MessageId: 19f391a299038717 From: [email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Entities: [email protected] Jul 5 2026 pre- cross- Content: Pretty nice read… so thought to share…. Sent with Notion Mail -------- Forwarded message -------- Subject: A Declaration of War On the Mechanistc World From: Seeing Through The World Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2026 14:08:44 GMT To: [email protected] On the Return of the Hermeticist and Stewardship — why everything I write orbits one question: where do we stand in relation to what actually is. ͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­͏ ­ Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more A Declaration of War On the Mechanistc World Return of the Hermeticist and Stewardship Seeing Through The World Jul 5 READ IN APP We have been subjected to a line of thinking across the last three centuries whose attack, and dismantling has been so thorough and effective, so embedded in the architecture of our world that we scarcely notice anything wrong. However, there remains a counter line of thinking which has been so effectively stifled and relegated to the sidelines of modern history that we can scarcely recall its name, and even less its shape. It does not have one name. In the past we have called it natural philosophy, hermeticism, the perennial tradition, the prsica sapientia — the ancient wisdom. It operated from a single, foundational premise: that reality is a living system of correspondences, ratios, relations, and the task of the serious thinker is to trace, study and follow these connections wherever they might lead unabashed — across domains, across scales, ignoring artificial boundaries that the specialist attempts to draw and calls rigour. This process, this foundation is what has produced our great polymaths. The great minds of antiquity were not “disciplined” in our extremely narrow modern definition. The “constant deepening of one subject in one area” but disciplined in pursuit of the greater work. The pre-mechanistic world demands range and the hermetic intuitions have always known this. If the same principle operates at each scale — and it does — then following it through only one domain is negligent. It is a self imposed ceiling that prevents actual investigation into the structure of reality. Upgrade to paid No sane individual would dare class such individuals as Da Vinci, Kepler, Goethe or Pythagoras as “scattered”, “lacking focus” or otherwise. They were hermetic. Each man, and each polymath in a similar vein percevied and traced the underlying unity across traditions and tracked its manifestations. Whether that be through art, music, astronomy, war, mathematics or biological life. The underlying unity does not arbitrarily cut itself off from transgressing between domains, it simply is. That is a self imposed, human limitation that has no bearing in the natural world. The polymath, the most loyal student of nature is not an individual who happens to know a lot about a lot of things. The polymath is the individual who has glimpsed into the structure that supports all things and does not cease in his pursuit. We inheritors of history have treated our geniuses so poorly — we may venerate their works, have great respects for their contributions then turn around and spit on their process. We take the Mona Lisa, the Salvator Mundi, Harmonices Mundi, Faust and worship their complexity, the craftsmanship and sheer brilliance. Yet simultaneously will sever off the method used to create such works and discard it, shouting in the street that those who cross domains are not experts and have no place in following such curiosity. We take the painting but not the theory of optics. We love the Vitruvian man, but not sneaking off in the night to cut into cadavers. We take the “science”, the “mathematics” but discard the mysticism, the magic, the qualities which animate the scientific approach. The mechanistic worldview sees the fruit that the tree produces, enjoys its succulent taste and proceeds to saw the branch off stating that it is surplus to requirements once we are satiated. But you do not get the fruits without the tree. And the tree is the method. The tree is general. The tree is connection-bearing across domains. The reason Da Vinci could paint the human body the way he did is inseparable from the reason he was also mapping water flows, designing flying machines and studying the growth patterns of plants — because he was following a single principle through its manifestations across every domain it touched, and the painting is what that principle looks like when it passes through the instrument of the human form. Separate the fruit from the tree and you have a painting. Keep the tree and you have a way of seeing. This worldview entrenched itself through institution rather than strength of argument. The specialisation imperative — the demand that serious thinkers stay in their ivory towers, never to interact with another department. This is not a neutral organisational decision. It is ultimately a philosophical position with consequences the likes we have not yet fully realised. We have encoded the mechanistic worldview into the fabric of all that we do, and every thought that we think — thoughts are best in isolation, that the connections between domains are soft where the domains themselves are hard, that to move between fields is to lack the discipline to go deep in any of them. This is the structure I am at war with. Not the individual which has internalised it. The individual is as much its product as its enforcer — handed a filing system in childhood and called educated, taught to mistake the map for the territory and rewarded for doing so consistently. This structural deficiency did not begin with Descartes, Newton nor the Enlightenment although they are some of the models most faithful adherents. This issue is much older than any singular philosophy rooted in the architecture of the divided brain itself. The left hemispheres nature is to apprehend, extract, seize, isolate and divide life into manageable pieces. The mechanistic worldview that follows is the cogntitve. bias of a re-existing native mode of operation and proceeded to build a life on top of it. This has always existed, but the past three centuries have cemented it as an ever-present reality dominating the landscape from institutions to philosophical modes. It is so apparent that it has become the atmosphere which thought, thinks of itself. What this mode of attention cannot do — and this is the precise nature of its failure — is perceive relation. It can catalogue, label and organize items on either side of a connection but cannot cite the connection itself. It can accept harmonics, ratio, the geometric correspondance between frequency and form as among the most rigorously verified findings in natural science — and then dismiss astrology as superstition, without recognising that astrology is structured by the same principles it has just accepted. This is not even healthy scepticisim but the outer limits of what the model is capable of. It is not a matter of choice, or willingness to concede a contrary position — there is no infrastructure to even make this possible to begin with. This is a reversal so complete that it is almost impossible from inside it. Nature is not what conforms or fails to form to our causal description of it. Nature is the entire event — the source from which everything — the models, the modellers, the instruments of measurement, the hands measuring, has emerged without exception. There is no outside position. It is total. The human beings whose hands forged the nuclear weapons found their materials upon Earth, they devised the mathematics and the formula using the naturally recurring patterns that can be found in the universe — from the beginning of the process to the mental formulation to its physical reality is by all accounts natural. The most extreme expression of human technological power is nature expressing itself through a particular instrument and calling it mastery. That is not to say that such processes, can escape the creator and take on a life of their own. However, to deny them as natural is a causal misstep that has catastrophic consequences. When something breaks the A causes B model, nature has not misbehaved. Nature does not misbehave. Nature is the condition of possibility for behaviour itself. What has been revealed is the edge of a local description — a thread that has reached the limit of its resolution

MessageId: 19f329c2fed5fcd1 Subject: A Declaration of War On the Mechanistc World From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Entities: pre- cross- Content: View this post on the web at https://seethroughtheworld.substack.com/p/a-declaration-of-war-on-the-mechanistc

We have been subjected to a line of thinking across the last three centuries whose attack, and dismantling has been so thorough and effective, so embedded in the architecture of our world that we scarcely notice anything wrong. However, there remains a counter line of thinking which has been so effectively stifled and relegated to the sidelines of modern history that we can scarcely recall its name, and even less its shape. It does not have one name. In the past we have called it natural philosophy, hermeticism, the perennial tradition, the prsica sapientia — the ancient wisdom. It operated from a single, foundational premise: that reality is a living system of correspondences, ratios, relations, and the task of the serious thinker is to trace, study and follow these connections wherever they might lead unabashed — across domains, across scales, ignoring artificial boundaries that the specialist attempts to draw and calls rigour. This process, this foundation is what has produced our great polymaths. The great minds of antiquity were not “disciplined” in our extremely narrow modern definition. The “constant deepening of one subject in one area” but disciplined in pursuit of the greater work. The pre-mechanistic world demands range and the hermetic intuitions have always known this. If the same principle operates at each scale — and it does — then following it through only one domain is negligent. It is a self imposed ceiling that prevents actual investigation into the structure of reality. No sane individual would dare class such individuals as Da Vinci, Kepler, Goethe or Pythagoras as “scattered”, “lacking focus” or otherwise. They were hermetic. Each man, and each polymath in a similar vein percevied and traced the underlying unity across traditions and tracked its manifestations. Whether that be through art, music, astronomy, war, mathematics or biological life. The underlying unity does not arbitrarily cut itself off from transgressing between domains, it simply is. That is a self imposed, human limitation that has no bearing in the natural world. The polymath, the most loyal student of nature is not an individual who happens to know a lot about a lot of things. The polymath is the individual who has glimpsed into the structure that supports all things and does not cease in his pursuit. We inheritors of history have treated our geniuses so poorly — we may venerate their works, have great respects for their contributions then turn around and spit on their process. We take the Mona Lisa, the Salvator Mundi, Harmonices Mundi, Faust and worship their complexity, the craftsmanship and sheer brilliance. Yet simultaneously will sever off the method used to create such works and discard it, shouting in the street that those who cross domains are not experts and have no place in following such curiosity. We take the painting but not the theory of optics. We love the Vitruvian man, but not sneaking off in the night to cut into cadavers. We take the “science”, the “mathematics” but discard the mysticism, the magic, the qualities which animate the scientific approach. The mechanistic worldview sees the fruit that the tree produces, enjoys its succulent taste and proceeds to saw the branch off stating that it is surplus to requirements once we are satiated. But you do not get the fruits without the tree. And the tree is the method. The tree is general. The tree is connection-bearing across domains. The reason Da Vinci could paint the human body the way he did is inseparable from the reason he was also mapping water flows, designing flying machines and studying the growth patterns of plants — because he was following a single principle through its manifestations across every domain it touched, and the painting is what that principle looks like when it passes through the instrument of the human form. Separate the fruit from the tree and you have a painting. Keep the tree and you have a way of seeing. This worldview entrenched itself through institution rather than strength of argument. The specialisation imperative — the demand that serious thinkers stay in their ivory towers, never to interact with another department. This is not a neutral organisational decision. It is ultimately a philosophical position with consequences the likes we have not yet fully realised. We have encoded the mechanistic worldview into the fabric of all that we do, and every thought that we think — thoughts are best in isolation, that the connections between domains are soft where the domains themselves are hard, that to move between fields is to lack the discipline to go deep in any of them. This is the structure I am at war with. Not the individual which has internalised it. The individual is as much its product as its enforcer — handed a filing system in childhood and called educated, taught to mistake the map for the territory and rewarded for doing so consistently. This structural deficiency did not begin with Descartes, Newton nor the Enlightenment although they are some of the models most faithful adherents. This issue is much older than any singular philosophy rooted in the architecture of the divided brain itself. The left hemispheres nature is to apprehend, extract, seize, isolate and divide life into manageable pieces. The mechanistic worldview that follows is the cogntitve. bias of a re-existing native mode of operation and proceeded to build a life on top of it. This has always existed, but the past three centuries have cemented it as an ever-present reality dominating the landscape from institutions to philosophical modes. It is so apparent that it has become the atmosphere which thought, thinks of itself. What this mode of attention cannot do — and this is the precise nature of its failure — is perceive relation. It can catalogue, label and organize items on either side of a connection but cannot cite the connection itself. It can accept harmonics, ratio, the geometric correspondance between frequency and form as among the most rigorously verified findings in natural science — and then dismiss astrology as superstition, without recognising that astrology is structured by the same principles it has just accepted. This is not even healthy scepticisim but the outer limits of what the model is capable of. It is not a matter of choice, or willingness to concede a contrary position — there is no infrastructure to even make this possible to begin with. This is a reversal so complete that it is almost impossible from inside it. Nature is not what conforms or fails to form to our causal description of it. Nature is the entire event — the source from which everything — the models, the modellers, the instruments of measurement, the hands measuring, has emerged without exception. There is no outside position. It is total. The human beings whose hands forged the nuclear weapons found their materials upon Earth, they devised the mathematics and the formula using the naturally recurring patterns that can be found in the universe — from the beginning of the process to the mental formulation to its physical reality is by all accounts natural. The most extreme expression of human technological power is nature expressing itself through a particular instrument and calling it mastery. That is not to say that such processes, can escape the creator and take on a life of their own. However, to deny them as natural is a causal misstep that has catastrophic consequences. When something breaks the A causes B model, nature has not misbehaved. Nature does not misbehave. Nature is the condition of possibility for behaviour itself. What has been revealed is the edge of a local description — a thread that has reached the limit of its resolution within a system that is prior to and larger than any causal chain we can isolate within it. The hermetic tradition understood this from the beginning. Correspondence, sympathy, ratio, resonance — these are not alternative competing mechanisms. They are the only available language that describe the relations within the living whole that precedes and exceeds the thin models we construct of it. The Error Beneath the Error Every model makes the same foundational mistake and it runs deeper than specialisation, deeper than the causal assumptions, deeper than the philosophical frameworks of the last three centuries. Even thinkers who have came closest could not escape the clutches of the mechanistic worldview unscathed. They begin the clock when the human being enters the frame. The most sophisticated accounts of instinct, drive, and the unconscious treat these forces as universal, yet simultaneously belonging to the individual — as things that animate and move the individual internally, rather than natures force moving through a particular instrument at a moment in time. Everything prior to the historicity of the individual is treated as background, as context, as if nature were setting the scene for the human being to arrive. This is the error beneath the error. Freud and his numerous psychological theories began on the closest train of thought and then ceased the pursuit. Libido, the death drive, the compulsion that repeats regardless of the individuals consent or comprehension — is not generated by the person. The person is the site through which something of an incomprehensible age moves. But Freud retained the boundary of the psyche and subsequently the drives housed within the arena of the individual unconscious. The frame regrettably, remains anthropocentric. Nature is still an environment we are placed in, and the human being begins as the starting point. Jung takes Freuds formulations and moves them further. The collective