The best way to stay in touch with me is to subscribe to my email newsletter or RSS if that’s your thing. I’m also on Twitter, Bluesky, and Instagram.

Subscribe to Soulcruzer

Beat the algorithms

working notes

Fragments, field notes, and half-thoughts from the textual underground

Virus of the spirit.

The phrase gets under my skin. It folds biology, information, psychology and magic into a single image: something enters a host, borrows the host’s machinery and reproduces itself.

If the host is a person, the machinery is attention, memory, desire, fear, identity and language. A thought enters through a parent’s warning, a teacher’s judgement, an advert, a sermon, a political slogan, a novel, a feed. It repeats until the original speaker disappears. Then it acquires my voice.

I should be productive. I should own a house. I should behave like someone my age. I should want what everyone else seems to want.

The parasite uses me like a ventriloquist’s doll.

This is where the phrase cuts deeper than the word meme. A meme can sound like a piece of cultural information passing from one person to another. A virus of the spirit changes the person’s orientation towards existence: what seems possible, what looks dangerous, what deserves attention, what a life is for.

Take a sentence such as the world is hostile. At first it is a proposition. Given enough repetition, it becomes a lens. An ambiguous look becomes a threat. A coincidence becomes evidence. Memory begins selecting its supporting witnesses. Eventually I no longer think that I believe in a hostile world. I look out and see the hostile world waiting for me.

The infection has erased the feeling of being infected.

Magick offers a stranger vocabulary for the same experience: egregores, thought-forms, servitors, demons, gods, archetypes. Psychology, politics and advertising supply other names. I don’t need to settle the ontology to recognise the pattern. I feed something with attention. It gains strength. It starts steering behaviour. The behaviour produces more attention. Soon I can’t tell whether I have the idea or the idea has me.

Even resistance can feed it. I can organise my days around hating a thing and call that freedom from it. Meanwhile it occupies my thoughts, sets my emotional tone and gets first claim on the limited hours of my life. The virus doesn’t need my approval. It wants the machinery.

So spiritual hygiene cannot mean sealing myself away from dangerous ideas. That would leave me with a sterile mind and a locked door. The more interesting practice is conscious contamination: entering a symbol, story, identity or reality tunnel with enough openness to discover what it can show me, while keeping hold of the path back out.

I can ask where a thought came from without imagining that someone has planted it in my brain. Family? School? The Army? Christianity? Capitalism? Nietzsche? Jung? TikTok? Some bloke in a pub twenty-five years ago? The question is genealogical rather than paranoid. I am tracing the route by which a voice moved in and learned to sound like me.

Then comes the question that matters most:

Do I still consent to it?

That question doesn’t restore some pure, sovereign self untouched by other people. I doubt such a creature exists. It gives me a moment of recognition before the pattern recruits me again. Infection can become recognition; recognition can become choice; choice can become transformation.

Consciousness begins to look less like a fortress with one ruler and more like a garden full of arrivals. Some plants feed the soil. Some choke the light. Some were planted by people I loved. Some blew in over the wall. The work is not to burn the garden bare. It is to learn what I am feeding, what I am pruning, and what I am willing to let grow under my name.

How many of the things I call me are things that found me, moved in, and eventually persuaded me to answer to their name?

“I know not should.”

Hamlet never says this, of course. His actual line is “I know not ‘seems,’” spoken to a mother who thinks his grief has lasted long enough. But let’s change the word to “should” and play with that.

Because Hamlet does know should.

The ghost tells him what a son should do. Claudius tells him how a prince should behave. Gertrude tells him how long grief should last. Even the play tells him what he should do: the ghost appears, the son receives his command, blood answers blood.

Everyone knows Hamlet’s lines except Hamlet.

Perhaps this is part of what slows him down. He isn’t standing before an empty page. He is buried beneath pages written by other hands, each claiming to be the true script.

A son should avenge his father.

A prince should preserve the state.

A Christian should not murder.

A man should act.

A mourner should recover.

Every duty seems a necessity.

That is why the grammar of my imagined refusal wants me to play.

Hamlet doesn’t say:

I don’t know what I should do.

That still accepts the authority of should. It merely asks for clearer instructions.

But:

I know not “should.”

Now the word itself has been called in for questioning.

Lift it out of the sentence. Turn it over in the hand as Hamlet will later turn Yorick’s skull.

Whose voice is lodged inside it?

Does it belong to conscience, custom, love, fear, shame? Did I choose it, or did it enter me so early that I mistook its voice for my own?

Is it asking me to keep faith with something I value?

Or is it another ghost speaking from beneath the floorboards?

A life can gather a remarkable number of ghosts.

You should have a proper career. You should own a house. You should be more ambitious. You should settle down. You should be productive. You should act your age. You should have figured this out by now.

At first, other people say these things. Parents, teachers, managers, priests, newspaper columnists, men in suits who seem to have received a map that somehow never reached you.

Then the voices move in.

Nobody needs to stand over you after that. You carry the court inside your own head: Claudius checking the figures, Polonius offering advice nobody requested, Gertrude wondering why you cannot simply cheer up, the ghost arriving after midnight with one more piece of unfinished family business.

There is freedom in catching the word before it passes your lips.

Not rejecting it. Not obeying it. Hearing it.

Because abolishing should solves nothing. “Nobody can tell me what to do” is another script, usually written during adolescence and performed long after the costume has stopped fitting.

Some obligations are necesssary. A promise creates a claim on us. So does love. If I say yes to a child, a friend, a reader or a piece of work, the yes brings consequences with it. A life without obligation might also be a life in which nothing had been loved enough to bind us.

Meanwhile, the kettle is boiling. Philosophy may interrogate the moral foundations of breakfast, but somebody may still be waiting for a cup of tea.

So I don’t want to banish should. I want to make it declare its provenance.

Where did you come from?

Who sent you?

What do you protect?

Are you keeping me faithful to someone I love, or merely obedient to an examiner who left the room thirty years ago?

Hamlet’s pause might be useful here. Not endless postponement, but the small arrest between receiving the script and speaking the line. The moment when the actor looks down at the page and notices the handwriting is not his own.

The ghost can speak. The court can whisper. The old examiner can clear his throat.

But before I obey, I want to look down at the script and ask whether these are still my lines.

I think I just clocked the true nature of gratitude.

The thought came to me on the drive into Leamington Spa while I was listening to Conversations with God. I was thinking about prayer, and about the strange contradiction buried inside supplication.

When I pray for something, there is often another sentence hiding beneath the prayer:

I don’t have this.

I need it.

Please bring it to me.

And so even while I’m asking for abundance, love, opportunity, health, whatever it might be, my attention keeps circling back to the absence of it. I keep noticing the empty chair. The blank space. The thing that hasn’t arrived yet.

The longer it fails to appear, the more convincing the lack becomes.

You get what you focus on–or, perhaps more cautiously, you feed what you keep turning towards. Attention has a way of thickening reality. Whatever we repeatedly notice begins to occupy more and more psychic territory.

Gratitude changes the tense of the prayer.

Instead of asking for the thing, I give thanks for having already received it.

That sounds like a subtle shift, but I don’t think it is subtle at all. It changes the whole orientation.

Supplication says: one day, perhaps.

Gratitude says: already.

And this is where faith enters–not necessarily faith as religious doctrine, but faith as an operating principle. I act as if the thing is already true and then attempt to bring my thoughts, words, and actions into alignment with that truth.

Thought holds the image.

Words give thanks.

Action creates congruence.

Perhaps the act of creation begins there.

I’m writing this in Habano now, coffee beside me, keyboard out. The place is quiet, almost as though it is holding its breath before the lunchtime storm. One couple sits together across the room, while three of us lone wolves have distributed ourselves around the remaining tables, each absorbed in our own little worlds.

I used to come here often to work, meet people, or simply escape the gravitational pull of the home office.

Back when it was called Havana Cafe, my friend Sarah and I even co-hosted a philosophical podcast from here. We would sit with microphones on the table and talk our way through whatever questions were bothering us at the time.

Some things change.

The café changed its name.

The podcast ended.

And yet here I am again, years later, coffee beside me, thinking aloud through a keyboard.

Some things don’t change at all.

There is something pleasing about this thought about prayer finding me here, in a place already haunted by earlier versions of my thinking life. Perhaps places accumulate ghosts–not supernatural ones necessarily, but former selves. Old conversations. Abandoned projects. Questions we thought we had finished with.

You walk back into a room and discover that some previous version of you is still sitting in the corner.

And perhaps gratitude works like that too.

I used to think of gratitude mainly as appreciation: noticing what is already good, counting blessings, remembering not to take life for granted.

All worthwhile.

But now I wonder if gratitude has another function entirely.

Maybe gratitude is not simply good manners offered to the universe.

Maybe it is a way of inhabiting the reality you are asking for.

Not pretending.

Not denying circumstances.

Not plastering positive-thinking wallpaper over difficulty.

Something stranger than that.

A deliberate shift in orientation from absence towards presence.

From I need to I receive.

From someday to already.

And then the difficult bit begins.

Because if I say I am grateful for the reality I want to inhabit, my life has to start becoming congruent with the claim.

I can’t give thanks for becoming a writer and then refuse to write.

I can’t give thanks for freedom while continually choosing the things that imprison me.

I can’t give thanks for connection while withdrawing from everyone around me.

The prayer begins to make demands.

Thought holds the image.

Words declare the gratitude.

But action is where the belief gets tested.

Perhaps that is why gratitude can feel so powerful. It closes the gap between wishing and becoming.

You stop standing outside the door asking to be admitted.

You begin living as though you already belong inside.

And maybe faith, in the end, is simply the courage to behave as though the door has already opened.

narrative alchemy

experiements in story, self, and transformation

latest from the blog

essays, mixtapes, podcasts, and experiments

latest from the podcast

About

I write from the crossroads of philosophy, myth, music, AI, learning, and ordinary life. This is my living archive: part field notebook, part essay chamber, part signal fire from the textual underground, part hypertext adventure.

Working Notes from the Textual Underground

Hi, my name is Clay Lowe, aka Soulcruzer. This is the part where I have to reduce myself to a label so you can understand who I am and what I am about. But as Kierkegaard pointed out, labels have a way of negating the person. If I tell you I’m a blogger, I get reduced to whatever meaning you’ve assigned to the word ‘blogger’. It has been my habit to resist labels. And yet, here we are. So, in the context you find me in now, I am indeed a blogger, and I am much more than that!

I have worn many other labels. I’ve been an infantry officer, a learning and development consultant, a trainer, and a coach. I’ve also called myself a barefoot philosopher, a narrative alchemist, and a rogue learner, among others things. These were an attempt to orient me to myself and myself to you. More recently, I’ve been working out what it means to operate as a text-based ontologist in a world where text is becoming the universal substrate.

A text-based ontologist sounds like someone who should live in a footnote.

They don’t.

They live in the browser window, the notebook, the prompt box, the blog editor, the Obsidian graph, the half-finished post, and the walking thought captured before it evaporates. Their material is language. Their subject is being. Their method is to hold attention long enough for a sentence to disclose what it is carrying.

It’s not really a job title. It’s more of a way of relating to this blog and the wider web.

In the end, though, I’m just a dude doing his thing and sharing it on the internet. 

status update

BlueSky Latest Posts
Last updated 10 minutes ago
Archives

last check-in

Fitness Worx, Southam, United Kingdom, UTC+1

I do like to chat. Say hi!

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x