mystical voyeurism
-
Is the story of Job a good example? Or are we sticking to mostly verifiable historical figures.
-
Another way to put this...
The K&C of the HGA is the next step for humanity in general right now. It's been the province primarily of the mystics and geniuses in the past. In fact, it's been their primary province. It's not at all surprising that this is almost all that you're finding in their work.
As the baseline changes, the peaks of the curve are going to change also. What used to pass for a Master now "only" (LOL!) passes for an Adept. The Adepti start on higher ground, and therefore are likely to peak, more and more, in the City of Pyramids rather than only on the slopes of Abiegnis.
Another complication: What would be most interesting to find (a real treasure trove) would be the diaries and writings of those undergoing the Babe of the Abyss experience - the approach to and transition into Supernal consciousness. But these will be very rare, because it is incredibly hard to compel oneself to express much of anything about what one is going through at that exact time. The things that make it to paper tend to be about something else. So, at best, we tend to have the fruits of those who have comfortably gotten past it.
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Is the story of Job a good example? Or are we sticking to mostly verifiable historical figures."
I think of Job as the story of a Major Adept. I have an old crude essay (i.e., mostly organized notes, never fully worked into an article as such) that may still be on this forum somewhere. The specific Divine Names and other things make that look like a 6=5 to me.
EDIT: Here's the article: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5424">viewtopic.php?f=20&t=5424</a><!-- l -->
-
@AvshalomBinyamin said
"Is the story of Job a good example? Or are we sticking to mostly verifiable historical figures."
I was thinking of people with good historical data, especially those who left autobiographical accounts, but mythological and legendary figures are of interest too. Maybe once you're past the Abyss, your historical records disappear and are replaced by myth
The story of Buddha sitting beneath a tree, resolved not to move till he is enlightened, and battling Mara all night reminds me a bit of Crowley's duel with Choronzon in the 10th Aethyr. -
Jim Eshelman:
"Neshamah was not so readily available to humans at all (as a level from which actually to operate vs. the sense of something outside talking to us) until the Aeon of Horus."
"The K&C of the HGA is the next step for humanity in general right now. (...)"
It´s curious to read this here, very recently I think about this particular, reading different things about theory of chaos, theory and information, some things of Teilhard de Chardin, and so on. But I have all that articles in Spanish, so… Anyway, if you could extent a little about this particular it would be very interesting. For doing it more specific, can have that any relation with some theories about the sort-of-exponential transmission and progress of information, or the evolution of knowledge/conciousness related to Teilhard de Chardin? Thanks.
-
Do you have a specific question?
-
Well, there can be any relation between the accessibility and progressive amount of information in our culture (not exactly in a quantitative way) or the development of knowledge in general, and that availability of Neshamah that you mentioned? Like in some way the Noosphere of Teilhard de Chardin, you know…
Sorry for my bad English, I´m trying to explain the best I can.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"Well, there can be any relation between the accessibility and progressive amount of information in our culture (not exactly in a quantitative way) or the development of knowledge in general, and that availability of Neshamah that you mentioned? Like in some way the Noosphere of Teilhard de Chardin, you know…
Sorry for my bad English, I´m trying to explain the best I can.
"No problem. The question's a bit beyond me, but please don't be offended if I clarify it for others:
"Well, *[do you think] there could be any relationship *between the accessibility and progressive amount of information in our culture (or the development of knowledge in general) and the availability of Neshamah that you mentioned? Like in some way the Noosphere of Teilhard de Chardin, you know…"
-
Relationship, yes.
Which begs the further question of what kind of relationship.
Neshamah is not about "knowledge" in the usual sense - but increasing access to a transcendant framework that is (so to speak) a tesseract at right angles to the plane of knowledge... That certainly has a capacity to increase the accessibility and manageability of knowledge. (Just to mention one avenue.)
-
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
@SmokingMonkey said
"Well, there can be any relation between the accessibility and progressive amount of information in our culture (not exactly in a quantitative way) or the development of knowledge in general, and that availability of Neshamah that you mentioned? Like in some way the Noosphere of Teilhard de Chardin, you know… "
Certainly, there is a correlation or relationship between these things:
Norepinephrine (and other parts of the adrenal system), its relation to the limbic system and psychophysiology, leading to differences in gene expression (epigenetics), leading to soft inheritance, not unlike Lamarck, de Chardin, and Bergson's ideas.
Not just a broad humanistic vision, but also on a moment-to-moment basis, acting as the strange attractor to the "Mandlebrot Set" that follows.
The Omega Point can be considered the strange attractor.
But, the Omega Point can be considered Us. A relationship for sure!
Information fields go both ways, though. Anything else either believes in some sort of teleological imperative, or, at the other end, solipsism.
Profane science will accept the transference of these information fields in our lifetime (depending on the age of who is reading this, of course).
We "will" (to) create our own reality within and without.
Love is the law, love under will.
-
@Sardonyx said
"No problem. The question's a bit beyond me, but please don't be offended if I clarify it for others"
Ok, don´t worry, thanks for the correction.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Neshamah is not about "knowledge" in the usual sense - but increasing access to a transcendant framework that is (so to speak) a tesseract at right angles to the plane of knowledge... That certainly has a capacity to increase the accessibility and manageability of knowledge. (Just to mention one avenue.)"
This may sound redundant or obvious, but .. then the opposite, that open knowledge increase the access to Neshamah, is correct? I like to think in some kind of examples or references, I'm remembering now things like Wikileaks recently, what I assume could fit with that in some way at a wide nivel… (I know maybe I´m being too much eliptic, but it´s the only way to make me minimally understandable..)
@Frater 639 said
"Norepinephrine (and other parts of the adrenal system), its relation to the limbic system and psychophysiology, leading to differences in gene expression (epigenetics), leading to soft inheritance, not unlike Lamarck, de Chardin, and Bergson's ideas.
Not just a broad humanistic vision, but also on a moment-to-moment basis, acting as the strange attractor to the "Mandlebrot Set" that follows.
The Omega Point can be considered the strange attractor.
But, the Omega Point can be considered Us. A relationship for sure! "I´ve heard something about a biologist, Rupert Sheldrake (morphic camps, evolutionary biology), which could be related to this, but I really don´t know much about him.
"Information fields go both ways, though. Anything else either believes in some sort of teleological imperative, or, at the other end, solipsism.
Profane science will accept the transference of these information fields in our lifetime (depending on the age of who is reading this, of course)."
Yeah, I think that is the wide definition of the conception of telepathy of W. Burroughs, in which the information goes both ways. He often insists in the idea that what an artist do (or more generally a communicator of any kind) is to remind people what they already know.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"This may sound redundant or obvious, but .. then the opposite, that open knowledge increase the access to Neshamah, is correct?"
I think that likely is not true. Excess of knowledge (in the individual) tends to (a) reduce the inner necessity to access transcendant faculties and (b) outright block access to non-rational areas of mind that might otherwise be emerging.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"Yeah, I think that is the wide definition of the conception of telepathy of W. Burroughs, in which the information goes both ways. He often insists in the idea that what an artist do (or more generally a communicator of any kind) is to remind people what they already know."
Or, even further than this...such as the work of Dawkins...in the profane "scientific" community. The ideas of "collectivity" are very old...spirits and such. To remind someone of "something that they already know" is a slippery slope. When is the transfer to a priori knowledge? Is there such a thing?
"Telepathy" is an interesting word. It involves communication without speech? Could this be a meme? Could this be like the phenomenon related to mass hysteria? Or, its sister, mass media?
Can you explain what you mean by "telepathy"?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I think that likely is not true. Excess of knowledge (in the individual) tends to (a) reduce the inner necessity to access transcendant faculties and (b) outright block access to non-rational areas of mind that might otherwise be emerging."
Hell yes.
That's been my experience, at least.
But, we're talking about two different kinds of "knowledge", correct? Ruach as opposed to Neshamah?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I think that likely is not true. Excess of knowledge (in the individual) tends to (a) reduce the inner necessity to access transcendant faculties and (b) outright block access to non-rational areas of mind that might otherwise be emerging."
Yeah I agree, talking in the individual case.
@Frater 639 said
"Or, even further than this...such as the work of Dawkins...in the profane "scientific" community. The ideas of "collectivity" are very old...spirits and such. To remind someone of "something that they already know" is a slippery slope. When is the transfer to a priori knowledge? Is there such a thing?
"Telepathy" is an interesting word. It involves communication without speech? Could this be a meme? Could this be like the phenomenon related to mass hysteria? Or, its sister, mass media?
Can you explain what you mean by "telepathy"?"
"Telepathy" was related to the comunication mentioned which goes in both ways.. I´m sorry I couldn´t explain it better right now, as that of the "a priori knowledge".. Maybe, personally, I´ve always found more affinity with the ideas that I first think by my own, and then after that read something that say the same thing.. But maybe it´s not exaclty like that.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"Maybe, personally, I´ve always found more affinity with the ideas that I first think by my own, and then after that read something that say the same thing.. But maybe it´s not exaclty like that."
Teasing apart (or putting it back together?) the Ego and the Non-Ego is a part of the Work.
-
Frater 639:
"Teasing apart (or putting it back together?) the Ego and the Non-Ego is a part of the Work.
"Wat? I don´t understand.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"Wat? I don´t understand."
In this context, I was referring to an aspect of the Great Work. If you are not familiar with that term, this site provides valuable information as to what that is, as well as elucidation of techniques and milestones of the achievements associated with it. As an example, this thread in particular has a wealth of information.
Read up and, most of all, have fun!
-
No no.. I know that, I mean I didn’t understand the context in what you said that. I think maybe you misinterpreted something, anyway I was not much clear: I was referring to the “a priori knowledge” mentioned with the sentence you quoted, I was trying to explain it in some way:
"Maybe, personally, I´ve always found more affinity with the ideas that I first think by my own, and then after that read something that say the same thing.. But maybe it´s not exaclty like that."
In any case, no problem bro.