There are two conditions which must be met in the conceptual praxis of a thing in order for it to be indestructable. It must be a) focused, and b) concept-agnostic.
"Focused" means that the thing has a conceptual coherence with is not overly loose. The conceptual coherence of the thing does not let loose of itself and dissipate. It does not wander, freehand, all over the place, refusing to alight on any kind of an identity. In other words, there must be no internal will or forces which lead to a diffusion of conceptual characteristics. There must be a sense of overriding conceptual unity and coherence.
An example of this kind of diffusion would be shattering a plate. If you shattered a plate, the plate would be destroyed. Plates, therefore, are not indestructable, because they can be shattered. A plate is "focused" because it is created as a work. It has an internal coherence. It is round, it has artwork on it, and it was created using specific techniques. All of these elements came together to form the plate. That is what gives it its focus. It is not, therefore, indestructable because it lacks focus. Rather, it is not indestructable because it lacks concept-agnosticism.
The term "concept-agnosticism" involves a very specific set of words. "Concept" involves an idea with a sense of relatively strict internal coherence. Implied in this word is the idea, mentioned above, of "focus." Concepts always have focus. A thing, in order to be indestructable, must not only be a concept, and hence have focus, but it must also be concept-agnostic. The choice of the second word here is very important.
I could have, but did not, choose the term "a-conceptual." A-conceptual things are things which strictly negate any sense of being a concept, or having concepts. They are non-conceptual. Such things may exist, but the attribute of being non-conceptual is not a primary facet in its indestructability.
I could've also chosen the term "anti-conceptual." This is a different concept altogether. To be anti-conceptual, a thing is opposed to any kind of conceptual coherence at all. It isn't merely that it lacks the attribute of being a concept, but that it repels whatever forces would have it become a concept. To my knowledge, the only things which bother to be anti-conceptual are annoyingly cliche New York artists.
The choice of words, here, are very specific. "Concept-agnostic" implies a certain geometry of related ideas, which work together to make sure that the "focused" and "conceptual" nature of the thing in question remains existent. We could return to the idea of the shattered plate. A shattered plate has lost its focused, conceptual nature. Now imagine if the plate were, in fact, concept-agnostic, in addition to being focused. Whatever the means which attempted to shatter the plate would have introduced a conceptual idea to the plate, but since the plate is agnostic of its own internal conceptual makeup, this means of shattering the plate would not have actually destroyed the plate.
So we can understand a thing's "concept-agnosticism" as a sense of openness to new conceptual ideas with regards to its internal conceptual makeup. The idea is that the thing in question is agnostic of its own internal conceptual makeup. This, of course, allows external concepts which talk to it to contribute to, rather than destroy, its own conceptual makeup.
Naturally, concept-agnosticism is important with regards to the indestructability of a thing, but it is not the whole thing. The thing must also be focused. Simply being agnostic of one's internal conceptual makeup does not allow one to be indestructable, unless something about it defines the thing as an actual concept. A thing which is not focused is not a thing at all, and therefore it is meaningless to apply any kind of attributions to it, or identify it at all, even with regards to its internal concept-agnosticism.
Now, to relate this to the end of the world.
The hippies believed that everything had to be completely concept-agnostic. My opinion is that this aspect of the movement can be traced not to the idea of Prajnaparamita and Buddhism, but to the influence of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (and perhaps also to certain aspects of the Hindu yogic tradition, though I haven't studied that very much). The Golden Dawn were a group of occultists who came about near the end of the 19th century. However, by all appearances, in the course of their studies of the occult, these folks became frightened of the significance of their own discoveries. As a result, they moved more and more towards a strict insistence on concept-agnosticism, and respect and reverence for imaginary deities which didn't really exist. It should come as no surprise, then, that the Golden Dawn has since fractured and fallen apart. They were not indestructable, because they had no focus. (It's important to note, I think, that modern Paganism and Neo-Paganism, as well as most Wicca, and other magical orders, are descendants of the Golden Dawn.)
It's not surprising that studies in occultism would lead people to become frightened of their own discoveries. There is a well-established link between magical practice and psychosis. Crowley (as it appears) drove his first wife insane, and she ended up in a mental hospital. People who take magic seriously often fall prey to the psychiatrists. The reason is the link between psychosis and magical practice. And the reason for this link is the obvious similarity between psychosis and power. The purpose of magic is to gain primary, mental control over the external world. Wiccans will deny this, and anti-Illuminati sentiment among Wiccans is very strong. But really, they don't know what they're talking about.
The exact same thing can be said about people who practice pedophilia, or Ritual Satanic Abuse, and so forth. Such people recognize their attraction to little boys or girls (or whatever), and they discover the correct way to exercise their desires and "get away with it," but they become afraid of the significance of their discoveries. The karmic result of this is magical suffering and/or psychosis.
Naturally, we can relate the idea of magical practice itself to the creation of the world, or at least to the creation of a "world order." But we also have to relate all this to the destruction of the world. Hopefully, we can all understand the link between magical practice and psychosis. And now, we may be able to understand the creation of a "world order" to psychosis as well. In my vast experience with psychosis (which I have experienced to a great degree and still experience from time to time), the most important thing to do to heal yourself from its grip is to kill yourself a little bit. If you're feeling psychotic, the only way to heal is to kill yourself with something like alcohol or sleep medications. Naturally, you don't have to physically die, but we all know what alcohol and sleep medications do: they destroy the ability of the brain to hold onto itself. If you introduce this sort of drug into your system, you'll begin to lose control of your mindstream. This is essential to healing from psychosis, because the essence of psychosis is too much control over your own mindstream.
Psychiatrists, unfortunately, might claim that there is no difference at all between psychosis and magical practice. This is not the case. There is a difference, but the difference is subtle. Magical practice is first-mental control over the external world. Psychosis is mental control over your own mindstream. (Yoga, too, is different. My understanding is that yoga is primarily external control over one's own mindstream.)
In terms of personal experience, we can identify two broad categories for each phenomenon (magical practice and psychosis). You can have magical practice which is natural, and magical practice which is suffering. Likewise, you can have psychosis which is natural, and psychosis which is suffering. I've already explained the way to heal from the suffering form of psychosis (by killing yourself a little bit). The way to heal from the suffering of magical practice is similar. You have to break things up a little bit, externally. Now I don't mean you have to destroy things. All I really mean is that you have to get a little dirty. You have to invite in a little bit of dirt, and allow a modest and measured amount of "probing" from other beings external to yourself. You have to make changes, compassionately, in a way that doesn't hurt people. In other words, if the words in the books you read begin to look more like shadows than words, the solution is to let other people read them, and then discuss it. Or to read different books.
If you look back over my blog, and if you're friends with me and read my personal correspondences, you may notice a recurring theme of myself calling for the destruction of the world. If you analyze the reasons why I'm saying these things, the picture should become clear. I call for destruction of the world when there is far too much control involved in the way the world works. That is why the world must be destroyed. Now I don't indulge in conspiracy theories, and I don't believe that anyone who attempts to control the world must be killed, or anything like that. However, it's obvious, if you think about it, that the compassionate thing to do when someone has too much control over the world is to destroy the world a little bit. Otherwise, it looks too much like suffering—suffering which is relevantly similar to psychotic suffering.
You may also jump to the conclusion that I'm talking about "The Illuminati." That is, when I call for the destruction of the world, the attack is directed at the upper echelons of whatever secret organization you think I'm referring to whenever I talk about "The Illuminati." This is nonsense. There is no such thing as an organization that has only a single member. And in any organization, some members are more advanced morally than others. And in any case, there are different kinds of organizations who call themselves "The Illuminati." And regardless, I may not even be talking about such groups as The Illuminated Seers of Bavaria or The Freemasons or the O.T.O. and so forth. I could just be talking about a specific coven of Witches, or perhaps scientists, cult leaders, or psychiatrists. It's obvious when I'm talking about the destruction of the world (synonymous here with the destruction of the "world order") what I'm talking about is the destruction of the controlled world order of whoever it is that is creating a world which is identical with a world of suffering.
As a matter of fact, whenever I say these things about the destruction of the world, it's probable that I'm talking about psychiatrists, or rapists. Rapists have the potential to cause people to become psychotic. Psychiatrists dedicate their lives to committing genocide against people who are psychotic. A rapist will call in psychiatry in order to snuff out someone who they've raped, so that their voice is never heard. Or, psychiatry, on its own accord, will sniff out someone who is psychotic (perhaps because of previous rape) and due to their hateful nature snuff them out on their own. Each group, the rapists and the psychiatrists, have created their own, neat little world order, and each world order must be destroyed, to the extent to which is enough to cease magical suffering.
The problem, in all cases, with each of our "world orders," is a lack of either sufficient focus, or concept-agnosticism. To use my own world order as an example, if I elect to completely forget about trauma, and forget about my own psychosis, and to give up on my ambitions regarding my sociality and possible future family life, career, and so forth, I will lose focus. If, on the other hand, I retain too much contact with people who try to control my life, or if I do too much to control all exigencies regarding personal finances, creation of artwork, and so forth, I will lack concept-agnosticism.
