How hard can it be?
Well for a corporation very hard. But fortunately my solution to this problem that seems to be vexing everyone lately doesn’t rely on a corporate sponsor, and places the future of web search in OUR hands.

My vision of search is that each website takes a small share of responsibility, indexing sites that website finds relevant and/or useful and sharing its results with other search engines that request the info via a standard API, much like blogs share feeds using standards such as RSS and ATOM. Each webmaster can control how much weight to give to each set of imported results in comparison to sites it indexes itself and how the results are merged. I have the following basic vision, but as different developers get involved in ironing out the final details of the standard things may change. None the less the basic principles of my idea are as follows:

API:
Each search engine should accept requests in either/both http and/or https, probably with search parameters passed in the query string. The results then get sent back in an standard XML format, which may look something like:

<results source="http://example-search-engine.com">
	<site weight="200" url="http://example-result.org" title="Example Results">
		<favicon url="http://example-result.org/favicon.ico" />
		<page weight="150" url="http://example-result.org/page1.php" title="">
			<match><title>This title contains the search terms</title></match>
			<match><p>This paragraph contains one of the search terms</p></match>
			<match><img src="someimage.jpg" alt="This image description contains one of the search terms" /></match>
		</page>
		<page weight="150" url="http://example-result.org/page2.php">
			<match><p>This paragraph contains one of the search terms</p></match>
		</page>
	</site>
	<site ...>
		...
	</site>
</results>

CMS:
With the API open, different CMS systems can be developed that both index selected sites and process results from other search engines that implement the API. Each CMS can process the results in their own way, and allow the webmaster to configure various options in their own way also. For example, they can either integrate imported results, show them separately in a side panel or some mixture of the two depending on source. They can determine whether to show multiple results for one site or whether to group them. They may be configured to show country of the webserver of each result, or warnings if they appear on a malware list, or any other number of options. They may have options for doing image search, or map results etc, linking to whatever service they choose for these specialist searches.

A basic CMS may involve no login at all, with configuration handled via a file, whilst others may implement the API as a plugin to existing CMS systems such as Wordpress, Elgg, MediaWiki or whatever. Some may allow each logged in user to configure their own preferences and weightings, suggest relevant sites to index, report sites as spam, etc.

Plugins:
More complex dedicated search systems may themselves allow plugins or feature advanced options. This may include scraping results from existing search engines such as Google, Bing and Yahoo, in the manner that <a href=”https://scroogle”>Scroogle</a> currently does with Google results. Again these results may have weightings applied to them by the webmasters.

Conclusion:
A distributed solution to search means we don’t have to have massive datacenters under our control in order to compete with Google, each of us can take responsibility for indexing portions of the web important to ourselves, and share that data with each other freely for the benefit of all. To make a distributed system work we don’t need to abandon the huge stores of data provided by google until we are ready, we can in the mean time scrape from them, but ultimately a distributed system, based on qualified trust, should prove better at promoting sites that are useful over sites with good SEO but useless content.

Google is becoming less and less useful as each search tends to produce 100 sites all with the same article scraped from wikipedia, interspersed with adfarms, and I can’t help think such sites wouldn’t make it to prominence in the distributed model, as it won’t be in any webmasters interest to index useless sites. Unlike google who actually profit from many of the adfarms that host google advertisements. But yet despite this I fail to see why Microsoft or Yahoo would prove better, as both also suffer from corrupt corporate agendas. Rather than looking for another closed top-down corporate ’saviour’ to rescue us from the latest tyrant, I believe a bottom up emergent approach can prove not only successful, but also something that will become the dominant means of doing search.

Doesn’t this exist already?
Often when I come up with a good idea, I’m not surprised to find that something like it already exists.  However I can’t find anything quite like this idea at present, although some similar Peer-to-Peer based systems exist, such as FAROO and YaCy.  However I don’t see P2P as quite the solution, as this involves each user installing software on their own computer.  My proposed web based model lacks this requirement and thus has quite a few advantages, without precluding the idea of programs users can install that integrate searches from various sites.  Also, the above proposed model precludes the ability for malicious links to be injected, as webmasters who index such sites will unlikely be trusted by others, and users will likely not use engines that fail to exclude such links.

I’ve neglected my blog a little lately as I’ve been working a lot on getting the KIAwiki updated.

In doing so I realised we actually have quite a collection of books in the wiki library, including five of Austin Osman Spare’s books, and various alchemical manuscripts.  Including the Monas Hieroglyphica of Dr John Dee.

This project is a lot more than simply an occult alternative to wikipedia.  Our posting policy is really quite different because we aren’t trying to be an encyclopedia (why reinvent the wheel), but rather to provide a useful resource of information for magical practitioners of various persuasions.  As a result we allow original research, out of copyright books, articles and manuscripts, material released by the author on a creative commons attribution share alike or compatible license, and other material.

We can fork articles from their wikipedia equivilents provided credit is given as our license is the same, but in practise we are probably looking to make such articles more relevent to the target audience.  If you think you can help expand the wiki, improve existing articles, add missing entries etc., please feel free to get involved!

Recently I was asked for my views on vengeance.  Quite why I was asked I don’t know, since I don’t actually know the individual concerned in person.  Such is the nature of the internet!  At the time I was busy with something and decided this was far too delicate a subject to rush off a quick ill thought out reply, so I put the question off for later.  Well some weeks have gone by and I still haven’t answered this question so I’ve decided to spend some time thinking about it.

I understand ‘vengeance’ to mean much as it is defined in wiktionary, ‘Revenge taken for an insult, injury, or other wrong’, with Revenge defined as ‘Any form of personal retaliatory action against an individual, institution, or group for some perceived harm or injustice’.  However, I also understand that whilst revenge is often taken as a result of a perceived injustice, this in and of itself does not necessarily make a vengeful act just.  For example, we can perceive injustice all over the contemporary world in its current state, in some countries more than others.  Even the democracies in which rule of law is most adhered to, we find great injustices committed both within and without their borders in those nations names.  In the so-called ‘war on drugs’, elected officials representing the interests of big-pharma, big-booze, big tobacco and big-religion attempt to impose their will on all of society in dictating what we are and aren’t allowed to put in our bodies.

In international affairs democratic nations such as the US and UK have both commited dubious acts such as toppling other democratic governments that opposed our business interests, and installing brutal dictatorships in their place, such as in Iran during the 20th century.  Similarly, whilst I feel it is right that democratic nations should speak out against the tyranny, torture, genocides and executions committed in the name of dictatorships, I find it quite hypocritical that they only really tend to speak out against regimes with which they have little business interests, often propping up or keeping quiet about equally oppressive regimes that supply resources they want like oil (Saudi Arabia) and finance (China).  If I, living as I do in a western country, can see this injustice, I can understand why those living in oppressive regimes we help to support would seek vengeance against us.

To this end, I can understand why some terrorists committed acts of vengeance against the US and the UK earlier this decade.  However this does not mean I think these terrorist acts delivered justice in any form.  An act of injustice from B to A does not cancel an act of injustice from A to B, it simply increases the amount of injustice.   Similarly I can see why the UK and the US invaded Afghanistan in vengeance against the attacks.  This does not mean I think this action was just either.  The Afghanistan war was always about vengeance rather than justice.

I think so far it looks as if I don’t think highly of the impulse to vengeance.  In a way I don’t think that highly of it, however I don’t think of it as completely without merit.  Whilst a complete surrender to vengeance does little to bring about justice and mostly escalates injustice, the desire for vengeance can itself drive us to pursue justice.  So what do I mean by justice if I don’t mean simple revenge?

Well I don’t conceive of justice as some absolute, but rather a human construct or idea, one that has, like other constructs or ideas been used to promote both a greater good, and misused in promoting various authoritarian agendas.  Rather than trying to define justice in a philosophical sense, I will attempt to define what I see as the kind of justice I would seek in the case of being wronged.

First I will imagine that I have been wronged, by thinking about times in which I have been wronged.  I can think of the time taken between the wrong and my recognising that I have been wronged and then later again recognising that I have been desiring vengeance.  It is possible at this point that I have already reacted subconsciously in subtle ways to indicate my displeasure, however mostly I find that I am suppressing the emotion or living in denial of it.  I have noticed that some others are like me in this, whilst others lash out in uncontrolled rage and spite.   However, once I recognise my desire and accept it, I am usually able to then take the appropriate steps towards seeking justice.

My first action would be to ensure that possibilities for further wrongs cannot be commited.  My first concern is for the safety of myself and my loved ones.  This remains the priority throughout the process so is not so much a first step so much as the top priority.   This is one stage in which an act of violence may prove necessary, if the agressor is reluctant to let me remove myself from their ability to wrong me.  It may prove necessary to bind or restrict the agressor, or to retaliate in such a way as to deter them from pursuing their agenda against me.

Second I try to find out why the wrong was committed.  Was it deliberate?  Was it accidental?  Was it pre-meditated, or an act of temper, excitement, lust or other strong impulse?  Did intoxication play a part?  What possible motives do they have for their action?  Had I wronged them in some way or done anything that might provoke them?  If so were they acting out of vengeance or seeking justice?   Whilst it can prove easy to answer these questions, with what accuracy tends to prove more complicated.  Sometimes communication with the aggressor can help answer these questions if communicating with them doesn’t entail too much further risk.  In this case I weigh the potential benefits of continued communication with the agressor against the risks of engaging in further communication.  Sometimes the risk is greater when neglecting communication, and this too needs weighing.

Thirdly, considering the nature of the wrong, I consider whether reconciliation might bring any potential benefits and what reconciliation might cost, and whether I consider it worthwhile pursuing.  This can prove quite difficult, because whilst I may negotiate terms for myself that preclude me from further harm, how can I be sure I would be associating myself with someone likely to harm others?  That of course depends on the nature and severity of the harm caused, and the circumstances evalutated in the second step, and is why this information comes before the decision of whether to seek reconciliation.

Lastly, if I cannot consider reconciliation, I would consider whether there is anything I should do to protect others from possible harm if I thought the aggressor was likely to repeat their transgression in other circumstances.

Now this is an occult blog, so some readers might expect me to mention curses and magical combat etc.  Well yes, these may prove useful, but I tend to let the above principles guide me regardless of whether magic is necessary for achieving the justice I seek, so in this case they barely warrant a mention.

Most of my political action is anarchist and I try avoid too much action involved in influencing government or getting involved in party politics since I tend to see polical parties as authoritarian gangs vying for power and democracy as a kind of system of rules that let different gangs assume control without as much violence as would be required in a dictatorship.

I think a lot of anarchists and anti-authoritarians of various persuasions see things pretty much the same way which is why most tend to think voting is a bad idea.  Personally I am not so sure as some parties practise greater levels of authoritarianism than others and so I tend to vote tactically to attempt to move the country in which I live in a less authoritarian direction.  So far in vein, but I don’t feel it is a waste of time trying.

In addition to listening to the proposed policies of the opposition parties and observing what the governing party actually does in power, I also like to compare their placement on the politcal compass. The Political compass website grades parties and individuals on a questionnaire to measure their levels of authoritarianism and economic persuasion.  They have produced a map of the UK parties and their movement on these scales over the years.  I and others don’t think their positioning is absolute and their questions don’t always make sense, but I think its okay to interpret them in a general vague sense.  For example they show that in recent years Labour has been slightly to the left and slightly less authoritarian than the Conservative party, although both are far right authoritarians, and for the last couple of years at least Labour has been more authoritarian than their rivals.  However I think the compass is too vague to say which of the two really is the most authoritarian when it comes down to it.  Basically I distrust them both.

I feel that next spring/summer when the UK holds a general election, there is a real chance we could end up with a hung parliament.  I like the idea of this happening as it increases the chance of political reform that would make it harder for any one political gang to assume control, and make it more likely that they will break up into their constituent factions.  One reason this is happening is because those factions are already breaking off.

Instinctively I feel this could be good for anti-authoritarian politics, as I feel the first past the post system encourages an authoritarian agenda more than a proportionally representative system would.

Let me know what you think…

In my previous article I discussed Baphomet’s possible origins in the Arabic names Bahumed or Bahamut, the latter of which takes its name from the biblical Behemoth and its form from a chymera of the biblical Behemoth and Leviathan, with the connection to the mysteries of the hippopotamus and the elephant that this implies. But more often we associate Baphomet with the goat. For this we have to thank Eliphas Levi, who made an association between Baphomet and the Egyptian god Banebdjedet in his book “Dogmas and Rituals of High Magic”. It would seem that due to a translation error Levi called Banebdjedet ‘The goat of Mendes’. In fact Banebdjedet has the head of a ram. Ba is the ancient Egyptian word for both ‘ram’ and ’soul’, and it seems that the soul of a god was often depicted with a Rams head. In this case Banebdjedet was supposedly the Ba of Osiris, although this varies between different texts, presumably in reflection of the ever changing political and religious climate of the ancient civilisation. In one text Banebdjedet is a form taken by Ptah, and in another concerning the trial of Set and Horus he initially remains neutral and later sides with Set, not actions one would credit with the ’soul of Osiris’.

Levi’s thinking of Banebdjedet as a goat may well have been a result of a mistranslation of the account given by the Greek historian Herodotus. Herodotus also told a story about Zeus appearing to Heracles hiding behind the severed head of a ram so as not to reveal his true face, using it to explain why Egyptians depicted Zeus with a rams head. It seems the Greeks saw Banebdjedet as a form of Zeus. Certainly both gods were associated with prolific sexual verility. The sexual nature of the gods cult was such that it lead to early Christians to demonise him.

Interestingly, some conspiracy sites try to claim that the statue of George Washington by Horatio Greenough was modelled on Eliphas Levi’s famous depiction of Baphomet. However the statue was commissioned in 1832 and completed in 1840, whereas the Elpihas Levi’s book wasn’t published until 1855, fifteen years later. Greenough apparently modelled the statue of the first US president upon the statue of Zeus at Olympus by the ancient Greek scupltor Phidias. In some myths, the infant Zeus is said to have suckled from the breast of the goat Amalthea, whose name is Greek for ‘tender goddess’, and in others he was raised by Melissa on goats milk and honey. Melissa is Greek for ‘Honey Bee’.

Ask people for a god associated with goats and I suspect many would answer ‘Pan’. Whilst the Greek word pan means ‘all’, the name of the god most likely originates in the word ‘paein’ which means ‘to pasture’. Like Baphomet, Pan has the legs of of a goat, although facially he is depicted as a bearded man with goat horns. Generally Pan is depicted in the manner of a faun. His father is said to be either Zeus, Hermes or Dionysus. The latter two being sons of Zeus themselves would make Pan a grandson of Zeus if they were the father. Either way, the theme of highly sexual virile gods is maintained. In some Hellenistic mystery cults however, Zeus, Phanes, Dionysus, Pan and Eros were all considered cognate.

So what mysteries do these goat deities reveal to us about the significance of Baphomet’s goat head and legs? Well the theme of sexual potency is very strong from many of the male gods associated with goats, so this would definitely be a part of Baphomet in that regard. Of course Levi depicts Baphomet as Hermaphrodite so goddesses associated with goats also come into the picture, the most significant of which seems to be Amalthea, the tender goddess who nursed the infant Zeus. According to some versions ambrosia, the food of the gods, came forth from her horns to feed him. This brings to mind the cornucopia, the horn of plenty. So the the divine goat also manifests a strong nurturing aspect.

The goat forms a strong part of Baphomet’s symbolic heritage since Levi, in the same way the elephant and hippopotamus connections via the BHMT link in the name. All this sets the stage for some fantastic symbols in Baphomet’s heritage that I will be tying together in my next article on this fascination deity.

Lolita has posted a beautiful account of how we have been celebrating Diwali on her kiamagic.com blog.

Another interesting video whilst I get round to finishing the next instalment of the Baphomet series (almost done):

Can’t quite remember where this came from now. I think someone shared it on some other site a few days ago.

Whilst you wait for me to write the second part of my series on Baphomet, you might like to check out this video of Robert Allen Bartlett discussing laboratory alchemy.

You may also like to read this review of his book, Real Alchemy by Psyche on Spiral Nature or the review on Pagan Book Reviews. I haven’t read it myself, but if its as interesting as this video, I may have a read soon.

Following from meeting with the goat we met at Cheddar Gorge recently, I have been inspired to examine my relationship with Baphomet, my past with this Deity and where our relationship may go from here. As a part of this examination I have been inspired to look into the history of Baphomet. Such an examination has revealed an incredible journey from uncertain origins into a being of great wisdom and power via a selection of misunderstandings and extraordinary coincidences. My intention is to write a series of articles on the Deity exploring these findings, of which this is the first, exploring the more probable origins of the name.

According to Peter Partner’s book “The Knights Templar and their Myths”, the name Bafometz first appears in a poem by a troubadour in the 1260’s: “And daily they impose new defeats on us: for God, who used to watch on our behalf, is now asleep, and Bafometz puts forth his power to support the Sultan.” Most scholars interpret ‘Bafometz’ in this context as a Provençal corruption of Muhammed, the prophet of Islam. This is not an unreasonable interpretation, but I would speculate that the corruption may have its origins in confusion with another, albeit more obscure, name from the Arabic world.

In ‘Witches, Druids and King Arthur’, Professor Ronald Hutton mentions that the name ‘Bahumed’ appears in a book of alphabets by Ibn Wahshiyya, as a bogus translation of an Egyptian heiroglyph. Whether bogus or not, if the text is genuinely by Ibn Wahshiyya, this would place its first (known) use around the 9th or 10th century. Hutton describes the name Bahumed being used in a context that ‘concerns a figure used to represent the secret of the world’s nature’. This may or may not be a reference to the pre-Islamic beast mentioned in Arabic folklore, ‘Bahamut’, described as a giant fish with the head of a hippopotamus or elephant. This name in turn is considered to have etymological links to the Biblical ‘Behemoth’, a beast which some have also linked to these same animals. Of course the Biblical Behemoth was not a giant fish, but definitely a beast of the land, the Arabic version also inheriting the physical sea dwelling characteristics of the Biblical Leviathan. My own speculation would be that the Provençal name Bafometz came at least in part from either Bahamut or Bahumed, possibly as a result of getting these names confused with that of the Muslim prophet. Perhaps even deliberately confusing them. Certainly the concept of ‘the secret of the world’s nature’ would be connected in medieval christian eyes with the Devil as the lord of the earth, who would also be seen by them as ruling all non-christian nations. But this does not mean the name has its origins in such an insult, just that a version of it was used as such at a specific point in history. Its origins seem far older. I am not the first to speculate about origins such as this. For example, an article on Wicca and Gnosticism by Sea Priestess on blogspot makes the same connection, as do countless role playing sites. Academics seem to have ignored the probable connection so far.

The Egyptian god Set was sometimes depicted in the form of a hippopotamus. Some also consider the head of the ‘Set animal’ to resemble that of an Oxyrhynchus fish, the fish said to have eaten the phallus of Osiris. No-one is quite sure what species of fish this is, but some speculate that it could be a Mormyrid, commonly known as a Freshwater Elephant-fish. Some species of these can grow up to one and a half meters in length. Some species have particularly prominent mouth extensions for feeding on the small invertebrates that can be found in muddy substrates, which lead to their association with elephants.

The elephant also makes one think of the Hindu god Ganesha. Ganesha is another deity, like Set and Baphomet, that I have for a long time enjoyed a magical relationship. The improbable monsters with elephant heads, Behemoth and Bahamut, also make me think of a story about Ganesha told to me by the proprietor of my favourite local Indian restaurant, the Ganesha on Bedminster Parade in Bristol. It was a while ago I heard this version of the story, so I can only paraphrase it from memory, but it tells of how Ganesha was born to his mother Parvati whilst Shiva was away from home. She gives him the task of guarding the threshold and not letting anyone past without her permission.

Shiva returns, and finds Ganesha guarding his home, not knowing it is his son. Ganesha in turn does not recognise his father Shiva and refuses to let him past. Shiva gets angry and cuts off Ganesha’s head. When Parvati discovers her dead son she demands Shiva put his head back on and restore him to life. Shiva, realising his mistake, reveals that he cannot do this, but that he will through his trident, which will cut off the head of whichever animal it hits, and their son will have this head from then on. So he throws it, and it severs the head of a monster with the head of an elephant. This is the head which he gives to his son Ganesha.

Could this tale link Ganesha to Bahamut or Behemoth? It certainly seems to, in a poetic and magical sense if nothing else. Intriguingly, Lolita has a small statue of Ganesha depicting him as thin with cowrie shell eyes, which would also link him to Eshu and Legba, who are also depicted with such eyes. Finding information about this form of Ganesh has proved difficult, but the story told by the seller of this statue is that it is one of the oldest forms of the god. Online sellers of these thin Ganesha statues, usually in brass, with brass eyes in the form of cowrie shells, tend to refer to them as ‘antique Ganesha’ statues. It is interesting the the ‘esh’ sound can be found in the names ‘Eshu’ and ‘Ganesha’.

It would seem to me that Baphomet is deeply connected to magical tradition throughout Europe, Asia and Africa, via connections to Bahumed, Bahamut, Behemoth, Set, Ganesha, Eshu and Legba. This also shows that magical tradition tends to ignore nationalist and religious boundaries and tends towards a global and universal nature, transcending cultural boundaries. This does not mean we cannot learn from each cultures interpretations on the theme. I for one suspect all cultures have something valuable to bring to the discussion, their own piece of the puzzle. So long as we don’t fall for authoritarian interpretations from any culture, we should be okay…

Just a quick note because I am testing a new feature on kiamagic.com that will allow users to include their external blog activity in the activity river using a special trackback url. This isn’t ready yet completely as I have some security settings to add, but it’s nearly ready so I don’t mind announcing it…