The Brayden Trilogy: Part the Third
Creating New Gods: An Introduction
October 30, 2016
G.D.O'Bradovich III
When the Occult Researcher “has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth.”
1
In the initial essay motivated by Brayden, the exoteric thesis was to successfully deny my seemingly liberal positions, however we esoterically explored techniques to corrupt the youth. Although the relationship between Braydon and Yours Truly is not one of equals, and the explicit intention of Yours Truly is the acquisition of suitable material, nonetheless, the relationship is not a zero sum; as there is no clearly defined winner or loser. Through the application of generally accepted Occult accounting principles (gaOap), Braydon receives the benefit of conversing with a rational mind, Yours Truly benefits and future readers benefit. Clearly, only in the wonderful world of the Occult can three parties benefit without any detriment- three Occult balance sheets with credits, but no debits.
Leo Strauss commented that ancient philosophical writings have only one intended audience- “young men who like to think”. If his insight is correct, then the expected number of readers of the Occult is limited.
By combining the charge of corruption against Socrates with Strauss’ remark, we suggest that only thinking young men are susceptible to corruption. We infer older men are less likely to be open to changing their long held opinions and young men who do not enjoy engaging their minds are naturally immune to the supposed corrupting influence of philosophy.
The corruption of young men who like to think is easier than one might be initially supposed. “Liking to think” can be understood as receiving enjoyment or satisfaction from exploring, analyzing and reaching conclusions. Therefore, we believe that the successful corruption of the youth does not require either a great number of trial and error attempts to perfect the technique or different methods. In truth, there is only one technique and it consists of three parts.
In the famous Garden of Delights, we doubt that the serpent practiced his question on every animal that happened to wander to the center of the garden, until fate intervened and the woman approached the tree. Rather, we believe the serpent only spoke to the woman. We suggest that the woman was exploring the garden alone, because the man either had no interest or no desire to interact with the tree, when she encountered the serpent. At this point, the woman holds at least one belief, and possibly several, that she received from the man. The only belief that we can state with certainty is the prohibition of eating from the tree. This received authority can be understood as a tradition. Any tradition is an opinion inherited from the ancients, that is, those who came before the current recipient of the tradition. For the purposes of our understanding of tradition, it is immaterial if Adam was created hours or centuries before Eve.
The technique of the serpent is three fold. First, in our example, the serpent makes an interrogative statement based on opinions and traditions - “Has God said…?” Eve cannot honestly answer the question, as she does not know what God did or did not say, as the supposed command preceded her existence. The careful and thoughtful reader will note that Eve’s initial response does not answer the question (“We may not…”) and only at the end of her response does she invoke the ancient and unassailable authority of tradition (“God has said…”).
The second phase of the technique is to explicitly deny the response to the question. (“Ye shall not surely die.”) The purpose of the explicit denial of the received opinion is to create doubt in the respondent’s mind. Of course, doubt cannot enter into the minds of those individuals who have an opinion. Only those individuals who have not formed a conclusion can have doubt.
The third phase of the technique is to make factual statements refuting both the received opinion and the response. Factual statements increase the credibility of the speaker and, simultaneously, confirm the reason, or reasons, for doubt in the listener’s mind. In our example, the serpent replies that the woman “shall not die...and your eyes shall be opened...and ye shall be as Gods”.
The truth of two of the serpent’s three statements are explicitly confirmed in the third chapter; verse 7, “The eyes of them both were opened”; verse 22, “The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”
The truthfulness of the final statement, “Ye shall not die..”, is implied, as “their eyes were opened” and they are “become as one of us...”, typically would not be said either to the dead, or in reference to the dead.
Leo Strauss commented that ancient philosophical writings have only one intended audience- “young men who like to think”. If his insight is correct, then the expected number of readers of the Occult is limited.
By combining the charge of corruption against Socrates with Strauss’ remark, we suggest that only thinking young men are susceptible to corruption. We infer older men are less likely to be open to changing their long held opinions and young men who do not enjoy engaging their minds are naturally immune to the supposed corrupting influence of philosophy.
The corruption of young men who like to think is easier than one might be initially supposed. “Liking to think” can be understood as receiving enjoyment or satisfaction from exploring, analyzing and reaching conclusions. Therefore, we believe that the successful corruption of the youth does not require either a great number of trial and error attempts to perfect the technique or different methods. In truth, there is only one technique and it consists of three parts.
In the famous Garden of Delights, we doubt that the serpent practiced his question on every animal that happened to wander to the center of the garden, until fate intervened and the woman approached the tree. Rather, we believe the serpent only spoke to the woman. We suggest that the woman was exploring the garden alone, because the man either had no interest or no desire to interact with the tree, when she encountered the serpent. At this point, the woman holds at least one belief, and possibly several, that she received from the man. The only belief that we can state with certainty is the prohibition of eating from the tree. This received authority can be understood as a tradition. Any tradition is an opinion inherited from the ancients, that is, those who came before the current recipient of the tradition. For the purposes of our understanding of tradition, it is immaterial if Adam was created hours or centuries before Eve.
The technique of the serpent is three fold. First, in our example, the serpent makes an interrogative statement based on opinions and traditions - “Has God said…?” Eve cannot honestly answer the question, as she does not know what God did or did not say, as the supposed command preceded her existence. The careful and thoughtful reader will note that Eve’s initial response does not answer the question (“We may not…”) and only at the end of her response does she invoke the ancient and unassailable authority of tradition (“God has said…”).
The second phase of the technique is to explicitly deny the response to the question. (“Ye shall not surely die.”) The purpose of the explicit denial of the received opinion is to create doubt in the respondent’s mind. Of course, doubt cannot enter into the minds of those individuals who have an opinion. Only those individuals who have not formed a conclusion can have doubt.
The third phase of the technique is to make factual statements refuting both the received opinion and the response. Factual statements increase the credibility of the speaker and, simultaneously, confirm the reason, or reasons, for doubt in the listener’s mind. In our example, the serpent replies that the woman “shall not die...and your eyes shall be opened...and ye shall be as Gods”.
The truth of two of the serpent’s three statements are explicitly confirmed in the third chapter; verse 7, “The eyes of them both were opened”; verse 22, “The man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”
The truthfulness of the final statement, “Ye shall not die..”, is implied, as “their eyes were opened” and they are “become as one of us...”, typically would not be said either to the dead, or in reference to the dead.
2
In the second Braydon inspired essay, we exoterically explored our proposed evolution of man’s historical relationship vis a vis the gods. Esoterically understood, we lead the thoughtful and considerate reader to the conclusion that if the visible gods have been rejected by man’s reasoning and growing awareness, then the suggestion of the existence of an unknown and invisible god must also be dismissed.
While the corruption of thinking youths and the denial of the gods are relatively easy to accomplish, the creation of new gods will be more challenging. (We note the increasing level of difficulty from corrupting the youth to deny the gods to creating new gods.) To facilitate our efforts, we will focus on the general activities and behaviors of the gods, while ignoring their names and national origins, as all true gods are cosmopolitan. Secondly, we will combine these activities and behaviors in an attempt to form one composite being. If our idea of attempting to identify a unified being is mistaken, then our resultant creation will be unrecognizable. On the other hand, if our entity has certain consistent and understandable traits, then we may conclude that neither our initial idea nor our subsequent efforts were in vain.
Generally speaking:
While the corruption of thinking youths and the denial of the gods are relatively easy to accomplish, the creation of new gods will be more challenging. (We note the increasing level of difficulty from corrupting the youth to deny the gods to creating new gods.) To facilitate our efforts, we will focus on the general activities and behaviors of the gods, while ignoring their names and national origins, as all true gods are cosmopolitan. Secondly, we will combine these activities and behaviors in an attempt to form one composite being. If our idea of attempting to identify a unified being is mistaken, then our resultant creation will be unrecognizable. On the other hand, if our entity has certain consistent and understandable traits, then we may conclude that neither our initial idea nor our subsequent efforts were in vain.
Generally speaking:
Gods create agriculture, music and writing.
Gods suggest living in constructed shelters and in walled cities. Gods implement laws, forms of government and religious observations. Certain gods have numerous adulterous affairs, begetting various progeny by different women, while other gods indiscriminately seduce maids and youths, yet some gods are only enamored by certain types of youths. Gods have a general concern for humanity and for the overall well being of mankind. The gods are, in a broad sense, benefactors to man. While some gods have conflicting opinions about wars and which side to aid in an armed conflict, other gods are ambivalent to war. Motivated gods sometimes forcibly change corrupt governments. |
We concede our list is arbitrary and non exhaustive. The Informed Reader will bring additional pertinent examples to mind. However, we discern several general categories that can be applied to the stories of the gods that have reached our time.
These general behaviors are:
These general behaviors are:
The gods are creative and, in most examples of physical creation, they create from existing material, rarely do they create from nothing. Creation may also be understood as being productive.
The gods are so creative that they are capable of creating non material entities, such as laws, traditions and values, with efforts that are beyond mortals. The gods are heavily involved with certain specific mortals, they rarely associate with large congregations of mortals. It is rare for a god to be known to mortals and to be known for doing nothing. Even if the gods’ intentions are not guided by altruism, nonetheless, mortals generally benefit by the gods’ escapades. At times, the gods’ behavior seem to indicate the absence of a set of morals or a code of ethics. For whatever reasons, most gods act as if they are exempt from moral behavior that they would otherwise expect and demand from mere mortals. |
3
The one aspect that is consistent throughout these examples: The gods are always creating; always producing. The gods can be likened to the sower in Jesus’ parable, scattering their efforts over large fields with the expectation that the seeds will take root and provide an abundant harvest. Truly, mere mortals have greatly benefited from the gods. Yet, we must note that the benefits mortals receive are of a secondary nature. It seems as though the welfare of mortals was not the primary concern of the gods. It seems as if the multiple benefits conferred to mortals by the gods is entirely due to the existence of the gods.
We can state that the gods have an interest in all aspects of nature. While showing an interest in all animals, the gods are fond of mammals and are inclined to have concerns foe mortals. Overall, the gods are uninterested in humanity's activities, although certain gods show interest in specific individuals. Certain gods seem to develop an interest in individuals who possess at least one or several virtues shared by specific gods.
There are no reports of the gods displaying a sense of humor. We suggest the reasons for this is twofold: firstly, the humor of the gods is, no doubt, beyond the keen of most mortals, so any humor displayed by the gods is simply misunderstood by mankind. This tendency of mankind to misunderstand the gods is not limited to the gods' type of humor. Secondly, we suggest that those select men who recorded the deeds of the gods, and correctly understood their humor, would not want to present the gods as being anything less than serious and dignified. Clearly, mortals have difficulty reconciling humor with greatness.
Regardless of the gods concern for humanity, they will eventually abandon mankind. The gods prefer to live in the invariable world, or at least, the world that is not arbitrary and whimsical. We note that man's opinions of the gods are not consistently good or bad and, therefore, these opinions are arbitrary and without "rhyme or reason".
From the advantage of being mortal, might be inclined to state that some gods have a type of schizoid personality disorder- they swing back and forth from loving and hating, and back again, certain individuals. We suggest that this observation is correct, as far as mortals can discern. However, since we have shown that the gods have a general concern for man, yet can feel disgust towards certain individuals, we can state that the gods are not behaving as schizophrenics. Since individuals are a part of humanity, the gods are concerned, yet poor individual behavior can bring wrath from certain gods. Therefore, it seems that the gods do, in fact, alternate between love and hate, depending on which point in time the gods choose to value an individual.
The gods range of involvement with mortals range from indifference, to concern, to friendly, to intimate. We suspect the involvement of the gods is directly proportional to the degree that specific individuals approach certain virtues. As the gods are not a homogeneous group, it should not surprise us that certain gods value specific virtues more than other virtues.
We noted in our second essay that the unseen and unknown god is supernatural, that is, beyond or above nature. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the unseen god as the unrecognized god; he is observed, but he is not correctly understood. Our candidate for the new god seems to be seen and misidentified. As an animal, man is a part of nature, yet it seems that man’s mind, but not his brain, is unnatural. If this opinion is valid, then the products of man’s mind, ideas, can only be described as beyond nature.
The question of which god is more paradoxical- the unseen and unknown god or the seen and misidentified god- is best left to the Gentle Researcher to ponder.
According to several quotes from the writings of the Church Fathers and inferences from various New Testament statements, it is understood that “God became man, so that man can become god”. In essence, this divinization of man has been the teaching of the Orthodox Church since time immemorial.
We suggest the following interpretation for this difficult to comprehend and ancient concept: the greater being takes on the appearance of the lesser being and the god’s true nature remains unrecognized, except for a select few individuals. The purpose of this incarnation is so that the lesser beings may have the potential, but not the certitude, of becoming greater than what they are currently. Truly, the gods’ benevolence towards us is beyond realization.
As always, the Gentle Researcher will reach his own informed conclusions on the topic of creating new gods.
We can state that the gods have an interest in all aspects of nature. While showing an interest in all animals, the gods are fond of mammals and are inclined to have concerns foe mortals. Overall, the gods are uninterested in humanity's activities, although certain gods show interest in specific individuals. Certain gods seem to develop an interest in individuals who possess at least one or several virtues shared by specific gods.
There are no reports of the gods displaying a sense of humor. We suggest the reasons for this is twofold: firstly, the humor of the gods is, no doubt, beyond the keen of most mortals, so any humor displayed by the gods is simply misunderstood by mankind. This tendency of mankind to misunderstand the gods is not limited to the gods' type of humor. Secondly, we suggest that those select men who recorded the deeds of the gods, and correctly understood their humor, would not want to present the gods as being anything less than serious and dignified. Clearly, mortals have difficulty reconciling humor with greatness.
Regardless of the gods concern for humanity, they will eventually abandon mankind. The gods prefer to live in the invariable world, or at least, the world that is not arbitrary and whimsical. We note that man's opinions of the gods are not consistently good or bad and, therefore, these opinions are arbitrary and without "rhyme or reason".
From the advantage of being mortal, might be inclined to state that some gods have a type of schizoid personality disorder- they swing back and forth from loving and hating, and back again, certain individuals. We suggest that this observation is correct, as far as mortals can discern. However, since we have shown that the gods have a general concern for man, yet can feel disgust towards certain individuals, we can state that the gods are not behaving as schizophrenics. Since individuals are a part of humanity, the gods are concerned, yet poor individual behavior can bring wrath from certain gods. Therefore, it seems that the gods do, in fact, alternate between love and hate, depending on which point in time the gods choose to value an individual.
The gods range of involvement with mortals range from indifference, to concern, to friendly, to intimate. We suspect the involvement of the gods is directly proportional to the degree that specific individuals approach certain virtues. As the gods are not a homogeneous group, it should not surprise us that certain gods value specific virtues more than other virtues.
We noted in our second essay that the unseen and unknown god is supernatural, that is, beyond or above nature. Perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the unseen god as the unrecognized god; he is observed, but he is not correctly understood. Our candidate for the new god seems to be seen and misidentified. As an animal, man is a part of nature, yet it seems that man’s mind, but not his brain, is unnatural. If this opinion is valid, then the products of man’s mind, ideas, can only be described as beyond nature.
The question of which god is more paradoxical- the unseen and unknown god or the seen and misidentified god- is best left to the Gentle Researcher to ponder.
According to several quotes from the writings of the Church Fathers and inferences from various New Testament statements, it is understood that “God became man, so that man can become god”. In essence, this divinization of man has been the teaching of the Orthodox Church since time immemorial.
We suggest the following interpretation for this difficult to comprehend and ancient concept: the greater being takes on the appearance of the lesser being and the god’s true nature remains unrecognized, except for a select few individuals. The purpose of this incarnation is so that the lesser beings may have the potential, but not the certitude, of becoming greater than what they are currently. Truly, the gods’ benevolence towards us is beyond realization.
As always, the Gentle Researcher will reach his own informed conclusions on the topic of creating new gods.