The following are transcripts from late night radio 
programming received on my warrior radio.  Imagine my 
surprise when I discovered that I had forgotten to turn it on....

Part I:  THE MATRIX

Good evening.  I'm Malachi Constant.  Our guest tonight 
is the reknowned Professor von Helsing, imminent scholar 
and author of such books as "Dancing in Stalking Feet" 
and "Infinity on $5 A Day".  I quote from the dust jacket 
of the former:

"It is very difficult to talk about sorcery without becoming 
entangled in syntax.  Metaphorically, sorcery is a multifaceted 
gem which lies in deep shadow.  It is possible to illuminate a 
facet, and through the reflections obtained to get a glimpse of 
the whole.  But the sides are not coplanar, and often seem to 
contradict one another.  And the heart of it is not touched.  
It is beyond syntax, and even language."

Welcome, Professor.  So--IS it useful, or even possible, to 
talk about sorcery?

PROFESSOR VON HELSING:   Thank you, Mr. Constant.  Well,
it is entirely unclear whether intellectual understanding is 
necessary to the pursuit of sorcery, or that a flawed understanding 
may be an actual detriment to it.  Even the social scientists are 
recognizing that there are various types of intelligence, many of
which have little or nothing to do with words.  It is my chosen 
belief that for those who do tend to relate to the world primarily
through words, such an understanding is a powerful tool.  It
can gain one a moment's pause, allowing one to notice the 
encroachment of useless self-importance and therefore to fight 
against it.  The danger of any powerful tool is that one can 
become too dependent upon it:  as the saying goes, when all 
one has is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.  As 
I have written, I fully agree with the premise that there are many 
aspects of sorcery which while perceivable are outside the 
realm of the intellect.  I offer my scribblings not as THE answer,
or even an ANSWER, but as a flashbulb explosion in a vast,
dark theater, which may afford a bit of illumination for those who 
are seeking it, while merely being an annoyance for the rest.

MC:  Professor von Helsing, in several of your monographs
on the subject you have made it clear that the warrior's way
is a construct of the intent of the sorcerers of ancient Mexico.
As such, it is a magical thing.  Yet you also seem to believe that
there is a logically consistent theoretical basis for it.  So, Doc, 
what is the philosophy of the warrior's way?

PVH:  The fundamental premise of the warrior's way is that the 
world is a mystery.  It is impossible to overemphasize this point, 
as every other one of the sorcerers' conclusions rests on this
foundation, and many of them are completely insupportable
without it.  Because of this premise, a warrior understands that
there is no unsubjective way to assign relative value to anything 
in the world.  Everything being equally mysterious, everything
is seen to be equally important.  However, the warrior does not
follow this conclusion to nihilism, the belief that nothing has
importance, that everything is useless.  Instead, the warrior 
realizes that it is every being's task to choose what to consider 
important.  A warrior assumes personal  responsibility for 
choosing what to value.  The common man shirks this 
responsibility, accepting what the culture dictates.  In what 
seems a paradox to such common men, the warrior gains freedom 
not by losing responsibility, but by assuming it totally.

MC:  I see.  But in the absence of an objective standard of the
Good, Right, and True, how does a warrior go about fulfilling
that responsibility?

PVH:  The warrior does not assign importances haphazardly 
or at random.  Even in the mystery, there are facts, energetic 
facts, items which we do not possess the energy to reduce 
further.  This is not a contradiction.  An elementary school
student may easily manipulate addition and subtraction
while calculus is far beyond their understanding or ability.
The fact that something is beyond our understanding does
not imply that it cannot be understood, nor that certain
aspects of the phenomenon may not appear understandable 
to us.

The central energetic fact for warriors is that we are beings 
who are going to die.  This fact implies to the warrior 
that there is no time to waste, no room for the making of
foolish, inconsequential or petty decisions.  It implies that 
warriors always do their best.

MC:  But wait a minute, Doc.  Aren't words like "petty", 
"foolish", and "best" value judgements?  How does the 
warrior arrive at a position to judge such matters?

PVH:  The mechanism through which warriors make their
value judgements is the path with heart.  I'd prefer to 
leave that topic for later.  First, we should complete our
discussion of the philosophical matrix of the warrior's way.  

The second premise of the warrior's way is that nothing we can
do will ever unravel the mystery of the world.  No matter how
effective our procedures may be, our scientific understanding,
we are merely dealing with syntactical descriptions which can't
begin to encompass the fundamental nature of reality, or even 
provide much help with any other description of it.  

MC:  Yet we do operate effectively in this description.  We 
speak to one another at great distances, we fly, we walk on 
the moon.

PVH:  Our belief in our understanding is a necessary component 
of that effectiveness.  Belief is the psychological aspect of the 
more encompassing act of intending through which we keep
this description continuous.But as a mechanism, belief works 
equally well with any other description.  The Christians 
believed in salvation and the afterlife enough to enable them
to walk calmly into the lions' maws in the Roman Colosseum.

MC:  Belief is obviously a powerful mechanism, whether what 
one believes is "true" or not.

PVH:  The warrior uses belief as a tool.  Therefore the warrior 
assumes responsibility for what to believe--again, merely 
accepting the default beliefs of the culture is not the warrior's 
way.  A warrior believes only what one chooses to believe.  
And because a warrior is one who always does one's best, 
who has no time to waste, the warrior chooses to believe only 
what one has to believe.  To believe something that is 
unnecessary is the act of an immortal.

MC:  I hate to be a pest, Professor, but what is "necessary"?
What do we "have" to believe?  

PVH:  The third premise of the warrior's way is that the warrior 
accepts the fact that each being is itself a mystery, and that one 
of the most mysterious aspects of our existence is that we are 
compelled to attempt to unravel that mystery, even though it is 
certain that we never will.  Sorcerers explain this by saying that 
we are on a journey of awareness.  It is our function to be aware.  
What is "necessary" is whatever continues our journey and 
increases our awareness.  Conversely, what is unnecessary is 
anything that results from a misguided belief in our immortality, 
from the illusion that we know everything we need to know about 
the way things are, that the world we wake up to in the morning 
will be the same as the one we went to bed with. 

There is a fundamental stance in the warrior's way.  It is this:
we are born into a mysterious world having been lent a finite
amount of energy.  There is nothing we can do to gain more 
energy.  The world is predatory, and only the proper use of our 
energy can stave off predation, and allow us to continue our
journey of awareness.  Therefore the only pragmatic course is 
to learn control over our energy.  We do this knowing that 
even our best may not save us, that we will die, that it is folly 
to believe that we will last another second.  Yet it is the warrior's 
way to exercise control over our folly, because it is the best 
strategy available.  It is imperative that we properly utilize all 
the energy we have.  

This is true whether or not one accepts the sorcerer's explanation 
about the finite nature of our energy.  And in fact, I see here an 
excellent opportunity for the application of the ideas we have 
been examining.  Is it necessary to believe that we can increase 
our store of energy, or that we cannot?  

MC:  Until next time.
  
NEXT:  Controlled folly and impeccability