mystical voyeurism
-
@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.
-
Dar es Alrah:
"I think when you have a sufficiently good meta model of the universe then this complication disappears. Qabalah is a pretty good as a universal meta-model but there are something's that you can't hang on the tree, and it's that sort of knowledge that becomes 'blocking'. The tree provides for no explanations for why things are the way they are unless you are prepared to accept religious accounts of the creation of the universe or the place of consciousness in it.The tree describes. It does not explain. For someone with a scientific mind, that' an unacceptable state of affairs... so they have all this 'knowledge' they're assimilating but nowhere to hang it on their overall meta-model. Instead they end up with several different paradigms that are unable to be unified and assimilated in the individual, causing a sort of cognitive dissonance that can block him until such a time that they find one universal meta-model that is a sufficiently good map of the universe. A sufficiently good universal meta-model is one that allows for new explanations, data, knowledge of all kinds, to be easily assimilated into just that ONE universal meta-model, including the incorporation/explanation of transcendent faculties to it so that they remain open and use-able."
I agree in general. I assume that by "blocking knowledge" you´re talking about dogma, or, more than a sort of knowledge in special, the relationship that one have with knowledge in general (which on the other hand could be a specific sort of knowledge?). I refer to the fact of how for some people the greatest words of truth or freedom, or the scientific method even, can become pure dogma and lies. I´m pretty sure that if dogma is stayed ayaw, right (or superior, or whatever) knowledge has way to become progressively more and more clear.
-
Smoke, I wonder if you're using "knowledge" in a different way than I am (which would account for some seeming disparity). I'm careful to use "knowledge" as a technical term that excludes the transrational. My remarks explicitly presumed you meant "rational, intellectual knowledge" (which is redundant, but I stretched it to communicate <g>).