Goetic "Demons"
-
irregardless is correct spell check didn't underline it.
Besides I was raised during the renaissance.
Well actually it was a renaissance fair. but my uncle Vince, thats not his real name, he was just some guy who dressed like Leonardo Di Vinci. Anyway he used to say irregardless all the time, and I would say Irregardless uncle Vince.
He was always teasing my with modern technology I had never seen before. one day he showed me a light bulb, I thought it was full of devils, it did scare me so. But Uncle Vince just laughed and said "irregardless".
-
93
I found portions of this essay by Uncle Aleister a pertinent meta-commentary on the ongoing discussion.
www.ashami.com/eidolons/On_Thelema
Call it an argument from authority
93 93/93
-
Yeah, that's good.
I came here just to post these words from an aquaintance of mine:
"There is only one reality. If you move your finger that is reality.That means you are in the highest reality. Meditation is suspect! Once you get to a certain level, ego tries to creep in, and thats where you battle. The ultimate reality will try to make you insane. Thats where you cross the threshold. Will you be insane, or will you experience ultimate reality?"
Which, although not perfectly worded, is nice and simple. Clinging to the notion that all experience necessarily originates from the physical realm, which can be discovered and described bit by bit in an infinite regress misses the point, imo.
-
Is the mind which is subject to the illusions of physical existing things not itself a thing.
What I mean is, are not the workings of the mind, not a something "mind" that is performing a function "workings".
Thus the physical objects one encounters are derived via the workings of the mind. Even if all things are derived from a "non-physical" source. It is the case that the way they represent themselves in the illusions of the mind is not as some plastic ever-changing propertyless clay, but as particular things which have a particular way about them. We encounter a tree and we know it is a tree and not a rocket-ship, a spoon, the feeling of sorrow, or the taste of cheese. A tree is a tree, it exists as what it is and has a way about it that is fairly consistently a trees way of being. A tree does not appear in the way of a tree and also not in the way of a tree. We never encounter something that is in a state of potentially appearing as a tree or not appearing as a tree. Nor de we encounter things that seem mostly to appear as a tree, but might potentially be something un-tree like.
Also we only seem to observe 3 dimensions of space, and the way of space is generally the same, we don't loose concentration and end up in some strange parallel universe, inhabited by objects and entitien unlike those we are familiar with.
So, the fact that things seem consistent and to have set ways of being about them, means that our minds must be rather fixed and limited as to how they take in the pure source and convert it into perceptual illusions.
That means even if the things we see are not things at all, but this potential non-physical essence, the mind itself must be a kind of rather solid actualized thing with a set way about it.
Now, if the mind is going to convert this source essence into things that seem to have a set way about them. Then the mind must be able to distinguish this bit of the source from that bit, it must be able to figure out how to convert it into different things. But this essence is not this or that, then the mind can only create the same illusions from it. Since we perceive different kinds of things, not just one kind of thing, there must be a way to split up the different kinds of essence, into different kinds of physical illusions.
We have determined that the mind is either not of the same pure potential without property and way of being, as it has the property of being able to create a certain type of illusion. If the mind is a kind of that essential substance, then perhaps there are other kinds. The kind that becomes space, the kind that becomes time, the kind that becomes trees, colors, etc. The mind detects these different kinds of this, and the mind creates maps of these detections. Those maps are the physical world, the map of the minds faculty to detect these types is the body. What become colors in the minds maps, are attributed to the eyes.
The point here being that the physical world, where things have specific ways about then, reflects the trans-physical world, that things are this way not that way. If there was no way about things, it would be constant chaos.
And sure, your mind in unique, its way of creating physical maps is unique, that unique make up, and unique relation to the absolute essence. in the TRUE WILL.
What you claim nullifies the TRUE WILL, its a would mean everything is a complete homogeneous mixture of every property and all opposite properties, but no actual properties. Everything would be the case and not be the case, in the same sense at the same time.
How do you plan if everything is equally as true as it is false. A bit called because is what that is. Its also the 0 in 0=2. The very limit of the rational mind, the point where the mind takes the pure essence and starts mapping sensory and logical categories to it. It is before these categories. The pure epistemic substance. And what comes before this 0. What is the world before the mind, the absolute which enters the mind and becomes the cosmos?
A riddle. If one can't help but project a bit of his own reflection in the world, what does does he find within.
SSSHHH! Be still.
GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!
just wait, calm, steady.
I SAID OUT OF THE WAY!
hush, wait wait, there it is!
Damn thats yourself again.
GET OUT!
Stand somewhere else
make a space for it.
look to the stars for clues.
-
Thank you both Redd Fezz and Froclown for this long discussion! I don't think I have to read philosophy after this. Amazing job, Redd!
@Froclown said
"So, the fact that things seem consistent and to have set ways of being about them, means that our minds must be rather fixed and limited as to how they take in the pure source and convert it into perceptual illusions.
That means even if the things we see are not things at all, but this potential non-physical essence, the mind itself must be a kind of rather solid actualized thing with a set way about it."
It seems detrimental to the progress of the TRUE WILL to not take into account that our observations of ourselves might be temporary and physical space only the model our minds make up. Especially if we're viewing a closed system, a holographic projection that is as much inside us as outside us. So to me this is not getting what Redd is trying to convey. And it's also not getting what Crowley meant according to the URL posted earlier in this thread:
"Now then, with regard to the explanation of the Law given elsewhere in The Book of the Law, "Love is the law, love under will", while will as above shown is of absolute logical and ethical validity, it can only be executed by the process of assimilation of all foreign elements; that is, by love. To refuse to unite oneself with any phenomenon soever is to deprive oneself of its value—even of life itself, as in the case of the Black Brothers, shut up in the Abyss, and doomed to conscious disintegration in the realm of disconnected ideas and experiences, to "perish with the dogs of Reason." This refusal is only enacted when one is convinced that the new phenomenon is hostile to the set of experiences already acquired and made part of oneself. But it is a serious mark of imperfection, of grave failure to realize the facts in the matter, to take this attitude. Even supposing, for one brief moment and for argument's sake alone, that the new idea under consideration is so incompatible with the experiences already acquired and assimilated that their destruction is necessitated if it is to be accepted, then one fact stands out vividly, showing clearly that the old set of experiences is so imperfect as to be actually unfitted to continue its erstwhile existence; its destruction would be an advantage to that being, enabling a reconstruction along totally different lines—a reconstruction which would lend itself more readily to the acquisition of new experiences and apparently contradictory ideas."
Once again, in other words, it's detrimental to the progress of the TRUE WILL to not include external stimuli such as the possibility that all we have observed so far might be completely wrong; so wrong, in fact, that we might not even be minds in bodies surrounded by physical space in the web of time.
-
@Froclown said
"Is the mind which is subject to the illusions of physical existing things not itself a thing.
What I mean is, are not the workings of the mind, not a something "mind" that is performing a function "workings". "
No, that's exactly the point. Mind is not a thing at all and neither are the "workings of mind". We might refer to it as such for convenience, but in reality, there is no beginning or end to "mind," no quality to mind at all other than awareness and infinite potential. "The workings" arise in relation to the environment. Everything is in flux and impermanent. When thoroughly examined, there is nothing we can depend on (double meaning there). There is nothing to stand on (the earth is my witness). Since mind is beyond all concepts of thingness, it can't be considered a thing in any real sense. This is utterly tied in with the concepts of overcoming ego and da'ath.
EDIT: Yeah, what Malaclypse said.
-
even a hologram is something.
even non-local implicit information is something.
If there is a mind, then it clearly is something, or else it would be nothing with no potential. Potential is something.
The fact that we can mean the mind and not something other than the mind means it is something. The fact that we can mean my mind or your mind means that there are multiple minds.
If there is mind an then there is environment, those are both things.
Yes tho sort of thing that they are is not the thing they seem to be. Everything we see, think, and experience in mind stuff. It is temporary and changing. Because the environment which is not mind, has an effect on they mind, and this creates the appearance of all the ephemeral things the mind experiences.
If there isn't anything going on, then what is experienced by the mind, in what way can the mind come to produce appearances if not via some process.
Haw can a non-thing undergo a process?
If the mind has no set way about it, then how come it tends to see only one version of reality, why don't the things we see flicker and morph into all sorts of other things, space-time collapse into all manor of non-euclidean possibilities,
If all there is, is an infinite sea of possible worlds, then their is no reason the mind would be able to stick to ane particular word, or even why one particular mind could manifest rather than other minds.
There would be nothing but dim flickering images with to substance, no self to tie those images down, no WILL to this or that. Just a sea of images floating in and out of focus randomly like the answers in an 8 ball.
This is the abyss, it is the workings or the mind deprived of its external stimulation, unlocked from reality, it has no real object to portray is image, so if cycles its whole library or possible thoughts and perceptions to fill the space.
but REALITY is what it is, not what the mind can see. The TRUE REALITY is what that which the mind harmonizes its library of images in attempts to approximate.
-
Yeah, I made the same exact argument about a hologram before a few years back. But, no, it isn't. Why? Because if nothing is actually a thing-in-itself, then a hologram is, like everything else, not a thing. This is why we reduce the idea of "things" to the idea of 'experiences'. You can argue that an experience is a thing if you like, but it's just more playing with words... because it's not, really, a "thing."
-
"make no difference" means "things" are all the same in essence, which is to say they are not things and by distinguishing them as such, they become "different" (ie. "things").
There is no good metaphor to describe the arising of appearances because all of our relative concepts revolve around "thingness." But, if a bunch of people came to the conclusion that a sand castle was the fortress of a very small king, they would be surprised when the wind blew it away. To go beyond the notion of the typical example of a mirage or a hologram, apply the idea of a sand castle blowing away to the fortress of your ego. Every "thing" is an agreed-upon construct built upon other agreed-upon constructs which are not as they appear and even the observer is not reliable or real.
-
yes, but we never see the sand or the castle.
An artist makes a painting, but he can only make the painting out of paint. He can only use the colors of paint that he has. If he paints a stone wall, the canvass has paint on it, not stone. No matter how well he creates the appearant texture and color of the stone wall, it is still actually paint. If he paints abstract shapes, it is still paint. If throws random smudges, its still paint. If he paints nothing, he has pools of paint, which might be anything but are not yet actually any particular image.
Our minds don,t use paint, but they have limits. You can only see certain colors, only hear certain sounds, only feel certain sensations, taste certain flavors, smell certain scents.
Just because a man can only see black and white, does not mean other colors (light wave-lengths) do not exist. It just means that those light wave-lengths have no means of expressing themselves to him. Just because a man has no eyes does not mean the world is dark.
So you see, man can use his library of things he can see to paint his world. He can create abstract shapes in his imagination, and in some instances these abstractions are even colored with a paint he calls space-time location. Other times they are colored with a paint called the inner eye or in the mind.
But man does not always create abstract paintings (imagination) much of the time what we do is create approximations of some existing thing that is presented to the mind, from outside the mind. Actually, its not created actively, but we passively allow the external thing to accumulate the paints of the mind, we never see that external thing, only the accumulation and combination of mind paint, the stuff thinking.
An unseen other thing clothes itself in colors, space-time locations, textures, smells, tastes, sounds, also emotional and rational concepts.
If what you mean by the thing not being physical, that in is not in possession itself of the conceptual paints of the mind, then I agree it is not.
but, if by non-physical, you mean that there is not some state in which that thing happens to be rather than some other state. If you mean that there is only one homogeneous source of all perceptions, and that source has no way about it. Then I say that is not the case nor is in possible.
However, the raw paints of the mind when withdrawn from all external sources and not being actively directed by imaginations of the WILL. These paints, are not in any particular way, they spill random fragments all over the canvass of the mind. Thoughts, emotions, senses, all blur together egos pop in and out of being, nothing in actual, just a jumble of forms seeking something to latch on to, but one has cut the tie to the physical substance, with the constant montra NOTHING IS TRUE, NOTHING IS TRUE. The paints can not stick to the canvass, the WILL does not allow them.
Eventually the mind exhausts itself, the canvass lays blank, no thought appear, no emotions, no egos, no sense data.
This is the 0.
But eventually, the in this totally placid state the mind receives something, it is not WILLED, the mind is not quick to color this in its own image. But slowly the image takes shape of its own, the mind, without conscious intent, without the EGO or the HGA in the way, forms this object pure and simple with out the normal bells and whistles.
This object in its purest simplified sense, come into awareness, like a leaf gently landing it the most tranquil pool of water. This is true understanding.
The leaf is REAL, the blank canvass of the mind is real, the paint the mind uses is real.
This is a continuous process, a physical process in the sense that the nature of each thing interacts with the nature of the others to create the finished universe.
You can not separate the phenomena from its source. The image is like unto the object, and the process that links object to image is a single cosmos, is a physical process.
-
I don't see why you're having such a problem with this; you're the one who said, "you are nothing!" Hmm, I guess you were just trying knock me off my "high horse" due to a general misunderstanding about "mind over matter." Oh, no wait! You understand everything I'm saying. I forgot.
Well, let me try again:
What is it that plunges into karma? Only the energy of what is real when it divides itself into an inside and outside. As soon as you have inside and outside you have concepts, hence also attachments and aversions, among other things. Take away that inside/outside energy and what's left to plunge into karma? At that point we realize real nature is just a process of constant, never-ending manifestation. Further, the manifestations themselves are empty. There's no there there. Also, the process itself is empty in a different sense. We can't say there's no there there of the process, since it will never stop manifesting the reflections, it was never born, it will never cease. But it is still empty - since it is always instantly ready to reflect any appearances irrespective of whether or not it currently contains any. So then what's left of karma? Fry your seeds!Well, see you later on some other thread one day, perhaps...
It's been "real." -
yes, things "manifest" in the mind. But in actuality nothing ever "manifests" it is always there, we are always there too.
When that which is me encounters that which is something else, then a perception of it manifests in my mind.
The sense or I-ness is a manifestation of the mind, but the actual body is an actual thing in the world.
I don't see what is hard to understand about this.
KARMA = cause and effect. "the karma of the Que-ball is transfered to the 8-ball" It means the exact same thing as the Que-ball contacted the 8-ball thus pushing it" It's just a Hindu word that means causation.
magick and meditation do not change the world out their, they change the way the brain works, allowing it access to its process of model building. It allows the brain to Meta-program itself.
If I look at you meditate, no matter how deep your Samadhi, I will not see you dissolve into pure energy, I will not see the universe reduce to a point of pure awareness, nor that point disperse into nothingness.
The same reason that when you dream, those images are not something I can see, their is no "dream world" its just disperse memory elements in the mind firing in the inner vision system.
Magick produces dreams in the brain, while awake, sometimes by deconstructing the process by which the brain builds models of sensory data.
-
@Froclown said
"even a hologram is something.
even non-local implicit information is something.
[...]
Yes tho sort of thing that they are is not the thing they seem to be. Everything we see, think, and experience in mind stuff. It is temporary and changing. Because the environment which is not mind, has an effect on they mind, and this creates the appearance of all the ephemeral things the mind experiences.
If there isn't anything going on, then what is experienced by the mind, in what way can the mind come to produce appearances if not via some process.
Haw can a non-thing undergo a process?"
How come you so adamantly need experience to end in things and not process, was the first question that came to my mind at this. I think I remember reading this somewhere earlier in this thread, but let's repeat it anyway: if something exists and is rooted in eternity, than because it exists as it does it can't be the original cause, so therefore things must be caused by change instead of the opposite. Whereby I seem to turn your entire reasoning upside down, no? The mind seemingly needs to model experience into things and not change, yes, but that's why the saying goes 'don't look at the finger that points to the moon', because there's no other way to say It.
@Froclown said
"If the mind has no set way about it, then how come it tends to see only one version of reality, why don't the things we see flicker and morph into all sorts of other things, space-time collapse into all manor of non-euclidean possibilities,"
Did you read the articles about astronomers changing the age of the universe (was it?) by their observation of dark matter a while ago? Quantum physics like that pours water on my argumentative seeds.
Btw: Of course, if physicists could prove any of this stuff, it wouldn't be probabilistic physics, now would it? So I would argue the science is already complete as it is.
@Froclown said
"If all there is, is an infinite sea of possible worlds, then their is no reason the mind would be able to stick to ane particular word, or even why one particular mind could manifest rather than other minds."
That's why I choose to go by the temporary theory of synchronized causality; sort of like Hume's reasoning, but with the addition that the foundational forces governing the omniverse (now that it's officially proven that parallel universes exist, I'm skipping directly to that definition) can fall down wells of experiences, though they have to dig themselves out again in order to get back to the completely fluctuating, probabilistic reality which isn't governed by entities/units/whatever. In admitting this, I might have dug myself into a trap, of course, but the discussion is getting a bit repetitive imo, and I don't have enough pride to find it bad to play the loser in that case. But you have to win first, Fro. Oh, you have got to win first...
@Froclown said
"There would be nothing but dim flickering images with to substance, no self to tie those images down, no WILL to this or that. Just a sea of images floating in and out of focus randomly like the answers in an 8 ball."
Yeah, that's what I think too. When I started with lucid dreaming, I soon realized how much I could learn from staying aware while falling asleep and especially dreaming. Watching how things took shape, while beginning as a flicker of light or something, an association struck in my mind and out the flicker floated like a blot of ink touching the paper surface until my associations had made it into a figure with environment and all. There's no telling what that specific flicker of light really is imo, just as there's no telling who is at fault in relativistic discussions in a finite sense, which is most probably why they never end.
@Froclown said
"but REALITY is what it is, not what the mind can see. The TRUE REALITY is what that which the mind harmonizes its library of images in attempts to approximate."
...according to the models made only from mind observations, which (imo) should tell the mind observers that it's more logical to assume there is no external reality we can disclose and call Reality. And here we're back to square one, because:
-
From <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.egodeath.com">www.egodeath.com</a><!-- w -->
"There is a level of control beyond the ego that gives rise to the ego's control actions, which are not self-originating. Personal self-control is secondary-level control. The ego effectively and apparently is the only origin of its actions, but this isolated autonomy of the ego's power is illusory. The ego's power is an epiphenomenon; a mere appearance that arises as a result of the more ultimate driving factor beyond or outside the ego. The primary level of control is the underlying ground of being, or block universe, which gives rise to the ego's entire stream of thoughts and control actions."
-
That doesn't contradict what I've said, because there's no proof directed to the ego from this. Though the theory is one I would agree with, I still not think it negates what I'm saying. In fact, I gave an example of this way back in the thread, almost when I first became involved in the discussion. I said something like the ego being the product of control made from completely disconnected locations from it, and the ego could very well be a coincidence as seen from that, for all we know, whereby I meant that what you just quoted was negated as a fact as well.
-
I) DEFINITION.
Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.
II) POSTULATE.
ANY required change may be effected by the application of the proper kind and degree of Force in the proper manner, through the proper medium to the proper object.
In the present state of our knowledge and power some changes are not possible in practice; we cannot cause eclipses, for instance, or transform lead into tin, or create men from mushrooms. But it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature; and the conditions are covered by the above postulate.)
Froclown note (Ie may be possible, if only if, the object is capable)
III) THEOREMS.
-
Every intentional act is a Magickal act.
-
Every successful act has conformed to the postulate.
-
Every failure proves that one or more requirements of the postulate have not been fulfilled.
Illustration
(The force may be applied to an unsuitable object, as when one tries to crack a stone, thinking it a nut.)Froclown note (A stone is not a nut, its not that I forgot to think of a nut, it is not a nut. Thus stones are different from nuts, both not creations of fancy.)
- The first requisite for causing any change is thorough qualitative and quantitative understanding of the conditions.
(What it is, not what kind of imaginary thing will I dream into reality today)
- The second requisite of causing any change is the practical ability to set in right motion the necessary forces.
Froclown note (Ie Physics)
- "Every man and every woman is a star". That is to say, every human being is intrinsically an independent individual with his own proper character and proper motion.
Froclown note (Or put another way, each has a unique way of being, or physical make up, that is the foundation of its relation to other beings)
- Every man and every woman has a course, depending partly on the self, and partly on the environment which is natural and necessary for each. Anyone who is forced from his own course, either through not understanding himself, or through external opposition, comes into conflict with the order of the Universe, and suffers accordingly.
Froclown note (As you see both the self and the environment are solid existing things with set ways of being and ways of interacting, to deny this invites failure)
A Man whose conscious will is at odds with his True Will is wasting his strength. He cannot hope to influence his environment efficiently.Froclown note (True WILL means the physical WILL of the physical self in the physical environment, rather that the abstract wanting and wishingof the mind. unrealistic desires can not be obtained via magick any more that by prayer. Wish in one hand shit in the other as they say)
- A Man who is doing his True Will has the inertia of the Universe to assist him.
(Illustration: The first principle of success in evolution is that the individual should be true to his own nature, and at the same time adapt himself to his environment.)
Froclown note (the environment exists on its awn not as a manifestation of the mind, the mind when in harmony with the WILL works to adapt ones behavior to the environment, not to change the world by wishing)
- Nature is a continuous phenomenon, though we may not know in all cases how things are connected.
(Illustration: Human consciousness depends on the properties of protoplasm, the existence of which depends on innumerable physical conditions peculiar to this planet; and this planet is determined by the mechanical balance of the whole universe of matter. We may then say that our consciousness is causally connected with the remotest galaxies; yet we do not even know how it arises from--or with--the molecular changes in the brain.)
Froclown note (Observe that Crowley says galaxies effect the way consciousness manifests in the universe, not that the galaxies are manifest examples of conscious thought)
-
Science enables us to take advantage of the continuity of Nature by the empirical application of certain principles whose interplay involves different orders of idea connected with each other in a way beyond our present comprehension.
-
Man is ignorant of the nature of his own being and powers. Even his idea of his limitations is based on experience of the past, and every step in his progress extends his empire. There is therefore no reason to assign theoretical limits to what he may be, or what he may do.
Froclown note:(But limits on the conditions by which he can achieve results are stated especially in T1 -T5)
-
Every man is more or less aware that his individuality comprises several orders of existence, even when he maintains that his subtler principles are merely symptomatic of the changes in his gross vehicle. A similar order may be assumed to extend throughout nature.
-
Man is capable of being, and using, anything which he perceives, for everything which he perceives is in a certain sense a part of his being. He may thus subjugate the whole of the Universe of which he is conscious to his individual Will.
-
Every force in the Universe is capable of being transformed into any other kind of force by using suitable means. There is thus an inexhaustible supply of any particular kind of force that we may need.
-
The application of any given force affects all the orders of being which exist in the object in the object to which it is applied, whichever of of those orders is directly affected.
Here begins possible developed skills.
-
A man may learn to use any force so as to serve any purpose, by taking advantage of the above theorems.
-
He may attract to himself any force of the Universe by making himself a fit receptacle for it, and arranging conditions so that its nature compels it to flow toward him.
-
Man's sense of himself as seperate from, and opposed to, the Universe is a bar to his conducting its currents. It insulates him.
-
Man can only attract and employ the forces for which he is really fitted.
(Illustration: You cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. A true man of science learns from every phenomeneon. But Nature is dumb to the hypocrite; for in her there is nothing false.)
-
There is no limit to the extent of the relations of any man with the Universe in essence; for as soon as man makes himself one with any idea the means of measurement cease to exist. But his power to utilize that force is limited by his mental power and capacity, and by the circumstances of his human environment.
-
Every individual is essentially sufficient to himself. But he is unsatisfactory to himself until he has established himself in his right relation with the universe.
-
Magick is the Science of understanding oneself and one's conditions. It is the Art of applying that understanding in action.
Here begins Ethical considerations of using tho above skills
-
Every man has an indefeasible right to be what he is.
-
Every man must do Magick each time he acts or even thinks, since a thought is an internal act whose influence ultimately affects action, though it may not do so at the time.
-
Every man has a right, the right of self preservation, to fulfill himself to the utmost.
-
Every man should make Magick the keystone of his life. He should learn its laws and live by them.
-
Every man has a right to fulfill his own will without being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for if he is in his proper place, it is the fault of others if they interfere with him.
-
-
@Froclown said
"3) Every failure proves that one or more requirements of the postulate have not been fulfilled."
What we call Magick only occurs when two concepts are correlating with each other, such as mind and matter in conformity with will. Will - the connecting medium - in being the definition of the change that occurs, is continuously transcendental in nature and therefore not fixed as anything physical. It is a definition of something physical (in being a definition known as 'phenomenon') only as a means for the bridge to occur between subject and object, which, taken by themselves, are also nonexistent as fixed phenomena. The seemingly finite contents of the communication that makes change to occur must in the end be infinite if it is to continue, or otherwise it would hit a wall somewhere; thusly, we can't know for sure, we can only play and have fun - the Aeon of the Child! Wohoo!
The way past the threshold is only a fixed statement to the entity believing itself to be fixed and thusly integrating itself with certainties by synchronizing in certain ways with certain concepts. There is a limitation in stating that willful expressions exist just as there is a limitation to say that I exist because I can think. If something is true, it must surpass everything, and if it can be defined as a physical concept, then it would exclude the definition of other possible concepts, because the simple definition that "perhaps something will some day render present truth falsity" is enough to falsify such statements as truth in themselves.
Illustrative example: For someone to know anything at all with certainty, SHe has to know everything, since, as long as there is still some unknown information, that information can potentially render faulty the information thus far gathered, and so, none of that information is valid as a statement of knowledge in the sense of truth.
That given, when a person learns the ultimate truth - the last bit of possible quantifiable information - something automatically changes in hir perspective, since the new information, in order to be conceptualized by the individual, must fit into correlation with the rest of the gathered knowledge, and thusly a new bit of information comes into existence, making the process of truth-gathering an endless cycle.
If these are the circumstances we have to face, the only thing we can do is gather information in a constant state of change. Since everything changes, not even the seeming connection between two particles can be called a fixed statement of physical truth, and all these words are merely a model for elucidating this information. Ergo: no thing exists.This, however, says nothing about what present temporary connections we have to play with, but the only thing we can really do is play with them. There is no one reality before another. It is absurd to state that we can never know more than we do now. Even the Book of the Law implicitly states that it won't exist forever, but will also change someday, so TRUE WILL is not necessarily an absolute Law either.
@Froclown said
"Froclown note (the environment exists on its awn not as a manifestation of the mind, the mind when in harmony with the WILL works to adapt ones behavior to the environment, not to change the world by wishing)"
The above statement is excellent to comment. Since, first of all, you treat things physically and non-physically inside the confinement of definitions, such as the differing between 'wish' and 'WILL', why this discussion does not seem to go beyond reason, which the definition of the Supernal Triad does, so we're still stuck in Kansas. That's okay; we differ there too, it seems, or otherwise, our discussion of it would not be about it, but about our limited understanding of it.
@Froclown said
"Froclown note (Observe that Crowley says galaxies effect the way consciousness manifests in the universe, not that the galaxies are manifest examples of conscious thought)"
Agreed, so it seems. Though a fool sees not the same tree a wise man does, so even with this, we're unable to state anything about the galaxies in themselves, or us either for that matter, until we're at that point where we are in our True Selfs.
Take e.g. the literal translation of the myth that Lao Tze vanished when he became one with the Tao.@Froclown said
"21) There is no limit to the extent of the relations of any man with the Universe in essence; for as soon as man makes himself one with any idea the means of measurement cease to exist. But his power to utilize that force is limited by his mental power and capacity, and by the circumstances of his human environment."
I think you just shot yourself in the foot here, because this theorem implies the limitation it describes; vicelidet, by defining the mental power and capacity. For that's what you must do if you are to state something as truthful, and if you do that in any way, you limit the ability to grasp the limitlessness of Man's potential.
@Froclown said
"28) Every man has a right to fulfill his own will without being afraid that it may interfere with that of others; for if he is in his proper place, it is the fault of others if they interfere with him."
Let's take this one as an example of what my line of thought leads up to. The only thing that with certainty can ever be an expression of the True Will seems to be to do nothing and everything simultaneously, and thus stepping out of the Wheel. God, in that case, must do this non-doing-doing, BUT! Since you insist on determining the factors, such as calling the person doing its Will a Man and setting him up to certain limitations, that could never happen, because in being defined and circumvented by your definitions, he would not be eternal. So again, we can't finitely define reality.