Journal of Thelemic Studies
-
I came across this, might be worthwhile:
Journal of Thelemic Studies
The first academic, non-partisan journal dedicated to Thelema, the psycho-spiritual religious tradition of Aleister Crowley
www.thelemicstudies.comMaybe you guys already know it? New to me; apparently they have been around since 2007...
-
Run by IAO131.
Good stuff. Keen mind. Serious scholar. Holds to a more materialist perspective.
Been a while since I've seen him here.
-
93,
Thanks for the mention and the interest.
The Journal of Thelemic Studies came out with 4 issues (Vol.1 No.1 & 2; Vol.2 No.1 & 2) which can all be downloaded for free as PDFs from the website and hard-copies can be bought as well. There are no current plans to 're-start' the Journal but the idea has been kicked around several times. It is quite possible that it will live again in the next few years.
My other work can be seen at my website. I haven't written much lately because I am currently working on the 2nd edition of 'Naturalistic Occultism' and some other workings/essays that are not on that website.
93 93/93
IAO131 -
@Iugum said
"Me and him were very tight. I still see him on Facebook and I will occasionally run into him on Yahoo IM. He is very well spoken, well versed in psychology and world religions and he has always been completely serious and skeptical about everything which is a trait that most Occultists are in desperate need of. He was one of the first Thelemites that actually made sense to me. BTW, just as a side note to the OP; this journal has been going on for years and years (maybe like 3-4 years now?) and the author has assorted websites beyond just the JoTS."
These sentiments I echo vividly. IAO131 is the one who instilled into me: The Method of Science, the Aim of Religion. Kudos good Frater.
-
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"
@IAO131 said
"93,FWIW, the book is now available.
93 93/93"
The atomic symbol on the front is intriguing! Do you enter into a discussion about quantum biology and occult theories at all? It's something of a passion (in the modern sense of the word) with me.
93 93/93."
93,
Having studied physics I am of the opinion that 99.9% of people who use the word "quantum" before anything have no idea what they are talking about and are grasping at straws to try to justify their strange worldviews.
"What the Bleep do we know?" is a perfect example of this. A few theories of consciousness are also examples of this - Chalmers wrote "Perhaps the most popular "extra ingredient" of all [to theories of consciousness] is quantum mechanics (e.g. Hameroff 1994). The attractiveness of quantum theories of consciousness may stem from a Law of Minimization of Mystery: consciousness is mysterious and quantum mechanics is mysterious, so maybe the two mysteries have a common source."
Physics in general, but especially quantum mechanics, is a very, very difficult subject. Feynman once said "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." I don't think that if someone like Feynman can truly understand quantum mechanics, new agers/occultists with no background in physics have a chance.
I steer clear of physics entirely and focus on physiology (neurology specifically) and psychology. Sorry to be such a debbie downer.
93 93/93
b -
I would agree that the mystery of quantum theory and subsequent mechanics is what draws so many people.
Though I feel statements such as :
@Feynman said
" "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." "
are counter-productive.
It makes every yippie and yahoo want to formulate the "proper" or "correct" mechanic/theory.From my perspective, with a background in mathematics, I find most physicists are not entirely aware of what they are doing. They just pick and choose what formulas "work."
Not that mathematicians are in a better predicament. While we may agree that in such and such a situation y = x -2, things start to fall apart when the discussion turns to the HOW and WHY.
All of the above being a result of the disease of language. Being well versed in language is even more important, in my opinion, when dealing with Physics and Mathematics than, say, 'English(literature?)'. With the latter you can get creative, allude to things, take things out of context, use metaphors. In the case of the former, even the slightest altercation in a definition or methodology creates an entirely new definition or methodology: which happens far too frequently for my comfort.
-
@Dar es Alrah said
"Well - I suppose fans of Orch OR theory would argue that it isn't an 'extra' ingredient but a necessary development since quantum switching proteins have been discovered, not to mention the studies on the role of microtubules in Paramecium. In short - they'd point to the evidence.
But what really drew my initial attention wasn't anything mysterious - it was the news that your sense of smell is dependant upon a quantum process. That just wasn't something I felt I could hold my nose to.
But if your not in the mood to debate about that it's cool."
93,
Everything is dependent on quantum processes insofar as biology rests on chemistry which rests on quantum physics. Smell can be explained on all of these levels.
93 93/93
@Uni_Verse said
"I would agree that the mystery of quantum theory and subsequent mechanics is what draws so many people.
Though I feel statements such as :
@Feynman said
" "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." "
are counter-productive.
It makes every yippie and yahoo want to formulate the "proper" or "correct" mechanic/theory.From my perspective, with a background in mathematics, I find most physicists are not entirely aware of what they are doing. They just pick and choose what formulas "work."
Not that mathematicians are in a better predicament. While we may agree that in such and such a situation y = x -2, things start to fall apart when the discussion turns to the HOW and WHY.
All of the above being a result of the disease of language. Being well versed in language is even more important, in my opinion, when dealing with Physics and Mathematics than, say, 'English(literature?)'. With the latter you can get creative, allude to things, take things out of context, use metaphors. In the case of the former, even the slightest altercation in a definition or methodology creates an entirely new definition or methodology: which happens far too frequently for my comfort."
93,
The mathematics of physics is pragmatic. It doesn't care how or why, it only cares that the result is accurate. I dont think the statement that no one understands qm is counter-productive; on the contrary, I think it should make us humble in our attempts to formulate the 'right' theory.
93 93/93
-
@IAO131 said
"
The mathematics of physics is pragmatic. It doesn't care how or why, it only cares that the result is accurate
"I would agree the mathematics applied in physics is pragmatic in nature.
Though I do ponder how it manages to care at all
My comment had been a projection directed at physicists, based on personal experiences with the brood.
@IAO131 said
"
I dont think the statement that no one understands qm is counter-productive; on the contrary, I think it should make us humble in our attempts to formulate the 'right' theory.
"Being clearer of mind today, allow me to say this: At the time Feynman made that observation most of Quantum Mechanics was theoretical in nature ( not to say much has changed). It is only recently that "real" experimentation has been possible, thus creating a foundation by which we might understand the processes (from the perspective of Quantum Mechanics).