"The Next Step" of previous Aeons.
-
"That's a very different statement than the one you made before
- especially with your word "supreme.""Yeah
But do you think this Aeon will bring about higher attainments for those who endure?
-cody 93 93/93
-
@poor+blind+misfi said
"
"That's a very different statement than the one you made before - especially with your word "supreme.""Yeah
But do you think this Aeon will bring about higher attainments for those who endure?"
It already does.
-
I've been following this thread and feeling it provided an interesting counterpoint to the related topic in the Magick folder on the influence of the last Aeon.
@Alrah said
"I find the observations of Ajahn Munindo interesting regarding the Jim's theory of 'the next step' of the new aeon. Munindo talks about how people found identity in their community, work and family much more than people do today, and says that nowerdays the ego is 'condensed' in the individual rather than being spread about. We 'promote' ourselves as individuals more - everyone has a facebook page or an online profile for example, and thus we define our identity more. He thinks this condensing of the ego increases the level of pressure and suffering on the average human being, and if that's true it may explain why more people are investigating spiritual paths in an attempt to alleviate their suffering."
What is being suggested here is that the emancipation of the individual, and its consequent hyper awareness of itself as distinct from larger structures, is a symptom of the new Aeon.
The other thread on the Magick forum seemed to revolve around the abuses of the last Aeon, its faults as a world view, its shadow.
The above post by Alrah seems to put the two together in my mind. It asserts that the rise of the individual as a thing, unique in the world, if not leavened by spiritual experience, has the potential of casting a very dark shadow.
There is also this tie in with those relatively recent, existential philosophies that came out of the post war periods in Europe—anarchists, absurdists, nihilists—lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my.
peach and 93
-
@RobertAllen said
"What is being suggested here is that the emancipation of the individual, and its consequent hyper awareness of itself as distinct from larger structures, is a symptom of the new Aeon. "
I tend to think of it as a symptom of the Old Aeon. It's intensely Osirian, i.e., egoic. (That was the species developmental task for the last aeon: distinguish yourself from the collective by distinctive ego-formation.)
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@RobertAllen said
"What is being suggested here is that the emancipation of the individual, and its consequent hyper awareness of itself as distinct from larger structures, is a symptom of the new Aeon. "I tend to think of it as a symptom of the Old Aeon. It's intensely Osirian, i.e., egoic. (That was the species developmental task for the last aeon: distinguish yourself from the collective by distinctive ego-formation.)"
Somehow this seems wrong to me. I'm not arguing, I'm just having trouble resolving your statement with how I have always viewed the last Aeon.
Looking back (I'm talking about the West, specifically Europe) I see organizations like the Jesuits, which was all about the strength of the organization and the sublimation of the individual in a clear power structure. I also see the fierce efforts to suppress schismatic groups who found themselves 'outside' the establishment, like the Anabaptists. Obviously, It is my understanding that the previous Aeon did not encourage free thinkers—Luther risked his life to make a statement about the freedom of the individual. The exception to the rule was the Renaissance, but this explosion of personal freedoms and experimentation was short lived. The church and the monarchy both, viewed this energy as dangerous to their authority.
Before the twentieth century we had very few individuals. We had them, this is true, but the numbers suggest it was not very easy to distinguish yourself in this way. On the other hand, in the last fifty years the idea that you make you own destiny, that your life is a creative work, that it is yours and does not belong to the state, or the church, or the family, or a philosophy has gained significant traction (there are exceptions, but I feel that most of these are fueled by traditional perspectives that hearken back to the old Aeon). In India it was the caste system, but last year Bollywood produced Slum Dog Millionaire, which celebrates the individual as someone who is superior to his circumstances, a not very caste oriented perspective.
Okay, so now I've started airing my assumptions about this Aeon. We believe, even if it isn't the case in practice, that your father, or your mother does not fatally condemn you to a fixed station in life—you can be born a black man and still be elected president. Isn't this the triumph of the individual will we are talking about here; Horus, the lord of Force and Fire whose will is potent in this age? A secular reading of the concept perhaps, but there is going to be a secular manifestation of the current that will be void of the spiritual perspective, no?
We see ourselves as a Ulysses, as someone who has been turned many times by fate, and who has to invent their own way in the world.
I can accept the fact that my perspective is incomplete and superficial in some important aspect(s), but you have to give me something to think about that will help me see how this might be the case.
love and will
-
Try thinking of it in these terms: The developmental task of the Aeon of Osiris was the emergence of the individual.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Try thinking of it in these terms: The developmental task of the Aeon of Osiris was the emergence of the individual."
emote: opens mouth as if to speak and then abruptly shuts it.
The rooms sees:
RobertAllen opens his mouth as if to speak, and then abruptly shuts it.[long pause]
I could argue, but I know I would only be venting ego as a result of working myself into a lather with the last post.
-
so, we are now tasked with transcending this individuality?
-
@RobertAllen said
"so, we are now tasked with transcending this individuality?"
Yes.
And, one might say, for being singular-distinguished and collective-indistinguishable at the same time.
-
93,
Alrah said:
"I think it may be quite difficult to argue that human beings are evolving telepathic talents."
I knew you'd say that.Okay, now I'm close to being off-topic, too.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
93,
A friend of mine coined the word 'telempathy.' Or if he didn't, he stole it from someone who did. Anyway, there is anthropological data, especially from early 20th Century studies of Australian aborigines, that such a phenomenon occurs in certain close communities. People within tight sects and orders report it with some regularity. Actually transmitting words or thoughts is a rarer phenomenon, but what we call hunches or gut-feelings that pan out are common enough that I don't doubt their validity.
To what are we tuning in? Telempathy implies something on Nephesh-level: picking up sensations, strong emotions that generate some type of field we can sense if we're already simpatico with the other person or group. True telepathy would, I think, involve a higher level of the Ruach.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
A friend of mine coined the word 'telempathy.' Or if he didn't, he stole it from someone who did. Anyway, there is anthropological data, especially from early 20th Century studies of Australian aborigines, that such a phenomenon occurs in certain close communities. People within tight sects and orders report it with some regularity. Actually transmitting words or thoughts is a rarer phenomenon, but what we call hunches or gut-feelings that pan out are common enough that I don't doubt their validity.
To what are we tuning in? Telempathy implies something on Nephesh-level: picking up sensations, strong emotions that generate some type of field we can sense if we're already simpatico with the other person or group. True telepathy would, I think, involve a higher level of the Ruach.
93 93/93,
Edward"
Yes, this is very much what I mean. I suspect it will have several channels of expression - visual sensations with some audio clues but less and less need for the verbosity appears to be growing in a large scale context. If we believe that everything needs to have materialistic evidences and measures, then we now should throw out Art with Spirituality and Psychology (as I would expect with a purely materialistic worldview).
-
@Alrah said
"Ok Takamba, but telepathy has not been scientifically proven as possible, has it? Until it is then any assertion that "telepathy is the one most obvious lateral benefits... becoming more and more active in the populations.." is going to crash into the cliffs of materialism!"
If God had wanted us to see in the dark, who would have someone invent a light bulb - but until then, it is scientifically impossible to prove the notion of seeing in the dark.
-
93,
"Well - playing devils advocate, the argument is now about the materialists stance versus the spiritual one, and that could go anywhere, but is so god damned dull, that I'd rather not play yet again from either side. I opt to take the third way and have them both."
I think that point has been made here before, but it bears repeating. What we now consider 'materialistic' would, for all practical purposes, have been considered pure magick, and thus materially impossible 150 years ago. At one point, it was scientifically proven that the human brain could not function if the body it was in was traveling at more than 30 mph. And we all know that heavier-than-air flight was shown, repeatedly, to be an impossibility. Etc. etc.
The real enemy of materialism isn't credulity, but creative human imagination.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Alrah said
"
@Edward Mason said
"The real enemy of materialism isn't credulity, but creative human imagination."I've been told that materialism is all a matter of form.
"A bit off topic, but this last exchange got me asking this question:
Does it make sense to equate materialism with the goddess, Nuit?It occurs to me that there is no reason why the notion of materialism should not be considered as just another spiritual concept.
love and will
-
93,
"Does it make sense to equate materialism with the goddess, Nuit?"
Nuit is totality. So yes, she incorporates form in all aspects and on all levels. Hadit might be more the expression of energy (or Ra-Hoor-Khuit), but I don't see how we could exclude energy from our concept of totality.
93 93/93,
Edward
-
@Edward Mason said
"93,
"Does it make sense to equate materialism with the goddess, Nuit?"Nuit is totality. So yes, she incorporates form in all aspects and on all levels. Hadit might be more the expression of energy (or Ra-Hoor-Khuit), but I don't see how we could exclude energy from our concept of totality.
93 93/93,
Edward"
Mater, matrix, material, MA...
The context within which our minds carry on the activity of thinking is the realm of the collective unconscious, the archetypes. Which is to say, we can think because of the cultural images we have inherited. So it should be possible to trace all our thoughts up the ladder, so to speak, to an archetype. In this regard, the concept of materialism should not be exempt, despite the fact that it seems to be anti-spiritual in intent. This intent is more a political difference than a difference of substance—the gods fighting amongst themselves. Materialism, for all of its materialism is still a manifestation in our minds of a spiritual reality—it is the expression of an archetype, a god.
I'm reminded of an assertion by James Hillman, and important psychologist of the Jungian school that the rise of materialism in contemporary society is probably the work of Hera. But then all the goddesses are linked in some fashion that is above and beyond them as individuals.
...way off topic, but I promise to keep my mouth shut now...
love and will