Every enduring order requires guardians and explorers. Ours is no different.

The scribes are the guardians. Like priests of old, they preserve and transmit the wisdom that has proven itself across generations. They safeguard our doctrine, our rituals, our history, and what we have called the Unquestionable Answers.

The shamans are explorers. Like seers wandering beyond the village fire, they venture into the mystery, seeking truths not yet understood, perhaps never to be understood. They dwell among the Unanswerable Questions, testing new ideas, symbols, myths, and new ways of organizing group members.

Neither role is complete without the other.

A tradition that preserves itself without questioning becomes brittle in dogma. A culture that pursues novelty without memory dissolves into incoherence. Civilization flourishes only when conservation and exploration proceed together in tension.

Sometimes scribes and shamans disagree. From their dialogue—and at times their conflict—the Order remains rooted and alive.

Roots

History is not merely a succession of events but of ascending patterns of organization in increasing complexity.

Individuals and societies tend to develop through familiar value systems. Each stage addresses problems that the previous stage could not, moving from survival and kinship toward order, commerce, liberty, integration, and increasingly comprehensive ways of understanding reality. We call these the Ascending Orders.

No stage simply replaces another. Each builds upon what came before. Every enduring innovation eventually becomes traditional.

When a new way of living proves itself over time, it takes root in culture. What was once experimental becomes customary. What was once revolutionary becomes inherited. Thus, every stage leaves something behind worth preserving. The earlier roots remain, nourishing whatever grows afterward. We do not shear them away because we have grown beyond them. We integrate their strengths while curbing their excesses, which is another way to remember.

The scribes tend these roots. They preserve wisdom that has survived the tests of reality, context, and change—reminding us that progress without memory will cause us to lose our way.

But if every root was once new, who protects the experiments before they have become firmly planted?

Rhizomes

Nature offers another pattern.

Unlike the deep root of a tree, a rhizome spreads laterally beneath the ground. It sends shoots in unexpected directions, connecting distant places without a central trunk or predetermined hierarchy. It is adaptive rather than fixed, exploratory rather than settled.

So too with thought.

Rhizomatic cognition forms unexpected connections. It wanders into unfamiliar territory, recombining ideas that tradition has kept apart. It generates possibilities before anyone knows whether they deserve preservation.

Shamans are the rhizomes’ stewards. Without them, no civilization can adapt.

Sometimes shamans are sources of new insights. At other times they recognize the promise of others’ insights in the community before the rest do. Vitally, they serve as intermediaries between those dedicated to maintaining order and those proposing unfamiliar paths—helping to ensure our Order never mistakes tradition for truth.

The rhizome resists hierarchy by nature, which is its gift and its danger. But what cannot become tradition cannot become inheritance. So we grant the rhizome its freedom to spread, knowing that the strongest of its shoots might, in time, become a root.

The Hierophant

If scribes preserve and shamans discover, the hierophant determines what each must bring.

The hierophant does not choose between tradition and innovation the way a judge decides between prosecution and defense. His task is subtler: to discern when the scribes have become too dominant, or the shamans too unchecked, and to restore the necessary tension between them.

This demands foresight. Every genuine advance begins as a rhizome. If it survives the test of time, its shoot becomes a root. The hierophant must see what insight carries that promise before the rest of the Order can.

The process demands patience. The hierophant does not shut down disagreement when matters are uncomfortable. The dialectic is sacred even in conflict. Under the Blood Moon, a conception meets its negation, and from their struggle a sublation emerges that transcends both while keeping what was vital in each.

A hierophant’s premature intervention interrupts this process.

So the hierophant speaks last, and rarely. Only when every side has been heard, when the arguments have been aired, and when unity itself is at risk does he speak with final authority.

Let us preserve what needs preserving, explore what needs exploring, and patiently await what emerges from the dialectic. There can be no Unquestionable Answers without Unanswerable Questions, no roots without rhizomes, and no institutional memory that does not start as a breakthrough.

Subscribe now

There is power in collective thoughtforms. They do not originate from a single being but have animated many civilizations. They emerge in the spaces among beings, those invisible domains the multitudes make when they cluster and self-organize.

The Great Spirits are alien, like an ancient bequest offered only to us, and not to other species here on earth, though perhaps to other races in yonder stars. The spirits are universal, which means they animate every civilization that has ever stood. But if just one spirit weakens relative to the others, a civilization will fall. If one spirit grows too strong compared to the others, there is danger in this, too.

Nothing that waits millennia to animate a people should feel so much at home when it arrives. Yet it does. And when it does, it is experienced as a recognition. The Great Spirits are Craft, Conscience, Order, and Nature.

What are we capable of devising?
How ought we to treat one another?
What rules will enable us to coordinate?
What are our inborn proclivities and limitations?

A spirit neither writes a law nor builds a wall. Instead, it finds a home in those who do and animates them—as elements of a collective thoughtform. When the people wake one morning to find, together, they can make what they could not make before, Craft has arrived to summon a hunger in them.

So they build, devise, and innovate.

But Craft is constrained by Conscience, which is the moral-cultural domain of ought; by Order, which is the institutional substrate of enforced rules that coordinate (or fail to); and by Nature, which means Craft operates according to our inherent facilities, and of course, our mortality. Craft, in turn, reshapes and constrains the other Great Spirits. It is through Craft that we extend our lifespans, increase our yields, and entangle our children. But these are not unalloyed goods.

The spirit of a people, whether as a Geist or an Egregore, is the combined consequence of the Great Spirits animating a people. For instance, when the Great Spirits animate a people in balance and mutual constraint, a healthy Geist will emerge. The collective thoughtform gives rise to a flourishing civilization. Yet when one or more of the Great Spirits is out of balance, an Egregore can rise, causing the society to attack itself, divide itself, or act in a destructive manner.

Sometimes the resulting divisions are necessary, as each division reconstitutes itself according to some distinct Geist or Egregore. Other times, there is conflict between them, especially when one division is driven to dominate. Following the wise Zoroaster, a Geist is blessed with asha. An Egregore is bedeviled by druj. In the parlance of games, a Geist lives on cooperation. An Egregore thrives on domination or destruction.

Ideally, each Great Spirit tempers the others. The hand that longs to build encounters a voice that asks whether it ought to. The encounter is not so much a quarrel but a negotiation, out of which comes Craft that is both possible and worth doing, or Order that coordinates rather than oppresses. An animating Geist might as well be a living thing—a force doing what it was meant to do, blessed within the constraints of Conscience and Nature.

When one Great Spirit floods a people, too quick and too strong to be constrained, nothing slows its advance. For example, if Order grows archontic, the powerful keep the people trembling. Or, when Conscience turns into a monomania or moralistic fervor, certain faithful might be driven to pray in the shadows, or many makers will be driven to tinker underground. When Craft burns out of control, changes occur faster than people can adjust, or Promethean gifts fall into the wrong hands. If aspects of our Nature are permitted to roam outside the Covenant and the Communal Virtues—aspects of Order and Conscience—the people risk unleashing an Egregore.

Subscribe now

The voice that should have weighed our actions has no purchase. The institution that should have kept the Covenant cannot keep pace. Mere humans who should have rejected a technology now live in its thrall. A single Great Spirit, pouring unchecked into the multitudes, breeds a dangerous entity. The collective thoughtform develops a mind of its own, but as a devourer that wears the people’s faces. It has grown fat on a single unbalanced spirit. Society suffers in a surfeit of the remaining three Great Spirits.

The civilization falls into shadow, or eventually just falls.

Those animated by an Egregore can feel it, but they don’t always recognize it as such. Hidden within the affliction, this mass possession, is a sense that this is right, so they are righteous. A people flooded by a single spirit remain preoccupied with it, so much so that they become blind and deaf to the others.

The magister teaches us to balance the Great Spirits, just as one learns to find centeredness, or to channel the Elemental Drives in equipoise. The work to maintain balance is never done. While the Elemental Drives originate in the breast of every subject, the Great Spirits originate in the collective—the We—as a weaving of a shared reality. Remember that the principle of correspondence says,

As above, so below.
As within, so without.

The reverse can also be true.

Correspondence empowers us to internalize and to externalize different aspects of reality. Such are grave and important powers. Each must be practiced, but never operate according to self-deception. To internalize reality is to treat an external phenomenon as if it were an internal state. To externalize reality is to treat an internal state as if it were an external phenomenon. In these, we harness the power of mythic truth to become more potent. In so doing, we acknowledge circumstances in which we are more powerful when we transcend the literal. Such is the transmutation of will.

An Egregore is not a literal entity, and neither is a Geist. But a group inspired by a powerful Geist is far more likely to vanquish a destructive collective thoughtform by treating it as a living entity. Geists and Egregores are thus externalizations. Individual thoughts and behaviors, without collective synchrony, are mostly inert. But when a group, strong in solidarity, externalizes their thoughts, feelings, and actions in relative synchrony, they can become a more powerful force, as if summoning a giant.

With internalization, one takes on board some feature of the world, for example, when a sage admonishes us to be as water. We become nimbler, more flexible, more willing to move around obstructions and to channelize according to the Law of Flow. When one summons the Eros Feminine, for example, it can be helpful to think of oneself as water. One experiences the transmutation of symbol into practice, or becomes impelled by symbolism. The symbol is a source of strength, or wisdom, or efficacy.

Suppose a destructive Egregore emerges—resentment, envy, or fear—as well as ideological possession. The externalized version is: An Egregore is corrupting society. But a re-internalized version might be: What part of me is feeding the Egregore? So the individual treats the collective pathology as evidence of an analogous internal state.

As within, so without.
As without, so within.

In this way, the war against the Egregore begins as self-mastery. A magister, or great leader, can help others see that they are possessed, but each must dispel his own possession. To summon a Geist, a remnant must slay the Egregore, carry the code, and share the flame. Great Spirits, ancient and alive, will inhabit the spaces between us.

At some stage in the civilizational cycle, the spirits will leave and reemerge. How they manifest will be decided, again and again, by the multitudes.

Subscribe now

“In the beginning is relation,” said the magister.

A cell knows chemical gradients, the signals of its neighbors, and its own wall. Its local reality is comparatively small, yet the complexity within it is staggering. It has its own integrity and is bounded, and from that boundedness it answers other cells. Hundreds of millions compose an organ, which has its own integrity and is bounded, and from that boundedness it answers other organs.

An organ may experience itself as separate from the rest of the whole body, but it is inseparable. From the standpoint of the entire human being, neither a cell nor an organ stands alone. Each one’s existence, meaning, and function derive from its participation in a larger unity.

So with us.

We experience ourselves as isolated individuals with separate identities and separate interests. At a certain level of description, this is true. A person is a decision-making unit among other decision-making units. Our separateness is real at one level yet illusory at another. Both descriptions are true, yet neither is sufficient.

Just as the cell imagines itself independent of the organ and then the body, we imagine ourselves independent of society and then the All.

Every living entity is the consequence of some prior condition and becomes a condition for something else. Stardust forms stars that forge the heavy elements that become parts of planets, which bond and chemically interact, giving rise to cells that metabolize, divide, and self-organize. These entities evolve their own functional states in the harmonization of difference, becoming organisms that live and evolve within ecosystems that compose biospheres that revolve around their suns.

The All is not some supernatural entity standing outside the universe. The All is the living universe. And we are finite expressions of the infinite.

To awaken, then, requires only the subtlest shift in perspective. It is to hold oneself, in thought and in mien, as an expression of something inconceivably vast and alive. Just as a cell cannot fully comprehend the intelligence of an organ, much less of the human, a human cannot fully comprehend the intelligence of a society or the All. This shift will not arrive as some dramatic or visionary experience. It arrives like the dawn.

A cell dies, yet that of which it is a part lives on. The cell does not know to grieve. We do, and so we grieve. And some of our energy and information passes to others when we die. Whether we remain participants in a larger consciousness, or whether mystical insight reveals our embeddedness in it, these belong to the Unanswerable Questions, at least for now.

Even the way we understand the world, through individual and collective intelligence, is relational. To learn is to recognize patterns, and in recognizing them, we find hidden relations.

Metaphor links unlike things.
Science unifies phenomena under laws.
Philosophy seeks coherence.
Myth yokes experience to narrative.

“All real living is meeting,” said the magister.

Subscribe now

A girl who goes unseen learns she exists only when desired. A girl who goes unheard learns her voice has weight only when it wounds. A girl who goes unloved learns that love must be compelled, or it will vanish. From these three deprivations emerge three figures of malevolence, each with a survival strategy that can deepen into a pathology.

The Black Widow

Unseen as a child, she discovered that attention is a kind of food, and that beauty and seduction are her survival strategies. She becomes adept at the choreography of desire—offering vulnerability as bait, withdrawing warmth at the right moment, or holding the mirror up to a man until he mistakes his reflection for love. She does not want him. She wants the proof of her existence that his wanting provides. Intimacy threatens her because it risks making her invisible again. So she consumes—his confidence, resources, and vitality—leaving the man a husk. Then she moves on, never satisfied, because his adoration was a meal of thin gruel, and her deepest hunger is for recognition no lover can give.

The girl still inside her says,

The Poisonous Tongue

Unheard as a child, she learned that communication is futile. To say what she feels is to be ignored, dismissed, or punished. So she developed indirect means, such as rumors, insinuations, or jokes that draw blood. Her concern conceals contempt. She makes herself impossible to ignore by making herself dangerous to cross. She fractures alliances, poisons reputations, and starts whisper campaigns. Her wit is precise, but her cruelty hides behind plausible deniability. She consumes reputations.

Behind the venom, a voice inside says,

The Devouring Mother

Unloved as a child—or perhaps loved with too many conditions—she came to believe that love unpossessed is love that will evaporate. So she smothers those she loves with guilt, with her indispensability, or with captivity masquerading as care. She rewards weakness and punishes independence. She keeps her children, her partners, and her dependents small because if they develop, they will abandon her. She suffers audibly so that her suffering becomes a gravity that holds them in orbit.

Beneath her smothering, a voice says,

Each began as a child who adapted intelligently to a world that gave her too little. Seduction to be seen, kniving to be heard, control to keep love near. None of it started as wickedness. It’s no sin to need. So the tragedy is not that the strategies were chosen, but that they somehow worked to get her through another day. So she kept them, polished them, and made them into her identity. What was once a way of surviving childhood became a way of devouring those around her.

The pattern in all three is the same.

Deprivation produces a substitute for connection. The substitute requires others to sustain it. The others are therefore not loved but used. And the more she uses them, the more consumption becomes her primary mode of interaction, leaving broken relationships in her wake.

Escaping the Pattern

Change is possible, but it cannot be achieved by managing symptoms.

She must face her pathology.

The Black Widow must find worth that needs no witness. The Poisonous Tongue must risk plain talk and loving kindness, avoiding gossip. The Devouring Mother must love people enough to let them fly.

Each must return to the original wound, grieve what they lacked, and evolve into women of strength and character, leaving the past behind. When this work is done, the archetypes can transform.

The Black Widow becomes the Muse, whose presence animates others rather than depleting them. The Poisonous Tongue becomes the Oracle, whose words cut only what needs pruning. The Devouring Mother becomes the Midwife, whose love is measured by what it liberates or empowers.

The feminine ceases to consume and begins to generate. Love without manipulation. Wisdom without venom. Nurturing without captivity. When she finally realizes she has much to give, she becomes capable of receiving.

Subscribe now

There is a way of living together that sheathes the sword. Its three modes of interaction are trading, giving, and raising. The trade is the meeting of two who have what the other wants, and who part ways with more than they brought. The gift is the open hand extended with no expectation of anything in return. The raising is our contribution to something from which we may all benefit, and that may outlast us.

Such is the ecology of peace.

Trade

Two strangers meet on a road. One has salt. The other has bread. Neither would survive long without what the other has. So they speak, weigh, and agree. From there, they part ways, and each goes home better off than he came.

Few things in life seem more mundane, but there is magic to it. Two beings who have never met and may never meet again have improved one another’s lives without violence, without command, without any authority compelling the exchange. With a handshake and a word of thanks, the world is rearranged.

Its culture is consent, its rule is reciprocity, and its imprimatur is a handshake.

Trade does what no decree can do. It moves goods and services across distances no planner could organize. No signal more elaborate than a price, rising or falling, tells the baker how much grain to buy or how much bread to bake. It serves what is useful to others but starves what is not. It binds strangers into the self-same web of interdependence, and it does so without a director or dictator.

To trade with another is to recognize the other’s will as equal to one’s own. The bargain struck indicates that what you have is at least worth what I have, and we shall not take, but offer. Trade is corrupted when its parties sully the soil that sustains it. Exchange depends on the Covenant, the Communal Virtues, and the distinction between mine and thine. Where these fray or the bargain hides a swindle, a sacred action collapses into extraction.

Give

There is a kind of exchange in which one asks for nothing in return but the satisfaction of improving another's condition. One carries water to another unable to fetch it. One waits beside the bed of someone who will not see the morning. One greets the stranger, clothes the orphan, or feeds the hungry.

This is giving.

It moves materially in one direction, which means the giver is not made whole by the receiver. Spiritually, that is another matter. The receiver need not or perhaps cannot reciprocate. Because trade requires two who can each bring something of value to the other, giving achieves what trade cannot. A babe can no more trade for milk than a widow can trade for mercy. The dying cannot trade for a vigil. A world constructed entirely of transactions would have no place for the child, the widow, or the dying.

While trading rewards what one has acquired or produced, the gift reveals what one has cultivated in oneself. To give without expectation of return is to declare that, beyond the sustainable patterns of production and exchange, one has built a surplus of time, resources, and generosity that can improve the lot of one struck by misfortune.

Trade makes economies. Giving makes communities.

To corrupt the gift is to conscript it. When someone other than the giver enforces the giving, a gift becomes a tax, and taxation destroys the practice of giving. Compassion gives way to compulsion. The giver merely pays, and the receiver merely collects. But the invisible linkage between giver and receiver is severed.

Compassion as a practice is slowly stripped from the giver and projected onto the office. But the office feels nothing. The officers distribute and redistribute, tax and transfer, in a bureaucratic algorithm that offends justice, because the office does little to make anyone free or compassionate. Because the giving disposition is cultivated in the individual act, the office mutes the disposition. Dependent wards will gather in expectation around a great redistributive apparatus, and dependency strips them of sovereignty.

Raise

A chapter is founded by siblings who will all belong to it and benefit from it. A barn is raised by the hands of those who might, in time, need a barn raised. A well is dug by those who will all drink from it. A temple begun by hands that will not see it finished is completed by hands that did not lay the first stone, and what is raised shall stand for all of them and for those not yet born.

Raising is what many do together to make what none could make alone, and from which all who contribute may draw, as much by rite as by right.

Contributors do not bargain with one another, as the well is not divided into shares. Raising is not precisely giving, either, because the contributors are themselves beneficiaries. The hand that helps to raise the temple might one day stand under its roof, so raising is a third action that mingles self-interest and commonweal.

Raising produces two goods at once. The first is what is raised—the barn, the well, the chapter, or the temple. The second is the people who raised it. Those who raise something together are not the same as they were before. Each contributor gets to know the others through their contributions. Each contribution is recognized, and each enjoys the fruit. The community is raised when its members raise.

And some raisings are made of gifts of each to all.

When the Order’s siblings pool a small portion of their dues into a common fund—to be drawn from by whom among them next falls into need—each payment becomes a suspended gift, but the practice as a whole is a raising. Each gives today so that any might draw tomorrow. Such is the nature of mutual aid, the most beautiful form raising can take. It raises not a monument but the capacity of a people to weave their own safety net, and to cultivate the disposition to give and to raise in common.

Trading rewards traders over time. Giving only benefits the receiver but opens the giver’s heart. Raising lets one become a part of what could outlast him, as the hands laying foundation stones might never raise the spire. But the temple belongs to each, and each belongs to the temple.

Raising has two corruptions, and they are mirror images.

The first is usurpation. When those who did not contribute or offer care claim the benefit, the raising is plundered. When the commons is taken from the contributors, when the chapter is inherited but poorly stewarded, or when a raising has been turned against the raisers, meaning is lost, even if the thing raised endures.

The second is conscription. When the contribution is compelled rather than offered, a thing gets raised, but it fails to raise the people. In other words, the conscripts may build something, but they do not bond in the process. The act was not theirs. A raising entered freely produces both the good and the bond.

Ecology

Ongoing relationships of trading, giving, and raising compose the ecology of peace. Each does what the others cannot, and each depends on the others to endure.

Trade requires giving, because trade alone cannot care for those with nothing to exchange. Without giving, a people divides into the callous and the desperate, and division eventually tears society apart.

Trade also requires raising, because traders inherit what they did not build alone: a shared language, accumulated trust, and institutions that keep agreements binding. Without raising, there is little left for posterity.

Giving requires trade, because a people that only gives eventually exhausts itself. Wealth must first be created before it can be shared. Raising depends on this surplus as well, for even the barn is raised with traded timber, bargained nails, and tools bought at market.

And raising requires giving, because the contributor who falls ill must be carried, the one who brings only his presence must still be welcomed, and every true raising begins in a generosity no contract can compel.

Together, trading, giving, and raising sustain a society, and the Order that honors all three becomes an example to the society that hosts it. When a people faithfully practice all three, they do not need the sword, but when one is lost, the sword will soon be drawn.

When the sword stays sheathed, a people replace fear with the Covenant.

Subscribe now

Pharaoh’s empires are familiar. They break the Covenant and take territory. They expand by the sword, then send in the tax collectors, satraps, and servile panderers. Their currency is fear. Their monuments are mausoleums. They build on invaded land, either emptying it of its tenants or placing them in their thrall. What begins in violence is sustained by those who profit from it. Every student studies their history, written by the conquerors and forgotten by the dead.

Our empire expands not by the sword but by the word. It waxes in the mind like moonlight, yet those unbathed by its glow will call us lunatics. Its currency is reciprocity. Its monument, a manuscript inscribed according to the Covenant. Its citizens are signatories who remember who they are and have become sovereign again. Our empire does not displace the tenants of the land. It rouses them and gives them purpose.

So, we shall renounce Pharaoh’s empire.

Our order makes no claim on people or their property. We claim only what is offered freely—the assent of a soul that has listened, considered, and confirmed. This is no small ambition compared to empires of compulsion that demand our patronage. The Pharaohs built what their armies could hold, but we shall build what no army can hold.

The Monk and the Missionary

A spark waits in the pages of this manuscript. What follows is the manner of its propagation. The initiate of our order does the work of the monk and the missionary, breathing in and breathing out.

Inhale. The initiate receives doctrine and inquiry in the manner of a monk: first through habituation, then through tradition, and finally through reflection. From these arise meditation, communion, and adulation. Through repeated acts, the monk reshapes himself until spiritual gifts begin to flow through him.

Ritual forms and blesses him until it becomes second nature, though he remains unattached to its rewards. He turns inward to confront what must be faced and, in equipoise, examines what he finds without illusion. He receives the wisdom of those who came before him and carries it forward into living memory. In time, he comes to dwell in a stillness deeper than thought itself. Eventually, he enters the presence of the sacred, lifting his heart in reverence toward what he holds most dear.

Exhale. The initiate releases what he has received as a missionary. He does this first through embodiment, by becoming the kind of person the listener can recognize and trust. Then, through attunement, a sensitivity to the listener’s condition and disposition. Finally, through translation, shaping the message in a way the listener can truly receive.

Three demons disquiet a spirit: Threats to identity, control, or safety. Otherwise, the missionary’s mien must align with his message, and he must live our doctrine in his actions and his bearing. He carries our message across circumstances, adapting its form without losing its function. He earns trust and gives of himself in ways that establish goodwill. His radiant presence is a binding agent, which draws from the spark of the All, and spreads a flame from wick to wick, as others will carry it forth.

Between the in breath and the out breath lives the All. So communion is for the monk and missionary alike. The monk’s reverence becomes the missionary’s flame. The eye, turned inward, draws the initiate toward the sacred; turned outward, it draws him to others who carry the spark but have simply forgotten. Thus, the initiate carries the divine spark and breathes the divine breath. Such is the rhythm of life inside our order. Inhale as a monk. Exhale as a missionary. Each motion sustains the order, and neither survives without its counterpart.

Two Failures

The initiate’s path is narrow, but walkable—only if she keeps her balance. Imbalance invites two forms of failure.

The first failure is that of the monk who never turns outward. What he has received, he preserves, refines, and perfects, thereby becoming a vault. He mistakes esotericism for fulfillment. But a truth never revealed gathers dust. His wisdom becomes entombed. He becomes inert. And the world he was destined to serve moves on without him, and what he guarded so carefully is buried with him.

The second failure is that of the missionary who ceases turning inward. His wisdom becomes mere words, an unreplenished script. He speaks more but listens less. As he surrounds himself with admirers, his conviction thins. Adoration does not lend him authority. With time, he transmits something moribund, neither living doctrine nor open inquiry, but soulless recitation. Eventually, he loses the path.

To correct either failure, return to the narrow path. Receive and then give. Breathe in and breathe out. Balance the work of the monk with that of the missionary. Apprentice and then guide. Those who learn must eventually teach, but those who teach must return to the well.

One Commandment, One Covenant

Our empire of the mind shall have a single premise at its core. A moral commandment. Within the Covenant, we set about the work of tikkun, to mend what has been broken in ourselves and in the world. Within the Covenant, we set about founding the Order. Within the Covenant, we set about growing it. Within the Covenant, we begin the work to which this manuscript calls us—to propagate our doctrine, taper to taper, mind to mind, until our combined lights rival the constellations of the firmament.

The Covenant is thus the genesis and the eschaton. Strip it away, and the order becomes a black hole. We cast every spell with fidelity to the Covenant and the Triune Braid, on behalf of a society we stand to build, for a posterity our children stand to inherit.

Seasons of the Speaker

One mind may move another in four ways. We inherited them, as the seasons.

No one is persuaded by a single season. It takes a year to change a mind. The logician builds his house in perpetual winter and wonders why nothing grows. He confuses reduction with truth and lives among cold bones. The sentimentalist refuses to leave spring and wonders why the earth won’t move. Emotions run high until feelings flood their banks. She confuses intensity with depth. The authoritarian stays in summer, mistaking dominance for radiance, and heat for light. He is loud instead of luminous. He conflates attention with influence. The nostalgist lingers in autumn rain. She wanders through others’ harvests and forgets to plant, subsisting on echoes from the past. She confuses echoes with essence.

An initiate, practiced in the four ways, summons from each season. His speech is spellcasting. He knows when to cut and when to kindle, when to show and when to tell. Errant talk leaves a listener lost. But the right words, in their season, remind us who we are and what we’ve always known.

Subversion

In the imperial frame, people respond to fear and incentives. Men of compulsion know this and exploit it. Their words are rife with orders, threats, and bribes. Yet subversive communication operates without swords or sweeteners. It therefore works inside the imperial frame and sometimes against it. So, our subversive speakers must overcome not only fear and incentive but also the failures of imagination that keep the listener’s habits of thought pacing in a cage. Humanity’s herds will change direction when they are prodded or paid, but they will not change their minds.

That takes the turning of seasons.

But we shall not manipulate. Manipulation is extractive—designed to take attention, money, fealty, votes—leaving the listener emptier for the encounter. Subversive communication should return the listener to his sovereign self. The speaker summons the seasons to remind the listener of what he knew before the world lulled him into forgetfulness. The listener should walk away stronger and taller, having rediscovered something precious.

How can the subversive be sure of this? Once the speaker delivers the words, does the listener stand straighter or slouch in the gravity of the words? Does he depart with sharpened judgment or merely practiced points? One may carry ideology like rented armor and stand weakened behind it. Or he can take an expanded capacity to think, feel, and act. Where manipulation pulls someone into orbit around a speaker, subversive communication leaves the speaker more self-possessed, that is, more centered, capable, and sovereign.

Thus, it is never the listener who is to be subverted.

Five Spells

The initiate who has done the contemplative work turns thoughts into words, and words into effects. What follows are five spells to cast at the right places and in the right circumstances. They summon from the seasons of persuasion, and in their right combination, move minds.

The spells can be dealt as a hand of cards and played as circumstances require. The art is to read the listener and not a script. So, a skilled missionary may use one in a given circumstance and four in the next.

The Constellation

To build an empire of the mind requires that we recover something built into the order of things. What passes between minds enriches both the giver and receiver, and prepares each to give again. One flame becomes two, two become four, four become a hundred, and a hundred becomes a constellation.

The impenetrable night is waiting to greet us.

This is the empire we shall build. It levies no tax and raises no army. Its territory is the interior of every free man and woman, and its expansion is measured in kindled flames held against the dark.

Subscribe now

An innovator casts a certain kind of spell. He finds, in the space between the possible and the actual, something novel—a tool, a method, a form—and puts it in reach of many hands. The new thing liberates its wielder.

Every innovation, rightly cast, is an act of subversion.

Unless the innovator is captured.

The captive innovator practices a dark art. With great skill, sometimes genius, he serves the powerful few. The authorities are quick to recognize and reward his cleverness, so he labors under lavish patronage. In the end, every innovator serves one of three masters: power, wealth, or impact. A captive innovator works for the former.

A subversive innovator works for the latter, often in territory controlled by powerful hierarchs. His workshop is cramped and dimly lit. His work is risky and uncertain in this milieu. Such makes him the rarest of innovators—first, because he too often labors without largesse, and second, because only the shrewdest can shape a new thing in a land where old things are guarded.

The subversive innovator employs three arcana:

I. He lowers the cost of concord, so that collaboration can ensue.
II. He raises the cost of taking, so that the predator may starve.
III. He lowers the cost of exit, so that the bound may escape.

Each arcanum grants a freedom: to act together, avoid predation, or run for something better.

But a captive innovator turns his spellbook upside down—raising the cost of concord, lowering the cost of taking, and raising the cost to leave. What he builds, in the end, is a finer cage. The subversive innovator and the captive innovator are both spellcasters.

Their arcana are inverted.

The old instinct to take by force has a price. The subversive innovator raises that price; the captive innovator lowers it. Such is the warfare of clashing wizardries, and the cost of predation rises and falls through the ages as one or the other prevails.

How can the subversive innovator prevail under such conditions?

The arcana are easier to show than tell. A tale will tell it best for now.

Subscribe now

The Hungry Boar

There was once a boar that came through the forest after a long winter without food.

He was big and strong, and his strength had always been an advantage. He had broken open rotten logs to get at the grubs inside. He had turned over stones for the worms. He had driven smaller creatures from their meals and eaten what they left. The forest taught him he could take what he wanted. His weight and his tusks were greater than the weight and the tusks of anything that stood between him and what he desired.

One day, he came upon a mound. The mound was not tall, but it was wide, and the boar knew what lay beneath it—the soft white riches of the colony, larvae packed in their galleries, good enough for a meal. So, he lowered his head and drove his snout into the mound.

He did not feel the first ant. It was almost nothing—far less than a thorn, at most, a pinprick of acid. He did not feel the second ant, nor the fifth, nor the tenth. The hundredth ant gave him pause, as did the ninety-nine others. By the time he felt the column, it covered him. Ants covered his snout, crawled into his nostrils, and clung to the wet folds of his lips. They stung inside his ears and across his eyelids, and where he tried to brush them away with his hoof, there were more on his hoof and his haunch. Where he shook his head, it seemed the ants were in the air around his head, such that the air itself had become a thing that bit and stung him.

He did not get what he had come for. He found a column instead, and it was faster than his hunger. A single ant was nothing. The column had become a blazing fire.

The boar ran away squealing, shrieking, and grunting. He was heavy and graceless, running the way large things run when surprised by what is small, fierce, and coordinated. He ran until he found a stream, then he plunged his head into the water, and held it there until the burning began to subside. When he came up from the stream, he shook himself dry and skulked off into the trees.

He took away a lesson—not that mound.

Yet the deeper lesson, that concentrated power fails against distributed power, was not a lesson a poor boar’s head could hold. Thus, in another season, he would come to another mound, on another day, and lower his snout again.

The column, having driven off the boar today, returned to its work. No commander ant had organized the colony for construction or war. Nor had any ant commanded them, as a general marshals his troops, or an architect provides a blueprint.

Instead, an angry ant had laid down a trail, and each ant that came after had read the trail and laid down its own. What had risen against the boar was not an army but a consequence—of pheromone protocols and ant antics. Eventually, the colony resumed its patient industry. The larvae were unharmed. The galleries were intact. The work continued, as it had for longer than the boar had been alive and would continue for longer than the boar would live.

Such are the arcana a subversive innovator summons. He does not raise an army to oppose the powerful, for he could not. Instead, he creates the conditions under which a swarm may form—a trail that one may leave, a signal that any may read, a door that others may walk through.

And when the powerful come, as they will come, lowering their snouts to take what they want—they will find the air itself has become a thing that bites and stings them.

Subscribe now

Once long ago, keepers kept monkeys in a room with no ceiling. In the room, a ladder stood, and at the top of the ladder, there was fruit. When a monkey climbed for the fruit, the keepers drenched all the monkeys with cold water—the reaching monkey and the resting monkeys. Eventually, the monkeys learned to pull down any that climbed the ladder, and to beat them, so that the cold water might not fall from above.

Then the keepers took away one of the original monkeys and brought in a new one who knew nothing of water. When the new one moved toward the ladder, the others set upon him and beat him down. In time, the keepers replaced every monkey in the room. Yet none that remained had ever felt the cold. Yet the ladder stood untouched, the fruit went unclaimed, and any monkey who reached for it was beaten by those who could not have understood why.

Those who strike down one who reaches should ask themselves if they remember why.

Two Ways of Making Order

Siblings who come to climb the spiral staircase will come to understand two ways of seeing order, which imply two ways of generating order. As societies become more complex over time, their people must adapt their cognition and values to keep pace with accelerating change. It makes sense that as we move through time—from primitive nomads to city dwellers—our ways of seeing and being must change along with our environments.

The work of metapolitics is to ask, of each thing presented as the only way, whether it is even the kind of thing it claims to be. The siblings will discover that this single question, asked at deepening levels, opens what follows.

The magister drew a distinction worth keeping close to the breast. Some games are played to be won, others to be continued. The finite game has fixed rules, known players, and an ending. Its purpose is to win until another finite game begins. The infinite game has no such ending—its rules may change, its players may come and go, and the only purpose is to keep the game alive such that the players thrive.

Politics, as we have inherited it, is a never-ending series of finite games, that is, contests with winners and losers, fought over the same board, by parties whose quarrels seem to matter more than the question of what kind of games the board unleashes.

Metapolitics begins when that question is finally asked.

But it is fundamentally the work of writing rules for a game meant to continue—and of recognizing that arguing over which faction should win the present contest is a far smaller concern than whether such a contest, as currently configured, is one the people should be playing at all.

Most finite games are played to dominate, which determines a winner and a loser. The deeper question is what kind of game the rules themselves generate.

Thus, there are those who say we ought to live in that numbers game where the majority selects its rulers who make the rules and plan the order such that it determines the winners and losers in a given period of gameplay. Complicated rules for a finite game—a game of domination.

Then there are those who say that the numbers game is an illusion that obscures the win-lose dynamics of central authority, and mutes the aspirations of those who would rather play an ongoing cooperation game—according to rules of fair play and proportionality—simple rules for a complex society.

The Great Ascent

One who has not yet made the great ascent up the spiral staircase might not be able to appreciate the differences. Still, she might parse the perspectives of the idealist and the skeptic—and ask whether the system she has been told she lives within is the system she actually lives within.

Such a noble ideal. What does one see who looks past the system’s image of itself?

Both of the foregoing passages describe politics, but only one sees clearly enough to summon metapolitics.

If the rules of an order shape the games played within it, the rules also shape the kind of leaders the order summons. Two more voices surface and compete for our assent.

The first voice says,

The second voice says,

One voice is black and white. The other is a shade of grey. One seeks to manipulate, the other seeks to catalyze. The first is the kind of leader the command-and-control order will summon. The second is a leader that spontaneous order will invite.

Metapolitics is not just the art of knowing the difference; it is also the discipline of understanding how complex societies emerge to serve diverse people within a unified framework. E pluribus unum. Ex uno plures.

Complexity is a god before which all must remain humble.

Subscribe now

Conceit of the Designer

She walks the high halls where the powerful gather, and they send for her before they deliberate, but she must wait in line behind the favor-seekers. Her days are given to deep reflection and planning, to gathering knowledge across many disciplines, to seeing patterns that escape lesser minds. She does not think as others do. She perceives what lies beneath the surface of things, and she calls this faculty by a flattering name: the Designer.

She believes she can see the whole system, even before it exists. So she believes she can plan systems for others. The commercial ecosystem becomes a machine she can design and run, or society a tapestry of relationships she alone has learned to weave. Those who lack her sight are bound to walk the unlighted path of ignorance until she leads them out of the dark. She sees no tyrant in the mirror. She sees a servant of the common good whose vision will fix what the blind and benighted have broken.

She must light the path that others must one day walk.

Beware the Designer, not because she is evil, but because she lacks the one thing sight requires—humility before what she beholds.

The central task of those who would order society is to show how little they can know of what they imagine they can design. The myriad decisions about what to truck, barter, and exchange are beyond the ken of anyone who would contrive them, just as the relationships of a rainforest ecosystem could neither be designed nor created by anyone. Living systems will override the plans of those who plant by hand. What organizes itself from below will outlast the schemes of those who plan from above.

The Magister writes of ruins in a rainforest.

The complex includes temples, plazas, and thoroughfares once teeming.... This once-great civilization eventually drifted into obscurity. Some say a mixture of drought and excessive foresting caused the inhabitants to abandon the city. Since its heyday a thousand years ago, the jungle has been unforgiving in its vengeance.

A tidal wave of flora has swallowed the buildings, roads, and temples, turning mighty stone structures into mounds nearly indistinguishable from the surrounding landscape. Mother Nature can be relentless as she uncurls her snakes or unfurls her fronds. So, the city has returned to nature in unparalleled beauty and biodiversity.

No mind, however fine, can design a reef or a rainforest—much less a single cell.

Inside a cell, one finds affairs that never cease—messengers in motion, gates opening and closing, signals sent and answered in a script too fine for any one mind to write. What each cell observer knows, he knows in fragments. Patterns glimpsed, rhythms inferred, meanings sketched in outlines. Each holds a shard of the truth, and only by working together can they approach understanding the whole.

A society is no simpler. Complexity defies understanding and thus planning. The one who believes she can arrange the lives of many as a hand arranges pieces upon a board has forgotten that each piece moves of its own accord on a board that is a human-interaction landscape.

The ascended should never stop trying to understand, but they should stop trying to command. Yet the Designer lingers, claiming:

Such a conceit will not stand, because that jealous god, complexity, will not let it.

The best we can do is launch experiments in protocol design—whether through local experiments or emergent rule sets.

There is no One True Way.

Local is Beautiful

We need to make room for niches of experimentation so the twin forces of emergence and evolution can work their magic. We need more local eyes on local problems. And only good protocol design can unleash all the experimentation.

Good protocols can originate in theory or emerge from practice.

Remember, the value of a whole is not always the sum of the value of its parts. How the elements are joined, how they answer to one another, how they stand in relation one to the next, going in flux and flow—these can give a whole a value that no counting of elements would uncover. Just as a tune is not the sum of its notes, a people is not the sum of its persons. Every dynamic arrangement and rearrangement is enormously valuable, and the churning value of the arrangement is greater than what is arranged.

Such wholes are made not by sameness but by the maximization of elemental diversity along one dimension and the harmony of those elements on another. A theory that explains many phenomena with a single principle has this quality. So does a society whose people pursue diverse ends under rulesets that unify them equally. The unifying element does not erase diversity; it shelters it and gives it common ground.

From this follows a second teaching, which the first prepares.

No single vision of the good life can satisfy all who would live well. What seems to one a paradise seems to another a prison. What community one would build, another would flee. Those who insist their vision must be the vision for all have not understood what they are asking of them.

There is a better framework.

The Framework

It is not a single order planned or imposed, but a framework of rules within which many orders may arise. In such a framework, those who would live one way may gather and do so; those who would live another way may gather and live otherwise. None is bound to another’s vision. Each may join the community whose good is good to them, and each may leave when it no longer suits him. The framework itself takes no sides among the visions it shelters, unless a vision becomes imperialist. Its purpose is to protect the many parallel ways of living peacefully—tried but never imposed.

This is no small thing, and it is not what most men mean by order. Most mean something narrower: one true folk, one true way, and one answer to the question: How are we to live? A framework that houses many answers is harder to grasp and easier to forget. A framework that houses many answers is born out of metapolitics.

The framework, when in operation, gives rise to a country that is greater than the sum of its communities. In this land, each community lives mostly by its own lights, tends to its own good, and is free to be joined or abandoned. The variety itself is good, because no two people are the same. That no one vision prevails is good, because together, people can contribute to a flourishing society that no single visionary, however savvy, could have designed alone.

It is the land of a thousand visionaries.

Unclaimed Fruit

Return now to the room, and the ladder, and the unclaimed fruit. One who reads is not necessarily one who climbs. One who has read this manuscript might wish to be a keeper. Who has begun, at least, to see the monkey ladder for what it is? It is enough, for now, to stop striking down those who reach. It is enough, for now, to test the ladder again. In time, perhaps, a few of us will climb, perhaps to seize the fruit, but also to see what lies beyond the room.

Let us then go forth, to live by the Covenant and the Law of Consent, and carve out niches of possibility for a society full of people weary of living as cold, wet, or beaten monkeys.

Subscribe now

Before scribes carved the first law into stone—before Hammurabi, the Twelve Tables, or the slow accumulation of common law through centuries of blood and friction—there had been the sacralization of persons. It began with the recognition that others suffer. It deepened into a commitment: to refuse doing to others what is hateful to you. And it implied reciprocity—not as a contract, but as the grammar of a shared world.

Before there were codes, there were covenants.

And in that reciprocal structure, we find elements of a covenantal bond.

Some argue that the sacralization of persons is not a legal contrivance, but an ontological discovery. Rights are real, some insist. Rights are a derivation, others argue. We need not settle that debate. Every tradition that has ever produced wisdom—whether Mosaic, Stoic, Vedic, or Taoist—arrives at the same conclusion: To trespass upon others without cause is not merely a crime, it is a desecration.

Remember the story of monks meditating deep in a forest.

The sages embody the principle of ahimsa—nonviolence—the first of the Yamas, which means the practice of reining in or self-control. For the forest sages, ahimsa was not just an abstract ideal but an active practice. Their peacefulness radiated outward, creating an environment in which even the forest animals coexisted in peace. It is said that the tiger and cow drank side by side from the same stream while in the monks’ presence.

The very foundation of law, in every civilization that has not entirely lost its way, is an elaboration on this. One may not injure the innocent. One may not seize what is not his. One may not constrain a person without justification sufficient to meet the scrutiny of a free people who seek similar protections.

Therefore, the law should never be an instrument of subordination. It must be a covenant. The society built on such a covenant is better than a society built on mere statutes. This is no small thing. Most of human history is a lengthy record of the powerful acting with impunity against the weak. But this covenant, however imperfectly articulated or instantiated, is civilization’s most important achievement.

The Caveat

But every civilization has its serpents. The principle that no one is permitted to harm the innocent has always been subjected to catastrophic caveats by powerful men. Those who write the law do not regard themselves as accountable to it. Those who enforce the law are not held to the covenant. Aggression’s architects insist their monopoly on violence is a necessary evil. Yet it is evil. And the compliant herds shiver and can’t imagine things working any other way.

Still, the powerful claim they must be the sole providers of security, law, and justice. Such a claim is rarely backed by force of argument—simply by force. Uniformed men with weapons and jails are proxies of the powerful. They make the people an offer they cannot refuse.

When authorities confiscate wealth from a man who has harmed no one, this is harm. When authorities imprison a woman for conduct that injures no one, this is an injury. When state proxies seize property without evidence of wrongdoing and without the victim’s consent, this is the work of brigands wearing costumes.

Suffering follows.

At least the costume is impressive. It has a seal, a flag, and chevrons. But the uniform grants ordinary men a license to commit acts that the covenant forbids ordinary men.

Subscribe now

Magister Ostrom saw clearly. Civilization’s greatest threat is neither the street criminal nor the rich man, but institutional power asymmetries made by statutes and standing armies that elevate some men above a covenant that ought to bind us all.

Agents of a monopoly on violence, though charged with producing security, soon learn that they can act with impunity. The monopoly produces an auction house in which politicians are the brokers, favor-seekers set the clearing prices, and voters are obliged to pay. The covenant gets consumed by the caveat. The sacred gets sold to the highest bidders. And those who once surrendered to the All now submit to Pharaoh.

We are the Remnant.

We greet the loss not with cynicism but grief. A protection racket wrapped in pageantry is still a protection racket. Those who understand what good the covenant unleashes and what evil it restrains grieve its absence, but this is temporary. When the time of grieving expires, the time for action arrives.

The Return

What would it mean to return to the covenant?

We take a pledge and then enshrine a simple principle:

This is the Law of Consent.

The wisemen of the past understood it intuitively, though described it variously as a Natural Right or a Divine Imprimatur every human bears. Let us not allow the ongoing conflict between Fidelis and Atheus to keep us from restoring the Covenant as our prime protocol. We need only consider the manner and extent to which we must derive it and apply it as mere humans. It must apply not only to the street, but to the chamber—not only to the criminal, but to the magistrate.

Consent is no procedural nicety. It is a precondition for peace that enables us to form a grand multilateral contract. It requires neither Divine Imprimatur nor Natural Right, but if these are mythic truths, believe them. They can only help us to sacralize one another. The Law of Consent only requires those who seek flourishing to adopt the following, which is rooted in instrumental rationality:

Morals by agreement.

Notice this formulation requires neither commitment to abstract essences nor moral laws. One must only investigate the idea that happiness, harmony, and prosperity, the Threefold Braid, flow to those who enter the covenant. We don’t argue about its nature. We persuade like monks and missionaries.

Those who agree join us, and we get on with it.

Under the covenant, neither a person’s body nor time nor the fruits of her labor are resources to be allocated by her betters. Under the covenant, a fellow human is neither a milk cow nor an enemy. Under the covenant, persons treat persons as ends in themselves. Under the covenant, we are united.

And this agreement, followed faithfully by all its signatories, reorganizes everything.

Government becomes governance. Monopoly becomes polycentricity. Compulsion yields to persuasion.

Outside the covenant, though, predators and parasites await. Whatever our dreams of universal morality, to them, we are prey or hosts. Whether we shake our fists or brandish our Divine Imprimaturs, the only answer to their power is counterpower. Rights confer no magic forcefield against criminals and tyrants. But when courageous people join in solidarity, there is strength in numbers. There is asabiyyah.

Under the covenant, compulsion without evidence of injury is itself an injury, whether carried out by ordinary men in uniforms or plain clothes. It means that property is designated as an extension of personhood, and that violating it without consent is to violate the person. Violation or harm means making another worse off. Agreements—freely made, clearly understood, and held to by all parties—are the architecture of a just society. And those entrusted with any power must hold it by the consent of those over whom they hold it, and remain accountable to them, replaceable by them, and constrained by the same covenant they are appointed to enforce. Thus, a corollary:

This is no call to build a Utopia. It is a call to recover deep wisdom, form a new covenant, and build a new kind of society on that covenant. Instead of deriving law from Leviathan, we derive all law from the Law of Consent.

And everyone who signs it must abide by it. Otherwise, they subject themselves to enforcement.

The Demands

The Law of Consent demands things of us we have grown comfortable avoiding. The Protection Racket evolved into a Security Blanket as constituency groups bid for the legislature’s power or anoint powerful palms.

The Law of Consent demands that those who provide governance services demonstrate their value as providers and thus compete for our loyalty. A provider of governance services who cannot earn our custom is an occupying force. That means the institutions we build must be chosen, not inherited; entered into, not imposed. Institutions shall be sustained by fidelity to purpose, not just by tradition’s inertia.

The Law of Consent demands that punitive measures must find their justification in provable injury to a person, not in some sovereign taking offense, not in a policy that exists solely to enrich a constituency group or a corporate parasite, not in the convenience of self-anointed administrators willing to sacrifice justice for compliance. Courts must ask not only what was done but who was harmed. Victims must be made whole. And restitution must come before punishment.

The Law of Consent demands that what we call the social contract be made actual—not hypothetical, not metaphorical, not implied by the accident of birth. The agreements by which we live together must be transparent, legible, and signed in sanity and circumspection.

The Law of Consent demands that infrastructure, community, and common life be built through negotiation rather than compulsion. Common projects are realized because they offer sufficient value to all whose property and persons they will affect, and impose no costs upon the unwilling. Even if this makes for a slower process, it is more honest, more durable, and less prone to resentments than communities under coercive control.

The Law of Consent demands competition among those who provide that which we associate with governance—security, adjudication, infrastructure—because competition keeps providers honest.

Monopoly, in governance as in other industries, is a midwife to twins: compulsion and corruption.

The Future’s Shape

Fragments of a covenantal world have existed across many times and places. These include the free cities of the medieval era, the polycentric legal systems of early common law, and the guilds and mutual aid societies that existed before the rise of the administrative state. Lex mercatoria enabled merchants across a continent to conduct transactions independently of political interference. The Frankpledge system connected villages into mutual surety groups, where each individual was accountable to his community. Ancient Israelite judges held no permanent power and were answerable to the same law they administered.

None was perfect. No human arrangement is. But they were, in their better moments, organized around something recognizable as the covenant: persons protecting persons, agreements enforcing agreements, harm met with restitution rather than mere punishment, and power distributed rather than concentrated.

The Remnant does not advocate for a return to the past. We are not nostalgists. We are something stranger and more demanding: those who believe in the timeless wisdom of reciprocal peace, and that today’s task is to instantiate it again at a higher order of complexity. Now we have better tools, more potential signatories, and a greater understanding of what we are trying to build and why.

The Law of Consent points toward a civilization in which persons are genuinely sovereign over their own lives, property, and self-organized associations. Those who have decision-making authority will have earned it. They shall maintain it through value creation, or lose it due to poor performance. The ruler-ruled asymmetry will not be abolished by a violent revolution, as such risks swapping power factions. Power asymmetries dissolve, slowly and structurally, through subversive innovation.

Far from a call for political reform, this is our moral mission. Behind the covenant lies a spiritual imperative. A society organized around the sacredness of persons is one that takes seriously that which the most enduring wisdom traditions have taught.

The Charge

The distance between what is and what the covenant demands is vast and widening. This is not cause for despair. It is cause for work—a recommitment to tikkun.

The Remnant does not wait for a sudden transformation. We experiment. We make agreements that instantiate consent rather than merely invoking it. We create communities—physical, intellectual, and spiritual—that demonstrate, in miniature, what a covenant-ordered society can be. We point at the convent, not as with a weapon against those who fall short of it, but as a light, something by which to orient in the darkness.

Every institution that treats persons as sacred rather than a means is a fragment of the world we are set to build. Every agreement, freely entered and faithfully kept, honors the whole of the covenant as hyperstition. Every time we hold the powerful to account for their crimes—judging them by the same standard as the powerless—is an act of restoration or the work of repair.

The law, in its best form, has always been the covenant of persons, protecting persons, from harm by other persons, including those who believe themselves exempt. We have forgotten more than we remember. But the memory is not lost. It is carried forward, in every age, by those few who protect the flame as a candle in a windstorm.

Subscribe now

He didn’t recognize them anymore. The world he knew had shattered, and they were all but shards. Sometimes they cut. Whether he walked among the market throngs or sat alone in the forest, he felt alone.

In that solitude, he was hollow and anxious, surrounded by loud waves of change, fear, and anger. Sometimes he wanted to gasp and kick, thinking that soon he might tire of treading water, then fall into the deep and drown.

But a few, he saw, had turned back to the old ways—the books, the traditions, the places of worship. He had even gone to an old temple one day. Those he found there seemed to be clinging to the flotsam of something that had been broken up in a great storm. The congregants invited him to come back, but something in him—perhaps the restless stillness of anticipation—told him he could not.

One morning, something woke him just before dawn. As the first light began to paint the sky, something inside him mirrored it. And as the sun rose, he felt its warmth, within and without. It flowed through him, filling him with energy. Creative energy. A generative urge, yes, but a sublime warmth, too, as if his heart were a vessel capable of containing an emanation from the All.

The experience reminded him he was still alive.

He thought of going back to the old temple, but knew it was still freighted with its traditions, interpretations, and well-worn paths among the well-planned gardens and well-tended grave sites. Any new ideas would just stir up dust, and the old temple-goers are allergic to dust.

He thought of joining the angry mobs, but when they are not chanting slogans, they are bowing to the houses of power. Their plebiscite prayers are never answered by those who fancy themselves as gods. But their gods don’t create. They take and impose.

He thought of letting himself fall into the abyss where nothing is sacred, and nothing is real or true. There, at least, he might be able to ignore the cacophony, to determine that the world is just Sturm und Drang—ceaseless turbulence mistaken for meaning. But nothing could be created in the abyss.

Where could he go?

His solitude, along with the consuming radiance that filled him, would become somehow burdensome if he could not find the others and set to work. So he went back into the forest to reflect, where he hoped he might find an answer, at least, outside the cacophony of change, fear, and anger.

He went deep into the woods, where light shone in glimmers and shafts through the treetops. As he approached the forest stream, he discovered he was not alone.

A stag stood at the bend in the brook, drinking. It was large but unhurried, and the light that fell in shafts through the canopy seemed to gather between its antlers—drawn to them the way iron filings orient around an invisible field. The stag stopped. Then it raised its head and looked at him without alarm. It held his gaze long enough for him to understand this was not a chance encounter. Then the stag turned and moved along the bank—not in retreat, but intending to be followed.

So he followed.

The stream bent around a great oak whose roots had been bent by the brook and its bank over many years, pulling and twisting until they formed a natural, shaded hollow. Sheltered on three sides by roots, earth, and moss, it was open to the water and light on the fourth side.

The stag stopped at the tree and went no further.

Inside the hollow, a child sat with her back to him. She was stacking stones along the curved edge of the roots. She worked the way children work when no one is watching—completely absorbed. She placed each stone deliberately, building a modest wall. It could hold warmth, but not much. It could shelter a few, but no more. It was the work of someone enclosing the sacred against the profane, saying: Here, this place, for us, for now. She built it in the spirit one might cup a candle's flame.

The child turned and looked at him. She was neither surprised nor expectant. She looked at him the way one looks at a person who arrives exactly when they are supposed to. Then she stood, brushed her muddy hands on her knees, and walked into the trees, leaving the wall complete for him to admire.

The stag was gone.

He stood at the edge of the hollow for a long time. Above him, the canopy moved in a breeze. The stream flowed. He thought of the others—the ones he had not yet found, the ones who were perhaps standing at the edge of their own forests, waiting, wondering what they were waiting for.

There were eleven others. He would make twelve.

He envisioned a place where all twelve could gather, away from the cacophony and the waves. There, they would create something together, sheltered for a time in something modest and temporary, but holy.

He knelt by the water and picked up a stone.

Subscribe now

A founding convocation is in order. If you're interested, please reach out.

It will come into existence when enough of us see what it can be and are ready to commit to its becoming. For many, that will take accepting that their societies have become fractured and factionalized. Others will conclude their once-great civilizations have become decadent and disordered, that their communities have become rootless and their spirits aimless as they haunt the material world.

Too many live without binding agents, which makes them weak and vulnerable.

Our order shall form in the blessed tension between the Unanswerable Questions and Unquestionable Answers—inquiry and doctrine. The former supplies us with a measure of spiritual nourishment and, occasionally, of wonder. The latter offers us a star around which to orbit, a sense that we coalesce around a certain set of commitments.

Every Summer, for example, our order must recommit to its Mission: to organize so as to form a society of consent—a polity without the politics of domination. Behind this mission, we set out the brutal game theory of the protection racket. It explains life under Pharaoh, or Caesar, or George III. Since the time of brigands and planters, this protection racket has persisted throughout the ages, freighted with pomp, circumstance, and self-congratulation.

But if we are to escape Pharaoh, we have to change the collective consciousness of a people. We have to awaken a Geist. We have to build an Empire of the Mind.

But a consent-based social order does not exist, the skeptics will say.

Yet, we shall reply. That is why we exist, among other whys.

Our mission is to midwife a polity, just as the Greeks developed democracy, the Romans built a republic, and the Americans introduced the first constitutional republic. Though men such as Thomas Jefferson, Robert Yates, and George Mason were all worried that the 1787 Constitution risked forming an authority that would overshadow a person’s rights to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” as well as the “consent of the governed” meant to secure those rights, the American Founders instituted something more ideal than what had preceded it.

Eventually, their polity mutated into an extractive empire before it could celebrate a quarter-millennium. Yet Jefferson, Yates, and Mason, who had warned against the consolidation of power, possessed wisdom and foresight from which future generations could draw. Echoes of their Geist persisted, as did those of the Greek and Roman Geists, and of Persia and Israel.

Yet for imperfect ideals and their imperfect instantiation mediums, people were willing to kill and die.

They still are.

As it is proper in Winter, our thoughts should turn to death. The question before us, then, is: For what should we be willing to kill or die? The answer should be the same as that to the question: For what should we be willing to live and create? Surely the answer has to do with the Pursuit of Happiness—or in our order, the Tiers of Joy. Yet somehow we don’t savor a meal or cherish the time as much when we dine alone.

Communities of Individuals

Neither hedonic individualism nor eudaimonia is enough. As Ibn Khaldoun reminds us, we are also creatures of asabiyyah, that is, social solidarity. One’s happiness is bound up in both the I and the We.

Our nomadic forebears, roving extended families, encountered other nomadic groups seeking the same resources. Such confrontations were often violent, so we evolved a sense of kindredness and an instinct for in-group protection and mutual support. But there is wisdom in this beyond survival. Some of that wisdom is instrumental, some is transcendental.

Just as speaking the same language lowers coordination costs, so does the enchantment of shared blood. Yet siblings of our order won’t likely have the blood ties that bind the members of a roving clan. We must bind together with forces beyond blood. Beyond race. Beyond even the patch of soil upon which we were born.

To operate according to a common doctrine creates social coherence, as does spiritual siblinghood.

We recognize the fact of pluralism. That means we include the knowledge that each of us pursues ends that differ from one to the next, so each of us is engaged in a separate pursuit. Yet we also know we are stronger together. To slake the thirst of loneliness and avoid the vulnerability of solitude, we gather at the well of solidarity. We are happier together—basking in the mystery, living by our code, and finding meaning in the fact that each of us has a place in a community of siblings.

If our siblinghood is to seed a society of consent, we must be willing to die for our cause and for one another, just as the American revolutionaries were willing, in their morbid humor, to “hang together” so they wouldn’t hang separately. In John’s gospel, it is written that “Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.”

How odd that anyone would kill or die for some state of affairs that doesn’t exist. How odd that anyone would kill or die for the brothers and sisters of a creed.

How odd, but how human.

Killing in the Name Of

Nonviolence remains the prime virtue of our order. Its daily practice in thought, word, and deed defines us as siblings. But our pledge never to initiate violence against the innocent doesn’t require us to become pacifists. Like the ancient warrior-monks of the Far East, or Quohelet in the Near East, we must pray for peace and prepare for war. For each has its season.

If we are to become a siblinghood, we must be prepared to defend ourselves within reasonable bounds. And if we are ever to form a consensual society, we will almost certainly have to defend ourselves from enemies within and without. Predators and parasites will encircle us. So defense and retaliation will be necessary to serve our mission, realize our vision, and preserve whatever we create that contributes to our thriving.

Imagine a membrane around our order. This membrane symbolizes the separation of the sacred and the profane. That is, we sacralize that which is within the membrane. We sacralize our siblings not merely because we can better count on their sacralizing us, although that is true. We sacralize them because we know they share our commitments, and we are conscious that they are holy sparks with whom we set the work of tikkun.

Now, other membranes might well extend in concentric circles outward from this inner membrane. And these fall on a continuum outward from the sacred. The next membrane might include allies or non-sibling fellow travelers, whose behaviors and worldviews give rise to a peaceable domain of interaction. But the further out we go, the closer we get to those who do not share anything resembling our doctrine. And at the outermost reaches, we find those who threaten us and our way of life.

Those who denied the existence of their enemies—and were not willing to kill and die defending their own—rarely lived to tell the tale.

Hyperstition

A hyperstition is a fiction that makes itself real. It’s an idea, narrative, or belief that—through the very act of being circulated and believed—causes itself to come into existence. The concept collapses the distinction between an imagined reality and our present reality. Its darker variants conjure lies and deception, but its more virtuous forms channel mythic truths that can become reality in the future.

Philosopher Nick Land, who coined the term, says hyperstitions are “fictions that make themselves real.” Indeed, something that exists in the future—imagined in the present—can have transformative power. It’s rather like a self-fulfilling prophecy, but stranger, perhaps. A normal self-fulfilling prophecy works through straightforward psychology: One believes she will fail a test, so she does not study, and thus fails. With hyperstition, the fiction propagates itself through culture, almost as if it has its own agency, setting the conditions of its actualization.

Mythic truths, sufficiently propagated, become Geists capable of combating narratives of deception that will almost certainly become enemy Egregores. Grey hyperstition thus operates through time, but non-linearly. Drawing on occultism and cybernetics, Land suggests that hyperstitions can “come from the future”—that a future state of reality exerts a kind of backward causation, pulling the present toward it through the medium of ideas and belief. That is why we must overcome failures of imagination, then engage in radical collective intention-setting, then be willing to fight or die according to that intention.

At the very least, we must be willing to live for it, which, as we have said, is to seek to repair the world—despite our imperfection, because we carry a spark.

Subscribe now

Before we get into Kabbalah, we need to set up two ideas.

The first is a debate that theologians have been having for centuries: Is God transcendent—distant, separate, and wholly other? Or is God immanent—inherent in all things, and flowing through us as nature itself?

It turns out, as we’ll see, that the Kabbalists had a pretty elegant answer to these questions.

The second idea is the Unity of Opposites. Day and night. Hot and cold. Young and old. These feel like opposing categories, but there’s something philosophically interesting going on: opposites are always defined in relation to each other. They’re inseparable, so interdependent. There is unity in opposition—a fundamental complementarity.

Now, keep both thoughts in mind as we continue.

Reimagining Genesis

The Kabbalists—Jewish mystics whose thought flourished in the Levant, and later in medieval Europe—offer a fascinating account of what happened before creation. Not the creation of the world, but the very first moment of anything at all.

Pre-creation. Pre-cosmos.

First, they say, there was Ain. Nothingness. The void.

From the void emerged Ain Soph—literally “without limit,” that is, the Infinite and Eternal. (Notice what just happened: from absolute nothing came its perfect opposite.)

And from the Infinite and Eternal radiated Ain Soph Aur—the Divine Radiance. This force emanates from the eternal source.

Ain,
Ain Soph,
Ain Soph Aur.

The Void, the Infinite, and the Divine Radiance. Three in one. The Kabbalists, without quite advertising it, gave us a trinitarian God.

[They laughed.]

In our original framework, Ain Soph is transcendent—infinite, beyond all categories, and unknowable by mere mortals. Ain Soph Aur is immanent—it radiates outward, flows into the world, and dwells within things. Transcendent and immanent. Not either/or, but both/and. Another unity of opposites, just like the Void and the Infinite.

Syncretism

Where did these ideas come from? In a word: syncretism—the hybridization of different philosophical and religious traditions.

The Kabbalists were inheritors of a long conversation between Jewish thought and Greek philosophy, and the results are remarkable.

Start with Plato. His theory of Forms proposes that behind the messy, imperfect world of our senses lies a higher realm of eternal, ideal archetypes, such as Beauty, Justice, or the Perfect Circle. This is one of the most powerful ideas in Western Philosophy.

Of course, Plato has his critics.

The philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser once made fun of this idea by taking his students to a restaurant. If you’re a Platonist, he told them, you can only order Soup. (You can’t order the tomato bisque or the clam chowder.) You have to order Soup—the ultimate Form. Tomato bisque is but a fragment, an imperfect instance of the eternal.

I dare say Morgenbesser wasn’t a Kabbalist. Kidding aside, though, Platonists see the world as a cascade from unity into multiplicity, from the universal into the particular.

Subscribe now

Plotinus

Now fast-forward from Athens to Rome, and meet the Egyptian-born philosopher Plotinus, who served up what we call Neoplatonism. In other words, Plotinus took Plato’s Forms and pushed them further. He proposed a supreme principle he called The One—an entity so fundamental that you can’t even say it is “good” or “beautiful” or even “existent” without limiting it by category.

The only way to approach understanding The One is through negation: “not this, not that.” This and that are but fragments of a higher-order unity, mediated by our imperfect, time-bound minds.

Sound familiar?

Plotinus’s One doesn’t just sit there, either. It emanates. It radiates outward in a kind of cosmic overflow.

• The first emanation is the Nous, the Divine Mind, where the eternal Forms reside.

• The second is the Psyche, the Cosmic Soul, where those Forms begin to differentiate into categories, sequences, and multiplicity.

• The third is the Sensible World — material reality, where forms are fully fragmented into the individual things around us. (Morgenbesser’s tomato bisque.)

And yet, through it all, there is unity in diversity. The cosmos is a single entity expressing itself in many ways.

This is called monism.

But syncretism cuts both ways.

Interestingly, the second-century philosopher Numenius of Apamea, an important forerunner of Plotinus, once asked: “What is Plato but Moses speaking Greek?” He meant it as a compliment to both. Ideas flowed in both directions across the ancient Mediterranean—with Jewish thinkers absorbing Greek philosophy, and Greek philosophers absorbing Jewish theology.

When the Kabbalists eventually arrived, they were building on centuries of cross-pollination—of ideas having sex.

The Shattering of the Vessels

Back to Ain Soph Aur—that divine radiance emanating from the Infinite.

If Ain Soph is going to generate a world, that radiance needs containers. Vessels—kelim in Hebrew—that can hold and differentiate the divine light into higher-order categories. Think of them as like Plato’s Forms, the archetypal structures that shape reality, only rigidly.

But here’s the problem: the Divine Radiance is too powerful.

The vessels can’t hold it. They shatter.

This is sheverat ha-kelim—the shattering of the vessels. The cosmic catastrophe at the heart of Kabbalistic cosmology.

The holy shards scatter throughout the cosmos. They compose the physical world we inhabit. When those shards are ordered and harmonized, we glimpse goodness and beauty. When they become more disordered, separated, scattered—that’s what we experience as suffering and evil. Not evil as a positive force, but evil as privation, as fragmentation, as things being more broken, separate, and disharmonious than they ought to be.

And here is where it gets personal: we, too, are those holy shards. Glints of Ain Soph Aur flow through each of us. The divine is not only transcendent and remote. It is immanent in its nature, flowing through you, me, and everyone we encounter.

What We Are Here to Do

This is where the Kabbalists arrive at something genuinely beautiful.

We carry the shards of the vessels, and thus the divine sparks.

We also have freedom—and freedom, amid all this fragmentation, means we are imperfect and error-prone. We are not perfect. But we are holy. And that matters.

Ain Soph stands outside of time. But its emanance (Ain Soph Aur) flows through us as instruments of a cosmic purpose.

That purpose is what the Kabbalists call tikkun — repair. Hence, tikkun olam. The call to repair the shattered world.

Yet the goal of tikkun is the harmonization of difference—not the elimination of multiplicity or a return to perfect unity. We are not trying to force everything back into an undifferentiated whole, to put back the vessels, or find our way back to the void. Instead, we are charged with reordering the shards toward greater coherence, greater beauty, greater justice.

Harmonization doesn’t create a perfect world—but a more perfect world than this one. For our posterity.

And when our children inherit that better world, they too will practice tikkun. And their children will inherit what they build. Generation after generation, holy sparks reordering themselves and each other, never perfect, but always better.

We are, as the Kabbalists understood matters, the cosmos reflecting on itself, then repairing itself.

Worthy of Reflection

As shards of broken vessels, we are capable of reflection. Here are some questions we can reflect on today:

• How does this account of pre-creation and creation compare to what cosmologists tell us? (Are the parallels—void, singularity, emanation, expansion, complexity emerging from simplicity—more than coincidental?)

• What does it mean to carry the divine spark of Ain Soph Aur?

• How does that change the way you see the person sitting next to you?

• And perhaps most practically: how do we practice tikkun every day? How do we reorder the holy sparks—first in ourselves, then in our families, then in our communities?

For the Kabbalists, that’s not just a theological question. It’s the whole point of life. Because, in the process, we can become closer to Ain Soph. We can experience a modicum of Ain Soph Aur’s compassionate presence—enough to fill us, but not shatter us. And we can try to find a little bit more joy in practicing tikkun together.

Subscribe now

Recall the three confrontations: change, evil, and death. We shall linger on the second—evil—for it will surely linger in us.

Evil exists, and one can become more attuned to it, whether in its classification or intensity. As with the other confrontations, one must begin in a state of centeredness. Otherwise, she risks being swallowed up.

Attunement is as much about recognizing evil in others as in oneself. Our capacity for cruelty, indifference, and exploitation is part of our natures, which means it is part of your nature and mine.

Thoughts and words steeped in malevolence will eventually spawn misdeeds.

We must take a few steps into the Shadow to reveal the hidden source of such secrets, though that process can arouse unexpected resistance. It is unflattering, if not frightening, to recognize in oneself everything she hopes to avoid in others.

Yet from the grounded awareness of equipoise, we can become more attuned to our darker impulses. And we must become so attuned, for these will linger as magma building pressure beneath the surface. Explore the Shadow as a physician would an abscess, a priest would a confession, or an explorer would a cave.

Then hold three simultaneous truths:

1. Evil lives within me (one-twelfth);

2. I can respond with patience instead of anger, fear, or disgust.

3. I can face it all with centeredness and courage, and it will not consume me.

By accepting that we are born as both Light and Shadow—capable of creation and destruction, unbound freedom and rigid order—we integrate within the fullness of being. Integration provides the stability to face evil without letting it consume us.

Now let us identify evil beyond mere abstraction, in three embodied forms.

Luciferic

Luciferic Evil is rebellious, a wanton turning away from order. Its anti-authoritarian nature is exemplified by an angel who defied God. It is an evil of unchecked desire and the rejection of just authority. This form of evil can be seductive, as it is associated with pursuing pleasure, risk, and adventure—none of which are evils per se. Evil lies in their dangerous admixture, whether one descends into decadence or lets consequences be damned.

Can she indulge without indulging to excess?
He succeeded, but was someone innocent harmed in the process?
What is the difference between sleeping with your spouse and your sibling’s spouse?

In experiencing the Tiers of Joy, we must remain attuned to differences of degree and kind, as even good things, when taken too far, become evil.

Archontic

Archontic Evil, by contrast, is not about decadence but control. Named after the Archons of Gnosticism, these powerful entities rule the material plane through domination and oppression. In contrast to Luciferic evil, Archontic evil arises from a desire for order but brings about oppressive, even totalitarian, circumstances.

Can we manipulate the masses with propaganda?
How shall we use violence to gain power?
How can we exploit vulnerable populations for profit?

Archontic evil also tends to invert values. Practitioners treat vices as virtues and promote lies as truths, as long as doing so gives one more control. Only in politics, for example, could the following be considered a list of virtues:

1. Violence—Initiate harm, through violence, theft

2. Corruption—Dishonor commitments, self-deal

3. Callousness—Show cruelty or indifference to suffering

4. Monomania—Adhere zealously to The One True Way

5. Negligence—Fail to care for one’s property or offices

6. Casuistry—Apply fallacy or deceptive reasoning

7. Injustice—Deal unfairly with the innocent

The list of vices is not, of course, exclusive to Archontic evil. One needs only to learn the objectives of its practitioners.

Archontic practitioners treat people as parts in a machine or instruments of some perceived greater good, so these systems are marked by soullessness and despair. As this evil seeks to replace all freedom with control, the powerful sit atop rigid hierarchies in which everyone is formally systematized, top to bottom.

Where Luciferic Evil risks chaos or decadence, Archontic Evil risks stifling the spirit.

Ahrimanic

Ahrimanic Evil is perhaps the purest form of evil—not because it dominates or tempts, but because it negates life. Driven by states such as fear, resentment, and hatred, Ahrimanic Evil seeks neither freedom nor order. Ahriman, the evil twin of Zoroastrianism’s Ahura Mazda, seeks to annihilate. The entity embodies a profound nihilism expressed as a desire to extinguish everything. Thus, Ahrimanic Evil takes Thanatos Masculine to deadly extremes.

In other words, Ahrimanic Evil aims to destroy the risky delights sought by Luciferic practitioners and annihilate the oppressive order sought by Archontic practitioners. Ahriman initially fragments the world through resentment and living by lies. But as these forces are unleashed, the factions turn on each other in an escalating cycle of reprisals. Some view Ahrimanic Evil as the ultimate evil for this reason, because hatred of the other conscripts all sides into obliterating one another, and ideally, all existence.

Ahrimanic Evil does not seek order or freedom, but exhaustion—the point at which hatred and reduction render existence itself intolerable.

Subscribe now

Dark Dialectics: A Foreshadowing

A tension exists between Luciferic and Archontic evils. Certain ideologues love this tension because they can exploit it, calling the others evil and themselves good. If Luciferians want more decadence and Archontics want more control, their drift into ideological zeal can obscure the reality that freedom and order should be mutually constraining—and good will be found in the balance.

But the blood moon rises when Luciferic and Archontic evils become locked in conflict. Greedy Luciferians seeking paper profits encounter Archontic functionaries ready to impose order. Initially, their encounter is oppositional, but eventually they discover the benefits of collusion. Lucifer’s lucre finds the Archons’ authority.

All that’s left is to ask who wins and who loses.

The colluders win, of course, and society pays. Luciferians view legislatures as auction houses. Wealth concentrates among the powerful, and power concentrates among the wealthy in a grotesque orgy. A perverse, corporatist order is ascendant. The rest of society—taxed, controlled, indebted, and immiserated—grows resentful. Resentment turns to hatred. Hatred inspires violence. Violence escalates, only now the conflict is a negative-sum game.

Ahriman laughs.

Bear in mind that many who seek power will use chaos and decadence to accelerate decline, and then seek to impose a totalizing order in the ashes.

Today, Luciferic Evil sits at Ahriman’s left hand, and Archontic Evil sits at his right. Until Ahrimanic Evil finds the means to extinguish us all for good, he will let the other two rut in that unholy bed while resentful hordes tear through cities with angry torches and zeroes for eyes.

The Transformations

Evil does not vanish when named. When we confront it and integrate it, we become transformed. Just as freedom, order, and preservation may curdle into decadence, domination, and annihilation, so too can they be refined into higher expressions. Each evil casts a shadow because it is the corruption of a virtue. To confront evil without being consumed by it, one must also learn to transfigure it.

Thus, where Luciferic, Archontic, and Ahrimanic evils threaten imbalance, three countervailing forces restore harmony within and without.

Promethean

Where Luciferic Evil awakens rebellious instincts for injustice or indulgence, Promethean virtue rebels for the restoration of the good.

Prometheus is no seducer. He does not steal fire to exalt himself, nor does he deny the cost of transgression. He brings divine fire to humankind out of compassion, knowing full well the punishment that awaits. His rebellion is not prideful.

Promethean action is guided by discernment: Is this gift meant to uplift, or merely to inflate? Is this knowledge shared to liberate others, or to crown oneself superior? Is this risk undertaken for growth, or merely for the thrill?

Where Luciferic Evil indulges without restraint, Promethean virtue practices bold action. It is criticism through creation. Where Luciferic Evil rejects authority wholesale, Promethean virtue challenges unjust authority while honoring the responsibility of tikkun. Where Luciferic Evil consumes pleasure heedless of the consequences, Prometheans accept consequence as the price of illumination.

The Promethean fire warms, illuminates, and forges. It is a generative fire.

Mardukian

Where Archontic Evil imposes order to dominate, Mardukian virtue creates order so that life may flourish.

Marduk does not rule through suffocation. He confronts chaos not with fear, but with wisdom. From the formless deep, he shapes a cosmos where distinctions matter—where boundaries give rise to meaning, and structure makes growth possible.

Mardukian order asks: Does this structure serve the living, or merely preserve power? Does this law protect the vulnerable, or entrench the strong? Does this hierarchy clarify one’s responsibilities, or erase others’ dignity?

Where Archontic Evil treats people as components, Mardukian virtue treats people as participants. One’s place in the cosmic order is not formally assigned but discovered and revised. Where Archontic Evil freezes systems into rigidity, Mardukian virtue allows for adaptation. Where Archontic Evil inverts values to secure control, Mardukian virtue aligns law with justice.

This is an order of cosmic protocols and emergent architecture, not oppression by design. Mardukian order channels energy rather than suppressing it–respecting the Law of Flow. Order should serve flourishing and keep freedom in balance; it should not seek to suffocate the Promethean Fire.

Asharic

Where Ahrimanic Evil seeks an end in annihilation, Asharic practice affirms truth, healing, and wholeness.

The Zoroastrian entity Ahura Mazda embodies Asha: the deep substructure of truth that sustains all that exists. Asharic force does not merely preserve—it generates. It does not deny conflict, but it refuses the Lie that fragmented disharmony is inevitable.

Asharic virtue is quiet but inexorable as life overcomes entropy and disintegration.

Truth illuminates; druj distorts.

Where Ahriman fragments the world through resentment, Asharic truth reconnects it through understanding. Where Ahriman weaponizes lies to turn factions against one another, asha dissolves hatred by revealing the truth behind illusion. Where Ahriman drives systems toward collapse, Asharic preservation renews the conditions for life.

Asharic practitioners do not seek stasis. They seek continuity without unnecessary decay—a living order, always becoming, that repairs itself because it is grounded in truth.

Triadic Balance

These three conceptions of good are not rivals; they are mutually constraining and mutually reinforcing.

Promethean aspiration without Mardukian structure becomes reckless. Mardukian structure without Asharic truth becomes hollow. Asharic good without Promethean courage becomes an inflexible orthodoxy—a final state that doesn’t seek to complete the harmonization of difference.

Together, they form a living system. And in this balance, freedom becomes a gift rather than a theft. Order becomes structure instead of subjection. Truth, however beautiful and brutal, becomes constructive, creative, and life-affirming.

No wonder that mustacioed poet-philosopher—part sage, part bon vivant—chose Zoroaster as his avatar.

Remember: none of this represents the eradication of darkness. Instead, it symbolizes its integration—the art of standing amid the whirl of shifting realities, holding the fire without getting burned or letting it go out, and respecting bounds without lapsing into sclerosis.

We must never seek to eliminate Thanatos in its season, whether masculine or feminine. After all, there is,

A time for birthing and a time for dying,
A time for planting and a time for uprooting the planted;
A time for slaying and a time for healing,
A time for tearing down and a time for building up;
—Ecclesiastes 3

We resist the dying light so that we can generate life and light, order our lives, repair the world, and transmit what we can for generations to inherit.

Subscribe now

We crash in the dark- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - in FITS AND STARTS - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - and, oh, that really smarts - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - i know it’s gonna leave a mark
—Lee Schulteiss

We’re more compelled by artwork when the artist has a reputation, when we have a context for the piece, or when we know the backstory. We are willing to pay $20 for the simulacrum of hand-blown glass, but we might add a zero or two if we know that an artist toiled with molten silicon and used his own breath to create the form. The same can be said for paintings, craft dolls, and metal sculptures.

Stuff just isn’t that interesting anymore. It’s stuff plus experience.

Often, these items are imperfect. In fact, relative to what a machine might produce, each piece could be uniquely flawed. According to Japanese lore, a young man named Sen no Rikyu sought to learn an elaborate ceremony called the “Way of Tea.”

Rikyu went to the tea master Takeeno Joo, who tested the student by asking him to tend the garden. Rikyu cleaned up everything and raked the garden until it was immaculate. He scrutinized everything to be doubly sure. But before presenting his work to Takeeno Joo, Rikyu shook a cherry tree, which caused a few flowers to fall randomly—imperfectly—onto the ground.

According to the Japanese tradition of wabi-sabi, Rikyu understood the true nature of the aesthetic. There is beauty in imperfection. And there is something interesting about the fissures in wood, the crack in a bowl, or the randomness of a splatter.

Natural-living enthusiast Robyn Griggs Lawrence agrees:

Wabi-sabi understands the tender, raw beauty of a gray December landscape and the aching elegance of an abandoned building or shed. It celebrates cracks and crevices and rot and all the other marks that time and weather and use leave behind. To discover wabi-sabi is to see the singular beauty in something that may first look decrepit and ugly.

Of course, it’s not impossible for an artificially intelligent artist to iterate endlessly on patterns of aesthetics that most people tend to like. And indeed, many fine-looking designs might come straight from AI, developed perhaps as amalgams of popular designs from the past.

But for many things, human beings will not want the popular or the amalgamated. We will want the uniquely beautiful, interesting, novel, or compelling art forms because we have imbued them with our humanity. We will want many things wabi-sabi because they mirror our imperfections. And experience will surround our goods like narrative metadata.

Now, what about the cracks in us?

Subscribe now

Our imperfections are a part of what it means to be human. It’s one of the reasons we call ourselves grey. Far from drawing from the dark forces around us, grey is, in one sense, an acknowledgement that we are not just imperfect, but that we are separated from the eternal—from what might be considered perfect by some supreme being who, if he/she created us, gave us freedom, which is so easily abused.

One of the types of cracks in us—whether in mind, body, or spirit—is our scars. Our healed wounds sometimes indicate that, in our effort to improve the world around us, we get hurt.

Life is hard.

My wife is friends with a group of old rockers called the Drive-by Truckers. And in one song, the frontman sings two apparently contradictory things, namely that “it's gonna be a world of hurt” and “it’s fucking great to be alive.” Amid the raucous guitars and drums without click tracks, my wife finds redneck wisdom and pure poetry.

She finds wabi-sabi and scars.

She and the band remind us to look around at the broken world and set about fixing it. In doing so, we will not only find that life is worth living, but also that it is worth living because we are capable of overcoming all the pain, sadness, and failure that being free and imperfect brings.

Subscribe now

Drawing from Zoroastrian wisdom, we can construct a powerful framework for understanding the fundamental forces that shape existence and guide spiritual practice. By mapping two essential dualities onto perpendicular axes, we create Zarathustra’s Quadrants—a tool for discernment, self-examination, and conscious spiritual development.

Two Axes of Existence

Axis 1: Creative-Destructive Polarity

The first axis extends from Ahura Mazda to Angra Mainyu, representing the fundamental tension between constructive and destructive forces.

• Ahura Mazda, the Wise Lord of Zoroastrian tradition, represents the constructive and generative principle—the force that builds, creates, orders, and brings forth life. This is the impulse toward formation, organization, and manifestation.

• Angra Mainyu, the Destructive Spirit, stands at the opposite pole. This is the principle of dissolution, decay, and destruction—the force that breaks down structures, dissipates order, and returns things to formlessness.

In Zoroastrianism, it is important to understand that asha and druj are the spiritual emanations of Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, respectively. Asha represents truth, righteousness, and cosmic order. Druj represents chaos, deception, and disorder. Asha is associated with light, and druj is associated with darkness.

Zoroastrians venerate Ahura Mazda and eschew Angra Mainyu, but in our order, we understand that we must seek wisdom in the Shadow.

Axis 2: Temporal-Eternal Polarity

The second axis runs from Zurvan to Ameretat, capturing the distinction between temporal flow and eternal changelessness.

• Zurvan represents time itself—the realm of becoming, change, and transformation. Here we find the flowing river of temporal existence, where all things are subject to process, development, and alteration.

• Ameretat, meaning “immortality” or “deathlessness,” represents the eternal and changeless. This is the realm of the imperishable, the immutable truths that transcend temporal flow, the eternal principles that remain constant while the world of Zurvan churns and transforms.

Interestingly, there were once Zoroastrian sects called Zurvanites who believed that the god Zurvan was higher even than Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu, one suspects because there seems to be an ultimate power in the passage of time and the cycle of endings. What then should we do with neo-Platonist notions of the timeless or eternal, such as those we explore through kabbalah? Zurvan is powerful to a point.

The Four Quadrants

When these two axes intersect, they create four distinct quadrants, each representing a fundamental mode of being:

1. Eternal Creation (Ameretat + Ahura Mazda)

This quadrant contains the unchanging divine principles, the eternal forms of truth and order. Here resides Asha in its purest expression—the timeless law that governs reality, the perfect patterns that exist beyond the reach of temporal change.

2. Temporal Creation (Zurvan + Ahura Mazda)

Here, we observe all generative processes unfolding over time: growth, evolution, healing, learning, and building. This is the realm of spring planting and autumn harvest, of children growing to adulthood, of civilizations rising and flourishing.

3. Temporal Destruction (Zurvan + Angra Mainyu)

This quadrant encompasses decay, entropy, death, and all destructive processes that occur within time. The falling of leaves, the aging of the body, the erosion of mountains—all natural dissolution belongs here.

4. Eternal Destruction (Ameretat + Angra Mainyu)

This is the most challenging quadrant to contemplate, because its worship is nihilism. It represents the void, absolute negation, the unchanging principle of non-being—such as Ein—that precedes even Ein Soph. This is the abyss that stands opposed to eternal creation, the fundamental “no” against existence itself.

The Four Practices

Practice 1: Eternal Creation (Ameretat + Ahura Mazda)

This is the path of alignment with timeless truth—the highest aspiration of spiritual practice.

• Meditate on the eternal principles of Asha (truth and cosmic order)

• Act so as to build lasting goodness beyond your lifetime

• Connect to divine, unchanging wisdom

• Study sacred texts and eternal teachings

• Contemplate the forms and patterns that transcend time

This practice calls us to lift our consciousness above the flux of temporal existence and align ourselves with what is eternally true and good. When we act from this quadrant, we plant seeds that can bear fruit for generations, we speak truths that remain valid across centuries, and we create beauty that reflects the eternal.

Practice 2: Temporal Creation (Zurvan + Ahura Mazda)

This is the path of engaged service in the world—the work of building and healing within time.

• Heal, teach, and serve in the material realm

• Grow plants and steward the delicate ecologies

• Work creatively, letting divinity flow through right process

• Raise children and nurture your community

• Build institutions and infrastructure for a consent-based social order

This quadrant honors the sacred work of manifesting goodness in the world of change. Here, we acknowledge that while eternal principles guide us, the actual work of creation unfolds in time through patience, effort, and gradual transformation. The farmer who tends crops, the teacher who guides students, the builder who constructs shelter or temples—all work in this quadrant.

Practice 3: Temporal Destruction (Zurvan + Angra Mainyu)

This is the path of recognizing necessary endings—the wisdom of knowing when to let go.

Discern:

• What must decay to make room for new growth

• The difference between natural entropy and malicious harm

• When to release what no longer serves

• The role of death in the cycle of life

• How destruction in time can serve ultimate creation

Not all destruction is evil. The forest fire clears deadwood for new growth. The composted plant feeds next year’s garden. The demolished building makes space for new construction. This path requires the difficult wisdom of accepting impermanence and working skillfully with the destructive forces that operate within time.

Practice 4: Eternal Destruction (Ameretat + Angra Mainyu)

This is the path of confronting absolute negation—the most perilous yet potentially transformative quadrant.

• Confront the void, the abyss, and existential doubts

• See what must be utterly rejected (druj in its purest form, the negation of truth)

• Avoid the temptation to nihilism

• Mark the boundary between being and non-being

• Reckon with the ultimate “no” that defines the ultimate “yes” in the Unity of Opposites.

This quadrant represents the darkest territory of spiritual exploration. Yet encountering it is necessary. To know what we utterly reject helps clarify what we absolutely affirm. To peer into the void can strengthen our commitment to truth. Facing eternal negation deepens our appreciation of eternal creation. This path is dangerous and should be approached with caution and spiritual preparation, like Milarepa, who confronted demons in the cave.

Daily Practice: Living with the Matrix

Morning Contemplation

Begin each day by asking,

Consider what work lies before you and which energies you must engage. Perhaps today requires the patience of Temporal Creation, or the wisdom to accept Temporal Destruction. Or, perhaps you need to reconnect with Eternal Creation through meditation and study.

Evening Examination

At day’s end, review your thoughts, words, and deeds—the three pillars of Zoroastrian practice. Reflect by asking,

Did you build when you should have built? Did you let go when necessary? Did you maintain a connection to eternal truth while working in time? Were you pulled unconsciously toward the void, or did you consciously choose your path?

Life Work

The ultimate spiritual aspiration is to move consciously toward the upper-left quadrant—Eternal Creation—aligning yourself ever more fully with Ahura Mazda and Ameretat. Yet wisdom requires honoring the necessary work of the other quadrants when circumstances demand it. This is Zarathustra’s paradox.

A spiritually mature person recognizes when to create and when to allow destruction, when to grasp eternal principles, and when to work patiently within time. She navigates the Matrix with discernment, choosing consciously rather than being pulled unconsciously by forces she doesn’t understand.

Reflection

Zarathustra’s Quandrants offer more than an intellectual framework—it provides a compass for spiritual navigation. By mapping our experiences, impulses, and choices onto these two axes, we gain clarity about the forces operating in our lives and the choices available to us.

The ancient wisdom of Zoroastrianism, perhaps the world’s oldest monotheistic tradition, recognized these fundamental dualities. By bringing them together in this matrix, we create a practical instrument for the eternal work that Zarathustra proclaimed: to choose good thoughts, good words, and good deeds, and thereby align ourselves with the forces of light, truth, and creation.

In every moment, we stand at the intersection of these axes. May they guide us in spiritual freedom and responsibility.

Subscribe now

Every order must have its scribes and its shamanoids. This is especially true of our order.

The scribes, or priest-like siblings, are responsible for setting down and protecting the doctrine. Core features of our doctrine are the Unquestionable Answers.

The shamanoids, or shaman-like siblings, are responsible for reaching out to the edges of inquiry. We have referred to such challenges and questions as basking in the mystery—that is, to ask the Unanswerable Questions.

Scribes and shamanoids operate in dynamic tension under the Blood Moon.

Where the scribe protects the transmission of wisdom that endures over time, the shamanoid has visions that occasionally challenge the existing order, allowing it to evolve. Sometimes they argue. But in their argumentation, they represent internal functional dialectics.

We shall call these functional dialectic pairs roots and rhizomes.

Roots

First, recall the Ascending Orders, which are partial orders, or suborders, of our siblinghood taken as a whole. These correspond with stages of psychosocial development.

Tier One: A Sibling’s Psychosocial Journey

1. Order of the Naked. Survival stage focused on basic needs (food, water, shelter). Ascend by mastering one of the four elements.

2. Order of the Moon. Magical/familial stage centered on tribal bonds and rituals. Ascend by gathering with others around a fire under the moon until dawn.

3. Order of the Fist. The power-and-glory stage is driven by strength and competition. Ascend by winning a competition without harming the innocent.

4. Order of the Pyramid. Structure and order stage valuing hierarchy and discipline. Ascend by trusting superiors to guide you while blindfolded.

5. Order of the Sun. The achievement stage emphasizes reason, commerce, and scientific progress. Ascend by earning profits or sharing new empirical knowledge.

6. Order of the Leaf. Communitarian stage prioritizing equality, consensus, and care for all. Ascend by organizing a community feast or giving gifts.

Tier Two: Of Hierophants Ascended

7. Order of the Nautilus. Integration stage, weaving together complexity and diverse perspectives. Ascend through subversive innovation or communication.

8. Order of the Lotus. Holistic stage, recognizing cosmic interconnection and unity with the universe. Ascend by practicing secret hierophant arcana.

Whether viewed as an individual, a member of an Ascending Order, or taken as a whole, we are all rooted in the stages of the Ascending Orders. Intuitively, our survival and familial roots are shared by all, but as we ascend, we develop roots at higher stages that are increasingly cognitive and cultural, rather than inherited features of human nature.

Roots and rootedness mark the philosophy of the scribe.

Subscribe now

Rhizomes

The concept of the rhizome is a model for understanding knowledge, culture, and reality that rejects hierarchical, tree-like structures in favor of non-linear, multiplicous connections. Key characteristics of rhizomatic thinking include:

Connection and Heterogeneity. Any point in a rhizome can connect to any other point, unlike a tree structure, where connections follow predetermined branches. Elements need not be similar to connect.

Multiplicity. A rhizome has no central unity or organizing principle. It’s composed of dimensions and directions that change nature as it expands, with no overarching subject or object.

Asignifying Rupture. A rhizome can be broken or shattered at any point, but will start up again along its old lines or create new ones. It’s resilient and anti-fragile rather than dependent on a central root.

Cartography and Decalcomania. Rather than copying or tracing a preexisting model (like tracing territory on a map), a rhizome is about creating new maps, new connections, new becomings.

Non-hierarchical. Unlike the tree (arborescent) model with its binary logic and hierarchical organization, the rhizome operates through horizontal, lateral connections without central command.

The biological metaphor comes from rhizome plants (such as ginger) that spread through underground stems, shooting off roots and shoots in all directions, versus trees with their vertical trunk-and-branch structure.

Deleuze and Guattari use this to critique systems that impose single narratives, linear causality, or hierarchical order—proposing instead a philosophy of difference, becoming, and creative possibility.

Rhizomatic thinking marks the philosophical orientation of the shamanoid.

The Hierophant’s Role

The role of the hierophant is to reconcile roots and rhizomes, meaning to integrate both ways of thinking. Hierophants must sometimes adjudicate when scribes and shamanoids engage in destructive conflictual inquiry. Of course, hierophants will have come from either scribes or shamanoids, so their biases will persist.

But all hierophants’ mastery should be integrative.

Thus, it is especially important for the hierophants not to try to adjudicate too soon. Recall that the dialectical method is a process that takes place under the Blood Moon, which is sacred. Indeed, the conflict can be rather bloody, though not literally, of course. The hierophant’s intercession must only occur once each case has been thoroughly made and the overall order requires a final word to quell the prospect of a bitter schism.

Recall that the dialectic process requires conflict between conception and negation, which gives rise to sublation. Premature intercession forecloses sublation, which can be difficult and unwieldy as it occurs. Hierophants must be catalysts for sublation if they participate in the process at all. Sublation pushes our thinking, sometimes violently, into higher-order novelty. But any higher-order novelty, though it might appear rhizomatic, will integrate and transcend both lower-order styles, welcoming the new and integrating the former wisdom.

Novelty will be rooted.

Notice that such insights emerge in Tier Two of the Ascending Orders, where hierophants steward the Orders of the Nautilus and Lotus.

There can never be roots without rhizomes, nor rhizomes without roots. There can never be Unquestionable Answers without Unanswerable Questions. The totality of our order benefits from this functional mutualism that simultaneously grounds us and pushes us out farther into the cosmic mystery.

Subscribe now

E pluribus unum. Ex uno plures.

In the Hindu tradition, Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras offer timeless wisdom for living a virtuous life. Swami Satchidananda, a modern translator of the Yoga Sutras, recounts the story of monks meditating deep in a forest.

The sages embody the principle of ahimsa—nonviolence—the first of the Yamas, which means the practice of reining in or self-control. For the forest sages, ahimsa was not just an abstract ideal but an active practice. Their peacefulness radiated outward, creating an environment in which even the forest animals coexisted in peace. It is said that the tiger and cow drank side by side from the same stream while in the monks’ presence.

How does ahimsa differ from an ethical rule of nonviolence?

As a transformative practice, ahimsa offers the foundation for our doctrine. Unlike the old liberalism of indifferent coexistence and abstract principles of non-harm, our doctrine calls for a rebirth of practiced virtue in thought, word, and deed.

Such is neither an abstract rule nor an ideal but instead a discipline to be cultivated daily, radiating nonviolence in ever-widening circles from the self to the world. As with other virtues, it requires our movement toward mastery. That means we must practice every day, just as we practice violin, painting, or jiu-jitsu.

Ahimsa as a Practice

To embody ahimsa is to practice it consciously. Such a practice does not preclude self-defense or standing firm against one’s enemies, but prioritizes nonviolence as the first virtue, first practice.

Such requires equipoise—a state of centeredness in which we align our internal drives, fractured selves, and reflex responses.

Drawing from Western psychology, we can see these drives through the lenses of Freud’s Eros (life, creation) and Thanatos (death, destruction), as well as Jung’s anima (feminine) and animus (masculine). These forces manifest in distinct yet interconnected ways:

• Eros Masculine. The urge to control and build, to force, or to “make it so” through planned order.

• Eros Feminine. The power to facilitate and let order emerge, to “let it flow” through collaboration.

• Thanatos Masculine. The drive to end or destroy, to “burn it down” or “end it now.”

• Thanatos Feminine. The release of letting go, preparing for change without forcing it.

Each of these forces has healthy and unhealthy expressions.

Destruction, for instance, can be necessary, like ending a toxic relationship, while creation can be dangerous if taken to excess. The key is balance: releasing the feminine without suppressing the masculine, maintaining the creative destruction of Eros and Thanatos. We learn to channel or suppress as circumstances dictate.

As the old mystic Gurdjieff suggested, combining the wisdom of the yogi, monk, and fakir creates a “sly one.” Balance, aligning the cognitive (head), emotional (heart), and intuitive (gut), returns control to its inner locus.

The paradox of centeredness in ahimsa is that you will be better prepared for war.

Radiative Sovereignty

This balance practice begins within and, with mastery, radiates outward, a phenomenon we call radiative sovereignty. By mastering our inner world, we project peacefulness and determination into our outer world.

Starting with the self, we extend this harmony to family, friends, and the wider world. As the saying goes, “Don’t try to save the world before yourself.“ This concentric-circle approach ensures that our actions are grounded in a sense of centeredness and competence before we face challenges outside the home.

Strange that we live in a system that attracts the venal and uncentered to positions of authority. Then again, one who has mastered ahimsa is by disposition and practice averse to the desire for political power, which we have suggested is a pathology of the soul.

Subscribe now

A serene eye, nested within a triangle, figures prominently in Masonic symbolism. Outside the triangle, artists sometimes render bands originating from the Eye, which represent a Supreme Being’s radiance. While we are a distinct order, we appropriate this symbol and make it our own.

For our purposes, we can break the symbol down into its constituent parts, explain each part, and then put it all back together again as a symbol fit for our order.

Three Sides

First, we shall break down the familiar equilateral triangle, which doubles as the Greek letter delta. The triangle is composed of three equal-length lines, each symbolizing an important feature of our siblinghood. Because each side is of equal importance and constraint, which side represents the base is not basic, but relative, just as the front of a Necker Cube is also the back.

Simply said, the sides appear in no particular order: Religio, Fabula, and Spiritus. Latin is superior to English in this context because the root words are closer to what we intend to invoke with each side of the triangle.

1. Religio is the force that binds individuals into a community.

2. Fabula is the story we tell about ourselves that ensures continuity over time.

3. Spiritus is our experience of the ineffable, which is the mysterious breath of life.

Now, we can reassemble these parts as sides to form our delta. Each side is vital. Each side constrains and reinforces the others.

Consider also that each side has a primary modality, which is to say, a communication vector. We pray you will forgive Greek being paired with Latin.

1. Religio’s primary vector is Logos, as it offers reasons and structure that bind.

2. Fabula’s primary vector is Mythos, which offers timeless truths beyond the literal.

3. Spiritus’s primary vector is Pathos, as emotion animates us with qualitative consciousness.

Again, each enables and constrains the others.

When outsiders say they are *spiritual but not religious,* they seek to feel without thinking, or to experience the sublime without solidarity with others or commitment to doctrine or mythic truth. In many cases, we would say this is incomplete. In others, it is but emotional onanism.

The same can be said of the other sides that compose the delta. A religious order without spirituality is like a temple without prayers or the prayerful. A story without feeling is just a schematic in a sanctuary. Congregants without a story are but a bacchanalia or a bureaucracy.

Subscribe now

The Delta and the Eye

The delta, once formed, symbolizes elements that are resistant to change. Strange, then, that term delta indicates change. So be it. We are comfortable with paradox. We are also comfortable with the Unquestionable Answers and the Unanswerable Questions existing together in that dynamic tension that impels us as a siblinghood.

The delta of our order integrates change into the unchanging.

Then, of course, our delta (triangle) includes that which lies within and that which lies without, and together they form a unity of opposites, symbolizing the sacred and the profane, as well as the esoteric and the exoteric.

What can we say about the Eye, with its silent repose, its sight beyond sight?

Most of us, excluding pirates and Polyphemus, have two eyes, one on the left, one on the right. When we open our inner eye, also called the third eye, we imagine a third point above the head, which the Hindus call the crown chakra. When we connect the three pupils, we discover three vertices, which recreate our delta.

Opening only the left eye lets one see only two dimensions.
Opening the right eye with the left eye reveals three dimensions in stereo vision.
Opening the inner eye reveals nonduality and multidimensionality.

This can be a powerful experience. It awakens the entheos. But we must never confuse such insight with infinite sight—the omnipercipience of the All. To become a psychonaut, reckoning with nonduality and multidimensionality, is like an astronaut hurtling towards a single star in the spiral arm of a single galaxy, amid a billion galaxies, yet thinking he holds the keys to the cosmos. To reckon with such insight is to allow an infinitesimal fraction of Ain Soph Aur—the radiance of Ain Soph, the breath of the All—to flood your being.

In the top Tier of Joy, we touch the transcendent, if but for a moment, but that is as far as we can go in this life.

One’s inner eye is like a porthole opening to the deepest ocean. While it is indeed an aperture into the All, it is small, revealing just a glimmer. Perhaps we risk anthropomorphizing the All when we imagine the Eye as belonging to the countenance of Ain Soph. Yet we know, along some dimension, that our consciousness is the cosmos regarding itself. Deep within the bounds of Religio, Fabula, and Spiritus lies a mystery. And when we are ready to bring head, heart, and gut into alignment, we can start to open our inner eye and stare into the mystery.

But we must prepare for the possibility that one day it will stare back.

Sierpiński’s Secret

The delta contains multitudes. We have written that our telos is tikkun, where ongoing repair is work towards the harmonization of difference—expressed as organic unity. So our Radiant Delta, plucked from the arcana of our forebears, when viewed from within, reveals a recursive reality.

1, 3, 9, 27, and so on to infinity, complete with as many eyes as insights.

In the case of the Sierpiński gasket, depicted above, mathematics is metaphorical. For those disposed to logos, we appeal to the left brain to activate the right. We hope it helps to open the inner aperture. Suffice it to say that the experience of Spiritus is not just a feeling, but almost always a fractal manifestation.

Thus, we arrive at a signpost: the Radiant Delta is not merely a symbol to be decoded, but a living geometry through which we decode ourselves. As we trace its sides—Religio, Fabula, Spiritus—we discover they are boundaries that both limit and enable us, where each opens onto the others in endless recursion.

The fractal nature of our symbol reminds us that every insight contains worlds within worlds, every answer births new questions, and every time we think we have grasped the whole, we find we are holding but one triangle in a vast tessellation. To engage this symbol is to commit to a journey without a destination, a traveller’s telos—to embrace the paradox that we are simultaneously the observer measuring the delta, the mystic dwelling within it, and channeling a radiance from beyond.

In this recognition lies our most essential teaching: that the work of tikkun—of repair and harmonization—begins not when we fully understand the mystery, but when we accept that we are, ourselves, a part of it. The Eye within the Delta watches, and we watch back, and in that mutual gaze, the All contemplates itself through us, as us, forever.

Subscribe now

Marcionism was an early Christian movement founded by Marcion of Sinope in the second century AD. Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament—a deity focused on law and judgment—was entirely separate from and inferior to the God of the New Testament revealed by Jesus.

Marcion not only rejected the Old Testament entirely but also created his own biblical canon, consisting of edited versions of Luke’s Gospel and ten of Paul’s letters. Crucially, he removed what he saw as Jewish influences.

Early, mainstream Christians declared the sect heretical. Still, Marcionism remained influential for several centuries and ultimately pushed the Church to define its own scriptural canon and theological boundaries more formally.

Marcionism is back—with an attitude.

Underthrow

In Defense of the Old Testament

Marcionism was an early Christian movement founded by Marcion of Sinope in the second century AD. Marcion taught that the God of the Old Testament—a deity focused on law and judgment—was entirely separate from and inferior to the God of the New Testament revealed by Jesus…

Read more

7 months ago · 4 likes · 13 comments · Max Borders

Subscribe now

A master builder spent decades designing the perfect city, where every street and structure revealed divine proportion. When construction began, he discovered a neighborhood of old workshops in the way—places where craftspeople had worked for generations. The master builder demanded that the workshops be torn down immediately, as delays would compromise the city’s geometric harmony.

The craftspeople petitioned for time to relocate their tools and materials, but the master builder explained that sentimentality toward mere objects was a failure to appreciate the greater good. One craftsperson refused to leave her forge until she honored her agreement to finish a commissioned piece, but the master builder had her forcibly removed and her forge demolished.

The city’s divine plan, he explained, must supersede any contract.

When critics questioned the master builder, he produced detailed calculations proving the new plaza would serve a thousand times more people. How could anyone argue against this mathematical truth?

Vicious Mirrors

The Seven Social Virtues have vicious mirrors. If we are to practice the virtues, we are to avoid the vices. The trouble is, vices not only masquerade as virtues, but they can also consume us through our dispositions and habits. To avoid the vices, we must first understand them. That means it’s best to look upon them as one might a deadly snake or spider—that is, at a safe distance. Variously, the vices are perverse manifestations of Evil’s Trinity: Decadence, Control, and Nihilism. What makes the vices so insidious, though, is their shapeshifting natures, which allow them to hide in the heart and twist the Logos.

It’s not enough to present lexical definitions. We must reveal the vices’ power to trick, tempt, and trap. The following are vices we must understand and avoid.

Violence

To harm someone in her body or property, whether through threat, destruction, or constraint.

Because it is sometimes a necessary evil, violence is arguably the most difficult of all to assign limits. Violence is vicious when initiated against the innocent. When we use it in defense or retaliation, it can be justifiable. In war, matters become even muddier. For now, let us consider violence in peacetime.

We have called enemies those who would commit acts of violence against our persons or property. Once so designated, it is not always clear when preemptive or proportional violence is justified. One can argue that when an enemy has articulated a threat, defensive violence is warranted. But to what degree? When an authority uses various forms of threat and violence against us, perhaps feeling justified in the service of some external conception of the good—such as in enforcing an unjust law—at what stage is it permissible to revolt? Possibility trumps permissibility, of course.

Violence is never virtue, but it is not always vice. At least we can say that no one should use violent means directly against the innocent as a means to some purportedly good end. Such is nonviolence. Around that boundary, at least, we must build our practice in thought, word, and deed, acknowledging that cultivated hatred or rising anger can plant thoughts of bloodying noses and smashing teeth in our minds.

Corruption

To lie to ourselves, dishonor our commitments, or engage in self-dealing.

Integrity’s vicious mirror, corruption, reflects a cluster of subsidiary vices, such as dishonesty, double-dealing, or disrespect for another’s time. Individual acts of integrity—such as honesty and honoring one’s commitments—accumulate to create a society of trust. Similarly, the structural integrity of a whole building depends on the strength of each beam, joint, and truss. Individual lapses of integrity accumulate to risk social decay. Whether people start to normalize tardiness to meetings or the taking of bribes, corruption can spread and corrode.

In many places, corruption infects the whole of society. For example, if bureaucrats, police, or functionaries position themselves between essential interchange points, ordinary people learn to accept and participate in an informal system of bribery to conduct the basic business of life. It’s critical to see how corruption can become an infection that enervates and immiserates a society. Whenever one is in a position or office that allows her to act with impunity, whether at the highest or lowest echelons, she will be tempted to wield her authority in the service of vice—especially if everyone else in her position is doing it.

Callousness

To show cruelty or indifference to suffering.

The further a human counterpart is from embracing the Unquestionable Answers, or from joining up with enemy Egregores, the more likely one is to otherize him. Othering can be a necessary evil, too, but it also risks making one callous. If one becomes cruel or indifferent to suffering, she risks becoming that which she hates. It can be difficult, nigh impossible, to become a model of virtue in the face of one’s enemies. Indeed, it can even be unwise to practice compassion during combat. Still, in equipoise, one must do one’s best to strike a balance between errant compassion and unnecessary callousness when under threat or siege.

Some say Jesus's teachings create an unresolvable tension—that cruelty is sometimes tragically necessary but never fully righteous. The Christian must act in a fallen world while knowing his actions fall short of the ideal. Must they fight without triumphalism, with sorrow rather than hatred? Vexing questions bedevil those who would turn the other cheek. But they bedevil all of us. If someone takes a deadly action against an innocent person, it is not callous to kill the offender.

What about those whose life choices have pushed them into the life of a derelict? Is our compassion misapplied when we invite such souls to camp on the high street? Surely such compassion worsens their condition and ours. So, our default position ought to be to practice compassion until compassion is clearly counterproductive. But that doesn’t mean we ought to cultivate callousness instead. Doing so risks awakening a monster that lives in the Shadow—a monster that makes one dangerous to his siblings.

Monomania

To adhere zealously to The One True Way

Monomania is an unhealthy obsession with a single means to a single end. While there is no One True Way, some zealously adhere to it at others’ expense and to the exclusion of other ways.

What about the Unanswerable Questions? one might ask. Are we siblings not zealously to adhere to the Law of Consent? There is a difference between a rule that opens a thousand ways and a way that forecloses all other ways. Even a rule as simple as Travel on the right—while it restricts our freedom to travel on the left—makes it possible for innumerable travelers to make their way safely to countless destinations. By contrast, if a tyrant insisted everyone travel to the city center, chaos and gridlock would ensue.

Monomania can be tempting.

To resist its temptation, one must operate with humility, open one's mind to experimentation and therefore to surprising results, and allow others to live their own little experiments so long as they threaten no one. The fixations of monomania can lead one to compel others to help realize ends they wanted no part of.

Negligence

To fail in caring for one’s property or offices.

Private property is one of the most fundamental institutions in our order. Wherever we have made an implicit reference to private property, let us make it explicit here. Respect for the difference between mine and thine brings peace where we might otherwise fight over unowned property. We also know that entrepreneurial production and trade are good within the context of reciprocal property protections, undistorted prices, and a system of profit and loss. But there is no exchange without private property. Nor are there undistorted prices. The socialist calculation debate is over. Private property is a precondition of a healthy market economy.

But private property carries a set of ongoing responsibilities, a virtuous practice we call stewardship. When we fail to be good stewards, we leave behind less bountiful, less useful detritus. It’s not merely that we risk leaving degraded property or offices to posterity. We also risk failing in the most basic commitment to tikkun. The sages remind us that we cannot take our belongings with us in death. Our stewardship, like life, is temporary. But when we are negligent, we overlook necessary maintenance. When we overlook necessary maintenance, we leave behind material conditions that reflect a disordered spirit. Social decay prevails.

Casuistry

To apply a fallacy or deceptive reasoning

Members of our order are committed to truth tracking, even when our enemies are fond of using fallacies, deceit, or deceptive reasoning to create powerful Egregores. Casuistry, which is the vice of either communicating falsehood or communicating with falsehood, tempts us, too. But we must resist. One might think that casuistry is like violence, that is, sometimes a necessary evil in retaliation. But refusing to live by lies not only separates us from our enemies, the truth almost always finds its way into the light. Deception eventually unravels the deceiver’s plans. Unreality and illusion are like dark spells that eventually dissipate in truth’s radiance.

It might seem that those who live by lies have an asymmetric advantage over those who do not—and such can be the case in the short term. But casuistry is unsustainable through time. Lies unwind enemy designs. And casuistry, even when its practitioner tells no explicit lie, obscures truth and blurs perceptions. The secret of subversive communication is our commitment to truth tracking.

Injustice

To deal unfairly with the innocent.

Take great care. Fairness is one of those areas in which injustice wears the mask of justice. Our enemies will equivocate when it comes to fairness, because there are at least two conceptions of fairness one can employ—but one is permissible, one is not. The acceptable form of fairness is proportionality. For conceptual ease, let’s assume two people are doing the same type of valuable work, so each produces the same value per unit of time. But if we observe that Person Two works twice as long as Person One, then Person Two is entitled to twice the reward according to justice as proportionality.

Yet those committed to justice as equal outcomes commit to injustice. Under this theory, also called social justice, Person One and Person Two are entitled to the same reward. Indeed, under a graduated tax system, Person Two is compelled to redistribute a portion of her higher reward to Person One, even though she worked twice as much. It is hard to justify this quasi-slavery. So in our order, we do not. Instead, Person Two might practice compassion and freely choose to give aid to Person One. But that aid might not come in the form of a financial gift. Instead, she might offer advice, such as Work longer or smarter for greater rewards.

Purveyors of injustice, such as politicians, will twist themselves into rhetorical knots to justify fairness as equal outcome (equity). But they must laud and practice multiple vices to do so.

Subscribe now