Some Liber Tzaddi questions
-
@chioa khan said
"
@Jim Eshleman said
"I suspect you think that there is something unreal about fantasy. On the one hand, imagination is the capacity to forge very substantial things in Yetzirah. On the other hand... material reality comes about much the same way."Could you explain what you mean by this? This statement doesn't seem to make much sense. What do you mean "forge very substantial things in yetzirah"? Why do you say "material reality comes about much the same way"?"
Of coure it doesn't make sense to you. But... I've said it in simple language. Perhaps the piece you are missing is that each of the four Worlds consists ofactual substance, behaving in a particular way distinctive to that Word, and perceptible to those who have their perceptions away in that world.
I'm saying (in part) that the way one forges psychological objects out of psychological substance is fundamentally the same as the way one forges physical objects out of physical substance.
"Of course a fantasy is "real" to the person experiencing. It's unreal though in the sense that it doesn't exist in some other dimension apart from this one."
Suspecting that by "dimension" you mean the same thing that I mean by "World," tjhen you are mistaken. (But you already knew I'd say that, you are baiting me, and you're getting ready to cause a boatload of trouble again for which, in the end, I likely will have to take disagreeable steps.)
" I say it's important for a person to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality because it's very easy to cross the line into delusion. If we are here defining fantasy, we might as well define delusion."
The dictionary serves us well enough. Delusion is a wrong idea. It is error. The word is especially used to mean an intractible idea resistant to reason or evidence, such as the hobby horse you repeatedly ride to the party these days.
One can become deluded as easily from the misvaluation of perceptions of physical aspects of the universe as from the misvaluation of perceptions of the metaphysical aspects of the universe.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Delusion is a wrong idea. It is error."
Ok. And how do you, specifically, determine whether one of your ideas is a "delusion" or whether it is some "reality that you are forging on another World"?
I'm asking how you, personally, specifically, distinguish the two ("to you").
-
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Delusion is a wrong idea. It is error."Ok. And how do you, specifically, determine whether one of your ideas is a "delusion" or whether it is some "reality that you are forging on another World"?
I'm asking how you, personally, specifically, distinguish the two ("to you")."
That depends on the situation, of course. (This is NOT a short answer type of question.) Really, how does one determine whether or not one's perception of physical matters is delusional?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Of coure it doesn't make sense to you."
That's because it was barely a sentence. It wouldn't have made sense to most people.
Or do you mean to suggest that I am so "beneath you" that I could never apprehend your true meaning? Sounds like you're saying the only people who "get it" will be in your little club.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Perhaps the piece you are missing is that each of the four Worlds consists ofactual substance, behaving in a particular way distinctive to that Word, and perceptible to those who have their perceptions away in that world."
Yes, I get that. The piece I think you are missing is that the word "world" is just a nice convenience. It doesn't mean that on some other planet, or in some other dimension, there is an alternately "real" environment inhabited by creates and forces, the same way that this one is. When moving "through the worlds" you don't actually "travel" anywhere.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm saying (in part) that the way one forges psychological objects out of psychological substance is fundamentally the same as the way one forges physical objects out of physical substance."
Again, I'm not sure what you mean with this sentence. Could you be more explicit?
I especially don't know what you mean when you say "forge physical objects".
When I play my guitar, I'm not "making" the notes. I'm not actually "creating" anything. The sounds are a reaction of waves moving through the air, vibrations. The perception of them is made up in my brain, etc. All the matter and energy is already there. This is more like "interacting" in my environment, than "creating" it as I move along.
Even my thoughts are an extension of my physical environment. They are not "forged of nothing". It all has to do with chemicals and neurons and circumstance. All possible ideas and inspirations are just a reaction to the stimulus.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Suspecting that by "dimension" you mean the same thing that I mean by "World," tjhen you are mistaken. (But you already knew I'd say that, you are baiting me, and you're getting ready to cause a boatload of trouble again for which, in the end, I likely will have to take disagreeable steps.)"
Mistaken how? What makes you right, and all these other people wrong? If you could prove such a thing, you'd have won the nobel prize and made big headlines by now.
No one is baiting you for anything. That's paranoid. You don't have to respond. There you go threatening to censor me because I dare to advance an unpopular opinion. Funny how you consider it "causing a buttload of trouble" to subject these ideas to even the smallest bit of scrutiny. The mere idea of a challenge to your perspective is offensive to you, but that's not my fault. Don't put it on me because you can't think of a way to respond that doesn't fall back on your usual pattern of behavior. I can't believe someone as "initiated" as you hasn't found a better way to interact with people like me and Los by now.
Like it or not, the emerging perspective of reality - based on the knowledge we currently have available - is a materialist one. With or without me here on this forum, that's just "how it is". It's like evolution. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't change anything. I don't have to be here stating this, for it to be apparent.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The dictionary serves us well enough. Delusion is a wrong idea. It is error. The word is especially used to mean an intractible idea resistant to reason or evidence, such as the hobby horse you repeatedly ride to the party these days.
One can become deluded as easily from the misvaluation of perceptions of physical aspects of the universe as from the misvaluation of perceptions of the metaphysical aspects of the universe."
Delusion is the wrong idea for what? I think it's an appropriate word for what goes on here. Especially by the definition you just gave. Resistant to reason, and evidence? Well that sounds like a lot of the stories we read on here. Ghosts, magic powers, past lives, etc.
Nice little twist you put on the end there. As if to say that people who think like me are the real deluded ones. You may disagree but some of us don't believe there is any such thing as a "metaphysical" aspect to the universe. Thats a word that we humans use when we are especially ignorant of very normal, very natural processes. These things often times become "demystified" as humans "figure it out". You'll notice that we no longer believe lightning to be caused by demons. We know the sun does not "die and go away" when it sets.
We've "figured out" so many things by now, that to still think that there are worlds inhabited by goblins is a little silly. It's a fantasy.
@Jim Eshelman said
"That depends on the situation, of course. (This is NOT a short answer type of question.) Really, how does one determine whether or not one's perception of physical matters is delusional?"
Are you seriously asking me how I personally determine fantasy from reality? It's not that hard, I'd be glad to offer you some pointers if you need the help. You correctly point out that the delusion occurs in our perceptions, however I feel the need to reiterate that all matters are "physical matters".
Sorry to Ash for "hijacking" this thread. It seems to have grown from a discussion of the book, to a discussion of what is meant by the word "fantasy".
-
@chioa khan said
"Or do you mean to suggest that I am so "beneath you" that I could never apprehend your true meaning? Sounds like you're saying the only people who "get it" will be in your little club.
"True as that might be, it isn't what I meant. I meant that you've locked your mind against the fundamental spiritual reality of the universe, and there fore you're going to continue not to understand statements such as this.
BTW, I'm not going to continue to engage you in this incarnation any more than on others. As an anti-magical, anti-spirituality bigot, I'm not clear why you're even here on a site that is first and foremost about spiritual, magical matters; but I won't chase you off until you inevitably run things into the ground again.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@chioa khan said
"Or do you mean to suggest that I am so "beneath you" that I could never apprehend your true meaning? Sounds like you're saying the only people who "get it" will be in your little club. "True as that might be, it isn't what I meant. I meant that you've locked your mind against the fundamental spiritual reality of the universe, and there fore you're going to continue not to understand statements such as this.
BTW, I'm not going to continue to engage you in this incarnation any more than on others. As an anti-magical, anti-spirituality bigot, I'm not clear why you're even here on a site that is first and foremost about spiritual, magical matters; but I won't chase you off until you inevitably run things into the ground again."
Jim, by the phrase "in this incarnation" do you mean: the new forum-incarnation, i.e. new username, for an old ex forum member?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@chioa khan said
"Or do you mean to suggest that I am so "beneath you" that I could never apprehend your true meaning? Sounds like you're saying the only people who "get it" will be in your little club. "True as that might be, it isn't what I meant. I meant that you've locked your mind against the fundamental spiritual reality of the universe, and there fore you're going to continue not to understand statements such as this."
Your statement is not authoritative. There is no fundamental spiritual reality. Conversely I could say you have closed your mind to the fundamental material reality of all things. I suppose time will tell which perspective will win out.
Your argument resembles that of a christian person who refuses to look at the factual basis for evolution. Apparently they don't like being told Jesus never existed either. Nothing you say or think will change the facts.
It doesn't seem like your about to admit you could be wrong about anything. It makes me wonder what makes you so confident that you possess this super power of infallibility.
"BTW, I'm not going to continue to engage you in this incarnation any more than on others. As an anti-magical, anti-spirituality bigot, I'm not clear why you're even here on a site that is first and foremost about spiritual, magical matters; but I won't chase you off until you inevitably run things into the ground again."
Bigot? Oh come on James. That's ridiculous. This is like any christian person who insists that gay marriage is an attack on their values. It's like postulating a non-existent war on christmas. Just like Fox (faux) news does.
I am actually incredibly interested in Magick, with a K. That is the philosophy advanced by Aleister Crowley. He went to great lengths to define what he meant. Have you ever actually read Book 4?
Not only does he say that he chose this special spelling to distinguish his new philosophy from the kind of unscientific and faith-based magic which you promote, but he also defined it very clearly with phrases like "The discovery of the True Will" and "causing change in conformity to the will". Where on earth do you get the assumption that I have to subscribe to all your new age clap trap in order to take an interest?
I always assumed you were here propagating Crowley's philosophy of magick. I was a bit slow to pick up on the fact that you are not interested in Crowley's real philosophy at all.
Now before you accuse me of calling you a fraud, or attacking you, just be sure that I know this is only my opinion. But it's an opinion that I feel I arrived at objectively and without personal bias or prejudice. I wanted to believe you, trust me. I know you certainly believe yourself, so no hard feelings ok?
Thelema actually has nothing to do with practical magic; or paganism; or any new age clap trap. I interpret Crowley's words to suggest that Thelema deals only with the discovery and execution of the true will. Causing changes in conformity with that will, and maybe spreading the message of liberty and freedom for those who are so inclined (it's certainly not a moral imperative). I'm very much interested in this thelema, and in magick, but not at all interested in what you are trying to pass off as thelema. You can understand my confusion.
Since when is it a requirement for people to buy into any religious or spiritualist notion in order to practice thelema?
Perhaps you should think about changing the name/platform of your organization away from Thelema and Crowley, so that you can avoid having to deal with people like me and Los in the future. I only expect that many more people will become materialist or atheist with the passage of time. A lot of the ideas and practices you promote seem awful superfluous and unnecessary to the practice of thelema. The only thing thelemic about it is the imagery and themes you have chosen to display.
Maybe you could call it "temple of Jim's creation", or "temple of generic new age philosophies", or something else like that?
-
Danica, the former.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Delusion is a wrong idea. It is error."Ok. And how do you, specifically, determine whether one of your ideas is a "delusion" or whether it is some "reality that you are forging on another World"?
I'm asking how you, personally, specifically, distinguish the two ("to you")."
That depends on the situation, of course. (This is NOT a short answer type of question.)"
Well, I ask because I don’t think that imagining stuff “forges” it in some other world (and I hold that position on the basis that there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim that imagination does "forge" things). So to me, imagining something and then believing that it exists as anything other than purely make believe is a delusion. If you’re suggesting that there are some cases where it’s not a delusion, then you need, for yourself, a specific way to distinguish between the two.
Let’s use the example of a magician who uses his imagination to “forge” an elemental being to serve him. You seem to be suggesting that, in cases like that, such a being would actually exist on some other World, as opposed to simply being make believe.
From my perspective, what you’re suggesting would be a textbook delusion.
But you seem to be saying that there are at least some cases in which it wouldn’t be a delusion, in which the “operation” really could “forge” some kind of being.
If that’s the case, then how, according to you, would a magician go about demonstrating to himself that the being actually does exist on some other world (and that he is not, in fact, suffering from a delusion)?
"Really, how does one determine whether or not one's perception of physical matters is delusional?"
Evidence. If you've ever encountered an optical illusion and then discovered that you were in error about your perception of that physical thing, you've demonstrated to yourself the usefulness of evidence is making that determination.
So in this case, I'm asking you for the evidence that would enable you to distinguish something you've "forged on another world" from a delusion.
-
Los, would you accept anecdotal evidence as some degree of evidence to your question(s)? Because unfortunately, until I can invent a machine that projects my mental images on a screen for all to witness and verify, you can only take my word for it.
Back in the 90s I involved myself in one of those "new age" things that I thought I'd take a ride on just for the heck of it. My ex-wife had given me admission to a seminar thing as a birthday present, a shaman of the "dreamtime" had come from the land down under and was teaching a brief course. After the talk he offered a guided meditation. Those of us that bought the ticket and took the ride of the guided meditation did not equal the number who had watched his lecture on the aboriginal people, the concept of the dreamtime, and whatnot. It was a smaller room we had moved to and he did the usual guided meditation relaxation technique. By this time I knew that method well enough, in its many forms, and so went into my own version of obtaining an alpha brainwave consciousness and patiently waited for him to guide the others to the state. Then the journey began.
I was by this time already well read on shamanism as a modern pop-culture interest in it had grown and my major at the time was anthropology. I hadn't studied the aboriginals specifically at this time; the fact of the matter is that my anthropology focus was "subcultures in America" and that's what I like to observe. Anyway, so due to the fact that either this guy thought he was a great story teller, or due to him being concerned that some of us he was guiding along his vision quest weren't ever experienced at it before, he'd often take more time than I was interested in in describing what he was doing as well as doing what he was doing and describing things in our active imagination that I was already clearly seeing and personally knew that these were not the things I had come looking for. I wanted what the brochure promised! I wanted to go to the Library of Time (or whatever it was called), I wanted to go to that place that was described as the deposit of all imagination in history (as imagination is half of what you see in reality, believe me or not, it is so), a place where I would be able to go to any time I wished and research any event that ever occurred from an esoteric perspective, any invention that ever manifested, from yet one more perspective. We walked, he talked, we meandered - I wasn't my most patient of self at this age of early twenties.
I RAN. I ran ahead of the whole crowd. I ran down this path we were already clearly on. I ran beside this river that was so clearly described. I ran into a tunnel that the path I was on went into.
WHERE DID THAT COME FROM?
I stopped. I gathered the awareness of my ears to me again to listen for his voice. Had he described a tunnel? They're still meandering back there, well - as far as killing time tonight, we're certainly getting our money's worth on that. He's talking about the trees and the sky and the river some more. "And ahead several meters away you notice that the path is entering a tunnel...."
WHAT? DID HE JUST FINALLY CATCH UP TO ME? I'M IN THE TUNNEL!
So I slowed down my movement forward for a few moments until I knew that the group was in the tunnel. I had an experience at this time that gave me more conviction that what the brochure promised was actually going to happen, that I was going to go somewhere in what I'd call active imagination that was an actually real place built up throughout history, with observable and objective features to it, a place that independent viewers allegedly claimed to exist and each allegedly described it the same, and so the author of this lecture and accompanying book (you can purchase as you exit if you wish) decided to study. And at this point in the journey, when the group began to come inside the tunnel where I was already mentally existing, I actually began to feel their presence with me again. The experience of this was very real to me. I noticed a significant difference in my awareness of events, of my awareness of presence so to speak, that gave me a personal kind of evidence (gnosis) that this experience was genuine. (Let me put another way: When we were in the room together listening to the man, I felt the presence and heard the various murmurings of human existence around me. When we began the journey, I felt the presence and heard the murmurings of bodily things began to calm a little. As we were journeying a little in, I began to sense the presences around me each going hither tither to and fro in exploration, as I too was doing. As I ran, I left the presence behind me. As I reached the tunnel, I was clearly alone. When I let my ear seek the speaker's voice, it was clearly a distance away and slowly came closer. When they were in the tunnel, I was aware it was now a crowded space.)
I ran ahead to the end of the tunnel because I knew there had to be an end of the tunnel. I got there and this path I was on continued ahead. I noticed this side of the tunnel looked exactly the same as the other side of the tunnel with one exception: For some reason, I put a riverboat in the river this time. As the voice behind me began to get closer, I decided not to run but walk a little further ahead, keeping myself within earshot for a while, just to be sure I didn't get lost and waste the price of a ticket. I was sort of just walking slowly as I waited for the guide to announce he was reaching the end of the tunnel.
I wasn't worried about things. I had a little pocket recorder in my jacket's vest pocket (I was a sports jacket wearing kind of guy back then) that my ex-wife and I intended to listen to after. If there were any hypnotic tricks involved, any leading phrases that would invalidate the claim that I was supposed to come to an "objective" place, we would find out later. The group "behind me" exited the tunnel. The guide described it as I saw it, INCLUDING THE RIVERBOAT!
WTF???? I was ecstatic at this point.
I knew that the end of the journey was supposed to be a building, so I decided to walk ahead, again ignoring the voice of the guide, all I wanted was the building - not this river and path where of course there were supposed to be interesting things to find. I wanted the Library, not the park. So I found the building. It had two big pillars in front of the door and the door was huge. I decided to wait for the group again so the guide could open the door for us. The group arrived, and no longer surprised by these things, I listened to him describe the building as I was already seeing it - pillars, door, and even its blue color.
I was impressed. He told us the door would open for us. I went inside. I saw a long hallway with many doors on either side, and a large door at the end of the hall. Above this door was an arch (he wouldn't describe this arch in his guidance as would be later known by listening to the tape recording, but I knew this meant this is where I came to find). I went to that door and then listened to his guidance an little more as he described (behind my experience, just to remind you) the appearance of the hall, the "Hall of Time" he called it, with its many doors, each taking anyone who would want to explore them to a different "epoch of time" as the explorer saw fit - "but this isn't what you came to find today, you can always come back and explore this hall later when you wish, at the end of the hall is another door bigger than the rest, there you will find the Library of Time I promised you." I opened the door and went in.
I saw in my mind's eye an expected grand library of sorts. Rows and rows of books on shelves. Peopled by all sorts of explorers from all times and races and cultures, it also had globes on tables, scientific devices from all places, paintings and everything you'd expect. I explored its tiled floors and made notes in my mind of things I'd like to come here and "research" in the future. The guide stayed in silence for a time as he let us explore on our own. Then came the part where he said we should all leave our exploring, and it was now he described the library to us, its features, its tiled floor, the various globes and inventions, the people that were in it (specific types he mentioned), all in a manner that at the time were already past tense for me (and I assume the rest of the group as well) because he said it like such, "It's time now to re-shelve any books you are looking at. Time to gather again at the door as we will be leaving this Library of Time, filled with .....(insert description here) and begin our journey back home."
So slowly we exited the entire journey, walking back through the world we'd come into the same way we'd come into it, noting the various landmarks, including the riverboat, the tunnel, and other aspects until we came back to the place of the beginning and he brought us back to earth.
Now suffice it to say that it was all imagination. I never left the conference room of the four-star hotel that this all took place in, I never left the city I was living in, but in the journey I went to a place that my experience tells me was actually real, a place that I'm told people of many cultures throughout time do really go to, a place that was described to me, in my experience, after the fact of me seeing it, and the description and my experience matched.
So I'm convinced. Other than that, I can't imagine how to convince someone like you who has learned to become HAD by pure materialism.
-
@Takamba said
"Los, would you accept anecdotal evidence as some degree of evidence to your question(s)?"
Of course. Or, to be more precise, since I'm asking how any one individual, specifically, distinguishes between imagination and delusion, you're going to have to give some kind of anecdote and then show how you've extrapolated from your experience a method of distinguishing.
So, long story short, let's hear what you've got.
"I went to a place that my experience tells me was actually real"
Sigh. Experience has no explanatory power. Your experience can't tell you that something is real: your reason does, when you apply it to evidence (such as, for example, your experiences).
I dream all the time, but my "experience" of the dream doesn't tell me that it's real or unreal: after the fact I'm capable of reasoning about it and figuring out that it wasn' real -- that I didn't actually leave my bed or actually do any of the things depicted in the dream.
"a place that was described to me, in my experience, after the fact of me seeing it, and the description and my experience matched."
From your story, it sounds like the descriptions were all general and perfectly predictable based simply on your knowledge of what the imagination exercise was all about. For example, you make a big deal out of being down in a tunnel before the guide had said there was a tunnel...well, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but all of these pathworking thing-a-ma-jigs seem to involve going down into tunnels (or down a long spiral staircase or something).
Honestly, it would have been more surprising if your mind couldn't have guessed some of these aspects of the imagination exercise ahead of time.
But anyway, none of this demonstrates that there really was something on some other world that you really visited. I realize that it probably seemed, subjectively, very impressive, but it demonstrates nothing.
"I can't imagine how to convince someone like you"
I'll tell you how to demonstrate it: show that it's somehow distinguishable from a daydream.
Get two people who claim to be capable of entering these imagination worlds and interacting there. Put them in two separate rooms or separate buildings. Have one randomly select a word or two, enter the imagination world and write the words on a piece of paper. Without any contact between the two people in the real world, have the other person enter the imagination world and read the words.
Or, alternatively, if there really is some "Temple of Time" in [x:1ve8wfnq]Hyrule[/x:1ve8wfnq] imagination world, and if it really contains all the stuff that's ever been imagined (which would include real events, since imagination contributes to our experience of the world), then go there and find something specific in my life's history that we both agree on ahead of time. It would have to be something obscure and unknowable by any normal means, something involving imagintion, and also something very specific and not open to interpretation, like the names of the two main characters in the novel that I wrote (but never published) as a teenager.
If this "Temple of Time" is something more than a daydream, you should be able to do things with it that you can't do with a daydream, like leave messages there for others to really find or learn information about the world that you couldn't possibly otherwise know.
-
@kasper81 said
"don't think that Crowley is looking down on you laughing at your imperfections. This was a man who ate sh1t, said all women should be chloroformed at 35 and that Krsnamurti was "a little nigger". These are not the product of a perfect mind as such. We all have imperfections."
Sure he may be not doing that, though, what you call "imperfections" i wouldnt call them like this. What about what RHK says? Is for instance chapter 3 of Liber Al "not the product of a perfect mind as such?". It is a "legit" part of Nuit. There is no part of her that is not of the gods...
Also, as far as i know the more one goes towards Nuit, the more one "activates" also Hadit and RHK(at least if everything goes well). Otherwise you would disintegrate litteraly. Every man whatever his level has(should have) all three parts, and will manifest differently.
Personaly i see the "bizarre" stuff as some kind of new aeon"redemption". Like a new way of saying to the ass(like Moses did) "you're welcome too!".
I saw a master interacting with various people(including "asses"
) in real life and beyond his personality traits(wich might include some very weird things ) there is one thing that i found standing out immensely, it is the "let there be no difference between one thing and any other thing".I'd even go further and say if you're afraid of eating shit without being an adept yet, it might be a very good initiation for you
. But that's maybe an own way of mine to express the idea at my humble level -
93,
I don't think Crowley thought he was flawless, in fact he often stated that if he could attain to the higher grades then anyone else could do the same. He pointed out his 'flaws' in a few places.
You've also got to think about what a flaw is- is it something which hinders somebody, or is it something which your mind, fashioned by society has a problem with. Crowley's sexual activities are by no means normal when compared to society, however he wished to do these things and his partners were willing. As for his views on women and his occasional racism- it was a different time. He probably meant no offense by using the n word, it is just the language which was used. My grandmother is sometimes racist, however she does not mean anything harmful by it, in fact she would help anyone regardless of skin colour, yet describing the person afterwards she would use terms politically incorrect, again made taboo by society, perhaps rightfully so in this case.
His views on women, I do not know the context of the quote......
I believe Crowley was very egotistical at times, and did believe himself to be better than most people, and I believe at one time he was. Our society is no longer repressed like Victorian and post-victorian England and people are more interesting and perhaps more like 'Thelemites'.
You can choose to believe that everyone has imperfections- but what are you comparing it to? The perfect person as dictated by the rules of society, or the perfect human based upon an actual person you deem perfect?
I choose to think that as long as one is doing their will, then they are in every way perfect in their own unique way.
93, 93/93.
93, 93/93.
