Main Edition
US
FR
Victor Watts/Alamy Stock Photo
In 1564, John Dee was “appointed Royal Advisor in mystic secrets”, official astrologer and magician to Elizabeth I. If he had been born in the 20th century, would the astronomer, scientist and occultist have ended up writing for the News of the World?
That, after all, was the destiny of perhaps the most famous British astrologer of the 20th century: Mystic Meg, who died last week. Known as Meg Markova, but born Margaret Anne Lake, she became so identified with the power to predict the future that “Mystic Meg” passed into everyday language as a byword for prognostication.
It might be tempting to imagine that the modern age is so secular, scientific and disenchanted there is no modern-day role for a magician other than popular entertainer. How else to describe the “asparamancer”, who foretold the death of the second Queen Elizabeth last year in a pattern of falling asparagus spears?
But if you think there are no sorcerers left, you are looking in the wrong places. In fact, thanks at least partly to John Dee, it’s more accurate to say his inheritors now rule the world.
Whether or not you believe there’s anything paranormal “out there”, a great many studies affirm that most of the time when we notice patterns, we’re not conscious of doing so; what can feel like a “hunch” or “intuition” is really just our own powers of unconscious observation trying to get our attention. In this light, one way of understanding the many traditions of “reading” fortunes — whether in Tarot cards, the flight patterns of birds, tea leaves in a cup or the entrails of animals — is as a means of accessing some of these buried powers of pattern recognition, and allowing less conscious and sometimes more accurate observations to inform our conscious choices.
Dee himself used an obsidian mirror of Aztec origin, supported on wax discs inscribed with arcane symbols. He and the alchemist and medium Edward Kelley would gaze into its black, reflective surface, where they reported seeing visions of angels; these were reflected in numerous manuscripts, which form the basis of the Enochian system of magic. Their occult legacy has endured, from the 17th-century politician Elias Ashmole to the 20th-century British occultist and “father of modern Satanism” Aleister Crowley and beyond.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeModelling is the modern day obsidian mirror. Non-science dressed up as science. Every influential group has a model, from economics to climate to pandemics.
Now, there’s nothing wrong per se with a model if it is used to understand the world by empirical feedback. But that’s not how much of publicly funded modelling works. Today models are built to prove a point, no falsifiable test cases are designed. Then the models are used to predict the future in highly specific ways often with prescriptive policy outcomes recommended.
Armed with the”scientific” model and the “scientific” policy recommendations, attention is grabbed the narrative controlled. Not just what the model says about tomorrow but what policies must be enacted somehow become a scientific truth. Theory confused with hypothesis, not helped by the English language’s use of theory to describe any old idea. Politics confused with science, not helped by the gullability and woeful scientific illiteracy of politicians.
Empiricism – the science bit – is entirely missing. Next to nothing is invested in the comparing of predictions with outcomes needed to quantify the statistical certainty of these models. Despite many of these models having decades of forecasting history proved wrong by what actually happened, the models still hold sway. Why? Because the models confirm the biases of those producing them and those using them. And in that sense, modellers are modern day mystics and their models nothing more than sticks of asparagus.
Modelling comes from people who call themselves Social Scientists. They are not scientists, who try to prove by long-term experiments. They are people who stare at their computers, collect random data, analyse that data and show a trend. The problem with this is that you can create any trend that you want to create by choosing the right data.
As von Neumann put it “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
Excellent. I hadn’t encountered that quote before.
Excellent. I hadn’t encountered that quote before.
Modeling does not come from social scientists.
Another lie.
Modeling is used in all walks of science and engineering. Like any tool, you can use it effectively or not. Every “law” of physics is essentially a model. Over reliance on models is foolish. So is not understanding and exploring their simplicities and limitations.
Yes we use models all the time in my field of engineering, constantly adjusted with real time data, where available, and backmodelling.
Yes we use models all the time in my field of engineering, constantly adjusted with real time data, where available, and backmodelling.
Untrue.. all of it!
This is epidemic at the moment. One sees people stuck in a shaky narrative and thoroughly convinced that they are right. If you disagree you are cancelled. When this is in government it is dangerous.
As von Neumann put it “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
Modeling does not come from social scientists.
Another lie.
Modeling is used in all walks of science and engineering. Like any tool, you can use it effectively or not. Every “law” of physics is essentially a model. Over reliance on models is foolish. So is not understanding and exploring their simplicities and limitations.
Untrue.. all of it!
This is epidemic at the moment. One sees people stuck in a shaky narrative and thoroughly convinced that they are right. If you disagree you are cancelled. When this is in government it is dangerous.
Yes, old John Dee would today be earning very lucrative consultancy fees as a COVID and climate change adviser.
Another lie.
Mindless. Your comments expose your lack of intellect.
On what basis? You haven’t even said why. That’s not good enough.
Mindless. Your comments expose your lack of intellect.
On what basis? You haven’t even said why. That’s not good enough.
Our two biggest shaky narratives almost destroying our country.
Another lie.
Our two biggest shaky narratives almost destroying our country.
Accurately modelling complex phenomena takes centuries of hard work and learning – we can now do it with rocketry exceedingly well; weather systems pretty accurately; seismic systems, and human affairs (economics, psychology, politics) not so well – but much better than we did 10 or 100 years ago. It’ll take many more decades, and AI, to get reliability. Any good scientist – social or pure -, understands the limits of their modelling. It tends to be the rest of us – politicians, civil servants, journalists, activists, grifters and the hoi polloi who misunderstand it, rely on it, weaponise it; and who ‘miss the science bit’ (e.g. who do not hear or understood the margins of error, probability ratios)…. and some luddistically dismiss the whole endeavour, and the scientists to boot.
The faith of the modern scientist is noble, indeed. But perhaps Aristotle was correct when he said that human and political phenomena simply do not admit the same degree of certainty as physical phenomena do.
He was surely correct in the the admission that then (and currently, and no doubt for a long time yet) prediction and understanding of human affairs is so difficult, complex as to be near impossible, whilst physical phenomena are now predictable in ways he might think of as magical. I’m not sure that anything other than complexity is the key factor. Have you seen the drama series DEVS? It imagines a near future where a quantum computer is designed that can prospectively and retrospectively calculate all things that have or will ever happen. Clever and fun.
I think another factor is the unkown, what we’re not aware of, as inputs to the modelling which has an influence on the outcome. Good comments, you were downticked and I cannot honestly believe the mentality of who would do this.
I know! odd isn’t it? do remember that the more variable inputs the lower the level of confidence in the final prediction: eg if you have just 5 variable inputs and even if you have 90% confidence in each the outcome might be as low as .9x.9x.9x.9x.9 ie 55% accuracy even assuming no input errors.
So ‘as likely to be accurate to a value between 50% and 150% only. With complex models there might be 10+ inputs. If each had a 90% probability the accuracy might be as low as 25% – unlikely though but since estimates might be inaccurate up and down thereby reducing the level of inaccuracy to perhaps 40%.
My daughter had a ‘reading’ several years ago and swears she have nothing away and was highly skeptical.. She was told she would be..
1. Going back to university – true but a good guess might have got that for mystic Meg.
2. Going to UCC – no she had been accepted into UCGfor her masters’.
3. “Pulling pints” within 2 years – she’d never worked in a bar in her life and had no plan ever to do so.
However, a few days later UCG apologised for a c**k-up, had no place for her but had found a similar post grad course in UCC!
And after getting her masters she got a job in Guinness’s lab.. one of her duties was to pull pints from the production floor to test in the lab!
I know! odd isn’t it? do remember that the more variable inputs the lower the level of confidence in the final prediction: eg if you have just 5 variable inputs and even if you have 90% confidence in each the outcome might be as low as .9x.9x.9x.9x.9 ie 55% accuracy even assuming no input errors.
So ‘as likely to be accurate to a value between 50% and 150% only. With complex models there might be 10+ inputs. If each had a 90% probability the accuracy might be as low as 25% – unlikely though but since estimates might be inaccurate up and down thereby reducing the level of inaccuracy to perhaps 40%.
My daughter had a ‘reading’ several years ago and swears she have nothing away and was highly skeptical.. She was told she would be..
1. Going back to university – true but a good guess might have got that for mystic Meg.
2. Going to UCC – no she had been accepted into UCGfor her masters’.
3. “Pulling pints” within 2 years – she’d never worked in a bar in her life and had no plan ever to do so.
However, a few days later UCG apologised for a c**k-up, had no place for her but had found a similar post grad course in UCC!
And after getting her masters she got a job in Guinness’s lab.. one of her duties was to pull pints from the production floor to test in the lab!
I think another factor is the unkown, what we’re not aware of, as inputs to the modelling which has an influence on the outcome. Good comments, you were downticked and I cannot honestly believe the mentality of who would do this.
Political narrative goes much further than certainty and strays into the area of dogma alas and calls it science.
He was surely correct in the the admission that then (and currently, and no doubt for a long time yet) prediction and understanding of human affairs is so difficult, complex as to be near impossible, whilst physical phenomena are now predictable in ways he might think of as magical. I’m not sure that anything other than complexity is the key factor. Have you seen the drama series DEVS? It imagines a near future where a quantum computer is designed that can prospectively and retrospectively calculate all things that have or will ever happen. Clever and fun.
Political narrative goes much further than certainty and strays into the area of dogma alas and calls it science.
Physical phenomena can be usefully modelled. Physical phenomena do not change when they are modelled. Refining the model of fluid mechanic boundary conditions doesn’t change the real world phenomena.
Human affairs cannot be usefully modelled. If a really useful model is used to do something in the real world then the world that was modelled has just changed and the model becomes untested and probably invalidated. If the model is not used to do anything then the model is not useful.
A classic example is financial risk management. The model identifies low risk assets. The market takes note and puts low risk investments in the low risk assets. But immediately the price of such assets rises so the risk-value trade-off worsens. In extremis, so much money ends up in these low risk assets that the systemic risk rises. And on top of this, there are then layers of creative derivatives engineered to play on these changes in ways that haven’t yet been invented and so sit outside of every single risk model. AI is no solution to this problem because it only learns from events that have happened and it cannot assign meaningful probability to investment behaviours yet to be tried.
The faith of the modern scientist is noble, indeed. But perhaps Aristotle was correct when he said that human and political phenomena simply do not admit the same degree of certainty as physical phenomena do.
Physical phenomena can be usefully modelled. Physical phenomena do not change when they are modelled. Refining the model of fluid mechanic boundary conditions doesn’t change the real world phenomena.
Human affairs cannot be usefully modelled. If a really useful model is used to do something in the real world then the world that was modelled has just changed and the model becomes untested and probably invalidated. If the model is not used to do anything then the model is not useful.
A classic example is financial risk management. The model identifies low risk assets. The market takes note and puts low risk investments in the low risk assets. But immediately the price of such assets rises so the risk-value trade-off worsens. In extremis, so much money ends up in these low risk assets that the systemic risk rises. And on top of this, there are then layers of creative derivatives engineered to play on these changes in ways that haven’t yet been invented and so sit outside of every single risk model. AI is no solution to this problem because it only learns from events that have happened and it cannot assign meaningful probability to investment behaviours yet to be tried.
English language is actually accurate, it is the use of it by the dubious or uninformed Hypothesis is what we were taught is the starting point, and provided the experimental evidence confirms the Hypothesis, then you may decide it is a Theory.
Blaming English for that is like blaming English for the redefinition of Gay or Racist – more accurate would be to blame Humpty Dumpty or his inventor Lewis Carroll (which even then is also a ‘disguise’ for the real man). Even people who haven’t read the book now decide that a word means
“”When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.””
Perhaps the author had a crystal ball or obsidian mirror and watched the 21st Century unfold – he couldn’t have described it more concisely if he had!
And this is a typical anthropogenic climate change denier pack of utter lies.
The ACC models have been extremely accurate.
The problem is click bait headlines that get it wrong.
Its the sort of trash you’d expect from an oil company executive.
Says you.
Says you.
How to lie with statistics, an old, yet still applicable book.
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics“.*
(* MT or BD?)
MT.
MT.
I still have my copy that was used in a class back in the seventies. Just passed it on to my daughter. Great little book!
“Lies, damned lies, and statistics“.*
(* MT or BD?)
I still have my copy that was used in a class back in the seventies. Just passed it on to my daughter. Great little book!
A tad overstated and one-sided. While it’s true that models are more likely to be inaccurate than accurate (the terms right and wrong are unscientific) they are more like to be more accurate than wishful thinking be that political or mystical. In short they are better than nothing and far better than propaganda and deliberate misinformation which seems to be the stock n trade of lying, cheating, corrupt politicians and their greedy, misanthropic puppet masters.
How can you say that models are better than no models when it is up to you to select the model which supports your theory?
So-called ‘global warming’ follows this. You measure something, look for figures which support your theory, get your theory accepted, teach children and ‘whadda ya know’ – the theory has become a fact. A fact based on a pseudo-communistic way of live where improvements are forbidden. In Wales there will be no new roads!!!
Global warming is a very anti human theory which is being used against us at every turn. I think there is a narative behind it which is seeking something, else particularly with the WEF lot.
Global warming is a very anti human theory which is being used against us at every turn. I think there is a narative behind it which is seeking something, else particularly with the WEF lot.
A model is no more intrinsically accurate than wishful thinking. Wishful thinking can and is used to make many models. The label “model” is slapped on anything and everything that makes a prediction using some numbers.
So many become spellbound when the magic word “model” is used. One only has to inspect the absolute coding* and parameters* mess that was the Imperial College COVID model to realise the problem with models is everywhere.
*I was asked to independently review the code and parameters. It was pure junk. It was so sensitive to the human input variables about the expected future progression of COVID that it essentially just repeated back what those variables predicted.
Well now, if the models are more likely to be inaccurate than accurate, it would be best to ignore the models – And you.
How can you say that models are better than no models when it is up to you to select the model which supports your theory?
So-called ‘global warming’ follows this. You measure something, look for figures which support your theory, get your theory accepted, teach children and ‘whadda ya know’ – the theory has become a fact. A fact based on a pseudo-communistic way of live where improvements are forbidden. In Wales there will be no new roads!!!
A model is no more intrinsically accurate than wishful thinking. Wishful thinking can and is used to make many models. The label “model” is slapped on anything and everything that makes a prediction using some numbers.
So many become spellbound when the magic word “model” is used. One only has to inspect the absolute coding* and parameters* mess that was the Imperial College COVID model to realise the problem with models is everywhere.
*I was asked to independently review the code and parameters. It was pure junk. It was so sensitive to the human input variables about the expected future progression of COVID that it essentially just repeated back what those variables predicted.
Well now, if the models are more likely to be inaccurate than accurate, it would be best to ignore the models – And you.
Well done, Clover! Modeling is the great fallacy of our time; likely to be problematic in the hands of policy makers.
It’s all about “narrative control”. As usual.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Same principal.
We have been suffering from these models since Covid started.
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Same principal.
We have been suffering from these models since Covid started.
I would suggest you read Dr Dean Radin’s books, Supernormal and Real Magic, after you read Entangled Minds and The Conscious Universe. Dr RAdin is exactly what you need-a scientist applying the Scientific method to his experiments, with very interesting results.
Modelling comes from people who call themselves Social Scientists. They are not scientists, who try to prove by long-term experiments. They are people who stare at their computers, collect random data, analyse that data and show a trend. The problem with this is that you can create any trend that you want to create by choosing the right data.
Yes, old John Dee would today be earning very lucrative consultancy fees as a COVID and climate change adviser.
Accurately modelling complex phenomena takes centuries of hard work and learning – we can now do it with rocketry exceedingly well; weather systems pretty accurately; seismic systems, and human affairs (economics, psychology, politics) not so well – but much better than we did 10 or 100 years ago. It’ll take many more decades, and AI, to get reliability. Any good scientist – social or pure -, understands the limits of their modelling. It tends to be the rest of us – politicians, civil servants, journalists, activists, grifters and the hoi polloi who misunderstand it, rely on it, weaponise it; and who ‘miss the science bit’ (e.g. who do not hear or understood the margins of error, probability ratios)…. and some luddistically dismiss the whole endeavour, and the scientists to boot.
English language is actually accurate, it is the use of it by the dubious or uninformed Hypothesis is what we were taught is the starting point, and provided the experimental evidence confirms the Hypothesis, then you may decide it is a Theory.
Blaming English for that is like blaming English for the redefinition of Gay or Racist – more accurate would be to blame Humpty Dumpty or his inventor Lewis Carroll (which even then is also a ‘disguise’ for the real man). Even people who haven’t read the book now decide that a word means
“”When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.””
Perhaps the author had a crystal ball or obsidian mirror and watched the 21st Century unfold – he couldn’t have described it more concisely if he had!
And this is a typical anthropogenic climate change denier pack of utter lies.
The ACC models have been extremely accurate.
The problem is click bait headlines that get it wrong.
Its the sort of trash you’d expect from an oil company executive.
How to lie with statistics, an old, yet still applicable book.
A tad overstated and one-sided. While it’s true that models are more likely to be inaccurate than accurate (the terms right and wrong are unscientific) they are more like to be more accurate than wishful thinking be that political or mystical. In short they are better than nothing and far better than propaganda and deliberate misinformation which seems to be the stock n trade of lying, cheating, corrupt politicians and their greedy, misanthropic puppet masters.
Well done, Clover! Modeling is the great fallacy of our time; likely to be problematic in the hands of policy makers.
It’s all about “narrative control”. As usual.
I would suggest you read Dr Dean Radin’s books, Supernormal and Real Magic, after you read Entangled Minds and The Conscious Universe. Dr RAdin is exactly what you need-a scientist applying the Scientific method to his experiments, with very interesting results.
Modelling is the modern day obsidian mirror. Non-science dressed up as science. Every influential group has a model, from economics to climate to pandemics.
Now, there’s nothing wrong per se with a model if it is used to understand the world by empirical feedback. But that’s not how much of publicly funded modelling works. Today models are built to prove a point, no falsifiable test cases are designed. Then the models are used to predict the future in highly specific ways often with prescriptive policy outcomes recommended.
Armed with the”scientific” model and the “scientific” policy recommendations, attention is grabbed the narrative controlled. Not just what the model says about tomorrow but what policies must be enacted somehow become a scientific truth. Theory confused with hypothesis, not helped by the English language’s use of theory to describe any old idea. Politics confused with science, not helped by the gullability and woeful scientific illiteracy of politicians.
Empiricism – the science bit – is entirely missing. Next to nothing is invested in the comparing of predictions with outcomes needed to quantify the statistical certainty of these models. Despite many of these models having decades of forecasting history proved wrong by what actually happened, the models still hold sway. Why? Because the models confirm the biases of those producing them and those using them. And in that sense, modellers are modern day mystics and their models nothing more than sticks of asparagus.
Another great, thoughtful, and quietly unsettling read from Mrs. Harrington. I too have a keen sense of pattern recognition, but because we’ve collectively delegated most of our reasoning to central authorities and their ‘experts’, I find people increasingly respond to my perfectly reasonable, rational, cause-and-effect predictions like I’m some babbling madman claiming he can see the future.
Just because I AM a madman with a penchant for babbling doesn’t change the fact that I’ve had a pretty spot-on track record over the past few years.
The most potent ‘pattern recognition’ is related to body language – something that is now like unstable nitroglycerine in the hands of the Woke. Which explosive a number of the non-self-identifying members of the female variety then hand over to naive unsuspecting males who are unaware that biology and time has built into them some innate patterns they recognise as being ‘encouraging’ of closer contact. Then “boom” – with all the consequences for the current relationships between the sexes.
For the sake of clarity, I doubt that many of the females truly understand precisely what observations result from the patterns they provide, and how explosive the mix may be. If they did, we’d have far fewer of the lurid headlines we get I suspect and the Oscars & other glittering award ceremonies would display far less expanses of female flesh – applying the same to male celebrities, we might also find fewer signs of odd male fantasies Mr Smith?
Perhaps we need to pay more attention to the autonomous and pattern recognition systems of the human being when it comes to life in general. It might save us a lot of trouble not only in business, politics and banking. We might even discover that scientists begin to realise that facts are what they are supposed to be discovering in the patterns, rather than covering up to preserve the ‘false pattern’ they’ve espoused and on which perhaps their incomes and reputations are based. Does that ring a bell with Dr Faucci or Prof Mann to name but two I wonder?
It’s utter drivel, and you think it’s thoughtful.
Strange. He makes an argument that he believes in his own models. You say, ‘Drivel.’ What do you believe, then?
Strange. He makes an argument that he believes in his own models. You say, ‘Drivel.’ What do you believe, then?
The most potent ‘pattern recognition’ is related to body language – something that is now like unstable nitroglycerine in the hands of the Woke. Which explosive a number of the non-self-identifying members of the female variety then hand over to naive unsuspecting males who are unaware that biology and time has built into them some innate patterns they recognise as being ‘encouraging’ of closer contact. Then “boom” – with all the consequences for the current relationships between the sexes.
For the sake of clarity, I doubt that many of the females truly understand precisely what observations result from the patterns they provide, and how explosive the mix may be. If they did, we’d have far fewer of the lurid headlines we get I suspect and the Oscars & other glittering award ceremonies would display far less expanses of female flesh – applying the same to male celebrities, we might also find fewer signs of odd male fantasies Mr Smith?
Perhaps we need to pay more attention to the autonomous and pattern recognition systems of the human being when it comes to life in general. It might save us a lot of trouble not only in business, politics and banking. We might even discover that scientists begin to realise that facts are what they are supposed to be discovering in the patterns, rather than covering up to preserve the ‘false pattern’ they’ve espoused and on which perhaps their incomes and reputations are based. Does that ring a bell with Dr Faucci or Prof Mann to name but two I wonder?
It’s utter drivel, and you think it’s thoughtful.
Another great, thoughtful, and quietly unsettling read from Mrs. Harrington. I too have a keen sense of pattern recognition, but because we’ve collectively delegated most of our reasoning to central authorities and their ‘experts’, I find people increasingly respond to my perfectly reasonable, rational, cause-and-effect predictions like I’m some babbling madman claiming he can see the future.
Just because I AM a madman with a penchant for babbling doesn’t change the fact that I’ve had a pretty spot-on track record over the past few years.
The simple facts are: historical shamans and mystics had the eye of the world and any shortcomings were negated by the powerful imagination they had and imparted to the world.
Shakespeare followed on from such times and England and Britain thrived.
Now a bank called silicon valley bank has collapsed, and a week later on LinkedIn every smart ass is saying: “the probability of recession is up 35% from 25%”… We live in an age of absolute speculation and mysticism. It’s just one of manipulation of that mystic thing called the economy and so few benefit while so many suffer.
This was a fantastic essay and well timed. Just before I read it I saw the LinkedIn financial mob running their mouths saying, you can’t have your cake, bank runs mean something… Sure they mean rich people get to duck up, make a load of noise, make speculation, goad us all with negative projections, pull the wool over eyes and then make bank again in some other future financial event. The rest of us groan at stupid technocrats, investors and start ups who get to take risks we are never able to.
We need a John dee, a Shakespeare, a Bach, a Bacon, a Watts, a McKenna, a Huxley, the list goes on, to awaken our souls again. We’re so far down in the darkness, truly.
The effects of the two banks going down may ripple outwards to the rest of the world’s banks and possibly beyond, however I have just read an interesting article, (But such is my memory I can’t quite remember where – read far too much today, I must get out and do something physical.) It provides an interesting alternative view to why the banks were so suddenly ‘closed down’.
Both were claimed to be heavily involved in Crypto Currencies AND the Fed wants to introduce its own. Thus having the anarchistic Cryptos competing with theirs isn’t favoured. So the Feds rejoiced in the liquidity issues as a great excuse and launched ‘dawn raids’ to shut down these two ‘exits/entrances’ between the Anarcho crypto world and the normal financial world. It seems now the Fed is a happier bunny.
The effects of the two banks going down may ripple outwards to the rest of the world’s banks and possibly beyond, however I have just read an interesting article, (But such is my memory I can’t quite remember where – read far too much today, I must get out and do something physical.) It provides an interesting alternative view to why the banks were so suddenly ‘closed down’.
Both were claimed to be heavily involved in Crypto Currencies AND the Fed wants to introduce its own. Thus having the anarchistic Cryptos competing with theirs isn’t favoured. So the Feds rejoiced in the liquidity issues as a great excuse and launched ‘dawn raids’ to shut down these two ‘exits/entrances’ between the Anarcho crypto world and the normal financial world. It seems now the Fed is a happier bunny.
The simple facts are: historical shamans and mystics had the eye of the world and any shortcomings were negated by the powerful imagination they had and imparted to the world.
Shakespeare followed on from such times and England and Britain thrived.
Now a bank called silicon valley bank has collapsed, and a week later on LinkedIn every smart ass is saying: “the probability of recession is up 35% from 25%”… We live in an age of absolute speculation and mysticism. It’s just one of manipulation of that mystic thing called the economy and so few benefit while so many suffer.
This was a fantastic essay and well timed. Just before I read it I saw the LinkedIn financial mob running their mouths saying, you can’t have your cake, bank runs mean something… Sure they mean rich people get to duck up, make a load of noise, make speculation, goad us all with negative projections, pull the wool over eyes and then make bank again in some other future financial event. The rest of us groan at stupid technocrats, investors and start ups who get to take risks we are never able to.
We need a John dee, a Shakespeare, a Bach, a Bacon, a Watts, a McKenna, a Huxley, the list goes on, to awaken our souls again. We’re so far down in the darkness, truly.
The world is more complicated than we can grasp but we desire understanding so we can respond swiftly to future events…
We had shamans to explain the nature and animal spirits
We had priests to explain the mysterious moves of God/Gods
We have economists who depressingly forecast economic matters
So other practitioners with a good line in patter are nothing new (or any more accurate). All driven by our desire for a predictable future.
I see a pattern here.
Do i also detect phallic symbolism with the use of asparagus in divination, or is that just wishful thinking?
Simply couldn’t find her I-Ching sticks one day, and had just been to market, so …
Simply couldn’t find her I-Ching sticks one day, and had just been to market, so …
This is where the internet comes in. There used to be just one economist – the one you saw on the BBC. Now there are thousands of them. If you have 1000 opinions, then one of them could be right. That doesn’t help, does it.
But it shows that economists are shysters. They play with figures and try to show trends. Another waste of money.
If we do away with economists then I guess, ipso facto we must do away with economics but we cannot do away with the economy can we? So if no assessments / predictions are made what will the economy look like? It will be in utter chaos. But it is I hear you say!
Sure it is, but the economic catastrophe was not created by a lack of economics but by highly selective, high suspect, long since discredited trickle down economics.
Of course, although I say it’s a catastrophe that’s the case only of you think the 90% have any right to a decent income.. if, like the Tories you despise the 90% and want only to enrich the already filthy rich then their economics is working perfectly well.
You have evaded the issue. You have changed the subject – economics – and thereby delivered your political opinion.
It is a chicken and egg situation. Which comes first, economics or politics? I would suggest that economics comes first. You would suggest politics. My driving force is that politicians actually know very little – maybe a bit of history (itself open to doubt today). So politicians justify their beliefs by choosing the economic theory which supports them. As simple as that. Back to the 1000 economists.
I don’t disagree; not in the slightest: the Tories opt for trickle down economics because it tells the lie that making rick people richer means everyone gets richer!
But as you rightly say, I’m off piste.. so let me say (as I’ve done elsewhere) statistical modelling IS a valid pursuit nut only for those equipped intellectually and honest enough to interpret them. In the hands of charlatans like politicians they amount to “a little learning” ie a dangerous thing!
Models are better than nothing and better too than random wishful thinking provided they are treated as what they are: approximate predictors of probable outcomes.. not crystal balls with zero risk of inaccuracy.
“Trickle Down” is a pejorative term only. Nobody espouses it.
Economics is a worthy study, encompassing all human behaviour and interactions. (interactions which existed long before “economics” was thought of)
Where it goes off the rails is when people think it’s a science.
But rephrase it as ‘making wealthy people wealthier means everyone becomes wealthier’ and that’s a more arguable point.
Wealthy people always had a better standard of living but many of those ‘advantages’ have subsequently rolled down to ordinary people. Consider medical care, washing machines, double glazing, central heating, personal transport, sanitation, house ownership etc.
Trickle down of wealth yes, money not so much.
“Trickle Down” is a pejorative term only. Nobody espouses it.
Economics is a worthy study, encompassing all human behaviour and interactions. (interactions which existed long before “economics” was thought of)
Where it goes off the rails is when people think it’s a science.
But rephrase it as ‘making wealthy people wealthier means everyone becomes wealthier’ and that’s a more arguable point.
Wealthy people always had a better standard of living but many of those ‘advantages’ have subsequently rolled down to ordinary people. Consider medical care, washing machines, double glazing, central heating, personal transport, sanitation, house ownership etc.
Trickle down of wealth yes, money not so much.
I don’t disagree; not in the slightest: the Tories opt for trickle down economics because it tells the lie that making rick people richer means everyone gets richer!
But as you rightly say, I’m off piste.. so let me say (as I’ve done elsewhere) statistical modelling IS a valid pursuit nut only for those equipped intellectually and honest enough to interpret them. In the hands of charlatans like politicians they amount to “a little learning” ie a dangerous thing!
Models are better than nothing and better too than random wishful thinking provided they are treated as what they are: approximate predictors of probable outcomes.. not crystal balls with zero risk of inaccuracy.
You have evaded the issue. You have changed the subject – economics – and thereby delivered your political opinion.
It is a chicken and egg situation. Which comes first, economics or politics? I would suggest that economics comes first. You would suggest politics. My driving force is that politicians actually know very little – maybe a bit of history (itself open to doubt today). So politicians justify their beliefs by choosing the economic theory which supports them. As simple as that. Back to the 1000 economists.
If we do away with economists then I guess, ipso facto we must do away with economics but we cannot do away with the economy can we? So if no assessments / predictions are made what will the economy look like? It will be in utter chaos. But it is I hear you say!
Sure it is, but the economic catastrophe was not created by a lack of economics but by highly selective, high suspect, long since discredited trickle down economics.
Of course, although I say it’s a catastrophe that’s the case only of you think the 90% have any right to a decent income.. if, like the Tories you despise the 90% and want only to enrich the already filthy rich then their economics is working perfectly well.
I see a pattern here.
Do i also detect phallic symbolism with the use of asparagus in divination, or is that just wishful thinking?
This is where the internet comes in. There used to be just one economist – the one you saw on the BBC. Now there are thousands of them. If you have 1000 opinions, then one of them could be right. That doesn’t help, does it.
But it shows that economists are shysters. They play with figures and try to show trends. Another waste of money.
The world is more complicated than we can grasp but we desire understanding so we can respond swiftly to future events…
We had shamans to explain the nature and animal spirits
We had priests to explain the mysterious moves of God/Gods
We have economists who depressingly forecast economic matters
So other practitioners with a good line in patter are nothing new (or any more accurate). All driven by our desire for a predictable future.
We are no longer in the ‘information age’, but in the ‘age of feelings’, a counter-Enlightenment where the confected ‘anger’ of a not very bright footballer is taken as a true account of government policy, and a charity ditches one of its best ambassadors despite acknowledging that she was relaying a legally required disclaimer rather than speaking her own opinion.
We are no longer in the ‘information age’, but in the ‘age of feelings’, a counter-Enlightenment where the confected ‘anger’ of a not very bright footballer is taken as a true account of government policy, and a charity ditches one of its best ambassadors despite acknowledging that she was relaying a legally required disclaimer rather than speaking her own opinion.
Good article. The blind faith demanded of us by our newly super-empowered expert class is for an unquestioning belief in their occult powers of divination. One small point, though. It’s silicon, not silicone. Silicone is for breast augmentation or caulking round the bathtub.
Lol.
It’s utter tosh.
No, it’s actually very good stuff and provides a watertight seal, if used correctly.
No, it’s actually very good stuff and provides a watertight seal, if used correctly.
Funny!
Lol.
It’s utter tosh.
Funny!
Good article. The blind faith demanded of us by our newly super-empowered expert class is for an unquestioning belief in their occult powers of divination. One small point, though. It’s silicon, not silicone. Silicone is for breast augmentation or caulking round the bathtub.
Another really thought-provoking article, but really the star was the “asparamancer”. No dafter than most organised religion.
and yet with the demise of organised religion, particularly Christianity, the world of belief becomes more insane. Chesterton was not wrong it seems.
I agree with you but why are you surprised?
When people used to cut their finger in the field and die of fever a week later, they had to see some kind of unfairness. Why me and not my neighbour? So the answer was clear – God works in mysterious ways.
If I am in a bad mood and decide to kill half a dozen people, why shouldn’t I? Because God would punish me. Why can’t I steal my neighbour’s plough? Same reason.
What will happen to me when I die? Don’t worry, you will go to God.
After hundreds of years you take this away. You can now do things without punishment. You can change from a man to a woman. You can kill people who believe in a foreign God. BUT that doesn’t mean that there is a god.
If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe.
Indeed, you are showing that God’s ways are indeed “logical”. Your examples, though meant to be simplistic, point to the advantages of faith. In each and every case, the believer experiences the better outcome.
Sometimes I wish for a latter-day Pascal. He devised “the wager” to appeal to the atheist playboys fond of gambling and witty banter. Someone to challenge the supposedly “rational” “science-based” “data-driven” types with the logic of Christ the King.
People adopt the craziest habits: talking to an Apple Watch, consuming a fanciful diet, taking unknown drugs, paying a shrink to say what they wish to hear (a priest will tell you the truth and won’t even charge you), in order to gain an “edge” in their careers and “personal well-being”. . . But they can’t be persuaded to go to Mass once a week?
If you know something for a fact you don’t need to believe.
Indeed, you are showing that God’s ways are indeed “logical”. Your examples, though meant to be simplistic, point to the advantages of faith. In each and every case, the believer experiences the better outcome.
Sometimes I wish for a latter-day Pascal. He devised “the wager” to appeal to the atheist playboys fond of gambling and witty banter. Someone to challenge the supposedly “rational” “science-based” “data-driven” types with the logic of Christ the King.
People adopt the craziest habits: talking to an Apple Watch, consuming a fanciful diet, taking unknown drugs, paying a shrink to say what they wish to hear (a priest will tell you the truth and won’t even charge you), in order to gain an “edge” in their careers and “personal well-being”. . . But they can’t be persuaded to go to Mass once a week?
Christianity, properly speaking is not an organised religion.. sects claiming to be Christian, eg COE, RC etc. and also Islam et al are organised religions with their clerics and pageantry, dogma and ritual, bells, books and candles. The Christ never wrote a word nor instituted ritual nor dogma etc.
True Christianity is a Way, ie a way of deep understanding based on love like Buddhism.
Nonsense Mahony, have you been drinking again?
More like a philosophy?
Maybe, just maybe,Christianity and religion should be as you say – but it isn’t is it. As best it is the repetition of dogma. You can’t really separate the two, that is, belief and dogma.
Nonsense Mahony, have you been drinking again?
More like a philosophy?
Maybe, just maybe,Christianity and religion should be as you say – but it isn’t is it. As best it is the repetition of dogma. You can’t really separate the two, that is, belief and dogma.
Demise? It’s annoyingly alive in the US. The force behind the ban on abortions.
Abortion isn’t banned in the US.
If there are no providers in your area and you wish to abort your pregnancy, perhaps your employer will pay for your travel and hotel expenses?
If you anticipate abortion to be a regular procedure for you, maybe it’s time to get a job at Amazon or Disney.
Abortion isn’t banned in the US.
If there are no providers in your area and you wish to abort your pregnancy, perhaps your employer will pay for your travel and hotel expenses?
If you anticipate abortion to be a regular procedure for you, maybe it’s time to get a job at Amazon or Disney.
I agree with you but why are you surprised?
When people used to cut their finger in the field and die of fever a week later, they had to see some kind of unfairness. Why me and not my neighbour? So the answer was clear – God works in mysterious ways.
If I am in a bad mood and decide to kill half a dozen people, why shouldn’t I? Because God would punish me. Why can’t I steal my neighbour’s plough? Same reason.
What will happen to me when I die? Don’t worry, you will go to God.
After hundreds of years you take this away. You can now do things without punishment. You can change from a man to a woman. You can kill people who believe in a foreign God. BUT that doesn’t mean that there is a god.
Christianity, properly speaking is not an organised religion.. sects claiming to be Christian, eg COE, RC etc. and also Islam et al are organised religions with their clerics and pageantry, dogma and ritual, bells, books and candles. The Christ never wrote a word nor instituted ritual nor dogma etc.
True Christianity is a Way, ie a way of deep understanding based on love like Buddhism.
Demise? It’s annoyingly alive in the US. The force behind the ban on abortions.
Exactly!!
and yet with the demise of organised religion, particularly Christianity, the world of belief becomes more insane. Chesterton was not wrong it seems.
Exactly!!
Another really thought-provoking article, but really the star was the “asparamancer”. No dafter than most organised religion.
“t might be tempting to imagine that the modern age is so secular, scientific and disenchanted there is no modern-day role for a magician other than popular entertainer.”
On the contrary Mary, we are not tempted: We know that we live in an age where the most absurd drivel is treated as gospel by the majority of our youth.
PS: Anyone out there read Peter Ackroyd’s novel, The House of Dr Dee? – Spooked me.
“t might be tempting to imagine that the modern age is so secular, scientific and disenchanted there is no modern-day role for a magician other than popular entertainer.”
On the contrary Mary, we are not tempted: We know that we live in an age where the most absurd drivel is treated as gospel by the majority of our youth.
PS: Anyone out there read Peter Ackroyd’s novel, The House of Dr Dee? – Spooked me.
Roman sorcerers fiddled about with animal intestines, modern sorcerers fiddle around with mathematical models. Same result from both.
So many wrong people here. Just unbelievable.
You fiddle around?
“Most people would rather die than think and MOST do”*.
(*BR.)
Whole armies of ’em, darn it! Evil thigh deep! Purge ’em, BB! Erase ’em!
You fiddle around?
“Most people would rather die than think and MOST do”*.
(*BR.)
Whole armies of ’em, darn it! Evil thigh deep! Purge ’em, BB! Erase ’em!
So many wrong people here. Just unbelievable.
Roman sorcerers fiddled about with animal intestines, modern sorcerers fiddle around with mathematical models. Same result from both.
I think a certain playrwright got it right, “By the pricking of my thumbs—-” Very scientific!
Will now be used as evidence that women have pricks!
Will now be used as evidence that women have pricks!
I think a certain playrwright got it right, “By the pricking of my thumbs—-” Very scientific!
Forgive this slightly irreverent note but given John was able to detect patterns I find it encouraging that people are talking about a character who features in a novel I have written which I am hoping to get published.
It is an interesting coincidence that he should appear before me on Unherd but then of course it is not. I take it as a sign.
Forgive this slightly irreverent note but given John was able to detect patterns I find it encouraging that people are talking about a character who features in a novel I have written which I am hoping to get published.
It is an interesting coincidence that he should appear before me on Unherd but then of course it is not. I take it as a sign.
What can I say bout the “asparamancer” except her vegetable looks much lovelier than what we get in Florida., and as far as predictions about the War and Politics, the Big Guns and Money tend to Win.
What can I say bout the “asparamancer” except her vegetable looks much lovelier than what we get in Florida., and as far as predictions about the War and Politics, the Big Guns and Money tend to Win.
I found this an insightful article – I love how Ms. Harrington makes these connections and explains them in an eloquent way.
Also a great short history of dark magic – some really good pointers here.
I found this an insightful article – I love how Ms. Harrington makes these connections and explains them in an eloquent way.
Also a great short history of dark magic – some really good pointers here.
You know who reminds me of Mystic Meg? Stock market analysts. Year after year the statistics show they can’t even do as well as throwing darts at the stock pages of a newspaper (which don’t exist anymore – you know what I mean). And yet whatever manager managed to randomly come out on top for a couple years in a row is a “genius” endowed with mystical acumen. Until his picks tank and people move on to Mystic Mike.
You know who reminds me of Mystic Meg? Stock market analysts. Year after year the statistics show they can’t even do as well as throwing darts at the stock pages of a newspaper (which don’t exist anymore – you know what I mean). And yet whatever manager managed to randomly come out on top for a couple years in a row is a “genius” endowed with mystical acumen. Until his picks tank and people move on to Mystic Mike.
John Dee was also an astrologer and astrology as method of prediction has not gone out of fashion. Many people in high positions society and politics still consult astrologers. One only has to think of scandal about Ronald Reagan’s stargazer or Princess Diana’s advisers. But these people are only the tip of the iceberg
John Dee was also an astrologer and astrology as method of prediction has not gone out of fashion. Many people in high positions society and politics still consult astrologers. One only has to think of scandal about Ronald Reagan’s stargazer or Princess Diana’s advisers. But these people are only the tip of the iceberg
Somebody has to say it: silicone is not at all the same thing as silicon.
Somebody has to say it: silicone is not at all the same thing as silicon.
There were some entertaining reminiscences of Mystic Meg in the latest edition of The Thought Police podcast. Also a story about an editor, Kelvin McKenzie I think, firing astrologer Justin Toper with a letter beginning, “As you will already know, we have decided to terminate your employment”