Slowly. But maybe that's a good thing. I don’t want to fall into hubris, or lead anyone into heresy. So i’ve been re-reading and talking with trusted friends about it, trying to be more sure that I'm not falling for some trick.
Are you alright with my using some of your neologisms (with citation)? I've had some thoughts along similar lines about the "fractal hierarchy" of the cosmos for the last couple of years after reading Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age" and reflecting on some of my own wilder experiences. But I've never had the words to express it like you have here and in "What Reaches Back."
“ We can think of them as a breed of superpsychopaths, who derive not just sadistic pleasure from suffering, but view it as a means of metabolic survival and flourishing.”
Agreed, fully.
Conversely, me thinks an inverse statement can be made about “angels” and other Good entities.
And that would therefore possibly explain why demons fled Christ and/or obeyed Him, even to their destruction: His immeasurable Good-ness sapped their energy, perhaps sapping it to the extreme.
Modestly extrapolating: those who call upon His Name in times of distress; should they call out in utter helplessness—and utter Faith—the demon(s) causing their distress are therefore dispersed because said Faith is quite caustic to their existence.
I think this is right. "The power of Christ compels you," in the exorcism rite is a request to lend the exorcist some measure of Christ's authority in the battle, the way he lent it to his apostles on their missions.
Is it lent through intermediary beings? I don't pretend to know how it works, but that wouldn't surprise me. I do suspect that the transaction would be different at a fundamental level. Demons are summoned by some known or unknown party, and feed on misery. Angels assist us based on God's own wisdom and commands, and are fed by God. There is no such thing as summoning an angel of the Lord. But if your plea for assistance is pure, you might find that help arrives in a number of mysterious ways.
I don’t think one summons an angel, per se. And speaking for myself, I’ve only ever cried out for Christ, not an angel, and on one very memorable occasion, was immediately relieved of my distress.
Point is, did Christ come to my direct aid that day on a steeply sloped barn roof that I was sliding off of, or did He direct an emissary, an angel? I strongly believe the latter.
I was and continue to be utterly unworthy of such aid, but that does not stop me from earnestly requesting it on occasion. And most gratefully accepting it.
During the period of high strangeness following the end of the Harm Assistant project, there was one supernatural experience in particular that I struggle to understand to this day. I initially perceived the event as a not-so veiled threat, with the intent to scare me back to work. But these days, I'm not so sure.
The strange (and technically violent) thing happened that day concluded while I was praying to Saint Anthony, which I had not done since I was a little kid. And, in the wake of it, I didn't feel any fear. At the time, I chalked it up to a new sense of spiritual purpose and the bravado that came along with it (i.e. "Molon labe, motherfucker.") I still think the event was initialized by the demon. But nowadays, I wonder if its conclusion was an act of genuine assistance and grace
(I know that all sounds vague. I haven't written about that day and that particular event. Maybe someday I will, when I gain more understanding of it.)
“I still think the event was initialized by the demon. But nowadays, I wonder if its conclusion was an act of genuine assistance and grace.”
Seems to be too strong a coincidence for it to be anything other than genuine assistance, though many of those that are Enlightened would argue it was swamp gas.
Me, though I lived the first 40 years of my life as an utter scumbag, when I finally woke up, I experienced several instances that simply cannot be explained as anything other than Divine Grace. And as stated earlier I am utterly undeserving of such treatment.
Does a loving and Grace-giving God exist? As far as I’m concerned, yes. But then again I’m not Enlightened so you shouldn’t listen to me.
It’s fascinating to compare supernatural beings with gods and shape-shifters. How would these supernatural beings communicate with us if they could change their form at will?
This reminds me greatly of the Aristotle’s concept of “hylomorphism” - in essence, the idea that all true ‘things’ have a specific form (morphos) in which their matter/elements are organized beyond the matter/elements themselves. In Mark’s lung example, for instance, the form might not be just the shape of the lung but the system of cellular/nervous and other biological reactions by which the lung fulfills its function. I remember in certain other posts Mark has discussed ‘egregores’, or systems of people/ideas/subsystems that act, behave and follow cycles analogous to a living organism - perhaps these too are a kind of being, though the analogy can at times confuse as much as reveal (for instance, the entire Romantic vs. Spenglerian/historical pessimist argument concerning the ‘life cycles of nations/civilizations’). I am certain on a gut level of one thing though - ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ or ‘soul’, whatever you call it, cannot simply have emerged from matter qua matter; something is ‘out there’, even if it is unclear now exactly what it is.
The boundaries of human cognition and identity may be far less fixed than we assume, with the very notion of "we" serving as a temporary construct—an emergent pattern arising from the interplay of biological systems rather than a stable, centralized self. Cognition doesn’t reside solely in the brain but unfolds as an interference pattern between overlapping systems, each modeling its own states and influencing the whole: the gut microbiome altering decision-making, hormones shaping social behavior, immune responses modulating mental states. No single system dominates, meaning thought and perception are distributed phenomena, explaining why biases can stem from microbial shifts, why social dynamics fluctuate with neurochemistry, and why mental health is inseparable from bodily inflammation.
This interconnectedness extends beyond the individual, suggesting humanity itself might function as a component within a larger, evolving system—a superorganism where collective intelligence, technology, and culture act as a kind of neural network, processing information across scales. Just as cells contribute transiently to an organism’s life, humans may be temporary participants in this higher-order structure, our technological developments—AI, space exploration, global communication—unconscious expressions of its adaptation. Logic and computation, then, aren’t merely human tools but mechanisms by which such a system refines itself, much like neurons once enabled complex cognition in early multicellular life.
If the self is already fluid, emerging from layered biological and environmental interactions, then the distinction between individual and species—or even species and superorganism—begins to dissolve. The question isn’t whether humans are "merely" parts of something larger but how agency and meaning persist within such a network. Are we discrete entities, or dynamic nodes in a cognitive web? Is our drive toward AI and interplanetary expansion an instinctive step in a broader evolutionary trajectory? Recognizing cognition—and perhaps existence itself—as fundamentally unbounded shifts the focus from isolation to interdependence, suggesting that the future of intelligence lies not in solitary mastery but in the emergent patterns of a universe learning to perceive itself.
How’s part 2 of your essay on the fear of God coming along, Mark?
Slowly. But maybe that's a good thing. I don’t want to fall into hubris, or lead anyone into heresy. So i’ve been re-reading and talking with trusted friends about it, trying to be more sure that I'm not falling for some trick.
Very wise. Thank you, Mark, your followers truly appreciate and respect the thought and time you put into your articles. We truly benefit, thank you.
This is the greatest piece of writing I have read on Substack thus far. Thank you.
Thank you, brother.
So, strong AI would just be another entity in a sphere above our comprehension?
No. AI of any kind is comprehensible because it is discrete and structure-dependent. It’s not a mind in a dynamic state of being.
Are you alright with my using some of your neologisms (with citation)? I've had some thoughts along similar lines about the "fractal hierarchy" of the cosmos for the last couple of years after reading Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age" and reflecting on some of my own wilder experiences. But I've never had the words to express it like you have here and in "What Reaches Back."
Of course. Reurpose whatever seems right. What kind of a hacker would I be if I said "No"?
Superb thoughts, sir. Just, damn.
My scribbles on the blackboard:
“ We can think of them as a breed of superpsychopaths, who derive not just sadistic pleasure from suffering, but view it as a means of metabolic survival and flourishing.”
Agreed, fully.
Conversely, me thinks an inverse statement can be made about “angels” and other Good entities.
And that would therefore possibly explain why demons fled Christ and/or obeyed Him, even to their destruction: His immeasurable Good-ness sapped their energy, perhaps sapping it to the extreme.
Modestly extrapolating: those who call upon His Name in times of distress; should they call out in utter helplessness—and utter Faith—the demon(s) causing their distress are therefore dispersed because said Faith is quite caustic to their existence.
Would that Frank E. Peretti could chime in here.
I think this is right. "The power of Christ compels you," in the exorcism rite is a request to lend the exorcist some measure of Christ's authority in the battle, the way he lent it to his apostles on their missions.
Is it lent through intermediary beings? I don't pretend to know how it works, but that wouldn't surprise me. I do suspect that the transaction would be different at a fundamental level. Demons are summoned by some known or unknown party, and feed on misery. Angels assist us based on God's own wisdom and commands, and are fed by God. There is no such thing as summoning an angel of the Lord. But if your plea for assistance is pure, you might find that help arrives in a number of mysterious ways.
Well said. And agreed.
I don’t think one summons an angel, per se. And speaking for myself, I’ve only ever cried out for Christ, not an angel, and on one very memorable occasion, was immediately relieved of my distress.
Point is, did Christ come to my direct aid that day on a steeply sloped barn roof that I was sliding off of, or did He direct an emissary, an angel? I strongly believe the latter.
I was and continue to be utterly unworthy of such aid, but that does not stop me from earnestly requesting it on occasion. And most gratefully accepting it.
During the period of high strangeness following the end of the Harm Assistant project, there was one supernatural experience in particular that I struggle to understand to this day. I initially perceived the event as a not-so veiled threat, with the intent to scare me back to work. But these days, I'm not so sure.
The strange (and technically violent) thing happened that day concluded while I was praying to Saint Anthony, which I had not done since I was a little kid. And, in the wake of it, I didn't feel any fear. At the time, I chalked it up to a new sense of spiritual purpose and the bravado that came along with it (i.e. "Molon labe, motherfucker.") I still think the event was initialized by the demon. But nowadays, I wonder if its conclusion was an act of genuine assistance and grace
(I know that all sounds vague. I haven't written about that day and that particular event. Maybe someday I will, when I gain more understanding of it.)
“I still think the event was initialized by the demon. But nowadays, I wonder if its conclusion was an act of genuine assistance and grace.”
Seems to be too strong a coincidence for it to be anything other than genuine assistance, though many of those that are Enlightened would argue it was swamp gas.
Me, though I lived the first 40 years of my life as an utter scumbag, when I finally woke up, I experienced several instances that simply cannot be explained as anything other than Divine Grace. And as stated earlier I am utterly undeserving of such treatment.
Does a loving and Grace-giving God exist? As far as I’m concerned, yes. But then again I’m not Enlightened so you shouldn’t listen to me.
As a fellow Unenlightened one, I figure you might be right.
It’s fascinating to compare supernatural beings with gods and shape-shifters. How would these supernatural beings communicate with us if they could change their form at will?
This reminds me greatly of the Aristotle’s concept of “hylomorphism” - in essence, the idea that all true ‘things’ have a specific form (morphos) in which their matter/elements are organized beyond the matter/elements themselves. In Mark’s lung example, for instance, the form might not be just the shape of the lung but the system of cellular/nervous and other biological reactions by which the lung fulfills its function. I remember in certain other posts Mark has discussed ‘egregores’, or systems of people/ideas/subsystems that act, behave and follow cycles analogous to a living organism - perhaps these too are a kind of being, though the analogy can at times confuse as much as reveal (for instance, the entire Romantic vs. Spenglerian/historical pessimist argument concerning the ‘life cycles of nations/civilizations’). I am certain on a gut level of one thing though - ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ or ‘soul’, whatever you call it, cannot simply have emerged from matter qua matter; something is ‘out there’, even if it is unclear now exactly what it is.
The boundaries of human cognition and identity may be far less fixed than we assume, with the very notion of "we" serving as a temporary construct—an emergent pattern arising from the interplay of biological systems rather than a stable, centralized self. Cognition doesn’t reside solely in the brain but unfolds as an interference pattern between overlapping systems, each modeling its own states and influencing the whole: the gut microbiome altering decision-making, hormones shaping social behavior, immune responses modulating mental states. No single system dominates, meaning thought and perception are distributed phenomena, explaining why biases can stem from microbial shifts, why social dynamics fluctuate with neurochemistry, and why mental health is inseparable from bodily inflammation.
This interconnectedness extends beyond the individual, suggesting humanity itself might function as a component within a larger, evolving system—a superorganism where collective intelligence, technology, and culture act as a kind of neural network, processing information across scales. Just as cells contribute transiently to an organism’s life, humans may be temporary participants in this higher-order structure, our technological developments—AI, space exploration, global communication—unconscious expressions of its adaptation. Logic and computation, then, aren’t merely human tools but mechanisms by which such a system refines itself, much like neurons once enabled complex cognition in early multicellular life.
If the self is already fluid, emerging from layered biological and environmental interactions, then the distinction between individual and species—or even species and superorganism—begins to dissolve. The question isn’t whether humans are "merely" parts of something larger but how agency and meaning persist within such a network. Are we discrete entities, or dynamic nodes in a cognitive web? Is our drive toward AI and interplanetary expansion an instinctive step in a broader evolutionary trajectory? Recognizing cognition—and perhaps existence itself—as fundamentally unbounded shifts the focus from isolation to interdependence, suggesting that the future of intelligence lies not in solitary mastery but in the emergent patterns of a universe learning to perceive itself.