Transaeonic Metacosmology: Counteracting Archontic Distortion

Bjorn Karlson, Order of the Black Sun
 

 Most magical systems specifically describing themselves as relevant to ‘the New Aeon,’ or some similar eschatological concept, only have contextual significance within the particular cosmology which either produced them, or was produced for them.  The example likely to be most familiar to readers of this journal, Crowley’s tripartate aeonic model later expanded upon by Jones, Grant, Nema, and others, seems to provide the most common framework for modern occult views on aeonics, although most ancient mythological and cosmological systems have had some version of ‘world-ages,’ most often cyclical, but sometimes (as in the case of the Zoroastrian, and later Judaeo-Christian, eschatologies) quite linear and often apocalyptic.  Even rationalistic, scientific conceptions of cultural development seem to cling to an ‘aeonic’ style of thinking in their tendency to describe various ‘ages’ or ‘epochs’ of history. The artistic world has its eras and styles.  Whether or not a view of progress, regress, or repetition is introduced, it seems invariable that those concerned with spans of time longer than ‘recent’ tend to evolve models that look like what magicians would (hopefully) recognize as resembling aeonic theories.  Even psycho-neurological models of human development, and some less mainstream views of evolution, tend to focus upon periods of continuous experience marked by critical phase transitions at particular moments in time.  This quality, then, could be held as an essential component of all aeonic models – the view that processes of change have both continuous and catastrophic qualities, and that these processes can be in some way studied, modeled, or even manipulated.
 Beyond this basic quality, aeonic models vary profoundly as suggested above.
The ‘cyclic’ model of aeonics involves some kind of repeating pattern, which might or might not involve some kind of progressive degeneration followed by regeneration.  The most famous of this type would be the astrological model, while other would include Greek ages ranging from Golden to Iron, or the Indian Yugas from Sattva to Kali, or possibly the Teutonic model culminating in Ragnarok followed by a recreation of the world; familiar examples of those that don’t might be Ramsey Dukes’s suggestion of alternating influences of art, religion, science, and magic through generations, or Peter Carroll’s model of competing currents of the latter three, through an aeonic pattern.  Of course, it is also possible to have a premise of degeneration without the idea of the ‘cycle,’ such as some shamanic models in which the magic of each generation of shamans is weaker than the last (accounting for why all the magicians were apparently more powerful in the ‘dreamtime’ or the local equivalent thereof), or the Christian apocalyptic model in which the world becomes more and more corrupt until eventually Earth becomes Hell as the faithful are raptured away.  Of course, sometimes such models also include a glorious ‘end of history’ wherein the faithful are rewarded in an eternal yet physical paradise.  The Zoroastrian model seems to have been the first to involve a linear proposition involving an ‘end of history,’ an innovation the Zoroastrians ascribe to their deity of wisdom who tricked his enemy, the prototype of the familiar ‘Devil,’ into accepting a limitation upon their otherwise eternal conflict.  This paradigm includes both phases of time marked by distinct transitions – particular time-periods of the conflict between God and the Devil – and an end-of-time described as the Renovation of the world, when physical creation becomes perfect.  Of course, not all linear models are so moralistically inclined; the classic model of “progress” with each generation gaining greater and greater insight and power into the workings of the world, should be familiar to anyone with a modern “scientific” education – although some versions of this model also have an implied ‘end of time,’ such as the “Omega Point” now considered archetypical to concepts of the future which are increasingly benign, yet eventually reach a point of maximal bliss.  Some New Age models of aeonics also seem to be structured in this way, with some kind of planetary ascension or mass transcendence being the expected result of the proper alignment with whichever sort of benign forces are being promoted by the system in question.  Crowley’s model, of course, is uncertain as to its status, since it would be easy enough to regard the Isis-Osiris-Horus-(Maat) model as being based upon either a popular ‘magical formula’ like IAO or IHVH, but it would be just as easy to suppose that the model is intended as an eternal dialectic of thesis-antithesis-synthesis.  The latter supposition also provides a reminder that classical Marxist socio-economic theory is effectively structured like an aeonic model.
 However, there is one other quality which all of the cosmologies mentioned tend to have in common; they are at least purporting to provide a glimpse beyond the present moment into an objectively significant pattern in which the present ‘time’ is located – thus, they are technically trans-aeonic models, considering that they describe multiple aeons in a manner that implies a view from ‘outside’ the series.  Thus, a cosmology that was only an aeonic model would restrict itself either to the assertion that things appeared a certain way from the perspective of the present time (aeonic theories dedicated to describing the ‘present aeon’ in a particular way, such as the Thelemic commentaries on this being the Aeon of Horus, or the various Satanic or Setian counter-assertions that this is actually the Aeon of Satan or of Set, or those more post-modern models in both magical and mundane circles insisting that the ‘present time’ is a kind of dispersion in which ‘history’ no longer has objective meaning at all), or would restrict itself to describing the cosmology implied by one particular aeon (such as the various commentaries purporting to identify the current era as, say, the Wolf-Age of Teutonic myth, or as the End Times if one is a Fundamentalist Christian).  The first term in this article’s rather abstruse title hopefully having been now satisfactorily explained, the second concept in it must be addressed as point of primary focus in this article. This is the quality which none of the cosmologies so far mentioned in this article possess, being the quality of being a metacosmology.  What is meant by this, is that each tends to promote either the idea that its aeonic model is actually correct, or that it is the most useful, or (at the most non-dogmatic) that it is merely a model, but is the only model that can be considered from the perspective of the ‘current aeon’ being presented.  In order for a trans-aeonic model to actually be able to function as a meta-cosmology it would have to be able to model within itself any view of aeonics that might be proposed, without degenerating into a form of relativism in which it – as a metacosmology – was no more inclusive or useful than the more restricted cosmologies which it aimed to include.  As an example of what is meant, in a different but related field, Joseph Campbell proposed the concept of the ‘monomyth’ neither as the ‘best possible myth’ nor as simply ‘one personal view on how myth might be,’ but rather as a claim to having discerned something of the structure of the ‘meta-myth’ through which other myths could be explored.  Whether or not one regards Campbell’s work as having successfully fulfilled this purpose, it does provide a good example of what is meant about meta-cosmology.
 In order to consider such a concept in more detail, it would either be necessary to propose a trans-aeonic metacosmology as an example (which, although an interesting possibility, is not the purpose of this particular article) or to analyze what components and qualities are necessary to ensure that any such metacosmology would be functional.  One such quality is a capacity for self-referentiality (an understanding of the point of view upon which the cosmology is based) and another is a capacity for at least situational objectivity (concepts can be accurate or not, from the perspective of the model.  That is, the model must have some kind of rules or axioms which allow it to order perceptions of the raw chaos effectively).  For a trans-aeonic metamodel to be self-referential, it must first of all be able to stand outside the concept of ‘aeonics’ entirely; in the most generic sense, this means that the model would have to be based upon something beyond merely a concept of ‘phases of history,’ otherwise it would have no ability to refer to or evaluate itself.  The simplest way of doing this is to base one’s model in a magical theory which functions independantly of what ‘time’ it is.  This is a quality the Crowleyan model particularly lacks, since this model claims that magic functions the way it functions because it is now the Aeon of Horus, and because it is now the Aeon of Horus, magic functions in a certain way.  Basically, a meta-cosmology cannot really get away with being so tautological, and rather will tend to suggest that, because magic functions in a certain way, aeonic processes function in a certain related way, and so eventually to the processes that pertain to the current aeon (assuming the model is taken that far).  As to the quality of limited objectivity, the model needs to have some truth-standard (even if that standard is only utilitarian skepticism asserting that beliefs with no observable or testable significance should be jettisoned) as well as a context in which it can describe – yet not be contaminated by – the incompleteness, or even outright errors, in other models.  It does no good to have a metamodel purporting to include the totality of aeonic processes, if one also has to rationally consider the possibility that the Fundamentalists who believe that the Rapture is 333 days away might actually be right in some literal and observable sense.  However, a metamodel that cannot explain or account for the causes, conditions, origins, and possible effects of such a colossally important belief as that in the End of Time, is obviously limited as a cosmology, since such an incomplete

pattern would have to exclude, rather than assimilate or subvert, a belief held by generations of religious  extremists – and in some eras, the masses as a whole!
 Thus, the third concept in the title of this essay, that of archontic distortion.  The term archon is Greek for ruler, but its usual magical connotation is derived from the gnostic systems, in which the archons were the tyrannical rulers of the ordered social (and sometimes, material) cosmos, generally either ignorant and deluded, or overtly malicious toward magicians, often both.  The archons were frequently set in opposition, or considered a sort of errant, inertial reflex, to the aions, which to the gnostics were emanations of the inconceivable absolute.  Whether the aions were also understood by the gnostics to be phases of time is uncertain, although the word does mean, in the Greek, ‘an immeasurable span of time,’ but considering the close relationship between Hellenic Gnostic ideas, and Persian occultism (such as Zurvanism, a mystical and magical tradition dedicated to a mythic system associated with Zurvan, the God of Time), it is certainly a likely possibility.
In terms of Gnostic cosmology, the archons were usually identified as the ruling powers of religious, mystical, or magical systems hostile to the gnosis.  Thus, the vengeful God of the Jews was usually the favored candidate for Chief Archon, although some Gnostics preferred a composite terror called Ialtabaoth which seemed to combine the Hebraic Sabaoth with indeterminate cthonic or Titanic forces, and others took a more transcendentalist stance and considered a Satan figure to be the actual Ruler of the World (these became the infamous Cathars and Bogomils of medieval heresiology).  The modern aeonist might borrow from the methodology and consider the various traditions inimical to a coherent aeonic meta-model to be, themselves, archontic.  Whether the egregores of these ‘counter-magical currents’ are to be regarded as actually existing archons, or whether the practitioners of such systems should themselves be regarded as ‘archontic’ (as various antinomian gnostics certainly regarded their opponents in Church and State), is generally a matter of taste – but the significance of including a concept of ‘distortion’ in a transaeonic metacosmology is one of technique rather than mere aesthetics.
 Beyond the social and cosmological value of being able to relate the pernicious influence of such doctrines as eschatological fundamentalism to previous magic-hating visions such as the infamously moralistic dualism of Zoroastrian Persia (which later became the fanatic Messianism of the Essenes which profoundly influenced world history by means of a certain now notorious Jewish sect that subverted the Roman Empire only to later contribute to dualistic forms of both anti-paganism and anti-Semitism that have been a scourge to the modern world), the concept of aeonic distortion has the function of explaining apparent tautologies such as discerning a difference in the functioning of the magical patterns behind the aeonic pattern, from age to age.  Aeonic models lacking this concept are at a loss to indicate how it can be the case, for example, that (to once again use Crowley’s familiar pattern), the “magical formulae” of the ‘Dying God’ were valid during the Aeon of Osiris yet not valid during the Aeon of Horus – despite that the ruling priests of this aeon were apparently the counter-magical tyrants of Europe for over a millennium, while the gnostic heretics they crushed at every available opportunity were generally favorable to occult knowledge, and frequently ignored the ‘death of Christ’ as utterly irrelevant to their gnosis.  Indeed, it seems hardly likely that most modern Thelemites would want to replace the former archons of Christendom as the prime magical authorities of society, and thereby fill the role of heresy hunter (although some seem to have taken on that role rather well when their form of occult orthodoxy has been questioned) – however, such a context is exactly what Crowley’s aeonic model would imply, if it is to be taken literally that the aeonic process is an inexorable march of one-idea-overthrowing-another.  The complex processes of assertion, innovation, and dissent that occur in any society necessarily contradict over-simplistic models, and while “the map is not the territory,” it is also the case that maps capable of pointing out and compensating for their own inaccuracies tend to be much more useful than those maps promoting the mis-impression that they are the territory.  Therefore, if it is possible to model within cosmologies those factors which contribute to cosmology itself being either obscure or positively ignorant, this possibility should be embraced, as it allows the model to be not only a descriptive mechanism, but a tool for directed social change in a manner befitting the magician’s intent. This allows it to retain the potential of accuracy even when the very aeonic pattern it proposes is being diverted due to the process of inevitable human inertia – which both produces and empowers tyrants of various disposition. Hence, one could easily develop full cosmologies concerned with tracing the origin and influence of various ‘archontic distortions’ which introduce otherwise untenable concepts into the currents of belief.
 Without indulging the necessarily attractive tangent of following out various specific examples, it may be useful to suggest a few possible explanations for such distortion.  The most generic is simply that some aspect of ‘magical inertia’ is inevitable – otherwise there would be no noticeable aeonic cycle at all; the primal aeon of either total unconsciousness, or total magic, or whatever a given cosmology indicates as ‘The Beginning,’ would have no reason to transmute into anything else.  This explanation supposes that the premise of distortion is not only useful, but a quality intrinsic to aeonic meta-models.  Similar to this, but slightly more mythologized, is the idea that, while not necessary to an aeonic meta-paradigm by definition, archontic distortion of the pattern eventually occurs at some point due to the tendency of magical thought toward the antinomian – such that, in a condition of total magical coherence and ascendancy, some magician will surely rebel against even that.  Of course, one would not have to suppose that there has been some aeon of magical dominance in the past (although many myths do), but it does seem to be a logical necessity that from the point of view of a magician, any aeon in which magic was disregarded as the most inclusive and valid metaparadigm, would be an aeon of profound ‘distortion’ since the very means of discerning the nature of the aeon (magical insight) would be being devalued in favor of some inferior truth standard such as ‘faith in the book/deity/dogma’ or whatever.
A more structural notion of distortion is that it arises from incoherence in the aeonic pattern for reasons of socio-cultural interaction in a tangential manner.  This theory suggests that the combination of magical currents or aeonic models in foreign contexts tends to produce self-perpetuating ignorances or misapprehensions which become a kind of ‘noise’ that eventually self-perpetuates.  An example of this that has nothing to do with aeonics directly, but demonstrates a similar process in a similar context, is millenarian crazes based upon arbitrary calendar dates like 1000 or 2000 A.D.  Indeed, dating systems like Anno Domini are a slightly more aeonic example.  Whose lord?  When was he supposed to have been born exactly?  And why are generations upon generations of Europeans dating their calendar in the language of the people who crucified the supposed god-man whose birth and career inspired the dating system, anyway?  Of course, this observation would be common to any secular historian, and reminds the aeonist that simple models such as ‘first they worshipped Goddesses because humanity was infantile, and then they worshipped Gods because it was time for humanity to develop moralistic social structures, but now we worship the Child because it is time for humanity to grow up and come into its own’ might well be questioned very seriously by the magician.  However, just as the recognition that the birth of the Jew In Question has no essential calendrical importance (contrary to events with objective calendrical import, such as eclipses) in no way minimizes an understanding of the real sociocultural and magical malaise wrought by the Christian system, so the recognition of certain doctrines or magical systems as distortionate, should not be taken as a license to disregard the real influence of either their proponents, their egregores, or both.
 Hence, the article will conclude, not with suggestions toward a trans-aeonic meta-cosmology (since it is far more interesting to see whether readers might be inspired to consider such themselves), but rather with a few indications toward a cosmology of the present aeon, since lack of a reference point is a primary cause of all magical confusion.  And indeed, confusion could certainly be considered a potent quality of the ‘present moment’ if the globe as a whole is to be considered.  While various systems could be promoted for imposing some kind of pattern recognition upon history or its various proposed cycles or phases, it is clear that the ‘post-modern’ has already outstripped the modern – but only in some modern contexts.  Much as philosophy proclaimed the death of God while people all over the world still worship the Chief Archon in one form or another, those post-modernists who have proclaimed the ‘death of history,’ the’information age,’ and so on, can describe this phenomena only within the limited context in which its terms are intelligible.  For the fundamentalist Christian or Islamist, it might be the End Times, but it is certainly not a ‘post-historical reality.’  Thus, the present aeonic moment is one of profound transition – not merely a transition from one supposed ‘age’ to another, nor the usual case of one culture being in some respects out of phase with another – but rather a catastrophic, possibly cataclysmic, introduction of cosmologies of another order entirely within the present system.  That is, when only some of the components of the ‘modern’ have become fully self-referential, and as their own self-referentiality would describe, “post”-modern, this generates a type of sociocultural strife that must be recognized as profoundly significant (and possibly earth-shattering).  Much as the abyssal dispersion affects the magician’s personality by introducing a discontinuity either disasterous or illuminatory, so the introduction of this degree of discontinuity into the belief patterns of an increasingly inter-communicative world can only indicate that this is an aeonic transition of extreme importance and potential for power – whatever one’s particular agenda might be.   This condition, of course, accounts for the profound dispersion reflected even in the magical community’s perspective on aeonics.  When mundane society retains the profound incoherence that first world intellectuals consider the demise of meaning while pre-pubescent terrorists explode themselves inspired by the certainty that God will reward their faith, it cannot be in any way surprising that 2000 year long aeons are said to begin in specific times like 1904 only to be multiply ‘superceded’ by the vision of any innovative magician who happened to be born subsequent to this date.  Hopefully it is not too optimistic to promote the possibility that having a critical mass of insight and coherence within present cultures would effect the necessary transmutation of social perspective to afford success in the ordeal of the Aeonic Abyss.