[tmbchr]™

The Occult Origins of Science



This is part of a larger narrative theory that I am working on, and I just wanted to jot it down before it left my conscious mind for parts unknown.

Modern science, my theory goes, developed out of what we today consider to be occultism. The most obvious proofs for this are the medieval disciplines such astrology and alchemy, which gave rise to astronomy and chemistry, respectively. Typically, when you hear this connection made, you hear attached the disclaimer that the sciences which arose out of the occult did so only by stripping the occult disciplines of their messy superstition and irrationalism. What they mean is that modern science removed recognition of the internal correspondences to external events and processes. It did not, I don’t think, remove the “as above, so below” microcosm/macrocosm issue - it simply just swept it out of the picture. And I have yet to see anyone actually be so bold as to suggest that maybe without occultism, science couldn’t ever have come into being at all.

Anyway, we can historically prove that science arose out of occultism. There is an interesting extension of this though when you look at the roots of occultism. In most cultures and traditions, you will find the teachings that it was originally the spirits who taught human beings the occult arts to begin with. A ready example that comes to mind is the ayahuasca shamans of the Amazon. They talk about how they acquire their knowledge of plants, medicine, etc directly by interacting with jungle spirits.

So, by stringing these beads together we could tentatively make a case for the notion (at least in a narrative sense) that modern science arose out of the occult. And the occult came to humans through direct contact with spirits. Which would mean, then, that spirits endeavored, long ago at the dawn of humanity to instill in our species a dedication to science, and taught the fundamental concepts and processes which would ultimately lead us to where we are now in the world.

The other direction in which I would extend this narrative would then be to the present day. As I have touched on elsewhere, perhaps what we are seeing today is science’s reunion with its long lost occult brethren. Maybe these two streams of knowledge were intentionally forked off to allow each to develop uniquely, so that when they were brought together again, their mingling would would raise the whole endeavor to a higher plane. Is science about to start helping ancient arcane spirits incarnate into our reality? Or is something else entirely going on…?

PS. Also check out an information-gathering thread I put together on the RigInt forum to find other links between science and the occult.

, , , , ,





8 Reader Responses

  1. Alec Says:
    August 27th, 2006 at 9:40 pm

    It strikes me that science, as distinct from it’s historical predecessor - occultism, is defined by adherence to the scientific method. If spirits taught us occultism in a philanthropic gesture, as you suggest, wouldn’t it have more sense to teach us the scientific method, rather than a hodge-podge of poorly substantiated theories?

    I don’t see anything particularly profound about the historical links between occultism and science. We floundered about for a time, formulating theories but having no good way to test them, until the development of the scientific method, which allowed us to separate the gold from the dross, so to speak. Hm, the scientific method is a bit like the Philosopher’s Stone, in this regard. Weird.

    That’s not to say that all the theories of occultism are without virtue, simply because they fell by the wayside. We might merely lack the means to test them.

    But, just for clarification, are you saying that spirits gave us occultism, which in turn birthed science, and therefore, by proxy, spirits were responsible for giving us science? Don’t forget that science gave us the atomic bomb, so maybe the spirits really wanted us to blow ourselves to hell.

  2. slomo Says:
    August 27th, 2006 at 10:11 pm

    That’s not to say that all the theories of occultism are without virtue, simply because they fell by the wayside. We might merely lack the means to test them.

    This is the fundamental disconnect between science and occult. Only beings of a lower order than human can be subjected to the scientific method: mineral, vegetable, and nonhuman animal. Even many of these beings have their collective souls that are difficult to address “scientifically” (otherwise we would not have so badly fucked our ecology). You can see science start to break down at the boundary of psychology and sociology, except recent advances in neurochemical reductionism, whose results are difficult to reproduce and whose technological bounty is limited to crude psychopharmaceuticals. All bets are off once you try to interact with beings of a higher order. They won’t submit to being studied, or if they do they’ll fuck with your head just for sport.

  3. Alec Says:
    August 27th, 2006 at 11:02 pm

    Even many of these beings have their collective souls that are difficult to address “scientifically” (otherwise we would not have so badly fucked our ecology).

    What do the souls of mineral, vegetable, and nonhuman animals have to do with us fucking up our ecology? Doesn’t our present scientific understanding of ecology provide an adequate explanation of how our actions have damaged the Earth? I don’t see any reason to postulate the existence of souls to explain this one.

    I agree that the relatively intangible nature of the social sciences don’t permit the same level of rigorous study as the physical sciences. Still, it’s generally possible to formulate a theory, make a claim, and test that claim.

    But let’s assume that it’s impractical or impossible to test claims about the existence of spiritual beings. Fair enough. It is, however, possible to test claims made by other occult theories. Take astrology, as one example. To my knowledge, there have been several studies done to test the claims that personality is somehow influenced by the position of the planet’s during one’s birth. Overall, the results have not been encouraging.

    The problem, in my experience, with many occult theories is that the adherents of them are notoriously evasive when it comes to making any concrete claims. Now, you could argue that it’s impossible to make a claim that’s testable because, after all, you can’t measure the soul with a yard-stick. But this makes me very nervous. If we can’t test any of these theories, how can we distinguish between the meritous ones and the complete bullshit? I’d like to hear anybody’s opinion on this.

  4. Tim Boucher Says:
    August 28th, 2006 at 12:01 am

    But, just for clarification, are you saying that spirits gave us occultism, which in turn birthed science, and therefore, by proxy, spirits were responsible for giving us science?

    I’m not sure. Perhaps something very similar. I’m testing out an idea and seeing where it goes. I think the point about them giving us the atomic bomb though is a good one and fits well into this:

    http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/08/06/ascensionism-get-it-up/

    Most of the myths about gods/spirits who give mankind gifts of knowledge do not end with the gift-giver being rewarded by the other gods. He is usually punished severely and maybe its not simply out of jealously that the godly secrets have been given away. Maybe its for our protection?

    Also, we could probably make a ton of interesting points about modern scientists being granted wisdom and discoveries by way of mystical experiences and theories, dreams, etc. I would love to see a book on that if anyone knows…

    Anyway, who’s to say we don’t have the means to test occult theories? That’s poppycock. The whole point of practicing magick or any spiritual path is that you DO have the means to test them and that you ARE supposed to get results.

  5. slomo Says:
    August 28th, 2006 at 6:26 am

    Anyway, who’s to say we don’t have the means to test occult theories? That’s poppycock. The whole point of practicing magick or any spiritual path is that you DO have the means to test them and that you ARE supposed to get results.

    One can test occult theories in the same way one can test (other) strategies for getting along in life. But it is impossible to test them using the scientific method, which assumes that experiments can be reproduced by holding all variables constant between experiments: impossible with the occult.

    Doesn’t our present scientific understanding of ecology provide an adequate explanation of how our actions have damaged the Earth? I don’t see any reason to postulate the existence of souls to explain this one.

    One doesn’t need theories of group animal and vegetable souls to explain ecological disturbance. But if one does believe in group souls (as I do) one would presumably be more attentive to ecological processes and careful of disturbances. One theory encompasses the other.

    Take astrology, as one example. To my knowledge, there have been several studies done to test the claims that personality is somehow influenced by the position of the planet’s during one’s birth. Overall, the results have not been encouraging.

    The problem, in my experience, with many occult theories is that the adherents of them are notoriously evasive when it comes to making any concrete claims. Now, you could argue that it’s impossible to make a claim that’s testable because, after all, you can’t measure the soul with a yard-stick. But this makes me very nervous.

    Fair enough. With the occult (a word that I am using loosely here to represent matters of intelligences that are generally superior to human), ideas are generally tested through personal experience. Naturally, that leaves one wide open for self delusion, which is why tools of discernment and ruthless self-evaulation are important. But, ultimately, all things come down to “faith” (either you believe or you don’t) and whether a particular practice is “working” for you, i.e. facilitating your connectedness with the larger world.

  6. Alec Says:
    August 28th, 2006 at 9:40 pm

    One can test occult theories in the same way one can test (other) strategies for getting along in life. But it is impossible to test them using the scientific method, which assumes that experiments can be reproduced by holding all variables constant between experiments: impossible with the occult.

    I see a difficulty in this. If, as you say, we cannot subject occult theories to the scientific method because the variables are either too manifold, or impossible to hold constant, then how can an occultist hope to achieve any predictable effect?

    Occultists claim that, by applying certain principles, they are able to produce certain effects. Now this assumes they have all (or most) of the variables accounted for and under control. Or, at the very least they’ve controlled for the variables with the highest degree of correlation to the desired result. So, by the same token, shouldn’t another person be able to reproduce the same conditions? What about the occultist himself? Could he reproduce the same conditions?

  7. slomo Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 6:20 am

    Occultists claim that, by applying certain principles, they are able to produce certain effects.

    I tend to think that working with the occult is akin to working within a relationship. Results are predictable to the extent that people with whom you are in relation are predictable. In both cases, you’re dealing with personalities, not objects.

  8. prunes Says:
    August 29th, 2006 at 11:11 am

    If, as you say, we cannot subject occult theories to the scientific method because the variables are either too manifold, or impossible to hold constant, then how can an occultist hope to achieve any predictable effect?

    The occultist will not be able to (I presume) produce repeatable quantitative results; if he could, he would be doing science per definition. What he will be able to do is to produce repeatable qualitative results, which may differ in their specifics, but that clearly relate to each other in such a systematic (although uncalculable!) way that to deny the order found therein is to intentionally lie to ourselves, to ignore what is right before us.

    I guess the issue is how we decide which repeatable results are ‘correct’ or acceptable. If we only agree that procedures where “the numbers come out right” are acceptable, well then we will find ourselves at a purely quantitative materialism.

    I can vouch that phenomena can be experienced which impress themselves upon the mind to such a degree that their validity cannot be, if I am to be honest with myself, denied. However, these phenomena are in no way amenable to quantitative description or formal modelling; they are, as far as I can tell, totally outside the purview of quantitative science, nevertheless, they are not “irrational”, the experience of them solves several philosophical paradoxes. Quantitative science is a subset of of occult science, which amounts to saying physics is of course contained within metaphysics.



SURROUND YOURSELF WITH STRENGTH.