National-Socialist Guide to Understanding Islam

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt

Editorial Preface

The pamphlet The National-Socialist Guide to Understanding Islam (pdf) was written and distributed by Muslim convert Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt (aka David Myatt) in 2003, the same year that, at a UNESCO conference in Paris which concerned the growth of anti-Semitism it was stated that “David Myatt, the leading hardline Nazi intellectual in Britain since the 1960s […] has converted to Islam, praises bin Laden and al Qaeda, calls the 9/11 attacks ‘acts of heroism,’ and urges the killing of Jews. Myatt, under the name Abdul Aziz Ibn Myatt supports suicide missions and urges young Muslims to take up Jihad. Observers warn that Myatt is a dangerous man.” [1]

During the previous two or more years, Myatt had not only travelled and spoken in several Arab countries [2] but also had run a somewhat notorious campaign to bring radical Muslims and neo-nazis together in order, in his words, “to fight our common enemy”, and of which campaign Professor Michael wrote that Myatt had “arguably done more than any other theorist to develop a synthesis of the extreme right and Islam.” [3]

The foundation of this synthesis was Myatt’s revisionist version – or rather his new vision – of National Socialism, which he dubbed ‘ethical National-Socialism’ and which vision he, in the year before and the year after his conversion to Islam in 1998, propagated by means of the Reichsfolk group he founded in the 1990s. This vision or version of National Socialism was a non-racist one, of which he wrote, in his essay Why National-Socialist Is Not Racist, that “correctly defined and understood, National-Socialism is an ethnic philosophy which affirms that the different races, the different peoples, which exist are expressions of our human condition, and that these differences, this human diversity, should be treasured in the same way we treasure the diversity of Nature.”

In Myatt’s campaign to bring Muslims and National Socialists together the pamphlet The National-Socialist Guide to Understanding Islam certainly played a role, simplistically and propagandistically written as it was for National Socialists in particular and Western nationalists in general as an introduction to not only Islam but, following 9/11, to topics such as ‘martyrdom operations’. For, in respect of ‘martyrdom operations’, Myatt had already – and for his fellow Muslims – written “one of the most detailed defences in the English language of Islamic suicide attacks” [4] and which defence of such attacks was at the time, and for several years, featured on the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades (the military wing) section of the Hamas website [5]. Given such links to Hamas, and the fact that Myatt was known as “an ardent defender of bin Laden” [2], it is hardly surprising that Myatt merited a mention at an April 2005 NATO conference on terrorism which heard that Myatt had called on “all enemies of the Zionists to embrace the Jihad.” [6]

Therefore, though now somewhat dated in places and, along with all his neo-nazi and Islamic writings, disowned by Myatt himself [7], this propaganda pamphlet – sections of which were featured on the Aryan Nations website run by August Kries – does have some historical interest, in relation to Myatt’s ‘Jihadi years and support for Islamic terrorism’, in relation to Myatt’s ‘synthesis of the extreme right and Islam’, and perhaps especially in relation to the Reichsfolk group and their continuing vision of an ethical National-Socialism.

Richard Stirling
2013 ce

[1] Simon Wiesenthal Center: Response, Summer 2003, Vol 24, #2

[2] Mark Weitzmann, Anti-Semitism and Terrorism, in Dienel, Hans-Liudger (ed), Terrorism and the Internet: Threats, Target Groups, Deradicalisation Strategies. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series, vol. 67. IOS Press, 2010. pp.16-17.

[3] Michael, George. (2006) The Enemy of My Enemy: The Alarming Convergence of Militant Islam and the Extreme Right. University Press of Kansas, p. 142.

[4] Wistrich, Robert S, A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad, Random House, 2010.

[5] Durham, Martin. White Rage: The Extreme Right and American Politics. Routledge, 2007, p.113

[6] Ely Karmon. The Middle East, Iraq, Palestine – Arenas for Radical and Anti-Globalization Groups Activity. NATO Workshop On Terrorism and Communications: Countering the Terrorist Information Cycle, Slovakia, April 2005.

[7] Myatt’s post-2010 writings are full of remorse for what he terms “his extremist past”. In a Disclaimer placed on both his website and his internet blog (davidmyatt.wordpress.com) he writes that:

“I reject and disown all my pre-2011 writings and effusions, with the exception of my Greek translations, the poetry included in the published collection One Exquisite Silence (ISBN 978-1484179932), some private letters written between 2002 and 2011, and those few items about my since revised ‘numinous way’ which are included in post-2012 publications such as The Numinous Way of Pathei-Mathos (ISBN 978-1484096642). My rejection of all forms of extremism is explained in (i) the 2013 compilation Understanding and Rejecting Extremism (ISBN 978-1484854266) and (ii) Myngath (ISBN 978-1484110744).”



Sed id Quidem in Optima spe Pono

[…] That seeking of – that hope for – a personal love loyally shared. Which seeking and hope for such a love, surely, is one intimation, one sign, of our real human nature; another of which is, surely, to learn about, to appreciate, the numinous treasures that preceding generations have bequeathed to us in and thorough our human cultures – in our Art, literature, music, the ancestral wisdom of the πάθει μάθος of our ancestors, written or aurally transmitted, and in the numinous insights that were the genesis of most if not all those Ways of Life now known by the generic term religion before such insights became enshrined within such dogma and such causal forms as bled away their life-giving Life. Yet another is, surely, to seek to always be honourable and thus to try the live the natural, the balanced, middle way between ascetic self-denial and the excess, the lack of self-control, that leads to ὕβρις, to personal arrogance and to indifference to suffering. This is the middle way of empathy, personal love, personal honour, and appreciation of the numinous, of the natural distinction between the sacred and the profane.

These hopes, desires, these reasons to possibly be optimistic, are the essence of The Numinous Way; of the very individual reformation and evolution of ourselves by means of empathy, honour, compassion and love. And it is this individual reformation, this individual change, by such means, which in my admittedly fallible view is important, which is numinous, which expresses the essence of our human nature as consciously aware human beings possessed of the faculties of empathy, of reason, and of will; and which is the summation of my own learning from over forty years of diverse experiences and the making of so many mistakes, of transgressing so many limits.

Thus, what I now feel is irrelevant is politics – of whatever type or form; what is equally unimportant are religious dogma, creeds, and such impersonal conflict as arises from all causal abstractions. For all of these are causes of, the genesis of, suffering and all involve and all have involved the loss of personal love, the loss of compassion, the loss of empathy, and the loss of reason. All plant the seed of ὕβρις within us.

For we human beings – being capable of using reason, possessed of empathy, able to be compassionate and honourable and needful of the numinosity of a personal love – do not need, and never really have needed, speeches, propaganda, manifestos, a sense of destiny, the machinations and promises of political and religious leaders, or social, political, or even religious, reforms.

All we need is to know, to feel, the beauty of a personal love loyally shared; to use and develope our empathy, and to be honourable. Thus can we know, feel, the numinous – and thus can we avoid the error of ὕβρις. And thus if I have some last words to write, to say, it is these.

What, therefore, remains? Only such hope that such words, that such a numinous way as I have somehow managed to uncover, might inspire some, or perchance provoke a reasoned and thoughtful response in some others. What is there now, and what has there been? One genesis, and one ending, of one nexion whose perception by almost all others is now of one who lived and who wrote ἐξ αἰνιγμάτων.

τό θ᾽ ὑπέργηρων φυλλάδος ἤδηκατακαρφομένης τρίποδας μὲν ὁδοὺς
στείχει, παιδὸς δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἀρείων
ὄναρ ἡμερόφαντον ἀλαίνει.    [1]

 

David Myatt
March 2011

Extract from a letter to a friend

[1]  Thus, he of great Age, his foliage drying up
And no stronger than a child, with three feet to guide him on his travels,
Wanders – appearing a shadow in the light of day.

               Aesch. Ag 79-82

 


Source – http://www.davidmyatt.info/sed-id-quidem.html


David Myatt and Satanism

David Myatt

David Myatt

David Myatt, Satanism, and Anton Long

Analysis of Some Rumors

 

Regarding the much discussed question of Myatt and his alleged involvement with the sinister group the Order of Nine Angles (ONA), in my opinion there are three alternative scenarios.

Possible Myatt Scenarios

1) Individuals can choose to accept David Myatt’s consistent and decades long denial regarding being ‘Anton Long’, and his claim that his occult involvement (such as it was) was brief and – as he mentioned in Ethos of Extremism and (decades ago) to people like Professor Kaplan – occurred in the 1970s when he participated in a clandestine occult honeytrap for the sole purpose of subversively aiding his then fanatical nazism 1. Thus, as he outlined in his autobiography Myngath, in his Ethos of Extremism, and in many other of his writings, (i) for 30 years he sincerely believed in nazi ideology, in a neo-nazi revolution, as evidenced by his political and para-military activities, by his imprisonment, his writings, and his leadership of the NSM and Reichsfolk; and (ii) that following a decade of travels in lands such as Egypt 2 and a growing admiration of Muslims he personally met, he converted to Islam and spent many years sincerely trying to live the Muslim way of life; (iii) that following the death of his then partner he was forced to re-evaluate his life and beliefs and which re-evaluation led to him rejecting all forms of extremism and developing the personal weltanschauung he termed ‘the numinous way’ (aka the philosophy of pathei-mathos).

In this first scenario Myatt was a fallible if arrogant trouble maker – a rebel and a fanatic – who gradually learned humility 3 after an eventful life, and who rediscovers his humanity, and admits his mistakes, following a personal tragedy.

2) Individuals can choose to believe that David Myatt was and is Anton Long and that his 30 years as a nazi and his 10 years as a Muslim were part of some life-long sinister and cunning plan of his to subvert society and that he was so sinister and so skilled at deception and so charismatic that he could: (i) initially convince people about his sincerity regarding being a nazi fanatic and then a sincere Muslim, and (ii) also fool scores of people consistently for 30 years (in the case of NS) and 10 years (in the case of Islam) and (iii) that in order to maintain the charade he was prepared to and did endure imprisonment (in the case of NS) and was prepared (in the case of Islam) to be regarded by various governments as a terrorist and so be liable to arrest, interrogation, extradition, and imprisonment, and (iv) while doing all the foregoing also managed to create, expand, write for and run the ONA.

In this second scenario he is some kind of evil genius (with good acting skills) involved in a decades long and international sinister conspiracy; someone who, astonishingly 4, is capable of living a double (or triple) life for years on end and capable of manipulating and duping (for years on end) all kinds of people from hardened criminals to neo-nazi ruffians to devout Muslims to believing Christians to intellectuals.

3) Individuals can choose to believe – as some conspiracy minded individuals have suggested 5 – that David Myatt has spent most of his adult life as some kind of government/state asset, undercover operative, or agent provocateur, having been recruited either at University or during his time with the underground paramilitary group Column 88 (part of NATO’s secret anti-communist Gladio network).

In this third scenario he is a loyal servant of the British state – a patriot, a ruthless operative (inciting violence, disorder, subversion, and terrorism) – who obeys a covert chain of command, and which British state indulges in and has indulged in ‘dirty tricks’ in order to protect its security and its interests, and which ‘dirty tricks’ include undercover surveillance, entrapment, infiltration and disruption of groups perceived to be a threat and/or terrorist, and – possibly – using terrorist (and extremist) groups/the threat of terrorism as a pretext for greater surveillance and government control.

Explanations Required

Those who believe versions/scenarios 3 and 2 (the agent provocateur and the satanist scenarios) have to explain Myatt’s life – and his philosophy, his personal letters, and his mystical writings – since 2006, and which life and which writings (many of which writings deal with humility, compassion, his remorse about his extremist past, and his mistakes) do not fit the theory of Myatt being either a life-long satanist or some dedicated ruthless covert government asset. The only explanations consistent with those versions of Myatt’s life are the following additional assumptions: (i) that his numinous way/philosophy of pathei-mathos is something he does not personally believe in, and he diabolically constructed it as some sort of smokescreen or jape and (ii) that his personal writings are all lies, some clever attempt (by an amoral genius) at obfuscation 6 to divert attention from ‘the sinister deeds’/the covert ops such believers believe he has done and probably is still doing, or was doing until very recently; or (iii) in the particular case of the agent provocateur theory, that c.2006 he ‘retired’ and devoted himself to expressing what he really believed in all along or what he came to believe following a lifetime of state-sponsored covert activity.

Furthermore, those who accept version 2 (the satanist scenario) have additionally to explain not only the lack of factual evidence proving he is a satanist 7 but also many other things about Myatt’s life, among which are the following 8,

1) His time as a Christian monk and his many subsequent writings praising Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general 9.

2) His Occultism and National-Socialism text – written in the 1980’s and republished in the 1990’s and again around 2006 – and in which he denounced occultism.

3) The “small matter” of him being married in Church in accordance with the Christian ceremony of marriage.

4) His semi-autobiographical poetry 10.

5) His voluminous writings about the hubris of extremism, and about his rejection of and his remorse concerning his extremist past 11.

6) An extensive seven hour search of his home by six Detectives from Scotland Yard in 1998 failed to find any occult items or literature.

7) A forensic analysis, by the police, of Myatt’s seized computers following his arrest in 1998 failed to find any occult material.

Again, the only explanation of all these things consistent with the Myatt as satanist scenario is that he is and was not only the astonishingly cunning, duplicitous, evil genius mentioned above, but also someone who has now (again astonishingly) contrived to create yet another persona for himself (as philosopher of ‘the numinous way’ and humble penitent) and which persona he has managed to rather convincingly and certainly consistently portray through letters, poems, and scores of essays, spanning some six years (2006 -2012) 12.

Conclusion

We basically have a choice between:

(i) believing Myatt is an astonishingly diabolical, duplicitous, creative, polymathical genius who over four decades has been playing ‘sinister games’ and who has not deviated from his youthful sinister cunning plan, and which diabolical genius makes the likes of Crowley and LaVey (and everyone else associated with modern Satanism and the ‘left hand path’) seem pathetic and mundane; or

(ii) assuming Myatt has spent most of his adult life as a covert servant of the British state; or

(iii) accepting that Myatt has lived a quite adventurous (but not an exceptionally amazing) life, has made mistakes, has suffered a personal tragedy, and has learned from and been changed by his experiences and by that tragedy.

How do we choose? I have always admired Isaac Newton’s Rules of Reasoning of which the first is:

“We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.

To this purpose the philosophers say that Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of superfluous causes.”

To guide us toward choosing one of the three suggested explanations of Myatt’s diverse life we might profitably apply this rule of reasoning. Which of the above three scenarios is therefore the most plausible? Which offers the most simple, the most rational, explanation for Myatt’s peregrinations? Which require the pomp of conspiracy theory, and which involve superfluous causes, and (sometimes bizarre, sometimes astonishing) ad hoc assumptions and claims?

I know which one I favor.

JR Wright

2012

Footnotes

[1] In part two of his political memoir Ethos of Extremism – covering the years 1973-1975 -Myatt wrote:

” There also developed in me during this time, and because of my involvement with C88, a realization that both covert action and terrorism were or might be useful tactics to employ in the struggle for victory, a struggle which I – extremist and fanatic that I was – accepted would be brutal, violent, and bloody, and thus possibly cost the lives of some of us, some of our opponents, and even some non-combatants […]

In respect of covert action, I came to the conclusion, following some discussions with some C88 members, that two different types of covert groups, with different strategy and tactics, might be very useful in our struggle and thus aid us directly or aid whatever right-wing political party might serve as a cover for introducing NS policies or which could be used to advance our cause. These covert groups would not be paramilitary and thus would not resort to using armed force since that option was already covered, so far as I was then concerned, by C88.

The first type of covert group would essentially be a honeytrap, to attract non-political people who might be or who had the potential to be useful to the cause even if, or especially if, they had to be ‘blackmailed’ or persuaded into doing so at some future time. The second type of covert group would be devoted to establishing a small cadre of NS fanatics, of ‘sleepers’, to – when the time was right – be disruptive or generally subversive.

Nothing came of this second idea, and the few people I recruited during 1974 for the second group, migrated to help the first group, established the previous year. However, from the outset this first group was beset with problems for – in retrospect – two quite simple reasons, both down to me. First, my lack of leadership skills, and, second, the outer nature chosen for the group which was of a secret Occult group with the ‘offer’, the temptation, of sexual favours from female members in a ritualized Occult setting, with some of these female members being ‘on the game’ and associated with someone who was associated with my small gang of thieves […]

For some time, this underground group appeared to flourish, with some ‘respectable’ people recruited – initially a lecturer, a solicitor, a teacher, among others – with some of the recruits becoming converts to or in some way helping our political cause, and with such clandestine recruitment aided, later on, by some unexpected, non-factual, unwanted, publicity.

But what happened was that, over time and under the guidance of its mentor, the Occult and especially the hedonistic aspects came to dominate over the political and subversive intent, with the raisons d’etat of blackmail and persuasion, of recruiting useful, respectable, people thus lost. Hence, while I still considered, then and for quite some time afterwards, that the basic idea of such a subversive group, such a honeytrap, was sound, I gradually lost interest in this particular immoral honeytrap project until another spell in prison for an assortment of offences took me away from Leeds and my life as a violent neo-nazi activist.”

[2] In part six of Ethos of Extremism – dealing with the years 1998-1992 – Myatt wrote:

” There was no sudden decision to convert to Islam. Rather, it was the culmination of a process that began a decade earlier with travels in the Sahara Desert. During the decade before my conversion I regularly travelled abroad, with this travel including well-over a dozen visits to Egypt and a few visits to other lands where the majority of the population were Muslim.

Egypt, especially, enchanted me; and not because of the profundity of ancient monuments. Rather because of the people, their culture, and the land itself. How life, outside of Cairo, seemed to mostly cling to the Nile – small settlements, patches and strips of verdanity, beside the flowing water and hemmed in by dry desert. I loved the silence, the solitude, the heat, of the desert; the feeling of there being precariously balanced between life and death, dependant on carried water, food; the feeling of smallness, a minute and fragile speck of life; the vast panorama of sky. There was a purity there, human life in its essence, and it was so easy, so very easy, to feel in such a stark environment that there was, must be, a God, a Creator, who could decide if one lived or died.

Once, after a long trip into the Western Desert, I returned to Cairo to stay at some small quite run-down hotel: on one side, a Mosque, while not that far away on the other side was a night-club. A strange, quixotic, juxtaposition that seemed to capture something of the real modern Egypt. Of course, very early next morning the Adhaan from the mosque woke me. I did not mind. Indeed, I found it hauntingly beautiful and, strangely, not strange at all; as if it was some long-forgotten and happy memory, from childhood perhaps.

Once, I happened to be cycling from Cairo airport to the centre of the city as dawn broke, my route taking me past several Mosques. So timeless, so beautiful, the architecture, the minarets, framed by the rising sun…

Once, and many years before my conversion, I bought from a bookshop in Cairo a copy of the Quran containing the text in Arabic with a parallel English interpretation, and would occasionally read parts of it, and although I found several passages interesting, intriguing, I then had no desire, felt no need, to study Islam further. Similarly, the many friendly conversations I had with Egyptians during such travels – about their land, their culture, and occasionally about Islam – were for me just informative, only the interest of a curious outsider, and did not engender any desire to study such matters in detail.

However, all these experiences, of a decade and more, engendered in me a feeling which seemed to grow stronger year by year with every new trip. This was the feeling that somehow in some strange haunting way I belonged there, in such places, as part of such a culture. A feeling which caused me – some time after the tragic death of Sue (aged 39) from cancer in the early 1990’s – to enrol on, and begin, an honours course in Arabic at a British university.

Thus, suffice to say that a decade of such travel brought a feeling of familiarity and resonance with Egypt, its people, its culture, that land, and with the Islam that suffused it, so that when in the Summer of 1998 I seriously began to study Islam, to read Ahadith, Seerah, and the whole Quran, I had at least some context from practical experience. Furthermore, the more I studied Islam in England in those Summer months the more I felt, remembered, the sound of the beautiful Adhaan; remembered the desert – that ætherial purity, that sense of God, there; and remembered that haunting feeling of perhaps already belonging to such a culture, such a way of life.

Hence my conversion to Islam, then, in September of that year, seemed somehow fated, wyrdful.”

[3] Of this learning of humility, Myatt – in his Pathei-Mathos, A Path To Humility – writes:

“In terms of my own pathei-mathos, the culture of Islam – manifest in Adab, in Namaz, and in a reliance on only Allah, and a culture lived, experienced, by me over a period of some nine years – was not only a new revelation of the numinous but also a grounding in practical humility. The very performance of Namaz requires and cultivates an attitude of personal humility, most obvious in Sajdah, the prostration to and in the presence of Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem; a personal humility encouraged by Adab, and shared in Jummah Namaz in a Masjid and during Ramadan.”

[4] Even adherents of the Myatt is a satanist scenario are forced to admit that this kind of supposition is astonishing:

“Even more astonishing than this transition [from neo-nazi to Muslim], is that it seems both his Nazism and Islamism are merely instruments for the ONA’s underlying sinister esoteric plots.” Per Faxneld: Post-Satanism, Left Hand Paths, and Beyond in Per Faxneld & Jesper Petersen (eds) The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, Oxford University Press (2012), p.207. ISBN 9780199779246

[5] As the Canadian author and satirist Jeff Wells wrote:

“Is Myatt an agent provocateur, a shit-disturber who can’t settle upon a radical philosophy, something more, or something less? It’s difficult to assess motive, but consider that he has been arrested numerous times for such things as writing and disseminating ‘practical terrorist guides’ [and] on suspicion of conspiracy to murder. These cases have always been dropped due to ‘lack of evidence’. Does he enjoy protection? The record is suggestive that he does…

So again: whose interests are served by there being a David Myatt? Is he is own man – or men – or does he belong to someone else? Or is it something else – an intelligence service perhaps?” Nine Angles of Separation, 2005.

An overview of the theory of Myatt as agent provocateur is given in the 2009 text David Myatt: Agent Provocateur?

[6] As one exponent of the Myatt is a satanist scenario states in respect of Myatt himself and some of Myatt’s writings: “[The article] appears to be part of the game that Myatt is playing with the media […] His conversion to Islam was probably nothing more than a game of make-believe […] It is my claim that Myatt’s move to Islam is part of a sinister strategy that has its roots in the insight roles and idea of sinister dialectics within the ONA […] Myatt’s life-long devotion to various extreme ideologies has been part of a sinister game that is at the heart of the ONA.” Senholt, Jacob. Secret Identities in The Sinister Tradition: Political Esotericism and the Convergence of Radical Islam, Satanism and National Socialism in the Order of Nine Angles, in Per Faxneld & Jesper Petersen (eds) The Devil’s Party: Satanism in Modernity, Oxford University Press (2012), pp. 266, 267, 269.

The relevant expressions in the above quotation are ‘appears to be’, ‘probably nothing more than’, and ‘my claim’. For no evidence is adduced. Is it tendentious to claim, as Senholt does, that Myatt’s years as a Muslim were ‘nothing more than a game of make-believe’ given that Myatt put himself at risk of arrest, interrogation, extradition, and imprisonment, by preaching Jihad, meeting with Islamists, and penning texts supporting suicide attacks and bin Laden, and thus merited a mention at NATO conferences on terrorism in 2005, in 2006, and again in 2010?

It would be interesting to know how the exponents of the Myatt is a satanist and Myatt is Anton Long scenarios explain the contents of the two volumes of Myatt’s personal letters that have been published, since these letters – just like Myatt’s poetry – portray a person very different from a satanist playing ‘sinister games’. Would they claim these letters were ‘nothing more than make-believe’ and thus part of the sinister game they allege Myatt is playing? The two volumes in question are Selected Letters, 2002-2008 (pdf) and Extracts from Letters to Friends, 2008-2011 (pdf).

[7] In A Matter of Honour Myatt wrote:

Since at least 1997 I have no doubt been under regular covert surveillance by Special Branch and MI5 – and especially so since 9/11 given some statements I made while a Muslim – with all my communications (internet, telephonic) monitored via GCHQ. Indeed, following my conversion to Islam and during the time I seemed to be, for the security services and the Police, ‘a significant person of interest’, I recall many meetings and friendly conversations with one of the Special Branch officers on attachment to the city near where I was then living.

Given such surveillance and interest, no doubt there are records somewhere of my activities as a neo-nazi extremist; of my subsequent life as a radical Muslim supporting Jihad, and finally of my life as a reclusive philosopher, a friend of σοφόν who seeks, throughλόγος, to uncover – to understand – Being and beings, and who thus suggests or proposes an ontology of Being. What there will not be, will be any records of ‘Myatt as Satanist’.

As I mentioned in my article Polemos Our Genesis in respect of such surveillance:

‘I have [since at least 1997] worked on the assumption that my communications are monitored, so I have restricted my internet and telephonic communications to friends, family, and to people I personally know or who are personally known to someone I trust. This means two things. That all I communicate is personal, open, transparent, and honest; and that if someone not belonging to this small circle of contacts claims to have had some communication from me – either sent with my name or sent using some pseudonym – then it is bogus.’

[8] q.v. David Myatt: A Matter of Honour (e-text 2012).

[9] These writings include The Pursuit of Wisdom (2011), Just My Fallible Views, Again, and the collection Pathei-Mathos – A Path To Humility (2010-2012).

[10] According to Myatt his poetry “was composed between the years 1971-2012, and is of varying quality. Having undertaken the onerous task of re-reading those poems that I still have copies of, there are in my fallible view only around a dozen that I consider may possibly be good enough to be read by others. This collection [‘Relict’] contains these few poems, and most are autobiographical in nature.”

[11] These writings about his rejection of extremism include (i) A Rejection of Extremism (pdf), (ii) Meditations on Extremism, Remorse, and The Numinosity of Love, (iii) De Novo Caelo (pdf).

A selection of quotations about extremism taken from Myatt’s recent writings are given in the e-text Concerning Extremism.

For Myatt’s analysis of extremism as hubris see (i) Some Personal Musings On Empathy, in relation to the philosophy of πάθει μάθος [Part Two of Myatt’s Recuyle Of The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos] and (ii) Enantiodromia and The Reformation of The Individual [Part Three of Recuyle Of The Philosophy Of Pathei-Mathos].

[12] Some of his letters from this period are included in the collection Extracts from Letters to Friends. Selected Letters of David Myatt, 2008-2011.


This work is issued under the Creative Commons (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0) License
and can be freely copied and distributed, under the terms of that license.

The Numinous Balance of Honour

David Myatt

David Myatt

The Numinous Balance of Honour
by David Myatt

In many ways, the personal virtue of honour, and the cultivation of wu-wei, are – together – a practical, a living, manifestation of our understanding and appreciation of the numinous; of how to live, to behave, as empathy intimates we can or should in order to avoid committing the folly, the error, of ὕβρις, in order not to cause suffering, and in order to re-present, to acquire, ἁρμονίη.

For personal honour is essentially a presencing, a grounding, of ψυχή – of Life, of our φύσις – occurring when the insight (the knowing) of a developed empathy inclines us toward a compassion that is, of necessity, balanced by σωφρονεῖν and in accord with δίκη.

This balancing of compassion – of the need not to cause suffering – by σωφρονεῖν and δίκη is perhaps most obvious on that particular occasion when it may be judged necessary to cause suffering to another human being. That is, in honourable self-defence. For it is natural – part of our reasoned, fair, just, human nature – to defend ourselves when attacked and (in the immediacy of the personal moment) to valorously, with chivalry, act in defence of someone close-by who is unfairly  attacked or dishonourably threatened or is being bullied by others, and to thus employ, if our personal judgement of the circumstances deem it necessary, lethal force.

This use of force is, importantly, crucially, restricted – by the individual nature of our judgement, and by the individual nature of our authority – to such personal situations of immediate self-defence and of valorous defence of others, and cannot be extended beyond that, for to so extend it, or attempt to extend it beyond the immediacy of the personal moment of an existing physical threat, is an arrogant presumption – an act of ὕβρις – which negates the fair, the human, presumption of innocence  of those we do not personally know, we have no empathic knowledge of, and who present no direct, immediate, personal, threat to us or to others nearby us.

Such personal self-defence and such valorous defence of another in a personal situation are in effect a means to restore the natural balance which the unfair, the dishonourable, behaviour of others upsets. That is, such defence fairly, justly, and naturally in the immediacy of the moment corrects their error of ὕβρις resulting from their bad (their rotten) φύσις; a rotten character evident in their lack of the virtue, the skill, of σωφρονεῖν. For had they possessed that virtue, and if their character was not bad, they would not have undertaken such a dishonourable attack.

ΔΔΔ

Source: https://davidmyatt.wordpress.com/honour-the-numinous-balance/


One Error-Prone Self

David Myatt

David Myatt


One Error-Prone Self

Extract from an e-mail sent to a personal correspondent

The reason why I now do not – and have no desire to – “get involved with social change” (or to “go out into the world and try to give something back” as another correspondent recently expressed it) is the reality of me having made, and knowing and feeling I made, so many mistakes, shown such poor judgement, been so arrogant, so selfish, for so many decades – for most of my adult life. Given this reality, I simply do not trust myself anymore not to cause suffering, not to make even more mistakes, not to show poor judgement again. Just as I know my responsibility, my blame, for those my past mistakes and their human consequences.

Thus, why would I want to inflict myself on the world anymore? External engagement might in theory (just might) be possible for me again were I to have the guidance, the oversight, of others; a moral authoritative framework provided by good people I could empathize with and trust to guide, advise, correct me. But even then, even then given my past propensity to be hubriatic and selfish, I might veer away from doing what was right.

For the simple honest truth is that I now feel, in my very being, that I have no right to, can find no justification for me to – beyond that necessitated by personal honour in the immediacy of the moment [1] – interfere in the lives of others, in however small a way even if my initial motives might be (or seemed to me to be) good. For who I am to judge, decide, things beyond the purvue of empathy and a very personal honour? I am just one fallible exceedingly error-prone human being with a long proven history of impersonal interference, of hubriatic, suffering-causing, and selfish, deeds. Someone who does not trust himself anymore and who values and tries to cultivate wu-wei. Which is the major reason why some months ago I ceased to write (to pontificate) – about anything; leaving me with only some few and sporadic (and soon also to cease) personal correspondences such as this [2].

In effect, I feel I am not – by being reclusive – retreating from the world, just seeking not to inflict my error-prone self on the world, on others. An error-prone self, a person, I admit I now do not like very much. Which is why there is also no longer any desire, not even any secret desire, to share my life, in however small or complete a way, with anyone or even with others be they friends old or new. Of course I could be wrong, and am just being silly or stupid. But it is how I have come to feel.

All I now have therefore are the brief human contacts that this type of reclusive non-religious life allows or finds is fitting. The smile, the cheery return of a ‘hello’ or a ‘good morning’ when a person is passed while out walking. Or perchance talk of the weather. No reason for me to be gruff, aloof or rude. Quite the contrary – a need to smile; to be polite; perhaps even a little charming and briefly. As if such small so human things so briefly made might be some minuscule emanation of that wordless quiet quite inexplicable inner joy and peace which somehow in some strange manner seems to flow within when I am out, outdoors, wherever whenever, able thus to feel the freshness of the air, see clouds and sky, feel this living planet as Nature lives and changes, and be again one particular if fragile brief mortal emanation, one microcosmic none-harming connexion, to all Life. For there, alive, it is as if I am who and what I now should be: no thought, no words, to spoil or soil earth, wind, sky, sea, clouds, heavens, or water.

But yes, there is a certain inner emptiness, and often, and bearing grief and sadness, when alone indoors. Inner vacant sometimes colding spaces which perhaps a belief in God – or the gods – might fill, and which certainly a partner or prayer or both would warm and dissipate. Yet this certain inner emptiness, such sadness, I sense is perhaps is as it should be for me, as part expiation for the varied harm my varied pasts – in this one life – have caused.

So many, so very many many, others in so many places world-wide far less fortunate than I, so that I have to – must – accept my pottering hopefully now non-harmful way of life, remembering. Always remembering that θάνατος δὲ τότ᾽ ἔσσεται, ὁππότε κεν δὴ Μοῖραι ἐπικλώσωσ᾽ [3] and the suffering I personally have caused, balanced (perhaps) as such remembering is by a (perhaps naive) hope that someone or some many may learn and change as I seemed to have learnt and changed: learned to see, to feel, to try to gently be, the goodness we humans are capable of and have often shown ourselves to be capable of. A goodness revealed by empathy, and thus presenting to us an understanding of innocence, peace, forgiveness, honour, love and joy, far beyond any words I know.

The grievous reprehensible sadness-causing mistake I as extremist, with my fanatical hubriatic certitude of knowing, made for some forty years – and which all extremists of whatever kind always make – was/is to place some idea, some ideal, some dogma, some abstraction, before the innocence of human beings and before those quite simple things which empathy and pathei-mathos reveal and which express our humanity:

“…the desire for personal love and the need to be loyally loved; the need for a family and the bonds of love within a family that lead to the desire to protect, care for, work for, and if necessary defend one’s loved ones. The desire for a certain security and stability and peace, manifest in a home, in sufficiency of food, in playfulness, in friends, in tolerance, in a lack of danger. The need for the dignity, the self-respect, that work, that giving love and being loved, provide…” [4]

and a knowing of, a feeling for, and acknowledgement of, innocence: where those who are personally unknown to us are unjudged by us and are given the benefit of the doubt, since this presumption of innocence of others – until or unless direct personal experience, and individual and empathic knowing of them, proves otherwise – is the fair, the reasoned, the numinous, the human, thing to do.

That reprehensible mistake I made is why extremists embody and manifest hate and violence and conflict; because extremists dehumanize, as well as so often enjoying and needing the exhilaration, the sense of identity, the ‘enemies’, that hate and violence and conflict and abstractions give birth to and always thereafter nurture. A dehumanization so evident in the truth that extremists place some goal, some idea, some ideal, some dogma, some abstraction, some political/social/religious agenda, before a personal love, before a personal loyalty, before stability, peace, and innocence; blind as extremists mostly are – willfully or neglectfully, or naturally because of their character – to the good and to the good people of human intentions which and who exist and which and who have existed in those societies such extremists almost invariably, because of their hubriatic certitude-of-knowing, seek to undermine, destabilize, decimate, overturn, revolutionize, or destroy.

But I have no chanted, sung, or contemplative Opus Dei to try, in monastic peace and with hope and faith, to balance – Soli Deo Honor et Gloria – the unwise deeds of so many; nor any longer a desire or need to interfere in the lives of others. So there is for me only the living of each moment as it passes: no aim, no goal. Instead:

The smile of joy when Sun of Summer
Presents again this Paradise of Earth
For I am only tears, falling

David Myatt
November 2012

Notes, Post Scriptum

[1] As I mentioned in The Numinous Balance of Honour section of my The Way of Pathei-Mathos – A Philosophical Compendiary,

“[The] personal virtue of honour, and the cultivation of wu-wei, are – together – a practical, a living, manifestation of our understanding and appreciation of the numinous; of how to live, to behave, as empathy intimates we can or should in order to avoid committing the folly, the error, of ὕβρις, in order not to cause suffering, and in order to re-present, to acquire, ἁρμονίη. For personal honour is essentially a presencing, a grounding, of ψυχή – of Life, of our φύσις – occurring when the insight (the knowing) of a developed empathy inclines us toward a compassion that is, of necessity, balanced by σωφρονεῖν and in accord with δίκη.

[2] The minor reason why I some months ago ceased to write is that my Recuyle of the Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos contains (in my fallible view) all that is required for an understanding of, and all that is relevant to, my now completed weltanschauung.

[3]   ‘Our ending arrives whenever wherever the Moirai decide’. Attributed to Καλλίνου, as recorded by Ἰωάννης Στοβαῖος in his Ἀνθολόγιον (c. 5th century CE).

In respect of Μοῖραι (τρίμορφοι μνήμονές τ᾽ Ἐρινύες) – Trimorphed Moirai with their ever-heedful Furies – qv. Aeschylus [attributed], Prometheus Bound, 515-6, and Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 130:

Μοῖρ᾽ ἀλαπάξει πρὸς τὸ βίαιον
…by the purging Moirai subdued

[4] Some Personal Musings On Empathy [Part II of Recuyle of the Philosophy of Pathei-Mathos]



cc David Myatt 2012
This item is issued under the Creative Commons
(Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0) License
and can be freely copied and distributed, under the liberal terms of that license

Pathei-Mathos – Genesis of My Unknowing

Editorial note: The following essay by David Myatt was written in 2012.

David Myatt

David Myatt

Pathei-Mathos – Genesis of My Unknowing

There are no excuses for my extremist past, for the suffering I caused to loved ones, to family, to friends, to those many more, those far more, ‘unknown others’ who were or who became the ‘enemies’ posited by some extremist ideology. No excuses because the extremism, the intolerance, the hatred, the violence, the inhumanity, the prejudice were mine; my responsibility, born from and expressive of my character; and because the discovery of, the learning of, the need to live, to regain, my humanity arose because of and from others and not because of me.

Thus what exposed my hubris – what for me broke down that certitude-of-knowing which extremism breeds and re-presents – was not something I did; not something I achieved; not something related to my character, my nature, at all. Instead, it was a gift offered to me by two others – the legacy left by their tragic early dying. That it took not one but two personal tragedies – some thirteen years apart – for me to accept and appreciate the gift of their love, their living, most surely reveals my failure, the hubris that for so long suffused me, and the strength and depth of my so lamentable extremism.

But the stark and uneasy truth is that I have no real, no definitive, answers for anyone, including myself. All I have now is a definite uncertitude of knowing, and certain feelings, some intuitions, some reflexions, a few certainly fallible suggestions arising mostly from reflexions concerning that, my lamentable, past, and thus – perhaps – just a scent, just a scent, of some understanding concerning some-things, perfumed as this understanding is with ineffable sadness.

For what I painfully, slowly, came to understand, via pathei-mathos, was the importance – the human necessity, the virtue – of love, and how love expresses or can express the numinous in the most sublime, the most human, way. Of how extremism (of whatever political or religious or ideological kind) places some abstraction, some ideation, some notion of duty to some ideation, before a personal love, before a knowing and an appreciation of the numinous. Thus does extremism – usurping such humanizing personal love – replace human love with an extreme, an unbalanced, an intemperate, passion for something abstract: some ideation, some ideal, some dogma, some ‘victory’, some-thing always supra-personal and always destructive of personal happiness, personal dreams, personal hopes; and always manifesting an impersonal harshness: the harshness of hatred, intolerance, certitude-of-knowing, unfairness, violence, prejudice.

Thus, instead of a natural and a human concern with what is local, personal and personally known, extremism breeds a desire to harshly interfere in the lives of others – personally unknown and personally distant – on the basis of such a hubriatic certitude-of-knowing that strife and suffering are inevitable. For there is in all extremists that stark lack of personal humility, that unbalance, that occurs when – as in all extremisms – what is masculous is emphasized and idealized and glorified to the detriment (internal, and external) of what is muliebral, and thus when some ideology or some dogma or some faith or some cause is given precedence over love and when loyalty to some manufactured abstraction is given precedence over loyalty to family, loved ones, friends.

For I have sensed that there are only changeable individual ways and individual fallible answers, born again and again via pathei-mathos and whose subtle scent – the wisdom – words can neither capture nor describe, even though we try and perhaps need to try, and try perhaps (as for me) as one hopeful needful act of a non-religious redemption.

Thus, and for instance, I sense – only sense – that peace (or the beginning thereof) might possibly just be not only the freedom from subsuming personal desires but also the freedom from striving for some supra-personal, abstract, impersonal, goal or goals. That is, a just-being, a flowing and a being-flowed. No subsuming concern with what-might-be or what-was. No lust for ideations; no quest for the violation of difference. Instead – a calmful waiting; just a listening, a seeing, a feeling, of what-is as those, as our, emanations of Life flow and change as they naturally flow and change, in, with, and beyond us: human, animal, of sea, soil, sky, Cosmos, and of Nature… But I am only dreaming, here in pathei-mathos-empathy-land where there is no past-present-future passing each of us with our future-past: only the numen presenced in each one of our so individual timeless human stories.

Yet, in that – this – other world, the scent of having understood remains, which is why I feel I now quite understand why, in the past, certain individuals disliked – even hated – me, given my decades of extremism: my advocacy of racism, fascism, holocaust denial, and National-Socialism, followed (after my conversion to Islam) by my support of bin Laden, the Taliban, and advocacy of ‘suicide attacks’.

I also understand why – given my subversive agenda and my amoral willingness to use any tactic, from Occult honeytraps to terrorism, to undermine the society of the time as prelude to revolution – certain people have saught to discredit me by distributing and publishing certain allegations.

Furthermore, given my somewhat Promethean peregrinations – which included being a Catholic monk, a vagabond, a fanatical violent neo-nazi, a theoretician of terror, running a gang of thieves, studying Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism; being a nurse, a farm worker, and supporter of Jihad – I expect many or most of those interested in or curious about my ‘numinous way’ and my recent mystical writings to be naturally suspicious of or doubtful about my reformation and my rejection of extremism.

Thus I harbour no resentment against individuals, or organizations, or groups, who over the past forty or so years have publicly and/or privately made negative or derogatory comments about me or published items making claims about me. Indeed, I now find myself in the rather curious situation of not only agreeing with some of my former political opponents on many matters, but also (perhaps) of understanding (and empathizing with) their motivation; a situation which led and which leads me to appreciate even more just how lamentable my extremism was and just how arrogant, selfish, wrong, and reprehensible, I as a person was, and how in many ways many of those former opponents were and are (ex concesso) better people than I ever was or am.

Which is one reason why I have written what I have recently written about extremism and my extremist past: so that perchance someone or some many may understand extremism, and its causes, better and thus be able to avoid the mistakes I made, avoid causing the suffering I caused; or be able to in some way more effectively counter or prevent such extremism in the future. And one reason – only one – why I henceforward must live in reclusion and in silencio.

David Myatt
May 2012 ce

In Loving Memory of Frances, died 29th May 2006
In Loving Memory of Sue, died 4th April 1993

Further Reading:

Understanding and Rejecting Extremism
(pdf)


Emanations of Urania

Order of Nine Angles

The O9A Septenary

Emanations of Urania

Notes Toward A Heuristic Representation of Cliology
by David Myatt

Emanations of Urania
(pdf 2.3 Mb)

This is a restored copy (by RS) of the original 1974 text which formed the basis for David Myatt’s Star Game as outlined in Myatt’s essay The Star Game – History and Theory (pdf 497 kB).


Breaking The Silence Down

Sappho, depicted on Attic red-figure kalathos, c. 470 BCE. Provenance: Akragas (Sicily) and currently in Staatliche Antikensammlungen, Munich

°°°°°°°

A novel by David Myatt.

Breaking The Silence Down
(pdf)

This is the version of Myatt’s short novel about Sapphic love that was circulated by the Dark Daughters of Chaos Nexion in the 1990’s whose article Sapphic Sorcery {1} describes the Sapphism typical of O9A Sapphic nexions. Their version of the novel was authorized by Anton Long and was, for many years, on the now defunct O9A “nineangles dot info” website {2}.

RDM Crew

{1} https://omega9alpha.wordpress.com/sapphic-sorcery/
{2} Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20110104023103/http://www.nineangles.info:80/deofel_quartet.html

°°°°°°°

Image credit:
Sappho, depicted on Attic red-figure kalathos, c. 470 BCE.
Provenance: Akragas (Sicily) and currently in Staatliche Antikensammlungen, Munich


The Theory of The Acausal

cosmos19

Some Notes On The Theory of The Acausal

In respect of the theory of the acausal, [1] the terms acausality and acausal refer to ‘acausal space and acausal time’. That is, and in the context of this theory, both terms refer to a posited continuum different from the causal continuum of observed phenomena; which causal continuum has been described in terms of a four-dimensional space-time; and knowledge of and understanding about which causal continuum can be obtained by means of sciences such as physics, astronomy, and chemistry.

Essentially, therefore, acausality – as part of such a formal theory – is an axiom, a logical assumption, not a belief. This axiom about the nature of the cosmos is one that derives not from the five Aristotelian essentials that determine the scientific method, but from the intuition of empathy [2] and from deductions relating to observations of living beings.

The latter point about life is crucial to understanding both why the axiom has been made and what it may logically imply. That is, a theory is proposed about the nature of known life – about why and how a living being differs from a non-living being. Currently, science cannot explain what makes ordinary matter – the stuff of physics and chemistry – alive, and why for instance a living being, a biological entity, does not obey one of Newton’s laws nor the axiom of entropy (the second law of thermodynamics).

A living being, for example, can change –  grow and move – without any external physical (Newtonian) force being applied to it. In short, living beings do not behave in the same way as ordinary physical matter does, be such matter a star, a galaxy, a rock, or a chemical element interacting with another chemical element.

The acausal theory thus proposes that living beings possess what is termed acausal energy – that it is this acausal energy which in some way animates, or which presences in, a biological cell to make that cell behave in a different way than when that cell is dead. That it is such acausal energy – emanating from, or having its genesis in, a posited acausal continuum – which gives to ordinary physical matter the attribute we term life, and which thus enables a living organism (in contradistinction to ordinary matter) to, and for example, reproduce itself, be sensitive to, or aware of, its environment, and move without any external (Newtonian) force being applied to it.

Therefore what it is important to remember is that acausality is only a theory based on certain axioms, and that this theory is posited to explain certain things which are currently unexplainable by other rational theories. The things explained by the theory – which the theory attempts to explain in a logical way – are the nature of living beings, and the nature of empathy (of sympatheia with other living beings).

The theory posits an acausal realm (continuum) as the source of the energy that animates living beings; that this energy differs from the energy observed by sciences such as physics and chemistry; and that all currently known living beings are nexions – regions – where the theorized acausal intersects with, is connected to, or intrudes into, the observed physical (causal) universe known and described by sciences such as physics.

The theory also posits that this acausal realm is a-causal in nature and that it (and thus the acausal energy said to originate there) cannot be described in terms of three spatial dimensions and one dimension of linear time [3], and thus its geometry cannot be described in terms of the current mathematical equations used to describe such a four-dimensional ‘space-time’ continuum (such as the tensorial equations that, for instance, describe the geometry of a Riemannian space-time).

It is therefore posited that the acausal may be described or could be described by an acausal Space of n acausal dimensions, and an acausal, un-linear, Time of n dimensions, where n is currently unknown but is greater than three and less than or equal to infinity. Currently there are no mathematical equations that are capable of re-presenting such a type of un-linear, non-spatial, n-dimensional space.

Were someone to develop such mathematical equations to describe such an acausal geometry it should be possible to explain acausal energy – i.e. acausal waves and their propagation in both the causal and the acausal, in the way that Maxwell’s equations describe the propagation of causal energy/waves in four-dimensional physical space-time.

It is posited that to develop such mathematical equations requires a new type of mathematics since current geometric representations (two, three, and four dimensional) use a differential – the calculus (tensorial, matrical, Euclidean, or otherwise) – of linear (causal) time [4].

As for the nature of the acausal dimensions, they are currently undefined except as extensions to current mathematical concepts: as non-linear and non-spatial in Euclidean terms. That is, acausal space-time could be conceptualized as a new type of mathematical space, and not as a geometric space such as a Euclidean space of three measurable dimensions or a four dimensional space-time manifold as described by certain physical and cosmological theories (such as general relativity). [5]

Thus the new type of mathematics required would describe the new type of (acausal) geometry of this new type of mathematical space possibly having an infinite number of ‘dimensions’, and which geometry does not involve a linear, physically measurable, ‘time’ but rather something akin to a ‘time’ that is both topological [6] and variable (non-linear) in its simultaneity. [7]
To return to acausal energy. If this postulated – and presenced – acausal energy exists, then it should be capable of being detected and such energy measured, and the theory of acausality suggests that it might be possible – even using current scientific means – to detect acausal charges (defined as manifestations of acausal energy in the causal) – by microscopically observing the behaviour of a living cell and its components (such as the nucleus) under certain conditions such as observed physical/chemical/biological changes when placed in the presence of other acausal charges (living cells and their collocations).

The theory also suggests that another way might be to construct some new type of experimental apparatus which can detect acausal charge directly, and makes a comparison with how electrical charges were first discovered, measured, and then machines developed to produce and control their propagation, as in Faraday’s experiments in producing electric currents. Thus such acausal energy might be harnessed in a manner similar to electrical energy.

However, the theory also makes it clear that there are currently no experimental observations to verify the existence of such acausal charges, such acausal energy, so that the whole theory of acausality remains an interesting but speculative theory.

 
David Myatt
2010

 

Notes

[1] The theory of the acausal was tentatively outlined in previous essays such as The Physics of Acausal Energy.

[2] By empathy here is meant the natural (though often undeveloped and little used) human faculty which reveals (dis-covers) a type of individual (personal) knowing – a perception – distinct from the knowing posited by both conventional philosophy and experimental science. One type of this empathic knowing is a sympathy, συμπάθεια, with other living beings.

Empathy supplements our perception of Phainómenon, and thus adds to the five Aristotelian essentials of conventional philosophy and experimental science.

The perception which empathy provides [ συν-πάθοs ] is primarily an intuition of acausality: of the acausal reality underlying the causal division of beings, existents, into separate, causal-separated, objects and the subject-object relationship which is or has been assumed by means of the process of causal ideation to exist between such causally-separate beings. Expressed more conventionally, empathy provides – or can provide – a personal intuition of the connectedness of Life and the connexions which bind all living beings by virtue of such beings having the attribute of life.

This intuition of acausality, which empathy provides, is a wordless apprehension (a knowing) of beings and Being which does not depend on denoting or naming (and thus does not depend on abstractions) and the theory of acausality is a formal attempt to explain this apprehension and this distinct type of knowing.

[3] The term dimension is used here to refer to an aspect, or component, or quality, or arrangement, or an attribute of, a theorized/mathematical form (or space), and/or of an object/entity posited or observed.

One example of a mathematical form is an Euclidean space (geometry) described by three attributes – measurable dimensions – at right angles to each other. Another example is a four-dimensional manifold as used in the theory of general relativity, and one of which dimensions is a measurable (linear) ‘time’. One example of a mathematical space is a Hilbert space of infinite (unmeasurable) dimensions.

Thus the term dimension includes but is not limited to something measurable by physical means.

[4] It should by now be apparent that much of the terminology currently used in an attempt to describe and develope the theory of acausality – and to describe the perception and knowing of empathy on which the theory is based – is inadequate, and that many of the terms which are used need defining and explaining, and even then are open to misinterpretation often as a result of a failure by the author to adequately define and explain them.

However, until a non-verbal – a mathematical – description of the theory is formally developed, such terminology will have to suffice.

[5] Refer to footnote 3 for what the term ‘dimension’ signifies.

[6] Acausal time conceptualized as a transformation described by a topological space. Another alternative is to conceptualize acausal time as topologically variant.

[7] The term simultaneity is used here to express a quality of acausal time; that is, that the n-functions (where n is > 3 but ≤ ∞) which describe this type of time occur throughout the geometry described by the n-functions (dimensions) of acausal space. Or expressed somewhat differently, that not only is acausal time a simultaneous and non-simultaneous function of acausal space – and vice versa – but also that, in living beings, causal space-time is a function (simultaneous or otherwise) of acausal space-time (and vice versa).