Archive for the ‘Articles by Myatt’ Category

We Love Unsuspecting

Earth from Space
We Love Unsuspecting

A quite relaxing day, for me: a day of unexpected sunshine and September warmth after so many dull and rainy days, and I spent most the hours of the daylight morning in the fields, or sitting by the large pond listening to the song of the birds, watching the Dragonflies, the Butterflies and the pond life, with the afternoon spent in gentle gardening, and then just sitting in the warming Sun.

There has been thus moments of pleasure, peace and joy, as of those remembered times when one’s distant gentle lover comes, if only briefly, to stay with one, again. Thus was I, thus am I, brought back, or moved forward, to just-be in the flow of Life as Life flows, slowly, when we gently let-go of that perception which is our small and often selfish self: to feel, to be-again, not apart from Nature.

Hence I am again but one life slowly dwelling in some small part of a rural England that I strive to keep within me by the slow movement of only walking, or cycling, along the country lanes, and which never takes me far from the meadow fields or from the hills which rear up, wooded, less than half a mile away.

Thus has there been time for that calm thinking that arises slowly, naturally, as the Cumulus cloud arose this morning, early, to briefly shade the Sun before they, the clouds, changed so slowly to leave me where my horizon of sighted landscape ended, far beyond the farthest trees, hedge, and hill that I could see. And thus was there a slow thinking about, a dwelling upon, your question of balance…..

Do you find you are still unsatisfied as to path? Or did you find/are still finding, a synthesis between the many? It’s the Balance I find that I seek, and hope for.

…..and yet, for myself, I feel it is more a question of change than of balance, as if we, as a species, are poised, caught, between the past of our animal ancestral nature and the future that surely awaits us if we can change, evolve, into a different kind of being, perhaps into an almost new species. Thus do I sense us, now, as in transition and yet mesmerized, held-back, even imprisoned, by the things we in our hubris-like cleverness have constructed: by the words, the terms, the very language, we have manufactured in order to try and understand ourselves, others, and this world.

Thus do we now interpret others, ourselves, the world – Reality – by abstractions which we project: which we have mentally-constructed and to which we assign “names” and terms, thus obscuring, hiding, the very essence itself, and thus mistaking such manufactured things for this essence.

Thus have we and for example manufactured a concept called a “nation” and a “State”, and have theories of how to govern such constructs, and manufactured “laws” to ensure some kind of abstract “order” within such places, as millions have given their “loyalty” to such abstract things and fought and died and caused great suffering in order to “defend” them or bring them into-being. Thus have we given “names” to differences among and within ourselves – based on some outward “sign” such as skin colour or on some inner sign such as a perceived or assumed “religious” or “political” belief – and thus dishonourably, un-empathically, used such “differences” as a criteria of worth and judgement, and in the process often or mostly behaving in a quite inhuman way. For all such abstractions – however named or described – seem to me to obscure The Numinous: obscure the simple reality which is of the connectedness, the acausal unity, of all Life.

I am as guilty as anyone in having done such things, for – for nearly four decades – I believed in or upheld some such abstraction or other, and used such things as not only a measure of the meaning of my own life, but also as a criteria of judgement, just as I often used violence in pursuit of such abstractions. It did not matter that I sincerely believed my inner intentions were noble and “good”; what mattered was that all such abstractions caused suffering for someone, or some many, somewhere. For such suffering was a natural consequence of those abstractions, constructed and manufactured as such things were by us in our vain arrogance.

Of course, many have understood this, or felt this, over the millennia – as some Ways have been developed to try and move us back toward the reality of connectedness. But always – always, it seems to me – over causal time, the simple unaffected pure meaning, the suffering insight, becomes lost in the words and through dogma, especially through dogma, and in particular through our very need, our very desire, to strive to “attain” some-thing, or to follow some-thing, or someone.

Perhaps only in music, Art, literature, poetry, a personal loyal love, and such-like emanations – in those things which wordlessly capture if only for a moment the Numinous itself – there is and has been a reminder of what-is, of what can-be. Of what we have forgotten and what we have glimpsed or have the capacity to glimpse, to feel, to know.

It seems to me, finally, that there are no answers, because no questions exist; we only impose questions upon what-is. For we have this need to make complex what is simple; we have this Promethean irritation within us. Certainly, this inner irritation, this inability to be empathic with Life (except perhaps in moments) brings us or can bring us joy, ecstasy, and can move us toward a different and at times exhilarating existence – as I know from my own not inactive, woman-loving, and sometimes warrior-like, life. But such a living I sense and feel is only a stasis, a repeat of our often barbaric, animal-like, past, and not the change, the evolution, we need and which surely is possible now, from the understanding the past five thousand years or so has given us.

Thus, my Path now is my Path – which in my temerity I have called The Numinous Way, and which, as it exists now due to the metamorphosis of recent years, represents the results of my ponderings, my thinking, my feelings, and what little knowledge I have acquired from pathei mathos.

Have you found that the seekers path has brought you as much joy as sorrow?

“Always a dream or a memory
Lead us on
And we wait like children
Trusting in the spirits of the Earth.
We love unsuspecting
While they our lovers scheme,
Succour themselves on our blood
And bleed us dry…”

In truth I have found, over four decades of seeking, more sorrow than joy – and yet the sorrow now seems to have merged with the joy to become some-thing which is of both yet beyond both. A new way of feeling, perhaps; or a new way of being, far beyond any words I know, and certainly beyond any and all the various and many Ways and Paths I have experienced and lived. But, of course, there are times – many times – when the sadness seeps back to bring forth burgeoning tears.

All I have from four decades of strife, seeking, searching, questions – of a learning from my plenitude of mistakes – are some tentative scribblings of my own, manifest in The Numinous way, with its Cosmic Ethics, its emphasis on empathy, compassion and honour, and its understanding of how our manufactured abstractions cause and continue to cause suffering, re-enforce our hubris, obscure our connexion to the Cosmos, and distance us from The Numinous.

DW Myatt

(Taken from The Selected Letters of DW Myatt, Volume 1)

Questions About Race, The Folk, and The Numinous Way

Q: Is it correct that The Numinous Way now rejects as unethical the concept of even “the folk”?

A: Yes. Both the concept of race – and that of the folk – are regarded as un-numinous and unethical. They are examples of abstractions, which abstractions – as explained elsewhere (for instance in The Immorality of Abstraction) – obscure, or undermine, empathy; and it is empathy which is the fundamental ethical basis of The Numinous Way itself.

As mentioned in An Overview of The Numinous Way:

“Empathy leads us away from the artificial, lifeless and thus un-numinous abstractions we have constructed and manufactured and which we impose, or project, upon other human beings, upon other life, and upon ourselves, often in an attempt to “understand” such beings and ourselves. And it is abstractions which are or which can be the genesis of prejudice, intolerance, and inhumanity. In addition, abstractions are one of the main causes of suffering: one of the main reasons we human beings have caused or contributed to the suffering of other human beings…”

Race, the concept of the folk – and all that derives from such things (such as racism, racialism, racial prejudice, and nationalism) – have no place in The Numinous Way. Such things – such abstractions – are the genesis of suffering, and thus contradict the very essence of The Numinous Way.

Historically, The Numinous Way was developed over a period of some ten years, and in the early stages of its development was even called The Numinous Way of Folk Culture, and prior to that, just “Folk Culture”. There was thus some emphasis in those early days on “the folk” as a living-being, which living, changing, being was taken to be a natural part of Nature and was initially regarded as not the same as the abstract concept of “race”. This, however, was an error, based upon not taking the ethic of empathy to its logical, and human, conclusion.

As the development of The Numinous Way continued based on the cosmic ethic deriving from empathy and compassion, the emphasis had to be, ethically, removed from both the concept of the race and that of “the folk” to be upon the individual in relation to values of empathy and compassion, and upon the individual developing such ethical virtues and faculties. This change resulted from the fundamental premise that all human abstractions – all theoretical forms, ideals, and causal constructs – were a move-away from, or detrimental to, empathy and thus a contradiction of not only honour but also of our very humanity. Thus were such human “things” – such human manufactured abstractions – considered to be, at worst, unethical and, at best, detrimental to honour and thus to empathy and compassion, for such “things” either tend toward prejudice, or they are manifestations of prejudice: of that unnecessary and unethical and often irrational and instinctive pre-judgement which we human beings are and have been prone to, but which we can, through empathy, move away from.

Thus, the faculty of empathy – and its cultivation and development via compassion and the ethic of honour – is totally independent of the concept of “the folk”, which concept of the folk is not now, and should not be taken or assumed to be, the foundation of, or part of, The Numinous Way itself. Rather, the foundation of The Numinous Way is empathy: empathy with all life, on this planet, and in The Cosmos. Thus, the fundamental aim of The Numinous Way is to place the individual – regardless of what folk or race or culture they are said to belong to, or they might consider themselves to belong to – in the correct context with Life, with Nature, and with The Cosmos. Expressed another way, the aim is for us, as individuals, to develope empathy, compassion and reason – and to strive to live in an honourable and compassionate manner – so that we can naturally feel and access and be part of the numinous, and evolve our humanity without causing or contributing to suffering.

Thus, The Numinous way is profoundly a-political, regarding all politics, all ideology, all dogma, as detrimental to empathy and the development of empathy, and as a cause of, or a potential cause of, suffering.

Q: But isn’t there a danger of even this Numinous Way, as you call it, becoming a dogma, developing a theology, and thus causing dissent and strife among its adherents?

A: Every Way has some potential to become an abstraction, a dogma. What stops them from doing so is the application of their basal ethics. If the ethics of the Numinous Way are lived, applied, it cannot become so. What might become dogmatic or abstract would not by definition therefore be The Numinous Way, but something else. Thus, so long as the ethics are applied, and lived – so long as there is personal empathy as the basis of living – this cannot or should not occur. The Numinous Way does not claim to be divinely-inspired, as it does not set itself up as the authoritative guide to living, or as some perfect representative, as the sole representative, of what is true and right. It does not claim to have some monopoly on understanding. It is just one answer among many answers – to be considered, or not, to be accepted or not, according to the judgement, the empathy, of each individual.

Q: Are you then saying that the answers of other Ways, of religions such as Christianity, are important and relevant?

A:  I can only repeat what I have said and written before, which is that such ethical answers, all such ethical Ways and religions, have, had, or may have their place in presencing The Numen, or presencing aspects of The Numen: in bringing some people to some understanding of ourselves, of the Cosmos, of Life. In providing some people with an ethical guide to living and so aiding the cessation of suffering and the presencing of what is good.

Yet, The Numinous Way is quite simple – positing a simple ethical cause-and-effect, and not requiring a complicated theology, scriptures, or some deity or God. Thus, for The Numinous Way, there is no problem of evil, because there is no supreme, perfect, Being, no abstract moral dichotomy, no sin – only that simple cause-and-effect, that simple understanding of balance, of aiding, or harming, Life; of causing suffering, or ceasing to cause suffering. Of ourselves as being responsible for our actions, our thoughts, with these actions, these thoughts, affecting others, affecting Life, affecting the Cosmos, in a good (not-suffering), or a bad (causing-suffering) way, with what is good aiding that change, that evolution, which is implicit in Life, with such change, such evolution, being toward empathy, understanding, consciousness.

DW Myatt


National-Socialism and Islam: The Case for Co-Operation


Given below is a link to a pdf file issued by Reichsfolk, which outlines the case for co-operation between ethical National-Socialists and those Muslims opposed to the Zionist-Crusader alliance.

It appears that David Myatt wrote most – but not all – the documents in this file between 1998 and 2004 CE.

National-Socialism and Islam: The Case for Co-Operation


Honour: Practical Foundation of The Numinous Way


The Practical Foundation of The Numinous Way,
and of The Way of The Warrior

The Meaning of Honour

Honour, according to The Numinous Way, is a specific code of personal behaviour and conduct, and the practical means whereby we can live in an empathic way, consistent with the Cosmic perspective of The Numinous Way. It is thus a means for us to cease to cause, and to alleviate, suffering to the other life which exists in the Cosmos. Honour is how we can change, and control, ourselves in a moral way, and it is the moral basis for giving personal loyalty (or allegiance) and undertaking obligations relating to one’s personal duty, which duty we pledge (or swear) to do on our honour. One of the most obvious outward expressions of living by honour is the possession of personal manners.

As mentioned elsewhere:

“Honour means we respect people – we are well-mannered toward them; we treat them as we ourselves would wish to be treated, and are aware of them, as unique individuals, as fellow human beings, who feel pain, anguish; who love, and who can know joy, sorrow and happiness. That is, we have empathy toward them, and this empathy – this awareness of their humanity – should incline us toward compassion, which is an expression of our very humanity, of our ability to know, to be aware of, the feelings, the suffering, of others. In effect, compassion and empathy provide that supra-personal perspective which makes us truely human and civilized.

Thus, honour, empathy and compassion are all related. Honour means we know, we feel, what true justice is – it is individuals being fair, being reasonable. Honour also means what we strive to do what is right, and are prepared to act, in an honourable way, if we see some injustice, some dishonour, being done.” Compassion, Empathy and Honour: The Ethics of the Numinous Way

Honour, in essence, is a manifestation of the numen of our human life, and when we act or strive to act with honour we are presencing the numen: we being a natural, human, nexion to the numinous itself, and thus re-present the qualities and virtues of what is numinous.

Understood thus, honour is only and ever personal: that is, one can only have honour, and be honourable, toward, living-beings. Thus, for us as social human beings, honour means and implies one has certain duties and obligations toward other human beings, and that we can only give our loyalty to individuals – to a living being – whom we personally know, and not to some abstraction, or to some human manufactured causal form, or to some perceived or assumed ideal. Similarly, we can only have a duty – given by our obligation of loyalty – toward another human being whom we personally know, and not toward some abstraction, or to some human manufactured causal form, or to some perceived or assumed ideal.

Hence, while honour in general beholdens us to act in an ethical, well-mannered, way toward others with whom we come into contact, whether or not we personally know them, loyalty and duty – according to The Numinous Way – are personal, and require a personal knowledge of, a personal contact with, the person or persons to whom one pledges loyalty and to whom one has an honourable duty. This is so because honour depends on empathy – on a personal knowing, on direct personal experience. All abstractions, all categories, all ideals, all human manufactured causal forms and concepts, all separate us from empathy: from that natural perception of – and that feeling for – other living beings. Thus, in a quite important sense, empathy and honour express, and can return us to, our natural human nature, and enable us to know – to be – that natural connexion to the Cosmos which we are and which we have the potential to evolve. Abstractions, ideals, categories, causal forms – all such constructs – conceal, undermine, or destroy, this connexion.

What this means in practical terms, is that honour commands us to act, toward other people, in a polite, fair, well-mannered, unprejudiced way, and that – initially – we give individuals “the benefit of the doubt”. Thus do we strive to view individuals as individuals, and our judgement of them is based upon a direct interaction with them; on a personal knowledge and experience of them. That is, we do not project onto them any abstract category; do not judge them according to some “label” or some concept or some term – whether political, social or religious (or whatever). Instead, our judgement is based upon empathy, upon a direct connexion to another human being, a connexion which – as mentioned above – any and all abstractions, ideals, categories, and causal forms, at best interfere with and at worst disrupt or destroy or are the genesis of, or a manifestation of, prejudice.

The discernment of empathy means that we do not judge an individual by their outward appearance, or by some category which others, or even they themselves, may have appended to their being. Thus, and for example, their known or stated or assumed “political” views and opinions are irrelevant to an empathic knowing and understanding of them, just as their known, stated or assumed “religion”, or their known, stated or assumed ethnicity, culture or social “class, are all irrelevant to an empathic knowing and understanding of them. Similarly, whatever is known, stated or assumed by others to have been done, by them, in the past is also irrelevant, for we judge them – interact with them – as they are now, in the moment of that personal contact, that immediate personal knowing, and not on the basis of rumour, or allegations, or even on deeds done, by them, or alleged to have been done by them, in their past.

The Numinous Way: Way of the Individual Warrior

Honour is the Way of Reason, Culture, and of Warriors, for a code of honour specifies how we can behave in a reasonable, fair, human way, and such a reasonable, fair and human way is the genesis of all human culture, and of all honourable human communities which such culture arises from and depends upon.

In addition – and expressed simply – a warrior is someone who strives to live by a specific Code of Honour; someone who values honour, loyalty and duty, and, most importantly, is prepared to die rather than be dishonoured, or be disloyal, or shirk a duty they have pledged to do. That is, they value honour above their own lives.

What is both interesting and important about the Code of Honour of The Numinous Way is that it expresses the fair, and human, attribute that tolerance, and compassion, have certain ethical limits, and it is these setting of human, and ethical limits, which in one way serves to distinguish and separate The Numinous Way from other ethical philosophies, such as Buddhism, based upon compassion and upon a desire to cease to cause suffering.

Thus, while honour demands that we are fair and tolerant and unprejudiced toward others, it also allows for not only self-defence, but also for the employment, if required, of the use of violent force (including lethal force) to defend one’s self and those to whom the individual has given a personal pledge of loyalty and who thus come under the honourable protection of that individual. Hence, if one is attacked, it is honourable to defend one’s self, and if the circumstances require it, ethical to use such force as is necessary, even if this means that the attackers or attackers are injured or killed.

Some simple examples will serve to illustrate this most honourable of ethical principles and also the attitude, the nature, of the warrior. Consider that an individual is threatened with robbery: if the robber cannot be reasoned with, then the individual has an honourable duty to use whatever force is required to rout, and if necessary, disable, the robber. To accede to the demands of the robber would be a dishonourable act. Consider that a person demands that you do whatever that person says, and is prepared to use, for example, force or some threat to get their own way; then the honourable thing is to refuse such a dishonourable demand and to, whatever the risk, attack or otherwise rout such a dishonourable person. This applies for instance in the case of unarmed individual threatened by someone with, for example, a gun who demands that the unarmed individual do certain things; the honourable individual refuses, and – even if it means their death – tries to attack the armed individual, for to “give in” would be an act of dishonour, and the honourable individual would prefer death to such dishonour. Consider that a person encounters an individual (or several individuals) attacking a lady; the person comes to her defence, and uses whatever force required to rout the attacker (or attackers). Similarly, if a person of honour sees several individuals attack one individual, man or woman, then the honourable thing to do is to aid such an attacked individual.

As should be obvious from the foregoing examples, the individual of honour – the man, of woman, of honour, the individual warrior – would be trained and prepared for such situations, and either carry a weapon to defend themselves (and others, if necessary) and/or know how to disable and rout an armed attacker. In addition, the individual of honour uses their own judgement – and honour itself – to decide how to act and react.  That is, they rely on themselves, on their honour, and not upon some external authority or upon some abstract un-living “law” or some abstract un-living concept of “justice”. For true, human, law and justice resides in – and can only ever reside in – honourable individuals, and to extract it out from such individuals (from that-which-lives) into some abstraction is the beginning of, and the practical implementation of, tyranny, however many fine sounding words may be used to justify such an abstraction and to obscure the true nature of honour. For individuals of honour understand – often instinctively – that honour is living while words are not; that honour lives in individuals, while words  thrive in and through dishonourable individuals in thrall to either their own emotions and desires or to some abstraction.

Furthermore, the individual warrior of The Numinous Way is quite different from the soldier, for the warrior of The Numinous Way is a new, yet ancient, type of human being whose only loyalty and duty is to individuals known to them personally. That is, such warriors fight only if necessary in defence of their own honour; or in defence of someone attacked in an unfair situation by a dishonourable person or by dishonourable others; or in defence of and as a duty to another individual to whom they have given a personal pledge of loyalty and whom they personally know and respect and regard as honourable. Such a warrior would consider it dishonourable to be part of any modern army or armed force, who and which fight on behalf of some political abstraction (such as a State or a nation) or in perceived loyalty and duty to some “leader” or President (or whatever) whom they have never personally met and whom thus they have never been able to judge for themselves as being worthy of such loyalty.

Thus, The Numinous Way is the Way of the thinking, honourable, individual warrior: of the individual human being who has perceived the abstractions of the past for the unethical hindrances that they are, and considers such abstractions – and all that derive from them – as not only restrictive of that true freedom which is our human nature but also as greatly detrimental to our evolution, as human beings. These abstractions include such things as The State, the nation, “race”, social “status” (or class), all political -isms and theories, all religious dogma and theology, and all social doctrines, theories, isms and categories. It even includes many – if not most – of the philosophical and metaphysical doctrines, theories, isms and categories which have been posited in an attempt to explain and “understand” the world, and ourselves, but which, in truth, have been manufactured and them projected onto – interposed between – ourselves, others and “the world”, thus obscuring the numinous and thus distancing us from our faculty of empathy.

However, the only ethical, honourable way – consistent with The Numinous way – to counter such social, political or religious abstractions, is to live in an honourable manner; to be part of, to strive to create, new communities based only upon the law and ethics of honour. By so living, we are using, and developing, our natural faculty of empathy, and thus living as human beings, and striving, in an honourable, empathic, compassionate way, to develope and further evolve ourselves.

Thus, as stated elsewhere:

“In respect of change, what is required, by the ethics of The Numinous Way, is a self-transformation, an inner change – a living according to the ethics of The Numinous Way. That is, compassion, empathy, honour, reason – the cessation of suffering, and the gradual evolution, development, of the individual…This is a personal change, and a slow, social change. The social change arises, for example, when groups of people who follow such a Way freely decide to live in a certain manner through, for example, being part of, or creating, a small rural community. The social change also arises when others are inspired by the ethical example of others.

All this takes us very far away from political or violent revolution – very far away from politics at all. So no, a violent revolution, the overthrow of some State or some government, is not the answer; instead, inner personal development and ethical social change are answers.” A Numinous Future – Beyond The State and The Nation

David Myatt

The Code of Honour of The Numinous Way

The word of a man or woman of honour is their bond – for when a man or woman of honour gives their word (“On my word of honour…”) they mean it, since to break one’s word is a dishonourable act. An oath of loyalty or allegiance to someone, once sworn by a man or woman of honour (“I swear by my honour that I shall…”) can only be ended either: (i) by the man or woman of honour formally asking the person to whom the oath was sworn to release them from that oath, and that person agreeing so to release them; or (ii) by the death of the person to whom the oath was sworn. Anything else is dishonourable.

A man or woman of honour is prepared to do their honourable duty by challenging to a duel anyone who impugns their honour or who makes dishonourable accusations against them. Anyone so challenged to a duel who, refusing to publicly and unreservedly apologize, refuses also to accept such a challenge to a duel for whatever reason, is acting dishonourably, and it is right to call such a person a coward and to dismiss as untruthful any accusations such a coward has made. Honour is only satisfied – for the person so accused – if they challenge their accuser to a duel and fight it; the honour of the person who so makes such accusations or who so impugns another person’s honour, is only satisfied if they either unreservedly apologize or accept such a challenge and fights such a duel according to the etiquette of duelling. A man or woman of honour may also challenge to a duel and fight in such a duel, a person who has acted dishonourably toward someone whom the man or woman of honour has sworn loyalty or allegiance to or whom they honourably champion.

A man or woman of honour always does the duty they have sworn to do, however inconvenient it may be and however dangerous, because it is honourable to do one’s duty and dishonourable not to do one’s duty. A man or woman of honour is prepared to die – if necessary by their own hand – rather than suffer the indignity of having to do anything dishonourable. A man or woman of honour can only surrender to or admit to defeat by someone who is as dignified and as honourable as they themselves are – that is, they can only entrust themselves under such circumstances to another man or woman of honour who swears to treat their defeated enemy with dignity and honour. A man or woman of honour would prefer to die fighting, or die by their own hand, rather than subject themselves to the indignity of being defeated by someone who is not a man or woman of honour.

A man or woman of honour treats others courteously, regardless of their culture, religion, status, and race, and is only disdainful and contemptuous of those who, by their attitude, actions and behaviour, treat they themselves with disrespect or try to personally harm them, or who treat with disrespect or try to harm those whom the individual man or woman of honour have personally sworn loyalty to or whom they champion.

A man or woman of honour, when called upon to act, or when honour bids them act, acts without hesitation provided always that honour is satisfied.

A man or woman of honour, in public, is somewhat reserved and controlled and not given to displays of emotion, nor to boasting, preferring as they do deeds to words.

A man or woman of honour does not lie, once having sworn on oath (“I swear on my honour that I shall speak the truth…”) as they do not steal from others or cheat others for such conduct is dishonourable. A man or woman of honour may use guile or cunning to deceive sworn enemies, and sworn enemies only, provided always that they do not personally benefit from such guile or cunning and provided always that honour is satisfied.


The most acceptable and civilized form of duel is by pistol, and those abiding by the Code of Honour are expected to use this form as and when necessary.

A formal challenge to a duel must be personally issued, by one party to the other, at which a date, time and place are specified (Dawn is traditionally favoured). Each duellist must be accompanied by a Second, to ensure fair play and an honourable outcome, as there must be a referee.

At the appointed time and in the appointed place, two revolvers, pistols or duelling pistols, as similar as possible, are checked and prepared by the referee, (ideally a man of honour should keep or have access to a matched pair of pistols specifically made for duelling, capable of firing one round and one round only). These revolvers or pistols, and the bullets, are also checked by the duellists and their seconds. [Note: whatever pistol is used it should be loaded or so adapted that one round and only round can be discharged from it when the trigger is pulled.]

The referee then allows the duellists to choose a weapon. The duellists stand back to back. At a sign or word from the referee they then walk a set number of paces agreed beforehand (ten being usual) before turning to face each other. The referee then says: “Take aim!” at which they take aim. The referee then says: “Fire!” at which they discharge the weapon. It is considered dishonourable conduct to aim and/or fire before the referee gives the signal to so do.

Should one person fire and miss, or hit and injure, the other duellist before that duellist has also fired, then the person who has so fired must wait, without moving, until his fellow duellist has also fired, if he is capable of so firing.

Honour is satisfied if the duel is undertaken in the above manner.

Some Notes On Duelling

There are four things which need to be understood about personal duels of honour.

(1) The etiquette, or rules, of duelling must be followed, for it is these rules which make this encounter between two individuals a civilized and thus an honourable encounter. A duel of honour is not a brawl, or merely a fight between two individuals – it is a dispassionate meeting of two individuals who use their own will, their own strength of character, to fight in a particular way.

The rules, the etiquette, of duelling make it such a dispassionate encounter – for a duel is a test of courage, of nerve, of character, of personal honour itself. Any and all conduct which is against the rules is dishonourable, and as such the person who does not abide by the rules is not an honourable person, and thus forfeits their honour and their honourable reputation.

If the rules are not followed, it is thus not a duel of honour.

(2) In a duel of honour, deadly weapons must be used. It is the deadly nature of the weapons used, with the possibility of death, which makes the encounter an honourable one. Deadly weapons include pistols, swords and long-bladed fighting knives of the Bowie type.

(3) The duel is a private affair between the two individuals concerned. As such, only the nominated Seconds, and a referee – acceptable by both sides – must be present. It is against the etiquette of duelling for any other people to be present.

(4) A person challenged to a duel must either personally accept the challenge, or decline the challenge. It is dishonourable and cowardly conduct to ignore a challenge once it has been formally issued. If a person who is challenged declines the challenge, then they must issue a personal apology, and if necessary, or called upon to do so, a public apology.

A man of honour will only challenge to a duel those individuals whom he believes can physically defend themselves and their honour with deadly weapons. Thus, it is dishonourable and cowardly if someone who is challenged to a duel tries to get someone else to fight the duel on their behalf.

A Change of Perspective

David Myatt c.1989
A Change of Perspective

Over the past decade there has been, for me, a complete change of perspective, for I have gone from upholding and violently propagating the racialism of National-Socialism – and encouraging the overthrow of the existing status quo through revolutionary insurrection – to the acceptance of empathy and compassion, and to that gentle, quiet, desire to cease to cause suffering, which form the basis for what I have called The Numinous Way, with this Numinous Way being apolitical, undogmatic, and considering both race and “the folk” as unethical abstractions which move us away from empathy and compassion and which thus obscure our true human nature.

Why unethical? Because The Numinous Way uncovers, through empathy, the nexion we, as individuals, are to all life, thus making us aware of how all life – sentient and otherwise – is connected and part of that matrix, that Unity, which is the Cosmos, and it is a knowing and appreciation of this connexion which is lost when we impose abstractions upon life, and especially when we judge other beings by a criteria established by some such abstraction. For this knowing and appreciation of our connexion to other life is the beginning of compassion, and a presencing – a manifestation – of our humanity, of our knowing of ourselves in relation to other life, and the Cosmos itself; and, thus, a placing of us, as individuals, in an ethical, and a Cosmic, perspective.

This change of my perspective – this personal change in me – arose, or derived, from several things: from involvement with and belief in, during the past decade, a certain Way of Life, considered by many to be a religion; from thinking deeply about certain ethical questions whose genesis was reflecting upon my thirty years of violent political activism; and from a variety of personal events and experiences, two of which events involved the loss of loved ones, and one of which loss involved the suicide of my fiancée.

However, this change was a slow, often difficult, process, and there was to be, during this decade, a stubborn refusal, by me, to follow – except for short periods – where this change led me; a stubborn refusal to-be, except for short periods, the person I was shown to be, should-be, by and through this alchemical process of inner change. Thus was there a stubborn clinging to doing what I conceived to be my honourable duty, and it is only in the last month that I have finally and to my own satisfaction resolved, in an ethical way, the dilemma of such a duty, thus ending my association with a particular Way of Life, which Way many consider a religion.

During this decade of inner reflexion, of great outward change – of lifestyle, occupation, belief, place of dwelling – there was a quite slow rediscovery of the individual I had been before my fanatical pursuit of a political cause became the priority of my life: the person behind the various rôles played or assumed, over more than three decades, for the purpose of attaining particular outer goals deriving from some abstraction, some ideal, or some other impersonal thing. That is, I gradually, over the past decade, ceased believing in a certain principle which I had formerly accepted; which principle I had placed before my own personal feelings; which principle I had used, quite deliberately, to change myself; and which principle I had stubbornly adhered to for almost four decades, believing that it was my honourable duty to do so.

This principle was that in order to attain one’s “ideal world”, certain sacrifices had to be made “for the greater good”. In accord with this principle, I considered I had certain duties, and accordingly sacrificed not only my own, personal, happiness, but also that of others, including that of four women who loved me; and it is perhaps fair to conclude that it was this principle which made me seem to others to be, for three decades, a political fanatic, and – for many years after that – a kind of religious zealot. Indeed, it is probably even fairer to conclude that I was indeed such a fanatic and such a zealot, for, in the pursuit of some abstraction, some ideal, some notion of duty, some dogma, I deliberately controlled my own nature, a nature evident – over the decades – in my poetry; in my wanderings as a vagabond; in my initial enthusiasm as a Christian monk; in the tears cried upon hearing some sublime piece of music; in my love of Nature, and of women. That is, there were always times in my life when I reverted back to being the person I felt, I knew, I was; always times when I stopped, for a few months, or a year or maybe longer, interfering in the world; when I ceased to place a perceived duty before myself, and when I thus interacted with others, with the world, only in a direct, personal, empathic way sans some ideal, some dogma.

Now, I have finally come to understand that this principle of idealism, the guiding principle of most of my adult life, is unethical, and therefore fundamentally wrong and inhuman. That is, it is a manufactured abstraction; a great cause of suffering, and that nothing – no idealism, no cause, no ideal, no dogma, no perceived duty – is worth or justifies the suffering of any living-being, sentient or otherwise. That it is empathy, compassion and a personal love which are human, the essence of our humanity: not some abstract notion of duty; not some idealism. That it is the impersonal interference in the affairs of others – based on some cause, some belief, some dogma, some perceived duty, some ideology, some creed, some ideal, some manufactured abstraction – which causes and greatly contributes to suffering, and which moves us far away from empathy and compassion and thus diverts us from our humanity and from changing ourselves, in a quiet way, into a more evolved, a more empathic and more compassionate, human being.

Thus, in many ways, The Numinous Way – as now developed, and as explicated by me in the past month (see Footnote 1 ) – represents my true nature: the hard, difficult, re-discovery of what I had controlled, and lost; and, perhaps more importantly, an evolution of that personal nature as a result of my diverse experiences, my learning from my mistakes, and my empathic awareness of the suffering I have caused to others.

Hence, I have been, for many decades, wrong; misguided. Or, rather, I misguided myself, allowing idealism and a perceived duty to triumph over, to veil, my humanity. My good intentions were no excuse, even though, for nearly four decades, I made them an excuse, as idealists always do. For, during all the decades of my various involvements – of my arrogant interference based on some abstraction – I sincerely believed I was doing what was “right”, or “honourable”, and that such suffering as I caused, or aided, or incited, was “necessary” for some ideal to be born in some “future”.

But now my inescapable reality is that of a personal empathy, a personal compassion, a simple, quiet, letting-be; a knowing that such answers as I have, now, are just my answers, and that I have no duty other than to be human, to gently strive to be a better human being through reforming myself by quietly cultivating empathy and compassion. Of course, I do not expect to be understood, and probably will continue to be judged, by others, according to some, or all, of my former beliefs, involvements.

So I rest – tired, awake, exhausted, from days of work,
Worry, Dreams, and Thought
Resting while the hot Sun flows
And the fastly flowing nebulae of clouds, wind-spaked,
Grow tendrils to shape themselves with faces
One planet gasping as it gasps
Since the slaying by Homo Hubris never ever seems
To stop.

Too late the empathy to set us flowing
Back to love?
So much promise for so long undesired
I am left sad, warm, sleepy
While the Summer Sun brings peace enough
To sleep-me
As the circling Buzzard

So There Is Warm Sun

David Myatt
(27th December 2008 CE)

(1) See my revised essays collected under the title The Numinous Way of Life: Compassion, Empathy, and Honour.

An Introduction to The Numinous Way

David Myatt

David Myatt

An Introduction to The Numinous Way

Empathy, Compassion and Honour:

The Numinous Way is a particular way of individual living; that is, it is a Way of Life, which individuals can choose to follow. The basis, the foundation, of The Numinous Way is the belief that we, as individual human beings, are a connexion to all other life, on this planet which is currently our home, and a connexion to the Cosmos itself. Thus, we are a connexion to – connected with – Nature. We are or we can be aware of this connexion through the faculty of empathy.

An awareness of this connexion, and the cultivation of our latent faculty of empathy with living beings, disposes us toward compassion and toward acting in accord with personal honour. Thus empathy disposes us to be compassionately aware of others, of the suffering of all living beings, and particularly aware of the reality that human beings are unique individuals who, like ourselves, can suffer pain, sadness, and experience joy and love. Personal honour directs us to treat people with manners, and respect, and as we ourselves would like to be treated. That is, personal honour disposes us toward both dignity and fairness, and, in a quite simple way, honour is a practical manifestation of empathy: of how we can relate to other people, and other life, in an empathic and compassionate way.

From compassion arises the desire to cease to cause suffering, the desire to alleviate suffering – and honour is one ethical way by which and how we can do this, for honour disposes us to restrain ourselves and so do the right, the moral, the empathic, thing. Thus, compassion and honour are how we can develope, and extend, our innate – but often underused or ignored – human faculty of empathy.

Empathy is thus, for The Numinous Way, the source of ethics, for what is good is considered to be that which manifests empathy and compassion and honour, and thus what alleviates, or what ceases to cause, suffering: for ourselves, for other human beings, and for the other life with which we share this planet. Hence, what is unethical, or wrong, is what causes or what contributes to or which continues such suffering.

Essentially, The Numinous Way places our own lives, as individuals, into a particular context: that of the Nature, of all Life, and of the Cosmos beyond the life which is Nature, and it provides practical guidelines – a code of ethics – to enable us to strive to live our own lives in an empathic, compassionate, and thus honourable, way.

The Numinous:

Empathy also makes us aware, or can – by its development – makes us aware, of the numinous: that is, of those things which do or which can or which have presenced (“manifested”) the beauty, the joy, the awe, the “sacredness” – the goodness – felt in those moments when we are transported beyond ourselves and become aware of the connexion between all life, and of the underlying unity beyond us, and of the potential we as individuals and as human beings possess to be a source of joy, positive change, and of love.

In a simple sense, the numinous places our own personal lives in a larger context: that of other human beings; that of the other life with which we share this planet; and that of the very Cosmos itself, with its billions upon billions of stars and billions upon billions of Galaxies, some of which stars and some of which Galaxies may well have life-bearing planets of their own.

What is numinous is that which predisposes us to change ourselves in an ethical way; that which reminds us of our mortality – of life, existence, beyond us; that which manifests the essence of Life itself, and that which re-presents to us what we feel is beautiful and good.

Empathy itself expresses – or can express – the numinous, and what is of particular importance about empathy is that it is only and ever personal. That is, empathy – like the numinous – only lives and thrives within an individual living being; it cannot be abstracted out of a living, individual, being.

A Reformation and Evolution of Ourselves:

One of the basic principles of The Numinous Way is that we human beings possess the ability to change ourselves. That is, we possess the faculty to consciously change our behaviour, our attitudes, our way of living. Thus, we are much more than just animals who possess the faculty of speech and the ability of conscious, rational, thought, for we have the faculty of will which enables us to restrain and control ourselves. However, like the faculty of empathy, our faculty of will – the faculty of reformation and evolution of ourselves – is often underused or ignored.

How can we develope this faculty? How can we reform ourselves and so evolve? The answer of The Numinous Way is that this is possible through compassion, empathy, gentleness, reason, and honour: through that gentle letting-be which is the real beginning of wisdom and a manifestation of our humanity. To presence, to be, what is good in the world – we need to change ourselves, through developing empathy and compassion, through letting-be, that is, ceasing to interfere, ceasing to view others (and “the world”) through the immorality of abstractions, and ceasing to strive to change or get involved with what goes beyond the limits determined by personal honour. For honour is only ever personal – and relates to that which affects us, as individuals, and those near to us, such as our family, or those with whom we come into contact on a personal basis. For personal honour can never be abstracted away from the immediacy of the moment – out from a living personal interaction between individuals.

The Immorality of Abstractions:

Empathy leads us away from the artificial, lifeless and thus un-numinous abstractions we have constructed and manufactured and which we impose, or project, upon other human beings, upon other life, and upon ourselves, often in an attempt to “understand” such beings and ourselves. And it is abstractions which are or which can be the genesis of prejudice, intolerance, and inhumanity. In addition, abstractions are one of the main causes of suffering: one of the main reasons we human beings have caused or contributed to the suffering of other human beings.

Abstraction (or abstractionism) – as understood by The Numinous Way – is the manufacture, and use of, some idea, ideal, “image” or category, and thus some generalization, and/or some assignment of an individual or individuals to some group or category. The positing of some “perfect” or “ideal” form, category, or thing, is part of abstraction.

According to The Numinous Way, it is immoral to apply such abstractions to what is living. Why? Because such abstractions usurp or limit or constrain our own individual judgement, which individual judgement – to be ethical – should and must be based upon empathy, that is, upon a direct and personal knowing of other individuals. All abstractions distort or destroy our correct, and of necessity our individual, perception of other human beings.

Abstractions – be they classified as political or religious or social – either predispose us to judge according to what someone else has devised or theorised, or they already contain, within themselves or within some theory or schema or model or “archetype” associated with them, a pre-judgement.

Thus, all abstractions to do with or concerning what is living, limit, restrict or undermine, or even destroy, empathy, and thus do they sever our numinous connexion to other life, and to the Cosmos itself.

An obvious example of one type of abstraction is the concept of “nation”. Thus, some individuals are said “to belong” to a particular designated “nation”, or consider themselves as belonging to a particular nation. That is, this nation becomes, for them, a source of personal identify, a provider of meaning for their lives, and a basis – often, the basis – of their judgement of others, with “their nation” becoming contrasted with others, and with they themselves often considering they have a “duty” and obligations to this particular abstraction termed a nation. Thus do differences, and conflicts, arise. Thus do people inflict suffering upon others in the name of this particular abstraction, and thus are there wars and invasions, as one “nation” – for whatever reason – wants to impose its own “values” and ideas and ways upon others.

Another obvious example of an abstraction is a political theory, or idea, or cause – such as, say, “democracy”. This abstraction (however defined) comes to be regarded – by a certain nation or government – as “right” and necessary. Some government or nation (or leader or whatever) then believes that such democracy should and can be imposed upon another nation and government, and that it is thus “right” and “moral” to use force to get “these others” to accept such an abstraction as democracy. In the process, of doing what they regard as “right”, there is of course conflict, and killing, and thus much suffering.

Yet another obvious example of an abstraction is the notion of a supra-personal culture, or way of life, or religion. This particular abstraction (be it a culture, or way of life, or religion) comes to be regarded by a certain group (be it a nation, a government or whatever) as “morally right”, as “civilized” (or even as “superior”), and this group believes it is their “duty” – or their “destiny” or whatever – to get others to accept this particular abstraction. This – as almost always – involves force or coercion or similar things. Thus is there, yet again, conflict, and killing, and thus much suffering.

Yet one more obvious example of an abstraction is a professional Army, or some large professional fighting force. Such an Army, or such a fighting force, have an allegiance – a duty – to observe a given chain-of-command, and their obligation is to do what some abstract authority commands them to do, even if they do not personally know the person or persons behind the abstract authority and even if they do not personally agree with all the orders given through such a chain-of-command. Thus will they go and fight – and kill – in the name of that abstract authority, such as some nation, or some leader who has been elected by millions of people or who has seized power. In this instance, the soldiers or fighters dehumanize both themselves, and dehumanize whatever “enemy” the abstract authority commands them to fight.

Another example of an abstraction is the judgement of an individual on the basis of their occupation or on their known or perceived political (or religious) views or on the basis of some deed they may have committed in their past. Thus, the person is viewed according to such an occupation or such views, instead of as an individual, or is judged according to the deed they have committed – or are alleged to have committed – in the past. That is, they are assigned to some abstract category, and – in a very important sense – become dehumanized, and are often treated according to whatever moral value is, abstractly, assigned to such a category or such a deed. Consider, for example, a woman categorized as being a “prostitute”. Almost always there are certain assumptions made about such a person, since the abstract category “prostitute” carries various connotations, or is assumed to denote a certain type of person. Thus, instead of being regarded, and treated as, an individual human being, the woman is regarded and treated as “a prostitute” and in the process often dehumanized.  All such judgement according to such an assigned abstract category is unethical because it is not based on a personal knowing of the person; it is not based on the immediacy of empathy with that person.

What these obvious examples illustrate is a giving-up of individual judgement; a taking of the individual out of the immediacy of the numinous, personal, moment. Instead, the individual relates to, or judges by, the abstraction; refers to the abstraction for value, worth and judgement. Almost always, there is an acting on behalf of the abstraction, often with a sense of “being right” and of desiring to persuade or force others to accept or adopt this particular abstraction and a use of some sort of force or violence or coercion to persuade others to change and adopt such an abstraction. Always there is lack of letting-be; always there are impersonal generalizations; and, almost always, there is dehumanization.

According to The Numinous Way, when applied to what is living, all abstractions, by their very nature, by their very being, cause – or are or can be the genesis of – conflict and suffering. Furthermore, the individual intent behind the abstraction is irrelevant, for once empathy is lost – and empathy is only and ever individual – then there is either suffering or the potential for suffering. Thus, it does not matter if someone or some many believe that some particular abstraction is “right” and “just”, for what is right and just cannot ever reside in an abstraction, or be manifest by, an abstraction or by someone acting on behalf of such an abstraction. What is right and just only ever reside in and through and because of individual empathy and an individual, personal, honour and personal judgement.

A Better Way of Life:

According to The Numinous Way, the only ethical way in which we can change ourselves, and our society, is through an inner, individual, transformation by developing empathy and by striving to live in an ethical, and honourable, way.

There is thus a self-transformation, an inner change – a personal and very individual living according to the ethics of The Numinous Way. That is, there is compassion, empathy, honour, reason – the cessation of suffering, and the gradual evolution, development, of the individual. This is a personal change, and, in consequence, a very slow, social change. The social change arises, for example, when groups of people who follow such a Way freely decide to live in a certain manner through, for example, being part of, or creating, a small community. The social change also arises when others are inspired by the ethical example of those who are individually or collectively following such a way as The Numinous Way.

Hence, The Numinous Way is profoundly apolitical, and opposed to the use of force, and violence, in the service of any abstraction or “cause”, believing that better communities – “a better world” – can only be brought-into-being by the efforts of ethical individuals who concern themselves only with that which, and those whom, they personally know and personally interact with.

Fairness, Law and Self-Defence:

The Numinous Way expresses the view that honour is not only personal, relates to the immediacy of the moment, cannot be abstracted out from such a personal immediacy, but also depends – by its very nature – upon others treating us honourably, and with respect. This means that our personal, individual, tolerance, and compassion, have certain ethical limits, and it is these setting of very human, and ethical limits, which in one way serves to distinguish and separate The Numinous Way from other ethical philosophies, such as Buddhism, based upon compassion and upon a desire to cease to cause suffering.

Thus, while personal honour demands that we are fair and tolerant and unprejudiced and compassionate toward others, it also allows for not only self-defence, but also for the employment, if required, and as a last resort, of the use of violent force (including lethal force) to defend one’s self and those who might be in need of some immediate, honourable, and personal, assistance. Hence, if one is attacked, it is – according to The Numinous way – honourable to defend one’s self, and if the circumstances require it, ethical to use such force as is necessary, even if this means that the attackers or attackers are injured or possibly killed.

Similarly, if one finds one’s self in a personal situation where, for example, several people violently attack another individual, it would be quite honourable to come to the aid of that individual, and use whatever force necessary, because such a violent attack is, in itself, a dishonourable thing.

To so act in such a personal situation is the fair, the just, the human – even the numinous – thing to do, because our practical use of honour restores the natural balance that the dishonourable actions of such attackers have upset.

However, it is worth emphasizing again that such a use of force is only fair, honourable and ethical, in a personal situation, in the immediacy of the moment, and the individual so using such force only does so because they themselves are immediately attacked or because some one, or some others, nearby in that moment, are dishonourably attacked.

Who decides whether such a use of honourable force is justified? According to The Numinous Way, this can only and ever be the individual in the immediacy of the moment itself. It is for the individual to use their own experience and judgement: their faculties of empathy and of fairness. This is so because, as mentioned previously, personal honour can never be abstracted away from the immediacy of the moment, out from a living personal interaction between individuals, and thus cannot be enshrined in some abstraction, such as a law manufactured by someone else at some other time, or be manifest in some supra-personal abstraction, such as a government or State or their “Courts of Law”.

For true, human, justice is only and ever personal, related to and entirely dependant upon, personal honour. Hence, for The Numinous Way, the basis for all law in any community can only be personal honour.

The Spirituality of The Numinous Way

Our very individuality is a type of abstraction in itself, and thus something of an illusion, for it often obscures our relation to other life, as we often describe and define ourselves, or own personal life, in relation to, and by, our own personal desires, needs and feelings, which needs, feelings and desires we often do not understand and often do not control or, it seems, we cannot control.

Thus are we brought into conflict with others, and often ourselves; and thus do we often cause suffering, to others, and sometimes to ourselves. In addition, we often pursue the illusion which other abstractions present to us, and which we believe, or which we have been led or persuaded to believe, will bring us “peace”, security and a personal “happiness”.

However, according to The Numinous Way, all life is a manifestation of – a presencing of – what it is convenient to call acausal energy, and that it is this acausal energy which makes our physical molecules “alive”. In addition, it is this energy which is the basis for the matrix of Life: which is the connexion between us and all other life, human, on this planet Earth, and elsewhere in the Cosmos; and it is this acausal energy which forms the basis of empathy itself: what we sense, feel, and can come to know and understand, when we interact compassionately with other life.

Thus, all living beings in the physical, causal, Cosmos possess a certain type and amount of this acausal energy, which – like all energy – can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed in some way. Hence, when our physical, causal, bodies die, they die because the acausal energy which has animated them and which gave them life and vitality has ceased to be presenced – ceased to be manifest – in the causal physical Cosmos. This acausal energy – which in a causal sense, “was us”, the essence of our being – then returns to the acausal part of the Cosmos from whence it was presenced to give us our causal life. That is, it flows back to its origin, and will flow from there to become presenced in some other, causal, form, some-where, at some causal Time. Or, expressed another way, our acausal aspect – or essence, beyond the illusion of our causal, abstractive, mortal self – returns from whence “we” arose.

In a quite important sense, empathy, compassion, and a living by honour, are a means whereby we increase, or access for ourselves, acausal energy – where we presence such energy in the causal – and whereby we thus strengthen the matrix of Life, and, indeed, increase Life itself. Thus, when we live in such an ethical way we are not only aiding life here, now, in our world, in our lifetime, we are also aiding all future life, in the Cosmos, for the more acausal energy we presence, by our deeds, our living, the more will be available not only to other life, here – in our own small causal Time and causal Space – but also, on our mortal death, available to the Cosmos to bring-into-being more life. Thus will we aid – and indeed become part of – the very change, the very evolution of the life of the Cosmos itself.

This does not mean we transcend – as some conscious, individual, being – to some other acausal realm where we “live” another type of individual existence. It only means that we have used the opportunity of this, our mortal life, to increase life, to further evolution; that we have seen beyond the illusion of self to the essence, and choose the essence, the reality, over the illusion. For the illusion is of separate, discrete, unconnected living beings, while the essence, the reality, is of the flow of Life; of acausal energy being presenced in the causal, and so “creating” life. The illusion is of this mortal life as the aim, the goal, whereas the reality is of an evolving living Cosmos that we are part of, were once part of and will be part of, again.

Thus, we conceive of the very Cosmos itself as a living, evolving Being. We – all life – are not separate from this Being, but rather we are this Being, in evolution, evolving in the causal to become, by virtue of our sentience, the very consciousness of this Being, the very awareness of this Being. Similarly, Nature – the life dwelling with us on our planet, Earth – is a manifestation of this Being.

In addition, this Cosmic Being is not perfect, nor omniscient – not God, not any human-manufactured abstraction – but rather a burgeoning of Life, which Life we aid when we live with empathy, compassion and honour, when we respect other life, and which we diminish, or harm, when we do the opposite. Hence, there is not, nor cannot be, any “prayer” to this living Cosmic Being; no “reward” or “punishment” from this living Cosmic Being. Instead, there is only an empathic awareness, often – or mostly – beyond words, and presenced, manifested, sometimes, in some numinous music, or some work of Art, or in a personal love or by some honourable deed.

David Myatt