True Will and Evolution
-
@Frater 639 said
"Cajal (1904) predicted that with the acquisition of new skills the brain would change through rapid reinforcement of preestablished organic pathways and later formation of new pathways."
Please tell me this was published in April
-
@mark0987 said
"I think so, to a certain extent. I believe that Wilson's work on reality tunnels may have some relevance here. If we prescribe to only one possible belief i.e. kundalini does not exist, we limit ourselves in that little box. If we do not believe kundalini exists, chances are we will never experience it, nor set out to experience it.
However if we consider it does exist and strive to find out, chances are you will experience it.
It is the same with the brain. If humans are told something is impossible they will not try and do it anyway, they will sit at home and say the man on the news with degrees say this is not possible, so why bother trying?"
Agreed. Trust me, I work for one of the world's most prominent biomedical universities. Sometimes degrees/academia is not too encouraging of non-profitable research. They can act as maintainers of the status quo, especially if it threatens investments in relation to their economic resources (donors and grant providers).
@mark0987 said
"Of course spiritual practices are one way and the more people do it, the more their brain structures will change and the more people they will inspire to also do it. I believe Crowley said something along the lines of an adept truly does inspire all they come into contact with, he makes the example of his 'magical partners' uncovering hidden talents."
I agree with this. I think this goes beyond language to something more subtle. I would go further to say that we can't perceive the information fields all the time that may be influencing us. A little further, I would say learning how to work with the so-called "kundalini" makes one more efficient in being able to project this "information field."
@mark0987 said
"I think that humanity are not simultaneously evolving together, rather more and more people are introducing new concepts to each other along with each individiaul growing independently, and we are evolving together via inspiration to do so from one another."
Agreed. There is the nucleus and the electron - one is the stability, the other is responsible for movement and attraction. I look at this as the masses and the people that seem to be one step ahead, leading the way through evolution.
@mark0987 said
"Expression is key to this, which is why Thelema is a great path. If you limit what you can experience to what you "know" (i.e. what your culture/society tells you) doesn't exist, you will never strive to develop in a new way and cause new developments....the word of sin truly is restriction."
Yes. And this expression seems to be that people want to "connect" in a more collective way. Just look at internet use and social media. It seems to me that this is the budding of something that will emerge more organically as time goes on.
@mark0987 said
"I am very much so just starting out with my practices, I would say if a magician has kept an objective and tedious diary for years and has recorded various exercises and how long it took a result to manifest, and every exercise when a result did not manifest. Then one could say they have a chance of producing results which will be respected by science. However before doing so they must first define what a successful result is before setting out. E.g. wha is the time limit for a result to manifest, what counts as a result etc."
That's how every great discovery starts - and in the process you learn to know yourself! Win-win.
"I like to think of the neschamah in this case. I believe Lon DuQuette uses the example of a mother knowing her child is in danger in the middle of the night and waking up; just knowing something is wrong. This is most certainly a connection in consciousness, of course we are close to our family and friends, but perhaps one day this will branch out to all humans.
"I used to think of Neschamah as being the same as psychic phenomena. As practice increased, I learned to differentiate between the two - Neschamah being more of an egregoric record/resource of information and psychic phenomena being between two parties. Both come from what is seemingly an abstract or non-logical transmission and difficult to differentiate at first - practicing Asana and Dharana made it easier to get a handle on what was inside or outside my "circle," and astral work helped me to differentiate what was personality instrusion, or possibly something else...
The main thing is to practice shifting the consciousness. Much of the A.'.A.'. training revolves around how to get this "knack" and be efficient about it - this teaches one about the layers of their own mind and the different functions it is capable of - and what modes it is capable of reaching.
Relating to the "adept influencing others" that we were talking about above, I believe interconnectedness is becoming more apparent, and magicians especially push this envelope. As magicians become more sensitive to other energies, they can also become more influenced by other energies - psychologically this can be explained by bad behaviors increase along with good ones, but that's just too good/evil for me.
In any event, I think most people have had this experience of non-logical "information download" from the people that they are close to, like from their family, friends, etc. - which can be a blessing or a curse, very subtle or extremely overt, and the nature of these energies can depend on the company you keep - especially sexual partners, close friends and family members, etc.
As I alluded to earlier, I think that magicians can be especially prone to these "invasive" ideas if they don't take care of their own aura, thoughtforms, "circle," or whatever term you care to use. They seem to influence and can be influenced as their projection and reception strength increases, which starts to be developed as early as 0=0 in the A.'.A.'. System.
Again, thanks again for the fun conversation. I really appreciate the thoughtful answers.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Frater 639 said
"Cajal (1904) predicted that with the acquisition of new skills the brain would change through rapid reinforcement of preestablished organic pathways and later formation of new pathways."Please tell me this was published in April
"Hahaha! Probably.
Give me a few before I respond to your post. Awesome points in there - I just have a lot going on today and I want to give it the attention it deserves. Thanks for jumping in.
-
No hurry. I'm slammed at the moment as well. Long leisurely well-thought out conversations are much more useful (imho) that immediate fast-track responses.
At any rate, your cross-reference to The Book of Lies is going to keep me occupied falling down that rabbit hole for awhile so take your time.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"The current model I'm working under is that I'm actively introducing a non-ordinary symbolic language into my thought stream to force my brain/mind to break out of its rut of a tunnel-reality and begin working closer to full capacity."
Would you care to share this or perhaps get a bit more detailed? I know it may be personal - but I'd be happy to share personal methods that I use as a quid pro quo. I feel like it may be beneficial to someone out there who may be framing questions and/or techniques the same way...
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"The two poles of the explanation for all of this seem to be: either all of this is solely material brain function, chemical reactions locked within my cranium, or everything is interconnected and thus there is a natural connection between what I perceive to be happening and what is actually happening. Thus far, I've collected some data and a number of logical arguments for both of these alternatives, but I'm not ready to state an opinion one way or the other. "
Do you think these are exclusive or are they two sides of the same coin and necessary to observation? I don't think it is solely either one of them. I think it is the particle and wave, also relatable if you're 1st person or 3rd person, if that makes sense.
For a super crude analogy, if I'm traveling along the equator, I'm "in the equator" - my perception is that I'm moving in a line. If I observe the equator from afar, I'm seeing a circle. I see a duality - something observing another or being united with something else (like particle and wave theory). But both are related. I think of The Fool and The Magus as explanations of reality, which rule the two distinct modes of consciousness (I guess we could also relate it to Dharana and Samadhi, or perhaps evocation and invocation), yet still it is all consciousness. This is the 2=0 equation that Crowley likes to tout (in MWT Chap. 5) and it explains relativity; also, what Einstein said in regard to wave/particle theory applies to consciousness methinks:
"It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do".
What do you think about this? Can it apply to modes of viewing consciousness?
In my opinion, the basic Venn diagram is all that really exists. Sphere A (being Person/Group 1) reality, Sphere B (being Person/Group 2) reality, and Sphere C (being shared reality of People/Groups 1 and 2) - and of course this can extend to many consciousnesses indefinitely to create many interconnected reality spheres or intersubjectivity. It is all very plastic. It is also easily related to YHV - with the final "H" as being the aggregate which is the current stage of evolution...
And, on the surface, we seem to have many measurements based in the physical plane that we can all agree on. When we look closer we understand that material isn't so material at all, we are just "zoomed out" enough to call a collection of molecules "a chair," a "bed," etc. The material plane seems to be the spectrum that most humans, in this stage of evolution, are comfortable with agreeing on and comparing their observations with. But, there is always some disagreement, based on POV. The more abstract we get and the further we get from this spectrum, the further we get into disagreement - and, even though energy is a fundamental and exists in all planes, it is still difficult for many to just understand it as more abstract when viewing it in certain ways - leading to disagreements largely based on ego and POV.
The points of contention (forgive the pun) is always that an energy in my reality sphere, relating to something similar in your reality sphere, may look completely different based on one's particular ego-interface with that particular energy, given the course of one's lifetime - which is why "growing" the function of observation to open up and identify energy "astrally" and using symbolism is important (which is using a tool of "non-linear" observation that is somehow connecting two realities through consciousness, but not done through classical observation). This is what Crowley is trying to explain in various places (my bold):
*But there are "planes" proper to every clairvoyant who explores the Astral Light without prejudice; in such case, things assume the form of his own mind, and his perception will be clear in proportion to his personal purity.
[...]
Thus, in low grades of initiation, dogmatic quarrels are inflamed by astral experience; *
And here:
*Now this fine body perceives a universe which we do not ordinarily perceive. It does not necessarily perceive the universe which we do normally perceive, so although in this body I can pass through the roof, it does not follow that I shall be able to tell what the weather is like. I might do so, or I might not: but if I could not, it would not prove that I was deceiving myself in supposing that I had passed through the roof. This body, which is called by various authors the Astral double, body of Light, body of fire, body of desire, fine body, scin-laeca and numberless other names is naturally fitted to perceive objects of its own class ... in particular, the phantoms of the astral plane.
There is some sort of vague and indeterminate relation between the Astrals and the Materials; and it is possible, with great experience, to deduce facts about material things from the astral aspect which they present to the eyes of the Body of Light.
This is because there is a certain necessary correspondence between planes; as in the case of an Anglo-Indian's liver and this temper. The relation appears "vague and indeterminate" only in so far as one happens to be ignorant of the laws which state the case. The situation is analogous to that of the chemist before the discovery of the law of "Combining Weights", etc.*
This astral plane is so varied and so changeable that several clairvoyants looking at the same thing might give totally different accounts of what they saw; yet they might each make correct deductions. In looking at a man the first clairvoyant might say: "The lines of force are all drooping"; the second: "It seems all dirty and spotty"; a third; "The Aura looks very ragged." Yet all might agree in deducing that the man was in ill-health. In any case all such deductions are rather unreliable. One must be a highly skilled man before one can trust one's vision. A great many people think that they are extremely good at the business, when in fact they have only made some occasional shrewd guesses (which they naturally remember) in the course of hundreds of forgotten failures.
I guess the reason why I went off on this tangent (I really have no clue why actually) is because people can both sense similar qualities of something without observing the same thing physically, in a very tangible way, and it can be measured - I'm talking about the astral here. There is a middle ground where we can relate these energies tangibly - and this is a relatively common practice after a certain skill level is acquired astrally.
I actually think this is only part of the Next Step in evolution and the realizing of collective True Will. We can share consciousness, yet not all things appear the same way to all collectively - yes, consciousness is subjective and all "in the cranium." Yet, if we can agree on certain details, we are "interconnected" in consciousness, and this is the intersubjectivity described by Crowley in MWT Chap. 5 and a Venn diagram, and relatable to Einstein's observations on relativity. Do you see this as being relatable? What do you think?
It is almost as if our describing physical details are in a realm that means something to us underneath the rational mind, yet we find these symbols in common - they exist in two planes at once depending on "where we are viewing from." I like to use this model as to reconcile connectivity of consciousness, the non-ego and the ego, and the subsequent shifts in POV.
Also, switching these modes at will are part and parcel to the invocations (including the invocations of the HGA). See MTP Part III Chap. XV.
I think that being able to switch back and forth between ego and non-ego will be a primary part of evolution as we move forward - with EMPATHY - in a way that is very tangible, and not just in thought - plastic, yet can be felt physically, depending on the software (and revisions/updates) running on the computer. Mirror neurons are part of being able to identify this process.
How do you feel when it comes to these "two ways" of viewing consciousness concurrently? Does this seem acceptable? Also, maybe check out the BOT for the Fool and the Magus. I think that it outlines these two POVs very well. At least, that's part of the metaphor I get from it...
I'm glad that you liked the Chap. 32 BOL reference. Check out Chap. 39 - Crowley explains the new function of brain that is developed from these practices...
And thanks again - I apologize for the tangent...I kind of went down the wormhole with this one...
-
@Frater 639 said
"Would you care to share this or perhaps get a bit more detailed? I know it may be personal - but I'd be happy to share personal methods that I use as a quid pro quo. I feel like it may be beneficial to someone out there who may be framing questions and/or techniques the same way..."
Well, as I said, my actual practice of magick is relatively new. I've been reading voraciously for years but had always chalked up any reported powers/results to exaggeration, fantasy, or feebleness of mind. Nevertheless, the interest never went away. In discovering Scientific Illuminism, I found a method that spoke directly to my analytical side while also offering a definite framework for my naturally un-disciplined side to follow.
Currently, I'm in the process of rewiring my previous mental and physical yoga practices towards the baseline fundamentals necessitated by Libri E & O. Extending the length of complete bodily stillness, adding in an unchanging mantra... all the things that are boring as hell but necessary to up my own self-discipline in prep for more advanced work. I believe it was gurugeorge on some thread or other that either coined or referenced the term "body-off" and that's the term that's been sticking with me. Getting the monkey-puppet to the point where it doesn't have to constantly relay to me every sensation it's receiving. Boring the senses so that they go to sleep and leave the mind awake to check itself out.
As to the "non-ordinary symbolic language", I'm working on transitioning from an intellectual understanding of the occult symbolism with which I've become very familiar over the past (mumble-mumble) years to an intuitional integration of them into the workings of my mind. Actively attempting to let go of the "golden snake = phallos" type of symbol-reading while encouraging the full-body sensory experience of imagining myself as a golden flying serpent (or whatever other symbol-idea I happen to be focusing on that day). The working hypothesis is that by encouraging my mind to break out of standard consensus reality and get it playing in any way it sees fit, I'll be able to unlock some/all of the doors that I and society have locked around me. I don't know yet what's on the other side of those doors nor do I really want to speculate at this point. It's not that I don't have a range of possibilities lined up, it's that I know myself to fall too easily into intellectualization and part of this current practice is allowing that particular power of the sphinx to take a rest. To extend that metaphor, I'm pushing "To Dare" into the realms of what I used "To Know" was impossible so that, when I start "To Will", I won't be hampered by misplaced and unfounded doubt.
Ringing this back around to the original topic of the thread, I'd say I also came to Thelema and True Will in a way that seems a mirror image of most I've interacted with in that I already had finding my TW pretty much handled by the time I discovered there was a specific name for it and a system surrounding it. Since discovering Thelema, it's undergone some adjustments (evolution?) but the core drive and direction that I discovered a bunch of years ago still holds true. Picking up a magical practice now is very much in line with it which has helped in squashing some of those voices in the back of my mind that insist I'm wasting my time and chasing after rainbows and every other bit of "common sense" that prevent each and every one of us from truly engaging with the universe around us.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"I've been reading voraciously for years but had always chalked up any reported powers/results to exaggeration, fantasy, or feebleness of mind. "
I came from a very analytic view of philosophy - along the lines of the skeptical school as well. We would probably have shared the same views. I originally started practicing magick and using the Tarot to "prove it all wrong."
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"Currently, I'm in the process of rewiring my previous mental and physical yoga practices towards the baseline fundamentals necessitated by Libri E & O."
Cool. Stillness of mind is so helpful when tackling Liber O. A good teacher will try to suggest that a student will need to have an intermediate success level in asana proper practice, pranayama, etc. before attempting Liber O parts 4, 5 and 6 - otherwise, a lot of mental masturbation seems to ensue in many cases.
Before entering upon any of these practices, the student should be in good health, and have attained a fair mastery of Asana, Pranayama and Dharana.
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"I believe it was gurugeorge on some thread or other that either coined or referenced the term "body-off" and that's the term that's been sticking with me."
Great advice.
"As to the "non-ordinary symbolic language", I'm working on transitioning from an intellectual understanding of the occult symbolism with which I've become very familiar over the past (mumble-mumble) years to an intuitional integration of them into the workings of my mind. Actively attempting to let go of the "golden snake = phallos" type of symbol-reading while encouraging the full-body sensory experience of imagining myself as a golden flying serpent (or whatever other symbol-idea I happen to be focusing on that day). The working hypothesis is that by encouraging my mind to break out of standard consensus reality and get it playing in any way it sees fit, I'll be able to unlock some/all of the doors that I and society have locked around me. I don't know yet what's on the other side of those doors nor do I really want to speculate at this point"
This is cool. If I could offer a suggestion, it would be to look at Liber O parts 1-3 and pay special attention as to why the Instruction goes over the importance of the correspondences so much - to reiterate that there are symbols already made in the western school. The symbology is already there, why recreate it? And, as you know, it is also weaved through the tarot, qabalah, rituals, etc. if you have the "classic" symbols already anchored into your psychology, the next step is to raise energized enthusiasm when operating in ritual or with godforms. Do you work with part 4 of Liber O yet?
Here** the key is energized enthusiasm **after the rituals are memorized and can be done automatically; that is, getting excited about the ritual in a special way to where you are "in a zone" without having to intellectualize.
Scientifically, I believe this is engaging the amygdala, the adrenaline system, basal ganglia, etc. to attach to certain thoughtforms. At this point, we are changing our brain under will. And it is this training that anchors how to be in control of shifting our consciousness, moods, ideas, archetypes, etc. through excitement.
I leaned very much into the intellectual sides of things when starting out, like I said - so this was the part of magick which would balance out the intellect for me. It would be controlling the "passion" mechanism. Consider the Mars energy being introduced to Hod, and the intellectual Tower crumbling on its way to the passion of Venus, for a qabalistic analogy.
Preparation with "body-off" is important to block all extraneous thought that would distract from one-pointed concentration when engaging this enthusiasm e.g. makes the mechanism more efficient. Engaging the part of the psychology that works when using Bhakti yoga gives us the chemicals that promote new and stronger synapse growth - e.g. creates the channels/controls for this new state of love (attachment) under will (choice).
I don't believe this is the "end goal" of magick, but it is a necessary step. But, then again, there are many ways of interacting with the world around us with more clarity, like you mention below...
Again, I think there are many other facets of magick. I tend to disagree with the notion that magick is strictly a self-help tool that centers around a materialist/psychological model. There are many other facets that are quite frankly unexplanable with one limited POV. In short, there are some analogous phenomenon and evidence of Others in my experience and also with plenty of other people that I know - and they happen to be staunch skeptics like myself! Anyway, to get to a broader spectrum of "two-way communication," a certain level of concentration needs to be acquired through training. Maybe, one day, it will be more organic and we won't need to train so much...
I bring this up to outline again that I think this is where we are evolving - this desire for communication and learning something truly new from the "universe around us" is an intrinsic part of the TW for all. Do you agree with this?
@Gnosomai Emauton said
" Picking up a magical practice now is very much in line with it which has helped in squashing some of those voices in the back of my mind that insist I'm wasting my time and chasing after rainbows and every other bit of "common sense" that prevent each and every one of us from truly engaging with the universe around us."
Awesome! I love this! Wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.
-
@Frater 639 said
"This is cool. If I could offer a suggestion, it would be to look at Liber O parts 1-3 and pay special attention as to why the Instruction goes over the importance of the correspondences so much - to reiterate that there are symbols already made in the western school. The symbology is already there, why recreate it? And, as you know, it is also weaved through the tarot, qabalah, rituals, etc. if you have the "classic" symbols already anchored into your psychology, the next step is to raise energized enthusiasm when operating in ritual or with godforms. Do you work with part 4 of Liber O yet?"
Pentagram yes, hexagram no. For parts 1-3, that's actually exactly what I'm working through at the moment. "The symbology is already there, why create it?" describes exactly the conversation that one side of my mind has been having with the other. I think they've finally come to terms with each other in the past few months and are ready to start working together.
@Frater 639 said
"I don't believe this is the "end goal" of magick, but it is a necessary step. But, then again, there are many ways of interacting with the world around us with more clarity, like you mention below...
Again, I think there are many other facets of magick. I tend to disagree with the notion that magick is strictly a self-help tool that centers around a materialist/psychological model. There are many other facets that are quite frankly unexplanable with one limited POV. In short, there are some analogous phenomenon and evidence of Others in my experience and also with plenty of other people that I know - and they happen to be staunch skeptics like myself! Anyway, to get to a broader spectrum of "two-way communication," a certain level of concentration needs to be acquired through training. Maybe, one day, it will be more organic and we won't need to train so much...
I bring this up to outline again that I think this is where we are evolving - this desire for communication and learning something truly new from the "universe around us" is an intrinsic part of the TW for all. Do you agree with this?"
Yep. This is the core of the conversation that I was attempting to have with our two recently departed fratres. It finally hit the point where I realized that it draining a lot of focus and distracting from my own work so I finally just turned the two of them off, but I think the core of our differences could be found in my own work in all of this as "process" and their need to see "results" so that they could "debunk" them. This stuff that we do is experimental, and unknown in a lot of ways, and not necessarily quantifiable in the ways that, say, a shopping list is. That doesn't necessarily make it un-real, though. Nor does it necessarily make it real. It is an undiscovered country ready to explore. There's no reason to expect it should look and behave exactly like suburban Cleveland. Or like Middle-Earth. It is its own thing.
-
93,
Sorry I was away for so long. Just saw this!
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Frater 639 said
"This is cool. If I could offer a suggestion, it would be to look at Liber O parts 1-3 and pay special attention as to why the Instruction goes over the importance of the correspondences so much - to reiterate that there are symbols already made in the western school. The symbology is already there, why recreate it? And, as you know, it is also weaved through the tarot, qabalah, rituals, etc. if you have the "classic" symbols already anchored into your psychology, the next step is to raise energized enthusiasm when operating in ritual or with godforms. Do you work with part 4 of Liber O yet?"Pentagram yes, hexagram no. For parts 1-3, that's actually exactly what I'm working through at the moment. "The symbology is already there, why create it?" describes exactly the conversation that one side of my mind has been having with the other. I think they've finally come to terms with each other in the past few months and are ready to start working together."
Awesome. How's the progress going?
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"
@Frater 639 said
"I don't believe this is the "end goal" of magick, but it is a necessary step. But, then again, there are many ways of interacting with the world around us with more clarity, like you mention below...Again, I think there are many other facets of magick. I tend to disagree with the notion that magick is strictly a self-help tool that centers around a materialist/psychological model. There are many other facets that are quite frankly unexplanable with one limited POV. In short, there are some analogous phenomenon and evidence of Others in my experience and also with plenty of other people that I know - and they happen to be staunch skeptics like myself! Anyway, to get to a broader spectrum of "two-way communication," a certain level of concentration needs to be acquired through training. Maybe, one day, it will be more organic and we won't need to train so much...
I bring this up to outline again that I think this is where we are evolving - this desire for communication and learning something truly new from the "universe around us" is an intrinsic part of the TW for all. Do you agree with this?"
Yep. This is the core of the conversation that I was attempting to have with our two recently departed fratres. It finally hit the point where I realized that it draining a lot of focus and distracting from my own work so I finally just turned the two of them off, but I think the core of our differences could be found in my own work in all of this as "process" and their need to see "results" so that they could "debunk" them. This stuff that we do is experimental, and unknown in a lot of ways, and not necessarily quantifiable in the ways that, say, a shopping list is. That doesn't necessarily make it un-real, though. Nor does it necessarily make it real. It is an undiscovered country ready to explore. There's no reason to expect it should look and behave exactly like suburban Cleveland. Or like Middle-Earth. It is its own thing."
I agree. I think the two mostly materialist POVs from those dudes were not so startling because they were intrisically incorrect (as if there is such a thing in perspective, other than falsely concluding one has ALL of the variables of phenomena at their disposal, given their limited data-collection technology - usually just crimes of "omission" and mostly "confusion"), but that they were so ruled by a singular belief system/theory of the universe. They allowed a set of existing, external "scientific" rules dictate their judgment, largely only the rules that readily interfaces their perception, based on 5 senses - simply because the classical 5 senses are the only ones with overwhelming evidence supporting the "scientific" models built around these senses, and the only ones MOSTLY measurable at this time.
It is like someone believing that oxygen didn't exist until a PPM meter could prove it.
It is an interesting world view to be completely ruled by skepticism. And, ultimately, it can be a crutch; a herd or a slave belief, because the belief chooses the magician, rather than the balance of the magician, who uses belief as a tool, adaptable to the situation at hand. The forces involved in reason are always twain and should be able to crush a universe at will, so that naught remains. No relation of perspectives and combining of opposites and one becomes a slave to reason. Some selections from Chapter 31 from the Liber 333:
"IT does THAT one thing which we must express by two things neither of which possesses any rational meaning.
For all these ideas express Relation; and IT, comprehending all Relation is ITS simplicity, is out of all Relation even with ITSELF.
Strain forth thine Intelligence, O man, O worthy one, O chosen of IT, to apprehend the discourse of THE MASTER; for thus thy reason shall at last break down, as the fetter is struck from a slave's throat.
This chapter should be compared with Chapter 11; that method of destroying the reason by formulating contradictions is definitely inculcated.
The idea is that, by forcing the mind to follow, and as far as possible to realise, the language of Beyond the Abyss, the student will succeed in bringing his reason under control.
As soon as the reason is vanquished, the garotte is removed; then the influence of the supernals (Kether, Chokmah, Binah), no longer inhibited by Daath, can descend upon Tiphareth, where the human will is situated, and flood it with the ineffable light."
Anyway, the materialist only POV brings to mind this quote from the BOT:
@Book of Thoth said
"The Greeks of old were aware that by rubbing amber (which they called Electron) upon silk, the amber acquired the power of attracting to itself light objects such as small pieces of paper. But there they stopped. Their science was hoodwinked by theological ~ and philosophical theories of the a priori type. It was well over 2,000 years before this phenomenon was correlated with other electrical phenomena. The idea of Measurement was hardly known to anyone but mathematicians like Archimedes, and astronomers. The foundations of Science, as it is understood to-day, were hardly laid at all 200 years ago. There was an immense amount of knowledge; but it was nearly all qualitative. The classification of phenomena depended chiefly upon poetic analogies. The doctrines of "correspondences" and signatures" were based upon fanciful resemblances. Cornelius Agrippa wrote of the "antipathy" between a Dolphin and a Whirlpool. If a meretrix sat under an olive tree, it would bear no more fruit. If anything looked like something else, it partook in some mysterious way of its qualities.
This sounds to-day to many people mere superstitious ignorance and nonsense; but it is not altogether so. The old system of classification was sometimes good and sometimes bad, as far as it went. But in no case did it go very far. The natural ingenuity of their natural philosophers did compensate very largely for the weakness of their theory; and it did ultimately lead them (especially through Alchemy, where they were forced by the nature of the work to add real to their ideal observation) to introduce the idea of Measure. Modern Science, intoxicated by the practical success which attended this innovation, has simply shut the door on anything that cannot be measured. The Old Guard refuses to discuss it. But the loss is immense. Obsession with strictly physical qualities has blocked out all real human values. "
Hope you're doing well, brother. Take care and 93 93/93.
-
@Frater 639 said
"Awesome. How's the progress going?"
It progresses. Some new insights gained on the structure of the ritual, more trust in my own intuitive abilities. I still find that it has a more powerful effect when I restrict it to the mental/astral (i.e. closed-eye visualizations in a meditative asana) so my current work is in getting the physical performance of it in the mundane plane up to a similar level of strength. Tough to do when one must create the pentagrams and Archangels on and within one's closet and desk.
@Frater 639 said
"No relation of perspectives and combining of opposites and one becomes a slave to reason."
Yes indeed. I've found it amusing to note that, since leaving these boards, they've both continued their crusade over on Lashtal. Even there, where the regular posters pride themselves on maintaining a "non-occult" Aleister Crowley discussion, the shortcomings of the limited, reason-exclusive POV is consistently derided. As you say, it's not the inherent rightness or wrongness of the position that is the problem, it's the inflexibility and inability to evolve through discussion that seems to be the issue.
I recently read the following on another thread elsewhere and found it to be very insightful:
"Debate: Assuming that there is a right answer & that you have it.
Dialogue: Assuming that many people have pieces of the answer & that together they can craft a solution
Debate: Listening to find flaws and make counter arguments.
Dialogue: Listening to understand, find meaning and agreement.
Debate: Defending oneβs own views against those of others.
Dialogue: Admitting that otherβs thinking can improve on your own.
Debate: Seeking a conclusion or vote that ratifies your position.
Dialogue: Discovering new options, not seeking closure."Excerpted from Daniel Yankelovich, The Magic of Dialogue (2001)
@Frater 639 said
"Hope you're doing well, brother. Take care and 93 93/93."
You as well.
-
93,
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"it's not the inherent rightness or wrongness of the position that is the problem, it's the inflexibility and inability to evolve through discussion that seems to be the issue."
Yes. And even further, it's all just different perspectives of the same phenomena. These different perspectives are the challenge AND the beauty of multiple ego-images and narrations, according to one's unique experience. But it is really all illusion when not inclusive of ALL perspective. That's where the inflexibility turns into atavism, and a NEW perspective isn't reached or BORN. See every dualistic metaphor and subsequent joining of opposites known to man. It's LIFE and CREATION in a nutshell.
I'll leave this here, since your comments about debate and dialogue really resonated with me - and it reminded me of the opposites coming together/not being able to exist without each other (relativity). We're way OT(?) but what the hell
Maybe you'll enjoy the passage (excerpt from the 3rd Aethyr Liber 418, regarding the Lord of Illusion (the Magus - ATU 1):*And now, in the midst of the Aethyr, I behold that god. He hath a thousand arms, and in each hand is a weapon of terrible strength. His face is more terrible than the storm, and from his eyes flash lightnings of intolerable brilliance. From his mouth run seas of blood. Upon his head is a crown of every deadly thing. Upon his forehead is the upright Tau, and on either side of it are signs of blasphemy. And about him clingeth a young girl, like unto the King's daughter that appeared in the ninth Aethyr. But she is become rosy by reason of his force, and her purity hath tinged his black with blue.
They are clasped in a furious embrace, so that she is torn asunder by the terror of the god; yet so tightly clingeth she about him, that he is strangled. She hath forced back his head, and his throat is livid with the pressure of her fingers. Their joint cry is an intolerable anguish; yet it is the cry of their rapture, so that every pain, and every curse, and every bereavement, and every death of everything in the whole universe, is but one little gust of wind in that tempest-scream of ecstasy. [This image is to be found painted (usually on silk, and repeated in varying forms, often representing the planets, about its central glory) upon the sacred Banners which adorn the shrines of Tibet].
And an Angel speaks: "Behold, this vision is utterly beyond thine understanding. Yet shalt thou endeavour to unite thyself with the dreadful marriage-bed."
So I am torn asunder, nerve from nerve and vein from vein, and more intimately---cell from cell, molecule from molecule, and atom from atom, and at the same time all crushed together. (Write down that the tearing asunder is a crushing together.) All the double phenomena are only two ways of looking at a single phenomenon; and the single phenomenon is Peace. There is no sense in my words or in my thoughts. "Faces half-formed arose." This is the meaning of that passage; they are attempts to interpret Chaos. But Chaos is Peace Cosmos is the War of the Rose and the Cross. That was a "half- formed face" that I said then. All images are useless.
Note:
Atu I. This is Mayan, the Great Magician, he who has created the Dyad (Χ = 2) and thus made possible the conception of Opposition, and hence of "Evil". He is to be distinguished from Chokma, the creative Mercury who transmits the Essence of Kether as a Logos, that Kether may become intelligible to Himself through Binah. This lower Mercury asserts the Dyad as Reality, and denies alike Kether and the Ain. Hence its issue is in Materialism.*
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"It progresses. Some new insights gained on the structure of the ritual, more trust in my own intuitive abilities. I still find that it has a more powerful effect when I restrict it to the mental/astral (i.e. closed-eye visualizations in a meditative asana) so my current work is in getting the physical performance of it in the mundane plane up to a similar level of strength. Tough to do when one must create the pentagrams and Archangels on and within one's closet and desk. "
That's perfect. Perdurabo! 93 93/93