The blood of the Adept
-
I think I see how you made that leap. You wrote:
@he atlas itch said
"since the distinction between self and inner Other, subject and object, is erased"
And that was inspired by your reading the passage that ended:
"Unless "all you have and all you are" is identical with the Universe, its annihilation would leave a surplus.*"
Notice that the Crowley quote speaks of all being annihilated whereas yours only spoke of annihilating a distinction.
-
well, It would seem that the annihilation of the distinction would appear as the annihilation everything, from a subjective perspective because no perceptions are possible other than as relations between Self and Other. (just as shutting the eye appears the same as if all the lights were shut off in the room).
The annihilation of ALL being itself however would be subjectively indistinguishable from the mere annihilation of distinction but objectively it would mean an end to all things. It attainment were to actually annihilate BEING rather then simply to produce a mental state that makes awareness of BEING blotted out, then if any one anywhere in the universe attained Samadhi then everyone else would blink out of existence.
It seems clear to me that since the universe still continues to exist that either, 1) no one has ever truly attained Samadhi. 2) That we must re-define Samadhi as a subjective experience.
The only other options are to give up everything we know about the world, and adopt a metaphysics that radically differs from common sense, empirical evidence, and our tradition of rational knowledge.
-
@Froclown said
"It seems clear to me that since the universe still continues to exist..."
On what basis do you conclude that it still exists (rather than, for example, again exists)? (I won't event go into the separate question of whether it ever exists.)
"The only other options are to give up everything we know about the world, and adopt a metaphysics that radically differs from common sense, empirical evidence, and our tradition of rational knowledge."
That, of course, is the whole point. One has to rely firmly on common sense and empirical evidence, but shouldn't confuse that with taking them seriously.
And "our tradition of rational knowledge" is, of course, the framework that the mystic eventually has to dismantle since it is incapable of modelling what's so.
-
I shall begin by defining Deconstruction, via wikipedea
"Deconstruction is the name given by French philosopher Jacques Derrida to an approach (whether in philosophy, literary analysis, or in other fields) which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of undoing the oppositions on which it is apparently founded, and to the point of showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable or impossible.
Deconstruction generally attempts to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point."
Magick especially alchemy seems to be an example of this sort of method. Which although such a method reveals the nature of our concepts and the fundamental oppositions on which they are built and encourages a new relation to meaning, in which conception contain contradiction as necessary to their foundation, This method does not encourage a total abandonment of the knowledge, pragmatic and functional truths that those concepts have already established.
Which is to say "before zen chop wood carry water, after zen chop wood carry water"
I can't see that a total an radical change in metaphysics to the extend that well established Physical laws and the nature of our naive realist reality (Malkuth) would not be directly derived from those metaphysics.
That is we must not fall into proposing a nature of Kether which would make its expression in Malkuth impossible or highly improbable. If the ultimate nature of reality seems radically incompatible with the reality of appearances and we want to avoid delusions which prevent Willful action, it is best to question ones presumptions and perceptions.
-
@Froclown said
"That is we must not fall into proposing a nature of Kether which would make its expression in Malkuth impossible or highly improbable."
We can't? Of course we can. In fact, we must. Essential to understanding reality is to recognize that it's inexpressible in any authentic way through the normal faculties of sense and psyche. In particular (since you cite Malkuth), it's inexpressible in terms of the five senses or ordinary sensibility.
"If the ultimate nature of reality seems radically incompatible with the reality of appearances and we want to avoid delusions which prevent Willful action, it is best to question ones presumptions and perceptions."
By this framing, the existence of microscopic organisms would need to be denied in the absence of a microscope. The absence of the microscope, however, doesn't condemn them to inexistence.
-
Not at all.
what I am saying is that microbes that exist have to be compatible with the world we know an the larger level. Since the world we live in to the result of the activity of the smaller scale parts, that means it is not possible that the parts would exist in such a way that they can not fit together to make our world.
Put another way, when you look at the pieces than make up the puzzle, they MUST fit together to form the image we see. If we think the pieces are such that their shape and nature could not possibly form the image we see from above, then we are not seeing the pieces right.
Since malkuth is built upon or out of Kether, that means the potential for Malkuth to form must be present in the nature of Kether. If we propose a more fundamental reality or metaphysics that level of reality has to posses the potential to form level bellow it.
The blue print for yesod must exist in Tiphereth.
A seed must contain the ability to grow into the plant. If an Acorn does not have the potential to be at Oak tree, then the Acron is NOT the seed of an oak tree. If a metaphysics can not possibly create the foundation for the Physics we do know, then it can only be false.
-
@Froclown said
" the Physics we do know"
Here's the issue I see:
What we do know is inductive in nature (and all reason, being based on inductive, or deductive, reasoning, is flawed. They both require making fundamental assumptions - either that the sample is representative of the whole, or that the foundation is sound). We know data, and formulae that describe relationships. In certain circumstances..An example. Gravity. We had a very nice formula for working out the attraction between 2 masses, thanks to Newton.
However, the mistake would be to assume that this formula, and the fundamental "law" of physics were one in the same.
Einstein came up with something with greater breadth (something that accommodated light - which Newton was forced to leave out).
So... until we have an elegant unified understanding of everything from an empirical point of view... my suggestion would be to not sweat the apparent contradictions to much... and to maybe read AC's commentary to II:27.
-
Einsteins new Paradigm did not contradict what we already knew to be true about gravity from newton.
However, if we have to devise some kind of radical metaphysics that is demands an almost solipsist subjectivity, or whatever it would actually require to hold true that Samadhi objectively destroys the whole world. That metaphysics would make physics as we know it impossible.
If that were true nothing would be anything, anything could be anything, Cows turn into potatos, rocks that cant be lifted poping into being and being lifted anyway. black would be white up would be down. etc
-
@Froclown said
"Einsteins new Paradigm did not contradict what we already knew to be true about gravity from newton. "
Yes it did. According to Newton's formula, mass would not attract light, since light had no mass. According to Einstein, it would.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
That doesn't mean that it's 100% bunk. It's an amazingly good approximation of a relationship between mass, within certain tolerances. In fact, we still often use Newton's formula, realizing its limitations.
Back to the point: not having attained Samadhi myself, I can't from experience describe the manner in which it "destroys the world" objectively or metaphorical, or somewhere in between.
I'm just pointing out that you don't have to force these two ideas into a dichotomy. But suit yourself.
-
If Samadhi objectively destroyed the world, then YOU would be killed when anyone anywhere entered a Samadhi.
If you have the hallucination than your house was blown up, your dog is not killed in the explosion. If you house is objectively blown up you dog dies.
That is fundamental, and that is what no new paradigm can change.
It would be like if Einstein's theory of Gravity showed that bricks can not possibly fall to the earth. We already know they do fall down, thus no theory that does not allow for bricks to fall, can be a correct theory.
Any theory than states that a subjective cause like changing brain states can cause the UNIVERSE as a whole to actually cease to exist, goes against everything that defines reality as we know it to be.
And saying that it both does and does not destroy the universe is just a contradiction and thus carries no information content.
-
@Froclown said
"If Samadhi objectively destroyed the world, then YOU would be killed when anyone anywhere entered a Samadhi."
Perhaps I have been.
"Any theory than states that a subjective cause like changing brain states can cause the UNIVERSE as a whole to actually cease to exist, goes against everything that defines reality as we know it to be. "
Great phrase: "reality as we know it to be." The point is, though, that our knowledge doesn't make a thing so. Many things have been "known" to be such and so when, in fact, they weren't such and so at all. It would make total sense, for example, that changing brain states can cause the universe as a whole to cease to exist if the universe were (for example) the consequence of brain states - as the most truly wise generally have asserted.
-
Froclown, I never said Samadhi objectively destroyed the physical universe in its entirety the instant any person entered Samadhi. (that's your strawman)
In fact, I probably agree with you that Samadhi is a subjective experience.*
It's what you say afterward that I was commenting on. (the silly idea that new information has to somehow fit the core parts of old information, or it must be false)
What I'm saying is that "subjective" probably includes a lot of things that we think of as part of the objective universe. (death? identity? linear time? causality?)
But again, I'm surely out of my element when it comes to Samadhi, so I'll bow out here... 93
*"the Universe, as previously known through Atmadarshana, is annihilated? Yet the negation of this phrase is only apparent; the sense is that all that negative Atmadarshana is destroyed; it is only an illusion that goes." - A.C. (italics mine)
-
it is only possible to know subjectively the map or model of reality in your mind. If you annihilate than model you seem to annihilate the objective world.
However, the World itself is not dependent upon brain states anymore than if you re-write a map it physically changes the location of the treasure. If you move the X then the location on the map changes not the Real location. if you tear up the Map, the map is destroyed not the island drawn on the map.
The brain is a impression of events from the world, the world is what it is no matter if the brain is there to receive impressions or not. If you input something into the brain that cause it to stop recieving impressions from the world, the world does not actually stop existing. That is no different than turning off you Google maps program and supposing that mean the Real earth poofed away too.
-
"it is only possible to know subjectively the map or model of reality in your mind."
You state this with such fervor... and then go on to make an objective statement about the world:
"However, the World itself is not dependent upon brain states anymore than if you re-write a map it physically changes the location of the treasure."
You've said it yourself in so many words but it's important to remember, YOUR Map is NOT the territory too...
The question that remains unanswered (at least as I've understood it to be) is can we know anything objectively at all? Isn't that also where the alien importance/symbolism of Aiwass comes into the picture?
-
Yes, ultimately I can only know via my own brain.
However we can study other brains which appear like our own, and see that they hold impressions of events, and do not themselves directly change the reality, no matter how much the impression is deformed from the input stimulus.
And by application of the principle we observe in other brain to the fact that ones own brain is an example of similar events to the brains of others. We can not know ie have direct awareness of the brain as it works, but we can discern the war in which it works using abstraction and rational symbols. We do not KNOW directly but semiotically. Just as we may not see directly the DANGER but the sign indicates to us via symbols that an unknown Danger may be present.
We have no evidence or indication whatsoever than would lead us to believe that if I have a brain spasm that effects my sense of self-other awareness, that this event actually destroys the entire universe and effectively undoes the big bang.
As far as any of this goes, I don't see why we don't use the language of science and explain what is really going on. We should seek to define the different types and levels of Samadhi as what they are, controlled temporal and frontal lobe seizures, induced by vigorous methods of concentration and repetitious and deprivation of stimulation. Once this is well established we can discern and refine the methods in order to more effectively and more presicily produce the particular sort of seizure state and imaginative content we hope to achieve.
-
@Froclown said
"Yes, ultimately I can only know via my own brain.
However we can study other brains which appear like our own, and see that they hold impressions of events, and do not themselves directly change the reality, no matter how much the impression is deformed from the input stimulus. "
I agree with the field of your experimentation but have not yet come to the same conclusion. The one thing I encounter again and again, however, is that making an axiom of the mind's inability to perform a task is the absolute most counterproductive action possible.
I happily embrace everything that I have learned about the neuropsychology of spiritual experience. At the same time, my own goal has never been to "defang" religion and exstinguish superstition. I've sought two things:
The first is where we agree - we agree completely about what we are able to say with certainty. That's one thing I've really been studying in my own way for a long time. What can we really say we "know." You and I have in common that we limit ourselves to what can be said through the method of science.
But, that's were you say we should just stop. I want to know what else is possible. For me, your stopping point is the anchor point for further exploration. No matter how much reality warps and bends, that anchor point marks the doorway back home. But the rest is a big "What IF...?" What other ways of knowing and willing might there be...?
That's the thing I don't understand. Why are you so intent on shutting down the whole damn experiment? lol
-
I am in no way wanting to shut down the experiment. I want to get it back on track.
I want to see what we have learned to be true, used as to improve methods. For example, certainly we could continue the science of geo-centric astronomy, the planetary orbits would be a mess, the math would be absurdly hard and progress in charting space would move very slow and include many errors and miscalculations. Likewise we could continue the biological theory of vital essences and bad blood, we could invent machines than drain and filter blood and maybe we might happen upon a leach with a healing saliva. However, keeping this ancient model would not permit the rapid progress in biology and medicine that we have seen, and would likely produce more misses than hits.
That said, the future of magick is to learn the methods of bio-chemistry and neurology, the science of the brain. As well as the tradition of myths and symbols. Such that we learn how the symbols being software are materially used by the brain biologically. So that we can mix the mythic imagery and symbols with the physical stimulus to produce predictable results. To move away from the purely anecdotal data of Crowley's journal keeping, and ultimately devise a "hard science" of magick where we know with reasonable margins of error what the effect on an ritual will be an a particular nervous system, via such methods as MRI, PET scan, and other tests of the individual before and after.