The Matter and Semantic of Spirits.

[ThelemicMage]

From what I understand, planetary intelligences are on a different level than the names or spirits of the planets themselves.

For instance, Venus is the visible name of the planet itself. Her intelligence is Hagiel.
Her spirit's name is Qedemel. Her Olympic planetary spirit's name is Hagith.

It kind of like Hathor is the house and wife of Horus, and Ma'at is the adjuster of balance that steadies him into the transformation into Hrumachis, the double-wanded one. Horus himself says he holds the wand of double-power. It's not too far-fetched to see how the greatest "Nuit" and "Hadit" of our Universe are merging as one being and will encompass the next aeon.

It is my belief that the spirits, names, and all intelligences of the planets are one, in essence. The same way that the "beast" of the Earth's, (or of the Air, Water, or sacred Fire,) heads are one being, although on this level they are named differently such as Amaimon, Auriel, Phorlakh, Ghob, et cetera.

In the Lust card of the sacred Tarot of Photeth, the beast of the Earth, in the form of a Lion, with seven heads, has Phorlakh with his head turned away, with "four locks" of hair gently curving down as the hint of all hints. Crowley and Frieda were guided by much more than mere pure inspiration. What they did with the Tarot is divine in every aspect as literal pictures of the Book of the Law.

Now you won't hear the "beast" of the Air or Fire in revelations, for there is a great secret regarding the two witnesses and the crowned and conquering child -- however it is as simple as opening up Liber 777 and reading the names of their seven heads, Table II. The sun and moon conjoined with the two witnesses is the symbol of the Aeon, which is also the "mark of the beast". It hides a secret 93 and 666 in it's symbolism.

One would wish to look at these things with an open mind, always with the thought of God being one in everything, and to separate not, for thereby cometh hurt. (Book of the Law.) Things flow perfectly when this is realized.

[Bereshith]

@ViejoAmigo56 said

"
Thanks for helping me define this better, truly. Does this help and do you see why the tree of life is not the map I am looking for? The tree of life maps ideas about spirits and experiences based on cultural artifacts and since those artifacts are cultural, they are not universal and I found the tree to be a source of wide speculation and different interpretations amongst different schools. My map is philosophical.
"

Ehhh... Not really. But I don't mind giving up on it.

So, why not brainstorm?

Physical Manifestations:
(five senses)

1. Visual
2. Auditory
3. Olfactory
4. Gustatory
5. Tactile

Emotional Manifestations:
(which organization fits with your philosophical approach?)

Cognitive Manifestations:
(How are you thinking about this? You want to start with a list of "-ologies" or....?)

[oldfriend56]

@Epic Dungeon Master said

"From what I understand, planetary intelligences are on a different level than the names or spirits of the planets themselves.

For instance, Venus is the visible name of the planet itself. Her intelligence is Hagiel.
"

I'm really hoping someone here can show some clear understanding on the distinction between an intelligence and a spirit. To me it sounds like an intelligence is a POV, where as spirits serve the POV , based on what I am reading here on this forum. In this light, what would 'intelligence' be? Defining intelligence itself is one of the biggest hurdles in many a field of science.

[oldfriend56]

@hombre said

"

Ehhh... Not really. But I don't mind giving up on it.

So, why not brainstorm? "

what a wonderful idea - this can be a collective work, no doubt.

But since my map is ultimately a map of ontology, and I want my map to reach for completeness, elegance, and be holistic, we have to be very careful about our language.

for example

"

Physical Manifestations:
(five senses)

1. Visual
2. Auditory
3. Olfactory
4. Gustatory
5. Tactile

"

What is physical about the experience of the senses? To me the experience of light, sound, smells, touch, taste are just as abstract and illusory, non material as the experience of spirits. The only distinction is that we have physical sense organs, which are manifestations. These physical organs just give us 'content' to experience. the experience itself? this I imagine is where you would put malkuth, no? Experience arrived via the content and media of the five senses.

So to me, the foundation is experience, consciousness, being. That to me is a state beyond language, even 'every day' being. We just use language to reference it, make sense so far?

So experience and the content and medium of experience must be distinguished. The experience of the physical may not be physical at all (this is the 'hard problem' of consciousness in philosophy and neurobiology)

Anything experienced has existence in some sense. This existence may be physical, imaginary, metaphysical, etc. Unicorns may exist as creative thought forms, but they have existence none the less.

The qualities of experience are then distinguished by being and ideas about being. then environment. we experience being and have ideas about being in two distinguishable environments, a share objective environment we all participate in equally (i.e. the physical universe) and a subjective environment which is our individual state of being, which also includes emotions naturally.

this is my foundation so far....make sense?

"

Emotional Manifestations:
(which organization fits with your philosophical approach?) "

Emotions manifesting as..experiences or behaviors? Emotions to be are a component of 'feeling' and our subjective environment, they are personal and the list is just a set of ideas about being and feeling and should not be confused as those experiences - if that makes any sense

There is a relationship, no doubt, to various states of being, environment, and the ideas that surround them, as you are about to breach below...

"
Cognitive Manifestations:
(How are you thinking about this? You want to start with a list of "-ologies" or....?)"

Ahhh! 'Thinking' and conceptualizing' - this cannot be listed without it's counterpart 'intuition' or inner knowingness, inspiration in my opinion. To me this is just 'thinking and feeling' manifesting as arts and sciences. This experience we attribute to our subjective environment but is only possible inside of interaction with our shared environment (culture)

which leads as next I guess to spirits and how they appear to us.

Are spirits just ideas or are ideas just spirits? in my map above, you see how they easily and neatly occupy the same environment....just the distinction needs to be made between them.

[Frater 639]

Oldfriend56 -- you are truly an entity after my own heart. Keep going!

Polite and positive. And on topic with semantics!

But, as you know, all arguments are circular when dealing with the topic, correct? That is the nature of consciousness, is it not? What is it that you're driving at, though? It remains unclear to me. Please explain if you have the desire or wish to forsake the economics of energy.

Memes and spirits? Do you see it as aspects of the same thing, only from the perspective of different planes? Doesn't this always lead to confusion?

[oldfriend56]

@Frater 639 said

"Oldfriend56 -- you are truly an entity after my own heart. Keep going! "

thank you for your support good frater!

"

Polite and positive. And on topic with semantics! "

thank you! nice to see someone around here has an eye for talent

"

But, as you know, all arguments are circular when dealing with the topic, correct? "

The topic being 'consciousness' specifically? if so, I would say I always find enjoyment in seeing how 'discussions' on the topic produce contradictions, and if that is what you mean, then yes. But I am not sure if this is a 'law' of the landscape, however, that discussions must produce contradictions and become circular. I want my map to be consistant and contain no contradictions but allow for a 'transcendent' to be distinguished and, most importantly, objective.

"That is the nature of consciousness, is it not? "

Personally I believe consciousness is the transcendent to the physical and because of this, likely to produce contradictions in arguments and discussions, quite a 'hard' problem indeed. I enjoy the sport of the discussion around it.

"

What is it that you're driving at, though? It remains unclear to me."

My apologies if this is not clear, I attribute it to my own limits in explaining this landscape. I am creating a 'map' of spirits and ideas which fits into a larger map of consciousness and the physical universe. This map is really just a metaphor for understanding and hopefully, wisdom.

"

Please explain if you have the desire or wish to forsake the economics of energy. "

not sure what this means?

"

Memes and spirits? Do you see it as aspects of the same thing, only from the perspective of different planes? "

Currently, yes I am seeing as an shared aspect of one phenomenon. Like many here on this forum, I have a life of experiences between exalted states of being mixed with interactions of 'ah-ha!'s' (inspirational ideas, creative concepts, etc) and more direct encounters with subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) 'intelligences' of a non corporeal reality.

What is intriguing to me more than spirits and their nature is the nature of ideas themselves. Ideas are shared amongst all of us, regardless of philosophical, religious, or secular leanings. We all share ideas in common and ideas are just as, if not more, mysterious in nature than spirits. Unless of course they are the same thing. Which at this point I am leaning towards they are. This may not bring any more light to ideas and spirits, but approaching them as the same phenomenon from two distinct points of view creates a larger mystery and set of questions regarding humanity and our role in the universe - which is also a very strong aspect of my 'map'

"
Doesn't this always lead to confusion?"

I certainly hope not I think the confusion lay not so much in confusing the 'planes' but confusing the 'environments'; meaning - we confuse ideas about our shared environment (physical universe) with ideas about our subjective environment (consciousness, being and ideas about spirits, gods, etc) and there is where the confusion lay.

[Frater 639]

@ldfriend56 said

"thank you! nice to see someone around here has an eye for talent "

Very talented and very polite. There is enjoyment when seeing the universal aspects of relating to others.

@ldfriend56 said

"The topic being 'consciousness' specifically? if so, I would say I always find enjoyment in seeing how 'discussions' on the topic produce contradictions, and if that is what you mean, then yes. But I am not sure if this is a 'law' of the landscape, however, that discussions must produce contradictions and become circular. I want my map to be consistant and contain no contradictions but allow for a 'transcendent' to be distinguished and, most importantly, objective."

No, when dealing with the intellect, all arguments can be circular and reduced to "not that" -- therefore, your truth AND my truth is relative. I understand the aim for objectivity; however, when dealing with YOUR map, I find it difficult to get past Berkeley -- you mentioned the five senses yourself. And these senses always will be subjective, do you agree? Unless you can shed identity? THEN WHAT? We can agree on an objective reality, but it will always only be collective subjectivity. And this is a meme.

After that, if you'll forgive the linear time landscape, do you still "see" a perceived and the perceiver, when recollecting or projecting? Is this subjective to you? Is this your map?

@ldfriend56 said

"Personally I believe consciousness is the transcendent to the physical and because of this, likely to produce contradictions in arguments and discussions, quite a 'hard' problem indeed. I enjoy the sport of the discussion around it."

What makes you believe this? Is this an objective view? Consciousness has physical and transcendent to the physical aspects -- do you think it to be a dichotomy?

@ldfriend56 said

"What is intriguing to me more than spirits and their nature is the nature of ideas themselves. Ideas are shared amongst all of us, regardless of philosophical, religious, or secular leanings. We all share ideas in common and ideas are just as, if not more, mysterious in nature than spirits. Unless of course they are the same thing. Which at this point I am leaning towards they are. This may not bring any more light to ideas and spirits, but approaching them as the same phenomenon from two distinct points of view creates a larger mystery and set of questions regarding humanity and our role in the universe - which is also a very strong aspect of my 'map'"

Why lean toward anything? Why not simply adopt your POV to be in right relation? Do you think there to be one true answer, or is the truth dynamic and relative to any given POV?

@ldfriend56 said

"This may not bring any more light to ideas and spirits, but approaching them as the same phenomenon from two distinct points of view creates a larger mystery and set of questions regarding humanity and our role in the universe - which is also a very strong aspect of my 'map'"

It seems here that you are not leaning toward anything. I think not reducing everything into false dichotomies is very important.

@ldfriend56 said

"I think the confusion lay not so much in confusing the 'planes' but confusing the 'environments'; meaning - we confuse ideas about our shared environment (physical universe) with ideas about our subjective environment (consciousness, being and ideas about spirits, gods, etc) and there is where the confusion lay."

In this context, I see "planes" and "environments" to be the same thing. I agree wholeheartedly.

So, these "ideas, spirits, etc.", if they are in different "environments", you state about sharing them -- does this happen materially? Yes, it does -- in a strict neurobiological sense. It also happens in the "world of ideas" -- relative to the perceiver and perceived. So, here again, we have an example of the duality (and, in a broader sense, unity) of the subject/object. It is not a matter of either/or -- it is a matter of SCALE and IDENTIFICATION. What do you think?

[oldfriend56]

@Frater 639 said

" There is enjoyment when seeing the universal aspects of relating to others. "

indeed! let's get right into it, this is going to be fun!

"No, when dealing with the intellect, all arguments can be circular and reduced to "not that" "

Not sure exactly what you mean by 'intellect' - however I understand the flaw you bring up. I relate to bivalent, dualistic, or Aristotelian logical reasoning. But your also addressing the 'conflict of idea' - that very nature of conceptual reality, that all ideas are in conflict with one another and every concept as an opposite which seeks to obliterate it. (truly 'wars which are in heaven', no?)

"-- therefore, your truth AND my truth is relative."

there is your truth and my truth, sure, but then there is also OUR truth, which is our objective and shared environment. that's a very distinct truth value. For example, our truth exists in this very sentence and I predict with 100% accuracy that you will agree with me that the word at the end of this sentence is the word pickle.

"I understand the aim for objectivity; however, when dealing with YOUR map, I find it difficult to get past Berkeley -- you mentioned the five senses yourself. And these senses always will be subjective, do you agree? "

the senses will always provide BOTH objective and subjective information at ONCE! It is only our thinking minds that have to sift through the mysterious information and place it in it's proper sphere of relevance. Our five senses just help us navigate the mystery inside and outside. We only know what is true, even the fact that we exist, because of the exchange of information between POV's. All POV's will contain some objective information, some relative or false information, and some mysterious information where the distinction cannot be made objectively.

"Unless you can shed identity? THEN WHAT? We can agree on an objective reality, but it will always only be collective subjectivity. And this is a meme. "

I think this is part of the solution, and not the problem. I believe that our internal environment, the 'experience' of the 5 senses and beyond, is a unique truth value and our shared environment another unique truth value. One provides a subjective or relative truth that can function as an objective true, but may be delusion, or illusion, or insight, or any number of potential POV's - however the information that the collection of 'experiences' share back and forth with each other is the juicy 'true' and only what I mean by objective or objective environment. Objective reality and environment is just the reality we all can agree on - and all human beings are in a state of 93% perfect agreement all the time because of it

So you say 'then what?' - well if optimized properly, we can have cool things like global problem solving and resolution, advancements in the arts and sciences, extended life, health, happiness, etc etc.

"After that, if you'll forgive the linear time landscape, do you still "see" a perceived and the perceiver, when recollecting or projecting? Is this subjective to you? Is this your map?"

I definitely see a collection of us - yes, sharing both relative and objective information through the conflict of idea which potentially can lead to our liberation, or destruction, depending on how we play it. 'perceived and perceiver' is useful in some environments and not useful in others. The one truth with a capitol T that I can say is true for the most absolute certainty is that I, ....and you, exist! If both you and I exist, then certain other things must come to follow because of it, and one of those things is an objective and shared reality that we project our relative reality onto.

I said: Personally I believe consciousness is the transcendent to the physical and because of this, likely to produce contradictions in arguments and discussions, quite a 'hard' problem indeed. I enjoy the sport of the discussion around it.

"

What makes you believe this? Is this an objective view? Consciousness has physical and transcendent to the physical aspects -- do you think it to be a dichotomy? "

I believe this to be a mystery more than a truth, to clarify - but I believe that consciousness is likely to be a transcendent of the physical because that is how we experience it to be and there just is a very simple and clear distinction between the experience of information and the information itself that cannot be ignored or denied and that this remains true in both western philosophy and eastern philosophy and that this is an objective distinction. Is it a dichotomy or the union of a dichotomy? That's very mysterious territory! I dont have an answer there - but I believe it is very objective and rational to say "hey this is very mysterious here and we should be careful not to project our own delusion and sense of reason onto this mystery" - but we cannot deny the distinction either, we have to address it, experience it, understand it, use it, etc etc.

"

Why lean toward anything? Why not simply adopt your POV to be in right relation? Do you think there to be one true answer, or is the truth dynamic and relative to any given POV?"

I believe it is a combination of both! I lean in the direction of my intuition always

I seek my map to be objective and I believe it is my true will to make such an objective map.

Remember, objective to me just means the reality we all can agree on - and that to me signals the mystery more so than just our own individual projections and courses. We are all sharing in a journey together, relating to one another - expanding into infinite space together, this cannot be discounted.....this is the body of Nuit, no?

"

I think not reducing everything into false dichotomies is very important. "

My own personal work is uniting the opposites which I am sure you can relate to. I believe on/off aristolian logical reason is faulty, however I can be very rational in explaining how I come to that conclusion! And I also don't discard it, it has it's relevance - and computers are one of them.

"

@ldfriend56 said

"I think the confusion lay not so much in confusing the 'planes' but confusing the 'environments'; meaning - we confuse ideas about our shared environment (physical universe) with ideas about our subjective environment (consciousness, being and ideas about spirits, gods, etc) and there is where the confusion lay."

In this context, I see "planes" and "environments" to be the same thing. I agree wholeheartedly. "

coolness

"

So, these "ideas, spirits, etc.", if they are in different "environments", you state about sharing them -- does this happen materially? Yes, it does -- in a strict neurobiological sense. It also happens in the "world of ideas" -- relative to the perceiver and perceived. So, here again, we have an example of the duality (and, in a broader sense, unity) of the subject/object. It is not a matter of either/or -- it is a matter of SCALE and IDENTIFICATION. What do you think?"

me likey!

going to let that settle in a bit too!

[oldfriend56]

sorry about the double post!

[Frater 639]

@ldfriend56 said

"indeed! let's get right into it, this is going to be fun!"

This is fun! I'm digging your takes on these different ideas.

@ldfriend56 said

"Not sure exactly what you mean by 'intellect' "

The realm of Swords -- Ruach, active consciousness, analysis, rational thought, etc. Like Henri Bergson's use, used in opposition to intuition. This is a very broad term though, in this context -- not very precise.

@ldfriend56 said

"there is your truth and my truth, sure, but then there is also OUR truth, which is our objective and shared environment. that's a very distinct truth value. For example, our truth exists in this very sentence and I predict with 100% accuracy that you will agree with me that the word at the end of this sentence is the word pickle. "

This is what I call a "shared subjectivity". Reason for this is because there was an "objective truth" that the earth was round, when most people agreed that the earth was flat. Did this make the earth flat or round? Now, that's a good question!

Somewhere, somehow the earth became round in everyone's shared environment. Did it always exist that way? Sure it did -- but only according to our shared reality now. What do you think? And what does this say about the importance and power of memes and egregore?

@ldfriend56 said

"I think this is part of the solution, and not the problem. I believe that our internal environment, the 'experience' of the 5 senses and beyond, is a unique truth value and our shared environment another unique truth value. One provides a subjective or relative truth that can function as an objective true, but may be delusion, or illusion, or insight, or any number of potential POV's - however the information that the collection of 'experiences' share back and forth with each other is the juicy 'true' and only what I mean by objective or objective environment."

Solutions and problems are two ways of looking at the same phenomena, would you agree? Truth is a matter of convenience. All can be illusion and shared reality. All can be true yet completely individual. Usefulness and Value is what remains for the aim of unity with any given POV. And scale and identification of the POV are the intensity factors.

@ldfriend56 said

"All POV's will contain some objective information, some relative or false information, and some mysterious information where the distinction cannot be made objectively."

When separated by analysis and static, yes...I agree. However, POVs are seldom static and the nature of analysis changes the POV completely. We have the action and then the analysis, like you mentioned earlier. I agree with you, being tied to the measuring equipment (sensorium) is problem numbero uno.

@ldfriend56 said

"So you say 'then what?' - well if optimized properly, we can have cool things like global problem solving and resolution, advancements in the arts and sciences, extended life, health, happiness, etc etc."

Ok, ok. I see this and you're tugging at the heart strings now. I agree -- the world will be fine, though. With or without man thinking itself to be the reason for existence. It is interesting what we put prioirty on...you're starting to sound like a Leo!

Appeals to emotion always get me. But, I agree that your benevolent motives are always important and worth working toward. Are these things just means to "unity with the not-self" or maybe the collective sharing of resources?

Like you say here:

@ldfriend56 said

"Remember, objective to me just means the reality we all can agree on - and that to me signals the mystery more so than just our own individual projections and courses. We are all sharing in a journey together, relating to one another - expanding into infinite space together, this cannot be discounted.....this is the body of Nuit, no?"

But this is confusing:

@ldfriend56 said

"I believe it is a combination of both! I lean in the direction of my intuition always "

I think you lean in the direction of your intellect more? Intuition can be muddled with all sorts of weird stuff...

@ldfriend56 said

"
My own personal work is uniting the opposites which I am sure you can relate to."

I understand what this means to me. What does it mean to you? And why seek to do this?

For me, like taking your benevolent ideas above -- everyone sharing and growing together -- I find it to be very important to think about how we evolve, regardless of if we control it or not, whether we consider it worse or better from this particular POV of "humanity in the present time". But, even this is skewed and biased -- priorities change and the idea of humanity moving in the same "postiive" direction will change too. Construction and destruction cannot exist without each other. They are in "Lust" with each other. But, above all this, is really just Love and Unity. Uniting to my greatest fear and repression is an aspect of this -- so, the aim is to bind nothing, for there is none that is not very Isis.

But then, discarding all of this thinking when it is not useful and moving away from obsessing thoughts. It can take away from living every moment to the fullest. The trap of Indolence is a very dry one -- no flow -- this is what I meant before when it comes to economizing energy...how useful are these conversations? Besides showcasing skill of ideas in ontology, teleology, and other big words that turn the majority of humanity off...

I share your aim to create a map that is more objective, though. It is funny -- the more I follow my Path, the more I wish to be united to others in goal, aim, and direction. But, not always with the most benevolent or chaste aspects of those relations in mind...

What are your moral opinions, if I may ask, when it comes to global solutions, etc.? Why do you find these things worth fighting for? Do you subscribe to a categorical imperative? If so, do you feel that it benefits you in some way?

Very nice exchanging ideas with you btw! We could probably just take this conversation offline...

93 93/93

[oldfriend56]

@Frater 639 said

"

The realm of Swords -- Ruach, active consciousness, analysis, rational thought, etc. Like Henri Bergson's use, used in opposition to intuition. This is a very broad term though, in this context -- not very precise."

ok - i just call that the realm of thinking and include in that list is 'honesty'. I believe it comes into fruition when balanced with intuition.

"

This is what I call a "shared subjectivity". Reason for this is because there was an "objective truth" that the earth was round, when most people agreed that the earth was flat. Did this make the earth flat or round? "

well it more than likely played little role what so ever in the formation of our earth as a sphere. In hind site, we can say it was the objective environment even though people had a false idea believed to be true about this environment (happens all the time) - and it would be quite objective for us to say so. When we believed the earth was a flat plane, we were not being very objective! we were projecting our own false ideas onto the mystery and believing them to be true.

I understand there is this philosophical aversion to using the word 'objective' and 'objectivity' - but shared environment, the physical universe does not change for me if you exit or enter it - and it's exact nature might be mystery, with much truth to be discovered, but it still exists independent of a point of view.

And using the word objective is always in relationship to it's opposite, subjective - so it's a complete relationship so I like it

"
And what does this say about the importance and power of memes and egregore?"

Well it lines up quite nicely with my model so far. All memes make copies and spread themselves around and ideas and memes that appear to create the most accurate map to the most points of view, objective memes if you will, make take a long time to spread around but when they take hold they take hold firmly in culture. We are quite unlikely to go back to the meme 'flat earth' as true.

As for the group mind and all the different 'words' used, I have a lot of hope that collective intelligence is the future savior of our species - but it would have some limits as well. Are we to assume that planet earth did not exist until we occupied it? It does not seem reasonable to think that way. Can collective psyche create collective manifestations? I personally believe this is possible but am not prepared to make any sort of commentary here yet - although I do believe events like 911 are the result of our collective mind conspiring to move us forward, or backward, depending on the intentions.

"Solutions and problems are two ways of looking at the same phenomena, would you agree? "

yes

"

Truth is a matter of convenience."

Truth may be a matter of convenience but objectively speaking, truth is a matter of existence. Truth is existence. The existence of something or anything is in relation to how 'true' it is. Existence itself may be a very uncomfortable problem for the mind, especially the 'rauch' as you frame it to confront - I believe our relationship to truth is our journey with existence and this to me is an objective way to look at and understand 'truth'

" All can be illusion and shared reality. "

the fact that there can be an illusion that fools all of us tells me that this must be a very real illusion and therefore objective occurring.

"

All can be true yet completely individual. "

it is a continuum of shared/individual - or objective/subjective - or, nuit/hadit....same relationships really.

True comes in basically three forms. There is the truth of the mystery, i.e. it is true that there is unknown. There is the truth we all can agree on - our shared environment. And then there is your or my point of view about that environment. My POV may take a different location in time and space, as well as become colored with my feelings and subjectivity, but I am still going to be sharing a set of information with you that will be identical up to a certain point.

"
However, POVs are seldom static and the nature of analysis changes the POV completely. We have the action and then the analysis, like you mentioned earlier. I agree with you, being tied to the measuring equipment (sensorium) is problem numbero uno. "

even dynamically this must be true and i can even say it must be true for all sentient beings who could ever potentially exist in any potential universe. True, False, and Mystery are our eternally shared sets of distinctions and information and the entire play of 'us' can only take place in such an environment.

"

Ok, ok. I see this and you're tugging at the heart strings now. I agree -- the world will be fine, though. With or without man thinking itself to be the reason for existence. It is interesting what we put prioirty on...you're starting to sound like a Leo! "

Double Libra with a Pisces Moon

"

Are these things just means to "unity with the not-self" or maybe the collective sharing of resources?"

Like I mentioned above, I believe that collective intelligence is the savior of our species - and we are living in a time where, historically speaking, collective intelligence can finally take conscious shape and form via technology - so yes I am hopeful that collective organizing of resources is a result of this process.

"

I think you lean in the direction of your intellect more? Intuition can be muddled with all sorts of weird stuff..."

I use both to balance each other. I let my intuition let me wonder and poke at my curiosity - and then invite my rational mind to observe my reactions. Ultimately i believe we need both thinking and feeling (i just use these two words to explain our internal environments because they are the most shared and basic words and we all relate to thinking and feeling)

We just want to think with our objective minds and feel with our feelings and not think with the feelings and feel with the mind! yikes! talk about confusion

"

@ldfriend56 said

"
My own personal work is uniting the opposites which I am sure you can relate to."

I understand what this means to me. What does it mean to you? And why seek to do this? "

That is quite a question! Might I write a book real quick on the subject?

I believe this is how consciousness works and our consciousness does not really start working until we do this.

"
For me, like taking your benevolent ideas above -- everyone sharing and growing together -- I find it to be very important to think about how we evolve, regardless of if we control it or not, whether we consider it worse or better from this particular POV of "humanity in the present time". But, even this is skewed and biased -- priorities change and the idea of humanity moving in the same "postiive" direction will change too. "

I think progress towards a 'win win' is something that is not going to change, I believe we have competing win win and win lose strategies for our shared survival and pleasure and we are seeing a trend towards more and more 'win win' as we progress.

"

Construction and destruction cannot exist without each other. They are in "Lust" with each other. But, above all this, is really just Love and Unity. Uniting to my greatest fear and repression is an aspect of this -- so, the aim is to bind nothing, for there is none that is not very Isis."

Well we can construct ideas and we can destruct ideas, but we dont have to destruct people to destruct ideas...I believe all of this things have a place, especially when the opposites are harmonized.

"

But then, discarding all of this thinking when it is not useful and moving away from obsessing thoughts. It can take away from living every moment to the fullest. The trap of Indolence is a very dry one -- no flow -- this is what I meant before when it comes to economizing energy...how useful are these conversations? "

Speaking for myself, I need to work out my thoughts with others it helps me integrate and understand at a deeper level. It also helps me NOT obsess on them, it helps me work them out so it is very useful to me personally.

"

Besides showcasing skill of ideas in ontology, teleology, and other big words that turn the majority of humanity off... "

meh, it's just a niche skill set, I assume it bores many to tears but it seems to excite just the right people

"

What are your moral opinions, if I may ask, when it comes to global solutions, etc.? "

My morals are summarized quite simply as 'win win' on all levels and planes and environments at all times

"

Why do you find these things worth fighting for? "

my true will I suppose.....I dont know i dont ask that question much to myself, i just dig it

"

Do you subscribe to a categorical imperative? If so, do you feel that it benefits you in some way?"

Yes, as mentioned above, my 'categorial imperative' is 'all problems are solved effectively and for certain when all sides win', which is a high brow way of saying 'unity'

"

Very nice exchanging ideas with you btw! We could probably just take this conversation offline...

"
"

Likewise! let's keep it continuing here, so much has come to light having this discussion in the open and believe it or not, it all relates to spirits somehow!

[Frater 639]

@ldfriend56 said

"ok - i just call that the realm of thinking and include in that list is 'honesty'. I believe it comes into fruition when balanced with intuition."

I agree. A balance of both is key.

@ldfriend56 said

"well it more than likely played little role what so ever in the formation of our earth as a sphere. In hind site, we can say it was the objective environment even though people had a false idea believed to be true about this environment (happens all the time) - and it would be quite objective for us to say so. When we believed the earth was a flat plane, we were not being very objective! we were projecting our own false ideas onto the mystery and believing them to be true.

I understand there is this philosophical aversion to using the word 'objective' and 'objectivity' - but shared environment, the physical universe does not change for me if you exit or enter it - and it's exact nature might be mystery, with much truth to be discovered, but it still exists independent of a point of view.

And using the word objective is always in relationship to it's opposite, subjective - so it's a complete relationship so I like it "

The reason why I used that is an example is because you defined objectivity as shared reality. Those people that believed something in error shared reality. Only in hindsight do we consider it false. Did that make it any less true for those people? Their belief was truth to them.

No aversion to "objectivity". But, the idea of an objective truth is usually just a model based on the most convenient way of stating a belief. And if we keep saying objective truth includes everything, then it is not really saying anything at all.

Also, using the opposites logic - truth also implies falsehood. So can existence also include falsehood?

@ldfriend56 said

"Well it lines up quite nicely with my model so far. All memes make copies and spread themselves around and ideas and memes that appear to create the most accurate map to the most points of view, objective memes if you will, make take a long time to spread around but when they take hold they take hold firmly in culture. We are quite unlikely to go back to the meme 'flat earth' as true."

Agreed. So, by this logic, it seems that "truth" can be created by belief? A useful model if used as a tool.

@ldfriend56 said

"Truth may be a matter of convenience but objectively speaking, truth is a matter of existence. Truth is existence. The existence of something or anything is in relation to how 'true' it is. Existence itself may be a very uncomfortable problem for the mind, especially the 'rauch' as you frame it to confront - I believe our relationship to truth is our journey with existence and this to me is an objective way to look at and understand 'truth'"

Existence is a very blanket term (and also futile ) -- it seems you may mean perception of that which exists? Our relationship to truth is perception? If we include multiple perceptions, then truth is relative. If we only include one perception, then it is subjective truth. Truth can also include something which does not exist until it is illuminated. Do you mean truth is the experience of existence? Does this involve perception?

@ldfriend56 said

"the fact that there can be an illusion that fools all of us tells me that this must be a very real illusion and therefore objective occurring."

"A very real illusion" is a direct contradiction by the standard definition -- but I know what you're saying I think.

@ldfriend56 said

"True comes in basically three forms. There is the truth of the mystery, i.e. it is true that there is unknown. There is the truth we all can agree on - our shared environment. And then there is your or my point of view about that environment. My POV may take a different location in time and space, as well as become colored with my feelings and subjectivity, but I am still going to be sharing a set of information with you that will be identical up to a certain point."

This is relatively true. And it is also a useful model. But, I have to keep saying that truth is POV and not an absolute. As a person that I admire once said "only Siths deal in absolutes." Or something like that.

@ldfriend56 said

"Double Libra with a Pisces Moon"

Sidereal or Tropical?

@ldfriend56 said

"Like I mentioned above, I believe that collective intelligence is the savior of our species - and we are living in a time where, historically speaking, collective intelligence can finally take conscious shape and form via technology - so yes I am hopeful that collective organizing of resources is a result of this process."

I think DNA and procreation is the savior of our species. Let's hope that we get organized collectively though -- I do share that sentiment -- and technology has not always made our collective lives easier.

@ldfriend56 said

"Well we can construct ideas and we can destruct ideas, but we dont have to destruct people to destruct ideas...I believe all of this things have a place, especially when the opposites are harmonized."

Does destroying people have a place? Technology has definitely made that easier.

@ldfriend56 said

"I use both to balance each other. I let my intuition let me wonder and poke at my curiosity - and then invite my rational mind to observe my reactions. Ultimately i believe we need both thinking and feeling (i just use these two words to explain our internal environments because they are the most shared and basic words and we all relate to thinking and feeling)

We just want to think with our objective minds and feel with our feelings and not think with the feelings and feel with the mind! yikes! talk about confusion"

I like your model of balance. As far as the "win win"...I see what you're trying to say; although, it will never always be win win because of the diversity of perspective. Until we are all seeing in the same direction, I don't see this as a possiblity. Admirable to strive toward...but it creates a problem in the free will department. There are also hints of determinism in those statements.

And, as far as the dialectic, you say it helps to hammer things out for you, but I don't see the point in talking overmuch. In fact, I find over-analysis to be interference and, ultimately, there are better ways to spend my time. Asserting belief as truth makes things, even just by talking about them, and, in my direct experience and ideas of truth, it can set up issues in the long run.

Silence to me is the greatest aspect of collective truth, because it doesn't qualify one POV over the other -- and ultimately, it is the Supreme method of magick and mysticism, and the aim of my Path.

And with that, I invoke my buddy Harpocrates. Best of luck on your Path. I enjoyed the conversation.

[oldfriend56]

@Frater 639 said

"

The reason why I used that is an example is because you defined objectivity as shared reality. Those people that believed something in error shared reality. Only in hindsight do we consider it false. Did that make it any less true for those people? Their belief was truth to them."

it functioned like an objective truth, but that does not make it one. at some point, as is natural to all ideas, it come into conflict with another idea that was challenging the role for 'objective truth' about our shared reality and the idea that was the most considering of course wins.

"

No aversion to "objectivity". But, the idea of an objective truth is usually just a model based on the most convenient way of stating a belief. And if we keep saying objective truth includes everything, then it is not really saying anything at all."

any truth that creates the potential for agreement functions as the objective truth - at any point, it will come into conflict with another idea for that place. Since our shared environment is ONE environment, it will only tolerate ONE objective truth that details it's co-ordinates. The 'everything' about our shared reality might be an unknown, but we know it exists regardless if we have deconstructed it into true or false

"
Also, using the opposites logic - truth also implies falsehood. So can existence also include falsehood?"

YES! One of the things I am personally proud of is actually defining what 'false' actually means without having to relate it to it's opposite. False ideas are just subjective ideas, creative ideas that point to another truth without actually being it. So any idea about 'being' is naturally 'false' compared to the actual experience of being. False ideas relate to 'being' in some sense, they are just more creative than true ideas - and are only 'wrong' when confused as a true idea or mysterious idea. Take a 'scientific' idea, such as e=mc^2, that has proven it's efficacy - this is a good example of an objective idea. A good example of a false idea is a creative sci fi story that details e=mc^2 in a time travel story.

another great example of 'false' ideas is this great work - foucault.info/documents/foucault.thisIsNotaPipe.en.html - right? it is not a pipe, it's a picture of a pipe.

make sense? So false ideas are not wrong ideas, they are subjective, creative ideas that point to another truth than their medium expresses. Sometimes I like to call them 'false truths' as opposed to their counterpart, 'objective truths'.

"
Agreed. So, by this logic, it seems that "truth" can be created by belief? A useful model if used as a tool. "

What one believes to be true only becomes true for that individual, it does not make it true objectively. Only verified objective information, proven via the technologies of 'Rauch' meaning, mathematics, logics, science, objectivity actually proves something true, or shows it to be a false or mysterious idea.

Remember, we are not balancing two truth values of (true/false) - we are balancing 3 truth values - true, false, and mystery. Mystery is just what you get when you combine true and false at once - where neither true nor false is distinguishable. They are all true in some sense, false in some sense, and unknown after another sense all together.

"

Existence is a very blanket term (and also futile ) -- it seems you may mean perception of that which exists? "

No, it's pure experience itself - that is and always will be the ultimate truth which implies existence without even knowing it. Pure experience and existence are two sets of description that are describing the same thing, one is exalted in subjectivity, the other is exalted in objectivity. It's a self referential truth value.

"

Our relationship to truth is perception? "

I do not believe so - perception is the observation of our experience which is just pure feeling, no language, no rauch, one does not even have to know they are having an experience to have an experience - Perception is about how we perceive with our minds 'eye', and then exchange, ideas about that feeling or stage of being. Our relationship to truth is experience, because experience contains the objective truth of existence experienced in a state of pure subjectivity - there is quite an elegant harmony there that is both intuitively appealing and rationally perceived.

"
If we include multiple perceptions, then truth is relative. "

some truth is relative. WE EXIST! is that a relative truth? isn't easier to go balls out and accept the objective validity of that statement? is it not more useful to do so?

"

If we only include one perception, then it is subjective truth. Truth can also include something which does not exist until it is illuminated. Do you mean truth is the experience of existence? Does this involve perception?"

yikes, ok already addressed some of this above. yes, ultimately truth grounds itself in the unknown truth or mystery, awaiting to be appreciated as either true or false in some discernable combination. Yes, the experience of existence is experience itself and this functions as our personal truth only we can verify with the support of others - while we experience truth, we still need each other to actually know we exist, to confirm it objectively. This is how I come to suggest that 'existence' itself is troubling thing to ponder for 'rauch' and creates much of the conflict in existence.

"
"A very real illusion" is a direct contradiction by the standard definition -- but I know what you're saying I think. "

yes this is tough ground to carry using language - to be clear, using the law of identity A=A, illusion=illusion. illusions exist for all of us that is what makes it an objective phenomenon.

"
This is relatively true. And it is also a useful model. But, I have to keep saying that truth is POV and not an absolute. "

truth is both relative and absolute. consider; if what you are saying is true, that all 'truth' is relative - that would still suggest that all POV's have a function called 'truth' and the category of 'truth' functions absolutely for all, regardless if the content of 'truth' varies.

True, False, and Mystery are eternal and continuous and therefore absolute.

"

As a person that I admire once said "only Siths deal in absolutes." Or something like that. "

and only relativists deal in relative truths

the best is when you deal in both relative and absolute

(choose ye well

"

@ldfriend56 said

"Double Libra with a Pisces Moon"

Sidereal or Tropical? "

tropical, which always seems more 'true' to me than sidereal

"

I think DNA and procreation is the savior of our species. Let's hope that we get organized collectively though -- I do share that sentiment -- and technology has not always made our collective lives easier."

media technology certainly has I suggest. Look how easier it has made it for you and I to have a discussion like this!

"
Does destroying people have a place? Technology has definitely made that easier."

I dont think win lose strategies have a place in a win win environment. I would say over all the problems solved by technology are greater than the problems caused.

"

I like your model of balance. As far as the "win win"...I see what you're trying to say; although, it will never always be win win because of the diversity of perspective. "

Well here is where we have complete disagreement, I suggest we actually get the win win because of the diversity of perspective.

"

Until we are all seeing in the same direction, I don't see this as a possiblity. "

we already all share true, false, and mystery in common - we just disagree what we put in each category - it's actually easier than you think. ( i say this because this is the practical side of this conversation for me, I'm not just an arm chair philosopher, I am actually building this particular framework for collective editing, it's sort of what lead to this over all discussion)

"
Admirable to strive toward...but it creates a problem in the free will department. There are also hints of determinism in those statements."

not sure I follow you here

"

And, as far as the dialectic, you say it helps to hammer things out for you, but I don't see the point in talking overmuch. In fact, I find over-analysis to be interference and, ultimately, there are better ways to spend my time. Asserting belief as truth makes things, even just by talking about them, and, in my direct experience and ideas of truth, it can set up issues in the long run. "

lol, well couldn't tell from this discussion

"

Silence to me is the greatest aspect of collective truth, because it doesn't qualify one POV over the other -- and ultimately, it is the Supreme method of magick and mysticism, and the aim of my Path.

And with that, I invoke my buddy Harpocrates. Best of luck on your Path. I enjoyed the conversation. "

Funny that we can still have a discussion online without 'saying' one word thanks my friend, this has been very helpful to me working these ideas out. I find that the level I understand something is somehow equal to my ability to share it and allow others to 'see what I mean'.

cheers!

[Frater 639]

@ldfriend56 said

"Funny that we can still have a discussion online without 'saying' one word thanks my friend, this has been very helpful to me working these ideas out. I find that the level I understand something is somehow equal to my ability to share it and allow others to 'see what I mean'."

I'm glad I could help -- I simply asked questions and listened to your answers. Although, I'm afraid we don't have a shared reality on all points.

As a general rule, discussions usually have all parties involved asking questions. And it always makes the more active "spirits" feel appreciated when they have an audience for their expression, belief system, POV, etc.

btw - Virgo Sun (adjusted for Sidereal) -- this is Jim's writing (hopefully this is ok, Jim):

SUN IN VIRGO
 At home in a library or bookstore. Usually well educated
(formally or self-taught) and well read.
 “Secretaries of the zodiac” (“gophers” and errand people).
 Always in touch with goings on about them, and the “pulse
of the times.” Love of history and antiquity. Encyclopedic.
 Nervous undercurrent, but low manic level. Hyper-tense and
hyper-attentive.
 Obsessive-compulsive personality style. Acute powers of
observation. May remain unaware of the whole by overemphasizing
the details.
 Too “mechanical” to be artistic by aesthetic standards.
 Leave it to Virgo to “get the facts.” Logical, analytical.
 Capable of detail work.
 Thrives in “white collar” work.
 ROUTINE-ism. Even flow, often “in a rut.”
 May undervalue the opinion of others: have their own supported
and justified views. (It‟s important for Virgo to know
whether he or she is right!)
 Takes life too seriously. Doesn‟t laugh enough.
 Marvelous orators with a sympathetic audience. Has a
“common touch” in self-expression. Extremely sensitive to
possible criticism, but courageous in word and action.
 Undemonstrative in romance. Sexually, Virgo can do without
better than most others (redirection of libido), but can
also do with as well as any (technically skilled).
 Persistent need for companions (cf. Firmicus). Those who
are hyperactive sexually seem to use sex as a friendsmaking
device.
 Shy, modest, bashful, blushes easily.
 Highly tolerant, extraordinarily easy to get along with, congenial,
tactful. “Nice guys.”
 Innate air of innocence and even naiveté allows them to get
away with more than most others. (Not held responsible for
actions, taken care of, looked after, can “tell off” superiors.)
 Servant Motif. Highly devoted, eager to assist. Martyr
syndrome, emotional masochism.
 “Unused to rage” (Manilius). Resistance to bother. Refusal
to let anything interfere with serenity. Handles even emergencies
in routine fashion.
 Cold but adamant adherence to principles. Conscientious in
most dealings. Finds behavior “appropriate” to the situation.
 Strategic. Many significant military figures. Tactical.
 Has a greater concern for the conditions of the “common
man,” yet does not support causes by radical means. Expends
much effort toward social “progress.”
 Good psychologists. Frequently some type of counselor.
 Diet and health conscious (but not fanatically cleanliness- or
germ-conscious unless Saturn is strong).

Good luck with your editing process!