The purpose of this document is not to provide proof of the existence or power of the Illuminati. (As I use it, “Illuminati” is a name for the collective and frequently overlapping adept membership of some secret societies, most notably those which pertain to induction into the sacred mysteries of the Hermetic Tradition, such as Freemasonry.) The real purpose of this document is to describe a secret theory of reality imparted to and/or learned by select high ranking members, also known as the adepts, of these societies.
However, by referencing the publications of these societies, and adequately demonstrating comprehension of said secret knowledge by one notable Illuminist, Aleister Crowley, it does successfully demosntrate that these societies did exist, at the very least during the time of writing of the aforementioned publications. (Although it is my contention that these societies, in much the same form, still do exist, and still follow the basic tenets set forth in this document).
But to describe the Illuminati’s theory of reality, one must also demonstrate how they justify it: detailing the argumentative process by which one can arrive at their conclusions. To describe their theory of reality is no small task – most of their theory is described in vague and cryptic terms – but it is even a larger task to provide their theoretical argumentation, which is what allows them – at least on paper - to justify their theory to each other and themselves. These justifications are much more rarely printed, and when they are, it is in even obscurer terms. Here, I will make such justifications as explicit as possible with the limited amount of research this author could accomplish.
This document will lay out its description and justification of the secret theory of Illuminism through several methods. It makes reference to the published works of Aleister Crowley, quoting him extensively. Using Crowley’s own words and the author’s own arguments, it will reverse engineer a large enough portion of this knowledge to prove that it is, or at least was, the secret theory of reality held by the Illuminati. Furthermore, I will reference other documents describing Illuminist theories which correspond with my theory, but not as extensively as I reference Crowley.
It may also be helpful to readers unfamiliar with Aleister Crowley to describe who he is, as to connect him to Illuminist secret societies. Poet, occultist, inductee of several Illuminist secret societies, including the Golden Dawn and the Ordo Templi Orientis, the second of which he would eventually lead, Aleister Crowley founded a religion, Thelema, which still has adherents today. He considered himself a prophet of a new Aeon, which he called the Aeon of Horus, and envisioned himself the biblical beast of the land mentioned in the New Testament Book of Revelation, calling himself THE BEAST 666 (capitalization his, not mine), believing the events prophesized in Revelation came to pass upon his ascension to prophethood, which culminated in his writing of Thelema’s holiest scripture, The Book of the Law.
The Book of the Law, although considered by Crowley to be his most important writing, is somewhat useless for our purposes here due to the obscurity of its language. Although the arguments made here can be verified by reading the Book of the Law, setting out a formal argument based upon that text would be too tedious and lengthy to be practical. As such, I will make frequent reference to other texts, namely “Book 4”, which includes “Part 3 of Book 4: Magick in Theory and Practice”.
The Metaphysics of Illuminism
In this course of this document, I will make reference to some of Crowley’s less ambiguously worded writings, most notably “Magick in Theory and Practice” and “Berashith: An Essay in Ontology”, which respectively exposit his metaphysical theories and cosmological theories, albeit without much justification thereof.
“Magick in Theory and Practice”, the fourth subsection of a larger work he titled “Book IV”, was published in the early 1900s. It contains Crowley’s most concise and complete description of his metaphysics in the non-traditionally titled first chapter, “Chapter 0”. The following excerpt is from the first page of that chapter.
“Infinite space is called the goddess NUIT, while the infinitely small and atomic yet omnipresent point is called HADIT. These are unmanifest. One conjunction of these infinities is called RA-HOOR-KHUIT, a Unity which includes and heads all things.”
Here, Crowley refers to divinities central to his “Book of the Law”: “NUIT”, “HADIT”, and “RA-HOOR-KHUIT” (capitalization his, not mine.) In the above quote, he seems to be establishing NUIT as infinite extension in space, and HADIT as infinite contraction in space. Later, as it becomes more relevant, I will examine RA-HOOR-KHUIT.
The above established the basic characteristics of the “divinities” of Crowley’s system, all three of which will eventually be shown to be not precisely “divinities”, but instead fundamental metaphysical elements of a system transcending religion and science. But before an argument demonstrating that can be easily made, another of Crowley’s concepts, that of his cosmology, should be exposited.
Crowley explains his cosmology, although somewhat less concisely, in an article titled “Berashith: An Essay in Ontology”. Before the following quote, he argues that a thing is described intensionally, or by what defines it, and also extensionally, or by what categories it belongs to. Establishing as such, he then applies these parameters to nothingness, which he posits preceded the beginning of time.
“Let us call time, space, heaviness, hunger, the categories. If a man be heavy and hungry, he is extended in all these, besides, of course, many more. Let us suppose that these five are all. Call the man X; his formula is then . If he now eat; he will cease to be extended in hunger; if he be cut off from time and gravitation as well, he will now be represented by the formula . Should he cease to occupy space and to exist, his formula would then be . This expression is equal to 1; whatever X may represent, if it be raised to the power of 0 (this meaning mathematically ‘if it be extended in no or dimension or category’), the result is Unity, and the unknown factor X is eliminated.”
After a brief and, for our purposes, irrelevant diversion, he continues:
“Now if there was in truth 0 ‘before the beginning of years,’, THAT 0 WAS EXTENDED IN NONE OF THE CATEGORIES, FOR THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO CATEGORIES IN WHICH IT COULD EXTEND! If our 0 was the ordinary 0 of mathematics, there was not truly absolute 0, for 0 is, as I have shown, dependent on the idea of categories. If these existed, then the whole question is merely thrown back; we must reach a state in which this 0 is absolute. Not only must we get rid of all subjects, but of all predicates. By 0 (in mathematics) we really mean , where n is the final terms of a natural scale of dimensions, categories, or predicates. Our Cosmic Egg, then, from which the present universe arose, was Nothingness, extended in no categories, or graphically, . This expression is in its present form meaningless. Let us discover its value by a simple mathematical process!’
‘Now the multiplying of the infinitely great by the infinitely small results in SOME UNKOWN FINITE NUMBER EXTENDED IN AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF CATEGORIES. It happened, when this our Great Inversion took place, from the essence of all nothingness to finity extended in innumerable categories, that an incalculably vast system was produced. Merely by chance, chance in the truest sense of the term, we are found with gods, men, stars, planets, devils, colours, forces, and all the materials of the Cosmos: and with time, space, and causality, the conditions limiting and involving them all.”
Here is a basic explanation of what Crowley claims above: nothingness, which he assumes was the state of reality before the beginning of time, is not merely nothingness, but nothingness which is not extended in any categories or pertaining to anything at all. Representing nothing as the number “0” for his purposes, he uses his definition of nothing to describe it as , implying his above equation. As he divides by zero in the second portion of his proof via ], he is not using conventional mathematics, and is instead using a more ancient conception of division by zero, which interprets said operation as resulting in infinity. Although his proof doesn’t make mathematical sense, his reasoning is very informative in inferring a theory which does make rational sense, if not mathematical sense, and also allows us to more specifically define the entities of the first quote, NUIT, HADIT, and eventually, RA-HOOR-KHUIT.
Let us assume the existence of time and space, as Crowley talks of space in “Magick” and time in “Berashith”. Time has two mutually exclusive possible origins (one being a lack thereof), but each seem to be flawed. First, if we assume time had a beginning, something came from nothing, which seems impossible. If that is indeed impossible, then time must have existed infinitely, in which case an infinite series of events would have had to have transpired for the present to exist as it does now, which seems equally impossible. As such, each proposition is equally absurd. This argument, known as Kant’s Antinomy of Time, demonstrates the philosophical dilemma of causally accounting for the origin, or lack thereof, of the universe.
However unresolvable that conundrum may be, most scientists assume the universe did have a beginning, which they describe as the Big Bang. But they do not attempt, or not often at least, to posit what came before it. If Crowley is right (though, due to the scope of this document, it bastardizes his position), time was preceded by nothingness, or non-existence. This claim might be supported by assuming that the state of reality before the beginning of time was absolute nothingness, and then inferring from a property necessarily inherent in absolute nothingness, in a manner similar to Crowley’s argumentation in “Berashith”, that something could occur.
Nothingness is truly difficult to conceive of. If one imagines nothing as anything, whatever you are imagining is something, and therefore not nothing. One good argument might be that the only thing one can say about nothingness which is necessarily true is that it doesn’t exist. However, if nothing, nothingness, or non-existence (terms I use rather interchangeably) do not exist, then when describing the state of the universe before the big bang, when there was only nothing, it is contradictory to state that nothing existed. Besides the analytical fact that nothing doesn’t exist, to even formulate a basic tautological statement such as “nothing is nothing” is immediately absurd, due to the existence and self-identity implied by the word ‘is’. A further argument, which may eventually bear the weight of its assumptions, is that nothing cannot identify with itself, and that nothingness is, paradoxically, not even itself.
(Before continuing with this argument, it is important to note that this proposition – assigning any meaningful characteristics to “nothing”, “nothingness”, or “non-existence”, is analytically dead in the water, at least without further argument. Later, it will be shown that the following arguments are made for good reason, because the arguments of analytic philosophy that would be made against these arguments, when assumed, will bring about similar conclusions. The author suspects that they are not the precisely correct conclusions, but the assumption that one can talk about “nothing” at all is the assumption that will, one day, need to be removed and replaced with a better justified deductive and mathematical theory.)
If nothing is not capable of self-identification, and is not even itself, or stated differently, nothing is not nothing, the logical implication of said non-existence as the state of reality before the beginning of time is that of an absolute double negation. This is a double negation, not a triple negation - it could be understood as a triple negation because of the use of three negative terms in the expression “non-existence is not non-existence”, but when phrased in a manner which is less linguistically ambiguous, namely as “the non-existence of non-existence”, it becomes clear the implication of the statement is a double negation. As such, nothing, not being itself, or anything, never existed, yet logically implied the beginning of existence, which, as the absolute non-existence of nothing, or the absolute absence of absence, or, in other words, but no less confusingly, the absolute existence of existence, everything. The non-existence of non-existence is the absolute existence of existence, not mere something, because if non-existence was not itself, and it was the absolute non-existence of anything and everything, then it became the non-existence of ALL non-existence, and thus the existence of everything.
To state “nothing is not nothing” is contradictory, but it is less contradictory than stating “nothing is nothing”. To claim a non-identity of nothing with itself is at least more analytical, following from its definition, which states that it is not anything. The statement “nothing is nothing” is not analytical, as any form of identification of nothing, even with itself, contradicts its definition. Later in this document, the problem presented by this contradiction will be addressed, and two tentative solutions will be described (in two different places in this document) which demonstrate that it is, strangely, an acceptable contradiction.
Above, an argument was presented that nothing is not itself, and can be equated to the non-existence of non-existence. Although Crowley’s “Berashith” does not present absolute existence as the immediate result of , which is zero extending in zero dimensions, or nothing existing nowhere, or, as argued here, the non-existence of non-existence, this document later makes good on Crowley’s conclusion. As the argument stands now, the non-existence of non-existence results in absolute existence.
Such an absolute existence, or everything, one which is the absolute absence of non-existence, is unlike any form of existence we have encountered in our experiences with the physical universe (with one notable exception I will mention soon.). This is because existence as we typically understand it, and I believe correctly understand it, requires any instance of existence to coincide with the non-existence of whatever that instance of existence is not. This may sound confusing, but I’m only saying that a dog is, in addition to being a dog, is a non-cat, a non-bird, a non-rabbit, and to include other non-animal categories, a non-machine, a non-cloud, a non-star, and infinitely numerous other non-things, all of which can be conceived of as the non-existence of membership within these categories, which are necessary properties of the existence of a dog. In other words, a dog is also a non-non-dog, and a thing can be described in both positive and negative terms.
Therefore, absolute existence, or the complete absence of non-existence, cannot be any of the specific things included in absolute existence/everything. If this everything included a dog, by doing so it would include the non-existence of a cat as part of the existence of the dog. Although a cat would also exist in such a vulgar conception of everything, the non-existence of a cat would still exist as part of the non-non-dog. This non-existence, which is that of the non-existence modifying the non-dog (making it a non-non-dog), can exist, unlike our absolute nothing before the beginning of time. This is because the non-existence of the non-existence of a dog is the existence of a dog; therefore, absolute existence cannot include any non-existence. This implies that there could be no left side or right side to absolute existence, because the left side would be a non-right side, and vice versa, implying that there was non-existence existing – a violation of the reality implied by non-existence of non-existence. Therefore, incapable of extension in space, absolute existence is of zero size, is condensed to a point, a 0th dimensional object, or, in less mathematical terms, a totally unified point of pure existence.
Not only does absolute existence, or everything, in this way seem a lot like what science describes as the condition of the universe at the beginning of time, before the Big Bang, which is that of the singularity or a point, but it also sounds like something Crowley described earlier.
“…the infinitely small and atomic yet omnipresent point is called HADIT.”
Although I have not described its omnipresence, absolute existence/everything can easily and obviously be compared to HADIT. But what of NUIT, infinite space? To identify NUIT as part of the cosmological and metaphysical theory I have posited requires a little more imagination. I will however, attempt to identify it as nothingness, and will draw a comparison between infinite space and nothingness through a thought experiment which combines the two: infinite empty space.
If there were indeed infinite space and there was nothing in this space, a unique and relativistic property of this space would emerge from the fact that size is a relative quality, or that the size of an object or a space is determined by reference to other objects or spaces.
For instance, if everything in the universe were growing at some finite and equal rate, then, because we are growing with it, we would have no way of knowing such an expansion was occurring – we judge our size through a comparison of the sizes of other things compared to us. This is how illusions of forced perspective are accomplished in film – the man in the Godzilla suit isn’t really bigger than a building, he’s just bigger than the fake ones they film him next to. Perhaps, in the thought experiment above, it would not be appropriate to say the universe was growing at all, because size is entirely relative.
Let us begin a similar thought experiment concerning infinite empty space. If you and you alone were in an infinite and empty, besides you, space, the only size you would be able to judge would be your own size as a whole person relative to the size of your parts: your whole body is larger than your torso, and when you add the rest of your body parts to your assessment of your size, it adds up to a total you.
But let’s remove your body in this thought experiment, and just say you are a disembodied observer in infinite empty space. There would be no reference points in such an infinite space to judge the size of your observation, whereas before, the space surrounding you was clearly larger than your whole body. Therefore, when we remove your body as a frame of reference, your disembodied existence and its domain of spatial perception could increase or decrease, and you would not notice. An infinitely large observation would be indistinguishable from a finite one. Therefore, due to the relativity of size, all distances would be identical, and, in such an identity, all spaces being incapable of distinction, would completely coexist as one, being the same thing. This conclusion follows from the identity of indiscernibles, or a logical principle implying that things incapable of any distinction are actually the same thing. Such a coexistence of spaces, accurately describable as an absolute identity, would effectively make this infinite empty space into a point, which, suspiciously, sounds a lot like absolute existence, or HADIT, which is also a point.
To reiterate, non-existence at the beginning of time might lead, through a paradox, to a point of pure existence. Such a point of pure existence is similar to what Crowley has described as HADIT, “the infinitely small and atomic yet omnipresent point”. Similarly, non-existence, when analyzed as occurring in a spatial setting, not only behaves similarly to its abstract analog, nothingness, resulting in a zero dimensional existence, but this infinite empty space also remarkably resembles what Crowley describes as the goddess NUIT, “infinite space”.
You may contend that just because infinite empty space would be experienced by a disembodied observer as having no distinguishable volumes, areas, or lengths of size, that this does not make this indiscernibility actual. But it is through very similar comparisons of the relative nature of space and time that Einstein is able to ultimately conclude upon the Theories of Special and General Relativity; as such, I would argue that there is precedent for using such an argument to establish truth, if not necessarily claiming that my conclusion must be true.
Having made what, I believe, are adequate explanations of NUIT and HADIT, I will begin to decipher the identity of Crowley’s third entity, which he calls “RA-HOOR-KHUIT”, described by him as one possible conjunction of NUIT and HADIT, which is “a Unity which includes and heads all things.” To explain RA-HOOR-KHUIT requires a further explication of the intrinsic qualities I assign to non-existence and existence.
Let us begin with non-existence, and, again, as applied to canines and felines. The non-existence of a cat coinciding with the existence of a dog also applies to specifically existing cats and dogs; all I mean by this is that my dog, let’s call him Bubba, is not my cat, Jinxie. Therefore, not only is Bubba a non-cat, but he is also specifically a non-Jinxie, among many other things. Therefore, the non-existence of Jinxie is what distinguishes, separates, or disunites Bubba from Jinxie. Furthermore, by his head being his non-leg, Bubba’s body has extension in space, his parts achieving separation. With this in mind, I suggest that non-existence, arguably, could be conceived of as disunion, or non-identity, among things.
Furthermore, non-existence, if it is intrinsically non-identity, cannot be itself, which we have already demonstrated. By reviewing that the non-existence of non-existence is not mere non-existence, but is instead absolute existence, we see that the modification of non-existence by itself is makes it into something else. If non-existence intrinsically is not itself, and things are distinguished by not being one another, then it can be asserted, and I think truthfully, that non-existence, nothing, or nothingness can be burdened with further nomenclature: the names non-identity and disunion.
Conversely, when describing existence, I posit that since the word “being” is used to denote identity with a thing, like “Bubba is a dog,” or, perhaps more tellingly, “Bubba is Bubba”, existence denotes identity. Beyond this merely linguistic argument, I have demonstrated earlier that existence devoid of non-existence is complete and utter unified identity – therefore, I will also burden absolute existence with more nomenclature: the names identity and union.
Furthermore, utilizing another Kantian proposition, it is true that the existence of existence is no different than mere existence. In this way, existence, in a self-modifying way, is united with itself. Contrarily, when non-existence modifies itself as the non-existence of non-existence, it becomes existence. Therefore, unlike the existence of existence, which is no different than mere existence, the non-existence of non-existence is different from mere non-existence. This analogically based argument of opposites further evidences that existence is identity, or union, and that non-existence is non-identity, or disunion.
Having made these properties of existence and non-existence clear, I will now briefly return to the problem presented at the beginning of my argument, which is the non-identity of nothing with itself and the contradiction implied by this. If non-existence is equivalent to non-identity, then its very non-identity with itself is necessary to its inherent non-identity, follows from its definition, making the statement “Non-existence is not non-existence”, and the equivalent expression “non-existence of non-existence”, analytical, and although literally contradictory, it is in accordance with reason. Although anyone familiar with the consequences of introducing a contradiction into an argument will baulk at this claim, later, when it becomes more prudent, I will further address this issue.
Now we can finally begin to develop an explanation of RA-HOOR-KHUIT. If non-existence begets absolute existence, what results from absolute existence? As I will argue, due to further paradox, absolute existence results in a conjunction of the two…what Crowley would call RA-HOOR-KHUIT, or what I would call a union of union and disunion.
To understand the result of absolute existence, we must understand it in two ways – first, as absolute non-existence of non-existence, and also as absolute existence. As the non-existence of non-existence, union exhibits a paradoxical quality – the non-existence of non-existence, while different than mere non-existence, is still a form of non-existence. Additionally, if the non-existence of non-existence is the same thing as absolute existence but is still a form of non-existence, then the non-existence of non-existence is a form of non-existence which exists, thus implying the conclusion that “the non-existence of non-existence is not the non-existence of non-existence”. Therefore, being negated, the non-existence of non-existence is now the non-existence of non-existence of non-existence, which, as a triple negative, is the absolute existence of non-existence.
This existence of non-existence, however, is equivalent to “the non-existence of non-existence of non-existence”, which, when expressed as the non-existence of (the non-existence of non-existence), the parenthetical portion equivalent to everything, or absolute existence, it can also be understood as the non-existence of existence. Therefore, by showing how the existence of non-existence and the non-existence of existence are both equivalent to “the non-existence of non-existence of non-existence”, they are, through the associative property, the same thing. The existence of non-existence/the non-existence of existence can also be understood as the identity of non-existence and existence, because by modifying non-existence with existence in “the existence of non-existence”, it therefore has the qualities of absolute existence, union; likewise, the non-existence of existence modifies existence with non-existence, disunion; therefore, these are self-same expressions, “existence of non-existence” and “non-existence of existence”. That these expressions identify, and that they each demonstrate the modification of either existence or non-existence by its opposite quality, union or disunion respectively, implies that the existence of non-existence/the non-existence of existence is the union of union and disunion. The union of union and disunion also evidences a paradox, as I will now explain.
Please, reader, forgive my linguistic inability, but this is difficult for me to word in any other way. If there is a union of union and disunion, it follows that it, the uniting union which unites union and disunion in the expression “union of union and disunion”, is a union which is not united with disunion, contradicting the status of the union of union and disunion requiring union to be united with disunion. To meet these logical implications, the union of union and disunion, both itself due to the union of union and disunion being a form of a union of union and disunion, and not itself, since the union of union and disunion is, contradictorily, a form of union not united with disunion, ultimately becomes the union of union and disunion united with the disunion of union and disunion. Furthermore, the union of union and disunion united with the disunion of union and disunion is another union not united with disunion, so it then becomes the union of union and disunion united with the disunion of union and disunion united with the disunion of the union of union and disunion and disunion of union and disunion. This continues ad infinitum.
I apologize that I did not make that simpler to understand, but perhaps an analogy will elucidate this subject. Imagine perfect balance. Let us, for the sake of this demonstration, define perfect balance as everything in balance. However, if our perfect balance is truly everything in balance, then this perfect balance must be balanced by imbalance, said imbalance being absent in a universe where everything is balanced. This results in a balance of balance and imbalance.
Perhaps, however, the Buddha knew of this paradox as well. And, I quote…
“Everything in moderation, including moderation.”
Although one can infer from the definition of “union of union and disunion” that it must actually be “the union of union and disunion united with the disunion of union and disunion”, the same logical result can be inferred without translating existence and non-existence into union and disunion. Simply enough, the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence is describable in two modes – existence, or identity, and non-existence, or non-identity. Following from this, the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence, like existence, is itself, and like non-existence, is not itself. Therefore, it can be inferred that the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence is and is not the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence.
Let us first examine the self-identification of the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence with itself. Because the modification of non-existence by existence grants non-existence the qualities of existence, and the modification of existence by non-existence grants existence the qualities of non-existence, existence and non-existence are the same in the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence. Therefore, when the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence identifies with itself as mentioned above, it merely maintains the identity between existence and non-existence implied by their reciprocal modification.
The non-identification of the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence with itself, as the inverse of the above operation, results in the separation of existence and non-existence. If the existence of non-existence if not itself, then it is the non-existence of the existence of non-existence, which equates to the non-existence of non-existence, or existence. Furthermore, if the non-existence of existence is not itself, then it is the non-existence of the non-existence of existence, or the existence of existence, or existence. As existence (used here to mean total existence) is the non-existence of non-existence, it is not non-existence, and therefore represents the disunion of existence and non-existence (although, as explained before, this disunion is paradoxical.)
Because it is the same existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence which identifies and also non-identifies with itself, then this entity, earlier in this document referred to as the union of union and disunion, both is itself and its negation, and becomes the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence and mere existence, which not being non-existence, is the disunion of existence and non-existence. Taken as a whole, this is equivalent to the union of union and disunion united with the disunion of union and disunion.
If the immediately aforementioned arguments are not indeed satisfactory, a more detailed argument is also possible.
The existence of non-existence can be described as a non-existence which exists. If this is true, unlike the nothing preceding the beginning of time, which was mere non-identity, this non-existence, like existence, can identify with itself. This is identical to saying “non-existence is non-existence”, differing from the non-identification/self-negation of nothing, which was stated “non-existence is not non-existence”. This is a meaningful difference, as identity does not denote a change – therefore, when “the existence of non-existence” identifies with itself, it not only results in absolute existence, but is also what it was before, “the existence of non-existence”. The result of this identification is, in this way, expressible as existence of non-existence is existence.
However, because the self-identification of “the existence of non-existence” implies a negation of this existing non-existence, and negation, a form of non-identity, implies a non-identity between things, the self-identification of this existing non-existence also results in a non-identity. Therefore, instead of describing the result of the self-identification of “the existence of non-existence” as “the existence of non-existence is existence”, it is more accurately described as “the existence of non-existence is and is not existence”.
One arrives at a similar conclusion when attempting to non-identify the existence of non-existence with itself. After understanding that the existence of non-existence is the same thing as the non-existence of existence, one can imply a non-identity of the union of union and disunion (the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence) with itself by stating the inequality “the non-existence of existence is not the existence of non-existence”. This inequality is accurate because if there is indeed to be no existence, as implied by “the non-existence of existence”, then “the existence of non-existence” contradicts that. Therefore, because we already demonstrated that the existence of non-existence is the same thing as the non-existence of existence, we now also know they are and are not simultaneously the same thing.
So, while before I described the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence as becoming the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence and existence, here I have described the existence of non-existence/non-existence of existence as existing and not existing. By describing it as existing, I have affirmed its self-identity, and by describing it as not existing, I have affirmed its non-identity, or its separation into mere existence and mere non-existence. In short, I have demonstrated that no matter how you describe it, either in terms of existence/non-existence or union/disunion, progressively complex relationships of identity occur between being and non-being.
So, after much ado, I have demonstrated that no matter which method of reasoning one uses, either simultaneous identification and non-identification of the existence of non-existence/the non-existence of existence, or drawing inferences from the union of union and disunion that it is both such a union and not such a union, one arrives at the same conclusion.
The union of union and disunion, which elaborates upon itself ad infinitum, can be understood as a conjunction of Crowley’s NUIT and HADIT. If the union of union and disunion is what results from the beginning of the universe, and it evolves as described above, and we are living in a universe formed in this manner, the union of union and disunion, in whatever degree of simultaneous union and disunion it currently exhibits, does indeed include and head all things.
I call the logic embodied by the union of union and disunion, which results from absolute propositions of existence and/or non-existence, “syncretism”, which means, in a rough sense of its common usage, to be simultaneously united and separate, usually when referring to belief systems. However, I use “syncretism” to mean a literal and absolute simultaneous union and disunion of opposites, specifically in reference to the entities of the system described in this document, existence and non-existence. I will also use “syncretism” to refer to the system as a whole, either used in regard to an abstract version of the system, such as absolute existence or non-existence when considered unrelated to the origin of the universe, and will use the term “syncretic logic” to refer to logical processes of arriving at the conclusions contained within the system. I have chosen “syncretism” to describe the union of union and disunion and entities resulting from this paradox over another word, “synthesis”, which could be used, but I will not due to its ambiguous meaning, as explained below.
Although the philosopher Hegel, whose similar ideas are frequently connected to Illuminism by conspiracy theorists, uses the word “synthesis” to describe the uniting of thesis and antithesis, opposing ideas instantiated in history, said union then uniting with its own antithesis, and so on, “synthesis” in other areas of philosophy merely means to combine things or ideas without any implication of contradiction or paradox. For this reason, I decided it would be best to adapt the word “syncretism” for a new application, the metaphysical system described in this document. Another reason I am not using it, not only to differentiate between Hegelian synthesis and other uses of the word “synthesis”, is to differentiate between my and Crowley’s system and Hegel’s, the latter of these systems describing an end to the synthesis of thesis and antithesis. I will use Crowley’s own words to describe our differences from Hegel.
“Nor, O man, believe thou that finality is anywhere to be reached in words. I balance
A and not-A (a), and finding both false, both true, transcend with B. But whatever B
is, it is as false and true as b; we reach C. So from C to c, and for ever. Not, as Hegel
thought, until we reach an idea in which no seed of self-contradiction lurks; for that
can never be.”
- Crowley, “Konx Om Pax”
Like Crowley, I also believe there is no end to this process of syncretism, and therefore use that word to differentiate between Hegelian synthesis and the union of union and disunion, and extrapolations of said union of union and disunion. I must also make another distinction concerning the word “syncretism”, though not between syncretism and other systems, but a distinction within my own system. I use the word “syncretism” to describe the manner in which opposites unite and disunite simultaneously, but will use another word when specifically describing Crowley’s and my theory of how existence originated from nothingness, which, although a part of and form of syncretism, I will refer to as “nihilogenesis”, from the Latin word “nihilo” for “nothing”, and the Greek word “genesis” for “origin” or “beginning”.
As I have already evidenced, it is very cumbersome to describe the unions of union and disunions which are extrapolated from the original union of union and disunion. Therefore, requiring a shorter way of describing them, I will refer to any union of union and disunion, the union of union and disunion united with the disunion of union and disunion, and further elaborations upon these, as a syncretism. If a specific syncretism needs to be described, such as the union of union and disunion instead of the union of union and disunion united with the disunion of union and disunion, then they will be described in terms of degrees. The union of union and disunion will be described as a first degree syncretism, the union of union and disunion united with the disunion of union and disunion will be described as a second degree syncretism, and so on.
So, what took me nearly 10 pages to describe and justify, Crowley described in three sentences with, as I will soon show, very scant following justification. Almost immediately after his brief but poignant metaphysical exposition in “Magick in Theory and Practice” quoted by me some pages ago, Crowley describes, again briefly, how to discover NUIT, HADIT, and RA-HOOR-KHUIT.
“This profound mystical conception is based upon actual experience, but the trained reason can reach a reflexion of this idea by the method of logical contradiction which ends in reason transcending itself.”
For those unfamiliar with the word “transcend”, one definition roughly means to belong to opposite categories and to therefore form a new category, while still belonging to the previous opposite categories. This word, as used by Crowley in the earlier quote from “Konx Om Pax”, means the same thing there, and is also the word Hegel uses to describe it. As many philosophers understand the word “reason”, and as I suspect Crowley was using the word, reason is frequently used to mean logic, which, in its simplest form, is expressed as the law of non-contradiction, or “A is not non-A”. In the instance of union, which at least partially can be described as existence not being non-existence, if being as such in the manner that existence, being the non-existence of non-existence, is not non-existence. However, as Crowley suggests, absolute existence contradicts itself, because the non-existence of non-existence is a form of existing non-existence. This contradiction results in the union of union and disunion, in which union, which I just identified with logic, literally begins to belong to both the category of non-contradiction, which is its own category, and begins to belong to the category of contradiction, which is the category of non-existence, and the conjunction of the two, the union of union and disunion, which Crowley calls RA-HOOR-KHUIT. Therefore, evidencing the correspondence between my theory and Crowley’s, my ideas, which describe his ideas, are concluded upon by reason transcending itself.
However, if reason contradicts itself, becoming simultaneously reasonable and unreasonable, how are we to make sense of its conclusions? For if an argument contains a contradiction, all propositions both negative and positive are implied, which the next paragraphs will evidence.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the contradictory statements “All spiders have eight legs” and “All spiders do not have eight legs” are both true. This assumption, which we will use to show why logic requires certain rules, constitutes a violation of the law of non-contradiction. Following from this assumption concerning spiders, the statement “All spiders have eight legs OR Santa Claus exists” is true, because in deductive logic, for a disjunctive statement (an “or” proposition) to be true, one or both of its assertions needs to be true for the entire statement to be true. But when you also assert that “All spiders do not have eight legs”, thus negating the claim that “All spiders have eight legs”, you also assert that Santa Claus exists. This is because we have already demonstrated that the statement “All spiders have eight legs OR Santa Claus exists” is true, so for it to be true if all spiders do not have eight legs, Santa Claus must exist.
This argument could be repeated ad infinitum with every proposition and its negation, not just those dealing with the existential status of Santa Claus. This all stems from one contradiction that we have utilized - that all spiders have eight legs and simultaneously all spiders do not have eight legs. However, any contradiction will do, not just those relating to arachnids. Therefore, if a contradiction is introduced into an argument, all conclusions and their negations can be demonstrated to be true. This proposition is known as the principle of explosion.
As such, as the very beginning of my argument introduces a contradiction, “Non-existence is not non-existence,” one could argue that, instead of inferring the immediate deductive conclusions of the non-existence of non-existence, one could infer all things and all non-things. Though I suspect this is not the proper logic to utilize, the result of applying the principle of explosion to the beginning of my argument produces similar results.
If all things and all non-things are inferred, or there is absolute existence and absolute non-existence, then all of this non-existence and existence is identified with each other. This is because, for any one given existing entity to both exist and not exist, it would form a contradiction; to state then, that “’A’ is ‘A’” would not be accurate, since it also doesn’t exist, nor would it be accurate to state “’the nonexistence of A’ is or is not ‘the nonexistence-A’”, since it simultaneously exists. Instead, “’A’ is the non-existence of ‘A’ and is ‘A’” would be more accurate, since it simultaneously exists and does not exist. Repeat this for each existing and non-existing thing resulting from the implications of the principle of explosion at the beginning of my argument, and the totality of non-existence is identified with the totality of existence – as every “A”, “B” and “C” is united with every negation of itself, all “A”s are united with “B”s, all “B”s are united with “C”s, and so on. This, the union of all existence and non-existence which results from the principle of explosion, as I have argued, is the union of union and disunion.
Furthermore, from this absolute simultaneous contradiction and non-contradiction, one would infer yet another proposition from the principle of explosion: absolute contradiction/non-contradiction would be identified with the negation of it, which is the combined positive proposition of all positive and negative propositions. Therefore, absolute contradiction/non-contradiction would be identified with the contradiction of absolute contradiction/non-contradiction, or the union of union and disunion united with the disunion of union and disunion. And, this too, would also have its opposite inferred, and so on, ad infinitum. Ultimately, the result of introducing the principle of explosion at the beginning of the argument has very little difference, only differing in that the entirety of the system I have described would be inferred, in totality, infinitely, at once, as an immediate inference from the contradiction inherent in non-existence instead of as a series of propositions resulting from non-existence. I do not find inferring the system from the principle of explosion as elegant or attractive, but it is ultimately not very different.
Therefore, if you assume, like cosmologists, that the universe had a beginning, and you additionally assume, like Kant, that such an assumption implies absolute non-existence before the beginning of time, then you must conclude upon the reality of syncretism: whether you use the syncretic logic I have proposed in nihilogenesis, or if you use the more traditional logic of mainstream philosophy which entails the principle of explosion.
In summation, Crowley’s cosmology, which describes nothing extending in no dimensions resulting in existence, and Crowley’s metaphysics, which describe NUIT, HADIT, and RA-HOOR-KHUIT, respectively being infinite space, infinite contraction, and the union of these opposites which itself includes and heads all things, can be understood reasonably, and using my analysis of his ideas, be reconstructed in such a way as to show how it is possible to arrive at his conclusions and justify said conclusions. Although this reveals the true metaphysics of Crowley, an Illuminist, it does not necessarily imply that all Illuminists share this belief system, nor does it necessarily imply the truth of the system; however, as the theory does seem to be well reasoned, it would not be incredible to suppose that Illuminism in general, which Crowley was associated with, instructed in, and therefore influenced by and probably influenced the development thereof, reflects these beliefs and the system which justifies them.
However, Crowley’s metaphysics has, at least in part, existed elsewhere. Pythagoras, the Greek mathematician and cult leader, was supposedly inducted into the mystery schools in Egypt. He would eventually claim, as Aristotle has documented, that the universe came from the union of the limited and the unlimited, or unit and void. The comparisons to Crowley are clear when you attempt to understand these as everything and nothing respectively, and understand that Pythagoras described the unit and void, respectively, as infinite contraction and infinite extension.
Furthermore, Hermetic mysticism, which is essentially the same as Illuminism, claims there is a union between macrocosm and microcosm, or the larger universe or “the heavens” and the smaller universe or “the individual human”. This principle is commonly expressed “as above, so below.” Although this correspondence is not as clear as the one above, it does correspond between a union of infinite space, NUIT, and the point, HADIT.
Lastly, in 33rd degree Freemason Alvin Boyd Kuhn’s book, “The Lost Light: An Interpretation of Ancient Scriptures”, more evidence of this metaphysics is found.
“The Egyptians had a name for the body of the locus of [reincarnations] which carry the central meaning of all theologies. This name now rises out of the dim mists of ancient Egyptian books to enlighten all modern bible comprehension. The city of the body, where the sun or soul sank to its death on the cross of matter to re-arise in a new birth, was called the City of the Sun, or in Greek, ‘Heliopolis’, but in the Egyptian, ‘Anu’. The name was given to an actual Egyptian city, where the rites of the death, burial, and resurrection of Osiris, or Horus (the two are the same depending on whether the sun is setting or rising) were enacted each year.’
‘But the name bore a theological significance before it was given to a geographical town. The name is made up of ‘Nu’ the name for the mother heaven, or empty space, or abyss of nothingness, and the prefix ‘a’, meaning as in thousands of words, ‘not’. Therefore, ‘Anu’ means ‘not nothingness’, or a world of concrete actuality, the world of physical substantial manifestation, precisely such a world it is in which units of virginal consciousness go to their death, and then rise again.
“Anu’ is then the physical body of man on earth. The soul descends out of the waters of the abyss, of the “nun”, or space in its undifferentiated unity, which is the sign and name of all things negative. The ‘nun’ is indeed our “none”, or nothingness. Life, in the completeness of its unity, is negative, to become positively manifest it must differentiate itself into duality, establish positive-negative tension, and later split up into untold multiplicity.”
(QUOTED FROM A TERTIARY SOURCE – LIKELY NOT ORIGINAL QUOTE.)
Although Kuhn’s ideas do not perfectly correspond with mine, he does describe “Nu”, who is identical to Crowley’s “NUIT”, corresponds it with nothingness, and he describes the negation thereof in “Anu”. Furthermore, he mentions a tension between the positive and negative resulting into infinite division – the union of union and disunion, a such said tension between positive and negative, does indeed - if not precisely multiplying or dividing – become differentiated into an infinite amount of differentiable parts via many iterations of simultaneously self-modifying identity/non-identity.
As I continue my research, one day soon adding to this document and rewriting it for style and clarity, I will document other historical correspondences between the writings of Illuminists and the theory contained herein – but for my purposes now, this much evidence is sufficient to prove a link between my ideas and those of Crowley and other Illuminists. Additionally, though it is a much lengthier endeavor due to the large number of correspondences between it and my work, I will extend my research to the Qabalah. (I post this in its current state of incompletion to be referenced in reading other posts of mine.)