Occulture Vs. Living Knowledge: An “S & M” Dialogue with Myself


I’m one of 26 contributors to The Sync Book 2: Outer + Inner Space, Shadow + Light. I was in two minds about doing it as I’ve never considered myself a synchromystic, and have even largely left my occult roots behind me lately. But there it is. I haven’t seen the book yet (including pieces by Alan Abbadessa, Mike Clelland, Anthony Peake, Paul Levy, Loren Coleman, and Ezra Sandzer-Bell), but it’s nice to be in such esteemed company, and I’m sure it’ll make interesting reading.

Here’s a small excerpt from my (rather contrary) piece:

So you’re saying that knowledge isn’t for discerning good and evil or right from wrong, but only for deciding what works and what doesn’t?

Right. If we approach experience in this way, we can begin to let go, little by little, of all theoretical, philosophic, or moral interpretations—the false knowledge of religion, spirituality, occultism, synchromysticism, etc.— and all our personal systems of belief.

Is there something wrong with trying to understand the Universe and place ourselves in meaningful relationship with it?

The only thing wrong with it, in my opinion, is that it doesn’t work.

Because it didn’t work for you?

It’s an intoxicating possibility—a lot like Prometheus wresting fire from the gods. But the result seems to be more or less the same. Eternal bondage. All belief is a means to define ourselves by assigning labels and qualities to existence. That includes the belief that we don’t exist separate from a conscious, animistic Universe expressing itself to us and through us with everything it does. Synchromysticism is an experience that can be had—possibly—but it’s not one that can be talked about, much less turned into an article of belief or a philosophy—or a “movement.”

So understanding doesn’t get us closer to the truth?

What understanding does is it allows us to relate indirectly to the Universe via our own ideas about it. It creates a buffer. Knowledge-based understanding is like a doomed romance in which we unwittingly fall head over heels in love with our own projections. Like Narcissus, we wind up drowning in our own reflections.

That’s rather morbid imagery.


You may alienate your readership.


It sounds almost moralistic.

Not at all.

Are you bitter about your own doomed romances?

Look, can we get back to the subject?

You mean the subject of how you are finding your voice?


So then you have to let me have my say too. I’m your other voice.

Yeah, but—


But we shouldn’t lose the thread.

The question of knowledge?

What it is and what it’s good for.

Knowledge about knowledge? Sounds convoluted.

Body knowledge and head knowledge. Knowledge and information. They’re not the same thing. Knowledge is power and information is a currency.

So what’s the difference?

Knowledge comes from within, information comes from without.

So where did that pearl of wisdom come from then—inside or outside?

I don’t know.

One thought on “Occulture Vs. Living Knowledge: An “S & M” Dialogue with Myself

  1. “Which brings me back to my initial assertion that a science — or knowledge system — which has no place for will or purpose is an obstruction to human evolution, and at this particular point a dangerous nuisance.” – Colin Wilson

    I sure would love to hear a conversation of this go down with the guys over at TheSyncBook.com.
    It would also be a good place for you to air out your current project(s).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s