RE: virus: Is there room for mysticism?

David McFadzean (
Thu, 18 Jan 1996 12:56:06 -0700

At 07:04 PM 16/01/96 -0500, (John E.Mayer) wrote:

>Mmmmmm. Misconception here. Spellcasting, which is what you
>refer to here, is a low form of magick. I haven't had much experience
>in that field. What is called "high magick" refers to the use of magical

So are we in agreement that spell casting doesn't invoke any otherworldly
forces and it doesn't work at all unless the target knows of the ritual?
(Which isn't to say that it doesn't work at all; I've read plausible
accounts of people actually dying if they believe a curse has been
cast on them.)

>techniques to, ummmmm...*forcibly evolve* the individual magician.
>In other words, to raise one's consciousness to a higher level.

This sounds intriguing, could you elaborate more on what is involved
or point out some references on the net?

>I don't think we're out of sync here on the concept, just the terms.
>Logic operates as an observable process, so we can chart its flow
>and direction, whereas intuition has not (to my knowledge) been
>heavily studied with a view to developing its methodology. The


>single exception of which I am aware is the work of the J.B. Rhine
>Institute, here in NC.

What is s/he doing?

>So we'll make do with general guidelines. BTW, magical writings
>maintain that the purest truth contains a lie. Parallel thinking?

Possibly, but I'm uncertain how to interpret that statement.
Maybe it means that no matter how accurate your map/theory/
hypothesis/assertion/statement is, it still isn't the territory.

>>Love is simply a biological mechanism
>>useful for pair-bonding and, ipso facto, perpetuating the
>>species :).
>Then homosexual love is a perversion of nature?

Surely you jest. It seems more likely that homosexuality is
a side effect of nature. I suspect you like to throw in these
value-laden terms just to be controversial :)

>I prefer to think of new ideas as the evolution of an old idea.
>If I've understood correctly so far, CoV is intended to be a
>higher octave of rationalism, something very different from
>the same old ideas in new clothes.

The truth of your statement really depends on what you mean
by 'octaves' and 'clothes' as they pertain to ideas. The CoV
is intended to be a new, effective vector for rationalism,
to spread the Good Word of memetics, futurism, neo-cybernetics,
critical thinking, evolution, skepticism and transhumanism.

>>That is one of the functions of a religion, but not the only one.
>Good! Other functions?

I believe a good religion should fill the following roles:
- developer/promoter/teacher of a self-consistent integrated philosophy
( called this the 'high tradition')
- focus of a community (the 'low tradition') including meetings,
discussions, support, rituals, etc.

In an earlier message (
it was pointed out that Virus is currently heavy on the high tradition
and I conceded the point, though I claimed the traditions were misnamed
and that the high tradition should be viewed as a base or foundation
for the low tradition. Even though I've been focussing on the philosophy,
there's no reason why the low tradition can't be developed in parallel.

I've got a couple ideas for a Virian ritual but they are still in the
early stages of conception. It's tough coming up with something that
will appeal to more people than it will turn off. If anyone has suggestions,
please post!

>Idealists would use the same old coat. Perhaps we are evolutionists.
>Virus = Evolution?

I don't think they are identical but evolution is the foundation upon
which Virus is (being) built.

David McFadzean       
Memetic Engineer      
Church of Virus