There’s a symposium tomorrow at the local Catholic college and the question on the table is: “Are morals a thing of the past?”
I can guess what the Catholic school is going to say, what’s your view?
Stories are code. You are the programmer.


The Soulcruzer podcast…narrative alchemy in audio form. Call it an audioblog, call it threshold work, call it confessional mysticism.
One day I’m working through tarot as spiritual technology. The next, I’m exploring Nietzsche’s eternal return as lived practice, chaos magick techniques, or games as containers for transformation. Depth psychology meets the esoteric. Ancient wisdom meets the AI age. Theory becomes practice.
This is what narrative alchemy sounds like from the inside: raw, real, unpolished. Experiments in treating stories as code and consciousness as hackable.
If you’re here for the deep work and the edges, subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
This one started with me sitting down in the studio and noticing a pattern that’s been floating around the last couple of days. Everywhere I turn, people are talking about where we’re going as human beings, what we’re becoming, and how all this change is messing with our sense of place. AI is in the background of that conversation, obviously, but this episode isn’t me doing an “AI episode” as such. It’s more me circling the deeper question behind the noise.
Over the past 48 hours I’ve been listening to and watching a bunch of stuff, and it’s all orbiting the same gravitational pull. Humans feel displaced. Not just “the job market is weird” displaced, but identity displaced. Like: if the world changes this fast, what happens to the version of me that was built for the old world?
This all hit extra hard because I’ve been recovering from a tooth that’s been giving me grief for a year. It got infected again, they finally pulled it, and last night I was in that familiar post-dentist zone where the numbness wears off and the universe feels personally offensive. I was curled up on the couch, cycling between old Game of Thrones episodes and YouTube.
That’s when I landed on Sinead Bovell’s show (on YouTube, even though we call everything a podcast now). The show is called I’ve Got Questions, and she had an episode featuring Alexander Manu titled something like “Once in a Lifetime Career Reset is Coming.” That title alone just grabs you by the collar. Because that’s the vibe, isn’t it? A mass career and identity reset. Not gradual. Not polite. A reset.
And it brought me back to the question I’ve had from the start: What are we becoming? We can’t stay the same. So what’s the next iteration?
One of the things I’ve been chewing on is how most people’s first move with AI has been to retrofit it into the current paradigm. Same game, faster tools. Write quicker. Create quicker. Code quicker. Spreadsheet quicker. Become “10x productive,” “100x productive,” whatever. And I’m finding myself more and more allergic to that productivity obsession. Because why are we racing? Do we actually want to do more and more, or do we want to live better?
I noticed something about my own choices here too. My day job includes corporate training. The obvious play would be to jump on the trend and become “the AI guy,” training companies how to use AI. But I deliberately didn’t go that route. I wanted to be a practitioner. I wanted to push into the frontier and ask: not “how do I do the old thing faster?” but “what’s the new thing that wasn’t possible before?”
I used painting as a metaphor for this, because we’ve seen this cycle a thousand times. People painted on cave walls, then on canvas. Then the camera came along and painters freaked out. “That’s not art.” Then photography becomes its own art form, because real artists don’t just defend old tools. They explore new ones and invent new forms.
That’s where I think we are now. There’s resistance because people are having an existential crisis about identity, livelihood, meaning, and the role of humans. But there’s also that other camp: the folks who see a new tool and think, “Okay… what can we make now that we couldn’t make before?”
One of Manu’s points that really landed for me is that these tools could create the space for us to be more human, not less. If machines can handle repeatable, mundane stuff better, that should free us to focus on the parts of life that require presence, depth, relationship, contemplation. The being, not just the doing. That line hit me right where I live.
From there, my brain hopped tracks into Robert Anton Wilson territory, because I’ve just started reading Chapel Perilous, the biography of RAW. And it’s lighting my mind up. Reading about his thought processes reminds me what excites me most: consciousness, reality, philosophy of mind, and the question of what humans even are.
That’s what led me into this weird but wonderful blend I started playing with: Buddhism and anarchism. RAW had both currents running through him, and I found myself asking: how can those two coexist?
Here’s what clicked for me. Buddhism, at least in one of its core teachings, points at non-self (anatta). No independent permanent self. The “I” we cling to is more like a process, a pattern, a swirl of causes and conditions. Meanwhile anarchism, at its philosophical core, questions fixed rulers and permanent authority. No fixed ruler. No default assumption that someone must be in charge.
So one becomes an inner liberation practice, the other becomes an outer liberation practice. Inner freedom from attachment to the constructed self. Outer freedom from attachment to constructed authority. Same song in two octaves.
And then I went off, as I do, on the conditioning theme. Because this is the part that keeps bothering me in the best way. I was walking through town yesterday paying attention to my own reactions as I moved through the world, and I kept thinking: how much of my day-to-day behaviour is just conditioning? Automatic reactions. Scripted responses. Learned reflexes. Not conscious choice.
Try this: pick any belief you hold and trace it back. Where did it come from? Family? School? Culture? Religion? Government? Trauma? A moment you never questioned? We’re “programmed” from the start, and most of it we never opted into. And the self we think is “me” is often a patchwork of inherited code.
Then you flip it outward again to politics, law, power. Left, right, centre, everybody’s got an agenda. And the law often seems to apply differently depending on how much power you have. That’s the thing that makes me itch. I don’t trust big systems that claim they’re acting in your best interest while quietly feeding a power structure.
I’ll say this clearly: I stop short of the “burn it all down” impulse. My instinct is more “reduce it to the bare minimum.” Voluntary cooperation. Mutual aid. Less coercion. More sovereignty.
That word became the real anchor of the episode: sovereignty.
Because here’s the tricky part of this sci-fi world we’re living in. We’re already soft cyborgs. Look at how entwined we are with phones, watches, laptops, earbuds, glasses. Put them all in a drawer and turn them off and most of us can’t really function in the modern world the same way. I even talk about my “metaglasses” as this extension of perception, a way to connect to the hive mind, the collective intelligence, whatever you want to call it. And with AR coming, that overlay of digital on physical is going to make the cyborgness even more literal. You’ll be walking down the street in two worlds at once.
I actually like being a soft cyborg. I’m not anti-tech. I’m not anti-AI. I’m pro-consciousness.
Because the danger, or at least the risk, is that conditioning becomes exponential. Influence becomes subtle. Systems compete for your attention, your beliefs, your emotions, your identity. Governments, advertisers, religions, corporations, platforms. Everybody wants a piece of your psyche. They want to shape what you think, what you fear, what you desire, what you believe is true.
So my challenge, to myself and anyone listening, is: don’t abdicate your humanity. Don’t abdicate your sovereignty. Think for yourself. Question things. Ask what the hidden agenda is. Ask who …

Man and His Symbols is an accessible gateway into Jungian depth work. This illustrated exploration of archetypes and symbols reveals how transformation happens in the imaginal realm, below conscious awareness.
Hillman's "acorn theory" illuminates the path to Authentic Purpose. His poetic yet rigorous approach gives language to the daimonic self and the ineffable aspects of personal mythology.
This book is James Hillman's main analysis of analysis. He asks he basic question," What does the soul want?" With insight and humor he answers: "It wants fiction to heal."
Vaihinger… shows that thought is primarily a biological function turned into a conscious art. It is an art of adjustment, whose chief instrument is the construction of fictions by which men may manage to live.
Mary K. Greer's seminal workbook transforms tarot from divination tool into technology for self-knowledge and narrative sovereignty. Packed with exercises that treat the cards as doorways to the imaginal realm, this is required reading for practitioners ready to use archetypal imagery as active imagination practice.
Johnson demystifies Jung's most powerful technique with step-by-step guidance for engaging the imaginal realm directly. This slim volume transforms abstract theory into actionable practice—essential for practitioners ready to move beyond conceptual understanding.
The clearest introduction to chaos magic as pragmatic practice. Strips away dogma to reveal the core mechanics of belief as a tool. Perfectly bridges the gap between depth psychology and results-orientated transformation work.
While the hero's journey has been overused, Campbell's original text remains vital for understanding narrative structure as psycho-spiritual map. Read it to learn the pattern, then transcend it.
This groundbreaking work bridges the mystical and scientific, revealing how tarot actually works through the lens of neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Essential reading for practitioners who want to understand the neurological mechanisms behind symbol work, pattern recognition, and the imaginal realm's interface with the predictive brain.

Narrative Alchemy is the practice of treating stories as spiritual technology—seeing inherited scripts clearly, releasing what isn't yours, and consciously authoring new myths to live by.
It's where Jung meets chaos magic, where the imaginal becomes operational, and where inner transformation reshapes outer reality.
I build games, practices, and frameworks that make this work tangible. Magus Eternal is one of those tools—a tarot RPG designed as a container for threshold crossing. The Narrative Codex is another—a living archive of techniques, lore, and experiments.
This isn't coaching or therapy. It's spiritual technology for people ready to hack their own operating system.
What was written can be rewritten.
What was fixed can be freed.
You hold the pen. Write.

[Sigil] Guardian daemon of thresholds and transformation. Works whether you see it as archetypal force or powerful metaphor. → Explore the sigil
SITE NOTES: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases, so if you see an Amazon link it’s more than likely an affiliate link. The price will be the exact same for you, but I get a commission.
Our Privacy Policy
There’s a symposium tomorrow at the local Catholic college and the question on the table is: “Are morals a thing of the past?”
I can guess what the Catholic school is going to say, what’s your view?
Soulcruzer
Hi, I'm Clay Lowe. I'm a narrative alchemist working at the intersection of depth psychology, chaos magick, alchemy, mythic imagination, and myth-making in the AI age. I treat stories as spiritual technology, the code we use to construct reality. I design games and tools, and create practices for inner transformation and self-mastery.
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
I honestly don’t know what my view is. Sometimes I think yes they are. But, I know I try to live a decent and ethical life and so do my children. So I refuse to give up hope. The pendulum always swings.
Please Clayton kow that I suffered through some struggles over the last two months both in our family with a death and also my blog was claimed by another at MBL…so I lost you as a contact. I retained all of my members but lost my communities and my contacts. I am limited to joining 15 a day at MBL. So slowly but surely I am making my way back.
And, it is certainly good to be back here visiting.
Happy New year,
Jackie
Hi Clay – Happy new year! time for re view..a new vantage point in ones life
Now, youve really got me going with this question Clay , morals..things of the past…morals have been on my mind a lot recently so thanks for bringing it up and providing an opportunity to raise my thoughts. As Shinade says im not sure what i think about this, but my thoughts are that it has importance to me because of the catholic culture that i grew up in. Im glad of that because i often think am i morally doing the right thing..ie persuing competitve lifestyle options rather than investing more time in the local community or something ‘less selfish’. You know i was just thinking about how muc h time i was spending analysisng whether i am investing in the right pension plans ect then a close family friend announces they have temrinal cancer at 40. I then start asking loads of questions of myself and with my wife – is it morally right to spedn so much time in the competitve workforce doing a job i pretty much think i love to provide fulfillment to me and a structure to my fmaily life – then i think when things like this happen – what am i doing spending 10 hours a day away from my kids for some form of personal fulfillment and financial gain -now my wife is tlaking about moving to a bigger house! crikey she just thinking to provide the best for us and the kids..’the garden is not big enough’ she says..and i often say too any how – are morals a thing of the past? i dont think so..they keep our feet on the ground, my wife didnt grow up in a religeous culture and also thinks morals are important – the debate goes on! about moving house that is
Im pretty sure morals were born out of some form of religeous setting in the past . A western construct that provides structure (and control) in western societty. Im beginning to feel that morals are placed further down the agenda in society though as the liberalsied media plays an ever increasing role in the 24*7 society. Ive loosened my thinking from any catholic doctrine that there may have been , but still feel morals are central to our thinking in everythign we do. I stuidied ethics at university though, so that might be why and was taught by an ecclesiastical lecturer!
However im hoping our kids , when they debate in the online chat rooms, connect with their mates (in much bigger volumes than we ever connected with our friends in my generation) through the likes of textings…..i hope they still come back to the centre of moral debate, that is…is it right or wrong to….. i would be interested to know what the people of the east think about morals, where they are less inclined to think in opposites, dualism.. black or white, right or wrong – i would suggest they think morals are relevant and is just part of the way of being and leading a good life.
jase and shinade, thanks for the comments.
Clay
Much depends I think on the moral agenda of the individual or organization. From my perspective, I find there are Universal morals that we would do well to respect. These may not be what make us feel good in the moment, but may in fact be what preserve the integrity and wellbeing of our species. Look over the course of civilization and see which morals have stuck and which have fallen by the wayside.
Look at the whole picture and not just a personal, and maybe selfish perspective. It could be we have abandoned some priceless gems of wisdom because we lacked the maturity and fortitude to explore their merits deeply enough to reap their rewards. This is a complex issue that cannot be solved in a few sentences, but what we can do is develop our intuition, learn to be self observant. Truly think for ourselves. It is easy to let the experts think for us what is right action, but who is to say whether they are right or not, regardless of who they are, religious leader, Behaviorist, Atheist, whoever. This is tricky territory, and it is important to really think this through. There may be more at stake than is immediately apparent.
A good example of morals gone awry may be observed in the crisis in the Middle East. We may do well to mind our own business and not meddle in the moral issues of others before understanding their perspectives. If we as a civilization could observe the common ground we share with one another rather than fighting over our differences, we may be better off. I am not suggesting wishy washy political correctness. No one can rise to maturity that way. Maybe a form of tough love would be better. Accept that others may be different, but don’t be afraid to call them if there methods seem detrimental. At the same time don’t be afraid of receiving criticism for your own actions. This may be a better practice among our own kind, in our own culture.
We have to be mentors for our children as well. It may be that not every action or life choice is in our best interest. We have to have the backbone to stand up for a true morality, but not just because some authority tells us to. We have to do it from a clearly thought out and understood perspective, and we better know what we are doing as our very lives may depend on our choices.
I have personally opened myself up to criticism by many so called open minded individuals regarding my stance on morality, but I stand my ground as an individual who has put his life on the line for his actions. I have thought this through and tried to see the issues whatever they may be beyond a personal agenda. At least in the relative world, there are fundamental moral principles to adhere to. I follow no church even though my moral views would be considered very conservative by most. Life experience has been my teacher and my church in many ways.
I will close by saying that while an open mind is necessary for discovery and learning, a too open mind like an open wound is open for infection.