The Inscrutable Dark
“Power remains strong when it remains in the dark; exposed to the sunlight it begins to evaporate.” — Samuel Huntington
We are warned today, from many quarters, that unless the human race now changes its ways and transcends itself it will become unviable as a species owing to a failure to meet the existential challenges and proliferating crises it has largely created for itself. The human must become a new being or perish.
The reasons for this have been ably and succinctly stated by Marty Glass in his book Yuga: An Anatomy of Our Fate, as we have discussed earlier, and have nothing to do with an inability to merely “adapt” to our current technical milieu or the Anthropocene, which “adaptation” could only mean a mutation into machinery and the automaton. The five critical features of our fate are, according to Glass
- The Fall into Time
- The Reign of Quantity
- The Mutation into Machinery
- The End of Nature
- The Prison of Unreality
Arguably, the latter four follow logically and inevitably from the first — the Fall into Time — and all five are implicated in what William Blake called “the dark Satanic Mill” — the mind of his mad Zoa named “Urizen”.
No steps will be taken towards our self-overcoming and to free ourselves from this condition unless it is deeply felt as an urgent necessity. One of the reasons we do not appreciate the peril we are in is owing to the myopia, partiality, and narrowness of the reified perspective consciousness structure. This corresponds to the “Emissary” and its mode of perception described also by Dr. Iain McGilchrist in his book The Master and His Emissary. Those of you familiar with McGilchrist’s book will know that the chief distinction between the two modes of perception is the holistic view of the Master and the partial view of the Emissary, corresponding to the distinction between the terms “Whole” and “Totality”.
The final triumph of any one of these five characteristics of our Kali Yuga is sufficient to end us, but our mutation into machinery is one of the most pronounced pressures today, and even presented as an ideal and goal of human evolution. The latest book to throw back the veil of deception about this is Shoshona Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. “The goal is to automate us”, is Zuboff’s conclusion. She is quite right. The mechanisation of consciousness was even a stated ideal of John Taylor’s 1971 book The Shape of Minds to Come (subtitled “A startling report on the mind-mechanics of the future”).
“Technocratic shamanism” is the term Algis Mikunas used to describe such machinations, for which Samuel Huntington’s formula for power provides a rationale and a justification. This is one of the reasons Gary Lachman’s Dark Star Rising on power and the occult is quite relevant in the present context, since to turn a human being into an automaton or a golem is really an affair of magic — most especially of necromancy. (The father of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener, also published an early warning about this very thing that Zuboff describes in a book entitled God and Golem, Inc).
When it comes to real existential threats, far too many people are focussed on the wrong things (which belongs to the problem of the “Prison of Unreality”). Much of this, too, is deliberate mystification and indirection and distraction to divert attention from the real issues, so it suits our “technocratic shamans” just fine. Preventing and deflecting real and authentic insight is one of the Huntington’s chief strategies for the exercise of power. It’s one of the reasons I find the phrase “cultural Marxism” objectionable, and largely a ruse and a canard to deflect attention from the real issues. It serves pretty much the same function as “heretic” did during the Inquisition — a catch-all term for any and all forms of dissent from the very thing described by Zuboff, which can also be described as the consolidation of total power by what Lewis Mumford calls “the Megamachine”. Much of what is loosely called “cultural Marxism” is really “the return of the repressed” and has very little to do with Marx and perhaps more to do with Freud. But the ghost of Karl Marx serves about the same useful function of political control as does the figure of Emmanuel Goldstein in George Orwell’s 1984 (or perhaps as Hillary Clinton does for the MAGA people — an opportunity for the “two-minutes hate”). Any kind of failure to comply with the imperatives of the Megamachine or any kind of resistance to the intents of the “technocratic shamans” can become described as the aberration and disease of “cultural Marxism”.
One must be very, very careful about the motives and intentions of people who propose correctives and cures for the malaise of modernity and post-modernity. There is a superabundance of such “false prophets” today who are all too eager to peddle their own disguised will to dominate as a redemption, and they have already ensnared legions.
How do we test for the authenticity and sincerity of this or that doctrine or teaching? This is a matter of the implicit “ethos” we all bear inwardly, and once referred to as “the truth that sets free” but which (as the New Testament puts it) has been “hid under a bushel basket”. Heraclitus has given us a few pointers in this respect, and it’s to Heraclitus and his ideas of the logos and the ethos that I want to turn next.