Question about De Via Properia Feminis
-
He said himself that These practices are seeming memories of past lives, and not to accept them as litteral truths unless you can match up your memories with recorded facts.
He also stated that one is not to take anything seen in visions as Objective facts or of having Philosophical Validity. They are merely personal symbols, and that doing certain things cause certain results.
Just because you have a head full of visions that you are a Roman living in 50 AD, does not mean that that person ever even existed and it certainly does not mean that YOU are that person.
Also just because Crowley wrote a book that in a past life he was ankh-f-na-khonsu does not make it so. It means he wrote a fictional story that collaborated with his beliefs and helped to express them in depiction, by analogy to events in that story, which he set in Egypt.
YOU ARE NOT CLEOPATRA, and neither is anyone else.
You are atoms, that is all. an arrangement of physical stuff. In the cosmic dust storm some of the dust happened to swirl up and become a human, and in a few decades it will fall apart again. That is all there is to Life.
-
93,
Froclown said:
" He also stated that one is not to take anything seen in visions as Objective facts or of having Philosophical Validity. They are merely personal symbols, and that doing certain things cause certain results.
Just because you have a head full of visions that you are a Roman living in 50 AD, does not mean that that person ever even existed and it certainly does not mean that YOU are that person.
"From the confessions of Aleister Crowley, Cap.86, first page:
"There are also some fairly strong arguments for the actuality of such memories. Events in the past sometimes throw light on the present. For instance, when I came to remember what happened to me in Rome, Naples and Paris, I understood certain obscure instinctive feelings about those cities which had always been unintelligible, and were in direct conflict with my conscious ideas about them."
You ignored the part where Crowley flat out contradicts your opinions. Yes, he insists that there's a gray area here, but he doesn't fall into the trap of the nay-saying dogmatism you present. Nor does he ever, anywhere, deny the reality of what we term 'soul,' as you did in your previous post.
You can create your own religion, as you have done, but you can't cite the Prophet of another one with a different theology, and claim him as your authority.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Froclown said
"He also stated that one is not to take anything seen in visions as Objective facts or of having Philosophical Validity. They are merely personal symbols, and that doing certain things cause certain results. "
Sounds like good advice. (I think he might have said that probably because they are NOT objective facts. Aren't "visions" subjective by definition?)
@Froclown said
"YOU ARE NOT CLEOPATRA, and neither is anyone else. "
Can you agree that someone was Cleopatra at some point along the timeline?
@Froclown said
"You are atoms, that is all"
Prove it.
-
I can show you atoms, I can show you diagrams and studies in detail the molecular structure of cells, tissues, organs, how they all work together, how they interact physically and chemically, and how those physical events explain in detail exactly how any process in the human body functions.
Can you show me even one tiny scrap of non-physical soul, or spiritual essence?
If you can show me some element that is not a Physical thing I will accept that a soul might exist. But thus far Science has not found one shred of evidence for a soul and it there is no events which occur than necessitate that we postulate a Physical explanation.
Spiritual, non-material values, etc. In the way I use them refer to collective efforts, "The spirit of good faith" and the higher values of brotherhood or honor, building a reputation or contributing to a reciprocal relationship, rather than a "material" value of hoarding up a personal collection of goods.
Yes, relationships and reputations are material events also, they are systems of interactions and memories (Chemical-physiological patterns of brain matter) but since these are complex systems of things, in language we reduce the system to a single word, conceptualized as a simple noun, but since that simple noun is really a set of actions we can't draw it's limits as we can with say APPLE. So the term "spiritual" or non-physical has come into use to describe Physical systems of events which are linguistically reduced to conceptual nouns.
-
-
I don't have to prove a negative.
Ie no non-physical substance exists. Ie no soul exists.
You have to prove that soul exists also metempsychosis.
If Crowley believed that souls exist is irrelevant, as Thelema is not believe what Crowley believed.Also it is obvious that Crowley was hopeful to prove the supernatural and he wanted souls to be true, but he also demanded skepticism and proof, of which he never in his life time found conclusive evidence.
And since his day we have found mountains of evidence that support the null hypothesis (No supernatural events exist).
-
@Froclown said
"I don't have to prove a negative. "
I did not ask you to prove a negative. Your claim was stated positively. Now prove it.
@Froclown said
"You have to prove that soul exists also metempsychosis. "
No I don't. I never made that claim.
@Froclown said
"Also it is obvious that Crowley was hopeful to prove the supernatural and he wanted souls to be true, but he also demanded skepticism and proof"
I am no expert on Crowley but I have not seen thus far where he was trying to 'prove' the supernatural. Can you show where he tried this? (He may have... like Houdini and others... I simply do not know).
But you still need to prove your claim.
-
Atoms are the basic building blocks of EVERYTHING, in fact atoms are the only things than exist because EVERYTHING is made of atoms, there is nothing else out from which to build anything.
YOU and all humans are THINGS that exist in the universe, THUS You are Atoms and nothing else.
There is no need to postulate that anything that is not included in EVERYTHING that exists in the universe, is necessary to human life. Thus a human is a thing in the universe made out of Atoms, ie physical matter, ie the ONLY ontological substance which exists ANYWHERE.
QED
-
@Froclown said
"YOU and all humans are THINGS that exist in the universe, THUS You are Atoms and nothing else. "
That's a description of the composition of matter. It says nothing about existence which is immaterial. (It doesn't even comprehend all forms of energy.)
-
That is because there is not anything which is "immaterial"
Energy is properties of particles, the effects atoms have on each other, properties are not things in themselves.
Nor is energy immaterial, energy is a physical process.
Technically Energy is the property of a physical system that defines the potential work (Change of mass through time) which that system is capable.
-
@Froclown said
"YOU and all humans are THINGS that exist in the universe, THUS You are Atoms and nothing else. "
So then... what is it that is observing these atoms?
@Froclown said
"Technically Energy is the property of a physical system that defines the potential work (Change of mass through time) which that system is capable."
Is observation of change of mass factored in there somewhere?
The cog in the works only sees the next cog... one must step outside the machine and see the lever being pulled that starts and stops the machinery before you can recognize existence outside the endlessly spinning wheels.
@Froclown said
"Thus a human is a thing in the universe made out of Atoms, ie physical matter, ie the ONLY ontological substance which exists ANYWHERE.
QED"
Who said anything about silly humans! ?
?
QED -- NOT!
-
Observation is merely the interaction of the physical nervous system with physical events.
There is no ghost in the machine and no need for any such thing.
-
@Froclown said
"Observation is merely the interaction of the physical nervous system with physical events.
There is no ghost in the machine and no need for any such thing."
The interaction can occur without my "observation" status and recording ability.
what is observing and recording the event?
-
I seismograph is observing and recording earth quakes, but nothing non-physical is going on. The needle shakes when the ground shakes and thus the line in draws shakes.
The brain is more or less like this, more complicated but the same.
-
@Froclown said
"Atoms are the basic building blocks of EVERYTHING, in fact atoms are the only things than exist because EVERYTHING is made of atoms, there is nothing else out from which to build anything.
"Not according to the latest Quantum sciences.
How does Bells Theorem fit into that view?
It appears that Western science is now catching up with Eastern Mysticism (4000 years late, but I guess that's what you get for going the long way round).
Matter is Energy (E=MC2 right?), and its beginning to look like Energy is Information (or Mind as the Mystics would have it)
(ps. I postulate that Information=Energy x Speed of Light Squared, but my maths isn't good enough yet for a verifiable proof, but remember you heard I=EC2 here first
).There is nothing but Information.
And Bells Theorem would appear to indicate that that information is everywhere in time and space simultaneously:Two particles united at creation - positive and negative - can be moved as far apart as you like, and if you change the polarity of one, the other changes instantaneously.
Now we know from Einstein that Matter and Energy cannot travel faster than the speed of light, so there must be something else connecting those two particles that is able to transcend those speed limits.
In fact, for it to be an instantaneous response, that "information" has to be at every point in both space and time simultaneously.
There is nothing but information, and it is omnipresent and omniscient. (*cough)I am that.
Or as Alan Watts put it so beautifully - the whole universe is just one big ink splat. And as its spreads itself out , little bits have run off in various directions, little wiggles of ink. And I am just one of those wiggles, having fun being a wiggle for now, but in the end I am just the ink splat and can never be anything other than the ink splat.So I like to think that I was Cleopatra, and every other creature that ever lived, and that will ever live, I just forget sometimes that I am just the ink splat.
-
@Froclown said
"The brain is more or less like this, more complicated but the same."
The seismograph is in physical contact with what it is recording.
But when an NSA Remote Viewer draws a picture of a Soviet naval base that he has never visited or even physically seen and he predicts the launching of a new submarine model and CIA satellite schedules are adjusted and photos are taken just as the new sub is launched... what is doing the viewing and recording then?
Back to the brain. Memory is not well understood because it does not seem possible that there are enough cells in the brain to record the minutest detail of all one's surroundings, all senses, even taste and smell, perfect recall can be demonstrated 90 years later. Even emotional state, thoughts, feelings, etc. An immense amount of data is packed into a few moments and it is available for recall decades later. Under hypnosis most people who can be hypnotized are able to recall details of a scene that were not consciously noted at the time of the event and were never part of conscious recall.
Vast Memory and remote viewing are a couple examples of how science can't explain what is doing the observing and recording and recall. There has to more than just the physical body.
Some have posited the idea that the gazillion possible permutations of all cells between the ears is sufficient but that requires two cells on opposite sides of the brain be storing a memory bit by virtue of a mathematical relationship to each other. Just offhand that strikes me as ridiculous.
-
There have been studies in which dying people are weighed (they are actually dying on a scale), and as they die, they are weighed again. Taking into account the final breath leaving the body, it has been determined that the body has lost mass. I dont have all the particluars at my dispossal, but these were scientists who I am confident took into account all variables that we could imagine (like the breathe-gas in the intestines ect...) and came to the conclusion that some sort of unknown mass did leave the body upon death.
My friend is the medical examiner and he was the one who shared this info with me years ago. He is married to an ex-nun too....
-
@Veronica said
"There have been studies in which dying people are weighed (they are actually dying on a scale), and as they die, they are weighed again. Taking into account the final breath leaving the body, it has been determined that the body has lost mass. "
I remember this story too. Actually, the body was not "weighed again", the measurement of the weight loss was real-time, at the moment of death. The dying patient was on a scale the whole time. Here is an article on the details;
*Someone else suggested that the dying patients' final exhalation might have contributed to the drop in weight. To prove that it hadn't, Macdougall gamely climbed onto the cot and exhaled "as forcibly as possible," while Sproull watched the scale. No change was observed.
The most likely culprit was something called "insensible loss": body weight that is continually being lost through evaporating perspiration and water vapor in one's breath. Macdougall claimed to have accounted for this. His first patient, he wrote, lost water weight at the rate of an ounce per hour, far too slowly for insensible loss to explain the sudden three-quarter-ounce drop at death. *
www.lostmag.com/issue1/soulsweight.ph -
@Froclown said
"There is no soul and no reincarnation.
When Crowley talks about such things, he is using reincarnation as a mechanism to say. "Stop dreaming about being something you are not, If you are born a woman then be a woman, stop trying to live up to the male standards and instead be the best woman you can be. The Add on "If you do good maybe you can be a Man next time around" is just a mental trick to get people to move on and not get hung up on the fact that they will NEVER be what they think they should be, and get to work accepting what they are.
"Crowley was one of my favorite incarnations, matched only by that of Napoleon (pre-Elba).
As the Good Goat's representative on earth, I have to say that I resent you putting words in my mouth.
In other news, I think we might do well to examine Crowley's little list of "Reasons Why I Was Eliphas Levi." I'm not much of a reader, but it seems to me as though he was somewhat serious when he wrote that passage in "Magick." Yet, as you nobly acknowledge, there really is no such thing as anything.
Which is a very convenient way to corroborate any satement whatsoever.
-
Remote viewing and the weight of the soul are both Hokum
As for Bells inequality, I really can not tell you what the fact that those linear algebra equations do not come out to <2 means. Something fishy going on with quantum events, the mathematics of probability seem to apply differently.
However, I happen to know that you can not Change one of the particles in order to effect the other. You have 2 particles that are is an unknown state, a superposition. It's like you have two refrigerators, and you don't know if the light is no or off inside the fridge. You don't know until you open the door. Now all you can do is open the door and see if it is off or on, you can't do anything to the fridge to make the light be on or off.
Ok what we know from QUIP is that if one light is on the other is off and vice versa.
So if we open the door and see the light off, we instantly know the other one is on. However, the people who will open that other fridge still do not know if the light is on of off, until we call them up and tell them.Now, some people like to claim the fact that we know the other light's status the instant we discern our lights status, means that some how "information" about the other light traveled from it to us, faster than light. But that sounds like Hokum to me.
The math seems to state that neither light is always on or always off when we don't see it, but that the act of opening the door make it so and this instantly sends information to the other light fixing it on or off too. I can't argue that the math doesn't say this, because the math clearly does. But I that is an issue with mathematics, and math trying to represent a maybe state that has unusual probability and employs a novel use of tensor operations, and Hermitian operators acting in Hilbert spaces to describe what happens to particles when we can't see them.
Yes QM has some unknown elements and brain function has some unknown elements and mysticism has some unknown elements and paranormal beliefs have some unknown elements.
But you can't assume that two unknowns are the same or related unknowns, just on the fact that they are alike in their unknowness. You can't compare things based on what you don't know about them.