The Matter and Semantic of Spirits.
-
A problem I face: I have a great deal of "chunneled" material, from a variety of states, many of them "half" drunk, which can, in a certain sense, be entertaining, but in a sensibility "unkempt dog fur"... I don't want to annoy any, but I don't want to leave my philosopher stone unalloyed?
What do I do, as specific a question could ask?
"Row by line"- Puscifer
-
"The Matter and Semantic of Spirits"- hahahahaha brilliante my good sir, that is a glory-filled pixel-tiled title in the land of confusion. Such a cypher is as enlightening on matters of confusion as it is confusing upon lighted areas of "that which has been thought... and thought again"!
-
@Zazazas214 said
"A problem I face: I have a great deal of "chunneled" material, from a variety of states, many of them "half" drunk, which can, in a certain sense, be entertaining, but in a sensibility "unkempt dog fur"... I don't want to annoy any, but I don't want to leave my philosopher stone unalloyed?
What do I do, as specific a question could ask? "
Again - the method of the A.'.A.'. is pretty consistent: Write it down as "this is what happened." Don't draw any conclusions about it (at least, no final conclusions). Presume it's relevant (after all, it came through to you when it did), but don't regard it as true (or, for that matter, false).
It's not so much a communication as a diary entry.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I believe you have started with a conceptual flaw because of the similarity of two words: You repeatedly aggregate "Spirit" with "spirits." I think that's (at best) a barrier to easy understanding. At worst, it's just a linguistic blunder equivalent to confusing "ocean" with "fish.""
Hello Jim, thank you for engaging this topic. Sorry if my post was unclear here - I am curious about the word [spirit] - and [spirits], as well as their various meanings used in various contexts. Sure, I can see how Spirit is one thing and spirits another. Clearly both ocean and fish share something in common, i.e. water - and I am contemplating everything the roots of these words can mean and share. For example, in German mind translates as 'geist' which also translates as spirit. Spirit and or Spirits proper seem to have broad usage and broader meaning, I'm exploring crunching down the semantics into hopefully something objective.
""Spirits," in practice, just means "some sort of low-level astral critters, characterized by having some sort of ill-defined existence and not being perceptible to human physical senses." Their physical insensibility and their relatively low-hierarchical (low-vibrational) standing are their two distinguishing characteristics, as a class."
In the practice of western magick, yes this is how I understand the context as well, however in other traditions, 'spirits' can mean something much broader, not sure if I would classify the experience of the plant 'spirits' of, for example, amazonian vegatalismo - or the earth spirits of Shinto with the low level vibrational astral critters that are vaguely defined in the west. Curious thing still they all share the 'word' in common, at least when translated into English.
""Spirit," though having a very far-reaching use, in most contexts is used to mean a very high, pure, uncontaminated, undifferentiated spiritual substance (to pick the most convenient word). So one thing that (inb most conversations) distinguishes the words right off the bad in practice is the distinction between low-level and high/pure level."
Sure, a common theme found, I can see that used in this context. Yet, like you mentioned, ocean and fish, they share water in common - while Spirit and Spirits, and including all gods and angels, plant spirits, water spirits, sylphs, gnomes, what have you also all seem to share something of substance, or non substance as the case may be, in common. This part leads me to inquire the relationship to the word spirt/spirits and what they all share in common in terms of their existence.
I'm exploring what the objective validity of this particular phenomenon could be, across all philosophies and all esoteric practices. A heady exercise to be sure
"We can't even say that they share the quality of immateriality."
Not sure I understand how you mean this - if we postulate the existence of gods, angels, spirits as being immaterial, then they share information (non substance) in common, however something is still shared amongst them as a phenomenon even if vaguely defined, would you agree?
"That central to the linguistic relationship, but not to the philosophical one. That is, historically (especially, but not exclusively, within the theology of the Catholic church) "Spirit" was postulated in exclusive opposition to "matter." Spirit vs. matter - the root duality of historic philosophy. "
Yes, exactly - and perhaps the root of the word used in that context takes on a unique form and away from how you defined above.
"But that usage has tended to dry up among magicians and many others who deal with things outside of the framework of physical sensory perception."
I'm still not sure if I understand how you are spinning this, because it reads to me like we are seeing the same thing. Gods, Spirits, angels, etc all exist outside of the framework of physical sensory perception and share that same set of information, even if vaguely defined.
"The Golden Dawn, for example, used Spirit indistinguishably from the Hindu Akasha. I'm not sure that's explicitly stated anywhere, but it's implicit in many basic things. In particular, the "spirit"(or Fifth Element) grade, the Portal, makes clear in its formulae that the "fifth thing" with which they are dealing is both (1) that into which the four elements resolve in balanced unity and (2) that from which they emerged and differentiated to begin with. In other words, Akasha. (The Theosophical roots of Westcott and Mathers showed in this one.) This is quite different than the spirit vs. matter usage because (1) matter, including physical matter, is included in that which emerges from and resolves into the Quintessence, and (2) many nonmaterial (psychological) levels are included along with physical matter in that which emerges from and resolves into it."
I see what you mean here, but would not necessarily agree that these usages of 'spirit' refer to distinct things, it just means that they are organized distinctly.
"The main thing I have intended to demonstrate here is that collating "spirits" with "Spirit" in the same conversation is a probable setup for confusion; and that "Spirit" is one of those "problem words" that often gets ignored or side-stepped in thoughtful venues because it is usually ill-defined and potentially has several highly distinctive meanings."
Oh yes, exactly, that's what I am exploring in particular here. All of these phenomenon (and layers of meaning) are still sharing something distinct in common, other than just the words, even if vaguely defined. If this is true in some sense, then it means that perhaps there is something objective we can learn about the whole lot, outside of the world of magick and mysticism but still squarely in the realms of philosophy.
"
@ldfriend56 said
"Crowley wanted Magick to appeal to the chemist and to the physicist, who would naturally be the most inclined to question the nature of spirit."But that's not the only reason for his positions. There is also the opposite side, where metaphysicians and occultists and religionists and magicians and mystics and spiritualists (then and now) so often abuse words like "spirit" because of failing to carefully define what they mean. "
sure, I can see that, yet unlikely that occultists would question the existence of a spiritual realm with spiritual beings, regardless of classifications, the same way a material scientist or philosopher would. A materialist philosopher (by which I mean scientists as well) would gather more from a direct encounter with intelligences of a subtle realm than just a theory, story, or rumor about them coming from occultists, all of who have different meanings and semantics and often hardly even agree with each other.
"A question for you: In practice, what does it matter? In all these decades, I can't think of a single time the answer to that question has ever mattered to me. "
Oh , it doesnt matter in terms of magick or mystical practices. It only matters in this particular quality of study I am giving it at this time, more of a philosophical wandering. I am seeking a higher understanding at this time I guess, a broader philosophy that can account for not only these practices, but also the objective nature of humanity inside of the universe. This is how I address this in more philosophical terms, i.e. who are we, where are we from, where are we going etc etc. I dont have my answer yet, but i know the qualities of the answer and it must be balanced with art and science and should be elegant and simple in it's summary.
"One does a certain thing and certain things result. In time, spiritual (by which, here, I mean progressively inward-reaching) perceptions grow to where one sees both the actuality and the complexity of the issue pretty clearly, and realizes one would have to write a small book of establishing premises and special language before one could elegantly, simply state something about the question: And stating it still wouldn't matter, in any meaningful way, to another human being, so it's not worth the effort.
"In the case of spiritual growth, who could argue with that. However, I am not seeking spiritual understanding of these things as much as I am seeking a broader objective understanding of the phenomenon at large and how it relates to humanity proper. Perhaps my pursuit here contains much folly, i cannot yet say but hope to find out one way or another
"
"So what are spirits in and of themselves independent of our ideas and experiences about them?"I intentionally don't answer this question. I could answer it equally well in at least two seemingly-opposite directions, neither of which would be fully honest or complete. Besides, answering it screws with the head of the student coming along, so (my main purpose being to teach) I think it important not to pin it down."
ah ha! this is precisely the barrier/boundary I'm exploring here. But sure, I can see how this could be disruptive and I understand your position in not exploring this further with me in a place of public media.
My broader picture that I am formulating is not seeking to keep matter and spirit apart, but rather simply redefine what is shared and personal in the realms both understood as material and spiritual.
Spirits, for example, maybe indistinguishable from ideas meaning that to the materialist, ideas may be more than they appear. The appearance of ideas and the roles ideas shape in individuals and society apparently may even be made of the same stuff as spirits and angels and at a certain point, I'm not sure I can make any philosophical distinctions here, which is how I found myself coming to this community to explore this aloof abstraction. Thanks Jim! your always insightful and I appreciate your time.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Zazazas214 said
"If you can use a stereo or program a VCR, then you'll be able to contact spirts"If you can get mildly drunk and 'zone out" and let your mind wander, you will be able to contact spirits. That's never a problem. (The problem is controlling the interaction.)"
well this happens all the time with people, yet they do not report experiences with spirits under such circumstances, and in this instance refer to these states simply as being stoned or drunk and helping them access perhaps certain levels of creativity, i.e. they get some ideas about things
-
@Zazazas214 said
""The Matter and Semantic of Spirits"- hahahahaha brilliante my good sir, that is a glory-filled pixel-tiled title in the land of confusion. Such a cypher is as enlightening on matters of confusion as it is confusing upon lighted areas of "that which has been thought... and thought again"!"
I was hoping someone would get it
-
Some my find this article interesting in this context. Steve Beyer gives the subject matter a good tackle
www.ayahuasca.com/spirit/primordial-and-traditional-culture/what-are-spiri
-
@ldfriend56 said
"I am curious about the word [spirit] - and [spirits], as well as their various meanings used in various contexts. Sure, I can see how Spirit is one thing and spirits another. Clearly both ocean and fish share something in common, i.e. water - and I am contemplating everything the roots of these words can mean and share. For example, in German mind translates as 'geist' which also translates as spirit. Spirit and or Spirits proper seem to have broad usage and broader meaning, I'm exploring crunching down the semantics into hopefully something objective."
In almost every language, words for "breath" and "mind" (including very abstract 'spiritual' aspects of mind) are the same word, or words from the same roots. Heck, even a ghost is a gust. It's true in Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Germanic languages, and at least three separate times in Hebrew - just for starters.
"not sure if I would classify the experience of the plant 'spirits' of, for example, amazonian vegatalismo - or the earth spirits of Shinto with the low level vibrational astral critters that are vaguely defined in the west."
Oh, I certainly would! Plant spirits are so low-vibration that they're nearly organic. (They might even BE organic compounds rather than non-material.) - I hope you know that by "low-vibration" I don't mean "evil, bad, crappy," etc. Rather, I mean the same thing that is meant when we say the vibratory rate of ice is lower than that of water, which in turn is lower than that of steam.
"Yet, like you mentioned, ocean and fish, they share water in common "
No, you exactly missed the point: Ocean and fish don't "share water in common." Ocean IS water (or, alternately, water is the substance of what saturates the context called "ocean"). Fish are animals that occupy and live in water. That's exxentially the difference between Spirit and spirits.
"I'm exploring what the objective validity of this particular phenomenon could be, across all philosophies and all esoteric practices. A heady exercise to be sure
"Heady indeed! That was part of my original point: It doesn't serve much (or anything) but the head. I suppose that makes it useful if you are undertaking practices in gnana yoga.
"
"We can't even say that they share the quality of immateriality."Not sure I understand how you mean this - if we postulate the existence of gods, angels, spirits as being immaterial, then they share information (non substance) in common, however something is still shared amongst them as a phenomenon even if vaguely defined, would you agree?"
I went on to explain: The way that Spirit is used in magick (identical with Akasha), it includes physical matter. Therefore, one can't say that Spirit has an inherent quality of immateriality unless you regress back to that by definition - by defining that spirit is at odds with matter.
"If this is true in some sense, then it means that perhaps there is something objective we can learn about the whole lot, outside of the world of magick and mysticism but still squarely in the realms of philosophy."
"Something objective we can learn... squarely in the realms of philosophy"
Since when is there anything objective purely within the realms of thought?
-
thanks for participating in this exercise jim!
"In almost every language, words for "breath" and "mind" (including very abstract 'spiritual' aspects of mind) are the same word, or words from the same roots. Heck, even a ghost is a gust. It's true in Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Germanic languages, and at least three separate times in Hebrew - just for starters."
yes, I'm intrigued by this
"Plant spirits are so low-vibration that they're nearly organic. (They might even BE organic compounds rather than non-material.) - I hope you know that by "low-vibration" I don't mean "evil, bad, crappy," etc. Rather, I mean the same thing that is meant when we say the vibratory rate of ice is lower than that of water, which in turn is lower than that of steam."
I assume you are using vibration as a metaphor for something and not something of any sort of objective measurement.
"No, you exactly missed the point: Ocean and fish don't "share water in common." Ocean IS water (or, alternately, water is the substance of what saturates the context called "ocean"). Fish are animals that occupy and live in water. That's exxentially the difference between Spirit and spirits."
I get your metaphor of ocean and fishes to spirit and spirits - however not sure we are looking at things the same way after that. Both fish and oceans are products of water, clearly. You cannot separate a fish from water no more than you can separate an ocean from water. Water is a compound they share in common for their very existence. Oceans are more than just water as in H20, it is comprised of animals, plants, various chemicals, salts, minerals, etc. Fish are also composed mainly of water but also other chemicals and organic compounds. Ocean and fish share a set of information called 'h20'.
lol - The Fishes are in the Ocean, not the Ocean in the Fishes
(sorry could not resist the opportunity for a little liber al humor)"Heady indeed! That was part of my original point: It doesn't serve much (or anything) but the head. I suppose that makes it useful if you are undertaking practices in gnana yoga."
Well I'm enjoying the pursuit and thanks for going through this with me.
"I went on to explain: The way that Spirit is used in magick (identical with Akasha), it includes physical matter. Therefore, one can't say that Spirit has an inherent quality of immateriality unless you regress back to that by definition - by defining that spirit is at odds with matter."
I'm not sure what to make of any definition of Spirit, immaterial or otherwise nor do I have one i favor at this time - my only point is that spirits/spirit/gods/angels of any sense share something in common with the 'supernatural' order of things as opposed to the physical order of things in the realms of the senses which appear to have objective measurement. I dont know for sure what that set of common information is yet, that's what I'm currently exploring here.
maybe I am doing Gnana yoga
"Since when is there anything objective purely within the realms of thought?"
I think we may be mixing the planes a bit here? By objective I mean 'shared' information. There is nothing about dreams for example that is objective in nature and hardly two dreams could ever be alike, however most sentient beings dream and therefore there must be something 'shared' in the essence of dreaming for all sentient beings to participate in the experience for us to call them 'dreams' in the first place. I'm trying to find the shared information between Spirit, Spirits, Gods, Angels, Demons, etc. Low vibration intelligences and high vibration intelligences beyond the physical senses must share something in common for the metaphor of 'vibration' to be used amongst them.
-
@ldfriend56 said
" I assume you are using vibration as a metaphor for something and not something of any sort of objective measurement. "
No, not a metaphor. I intend a specific measurement. Now, I can't tell you what the thing is that we have to measure, or what device (aside from the human mind) would do the measuring. But I'm speaking of an actual vibrational shift, essentially the same as the vibratory rate difference between a solid, a liquid, and a gas. There is the same variety of "progressive rarification" as one moves from Assiah to Yetzirah to Briah to Atziluth.
"Both fish and oceans are products of water, clearly."
No. Not clearly. Oceans aren't a "product of water" (and, even if you can twist the words that way, they certainly aren't a "product of water" the way fish are ("produce of the sea"). Oceans ARE water."You cannot separate a fish from water no more than you can separate an ocean from water."
I have fish separated from water all the time, sitting right on my plate. They are two different things. Where my fish are, water is not! (Well, except in my glass. And that isn't ocean water!)
"Water is a compound they share in common for their very existence."
Uh, no. Ocean IS water. Hence the use of the words "the waters" to specifically mean "the oceans."
Fish (like, say, humans) have some water running through them. There are fish without water (say, on my plate). There is no ocean without water anymore than there is atmosphere without air.
"I'm not sure what to make of any definition of Spirit, immaterial or otherwise nor do I have one i favor at this time - my only point is that spirits/spirit/gods/angels of any sense share something in common with the 'supernatural' order of things as opposed to the physical order of things in the realms of the senses which appear to have objective measurement."
This, of course, is not what you said you were talking about. We've been running around in circles when you really wanted to talk about something else.
OK. That makes it easy. I'm done here.
"
"Since when is there anything objective purely within the realms of thought?"I think we may be mixing the planes a bit here? By objective I mean 'shared' information."
You have a tendency to use words for something other than their actual meaning. That has nothing to do with the meaning of objective. (Which is all the more infuriating because you said you were interested in definitions. In truth, you don't really give a shit what words mean.)
So... thanks for wasting my time (he said sarcastically).
-
Hm.
Two things I have noted in your debate besides what has already been said.
One, I do not agree with J.E. that asking oldfriends question is mostly limiting and confusing oneself, especially in the beginning. I understood his question as an attempt to produce an empirical, predictive model about what entities of the mostly nonmaterial persuasion actually are. (In a purely functional way; I agree with J.E. in that it doesn't make sense to get into philosophical knots about the "real existence" of such entities. But then, I would apply the same logic to everything else) What has happened to "Reaching the aim of religion with the method of science", J.E.? (If I have misunderstood some of what any of you two had to say on the subject, so sorry, would then be thankful to be enlightened upon my misinterpretation).
Second, I do think that there are different plains of existence ontologically, the plain of the subjective (nearly not intersubjective, happens only to me) and the objective (nearly intersubjective, happens to everyone nearly the same way). And the kind of entities debated here seem to fall into a third category, a partially intersubjective one, and however you choose to call it, that I find fascinating. This third category is one western culture has largely declared nonexistent, some other and older cultures used it but without, it seems to me, any deeper understanding than "if I press this button, roughly that will happen, and beyond that there be dragons".
So I think it is an interesting question, and want to point out respectfully that both of you seem to have hung yourselves up on symantics, and have debated something without checking first what the other one actually meant by their terms, such as in "Spirit" (as in the environment of, amongst many other phenomena, spirits) and "spirits" (under which you two meant different rungs of an evolutionary ladder of entities of the "third kind" if I may use my own definition from above).
Hope to contribute, I find the topic quite interesting myself
Simon
-
@Simon Iff said
"What has happened to "Reaching the aim of religion with the method of science", J.E.?"
Since you asked...
Crowley didn't really mean "science." He picked the wrong word. He meant "empiricism." That is, his actual examples of it boil down to "try stuff, observe results, draw conclusions," or "just observe what works." He didn't employ the "formulate hypothesis, test, prove or disprove hypothesis," and he didn't much care for theory (in the specialized way that the word is used in science).
In brief, his "The Method of Science - The Aim of Religion" wouldn't care what "spirits" are, but would only care that a magician could do XYZ and interact with them.
"(If I have misunderstood some of what any of you two had to say on the subject, so sorry, would then be thankful to be enlightened upon my misinterpretation)."
Either way, that's cool. It furthers discussion
"So I think it is an interesting question, and want to point out respectfully that both of you seem to have hung yourselves up on symantics"
Semantics is the subject of the original question. I do try to address the actual question presented, and this question was specifically about semantics.
"and have debated something without checking first what the other one actually meant by their terms"
Maybe I could have taken even more time to specifically inquire. I did, however, start with the exact point of clarifying definitions and in talking about the problem of definition with that word. I agree with you that this is pivotal.
-
Jim! although your response is quite the snippity retort, I still believe there is much to learn from you
"No, not a metaphor. I intend a specific measurement. Now, I can't tell you what the thing is that we have to measure, or what device (aside from the human mind) would do the measuring. But I'm speaking of an actual vibrational shift, essentially the same as the vibratory rate difference between a solid, a liquid, and a gas. There is the same variety of "progressive rarification" as one moves from Assiah to Yetzirah to Briah to Atziluth."
Sorry to nitpick here, but I scrolled to the bottom of your post before I responded, where you mentioned I do not understand the meaning of words, especially the word objective. Yikes! my understanding of one of my fav words is under attack! Yet you begin telling me that there is a specific measurement of spirit as a vibration. Vibrations, as defined, are; " mechanical phenomenon whereby oscillations occur about an equilibrium point. The oscillations may be periodic such as the motion of a pendulum or random such as the movement of a tire on a gravel road." Yet then you say you can't tell me what this thing is that would be measured, which tells me you personally therefore have never measured it. I don't see how this could be any more of an assumption, even if an appropriate one. It's certainly not objective philosophically by any means objective is defined other than the statement is viewable online and could have varying truth values.
Perhaps if one were to say; 'based on my experience, we can think of spirits like oscillating vibrations, each with an unique frequency, measurement or tone, whereas each tone would represent the unique intelligence of that spirit' we would be being more objective about our own position.
Just sayin'
" Oceans aren't a "product of water" (and, even if you can twist the words that way, they certainly aren't a "product of water" the way fish are ("produce of the sea"). Oceans ARE water."
Oceans are LARGE bodies of fluids, salt and water to be specific here on earth, but methane or something else elsewhere, organized between land masses, and contain much more than just h20 - not sure why this is so hard to understand, but it goes back to this objectivity thing you seemed upset about. If I have to list the ingredients of an ocean objectively, I can assure you the list will extend beyond h20. My cup is filled with water, but it's not an ocean nor is it ocean water.
I know your making a few assumptions on how I am defining things and you mention a concern of me straying from definitions. Water is defined objectively, scientifically, as h20. You need no more than h20 to have water. To have an ocean, you need more than just h20
Oceans; defined as the word ocean
1.) the vast body of salt water that covers almost three fourths of the earth's surface.
- any of the geographical divisions of this body, commonly given as the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic oceans.
3.a vast expanse or quantity: an ocean of grass.
Perhaps, if you dont mind me making the offering - your point would be better served if you were to suggest "Hey Olpal56 - think of Spirt and Spirits like Water and Fishes" you would not only find perfect agreement, but perhaps a new line of in query.
"I have fish separated from water all the time, sitting right on my plate. They are two different things. Where my fish are, water is not! (Well, except in my glass. And that isn't ocean water!)"
a dead fish on your plate no longer exists as a living breathing fish because it was removed from the water which gave it life and produced it. You would not have it on your plate unless it came from water nor would it have it's life to offer you.
It's like it's operating at a different vibrational oscillation than an actual living fish
"Uh, no. Ocean IS water. Hence the use of the words "the waters" to specifically mean "the oceans.""
the waters can mean the ocean, yes, but oceans are not just water, objectively that is.
"Fish (like, say, humans) have some water running through them. There are fish without water (say, on my plate). There is no ocean without water anymore than there is atmosphere without air."
well regardless, remove water and you also remove living breathing fish which are solely a product of water, need water as a fundamental component of their existence, and like oceans but to a varying degree, share h20 in common with oceans.
water is NOT a product of ocean, there are vast clouds of water that exist in space and pre date oceans. oceans are formed from water and earth stuff. Oceans, like fish, are products of water. Oceans may be the 'grandmother' to the fish as a metaphor, but to say that an ocean IS water is simply not a complete statement about either oceans or water.
objectively speaking of course.
"This, of course, is not what you said you were talking about. We've been running around in circles when you really wanted to talk about something else."
Yikes! Jim this is an assumption on your part here and not a very objective statement about my communications and my topic of thoughtful speculation. I think you mis interpreted my first post and assumed a few things about my query, that is all - and I take partial responsibility so now I am focusing my communication so you can better see what I mean. That way we can perhaps share some information in common about spirit, spirits, which is currently a topic of objective philosophical inquiry for me, which apparently you do not approve of.
Somehow this appears to have offended or annoyed you
"OK. That makes it easy. I'm done here."
Alas, if only it were true. You are actually about to deliver your final blow to my quest to form a thesis regarding Spirt, Spirits - the matter and semantic thereof.
"You have a tendency to use words for something other than their actual meaning. That has nothing to do with the meaning of objective. (Which is all the more infuriating because you said you were interested in definitions. In truth, you don't really give a (****) what words mean.)"
well this is quite an honorable challenge here Jim, thank you!
funny thing about words, we all assume we use them in exact duplication as to our own personal understandings of what they mean to us. Although I would not define the word 'Objective' as 'shared information' - this is a philosophical definition, not a prescription for usage. I can most assure you Jim, if we want to understand what objective can truly mean philosophically, and certainly what I mean, Objective certainly MUST, and I mean MUST with a capital MUST - MUST refer or reference something shared. It is ONE thing that has MANY distint possible points of view to it.
It's like that metaphor often used - the three blind men who all touch and feel an elephant, yet all report a distinct phenomenon. The distinct phenomenon reported by each is very subjective, personal to each, yet it would not exist unless all three blind men shared the set of information we can reference as 'elephant' in common. Elephant is the purely objective information. that's not very easily nor readily accessed, on any plane I imagine.
I assume this discussion has troubled you enough not to engage me on this anymore.
I wonder what would happen if you stayed and we continued? I suggest that you and I would only begin to find some 'shared' information with each other and the various POV's of Spirit, Spirits and we could only do so by being honest and objective with each other.
-
@Simon Iff said
"So I think it is an interesting question, and want to point out respectfully that both of you seem to have hung yourselves up on symantics, and have debated something without checking first what the other one actually meant by their terms, such as in "Spirit" (as in the environment of, amongst many other phenomena, spirits) and "spirits" (under which you two meant different rungs of an evolutionary ladder of entities of the "third kind" if I may use my own definition from above)."
Yes thank you for your contribution here! fortunately the discussion took a u turn into word usage, however that is the original intention somewhat, the 'matter and semantic' of spirit. Let's tease these things apart and put them back together! For understanding sake, and for wisdom!
Funny, even the word semantic itself can be used differently. I use semantic to mean 'pure meaning' which is one level up from the actual word itself and can be expressed using a variety of language. Some people seem to use it to refer to language.
I dont use 'semantic' to mean language specifically, language is to semantic what fishes are to water
-
@Simon Iff said
"Hm.
Two things I have noted in your debate besides what has already been said.
One, I do not agree with J.E. that asking oldfriends question is mostly limiting and confusing oneself, especially in the beginning. I understood his question as an attempt to produce an empirical, predictive model about what entities of the mostly nonmaterial persuasion actually are. (In a purely functional way; I agree with J.E. in that it doesn't make sense to get into philosophical knots about the "real existence" of such entities. But then, I would apply the same logic to everything else) What has happened to "Reaching the aim of religion with the method of science", J.E.? (If I have misunderstood some of what any of you two had to say on the subject, so sorry, would then be thankful to be enlightened upon my misinterpretation)."
I think you did a far better job than I of defining my position! thank you. I too agree with the point that the philosophical meaning of the matter of existence of spirits is irrelevant to actually practicing magick, shamanism, mysticism, etc etc. I dont have any idea of what this phenomenon is yet and yet have found myself interacting with it on numerous occasions.
"
Second, I do think that there are different plains of existence ontologically, the plain of the subjective (nearly not intersubjective, happens only to me) and the objective (nearly intersubjective, happens to everyone nearly the same way). "Oh yes I see the same thing. It's also why I find liber al so intriguing, to me this is summarized as Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Liber Al, these two distinct levels of reality, or as I like to say, the two distinctions of environment. Nuit is our shared environment, the body of stars, while Hadit is our personal environment, the heart of the star itself. I believe this distinction is necessary to understanding other planes of existence and without this distinction, our understandings will be swamped in confusion with no understanding of any knowledge we may have.
"And the kind of entities debated here seem to fall into a third category, a partially intersubjective one, and however you choose to call it, that I find fascinating. This third category is one western culture has largely declared nonexistent, some other and older cultures used it but without, it seems to me, any deeper understanding than "if I press this button, roughly that will happen, and beyond that there be dragons"."
Well your getting me super excited here, we are on the same page it seems. Although the entities that most define both distinctions with the easiest of clarity is of course us human beings
Right now I am trying to find a most refined empirical definition of 'spirits' and am seeking to find, if there is one, a distinction between 'ideas', especially 'memes' and 'spirits'. Are spirits just metaphors for memes or are memes just metaphors for spirits?
-
@Dar es Allarah said
"Crowley said that it doesn't matter about whether spirits are real or not in order to practise magick. However - if you want to produce an empirical, predictive model about what entities actually are - then it matters a great deal. "
yes indeed. i find another thelemite that can explain my position better than I. I need to get myself more of this thelema
"For one - you have to check if the question contains any faulty presuppositions before you proceed to build the model. In this case then then you first have to check whether there's any such thing as a nonmaterial entity, and as Jim said: "the way that Spirit is used in magick (identical with Akasha), it includes physical matter". I think the Orch OR model of consciousness has validity above the threshold of reasonable doubt and so I would naturally reject the idea of non-material entities completely. Spacetime - down to a quantum level - has a physical existence in the Universe. Consciousness (and therefore spirit - see above defnition) is as much a quality of the Universe as Energy or Gravity, being a product of the interaction of the two - whether consciousness is located in a body or not."
Well I think here is where all the philosophical juice is and is actually the primary point of focus in the dialectic of consciousness in philosophy proper. Cartesian Dualism (spirit and matter) or materialism (spirit is matter, specifically, consciousness is just a state of the brain, i.e. there is no wonder tissue, there is no spirit, it's just the interaction of neurons and can be explained using chemistry and physics)
What I find intriguing in physics, especially when it is assumed consciousness can be explained by physics and chemistry, is the very definition of what 'matter' is has come to find itself in a slippery slope with Dark Matter and Dark Energy being used to explain keeping the universe together. I think we will find many shared distinctions between DM and DE, and the questions of Spirits, Matter, and consciousness. This is actually part of what I am exploring philosophically and where I am seeking a broader empirical map of Spirit, Spirits.
"I see little point in seeking to build a model upon a faulty presupposition that makes spirit an opposite quality of physical matter, unless you're engaged in writing fantasy fiction."
Again, quite a hot topic philosophically. Nothing of course pre supposes spirits being composed of subtle matter (like DM for example, or simply 'fields') - but there is also nothing that pre supposes that the material could not have a compliment in the immaterial. Both of these things really rest on how we understand and define 'material'. If by material we mean what is apparent to the physical senses, well that gets challenged of course by the advancements in science with QM and DM and DE. If by 'material' we mean that which reflects or emits light - then the whole question of 'material' is under attack, and referring to DM and DE and matter and energy at all is highly assumptive.
"On the other hand - if you do not make the presupposition that spirit is an opposite quality of physical matter, then you can do a great deal of modelling on what I like to call 'the Evolution of Consciousness' - starting with Paola Zizzi's work and the hypothesis that consciousness occurred at the start of the big bang - and continuing to chart it's evolutionary progress with the appearance of stars, planets, moons and asteroids, and then the evolution of consciousness in respect of living things the pre-cambian era, and the explosion of lifeforms possessing consciousness in the cambian era, (all in line with Darwinian evolution) - until the present day."
yes interesting stuff, but then we have to understand what we mean by 'consciousness' because now material reality in the emitting light sense is also consciousness and having an experience, which makes consciousness fundamental to the material - while the materialistic model makes the material fundamental to intelligence, which is then fundamental to consciousness.
these are very profound questions in philosophy proper. I dont have any clear answers yet, I do have some intuitions and very eager here to continue this exploration with you.
"When thought about in this way several classes of 'spirit' or consciousness naturally emerge. Just quickly and working out a rough and very basic model, these might be:
- An original consciousness that spans the entire universe (identitcal to a Universal 'God' conception).
- Different types of consciousness evolved by Stars, Planets and Moons (planetary spirits).
- A more complex and self-aware consciousness being developed by planets that have moons given the macrocosmic potential for such huge 'gaia/atman' like consciousness's to conceive of a self and an other, although solitary planets may be able to do this anyway as long as they orbit a star. However - the interaction of a planetary mind with it's moon or star would be of different qualities. But anyway- there is a high potential for differentiation of consciousness (more complex classes of planetary spirits).
- Planets In the Goldilocks zone - capable of sustaining life - evolve and differentiate their consciousness further and we see the emergence of Will in respect of lifeforms. (Spirits of plants, fungi, animals etc.)
- Recycling becomes necessary for further differentiation and certain lifeforms are tasked with the process of decay (spirits of 'hell').
- Further differentiation occurs over the aeons leading to increased individual and smaller conceptions of conscious entities with diverse qualities."
so fundamental to consciousness in your model is both experience and intelligence, yes?
"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. For the fun of consciousness!
"a great sport indeed! thank you
-
@Dar es Allarah said
"Oldfriend,
You seem to be engaged with bating Jim with a lot of involuted crap that has no bearing on your original question whatsoever. "
lol, well my response to Jim admittedly has as much bearing to my original question as his response does. But seriously, really? Crap? My original post said "I was hoping I could find a little engagement around a topic of deep philosophical study and contemplation for me right now - the matter of spirit/spirits. I'm hoping through an exchange between bright minds of Thelema, I and the community can come into a deeper level of understanding and wisdom regarding this word and it's meaning"
Far as I can tell, I am still on topic. What does the words Spirit and spirits refer to in their usage?
"What the hell was the point you were trying to make with your badly constructed fish/water/ocean metaphor when it comes to spirits?"
I think the metaphor of ocean to fishes and spirit and spirits, was, ahem, Jim's metaphor. I think my response to Jim's metaphor confused him as to my meaning in my query so I attempted further clarification.
I'm trying to be as clear as I can - this is tough territory to transverse here, you all have been helping me clarify and I thank you for it.
"I have endeavored to answer you enquiry above, but as you don't seem interested in the topic any longer and seem more engaged in compensating for what I can only imagine is a tragic phallic deficiency that drives you to make a prick of yourself on this forum - then perhaps this thread ought to be closed..."
I appreciate your answer. Sorry if this has been upsetting to you. Not my intention.
-
@Dar es Allarah said
"
@ldfriend56 said
"Are spirits just metaphors for memes or are memes just metaphors for spirits?"Only if you're being spectacularly narrow minded."
Really? how so? If I am being narrow minded, I would appreciate any assistance in my expansion of the topic. What specifically is narrow minded about asking the question?
"Seriously - is that the best you have to put on the table for debate? "
I did not come here with the intention of debating what spirits are or are not. I came here seeking further understanding from a philosophical perspective, outside of the realm of magick and shamanism. The community here claims to have an understanding of Spirits and Spirit - I'm just trying to tease out the meanings
" No original thoughts of your own? Ok... that's right on par then.
"sheesh, no one asked me what I thought spirits or Spirit are. If you curious about my original thoughts on the matter, just ask
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Semantics is the subject of the original question. I do try to address the actual question presented, and this question was specifically about semantics."
Semantic means 'meaning' - not words specifically, which simply refer to meaning. Yes the subject matter is 'The Matter and Meaning of Spirits'. 'Matter' being a slight play on the words, as in the composition of spirits in a measurable sense, and the 'matter at hand' in the discussion, Spirits, by which I mean what do the words mean in relationship to the matter of what spirits are?
Sorry if this has proven to be a controversial and debatable topic.
"Maybe I could have taken even more time to specifically inquire. I did, however, start with the exact point of clarifying definitions and in talking about the problem of definition with that word. I agree with you that this is pivotal."
I agree it is pivotal - thank you for clarifying.
-
Let's found out what Spirit/spirits is/are "empirically."
conflicts with
Let's get there through philosophical discussion.
conflicts with
Let's also attempt to reason "independent[ly] of our ideas and experiences about them."
conflicts with
Let's also include all historic popular references from multiple languages in what we're considering.
You have created an impossible task for yourself.