (or even some assumed acausal effect) but rather the state of such matter being alive – a living-being (a biological organism) as distinct from a non-living being (ordinary physical matter). Living beings are therefore a nexus – nexions – between the acausal aspect (or dimensions) and the causal aspect (or four causal dimensions) of n-dimensional space-time. A further speculation is that of assuming that such acausal energy is a possibly observable attribute of a living-being having the hitherto causally-observed attributes of life. This then leads to the postulation of such acausal energy having certain attributes [4], and of some or all of these attributes possibly being observable by the development of observational/experimental techniques perhaps partly based on acausal energy, and of such acausal energy therefore being manifest or capable of being manifest, as energy sans beings, in the causal continuum, with such acausal energy forming the basis for an ‘acausal technology’ as distinct from our current causal technology of electronics, and machines, powered by electrical energy and/or involving the flow of things such as electrons.

Regarding these speculations about ‘acausal energy’, there is the analogy of the discovery of electricity. Static electricity was known for many centuries, but not really understood until the concept of positive and negative charges was postulated. Later, instruments such as the gold-leaf electroscope were invented for detecting and measuring such charges, followed by the invention of other instruments, such as frictional machines and the Leyden jar, to produce and accumulate, or store, electric charges, and to produce small ‘galvanic currents’ or electricity. Then the experimental scientist Faraday showed that ‘galvanic currents’, magnetism and static charges were all related, and developed what we now call an electro-magnetic generator to produce electricity. Thus, from such simple experimental beginnings, our world and our lives have been transformed by machines and equipment using electricity, and by the electronics developed from electricity. One might therefore speculate that the experimental discovery of the ‘acausal energy’ that animates living beings making them ‘alive’ and different from ordinary matter, might similarly transform our lives.

Conclusion

Such speculations aside, all that the acausal-knowing which empathy currently reveals to us is: (i) of a personal and wordless knowing of other living-beings and of ourselves in the immediacy-of-the-moment, and (ii) of how the acausal itself is not some ‘essence’ behind or beyond the causal and beyond causal forms, since such an ‘essence’ is but itself a postulated ideation.

Or, expressed somewhat differently, our acausal-knowing is simply a revealing of the matrix of nexions which are living-beings, and thus of The Cosmic Perspective: of an acceptance of ourselves as but one fragile fallible microcosmic nexion only temporarily presenced on one planet orbiting one star in one Galaxy in a Cosmos of billions of Galaxies. This is the essence of wu-wei – a knowing, a feeling, of Being; a knowing, a feeling, of the numinous. It is also the same kind of wordless understanding hinted in that ancient wisdom termed Tao, and yet which even then, as now, could not and cannot be described by or contained within that one, or any, particular term, such as ‘the acausal’ or ‘gnosis’.

David Myatt
2011
(Revised 2014)


Notes

[1] These Aristotelian essentials are: (i) Reality (existence) exists independently of us and our consciousness, and thus independent of our senses; (ii) our limited understanding of this independent ‘external world’ depends for the most part upon our senses – that is, on what we can see, hear or touch; that is, on what we can observe or come to know via our senses; (iii) logical argument, or reason, is perhaps the most important means to knowledge and understanding of and about this ‘external world’; (iv) the cosmos (existence) is, of itself, a reasoned order subject to rational laws.

[2] I briefly touched on the question of empathy in relation to ethics in my 2013 essay Questions of Good, Evil, Honour, and God – Some Personal Musings.

[3] Currently, we observe or assume life by the following seven attributes: a living organism respires; it moves; it grows or changes; it excretes waste; it is sensitive to, or aware of, its environment; it can reproduce itself, and it can nourish itself.

[4] For convenience, the acausal energy that may (if it exists) be detected in the causal could be considered to be manifest, to us, in our causal phenomenal universe, by means of what we may call acausal charge (analogous to electrical charge), such that the acausal energy that manifests itself in the causal – within, for example, living causal beings – possessess the property of propagating, or emitting, by its flux (change), such ‘acausal charge’. Hence, a living causal being could be conceptualized as physical, causal, matter plus ‘acausal charge’.

Some of the attributes of acausal energy, expressed in terms of acausal mass (analogous to causal mass/energy) might be the following:

(1) An acausal object, or mass, can change without any external force acting upon it – that is, the change is implicit in that acausal matter, by virtue of its inherent acausal charge.

(2) The rate of change of an acausal object, or mass, is proportional to its acausal charge.

(3) The change of an acausal object can continue until all its acausal charge has been dissipated.

(4) Acausal charge is always conserved.

(5) An acausal object, or mass, is acted upon by all other acausal matter in the cosmos.

(6) Each acausal object in the cosmos attracts or repels every other acausal object in the physical cosmos with a magnitude which is proportional to the product of the acausal charges of those objects, and inversely proportional to the distance between them as measured in causal space.


Article source: http://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/towards-understanding-the-acausal/


David Myatt – Time As Emanation of Being

David Myatt

David Myatt – Time As Emanation of Being
(pdf)

Contents

0. Preface
1. Time and The Separation of Otherness – Part One

2. Some Notes On The Theory of The Acausal
3. Understanding The Acausal
4. The Star Game – History and Theory

°°°

From the Preface:

{quote}
What I have described as ‘the theory of the acausal’ was first dreamt up by me in 1972 during ‘a holiday at Her Majesty’s pleasure’ to wile away the many hours spent, in Armley jail, sowing mailbags in the then mandatory daylight OCA [Observation, Classification, Allocation] sessions, having spent previous evenings – while ‘banged up’ in a ‘peter’ with two other cons – reading Jung’s Mysterium Coniunctionis and his Psychology and Alchemy.

During those long days – and sometimes longer nights – I gradually refined this theory, postulating an ‘acausal universe’ wherein existed ‘acausal energy’, with living beings as a connexion, a nexion, between our causal phenomenal universe and that acausal universe, and with such acausal energy being what animated ordinary physical matter and thus imparting to such matter the quality we humans observed, and described, as life. On my release from prison in 1973 I wrote the first draft of my Emanations of Urania – Notes Toward A Heuristic Representation of Cliology in which I attempted to describe the theory in an axiomatic way and extend it to explain the metamorphosis of cultures and civilizations as described by Spengler and Toynbee. Despite my intention to revise that first draft, various activities and commitments prevented me from doing so, so it was that typewritten draft which I photocopied and circulated to a few friends the following year just before I left all those various activities and commitments behind to live, for a while, as a ‘Gentleman of the Road’. Now, some forty years later, there is even more of that youthful 1970’s document that I would revise and much I would delete, given how over the decades my apprehension of the acausal has evolved, a newer apprehension evident especially in my fairly recent essay Time and The Separation of Otherness.

It was during another such ‘holiday at Her Majesty’s pleasure’ (1975-1976) – while in another jail and working as the prison library ‘red band’ – that I devised ‘the star game’ in order to try and express, by means of alchemical symbolism, not only the basic acausal theory but also what I then considered were some of its applications (for example, in respect of Jungian individuation).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, a somewhat revised version of this acausal theory was incorporated into my much later ‘numinous way’ (2002-2011) and then into that refinement of that ‘numinous way’ that I have, post-2012, termed my philosophy of pathei-mathos. Indeed, the notion of acausality in central to my philosophy of pathei-mathos, derived as that philosophy is from my own pathei-mathos and thus from the rather late development of my own faculty of empathy. For the faculty of empathy provides us with an intuition – a knowing – concerning such acausality, and which acausal knowing is the foundation – the ground – of the numinous. And it is such a personal, vivifying, appreciation of the numinous which predisposes us, as individuals, toward the personal virtues of compassion, humility, and honour. For empathy not only uncovers the a-causal nature of Being, but also uncovers our φύσις as human beings: for we are but emanations of Being, and thus affective (that is, a-causal) connexions to all other living beings, sentient and otherwise, terran and otherwise. Thus, of the two wyrdful threads which run through my outré life, one is this apprehension of the acausal (the other being my apprehension, appreciation, and understanding, of the muliebral).

This compilation – which I have, perhaps somewhat pretentiously, entitled Time As Emanation of Being – comprises some essays of mine in which I have attempted to explain (not always in a satisfactory manner) my theory of acausality. Thus, it may be useful to those few who are not only interested in that theory of acausality but also interested in my philosophy of pathei-mathos.

David Myatt
2013

{/quote}


Article source: http://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/time-as-emanation-of-being/

Related article: emanations-of-urania.pdf


Understanding The Supernatural

Order of Nine Angles

O9A

Time, Acausality, The Supernatural, And Scientific Theories

From the Introduction:

The work brings together, from various sources, essays dealing with the theory – the idea – of acausality proposed by David Myatt in the 1970s, subsequently developed by him as part of his philosophy of pathei-mathos, and which Myattian theory is primarily metaphysical. For it posits a bifurcation of Time, and an ontology of causal and acausal being, such that the cosmos is considered to consist of a (mostly unknown, to us) acausal universe (with acausal energy) and of a known (an observable, to us) causal universe containing an energy familiar to us from sciences such as physics, astronomy, and chemistry.

Myatt’s metaphysical theory of Time and of Space was subsequently adopted by the occult group the Order of Nine Angles (O9A/ONA) and used by them in order to explain both the supernatural and sorcery, where the supernatural is defined (in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary) as:

“belonging to a realm or system that transcends Nature. As that of divine, magical, or ghostly beings. Attributed to or thought to reveal some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of Nature. Occult, paranormal.”

Thus, for the O9A, the acausal became the supernatural ‘realm of acausal beings’; with ourselves as a living nexion between causal and acausal; with archetypes as manifestations of acausal energy in our psyche; with sorcery understood as ‘the presencing of acausal energy’; and with certain acausal beings – such as the shapeshifter historically named Satan, and entities such as dragons – having manifested themselves to us in the past: as having egressed into (or visited) our causal dimensions.

Part One features essays by Myatt: an extract from his detailed Time and The Separation of Otherness, and his Some Notes On The Theory of The Acausal. These provide a recent overview of his metaphysical theory, and thus serve to place into context the other essays, in Part Two, which are concerned with the use of this theory by the O9A. I have also included the text Alchemical Seasons and The Fluxions of Time, which presents, in a modern manner, the pagan insight of the ancient Camlad occult tradition in relation to Time, Nature, and ‘the heavens’; and which esoteric Camlad tradition, although adopted and adapted by the O9A in the 1970s, maintained and still maintains an independent existence through a very small number of reclusive individuals in certain rural parts of England.

Time, Acausality, The Supernatural, And Scientific Theories
(pdf)

Contents

Introduction
Part One – The Myattian Metaphysical Theory of Time and Space

° Time and The Separation of Otherness
° Some Notes On The Theory of The Acausal

Part Two: Acausality And The Order Of Nine Angles

° Debunking The Chaos – Sorcery and the Esoteric Nature of The Acausal
° Acausality, The Dark Gods, and The Order of Nine Angles
° Satan, Acausal Entities, and The Order of Nine Angles
° Alchemical Seasons and The Fluxions of Time