The Matter and Semantic of Spirits.

oldfriend56

Dr Freud!

Somewhat flattered I am still such a hot topic of discussion here...

"This is what he's asking: "What is the shared information between Spirit, spirits, gods, angels, demons, etc.."By "shared information" and "objective information" he means "substance," but he's trying to use a word that avoids the material/immaterial distinction. He wants to know what the substance is and how it becomes spirits. "

I would say that is a pretty good summary to start, but quickly begins to veer of course. I dont mean to use information as a placeholder for 'substance'. I am unsure if there is a shared substance and that is part of my query. I prefer to use 'shared' information because it seems more objective and devoid of philosophical assumptions.

"He thinks he doesn't have any biases, though, so don't be surprised when he challenges whatever you present and then accuses you of being attached to bias."

this one is a bit too quick off the draw. I'm pretty transparent about my biases.

"His bias is empiricism - that spirits can be classified using a system based in the lowest common denominator in humanity - that of sense experience. "

hmm, that's not what I am claiming, that is what I am seeking to see is possible. I also would not say I am biased towards empiricism - but I do appreciate it. I would say if I have a bias it would be more towards rational thinking and intuition, meaning any idea or solution must have an appeal to both. So you kind of half close.

Also, the point of my exercise is to build my own map, based on my own work, on my own language. I might come to the same conclusions as what is already out there.

"He's been told that to describe what spirits actually are would require the invention of some new vocabulary and would still be very difficult to communicate because it's not based in humanity's lowest common denominator of sense experience."

To me, that statement above is in the unknown category. not sure if it was put to me quite like that, however that sounds like a theory of spirits. If I was told this, was I supposed to accept it as true? I accept it as an unknown for now. I'm not so quick to shrug off that a model of spirits cannot be communicated in simple - or broader terms, maybe even modernized a bit.

"He ignored this, and persisted with his own bias, which he thinks he doesn't have. "

at this point, you're describing more of the oldfriend56 in your head than you are me....but the one in your head and me both share some information in common! but do we share substance in common?

"
@Oldfriend said
"I assume you are using vibration as a metaphor for something and not something of any sort of objective measurement. "

"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. "

Again, notice that the querent insists that spirits have something to them that is objectively measurable."

huh? I made no such claim and your misinterpreting me here.

" He, however, does not put forward any theories as to what such objectively measurable information is. But he insists both that it exists and that we should have the ability to describe it to him in empirical terms."

Now it's just you and olfriend56 in your head having your own kind of party, and didn't even invite me along.

"Also note from the above quote: "philosophical objectivity." The querent wants a philosophically derived and philosophically objective empirical map of the relationship between Spirit and spirits as well as between spirits and spirits. "

Rather, the querent wants to see how empirical a map of Spirit, Spirits can get, where it's boundaries are, etc etc

"Now, remember, anything but that, and* you're* just biased, unlike him. Because, of course, all this is* certainly* possible. "

I have never presented me as unbiased as anyone in this community as biased, ever, nor has it ever been implied. Any mention of bias towards ideas such as this I was quite careful to be honest and say either 'we' or 'us'.

"And if I am incorrect in my presentation, I certainly welcome and challenge OldFriend to clarify."

I say give it another roll. good first pass.

since you enjoy psychology, don't you find it interesting how easy it is for us to project online?

oldfriend56

@Frater Potater said

"It's true that this statement does not contain an exact question... but for what it's worth, I have been thinking a lot about this stuff too. I'm glad to see a thread come up on the subject, and would be disappointed if it doesn't actually go anywhere."

me too! Thank you for your patience, I hope I am communicating clearly and apologize if my communication seems a little gobled in places. It's part of the exercise for me coming here, to help me clarify to myself my own query. sometimes finding the appropriate question is harder than obtaining the answer.

oldfriend56

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@ldfriend56 said
"Well it would be great to understand the objective mysteries"

You're missing the meaning of "Mystery." The Mystery of a thing is that part that is unknowable. "

yes, I understand that is what mystery means

"

It doesn't fit within rational terms, is inherently indecipherable by most cognitive processes."

agreed. however it is quite rational to see that it is unknowable, and therefore foolhardy to project any meaning onto it

"

a One can pursue it - move closer to it - move through one's own projections about them and other veils. "

yes, wonderful work and a big part of my practice

"

The value of Mysteries is that one constantly pursues them, moves into them - and thus moves past one's own perception and cognition limitations. The value is both in what is unknown, and what is unknowable . The ultimately unknowable is the most true of a thing."

this is a core element in my own personal philosophy, writings, and life's work. When I said "it would be great to understand the objective mysteries" that's me referring exactly to what you stated. What are the pure unknowns as opposed to my own personal veils shielding me from them.

but yet again, the only response i get has more to do with an assumption about me....(tear)

oldfriend56

@Jim Eshelman said

"This is probably a very astute, cogent, and accurate assessment."

lol, you mean "hopefully this is a very astute, cogent, and accurate assessment"

"

I see no reason to engage him further unless HE embraces this. "

that seems a little unfair and to be honest, somewhat abusive - but I dont take it personally!

"

I won't have any further conversation with him unless he agrees (concretely and precisely) what we're talking about, so that every detail of interchange thereafter (in that thread) can be referred to that starting definition"

well I did that and you only responded with how much I dont understand something. How is it I have to not understand so much for a few people here to share some information or thoughts on the matter?

@Bereshith said

"He wants to know what the substance is and how it becomes spirits.
There is only one substance in the universe. You can express or describe this in various ways - e.g., in material terms, as diverse kinds of quanta interacting and vibrating at different rates and mixing in different combinations and relationships - but, mostly, those details don't matter. The Mysteries tend to call it "The One Substance," thereby expressing its most important characteristic without getting bogged down in other labels."

"

This One Substancer exists at different states of vibration. "Vibration" may ultimately turtn out not to be the right word, but, so far, it serves pretty much everything in physics (down to the most subtle levels - "plucked strings"), and, at the very least, it gives a conceptual way to talk about the matter that doesn't require post-graduate math. The analogy - no, actually, it's not an analogy, it's an actuality - but the path to entering an understanding of this is to leverage our knowledge that molecular velocity (rate of vibration; essentially, heat) is the only distinction between ice, water, and steam; or between iron and molten iron; or between mercury and mercury vapor. Increase the particle velocity - and you move from the most tenuous forms of matter (gas) into energy. (That's basically what E=MC{2} says.) And so forth."

I'm following that vibrations work in physics which cover material reality down to the quantum level. Unsure if this covers the world of DM or DE, but that's just my own lack of knowledge. Unsure if this applies to the spiritual realms, although I accept that is what you are suggesting.

"

These rates of vibration exist in "bands" that we can call all sorts of things - states, worlds, dimensions, or whatever - even though the gradual increase of vibration is continous. For example, the "line" between red and orange doesn't exactly exist (they're just a different rate of vibration), because there are infinite gradations of red-orange in between; however, the dividing line between "below visible light," "visible light," and "above visible light" is quite dramatic (if slightly varied per perceiving organism). Physicists, similarly, have divided the EM spectrum into larger categories above and below visible light. These each have different characteristics, despite the smooth continuity of vibrational change along the spectrum.

So: There is one substance, and it exists across a continuum of vibration, with different "bands" of that continuum having more or less common characteristics."

okay I am following

"

"Spiritual beings" are formed from "spiritual substance" exactly the same way that "physical beings" are formed from "physical substance." "

so spiritual substance and physical substance are distinct, yet somehow apart of one substance. Am I following Jim correctly here? Hoping someone can chime in since Jim is unlikely to respond.

"

At least some types of beings exist on multiple planes simultaneously; for example, humans (among others) are physical, astral, intellectual, and 'spiritual' beings (I use the latter in a reserved sense, not in the broad "not material" sense - since astral and intellectual levels are also "not material" if we mean physical matter). "

what can material mean other than physical matter?

"

All things we can perceive have vibrations, so they are all "living." OTOH, not all things have the appearance of having their various layers concentric to a distinctive sense of existence. But that's a whole other topic.

Hopefully this simplifies, rather than confuses, the matter."

we have one substance with two clear distinctions, spiritual substance and physical substance. Is that a simplified summary or over simplified?

"
It's all there in the sentence: Spiritual beings" are formed from "spiritual substance" exactly the same way that "physical beings" are formed from "physical substance." "

so we have some sort of a spiritual/physical coupling here, not unlike the dialogue between the immaterial/material. My question is that the physical stuff is easy to define, and find. What is the spiritual substance?

I am still seeing a dialectic here between one world and another world. One property and another property. My questioning takes me to this place...What is our grand environment which contain both properties and what is our role in it that we seek help from spirits yet they seek no help from us?

"Now - having enjoyed this interchange with you - I wait to see if OF will similar pin down, in a sentence or two, what he is asking or affirming, as a precise point of departure for anything going forward."

donzo.

Simon Iff

I wanted to write something concerning this topic, but understood that there is a lot of talking at cross-purposes going on, including my own interest in the topic. Methinks a lot of different experiences, levels of experience, terminologies, taxonomies, and to top it off also different models in the backs of heads are crashing into each other here.

My impression is that there are three points of view at war here (potentially creatively at war):

Oldfriend ...

Oldfriend wants an exploration of what in his terminology is termed "spirits", by anecdotal evidence I interpret, to arrive at some sort of taxonomic system to describe the nature and objectivity (or not) of human interaction with his definition of "spirits".
Oldfriend has not decided on a favourite model of consciousness as he seems to be of the persuasion that there are too many and the data available does not sufficiently allow selection between them, at least as far as the question of what he defines as "spirits" is regarded.
Oldfriend is more theoretically oriented I speculate, his questions are not coming from a big heap of experiences but more from theoretical considerations. Or at least it seems to me that way reading the thread.

Dar es Allarah ...

Dar es Allarah wishes Oldfriend to stop going in philosophical circles, as Dar es Allarah perceives Oldfriend as doing so, and this makes her angry.
Dar es Allarah has a favorite theory of consciousness that has its merits and is one of the few that link quantum ontology, neuropsychology and therefore perhaps psychic phenomena into one whole, and wants to work on the question, if at all, from that model outwards.
Dar es Allarah has some kind of relation between some kind of practical experience with "spirits" (which she interprets as "part of the human mind" if I'm not mistaken) and the model she thinks is best to attack the problem with.

J.E. ...

J.E. sees all this from a very hands-on, practising and practical perspective and wishes for Oldfriend to please clarify what exactly it is that he wants and to define that properly, as otherwise he has the impression of wasting his time here.
J.E. has a favourite theory of consciousness that is rooted in lots of practise with Liber 777 and its elaborations and suggests to simply use this as far as terminology and taxonomy are concerned.
J.E. is more interested in the functional use of "spirits" (in his definition) than in theoretically expounding them.

So, at least I got to a (quite speculative) theory of at least three spirits

@Jim Eshelman said

"The Mystery of a thing is that part that is unknowable. It doesn't fit within rational terms, is inherently indecipherable by most cognitive processes. One can pursue it - move closer to it - move through one's own projections about them and other veils. The value of Mysteries is that one constantly pursues them, moves into them - and thus moves past one's own perception and cognition limitations. The value is both in what is unknown, and what is unknowable . The ultimately unknowable is the most true of a thing."

I find that to be one of the best definitions of the term "Mystery", if I may say so.

@Dar es Allarah said

"For anyone else interested in consciousness, you might find this talk by nobel prize winner, Professor Roger Penrose - interesting.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=f477FnTe1M0

and also -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEpUIcOodnM&feature=related

and the implications of this are discussed with Deepak Chopra -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPMwuc0Us_U&feature=relmfu

A series that discusses reincarnation - the hard problem of consciousness, qualia, life after death, etc. - The *philosophical *implications."

Sounds interesting, Penrose, always good - will do (watch, that is).

@ldfriend56 said

"... Conscious Entities. It's one of my favs. www.consciousentities.com It lists a few other popular models of consciousness along with Penrose."

Also interesting - will have a look too.

I finish with the observation - that includes everyone and me too - that having one's pet model in mind, however good it may be or is - has it's dangers. It might stop listening to others who would have something useful to say or to ignorance of some empirical data that might show up.

And no one should claim they have no models. You cannot have no model. I hope none of you guys think that this is air that you are breathing

Cheers

Simple (?) Simon

oldfriend56

@Simon Iff said

"I wanted to write something concerning this topic, but understood that there is a lot of talking at cross-purposes going on, including my own interest in the topic. Methinks a lot of different experiences, levels of experience, terminologies, taxonomies, and to top it off also different models in the backs of heads are crashing into each other here.

My impression is that there are three points of view at war here (potentially creatively at war):"

ideas are always at war, that is an intrinsic part of their nature.

"

Oldfriend ...

Oldfriend wants an exploration of what in his terminology is termed "spirits", by anecdotal evidence I interpret, to arrive at some sort of taxonomic system to describe the nature and objectivity (or not) of human interaction with his definition of "spirits"."

close, though I am not sure I have yet my own working definition of spirits.

"

Oldfriend has not decided on a favourite model of consciousness as he seems to be of the persuasion that there are too many and the data available does not sufficiently allow selection between them, at least as far as the question of what he defines as "spirits" is regarded. "

yes, consciousness to me is still the purest mystery out there, I am not convinced we can even have an empirical model of consciousness that is complete.

"

Oldfriend is more theoretically oriented I speculate, his questions are not coming from a big heap of experiences but more from theoretical considerations. Or at least it seems to me that way reading the thread."

actually the converse is true, it is after a few years of continuous contact with what can only be regarded as the spirit world that has taken me to this place to really want to come to a deeper understanding of spirit, spirits, both empirically, philosophically, and spiritually.

"

Dar es Allarah ...

Dar es Allarah wishes Oldfriend to stop going in philosophical circles, as Dar es Allarah perceives Oldfriend as doing so, and this makes her angry.
Dar es Allarah has a favorite theory of consciousness that has its merits and is one of the few that link quantum ontology, neuropsychology and therefore perhaps psychic phenomena into one whole, and wants to work on the question, if at all, from that model outwards.
Dar es Allarah has some kind of relation between some kind of practical experience with "spirits" (which she interprets as "part of the human mind" if I'm not mistaken) and the model she thinks is best to attack the problem with."

kind of how i was seeing this too, but was unaware he was a she!

"

J.E. ...

J.E. sees all this from a very hands-on, practising and practical perspective and wishes for Oldfriend to please clarify what exactly it is that he wants and to define that properly, as otherwise he has the impression of wasting his time here.
J.E. has a favourite theory of consciousness that is rooted in lots of practise with Liber 777 and its elaborations and suggests to simply use this as far as terminology and taxonomy are concerned.
J.E. is more interested in the functional use of "spirits" (in his definition) than in theoretically expounding them."

as I see it too

"

So, at least I got to a (quite speculative) theory of at least three spirits "

hah!

"
And no one should claim they have no models. You cannot have no model. I hope none of you guys think that this is air that you are breathing

"

hey thanks for coming in and cleaning things up! not sure what you mean when you say "no one can claim no model' unless you mean an incomplete model. I have not yet found a model of consciousness , or even a school of philosophy (dualism, materialism, etc etc) that I can get behind, although many I find interesting, but none enough to say 'this is it!' the only thing I can say for certainty is that consciousness exists and that I am consciousness. I am comfortable with the mystery there too, I dont feel antsy not have a complete model. As for spirits, since spirits interact with us, or at least appear to, I am fascinated by the discussion itself regarding their existence. Especially the question "How do I know spirits are not just a component of my own psyche?" - it reminds me of the classical philosophical question "how do I know any one exists and is not just a product of my imagination?" taken to a more elaborate level.

Ultimately, it would be great to relate the experience of spirit, spirits to a more empirical word that we all can relate too, that while on the one hand can take use closer to acknowledging the mystery, takes us closer as well to acknowledging the shared truth of the experience.

Currently, I am playing with the concept that spirits are simply ideas. I find ideas just as mysterious as the world of spirits, and hoping that maybe a link between the two will shed more light on the mystery of ideas than the mystery of spirits, if that makes any sense.

Simon Iff

Oldfriend, after reading your reply, perhaps you could clear things up more from your side by relaying a bit on your experiences with what you consider to be spirits? A few anecdotes that were pivotal for you? That lead you to ask the (admittedly, also for me) a bit fuzzy question you are asking here?

Danica

oldfriend56,

a suggestion for a simple exercise in practice:

define for yourself what is Spirit and what spirits. simply choose a definition that you find most suitable now, and don't worry too much if that is not 'the final answer', the ultimate truth etc.
just choose a working definition to go with now.
take Book 4, read the instruction there and contact Spirit and/or spirits accordingly.
try to ask Spirit / spirits directly: "what is your nature?" (and even about semantics, if you will ).
prepare a notebook where you'll write down about these experiences.
repeat this for couple of times (you decide how many, but do take not less than 3 and more than 10 for example).

before that, after that, or in the meantime:
decide that for, say 14 days, you'll formulate & write every day your own definition of the term/concept 'objective', in such manner that every day it has to be different. not necessarily completely different, but different enough that you consider it as not the same definition

THEN if you Will so come back here and share your experience.

p.s. while you're at Book 4, take a look at section named Liber E, part I & section named Liber O, parts I, II and III

Uni_Verse

The 'Objective Mystery' is entirely subjective in nature.

Take a concept such as that of Babylon.
While there may be an objective reality to the concept, our knowledge and understanding of it is entirely drawn from the system which it finds itself a part of.

That is, one can not convey WHAT Babylon is, except when dealing with Babylon within the Thelemic philosophy.
We might try and describe Babylon with Christian symbols, start calling her the Mother Mary, but once again we become reliant on previously established relationships.

Jim Eshelman

@ldfriend56 said

"
@Jim Eshelman said
"This is probably a very astute, cogent, and accurate assessment."

lol, you mean "hopefully this is a very astute, cogent, and accurate assessment""

No, I meant exactly what I wrote. (I went back and added the "probably" in rewrite just to add a margin of doubt.)

"I won't have any further conversation with him unless he agrees (concretely and precisely) what we're talking about, so that every detail of interchange thereafter (in that thread) can be referred to that starting definition"

well I did that and you only responded with how much I dont understand something. How is it I have to not understand so much for a few people here to share some information or thoughts on the matter?"

Yes, I saw that you stated that yesterday. I haven't gone back to actually answer that, and I'm not sure I have anything to say that would be useful or interesting to you. I will, however, switch hats and make an administrative remark at the current end of the thread to help it move along the lines you've now clarified.

"
""Spiritual beings" are formed from "spiritual substance" exactly the same way that "physical beings" are formed from "physical substance." "

so spiritual substance and physical substance are distinct, yet somehow apart of one substance. Am I following Jim correctly here? Hoping someone can chime in since Jim is unlikely to respond."

DIstinct but not different. Distinct in the way that "light above range of human perception" is distinct from "light within the range of human perception," without really being "a different thing." The adjective in "spiritual substance" is a "bandwidth" discrimination just like the adjective in "visible light."

The analogy is close in several ways. For example, the distinction you are seeking in "spiritual" things seems to be "physically insensible" things. (Yes? No?) That makes it an exact equivalent to ultraviolet (and higher) bands of light (and, for that matter, infrared and lower bands of light). It's only the insensibility that distinguishes it, meaning that the distinction is in our ability to perceive it with one set of senses vs. another set.

"At least some types of beings exist on multiple planes simultaneously; for example, humans (among others) are physical, astral, intellectual, and 'spiritual' beings (I use the latter in a reserved sense, not in the broad "not material" sense - since astral and intellectual levels are also "not material" if we mean physical matter). "

what can material mean other than physical matter?"

"Matter" just means "mother substance." Generally it is used only for physical matter, which is why I was careful in my syntax in that last sentence. It has, however, been used derivatively, in senses such as "astral matter" (by analogy to physical matter), etc. - Actually, that's not really using it derivatively, since the root meaning is "mother," that from which all things are formed etc. Though I generally only use "matter" to mean "physical matter," I do sometimes use it as a perfect synonym for the One Substance.

"
"It's all there in the sentence: Spiritual beings" are formed from "spiritual substance" exactly the same way that "physical beings" are formed from "physical substance." "

so we have some sort of a spiritual/physical coupling here, not unlike the dialogue between the immaterial/material. My question is that the physical stuff is easy to define, and find. What is the spiritual substance?"

It's just as easy to see as long as you don't use your physical senses. A significant part of magical training is in using nonphysical senses to directly perceive other things.

"I am still seeing a dialectic here between one world and another world. One property and another property. My questioning takes me to this place...What is our grand environment which contain both properties and what is our role in it that we seek help from spirits yet they seek no help from us?"

We're all in it together. (You're question really boils down to, Why do different life-forms communicate with eadh other?)

Jim Eshelman

:!:
ADMIINSTRATIVE NOTE:
The original poster has clarified his original question. I quote it below. - In terms of the forum's policy that posts on a thread are expected to stay on-topic to that thread (with the occassional meandering that indirectly gets to a direct path <g>), please use what is quoted below as the definition of this thread. Off-topic posts may be deleted in order to keep the thread on a single track (after giving sufficient time to see if their meandering loops back). - Thank you.
:!:

@ldfriend56 said

"
"Please state, in one or two sentences, as concretely and specfically as possible, exactly what you are asking or exactly what you are saying."

I'm looking to build an empirical map of what can be referred to as Spirit, Spirits - specifically; What are they exactly, how much can empirically be known about them? What is a rational and intuitive way to frame this particular set of phenomenon in relationship to the physical, measurable phenomenon of material reality? What does this tell us about ourselves, where we are from and where we are going?

I should add that my empirical map is not 'of' the spirit world and the occult, it is a map of human consciousness and all the capabilities therein. Personally, I view the realm of spirit as purely of an entirely different order than that of the physical senses, but seeking further understanding in clarifying this."

gmugmble

@ldfriend56 said

"I'm looking to build an empirical map of what can be referred to as Spirit, Spirits - specifically; What are they exactly, how much can empirically be known about them?"

Sounds like what you want is a good grimoire, or Agrippa's Three Books, or Barrett's Magus. These are books by people who have spent their lives working to explore the spirit world empirically -- through their own and others' experience -- and they provide both exploration techniques that they know empirically to be effective, as well as maps (lists of demons, angels, etc., their powers and characteristics, etc.) that are the results of their empirical investigation.

The work of Dee and Kelly, and of Alan Kardac fit this characterization, too. If the maps seem vastly different, it's because the spirit realm is a vast and diverse territory.

Bereshith

You got 3 gunas, 7 chakras, 10 sephiroth. If you want to qualify entities made up of the Mind/Force/Substance in a way that humans can relate to it, then you need to start there. They provide both the philosophical base and the ability to confirm the attributions through personal experimentation.

But, honestly, now that the correspondences of 777 were brought up (since the above is what they're based on), I wonder what you can add to that but doubt until you yourself have the inner senses to confirm or deny the taxonomy presented there.

Until you have that,* everything *is merely someone else's pet theory of consciousness, eternally assailable by the sword of Empiricism and the shield of relativity.

oldfriend56

double post, sorry

oldfriend56

@Simon Iff said

"Oldfriend, after reading your reply, perhaps you could clear things up more from your side by relaying a bit on your experiences with what you consider to be spirits? A few anecdotes that were pivotal for you? That lead you to ask the (admittedly, also for me) a bit fuzzy question you are asking here?"

Thank you for asking! I would say that primarily for the most part of my journey, I assumed spirits, gods, angels, etc etc were somehow apart of my own make up, an aspect of my psyche, or perhaps 'our' psyche, a component or dynamic of a collective consciousness which too is unknown, but more a component of myself than let's say an actual 'other' order of sentience. Although open to other points of view on the matter, for some reason my inner understanding that made the most 'sense', even if vaguely defined by myself. While in my twenties, my explorations were fueled primarily by yoga, meditations, a few magical ceremonies, plenty of psychedelic substances done with a set and setting mindset, and exploring different eastern paradigms, such a buddhism or taoism. All of this of course was mixed with healthy doses of youthful indiscretion, irrationality, absolutely ridiculous reasoning and the perfect amount of naiveté - so I dont trust any of those conclusions

That's the position on Spirits that I am evolving from at this point, and not quite sure what my landing pad will look like as this is a work in progress. Now, 10 -20 years later, after I have consumed heaps of western philosophy, science, technology and futurism while exploring a few traditional practices of indigenous peoples (the shipibo traditions of peru and the lakata traditions of north america) I feel an update is in order - which leads me to answer directly your question.

Working with the more indigenous practices, many of which I always assumed a sort of 'primitive' or natural understanding of the more evolved western hermetic schools have to offer, i found myself having quite paradigm shattering encounters directly with spirits in a way that was distinctly noticeable from my previous experiences. This includes visual manifestations, eyes open or closed, clear knowledge delivery, sometimes prophetic, sometimes bullsh*t, inner alchemical transformations, teaching, and most importantly, healing - both physical, emotional, and 'spiritual' to such an extreme degree I previously never thought possible. I found that my old model of looking at things like 'spirits' really did not make as much sense in this sort of light. Also, because it is more 'primitive' ( i hate using that word here, but for lack of a better term?) - i found it more directly connected to earth, gaia, and therefore more organic in a way that was quite illuminating. It seemed more 'real' to me and therefore more meaningful in the pursuit of uniting both the eastern and western schools of philosophy.

EDIT: Also I should add, Liber Al vel Legis and the broader philosophy of Thelema is a pretty core aspect of my internal dynamic and extremely meaningful to me, so while I do not claim to be a practicing ceremonial magician, I am familiar with the turf so to speak.

oldfriend56

@danica said

"oldfriend56,

a suggestion for a simple exercise in practice:

I"

thank you for taking the time to recommend something to try out Danica, I appreciate it.

oldfriend56

Jim! Thank you for responding here.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. (I went back and added the "probably" in rewrite just to add a margin of doubt.)"

A wide margin, no doubt

"
Yes, I saw that you stated that yesterday. I haven't gone back to actually answer that, and I'm not sure I have anything to say that would be useful or interesting to you. I will, however, switch hats and make an administrative remark at the current end of the thread to help it move along the lines you've now clarified."

thank you

"

"
""Spiritual beings" are formed from "spiritual substance" exactly the same way that "physical beings" are formed from "physical substance." "

so spiritual substance and physical substance are distinct, yet somehow apart of one substance. Am I following Jim correctly here? Hoping someone can chime in since Jim is unlikely to respond."

DIstinct but not different. Distinct in the way that "light above range of human perception" is distinct from "light within the range of human perception," without really being "a different thing." The adjective in "spiritual substance" is a "bandwidth" discrimination just like the adjective in "visible light.""

so to use another analogy, say something more commonly observable (yet still illusory none the less) let's say "one day" which equals both 'day' and 'night'. Noon is quite distinguishable from Midnight, clearly, yet they are both apart of one cycle. Under this sort of analogy, there is where day and night come together and are indistinguishable - for example sunrise and sunset, quite literally 'both day and night' at once.

so - would it not also follow that for physical reality to emerge from a singular substance (that is a subset of a 'higher' unifying substance) and spiritual reality to emerge from another, we would find some substance that was somehow of an equal blend, being of both substances?

"

The analogy is close in several ways. For example, the distinction you are seeking in "spiritual" things seems to be "physically insensible" things. (Yes? No?) "

well, I would say closer to no than to yes, mainly because I have had experiences with my senses of interacting with 'spiritual' energies, intelligences, etc. and not sure if the issue of 'physically insensible' has any meaning whatsoever in this context. I might add that this same 'conundrum' applies not just to experiences of spiritual intelligences, but also things like sensations, feelings, concepts, and ideas which are more common and universal in the realm of human senses. It appears that those might be composed of the same 'substance', to use your analogy, as that of spiritual energies and intelligences (albiet a 'different frequency' to again use your analogy).

"That makes it an exact equivalent to ultraviolet (and higher) bands of light (and, for that matter, infrared and lower bands of light). It's only the insensibility that distinguishes it, meaning that the distinction is in our ability to perceive it with one set of senses vs. another set."

I believe I follow this so please tell me if I dont have what I think i do. The distinction exists in the mind, and therefore it is something in the human psyche that 'forbids' or 'allows' such an experience. This is to mean that there is nothing of the composition itself that influences this? For example, ultraviolet light vibrates at a certain frequency which makes it unregisterable to the human eye, however our other faculties allow us to register it using extensions of our senses (i.e. technology) because it is of a substance that is measurable and predictable. Would a spiritual substance allow us the same liesure? Is it only measurable through our ideas and concepts (creating abstractions) about it?

"At least some types of beings exist on multiple planes simultaneously; for example, humans (among others) are physical, astral, intellectual, and 'spiritual' beings (I use the latter in a reserved sense, not in the broad "not material" sense - since astral and intellectual levels are also "not material" if we mean physical matter). "

ahh, okay I think this addresses my previous questions somewhat but raises others. Yes I also look at ideas, thoughts, abstractions, concepts as also 'non-material' - however this highlights the very 'hard' problem of consciousness over all from my POV, at least in terms of creating an empirical map. Even if things like ideas are non material in experience but still in principle hold some sort of measurable frequency (closer to the ORCH OR model we discussed in this thread) - we don't experience 'frequencies' we experience having ideas - therefore the whole realm of experience itself could also be said to be non material and the content of the experience material.

This is quite a conundrum to work through, at least empirically. thoughts?

"
"Matter" just means "mother substance." Generally it is used only for physical matter, which is why I was careful in my syntax in that last sentence.
It has, however, been used derivatively, in senses such as "astral matter" (by analogy to physical matter), etc. - Actually, that's not really using it derivatively, since the root meaning is "mother," that from which all things are formed etc. Though I generally only use "matter" to mean "physical matter," I do sometimes use it as a perfect synonym for the One Substance."

ah-ha. okay so you are using the term in the more root meaning sense, not in how the word is used in science (having mass and volume). Is this pre-supposing then purely 'spiritual' matter that would not have mass or volume in any sense that the mind can understand? for all sakes and purposes, would this mean non-physical/physical coupling? I think this is what most would mean by the immaterial/material as it what I have been meaning by the phrase.

I asked: so we have some sort of a spiritual/physical coupling here, not unlike the dialogue between the immaterial/material. My question is that the physical stuff is easy to define, and find. What is the spiritual substance?

"
It's just as easy to see as long as you don't use your physical senses. A significant part of magical training is in using nonphysical senses to directly perceive other things."

sure, yes that is my experience and understanding as well. So there is an embedded limitation here, sort of like the speed of light, that somehow prevents the physical senses (and any extensions thereof) from ever measuring and registering this spiritual substance? is that too extreme of an assumption on my part?

I stated: I am still seeing a dialectic here between one world and another world. One property and another property. My questioning takes me to this place...What is our grand environment which contain both properties and what is our role in it that we seek help from spirits yet they seek no help from us?

"
We're all in it together."

I really love this answer! Thank you Jim.

How I interpret this so far, and please if anyone can chime in and make a correction if I am veering or straying to far. Under the circumstances Jim explained quite eloquently. Empirically, we can accept that human beings have access to information that, at present time, does not appear to have any physically measurable component. This information can take the form in experience as thoughts, feelings, concepts, ideas, abstractions, but it can also take the form of an 'other' such as Spirits, Gods, angels etc. Ancient philosophies from antiquity suggest that the realm of the physical, which is simply 'content' in the realm of phenomenology (1st person experience) - share a 'mother' substance in common with all non- physical substance. This substance (SPIRIT singular and proper?) is not measurable and not accessible in the world of the measurable senses - so to even begin the pursuit of discovering empirically this substance in measurable form may be impossible.

This seems to align with the idea that 'consciousness' is this mysterious substance and leads us back to the same hard problems of consciousness from an empirical point of view. From this point of view, what is the distinction between ideas, concepts and abstractions and spirits?

oldfriend56

@gmugmble said

"
@ldfriend56 said
"I'm looking to build an empirical map of what can be referred to as Spirit, Spirits - specifically; What are they exactly, how much can empirically be known about them?"

Sounds like what you want is a good grimoire, or Agrippa's Three Books, or Barrett's Magus. These are books by people who have spent their lives working to explore the spirit world empirically -- through their own and others' experience -- and they provide both exploration techniques that they know empirically to be effective, as well as maps (lists of demons, angels, etc., their powers and characteristics, etc.) that are the results of their empirical investigation.

The work of Dee and Kelly, and of Alan Kardac fit this characterization, too. If the maps seem vastly different, it's because the spirit realm is a vast and diverse territory."

thank you - yes I have explored these things, as well as in a few other traditions. These do not seem to address the question "what are spirits" empirically, just that empirically, human beings can have experiences with things like spirits and these spirits have a relationship with each other than can be understood in a specific ordering.

oldfriend56

@Bereshith said

"You got 3 gunas, 7 chakras, 10 sephiroth. If you want to qualify entities made up of the Mind/Force/Substance in a way that humans can relate to it, then you need to start there. They provide both the philosophical base and the ability to confirm the attributions through personal experimentation.

But, honestly, now that the correspondences of 777 were brought up (since the above is what they're based on), I wonder what you can add to that but doubt until you yourself have the inner senses to confirm or deny the taxonomy presented there.

Until you have that,* everything *is merely someone else's pet theory of consciousness, eternally assailable by the sword of Empiricism and the shield of relativity."

I'm not sure I want to use esoteric maps for empirical purposes here. The foundation would then have to many assumptions - make sense? Imagine my map is for someone who has no experience in such matters, is cosmologically agnostic (potentially even atheist), and needs a map that can provide them an overview of what they can experience (i.e. thoughts, ideas, feelings) and expand upon those experiences (spirits, subtle energies, healings, etc) while providing an empirical overview of the relationship of consciousness to the content to which it perceives.

Bereshith

@ldfriend56 said

"
I'm not sure I want to use esoteric maps for empirical purposes here. The foundation would then have to many assumptions - make sense? "

Only if I would agree that the Tree of Life is a "esoteric map" instead of an "empirical map," which I don't.

If a magician's evocation and experience of spirits may be called empirical at all, it is in a limited sense. To the best of my current knowledge, not just anybody can draw the symbols, light the smoke, and say the words with the result that the exact results are produced every time for everybody. If we're talking about Empiricism proper, that's my understanding of what's required to fit its criteria. (possibly discussion-worthy)

However, if we allow ourselves to speak of evocation and the experience of spirits as "empirical" simply because the process relies on experimentation - without the condition that everybody can do it given the proper instructions and tools - then I would argue that the Tree of Life is entirely as "empirical" as the evocation and experience of spirits. It is not entirely philosophical in my experience.

"Imagine my map is for someone who has no experience in such matters, is cosmologically agnostic (potentially even atheist), and needs a map that can provide them an overview of what they can experience (i.e. thoughts, ideas, feelings) and expand upon those experiences (spirits, subtle energies, healings, etc) while providing an empirical overview of the relationship of consciousness to the content to which it perceives."

In my understanding, this is entirely the kind of map the Tree of Life provides. I'm beginning to think that you think the Tree of Life is only a matter of occult dogma. It is a map of "thoughts, ideas, and feelings," complete with the transitional pathways between them. For even more precise classification, one may imagine the entire Tree inside each of its sephiroth. But... It is a map of both the process of manifestation and of the human consciousness - macrocosm and microcosm.

For instance, even if we just take three of the concepts you listed, "thoughts, ideas, feelings," you'd still have to relate them to one another in some fashion. You'll have to determine how a "thought" is different from an "feeling" and have a concept map that suggests how "thoughts" are related to "feelings" unless you just want disconnected categories. And, well, that's what the Tree of Life is.

Anyway, I don't mean to beat you over the head with it, but it does seem like you think it exists in a different category than what you're describing, and I think it's almost exactly what you're describing - in addition to being philosophically valid. But it doesn't have to be all dressed up in Hebrew either...

I'm also glad I got the chance to clarify my thoughts on the empiricism wording. That always gets caught in my lens.