"We have nothing with the outcast"
-
"The whole point of individuation/attainment/enlightenment is to produce a mind that can move outside the collective reality tunnels and see them from without. Without such minds, the collective has no check on it whatsoever."
Yes.
In L.V.X.,
chrys333 -
you fail to see, their is no divine, no spiritual, no supernatural, no mind other than brain etc.
The TRUE WILL is as much an innate physical process as every thing else, we ascribe to such non-physical notions because the nature of our brain is to hide from our direct awareness the mechanism by which our awareness arises, this includes our every though, emotion, desire and WILL.
We have inborn hardwired genetic brain structure and we have softer more malleable brain structures that are shaped by experiences. Those than are malleable in our youth as we age become harder and more fixed. The brain has the ability to imprint and become fixated on behavior patterns (which include thought, emotions, beliefs, associated imagery, etc) which may be in conflict with each other (that state of manyhood) and may even directly conflict the deeper hard wired biology, like ones religious moral to self sacrifice may conflict with the innate survival instinct. In this case survival instinct is the TRUE WILL where an the over-lay of religious morals is a conflict with the WILL.
Look at Crowley example were a young man has a WILL deep in his conditioning to join the navy and to be at sea, but his parents wishes a less deep and personally satisfying but economically and emotionally more pressing (at least short term) bend his arm and he settles for an unsatisfactory career for from sea. Now certainly his desire to be at sea must have been shape by past life experience than hardened ao he grew, perhaps he had a sea faring grandfather who told him stories of the sea, or he had many heros of his time than were navy men, or his peers telling of world travels, or he was of a racial tradition say norse or Scandinavian whose customs, myths and ideals of virtue involve the sea. All these kinds of factors work to condition the man to the sea, but the one factor, his parents economic support force the man to submit to his parents support against his WILL. He is by nature (race) and by nurture his natural surroundings and conditioning of the sea faring caste, it is rather cruel then to take a man conditioned to one caste by nature and nurture and impose restriction which force that same man into a caste that is not aligned with him psychologically.
The same is true if we the short man is encouraged and conditioned in youth to be a basket ball player, only to discover at a later age that his youthful conditioning and training was in vain, and his continued life long pining to be in the NBA will interfere with any other career that he may be pushed into. It is wise to train and condition based no their TRUE WILL, which includes at an early age a great deal of genetic and biology, rather than acquired conditioning to which an infant has little to none, and the child should of course be offered a wide variety of choice to discern the natural development, ie what sort of conditioned responses out of a wide range most appeal to the child. Which helps to well round the individual while at the same time prevents that area of specialty from being foisted on the child by the intentions malevolent or well intentioned as they may be of the parents or behavioral scientist. However subtle correction, especially in the form of promoting the child to introspect haw realistic his interests are, and to have an understanding of his own limits and abilities such that a path consistent with them can be best chosen.
anything is accptable morally in Thelema (in general theory) but in the case of a particular example of one specific individual their is only one correct choice at each point in time.
-
@Froclown said
"you fail to see, their is no divine, no spiritual, no supernatural, no mind other than brain etc. "
You're right, that's one piece of bullshit that most people with actual spiritual experience simply aren't going to take seriously.
-
Well atleast I know IAO131 will agree with me, that's atleast one.
If he actual has had any physical experience that qualifies as a "spiritual" experience I have no way of knowing, but I know I have atleast one on my side who accepts Reductive materialism.
Despite my minor disagreement politically on the part of leftist Humanism.
-
@Froclown said
"you fail to see, their is no divine, no spiritual, no supernatural, no mind other than brain etc."
I didn't say anything about anything divine, spiritual or supernatural. I said that the contemporary scientific picture of the mind/brain is not the behaviorist picture, but its exact opposite.
"No mind other than brain" is not a scientific statement but a metaphysical prejudice. In fact, the contemporary picture is that the best metaphor for the mind/brain is a computer, where the mind is construed as software and the brain as hardware.
The idea is that the mind is an abstract structure that is realized by the physical substrate of the brain. Similarly, the operating system running on your computer is an abstract structure that is realized by a particular box made of physical stuff. But the operating system is not identical with the box of physical stuff; that is ridiculous. In fact the very same operating system is simultaneously running on many other boxes, each of which is made from different physical stuff.
You could just as easily make an analogy with music. A song is played on an instrument, but a song is not identical with the instrument. Many different people can play the same exact song on many different instruments. And yet there would be no songs without instruments, and the way the songs sound is related to instruments in a lawful way. Now that's some spooky metaphysics.
Anyway, you do not learn how to play a good tune on a guitar by taking the guitar apart and looking at the pieces under a microscope. Doing that might teach you something about how to make a good guitar, but nothing about how to play good music.
"Look at Crowley example were a young man has a WILL deep in his conditioning to join the navy and to be at sea, but his parents wishes a less deep and personally satisfying but economically and emotionally more pressing (at least short term) bend his arm and he settles for an unsatisfactory career for from sea. Now certainly his desire to be at sea must have been shape by past life experience than hardened ao he grew, perhaps he had a sea faring grandfather who told him stories of the sea, or he had many heros of his time than were navy men, or his peers telling of world travels, or he was of a racial tradition say norse or Scandinavian whose customs, myths and ideals of virtue involve the sea. All these kinds of factors work to condition the man to the sea, but the one factor, his parents economic support force the man to submit to his parents support against his WILL. He is by nature (race) and by nurture his natural surroundings and conditioning of the sea faring caste, it is rather cruel then to take a man conditioned to one caste by nature and nurture and impose restriction which force that same man into a caste that is not aligned with him psychologically."
I don't understand. You've just described the normal, spontaneous process of individuation. A man grows up, lives life, and becomes an idiosyncratic someone. Where does all this stuff about "sea faring castes" come from? At what a point does the man begin to belong to this "sea faring caste"? When he is born? When he learns that he is Scandinavian? When he reads a book about sea monsters? When his grandfather tells him his first story about the sea?
The unification of the Self is inherently a spontaneous process. You do not, per the genetic determinists, get to look into someone's brain and see their destiny. Nor do you, per the behaviorists, get to fabricate their destiny out of thin air and then condition them with it. It is discovered on the fly, by the individual, as he navigates life.
I mean, I'm just amazed. We are in this mess in the first place because we've been brainwashed without our consent, and your solution seems to be more intensive brainwashing.
-
The soft ware IS the physical arrangement of states in the physical hardware. A glass of water, at Ice cube and an Ice swan are all different arrangements of different amounts of water, but to say the swan contains an metaphysical essence or spirit of swans in addition to its water content in absurd. It is only an arrangement of water.
Music is an arrangement of air movements created by the vibration of the instrument. The AIR is as physical as the brass in the trumpet and the tungsten of the guitar string, their is no non-physical spirit that moves through the physical air or the instrument, it is the physical matter than moves. The sound is the physical matter moving that physically bump our ears.
The brain is a physical system of matter, cells and living tissues are made of the same elements on the periodic chart as everything else. And the software of the brain IS the physical arrangement of the nerves, the connections between neurons the types of synapses, the electrical potentiality between them based on the number of receptor sites
Skinner never claimed the brain was a black box, not any more than a computer scientist claims than a computer is a mysterious magical box that some how given correct answers, but inside nothing happens. Skinner damn well knows we have thoughts, emotions, beliefs, inclinations, reasonings that process how to respond to the stimulus. But so does a computer, however once you learn how the computers is set up, you can predict how its internal processes will tend to operate and what sort of output it will give to various types of input. (even if not perfectly, since if you know what answer it will give like say, the prime factorization of a huge number, then you would already know and not need the computer).
As for the Caste, those are tasks than society creates so that each type of brain cam find a productive and beneficial expression to the environment and to other people. If we had sea faring men running off to play in boats and forsaking work, they would become thieves and pirates, to fund their bellies and their nautical adventures. Instead scientifically we determine that a certain number of Men will be drawn to the sea faring life, so we help them learn the skills of that life from trained experts who have experience. We set up a seafaring life style and have professional guilds set up. Where men of such nature can instead of being Pirates can be fishermen, cargo transporters, and navy officers. Thus the sea faring Caste works with the natural WILL of the individuals, so they can make an honest living doing what is properly fitted to them by birth, environment, and personal inclination. (personal inclination is the Physical structure of the brain as it has developed from birth via reaction to the environment. Every thought and emotion, is a physical response to the physical environment, no matter how complex the brain is, it stills reacts as a whole, and each is unique hardware from birth, but is determined by genetics and fetal environment, and is shaped by interactions with the envirionment throughout life. Shape the environment, control the consequences, set up particular experiences (rituals/rites of passage) at the rite stage in development, and you imprint to an extent the type of behaviors, thoughts and emotion that organism will produce in the future.
Setting up a sea faring caste for example, the organism not wanting to live as an outcast and fugitive, will be attracted to the positive consequences of cargo ship captain or navy man, and will not become a pirate or turn from his WILL all together to be a lawyer or doctor.
-
"We command that they happily satisfy us in all things by accomplishing each and every one of our petitions, if not by one means, then by another, goodly, virtuously, and perfectly, with an excellent and thorough completeness, according to their virtues and powers, both general and unique, and by your united ministry and office" (enochian opening)
You see here, each spirit has a unique nature that is a specification of more general natures all the way up to God. Thus it is wise to call the right sort of spirit to perform the type of task you have in mind. Yet once than spirit is called upon, rather than specific instructions we allow the spirit to devise its own means to complete and fulfill the desire of the magician, according to its own virtues and powers (skills).
In a caste system you simple discover what each individuals skills and virtues are (not treat everyone as equal and interchangeable) Then you assign the task to the caste or social dept in charge of that general sort of activity, the High caste representative to the King, (arch angel) and then authority is passed down with sub-tasks to complete the Will given to each person with the virtue and ability, but not specific instructions are forced on them, instead it is left in the trusted hands of the individual who has proven superior skill and ability in that field to produce the correct product of action, by his own means.
Thus you have a higher degree of liberty, where one is asked only to perform the unction than suits ones own nature and is given freedom as the the means by which it achieve the end result. Truly then in the product equal measure art (personal expression) as technology and craft.
-
@Fnord said
"The whole point of Skinnerian behaviorism is that the mind is a black box in which nothing happens worth talking about, except conditioning."
That is a methodological and not a metaphysical claim, like you seem to be making.
"You would think it would be obvious to anyone participating in this particular community how hopelessly and profoundly false that is. It is also a scientific model a century old and is about as relevant as geocentrism."
You are the one who is hopelessly and profoundly false. FIrst of all, the Skinnerian model is, if anything, HALF a century old and it is EXTREMELY relevant within psychology and especially medicine. Im sorry you have to hear that but you are just completely wrong that it is outdated and equating it with geocentrism only belies your utter ignorance about its use in modern society.
"Anyway, people do not have "innate temperaments and inclinations hard-wired into their brain"."
Coloquially speaking, yes, yes they do. In fact, some people might give the above quote as a mild definition for 'genes' let alone neural structure.
"What they have is a modular computational architecture that consists of thousands of semi-intelligent, semi-autonomous subsystems dedicated to the solution of particular problems in the ancestral paleolithic environment that shaped the evolution of the brain."
Congratulations, you managed to throw out a lot of big buzz words and really say nothing at all. In fact, I could easily interpret the 'semi-autonomous' nature of those 'subsystems' to be 'inclinations' and 'temperaments.' So really youve done nothing expose yourself as a pompous windbag.
"The idiosyncrasies of human personality arise as a result of a complex feedback loop between this evolved architecture, its developmental trajectory, and the environment in which it is embedded."
A feedback loop between its own structure and its trajectory in the future? You just use large words thinking they impress people, dont you? Its kind of cute, I guess...
"Since the computational architecture of the brain originates in the paleolithic, the only way you could possibly "match your biology with your desires" is by regressing human culture to a prehistoric paleolithic hunter-gatherer environment."
This is ignorant and misleading, but go on!
"This is putting the cart before the horse. We want to adapt the tools we've got to the environment; not adapt the environment to our tools. The game is transcendence, not paralysis."
The tool is the body and the mind... not the environment. You are the one switching cart and horse around.
"As far as your idea of society telling us what our true will is, this is a stunningly nightmarish idea. "
It really isnt... it happens all the time today in just about every culture I know baout.
"The whole point of individuation/attainment/enlightenment is to produce a mind that can move outside the collective reality tunnels and see them from without."
No its not, its union with God/divine. Unless your 'enlightenment' consists in you thinking yourself so much cooler, smarter, better, and 'controversial' and 'counter-cultural' than everyone else, count me out. It sounds a lot like being a whiny teenager to me and absolutely nothing like adepthood or initiation.
"Without such minds, the collective has no check on it whatsoever."
There is no such thing as 'the collective' except as a name for a lot of individuals. By calling it that you should your own inability to see differences and nuance but rather only black and white - theres US and theres THEM, the collective, who are stupid and unworthy. This kind of temperament, Im afraid, is the nightmarish one.
Cheers.
93 93/93
IAO131 -
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Froclown said
"you fail to see, their is no divine, no spiritual, no supernatural, no mind other than brain etc. "You're right, that's one piece of bullshit that most people with actual spiritual experience simply aren't going to take seriously."
This is an ignorant remark... especially because ALEISTER CROWLEY said this in multiple places (one place he reduces his Star-Sponge Vision to a reflection of the structure of hte nervous system). Spiritual experience does not justify your superstitious metaphysical ideas, James, any more than it justifies jesus' existence when St. Teresa says he is united to her and sharing her suffering.
Also it is just profoundly ignorant of mystical literautre in the past century. Almost without fail, people do not use words like God or even Spirit but rather words of the psyche like consciousness. People dont even say 'well its in my soul therefore i cant help it,' they consistenly say ''well its in my DNA, therefore i cant help it.' People are very-much-so, with Crowley's bidding, coming out of the prescientific era, especially that of DUALISM of mind-body. There are almost ZERO philosophers in the philosophy of mind that accept a divide between mind and body, and by god (pun intended), some of those have had mystical experiences.
In fact, it is mystical experience which has led people to deny the gulf between material and 'spiritual.' Nirvana is Samsara, Kether is in Malkuth, etc.
Therefore I call your statement ignorant adn it is obviously intended to be belittling and therefore infused with a spiritual pride I find quite distasteful, but thats only my opinion at the end there...
IAO131
-
83,
Fnord said:
"The whole point of individuation/attainment/enlightenment is to produce a mind that can move outside the collective reality tunnels and see them from without."
Aum 418 responded:
"No its not, its union with God/divine. Unless your 'enlightenment' consists in you thinking yourself so much cooler, smarter, better, and 'controversial' and 'counter-cultural' than everyone else, count me out. It sounds a lot like being a whiny teenager to me and absolutely nothing like adepthood or initiation. "
If we take the standard Jungian viewpoint, individuation means:
" "to denote the process by which a person becomes a psychological 'in-dividual,' that is a separate, indivisible unity or 'whole'." (The Archetypes & the Collective Unconscious, C. G. Jung, pg 275 in the Collected Works edition)."
Individuation is a process, and essentially an unending one. Union with the divine may be a part of that life-journey, but it is not necessarily included in the definition. I would agree that if we are consciously seeking union with the divine, individuation is a necessary precursor. But I don't see Fnord's comment as whiny, teenaged or would-be cooler than anyone else's. You're in a pretty grumpy mood yourself, judging by your three posts today.
93 93/93,
EM
-
Cheers, Aum418
If snappy, dismissive one-liners and mindless ad homs are how "adepts" and "initiates" hold discourse, then count me among the "pompous windbags".
@Aum418 said
"
@Fnord said
"The whole point of Skinnerian behaviorism is that the mind is a black box in which nothing happens worth talking about, except conditioning."That is a methodological and not a metaphysical claim, like you seem to be making."
This is semantics. The methodology of explaining everything solely in terms of behavior and environmental influences rests on the metaphysical premise that nothing interesting happens inside the brain. It's not like the behaviorists said, "well we don't know what happens inside the brain, so let's look at behavior instead and see where that gets us." Behaviorist rhetoric, is very explicit that there is no reason to look in the brain, and that nothing will be found there except the mechanisms by which conditioning occurs.
"
"You would think it would be obvious to anyone participating in this particular community how hopelessly and profoundly false that is. It is also a scientific model a century old and is about as relevant as geocentrism."You are the one who is hopelessly and profoundly false. FIrst of all, the Skinnerian model is, if anything, HALF a century old and it is EXTREMELY relevant within psychology and especially medicine. Im sorry you have to hear that but you are just completely wrong that it is outdated and equating it with geocentrism only belies your utter ignorance about its use in modern society."
Behaviorism is a century old and half a century debunked. The fact that behaviorists discovered true and useful things about behavior that are still relevant today does not mean that their metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the mind are relevant today. The fact that geocentrists discovered true and useful things about the motion of the Earth does not vindicate geocentrism as such.
"
"Anyway, people do not have "innate temperaments and inclinations hard-wired into their brain"."Coloquially speaking, yes, yes they do. In fact, some people might give the above quote as a mild definition for 'genes' let alone neural structure.
"What they have is a modular computational architecture that consists of thousands of semi-intelligent, semi-autonomous subsystems dedicated to the solution of particular problems in the ancestral paleolithic environment that shaped the evolution of the brain."
Congratulations, you managed to throw out a lot of big buzz words and really say nothing at all. In fact, I could easily interpret the 'semi-autonomous' nature of those 'subsystems' to be 'inclinations' and 'temperaments.' So really youve done nothing expose yourself as a pompous windbag."
The whole point is that the colloquial way of speaking about the structure of the brain is confused and belies the complexity of the issue. Specifically, "temperaments and inclinations" are things that we attribute to people, or to personalities. A brain is not a person or a personality. The question as to whether folk-psychological attributions can be reduced to functional or structural properties of the brain is a matter of ongoing debate in cognitive science. In fact, this question is often answered in the negative.
The modules that are described at the computational level of brain architecture do not at all correspond to features that we would normally attribute to personality. To give some examples, the types of problems that these modules solve include the recognition of syntactic universals in natural language, recognizing correlations between facial expressions and emotional affect, the development of sophisticated and reliable folk-psychology and folk-physics in very young children, and so on and so forth.
Those features of a human being that we recognize as psychology and personality arise only when this panhuman computational architecture couples with the environment.
"
"The idiosyncrasies of human personality arise as a result of a complex feedback loop between this evolved architecture, its developmental trajectory, and the environment in which it is embedded."A feedback loop between its own structure and its trajectory in the future? You just use large words thinking they impress people, dont you? Its kind of cute, I guess..."
Unfortunately, this is how the system actually works. You have (a) the panhuman computational architecture, you have (b) its developmental trajectory (i.e. the subject matter of developmental psychology), and you have (c) the environment. The state of (a) as it traverses (b) is a function of (c). However, since the modern environment is directly created by human beings at their various stages of development, what you get is a feedback loop.
This is not a horrendously complicated idea, but I can see how it would appear that way if you're used to thinking in terms of gross oversimplifications.
"
"This is putting the cart before the horse. We want to adapt the tools we've got to the environment; not adapt the environment to our tools. The game is transcendence, not paralysis."The tool is the body and the mind... not the environment. You are the one switching cart and horse around."
That is what I said. Considering reading attentively before replying.
"
"As far as your idea of society telling us what our true will is, this is a stunningly nightmarish idea. "It really isnt... it happens all the time today in just about every culture I know baout."
Actually, just about every culture has some kind of outlet whereby an individual can disconnect from his or her social persona and obligations and find his or her identity in the ground of being rather than in arbitrarily defined social roles. The nightmare is when this outlet is pathologized or criminalized, and people who cease to identify the concept of self with the social persona are locked up in wards or prisons. To what extent we are living this nightmare in the developed world is an open question, but obviously it is not as bad as it could be in a Skinnerian dystopia.
"
"Without such minds, the collective has no check on it whatsoever."There is no such thing as 'the collective' except as a name for a lot of individuals. By calling it that you should your own inability to see differences and nuance but rather only black and white - theres US and theres THEM, the collective, who are stupid and unworthy. This kind of temperament, Im afraid, is the nightmarish one."
The collective is not a name for a lot of individuals. A collective has a set of shared values, norms, habits of being. As soon as you are born into a society, you are brainwashed with its arbitrary reality tunnel as a consequence of socialization. This renders you incapable of evaluating the collective reality tunnel in any objective way until you become aware of the brainwashing and are able to work through it. The reason for doing this is not to feel special and liberated and go off and live in the woods, but to be able to bring things into the consciousness of others that are typically kept out by the rigidity of socialized brainwashing. Individuation is a social function.
"
"The whole point of individuation/attainment/enlightenment is to produce a mind that can move outside the collective reality tunnels and see them from without."No its not, its union with God/divine. Unless your 'enlightenment' consists in you thinking yourself so much cooler, smarter, better, and 'controversial' and 'counter-cultural' than everyone else, count me out. It sounds a lot like being a whiny teenager to me and absolutely nothing like adepthood or initiation."
I'm sorry but you just come off as too much of a prick to talk about these things with.
-
@Edward Mason said
"
Individuation is a process, and essentially an unending one. Union with the divine may be a part of that life-journey, but it is not necessarily included in the definition. I would agree that if we are consciously seeking union with the divine, individuation is a necessary precursor. But I don't see Fnord's comment as whiny, teenaged or would-be cooler than anyone else's. You're in a pretty grumpy mood yourself, judging by your three posts today."
Wholeness was, for Jung, the organismic unity... just like we call you 'Edward Mason' as a unity yet we fragment ourselves... He did not mean some sort of non-dualistic consciousness of divine union, I assure you.
IAO131
-
@Fnord said
"Cheers, Aum418
If snappy, dismissive one-liners and mindless ad homs are how "adepts" and "initiates" hold discourse, then count me among the "pompous windbags".
@Aum418 said
"
@Fnord said
"The whole point of Skinnerian behaviorism is that the mind is a black box in which nothing happens worth talking about, except conditioning."That is a methodological and not a metaphysical claim, like you seem to be making."
This is semantics. "
You are correct, we are talking about the meaning of words here... and?
"The methodology of explaining everything solely in terms of behavior and environmental influences rests on the metaphysical premise that nothing interesting happens inside the brain."
No it doesnt, it rests on the methodological assumption that nothing is methdologically USEFUL in the brain...
"It's not like the behaviorists said, "well we don't know what happens inside the brain, so let's look at behavior instead and see where that gets us.""
That is exactly what they say. Neo-behaviorists have adapted to modern neuroscience.
" Behaviorist rhetoric, is very explicit that there is no reason to look in the brain, and that nothing will be found there except the mechanisms by which conditioning occurs."
No methodological reason as outward behavior is all that is needed. Methodological assumption of nothing in the brain, not metaphysical. If you dont believe me, go ahead and actually read a psychology textbok on behaviorism and I guarantee you they will say what I have said.
"
Behaviorism is a century old and half a century debunked. The fact that behaviorists discovered true and useful things about behavior that are still relevant today does not mean that their metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the mind are relevant today. The fact that geocentrists discovered true and useful things about the motion of the Earth does not vindicate geocentrism as such."Behaviorism is frmo, at the earliest, the 30s so no, its not. Also, there are still a large amount of 'behaviorists' now, and behaviorism has contributed to research. Geocentrism gave almost zero information about the universe but rather fit square pegs into round holes.
"The whole point is that the colloquial way of speaking about the structure of the brain is confused and belies the complexity of the issue. Specifically, "temperaments and inclinations" are things that we attribute to people, or to personalities."
Or organisms...?
"A brain is not a person or a personality. The question as to whether folk-psychological attributions can be reduced to functional or structural properties of the brain is a matter of ongoing debate in cognitive science. In fact, this question is often answered in the negative."
Except by the Churchlands of course...
"The modules that are described at the computational level of brain architecture do not at all correspond to features that we would normally attribute to personality. To give some examples, the types of problems that these modules solve include the recognition of syntactic universals in natural language, recognizing correlations between facial expressions and emotional affect, the development of sophisticated and reliable folk-psychology and folk-physics in very young children, and so on and so forth."
There are 'modules' or localizations of particular computational funcitons in the brain... I honestly have no idea where this debate on this particular subject is going, though...
"Those features of a human being that we recognize as psychology and personality arise only when this panhuman computational architecture couples with the environment."
Of course personality only arises when the organism interacts with the envrionment... No one would deny that.
"
Unfortunately, this is how the system actually works. You have (a) the panhuman computational architecture, you have (b) its developmental trajectory (i.e. the subject matter of developmental psychology), and you have (c) the environment.
(B) is just a generalization of how things unfold, its not like a plan thatsThe state of (a) as it traverses (b) is a function of (c). However, since the modern environment is directly created by human beings at their various stages of development, what you get is a feedback loop.
This is not a horrendously complicated idea, but I can see how it would appear that way if you're used to thinking in terms of gross oversimplifications."
No its just an overcomplicated way of saying the obvious, that people interact with environment and have a generalize-able developmental trajectory...
"
Actually, just about every culture has some kind of outlet whereby an individual can disconnect from his or her social persona and obligations and find his or her identity in the ground of being rather than in arbitrarily defined social roles.The nightmare is when this outlet is pathologized or criminalized, and people who cease to identify the concept of self with the social persona are locked up in wards or prisons. To what extent we are living this nightmare in the developed world is an open question, but obviously it is not as bad as it could be in a Skinnerian dystopia."I know of absolutely no mystic that was locked up in recent times for being 'insane' except htose that really are insane, go naked in the streets, babble endlessly, etc.
"
The collective is not a name for a lot of individuals. A collective has a set of shared values, norms, habits of being. As soon as you are born into a society, you are brainwashed with its arbitrary reality tunnel as a consequence of socialization. This renders you incapable of evaluating the collective reality tunnel in any objective way until you become aware of the brainwashing and are able to work through it. The reason for doing this is not to feel special and liberated and go off and live in the woods, but to be able to bring things into the consciousness of others that are typically kept out by the rigidity of socialized brainwashing. Individuation is a social function."This is one gigantic generalization about society. What do you consider 'out of the rigidity of socialized brainwashing' exactly? Simply the mystic idea of oneness?
"
"
"The whole point of individuation/attainment/enlightenment is to produce a mind that can move outside the collective reality tunnels and see them from without."No its not, its union with God/divine. Unless your 'enlightenment' consists in you thinking yourself so much cooler, smarter, better, and 'controversial' and 'counter-cultural' than everyone else, count me out. It sounds a lot like being a whiny teenager to me and absolutely nothing like adepthood or initiation."
I'm sorry but you just come off as too much of a prick to talk about these things with."
Oh, ok. Is that why you spent all this post speaking to me?
IAO131
-
93,
Aum418 wrote:"Wholeness was, for Jung, the organismic unity... just like we call you 'Edward Mason' as a unity yet we fragment ourselves... He did not mean some sort of non-dualistic consciousness of divine union, I assure you. "
Then you concur with me ...? Because if you're saying he rejected the idea of dissolving the ego in the Divine, I agree completely.
93 93/93,
EM -
@Fnord said
"Cheers, Aum418
If snappy, dismissive one-liners and mindless ad homs are how "adepts" and "initiates" hold discourse, then count me among the "pompous windbags"."
Good posts. I agree with a lot of your points against Aum 418 (and tbh I'm a bit surprised at his opposition on the mind/brain stuff) - except that I agree with his characterisation of the spiritual as "union with God", or something like that. I think what you are saying - freedom from the collective - is part of it, but it's more a byproduct of the "real thing".
From your posts, I take it you are at least passingly familiar with those great popularisations of modern cognitive science by folks like Dennett and Pinker? Taking Dennett as a reference, I'd say spirituality is more to do with the disappearance or "seeing through" of the "centre of narrative gravity" for the social-biological organism, or the "virtual captain of the crew" of brain gadgets (which as you say often have queerly specific functional origins, but are as Dennett says "gerrymandered", or "exapted" into ad-hoc workgroups in which abstract properties of their capabilities are blended). (Sorry for all the scare quotes, of course I'm condensing tons of stuff here.) The self is actually a social construct, it's a cage the organism takes on for the sake of social necessity (which, to be sure, ultimately benefits the organism, or at least the reproduction of its DNA). (Perhaps this is actually what you meant too? - the self is in fact the *ultimate *social implant we have).
When the "virtual captain" or the "centre of narrative gravity" disappears, what's left is the Universe just being itself, and that's more or less "Awakening" (Satori, Dhyana). It's understood that there's nothing here but the Absolute, and one is that. Undertood by whom? Somehow by the whole biological entity. It feels its being to be the same being as the world's being. It seems like a pre-verbal kind of knowledge, not discursive, but felt by *being *what is understood. (But I'm not sure about this, one can describe the facts without using the word "knowledge" at all. But I think most people who have had spiritual experience will say that "wordless knowing" somehow feels like the right description, it's simply being, but it has a deep cognitive element which just feels "cosmic", the knowingness that's there is from yea time, is eternal - or so it feels.)
Of course the trick is the Universe is just being itself even when the virtual captain is there, but it takes some familiarity with the experience of the absence of the virtual captain for that to sink in (or sometimes it can happen accidentally). This is what's meant by full-blown "Enlightenment", or Samadhi (especially Sahaja Samadhi, or "natural" samadhi, as opposed to some other kinds).
One can describe this as I've done roughly above in terms of plain cognitive science, and it seems like it's "reduced", but of course the lived-through experience is monumental. (One can of course do a back-of-a-napkin summation of what's going on in the brain when someone listens to Beethoven or eats a fine meal in good company, but that isn't generally understood to denigrate those lived-through experiences, which are undertsood to have their own worthwhileness in being lived - it's the same for spiritual experience and life, the living-through of these things has its own intrinsic value, even if it's "just a brain event". The thing is, it's not *just *a brain event, but a world-event, the world being conscious of itself, the Absolute becoming conscious of its potentialities. IOW, the truth that's revealed in mystical experience is absolute metaphysical truth, but it's actually really simple - in fact it's trivial and tautologous truth, boiling down to "A is A", but no less true for all that!)
-
It's hard to take seriously someone so spiritually intolerant, at least, whenever remarks are made on these threads, suggesting a justification for a metaphysical spiritual experience, AUM418 is sure to interject, almost like a wind-up toy. But that's not so much the problem. The problem is the retorts:
"Therefore I call your statement ignorant adn it is obviously intended to be belittling and therefore infused with a spiritual pride I find quite distasteful, but thats only my opinion at the end there... "
Which suggests within it a distaste for "belittling" and is hard to rectify when comments are made like this:
"Sounds like you are wildly speculative and that your speculations have zero import or value or worth or use.
Again, I wont bother with the rest as it is speculative drivel."
Talk about belittling...
With so vehement (and rude) a view, you have to be a little skeptical. Besides, claiming James E. is ignorant reminds me of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance." And who is Liberty Valance is this case?
-
"...which fifty years ago would have been called supernatural, to-day may be called spiritual, and fifty years hence will have a proper name based on an understanding of the phenomenon which occurred."
Supernatural is a term used for phenomena to promote that it is both mysterious and improper or impossible for human control, ie it is for God alone.
Spiritual shows some understanding, ie we know that their is some order here, we can influence it as "spirits" cam be swayed by human desire, but God is beyond our influence. Thus calling an experience spiritual is to claim it is less than supernatural but beyond natural law.
Understanding the actual phenomenon means to have a naturalistic understanding, to know all the natural laws behind the event, and thus the potential to fully and directly effect the event by manipulating the factors than bring it about, with little "prayer" and hope, and more certainty. (when hail came from the sky it was supernatural, God's Will is random and unknown, when the spirits carried bullets it made sense to cross ones finders and hope the projectile hit its target, When we learn the natural forces than propel the bullet, we can hit a target a mile a way with 100% accuracy and land missile pay loads safely on the moon)
Thus does the unknown become known, by Magick (the art and science of causing events to occur in accordance with WILL)
Hail fails without our WILL, supernatural notions got is fire sticks than summon spirits to carry lead balls to our distant target, this was magick, as the once random event, (projectile hitting things) comes under WILLful action. At the mechanism of the fire stick becomes understood and the Gods and spirits are lost it superstition, the Gun gun comes to be, and the more accurate the more effective the Gun is at conveying the WILL the less player, crossed fingers and please please please, mantras are necessary to achieve ones WILL.
Thus Naturalism is stronger magick, and supernaturalism and superstition are ways to fill the gaps in our power to manifest WILL. The less effective our Magick the more superstition we invite.
Thus supernatural, non-physical, spiritual, etc explanations are indication of weak magick.
The opposite of magick is sort of a bad faith(1), that denies that one has the ability to cause events to occur in accord with ones WILL, claiming that some alien WILL or force has domain.
This can take the form of denying the possibility to control the event, if one has no idea or no inclination to learn how to control the events, but also fears seemings weak or ignorant of the phenomena, in which case appeal to supernatural forces is a convenient excuse if you want to avoid the hard work of learning to dominate that aspect of existence. (also a profound supernatural story can be used to convince others you have powers and ability you lack)
The other reason is you are of the moral belief that humility expresses your superior moral character thus denying your power to influence or control, is a way to earn moral points.
Both of these reasons to appeal to the supernatural are the avoidance of Magick, one the first one is cowardly and dishonest, the second is anti-Thelemic.
- (Bad faith (from French, mauvaise foi) is a philosophical concept first coined by existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre to describe the phenomenon wherein one denies one's total freedom, instead choosing to behave as an inert object.)
I use Bad Faith not as denying ones "Free WILL" but in denying the possibility of Magick in work in a certain situation, where supernaturalism is an excuse or rationalization for the inability of ones ability to manifest some aspect of ones life according to ones WILL.
Its up to God or the spirits are not co-operating, no different than I can't lose weight I have fat genes, or I have to be a drunk my father was, or its not my fault I'm a criminal I was raised in a bad neighborhood.
-
Man, one thing I really appreciate in discussions like this is when people like Nudoro and Gurugeorge and Edward Mason signal 'time-out' for a second and take the time to point out the elements that are detracting from the flow of the discussion. It is extremely tiresome to wade through pages of people saying "pompous windbag pompous windbag drivel drivel you sir are wrong sir, I'm a prick no you're a prick so there" and the like.
This forum would be much more enjoyable if we all put more effort into calming ourselves down before posting, and maybe even asking ourselves why it is that we feel compelled to say certain things to another poster.
There's my digression, not intended to distract from the main thread, but perhaps to help it out. Carry on.
-
I couldn't agree more, Bryan. While I have thoroughly enjoyed reading each post (albeit, some time after they were originally posted) your words are the wise thirst-quenching water needed in this type of "fight fire with fire"-dominated discussion.
I find it interesting how, to me, some peoples' interpretations of things seem completely off-base. Then again, that's only my judgemental view and I, undoubtedly, come off as having misinterpreted things myself when judged from someone else's narrow viewpoint.
"We may have philosophy and science, criticism and culture in perfection... and still have no life in us" -H. Gwatkin
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." -Thomas Jefferson
"If you cannot be present even in normal circumstances, such as when you are sitting alone in a room, walking in the woods, or listening to someone (or responding to an Internet message board post) then you certainly won't be able to stay conscious when something "goes wrong" or you are faced with difficult people or situations, with loss or the threat of loss (or the threat of losing an arguement). You will be taken over by a reaction, which ultimately is always some form of fear, and pulled into deep unconsciousness. Those challenges are your tests. Only the way in which you deal with them will show you and others where you are at as far as your state of consciousness is concerned, not how long you can sit with your eyes closed or what visions you see." -Eckhart Tolle [parentheses added]
“Indeed, there is truth in the Hebrew fable, that the knowledge of Good and Evil brings forth Death. To regain Innocence is to regain Eden. We must learn to live without the murderous consciousness that every breath we draw swells the sails which bear our frail vessels to the Port of the Grave. We must cast out Fear by Love; seeing that every Act is an Orgasm, their total issue cannot be but Birth. Also, Love is the law: thus every act must be Righteousness and Truth. By certain meditations this may be understood and established; and this ought to be done so thoroughly that we become unconscious of our Sanctification, for only then is Innocence made perfect. This state is, in fact, a necessary condition of any proper contemplation of what we are accustomed to consider the first task of the Aspirant, the solution of the question: “What is my True Will?” For until we become innocent, we are certain to try to judge our Will from the outside, whereas True Will should spring, a Fountain of Light, from within, and flow unchecked, seething with Love, into the Ocean of Life.” – The Master Therion, The Book of Thoth
“The law of the Lord Chancellor will not serve; the law-giver may be an epileptic camel-driver like Mohammed, a megalomaniac provincial upstart like Napoleon, or even an exile, three-parts learned, one-part crazy, an attic dweller in Soho, like Karl Marx. There is only one thing in common among such persons; they are all mad, that is, inspired. Nearly all primitive people possess this tradition, at least in a diluted form. They respect the wandering lunatic, for it may be that he is the messenger of the Most High. “This queer stranger? Let us entreat him kindly. It may be that we entertain an angel unawares.” -The Master Therion, The Book of Thoth
Does this not demonstrate that Liber Legis could not be calling us to literally and physically attack any/every stranger, striking them hard and low, so that he may prove his worth and if he is a king he will not be harmed??? That will catch you a court case very quickly. Trust me.
Call me a crazy hippie-commie-bastard or whatever.
Call me a fool [Liber CCXX, II:59] if that is your Will. I must be a king because you can't hurt my feelings. 
Although, I do fancy the idea of pecking at the eyes of Jesus and I'd totally flap my wings in the face of Mohammed if I had the chance.