"We have nothing with the outcast"
-
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.
-
Wow this whole post was absolutely hilarious. Seriously you guys were bickering like a bunch of little kids. I cant believe everyone started bickering about Skinner, who is obviously a quack. Skinners research is mostly debunked and his science is really just veiled fascism.
-
93s
Not to reawaken any arguments but I think it should be noted that "radical scientism" is as much a dogma as say any religious belief. Of course we embrace the scientific method, but the metaphysical assumptions behind any branch of philosophy can and always will be questioned, and rightly so, becasue metaphysics operates and always will operate in the sphere of uncertainly.
It should be apparent that all of our models, mystical, religious, scientific or otherwise are as much descriptors of our environment as they are descriptors of the tool used to measure that environment, namely, our nervous system - as Kant said, even space-time is an anthropocentric albeit intuitive "idea". So as wonderful as science is, there is unfortunately no such thing as "objective" (or more correctly, noumenal) knowledge, at least in the sphere in which the intellect operates. To buy into any dogma / perspective, scientific, religious or otherwise as a truth in itself is, in my opinion, an intellectual error. (Besides, the intellect, by it's own analysis, must inherently contain limitations)
Of course sometimes dogmas are useful maps and we should adopt them as needed. Personally I tend to think that all these perspectives contain part truths and part fallacies...when it comes to Atheism vs Theism, I think they both make valid points just from different perspectives. I find that not taking my own intellectual views too seriously goes along way in allowing me to experience new and valuable points of view.
"Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise." - Liber AL vel Legis
Anyway, just regarding the original topic, I've tended to interpret this both internally and externally. Stamping down the "wretched and the weak" to me is as much an internal "alchemical" process as it might be
an external process of removing psychic vampires (or better yet assisting them in identifying their own "wretchedness" and "weakness"). Just my personal interpretation of these passages at this point in time.93s
-
@Fnord said
"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."
Hey, this analogy brings me immediately to associate with the ToL. Chokmah comes before Binah; action before form. But people like Froclown seem to think more in terms of "you have to have a car before you can run it anywhere" and prioritize things opposite the Qabalistic manifestation path.
Btw, sorry for quoting an old post.
-
You would be correct if we go down the tree of life from kether to malkuth. However to use Fnord's example, the song is not manifest directly out of heaven, and takes form in physical instruments. Which is an idealist dialectic similar to the Hegelian. The Hegelian dialectic is great if we are working from the Jewish notion of theism and creator God ideals on which Kabbalah was based, than God being other worldly creates all material things out of an ideal/spiritual substance or even ultimately out of manifestation of himself (which if we go the Buddhist way of Bereshith can be a transcendent void).
However, we have far more science backing up the materialist dialectic, something more like the Marxist inversion of Hegel. That is music is not a divine gift from the Gods, but rather we fist by trial and error mixing material things together end up with a primitive instrument, it makes some sounds. Then by fiddling with the instrument we find it makes specific type of sounds, and how to make each one, then we find the sounds are placed in space-time orders to make a simple musical piece. Other people realize they can say tap their feet to the sound, and if they can remember the foot tapping, they can replay the same music. Later some one realizes with pen and ink she can record the music pace and foot taps as marks, which by trial and error become more sophisticated and refined. Eventually, people can write music, that has not yet been played, on paper, such that an instrument can play a note at each ink point on the paper. Since the music on paper was not recorded from an original type of instrument, the same or similar music can be played from based on paper template.
However, this whole process is material, and it becomes more abstract with one material symbol standing in for another material object of event in space time. in short, we work our way up from Malkuth to higher abstraction with Kether the limit of ultimate abstraction where a single symbol is pregnant with symbolic information that the entire world or matter and symbol is condensed into a single abstract point.
Idealism assumes than the physical world came into being from God's one WORD in Kether and in this word is the template for all creation. Materialism states than the physical world is base matter on which we build upward by abstraction to reach Kether, The materialist view however we must realize than the progress of those who came before us shapes the abstractions that are already in play. Thus the word of previous Magi to reach Kether and declare a single world law, does basically instigate a zeitgeist, paradigm or what Heidegger would call a Horizon of being. It established the nature of the time and place in which we work.
(The instrument came first historically, latter came music writing based on the instrument, then later the music comes first when instrument players use the music that was written by musical masters who left behind pieces of written music still based originally off of physical instruments. The historic writer of the music creates a sort of abstraction downward effect, but creation of the original abstraction was from material upward)
Which lends credit to the notion than perhaps YHVH was the Word of a Magus whose name became lost in time, who was a physical mas who established the Temple and the whole Jewish racial-cultural system. This explains why they hold an Idealist view than the "world" emanates from the Ideal (WORD of GOD), because the established Jewish way of life does follow from the formula of YHVH. But the establishment of that word is lost in history possibly hidden on purpose, to create a supernatural origin myth. Likewise the established Thelemic way of life, culture, customs, society etc. should follow from ABRAHADABRA.
-
How can a thought be physical?
A neuron firing across a synapse is no more a thought, than an instrument and a daub of ink on a piece of sheet music, is a song.
-
A single neuron is no more a thought than a grain of sand is a beach or a letter is a novel or a pixle is a photograph.
a brain fireing on it's own is not a thught either, but rather when the brain is connected with the body and the senses and this creates an exchange with the state of matter in the world, that is a thought.
-
Thought exists independent of matter. As organic beings we don't even originate thoughts - they pass through us and are grabbed and held and owned and deployed and all the rest. Our neurological flesh is more aerial than anything else.
-
err incorect
everything is matter there is nothing else
All non-physical substance or forces or energy etc are non-science they are made up false explinations by a culture of people from a less technoloically developed time who did not know the true cause of things.ot.colorado.edu/~oddie/physic.html
see also
-
All we know is that these physical conditions coincide with something non-material. But sciences tells you that correlation is not causation.
Your statements are all circular by the way - of course everyTHING is matter, and the idea of a non-physical SUBSTANCE is inherently ludicrous.
A strictly empirical stance presupposes that only the material and measurable is real, and so bases all knowledge of measurement of the material world. Therefore whether or not there exists any reality outside of physical reality, it would be incapable of acknowledging anything non-material.
Do you see the circle in logic?
-
NO, we do not know that there exists anything non-material.
You may believe that, but knowledge only comes from experience and verifying that experience via science.
You can say you believe anything and hold fast to it on faith, but you have no knowledge and no reason to even suspect non-physical accounts are correct.
-
I agree wholeheartedly.
I have no empirical knowledge of the existence of anything non-emperical.
-
It's necessary to read Immanuel Kant's work to realize the problems of any metaphysical assertion....that being, if translated in terms of mystical philosophy, it's inherent dualism. The mistake of scientists is that having no training in philosophy they tend to make contextual mistakes about what their results and data mean in the greater scheme of things. The whole of materialism is founded on metaphysical assertion, whereas empiricism does not support materialism if properly understood. Kant still supported empiricism, but he pointed out the flaws that empiricists such as David Hume had made.
Schopenhauer had this to say of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason:
""With Kant the critical philosophy appeared as the opponent of this entire method [of dogmatic philosophy]. It makes its problem just those eternal truths (principle of contradiction, principle of sufficient reason) that serve as the foundation of every such dogmatic structure, investigates their origin, and then finds this to be in man's head. Here they spring from the forms properly belonging to it, which it carries in itself for the purpose of perceiving and apprehending the objective world. Thus here in the brain is the quarry furnishing the material for that proud, dogmatic structure. Now because the critical philosophy, in order to reach this result, had to go beyond the eternal truths, on which all the previous dogmatism was based, so as to make these truths themselves the subject of investigation, it became transcendental philosophy. From this it follows also that the objective world as we know it does not belong to the true being of things-in-themselves, but is its mere phenomenon, conditioned by those very forms that lie a priori in the human intellect (i.e., the brain); hence the world cannot contain anything but phenomena.""
Hence, as Kant said, "we know the world as it appears to us", and as Nietzsche later pointed out in his philosophy of perspectivism, we cannot even entertain the concept of "objectivism" without making problematic assertions....all we can conclude from empirical methods really is an "inter-subjective consensus", a type of methodological solipsisim, about a supposed noumenal (external reality). This is essentially what the Buddha taught about "consciousness" being the result of the interaction between the perceived and the perceiver. Saying any more about this would evoke metaphysical assertion into the equation, and the problem with that of course is that materialism becomes a circular argument....ie:
- We make the assertion that matter is real and independent of the human mind in and of itself.
- We perform experiments and find supportive data, that is by the method of inter-subjective consensus (peer review) found to be "true".
- We re-assert the assumption in point 1 based on point 2.
See, the absurdity? The key is in the term "inter-subjective consensus", that is being twisted to mean "independent of human minds". Of course if you disagree you can always provide scientific knowledge (or any kind of knowledge whatsoever) that is independent of human minds.
Of course it's important to note that it is not empiricism (inter-subjective consensus) that is being criticized, after all that is our dictum in, "the method of science", it is the assumptions and conclusions made by the philosophically-illiterate masses about the results of empiricism that we must subject to criticism.
-
I am confused. What happened to the topic of this thread? As long as people do not share the same understanding of the words used, this discussion is a porridge going nowhere. The notions used today may not have the same meaning in the future or held as false. It is a natural ongoing development ,we all know.
Is this all a discussion on science versus religion/supernatural or what? Wherever I come across these discussions it seems to me the majority of people discussing hold science as their new religion, unconditionally. By that, saying "Come on medieval idiots, you cant be for real......science holds the ultimate truth and everything we know today is set" Its really one of the easiest ways to be ignorant. Refusing to learn from history.
So what is meant by "there is nothing that excist beyond what is material" ? Something that comes out of (apparently) nowhere and starts manipulating our material things, would you say that is something material itself or would you consider it supernatural and non excistent? Maybe it is the material manifestation of one of the involved people? Many options. When Crowley said that there is nothing supernatural, wasnt it just to illustrate that all we call supernatural is in fact perfectly natural? Questions are rethorical, as this is quite far away from the original topic.