Secret Chiefs and attainment
-
@Legis said
"And you know, if there are Secret Chiefs who are actual living people, I just don't seem them as willing to perform tricks for those who have no interest in them except to confirm their existence or not."
If they're "real" but they don't affect the world in any detectable ways, then they're indistinguishable from being not real, and no one therefore has any good reason to think that they're real.
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"And you know, if there are Secret Chiefs who are actual living people, I just don't seem them as willing to perform tricks for those who have no interest in them except to confirm their existence or not."If they're "real" but they don't affect the world in any detectable ways, then they're indistinguishable from being not real, and no one therefore has any good reason to think that they're real."
You're default tautology. You define "real" as measurable. So, only the measurable is measurable.
It's amazing how many stars suddenly became real when we launched the hubble telescope.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Los said
"
@Takamba said
""[T]here are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzche."And is that a fact or an interpretation?"
It's a quote."
I don't really have to spell this out, do I?
If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is a fact, then the statement is demonstrated to be false (since there would actually be a fact, in contradiction to the statement).
If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is an interpretation, then it's just somebody's arbitrary way of looking at things: it's not a fact, and nobody has any reason to think it's correct.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You're default tautology. You define "real" as measurable. So, only the measurable is measurable."
I said detectable. Real things manifest in detectable ways. If something is "real" but doesn't manifest in any detectable ways, then it's functionally equivalent to being not real and nobody has any reason to think that it exists.
Name something real that doesn't manifest in any detectable way.
"It's amazing how many stars suddenly became real when we launched the hubble telescope."
They didn't "become real" -- we became aware of them (and thus had reason to accept that they existed) because we were able to detect them.
They were always real -- always capable of being detected -- but we didn't know that they were real until we actually did detect them.
In the case of these Secret Buddies of yours, no one's ever detected them, and therefore nobody has any reason to think that they're real. If ever humanity does detect them, then we'll have reason to accept that they exist.
-
You want me to name something detectable that's not detectable?
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"You want me to name something detectable that's not detectable?"
No, I want you to name something that you consider real that is not detectable in any way.
The reason for my question is that you seem to disagree with the idea that "real" means "manifesting in some detectable way." So, in order to get a grasp on what you think "real" means, I'm asking you to point to something undetectable that you consider real.
-
Everything we haven't discovered yet.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Everything we haven't discovered yet."
Things we haven't discovered yet -- with the implication that we could possibly discover them -- are detectable (otherwise, we wouldn't have the possibility of discovering them).
I asked you to name something you consider real that's not detectable (i.e. not capable of being detected, at all, ever).
-
So you accept the existence of things we have no evidence of?
I also accept the existence of all the unknown things we will never be able to detect.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I also accept the existence of all the unknown things we will never be able to detect."
There's a difference between something that's detectable that we never actually do detect and something that's undetectable.
What you're saying here is that you think there are (detectable) things that we will never actually detect, which means that, as far as I can tell, you're identifying "real" with "detectable."
I mean, you do agree that until something is detected people are not justified in accepting that that specific something exists, right? An example to make that question clearer: radio waves existed long before people were capable of detecting them, but they still existed (that is to say, they were, in theory, detectable...people just didn't yet have the necessary tools to detect them). Do you agree that, before anyone had detected radio waves, that no one had any good reason to accept that they existed?
-
I asked you a simple question first.
Do you accept the existence of things we have no evidence of?
Or have we already discovered everything?
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I asked you a simple question first.
Do you accept the existence of things we have no evidence of?
Or have we already discovered everything?"
I accept that there are things that we haven't yet discovered, and I accept that claim on the basis of evidence: the entire history of the human search for knowledge has continually revealed new things to learn, and, inductively, we are more than justified in concluding on the back of that massive amount of evidence that there will (functionally) always be more to learn.
-
@Los said
"
In the case of these Secret Buddies of yours, no one's ever detected them, and therefore nobody has any reason to think that they're real. If ever humanity does detect them, then we'll have reason to accept that they exist."
To put a slight fly in your ointment:
Crowley detected them, in fact his whole philosophy, of which you claim to be a follower, is based on just such a claim.
In fact various people have claimed to detect them, whether you accept those claims or not though is down to you.
It could possibly be that these people have simply detected something that you yourself don't have the capacity to detect, by dint of not having developed the faculty's necessary?Not so long ago I was pretty much a nihilist/skeptic, I simply thought that all these 'goblins' and whatnot were patently absurd, stands to reason doesn't it? Anyone can tell you that there are no goblins!
Even though I had had Out-of-body-experiences and seen "Ghosts", I had written them off as hallucinations.
Two things made me not so sure, one was my first experience of Kundalini rising, it was actually happening, and that in itself was a revelation. The second was the Vision of Adonai, I had no idea that it was both as literal and as unexpectedly commonplace as it was.
Now you will probably write these off as my own fantasies or delusions. It doesn't matter really what you think because those experiences have left an indelible mark on my life. I'm not saying that these things confirm to me the existence of secret chiefs, but they do confirm to me that there is more going on in the Universe than my senses detect in the normal course of things.
Anyway, that's my two-pence. Back to Work.
-
@Los said
"
I don't really have to spell this out, do I?If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is a fact, then the statement is demonstrated to be false (since there would actually be a fact, in contradiction to the statement).
If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is an interpretation, then it's just somebody's arbitrary way of looking at things: it's not a fact, and nobody has any reason to think it's correct."
Do I have to spell it out for you? Your God Nietzche (whom you oft quote) said this. Ergo, he meant it exactly as you interpret it. Ergo, it applies to all your beliefs rooted in Nietzche. Ergo, no more hold water do you.
-
How do you define a goblin?
Seems funny, to me, that there should be a definition for something which does not exist.
Yet, at the very heart of a matter, without a definition one can make no argument.
The statement "Goblins do not exist" is a logical fallacy.
A more accurate statement:
"I have no experience with what I define as a goblin."
It is about taking responsibility for your belief system. -
@Archaeus said
"Crowley detected them, in fact his whole philosophy, of which you claim to be a follower, is based on just such a claim.
"This is their detectable effect on the world. Some report an experience of the phenomena of Secret Chiefs and then write things that captivate the mind to the point of our coming here almost everyday to discuss them.
As I said, because of the quality of information presented by those who claim to have an experience of this phenomena, I see no reason why the phenomena should not be investigated by any rational, interested person. Attempts to discredit a working hypothesis by accusations of "acceptance without proof" misunderstand, either willingly or ignorantly, the process of investigating a hypothesis, where an idea must be regarded as potentially true for any* legitimate *investigation and discovery to occur.
As to the possible results of investigating the phenomena of the experience of Secret Chiefs: If they are real, even in Los' strictly defined sense of the word "real," but have by definition simply hidden themselves from the masses, then I see no reason to think that they could not demonstrate their reality beyond the strictest doubt to those who by their work make themselves ready and worthy of an experience of their phenomena.
But the expectation that they would demonstrate their reality to any and all merely curious persons contradicts their primary description, which is "Secret," and thus contradicts the hypothesis itself.
Perhaps, in the end, it is simply offensive to the minds of some that proof should be given to some who are considered worthy by the purpose and quality of their work while others are left in the dark. Yet anyone who has ever wished the attention of a person in high demand faces the same restriction, as many, many others also desire the same attention. In the end, such people usually restrict their attention to those individuals whose purposes and qualities attract their own.
-
@Los said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I asked you a simple question first.Do you accept the existence of things we have no evidence of?
Or have we already discovered everything?"
I accept that there are things that we haven't yet discovered, and I accept that claim on the basis of evidence: the entire history of the human search for knowledge has continually revealed new things to learn, and, inductively, we are more than justified in concluding on the back of that massive amount of evidence that there will (functionally) always be more to learn."
So we live in a universe with (functionally) infinite possibility. Do you accept that there exist things we may never be able to detect?
To answer your question. No, I disagree that no one had any good reason to accept the existence of radio waves before they were detected. Maxwell mathematically predicted radio waves decades before they were detected, as did Einstein with black holes (the existence if which we now are able to infer indirectly). They all had pretty good reasons for believing in the as yet undetected.
As history shows, countless great discoveries were guided by intuition, dreams, insight. Detection and confirmation often comes much later. It's a good thing the initial theorists didn't share your attitude. Einstein, for example, would have dismissed his teenage dream of a farmer electrocuting cows as nonsense, instead of letting it guide him to develop the theory of relativity.
-
Los' science lesson #2:
@Los said
"I asked you to name something you consider real that's not detectable (i.e. not capable of being detected, at all, ever)."
Pretty much every scientific theory. They are not assertoric. However, I consider many of them real based on overwhelming evidence that supports the model -- see the theory of relativity, music theory, etc. But the "force" or "factor(s) infinite & unknown" beyond the model or theory itself is not detectable. Unless you want to consider ideas and imagination to be "real."
"Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown"
Also:
POTENTIAL.
As in, the potential for you to suppliment your admitted unfamiliarity with aspects of science with more education is real. It depends on your decision whether or not you raise your awareness.
Also, the future. We can represent it, but it never is the present -- therefore, it can never be detected in the way you speak of.
You leave out the most important question: detectable by whom? Certain people can detect certain things under certain conditions.
I observe a person with a certain behavior that is annoying to many other people, but that person with the annoying behavior doesn't recognize how other people perceive them. Happens with kids all the time.
Anyway,** the absence of the consideration of perspective is the fatal flaw to your arguments** -- and I suspect it is because you haven't studied the difference and details of qualitative and quantitative evidence and how scientists (not rhetoricians) use it. Observation is directly affected by awareness and so is data gathering! To go further, if you're not aware and you can't detect it -- doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not real. You seem to already agree with that.
Scientists make models according to probability and patterns. From wikipedia:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force."
My bold.
Experience HAS explanatory power? No!
The Secret Chiefs are a working model. If you choose to work with the model, go for it. If not, and you're not interested in investigating these phenomenon -- don't. Not everybody is science-minded obviously and I'm sure glad that didn't stop Edison from playing with that wacky electricity. But many people like to make biased assertions without putting in the work! Again, to familiarize you with simple scientific observation (observations are qualitative data as we learned in lesson #1):
"In falsificationism, an unfalsifiable and thus unscientific theory is not necessarily intrinsically false or inappropriate, since metaphysical theories might be true or contain truth, but one cannot know for sure. Simply, to be scientific, a theory must entail at least one observation, which may or may not be the case."
Again, observations are called** qualitative **data. If we have scientists correlating related data through quantitative evidence (some amount of correlating factors with the same considered variables), we can come to a consensus and a working scientific theory. It takes multiple perspectives "looking in the same direction" to be accepted as reality within that group consciousness.
And when most people truly start to understand this and train themselves (and not be taught what is correct to believe by the media, academia, etc.), watch out...
Also, we should get your definition of "real," so we can stop playing the semantic games. You unknowingly include subjective perspectives and observations as evidence and then say subjective perspectives aren't "real." It's getting old.
Anyway, the theory is real but *what it truly represents *is not detectable in the material sense of the way you mean "real." What is behind the theory is as "real" as a Goblin -- but if the details of what the theory predicts is useful to the person using it, who cares if the Secret Chiefs gave them the telegraph or God or just plain ol' perserverance. The point is that the telegraph revolutionized communication and it came through some sort of inspiration:
"What hath God wrought?" -- first telegraph message
In short, we should probably stop investigating because we all know God made the sun to revolve around the earth -- the loudest, unscientific fanatics are always right! -- so, obviously, the case is closed.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Los said
"
I don't really have to spell this out, do I?If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is a fact, then the statement is demonstrated to be false (since there would actually be a fact, in contradiction to the statement).
If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is an interpretation, then it's just somebody's arbitrary way of looking at things: it's not a fact, and nobody has any reason to think it's correct."
Do I have to spell it out for you? Your God Nietzche (whom you oft quote) said this. Ergo, he meant it exactly as you interpret it. Ergo, it applies to all your beliefs rooted in Nietzche. Ergo, no more hold water do you."
You think that because a person agrees with some things a thinker says that that person must agree with all things that thinker says?
Do you even read this stuff before you post it?