Acausal Perception and the Flux of Reality

The intellectuals of today, and perhaps the past two thousand years (the primary, influential post-Socratic thinkers with the exception of Martin Heidegger and Friedrich Nietzsche), have approached the question of existence with either a complete severance from anything outside of that which cannot be conveyed with language (Theodore Adorno, John Paul Sartre, Bertrand Russell etc.) or the foisting of such difficult ontological questions onto Jungian archetypes and mythological figures (that have not yet been authenticated beyond us) by the likes of Christian theologians and even pagan spiritualists. Both of these approaches have lead to two thousand years of ignorance and mercy on the mind.

Howard Phillips Lovecraft was an American horror and political writer who had a surface-level understanding of acausal existence which became known as Cosmic Horror. A running theme throughout his works was the protagonist finding themselves confronted by pure existential horror, the struggle to comprehend abstract organisms and epistemologically and phenomenologically forbidden events, locations, sounds, feelings and realities, above any form of Newtonian physics or thermodynamic laws.

The following excerpt from Call of Cthulhu, paragraph 1 of chapter 1: Horror in the Clay, elucidates his basic knowing of the acausal.

“The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.”

It is clear from this excerpt that H.P. Lovecraft feared the acausal or the “black seas of infinity”, and the truth or reality it holds. One statement that is very hard to overlook is the assertion that one will go “mad” from this truth. But even Lovecraft, a mystic who had achieved a level of intellectual flux that would send existentialist philosophers in a fit of rage was working, unknowingly, within the confines of language-only-permitted epistemology. What does it mean when one is mad in the neurological sense? “Mad” is a term used to describe forms and manifestations of schizophrenia or psychosis by those who lack knowledge in such medical proximities. A patient who has schizophrenia is characterised by the act of producing kinesthetic, visual and/or auditory responses to entities, events, sounds and memories that are not real. This matter of what is “real” of course is determined by medical professionals who unknowingly place their entire perception of existence within the comfortable barriers of language. When broken down and ego is put aside, “mad” simply means the perceiving of that which is not there.

When something is “not there” does it mean that the subject in question does not exist? Well, yes, it does. But time is not lineal. What “exists” changes with time. Something can exist in a different location, under different circumstances, surrounded by different variables and influences, while simultaneously not existing in another location or time.

There have been several occurrences and reports of the phenomenon known as “Deja vu”, the temporary process of thought which produces the following question: “have I been here before?” “Have I been here?” contains a few knots that need to be untied. Firstly, “have I been here?” includes events, actions, choices, people aeons, not just geographical locations. Secondly, the implication of a human in relation to these variables is both one of non-existence and existence. Inexistence and existence are two sides of the same coin. If one remembers a holiday with family for instance, it is a true that one existed in that location, at that time but no longer does in present time. One both exists and does not simultaneously.

Looking at the word “inexistence” prompts 2 questions:

  1. “In” is short for inside. Inside is the opposite of outside. Does this mean “existence” must be the outer and “inexistence” must be the inner of something vaster?

  2. what state or form is that which is inside existence and does it have one?

Using the Uroboros symbol, which depicts a serpent or dragon eating its own tail, the truth begins to become clearer. The dragon or serpent eating its tail depicts cyclical time - that which has been will come again. But depending on the variables and conditions which influence the dragon or serpent at that present time, that which will come again will be manifested differently in another location or aeon depending on the conditions of that location or aeon in present time (reality).

If that “which is” and that “which has been” is equated to inexsistence and existence, it can be determined that inexistence is inside the serpent or dragon and not outside (existence). Thus, it has no physical form, no name, no discernible purpose or motivation – it does not exist, it is pure potentiality. Yet, it is still part of the tail which exists and always will be. My theory is that inexistence is the acausal or “black seas of infinity”, that which is beyond the space-time continuum - that nothingness (non-existence) is an unknown, different and unlawful form of what non-intellectuals and theologians define as existing (what we do everyday) with infinite reality and universes.

“Theosophists have guessed at the awesome grandeur of the cosmic cycle wherein our world and human race form transient incidents. They have hinted at strange survivals in terms which would freeze the blood if not masked by a bland optimism. But it is not from them that there came the single glimpse of forbidden aeons which chills me when I think of it and maddens me when I dream of it. That glimpse, like all dread glimpses of truth, flashed out from an accidental piecing together of separated things—in this case an old newspaper item and the notes of a dead professor.” - H.P. Lovecraft

A grandfather clock chimes at 21 minutes past 3 in the morning, a child screams, and a street lamp flickers, revealing the shadow of pulsating, thrashing tendrils which were just seen in the nightmare before one abruptly awoke…

Are they just random events that one is misinterpreting or is this the accidental piecing together of separate things to reveal terrifying vistas of reality?


Got to hate this guy. This is the same guy who had some interesting ideas, wanted to live up to the warrior archetype, but was so weak he wasn’t even allowed to enlist in the military, he had to be a male nurse. He also considered himself elite, and thus sought to associate himself with Wagner, and fell into a depression when he realized he was a nobody. He hated pitiful things, and advocated power, but for a long period of his life he had to live off the pity of his neighbour, an old lady, since he had no food and no steady income. The worst kind of ignorance is hypocrisy.

Probably the greatest author ever, Mountains of Madness and Innsmouth are my favourites.

Are you referring here to the relationship between subjective and objective reality? I agree.

Are you trying to explain the concept of Acausality to magians, or am I misinterpreting you?

You are extremely articulate my friend.


Just making sure I don’t leave any room for people to insinuate that I use terms I know nothing about.


A heart for talking about Lovecraft, one of my favorite authors. A few notes though. You speak about the trappings and failings of language to convey points such as acausality but then say:

Arent you falling in the same trap by thinking of things within the terms of language? I like the phrase “Dont mistake the map for the terrain”.

I like this. Of course all things are connected. It is up to us to choose how to string them together for our liking though, and not for our discontent (unless we knowingly choose so).


My point was that the definition of the word “mad” was that of professionals who are operating with an epistemology which denies the existence of anything that cannot be conveyed by language. If he was using the term “mad” with an epistemology which allowed such thought about other forms of expression outside of language (a pre-socratic’s or continental European philosopher’s) he would not have fallen into this trap.

1 Like

I read a lot of Lovecraft when I was a teenager, I loved his work. Obviously, Lovecraft has studied the occult and practiced various forms of witchcraft and sorcery. He is drawing together what he has learned and experienced to make some great horror fiction, which is what makes his stories so real and frightening.

“A grandfather clock chimes at 21 minutes past 3 in the morning, a child screams, and a street lamp flickers, revealing the shadow of pulsating, thrashing tendrils which were just seen in the nightmare before one abruptly awoke…”

3 x 3 the pagan Trinity doubled, a generational hex placed on the parent who has transgressed in the past against someone who practices the Craft, attacking the most important thing of the parents their children.

The shadows and tendrils are metaphors for the dark universe reaching out and inflicting there wrath on the innocent.

Your quote is interesting and what an amazing coincidence as this has happened to me when I was 17. I read a book for self-motivation which had empowering phrases and claimed that nature fairies lived throughout our environment and help create events. I recited several of the phrases from the book adding my own goal of better grades and education and omg!! I started waking up at 3:21 am for no reason. On the 3rd night i woke up at 3:21 am with a huge white flash of light going off in my head.

Often we get flashes or strobes preceding a psychic revelation. I think it’s fabric being torn…


I find this whole post interesting. Personally for me the section about schizophrenia and psychosis is of particular interest as ive suffered with psychosis. And my thoughts on what is actually happening are similar to th OP, just because I can see and hear something that others cant does that mean that im wrong, that those things arent there? …I dont think so. I think I had tapped into another realm of existence or world, its fairly commonly accepted that we live in a multiverse with worlds layered on top of one another…could I have been tapping into these? I think so. In saying that I take my meds because I couldnt cope with all the extra stimmulii. When Van Gogh painted Starry Nights from his asylum window, he painted the stars with the swirls of light fractals, these are not seen with the physical eyes…yet Van Gogh who was said to have psychosis could see them with his eyes. Was he “mad?” Or was he tapped into something other than the 3D world. Makes you think. Awesome post.


I feel you had a good point until you said this. No offense meant.

Care to elaborate?

I doubt everything is connected. Maybe everything we subjectively experience is connected, but there are portions of reality that we are not exposed to.

Let me put it this way, objective reality is the small portion of each individual’s subjective reality that they have in common. Since part of your subjective reality is inaccessible to me, how on earth could it be related to my subjective reality, or at the very least an experience within my subjective reality?

Something that may have meaning to you, may have absolutely no meaning to me, I therefore disagree with the notion that everything is connected.

1 Like

Well I should point out I do not believe in any form of an objective reality, i think everything is subjective.

Just because you can not see the connection or understand how it works does not mean it is not there. You’re thinking too much from your personal perspective.

I agree with half of this. Yes meaning like everything else is subjective and we can pick and choose when and where we apply it. Does that mean that just because I put a lot of meaning in the crucifix and you do not that you are not connected to it? I will try to put this bluntly, if you can comprehend, imagine, or have explained to you something you are intimately connected with it. Otherwise, why would you experience it?

Anticipating a counter of “things can happen randomly”, I would say, yes but they are all still things happening. If you were not connected to something nothing would happen with it ever.

What of Nature? Are the mechanics and laws of Nature not reflected everywhere in the world no matter where you are? Do the seasons not change and does the predator not strive to kill prey?

1 Like

“Lovecraft never ‘studied’ the occult, certainly never practiced, but it is plain that he read various popular books on the subject.”


From my perspective this is true but it speaks more to the world I wish to live in and my own personal beliefs than any universal truths.

This is nonsense. Lovecraft was neither a mystic nor a practicing occultist. This is obvious if you actually read beyond his fiction. In the letters to his writing circle, you can clearly see that he was a die hard scientific materialist. What he did do was read a lot in a wide variety of genres, including fantasy, science fiction, and horror, religion, as well as actual science magazines devoted to things like astronomy and palaeontology.

You don’t have to be any sort of sorcerer to properly research how it is done. Just read some anthropology accounts of primitive tribes and you will have a good idea where HP got his notions of ancient “primeval rites” from.


So those things most people agree on aren’t objective reality? Dung doesn’t smell bad, except for outliers? Solids don’t feel solid, you can’t push your hand right through a gas? The earth isn’t round? I think we should agree to disagree then.

So a random event occurs in my subjective experience, are you saying it has some relation to your reality as well? I just can’t see this. The only thing I think we have in common besides the objective reality, is the Pythagorean concept of One, or the Taoist concept of the Way, which permeates the Cosmos, but this is only my opinion, and by no means, even if this was anybody’s belief can that be extended to imply that everything, every event is connected. To what is it connected?

This argument doesn’t make sense at all, either you’re inarticulate or you didn’t comprehend what the point of my argument was. The crucifix is something objectively experienced, and well known. What about some event that happens in my life, that I don’t convey to anyone, which has a profound meaning to me in some way, but in your subjective reality it never even transpired?

How exactly are you connected to an event you don’t even know transpired? You make no sense.

1 Like

Exactly my point.

1 Like

I don’t wish to waste so much energy debating I will just say that our senses and the sets of tools we have to experience our realities are incredibly limited. Even those who train long and hard to experience and understand more can not get far. I do not believe it outside the realm of possibility that many things happen for very good reason that I simply lack the tools to understand in its entirety, or even in small portion.

As I think all things are subjective your beliefs are just as valid as mine, and are equally as true. I am a hardcore animist who believes that everything has a “spirit”. Every cell, every atom, every thought, idea, abstract concepts… all live and experience. I, as creativeusername, may not know about your subjective experience, but I as the human species most certainly knows about your subjective experience (unless you claim yourself outside the human race).

1 Like

I agree. This is not what we were objecting to.

My point has always been, that whilst we may share an objective reality, our subjective realities are inherently personal and unique. Something which transpires in your subjective reality may or may not transpire in mine, even if it transpired in mine, it may not be connected to anything, maybe it’s just in your own subjective reality that it has some kind of deeper meaning.

I agree with the last part, about all things being equally true. This is because truth is not synonymous with fact, therefore a personal truth can be devoid of fact. The second part however is complete bullshit, all things aren’t subjective.

Welcome to the club.

So you’re implying that because we’re all part of the same species, we are all therefore privy to each others’ subjective realities beyond the small portions thereof that overlap to form the objective reality? I disagree. Not trying to offend you, I actually like some of your ideas, but some of them are just completely bonkers. Don’t think I’m attacking you.

Precisely what I think, and they way you can group objects can extend far into the weird and beyond our understanding, but that does not make them less valid. I don’t feel like youre attacking me it is good to discuss with people who feel differently.

I am heavily influenced by Discordian thought and I dont expect everyone to be on that wavelength.

1 Like