Secret Chiefs and attainment
-
@Frater 639 said
"You unknowingly include subjective perspectives and observations as evidence and then say subjective perspectives aren't "real." It's getting old."
What's getting old is your inability to understand a simple point.
A person's subjective experience is real. A person's conclusions drawn from that experience are not necessarily correct, meaning that the person can think that a subjective experience reveals that being X is real when, in fact, being X is not.
So, for example, when Archaeus thought he saw a ghost, he had a real experience of some kind. The conclusion he drew from that experience ("I saw a ghost!") was, however, not true (or, to be more precise, he didn't have sufficient grounds for thinking that it was true), and the ghost that he thought he saw isn't real (or, to be more precise, no one has sufficient grounds for thinking that it's real).
This isn't hard.
-
Los:
Yes of course real things would tend to manifest in detectable ways, but do not forget that there are people with sensoria sighted at a different angle than your own. If something has never been detected by anybody then they would have no reason to suppose it might exist true; but it does not follow that just because a thing has not been detected, or (no! no!) detected by you, that it does not exist.
Don't forget that while one person might see Adonai the glorious, another might see Christ, another might see the easter bunny or even ...wait for it: goblins. Hence all the arguments over the age's about which god id the true god. These things seem to reveal themselves to the beholder in a way that s/he can understand, probably by clothing itself in the mental contents of the beholder. (which lends weight to the 'it's all in your mind' argument) whether or not these things do indeed have any existence outside the mind is something that is hard to verify, and to be honest it's also besides the point. Although the crowd's at Fatima (for example) might disagree with the subjective argument.
As for my actual opinion on the matter: Secret chiefs? Seems a bit far fetched but I'm not discounting it entirely, for all I know you could be a secret chief, or perhaps I am. But I do know that the system works if applied sincerely and with diligence, and to be completely honest that's all I'm really interested in.
-
@Archaeus said
"Don't forget that while one person might see Adonai the glorious, another might see Christ, another might see the easter bunny or even ...wait for it: goblins."
This is just another unsubstantiated claim about the way "spiritual" stuff works, one that is mutually exclusive with the claims of Christians, Muslims, etc.
There's no more reason to think that there's some spiritual reality that each person sees differently than there is to think that Christ is the one true God (and that demons are misleading all of you magicians) or to think that Allah is the one true God (and that demons are misleading all of you magicians.
You're just telling yourself a story that makes you feel good. Which is fine, but if you want to have a discussion with me in public, I'm going to call you out on it.
"whether or not these things do indeed have any existence outside the mind is something that is hard to verify, and to be honest it's also besides the point."
It's not besides the point: it's the subject under discussion on this thread. And the correct answer is that there's no good reason to think that any of these things have any existence outside the mind of the person experiencing them (and yes, that mind is the product of brain chemistry).
"for all I know you could be a secret chief"
Shhhh!
"But I do know that the system works if applied sincerely and with diligence, and to be completely honest that's all I'm really interested in."
You certainly can generate trippy visions. It's downright easy to do that. Whether those visions -- and whether pretending that one of your imaginary friends is your HGA -- does anything for you practically is a different conversation.
-
@Los said
"What's getting old is your inability to understand a simple point."
You have yet to demonstrate that you understand large aspects of the scientific method -- but you've admitted to being unfamiliar with the research methods, so I'm happy to help. Much of what I've witnessed are your beliefs and opinions -- and you change your definitions consistently.
What is real? Please define. You still didn't answer that question. But yet, you use the word all the time so you can hop on both sides of it (subjective/objective) and play semantic games. I'm suspecting you don't want to define it because of the problems you'll encounter with your description...
"A person's subjective experience is real. A person's conclusions drawn from that experience are not necessarily correct, meaning that the person can think that a subjective experience reveals that being X is real when, in fact, being X is not."
"Necessarily correct" in regard to someone else's theories that may have more convincing evidence. Like OJ's lawyers, right? Lawyers get paid to sway perspective -- much like the media, cult leaders, amateur philosophers, etc.
This "sway" can have very real effects. This is part and parcel to magick actually.
Anyway, your point is still problematic. The subjective experience is real and includes being X, then you admit it is real, but then you say it's not real. In comparison with what? Reality? Ugh. You are mixing the planes in your definition of "real." Can't you see that?
You're mixing "real" in imagination (first "real") and "real" materially (second "real"). Big problems. This is most likely due to confusion about qualitative and quantitative phenomenon, which is why I keep going there...
Also, a conclusion is an experience as well. Back to the drawingboard, Los!
"And the correct answer is that there's no good reason * to think that any of these things have any existence outside the mind of the person experiencing them (and yes, that mind is the product of brain chemistry). [actually it's the product of evolution and will] "
Nothing has existence outside of the mind from a subjective POV.
Wait...
OMFG. A BREAKTHROUGH. eleventyshift!!!!!! This is direct contradiction to so many things you've posted in the past...but...who cares?!?
cue enya
A subjective experience is real? Then the imagination is real? If these images are real what causes them? Don't know? Give me some scientific theories?
"The Secret Chiefs=they exist in one's imagination=a subjective experience=real." -- our friend Los
Therein lies the proof.
-
@Los said
"You say that Secret Chiefs are seen through inspiration, but we know that inspiration happens through natural means and through imagination, which is rooted in the brain. Lots of people -- including people with entirely secular worldviews -- experience inspiration, all the time. Nothing about inspiration requires the existence of Secret Chiefs."
No, I didn't. Perhaps you misunderstood.
I said that the experience of the phenomena of Secret Chiefs is reported by those who have written incredibly beneficial and intelligent things, and I suggested that the quality and intelligence of their work lends credibility to their reports (though I did not suggest the reports themselves provide proof).
Crowley claimed to have experienced a Secret Chief in the reception of Liber Legis. That report is known, and I know you dispute this report.
But the more interesting example you don't apparently know comes from Paul Foster Case:
"Shortly after Paul Case fully achieved his spiritual linkage with all
the required levels of this Mystery Training, one day the phone rang, and
much to his surprise the same voice which had been inwardly instructing him
in his researches for many years spoke to him on the phone. It was the
Master R. who had come personally to New York for the purpose of preparing
Paul Case to begin the next incarnation of the Qabalistic Way of Return.
Dr. Case (by then having earned his degree as a Doctor of Theology)
resigned from the Golden Dawn (which was being dissolved by the Masters),
and after three weeks of personal instruction with the Master R., Builders
of the Adytum was formed. Paul Case then retired from a successful and
lucrative career in music to devote his full time to the service of
humanity.www.arcane-archive.org/tarot/paul-foster-case-1.php
"This report meets your criterion for real existence.
Whether or not one feels that the report of a man like Paul Foster Case is credible or not, based on one's knowledge of the mind of the man, his life, and what he had to say... It determines many things about what one is willing to hypothesize
-
@Frater 639 said
"What is real? Please define."
That which actually exists, which is detectable in some way.
Now look, we could, if you wanted to, have a lengthy (and probably insightful and interesting) conversation about reality. But I'm not going to have it with you if you insist on intentionally misunderstanding simple points (like the difference between the thought of a goblin and an actual, honest-to-goodness goblin), if you insist on bogging down discussion with unnecessary jargon and with self-righteous fantasies about how you know oh-so-much more about science than I do, and if you insist on filling your posts with puerile emoticons in the manner that you did when you first tried talking to me, months ago, and got smacked down pretty hard.
If you want to have the discussion, declare your intention not to do any of those dumb things, and I'll consider having it with you. If you don't want to have the discussion, it's been nice talking to you.
-
@Legis said
"
@Los said
"You say that Secret Chiefs are seen through inspiration, but we know that inspiration happens through natural means and through imagination, which is rooted in the brain. Lots of people -- including people with entirely secular worldviews -- experience inspiration, all the time. Nothing about inspiration requires the existence of Secret Chiefs."No, I didn't. Perhaps you misunderstood.
I said that the experience of the phenomena of Secret Chiefs is reported by those who have written incredibly beneficial and intelligent things, and I suggested that the quality and intelligence of their work lends credibility to their reports"
Well, then the point you were trying to make was even worse than I thought.
That someone has written "incredibly beneficial and intelligent things" tells us nothing about whether their spooky tales of contact with spacemen are true.
You might as well say that William Blake wrote incredibly poetry and claimed to have visions of Jesus and various dead people all the time, so therefore the incredible nature of his poetry suggests that there really is a Jesus and that spirits really do exist.
It's a non-sequitur. That someone writes well is unconnected to the veracity of claims they make.
"But the more interesting example you don't apparently know comes from Paul Foster Case:
"Shortly after Paul Case fully achieved his spiritual linkage with all
the required levels of this Mystery Training, one day the phone rang, and
much to his surprise the same voice which had been inwardly instructing him
in his researches for many years spoke to him on the phone. It was the
Master R. who had come personally to New York for the purpose of preparing
Paul Case to begin the next incarnation of the Qabalistic Way of Return.
Dr. Case (by then having earned his degree as a Doctor of Theology)
resigned from the Golden Dawn (which was being dissolved by the Masters),
and after three weeks of personal instruction with the Master R., Builders
of the Adytum was formed. Paul Case then retired from a successful and
lucrative career in music to devote his full time to the service of
humanity.www.arcane-archive.org/tarot/paul-foster-case-1.php
""
Wow, I'm clearly in the wrong business. I should be selling swamp land in Florida or a bunch of magic beans because there's obviously no shortage of people who fall all over themselves to believe BS.
-
I didn't say I believe.
I said I was willing to hypothesize.
As I have already stated, attempts to discredit a working hypothesis by accusations of "belief" 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 you will not even entertain the possibility that any report actually fitting your requirements for the real existence of Secret Chiefs could be true, you reveal discussion of these ideas with you to be entirely futile.
-
@Los said
"
@Frater 639 said
"What is real? Please define."That which actually exists, which is detectable in some way.
Now look, we could, if you wanted to, have a lengthy (and probably insightful and interesting) conversation about reality. But I'm not going to have it with you if you insist on intentionally misunderstanding simple points (like the difference between the thought of a goblin and an actual, honest-to-goodness goblin), if you insist on bogging down discussion with unnecessary jargon and with self-righteous fantasies about how you know oh-so-much more about science than I do, and if you insist on filling your posts with puerile emoticons in the manner that you did when you first tried talking to me, months ago, and got smacked down pretty hard.
If you want to have the discussion, declare your intention not to do any of those dumb things, and I'll consider having it with you. If you don't want to have the discussion, it's been nice talking to you."
Thanks. Always a pleasure, of course.
However, I don't agree to conversation under your censorship and sanctions.
Also, what you call "unnecessary jargon" is actually quite necessary so I can understand what you're talking about and the terms are very commonplace. It's why scientists agree to these terms and teach using them -- instead of broad terms like "truth" and "reality." You have to get down to specifics. If you're going to have a "real" conversation about these ideas, then you should know all the minute facets of ontology to communicate about them to anyone responsibly and definitively.
Interesting that you get so defensive and that you gave up so easily. Ad hominems and such, when I was merely trying to speak scientifically instead of using terms you dream up every time you play with semantics and definitions. Your terms mean nothing in the scientific community. You also admitted to not having much familiarity with the science behind ontology. I suggest you study up before you get "smacked down" again. Also, I enjoy your fantasies about my motivation and past conversations here.
Of course, it is your right to not answer the questions that were posed to you multiple times. It is also your right to not educate yourself thoroughly about how one perceives reality. But, something as been gained. You did admit that imagination is in fact real -- as subjective experience includes imagination. You admitted that the Secret Chiefs are real subjectively -- science necessarily includes these observations while collecting data, and as we move forward with neuroscience, these subjective experiences can be measured more readily. So, I suggest you brush up your education of these topics before attempting (and failing) to speak intelligently about them again. This is not only my opinion, but it seems other people here agree that your logic is faulty and needs work (an example of quantitative data!
). In short, you implied that Secret Chiefs are in fact real, just as your fantasies are about me.Good luck with your studies. Try not to get so emotional next time and you may learn something.
-
@Legis said
"I didn't say I believe."
Then I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about the people who do believe the claim, including the OP of this thread. However, between you and me, I strongly suspect that there are a lot of people who do believe these claims but put on airs of merely "hypothesizing" when they are questioned by skeptics, only to return immediately to believing these claims when the conversation ends. (I'm not accusing you of that -- just talking in general)
"I said I was willing to hypothesize."
And why is that? Why are "Secret Chiefs" more of a "hypothesis" worthy of taking under consideration than "Jesus Christ" or "Vishnu"? If we go by numbers, millions more people have (thought that they have) "detected" Jesus and Vishnu. What, in your mind, makes "Secret Chiefs" any more credible a "hypothesis" than any of the thousands of unsubstantiated woo-woo claims?
"the process of investigating a hypothesis, where an idea must be regarded as* potentially* true for any legitimate investigation and discovery to occur."
As I've just indicated, I don't think there's really any grounds for suspecting "Secret Chiefs" as a viable hypothesis at all, but, for the sake of argument, I'm willing to play along. Let's say it's a real hypothesis. What evidence has been gathered to support it?
"As you will not even entertain the possibility that any report actually fitting your requirements for the real existence of Secret Chiefs could be true, you reveal discussion of these ideas with you to be entirely futile."
Obviously, some dude claiming to have chatted up the Secret Chiefs isn't evidence that there are Secret Chiefs, any more than some dude claiming to have seen Jesus is evidence that Jesus is real (and that everybody on these forums had better repent to avoid hell).
If that's the only "evidence" in favor of their existence, then that isn't evidence at all, and it demonstrates that there aren't any valid grounds for accepting that Secret Chiefs are real.
-
The truth is that I believe all kinds of things... before I doubt them... then again after I doubt them... which ends up just being before I doubt them again...
You seem to have no sense of a natural, healthy walk with an idea or hypothesis. Have you never had to write a proposal and perform and experiment? It seems like you would have experienced this walk back and forth with faith and doubt - with that combination of entertaining an idea to create a theory, hoping that you're correct but placing strict guidelines for testing the hypothesis in place, not knowing if you're correct - this moment believing, this moment doubting.
You seem to view all instances of belief as a human sin that should in all cases be stamped out. Perhaps this is because you also seem to view all instances of belief as equivalent to making claims of absolutely certain knowledge and making demands for submission to belief from others, which is just ....nonsense.
Your ideas about belief do not reflect normal, healthy, free belief but rather the bound belief of the fundamentalist zealots who tell themselves that they *must *believe and believes that all should be either converted to that same "must believe" or be punished. This is ironic, of course, because you are constantly seeking to convert others to your beliefs about belief without understanding that this itself is belief, not fact. It is belief in the righteousness of skepticism alone and the wickedness of belief.
Do you not see the irony of your religious fervor and zealous persecution of those who demonstrate the qualities of religion because religion has in the past resulted in precisely such evils? Sometimes, it's like watching an ironic postmodern comedy.
Los... I don't have a problem with people believing ANY of the things you listed. None of them. You have a problem with that.
What's wrong with people believing in Jesus? Nothing until they start demanding everyone else believe the same thing, which is what you do, not what I do.
Anyway... I'm not interested in this anymore. You're too entrenched in your biases to have a balanced, intelligent discussion. Over and over again, you just seek to prove your own beliefs and twist the words of others.
Sorry, it's just not a worthy discussion.
-
@Legis said
"You seem to have no sense of a natural, healthy walk with an idea or hypothesis. Have you never had to write a proposal and perform and experiment?"
Sure, I have. And I don't think I've ever believed a hypothesis (in the sense of "accepting it as factually true") until I had sufficient evidence to accept it. I may have thought there might be a good chance it was true. I may have hoped it was true. I may have wanted it to be true. But I can't say that I believed it was true until I was convinced, by evidence.
Once more, in this case, the "Secret Chief hypothesis" is laughably, woefully underwhelming as a hypothesis and, even if it were a viable hypothesis worthy of consideration, more than a century of, er, "experimenting" has yielded no evidence (aside from the wackaloo stuff that believers of other faiths produce all the time, like poetry and flowery prose). On the basis of everything I just said, people are more than justified in discarding this hypothesis. Unless you have some new evidence you'd like us all to look at?
"You seem to view all instances of belief as a human sin that should in all cases be stamped out."
Belief -- in the other sense, of accepting claims on "faith," without sufficient evidence -- is indeed a massive hindrance to an individual's ability to discover and carry out the True Will. This is because it distracts the individual from reality, which is where the True Will exists.
My objection to this kind of belief has nothing to do with how "certain" people are about these beliefs, with the attitude that people "must" believe them, with the conviction that all people must be "converted" to these beliefs...all of those things are irrelevant. The "problem" with beliefs is not that they're fanatical or whatnot: the problem is that they mislead people. The most non-fanatical, fluffy-bunny "personal belief" has this negative effect for the individual.
That's my objection. Frankly, telling yourself that you have a "free belief" that's "all your own" that no one else needs to believe because the belief is part of "your own reality," or whatever, is worse (for the believer) than a fanatical religious belief because it's harder to see through the illusion of that kind of belief.
" you are constantly seeking to convert others to your beliefs about belief"
No, I'm not. I'm having conversations on a board designed for conversations.
"It is belief in the righteousness of skepticism alone and the wickedness of belief."
See? Here's a practical example of what I'm talking about: this belief of yours about me is a fantasy about my motivations. If you discarded the belief and looked at what was actually happening -- that I'm just raising some pretty reasonable points on a public messageboard, you would be able to interact better with reality and wouldn't suffer from the weird persecution fantasies that are distracting you even further.
"your [...] zealous persecution"
Oh, please. Am I throwing anyone into a dungeon and beating them? If you call a very reasonable, direct, and even (usually) friendly line of questioning "persecution," you've really got to re-evaluate your beliefs about what's going on.
"What's wrong with people believing in Jesus?"
Nothing's "wrong" with it. I was raising the point because (I assume) that you don't agree that Jesus is the One True God and that failure to believe in him results in going to hell. Yet, people give reasons for believing in Jesus that are practically identical to the reasons you've suggested for believing in "Secret Chiefs."
Follow me here: I'm arguing that the case you're making for the existence of Secret Chiefs is a poor one, and we can see how poor it is because the exact same kind of case can be used to justify beliefs in all sorts of things you don't accept (and that are mutually exclusive and can't be all true).
It's not exactly a complicated point I'm making, and you would be able to see it if you weren't getting so hysterically worked up, offended, and lost in the belief that a reasonable discussion somehow constitutes "persecution."
You're making my point for me, here: it's your beliefs that are veiling reality from you and preventing you from participating in this conversation. How are you supposed to get insight into your Self when you can't even figure out that I'm not persecuting you?
"Anyway... I'm not interested in this anymore."
Do whatever you want. The point has already been adequately made, I feel.
-
@kasper81 said
"let me refer you to some ideas in Nigel Appleby's "Hall of the gods": "The puzzling appearance of homo-sapiens is statistically impossible" he claims.. He goes on to say that for millions of years our ape-like descendants made little progress, using simple stone tools then suddenly 200,000 years ago, homo sapiens , with a 50% increase in cranial capacity and the ability to speak -appeared *almost overnight. *
To increase the confusion, he apparently existed for a further 160,000 years in primitive conditions , only to expand* suddenly* across the entire globe 13,000 years ago.
Just 1000 years later he was using agricultural methods; after a mere 6000 more years he was forming great civilizations with advanced astronomical knowledge."
This is an argument from ignorance. Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that humans are ignorant of the answer to your question. Our ignorance of the actual cause of this rapid evolution cannot be used to support any positive claims about what the cause was.
In other words, the fact that we don't know what happened doesn't lend even the slightest bit of credibility to claims about spacemen.
"What happened to the theory of evolution as a process of gradual advancement over very long time periods?"
Well, you really ought to look up "punctuated equilibrium." It's not actually correct to think of evolution as always gradual.
But anyway, rapid technological development is not mysterious at all: knowledge and technology grow exponentially because each generation can build on what the last one has done.
-
@Los said
"... I don't think I've ever believed a hypothesis (in the sense of "accepting it as factually true") until I had sufficient evidence to accept it."
You had to intentionally reinterpret my words and provide your own definition contrary to my context and intended meaning in order to say, "no."
Remember where I said this? "Perhaps this is because you also seem to view all instances of belief as equivalent to making claims of absolutely certain knowledge..."
You just proved that part true.
To the extent that you do not carry on an open, legitimate discussion, your hopes of being taken seriously by anyone of higher intellect who has been educated in the philosophy of science are pure fantasy.
There's too much of the technique and agenda of political rhetoricians in your supposed science.
-
@Legis said
"
@Los said
"... I don't think I've ever believed a hypothesis (in the sense of "accepting it as factually true") until I had sufficient evidence to accept it."You had to intentionally reinterpret my words and provide your own definition contrary to my context and intended meaning in order to say, "no.""
So what did you mean by "belief," if not "accepting as factually true"? [Note that I do not consider "factually true" to mean "absolutely, certainly true without error"]
[EDIT: On further reflection, I can be clearer here. What I mean is that when I say "I believe that X is factually true," I'm not saying that I'm absolutely certain that X is the case. I'm simply saying that I am convinced by the evidence that it's overwhelmingly likely that X is true, such that I would be comfortable calling it a "fact" until new evidence comes to light]
I wasn't trying to "redefine" the word -- I was trying to be clear about how I'm using it. If you use a different definition, explain. We could, if you wanted to, have a productive conversation about how we're using terms.
"your hopes of being taken seriously by anyone of higher intellect who has been educated in the philosophy of science"
There are those fantasies about me again....
Seriously, just try paying attention to what I say instead of paying attention to the fantasy-Los you've built in your head.
-
@Los said
"So what did you mean by "belief," if not "accepting as factually true"? [Note that I do not consider "factually true" to mean "absolutely, certainly true without error"][EDIT: On further reflection, I can be clearer here. What I mean is that when I say "I believe that X is factually true," I'm not saying that I'm absolutely certain that X is the case. I'm simply saying that I am convinced by the evidence that it's overwhelmingly likely that X is true, such that I would be comfortable calling it a "fact" until new evidence comes to light]"
The distinction is that you possess a belief, where a fact is accepted.
@Los said
"There are those fantasies about me again....Seriously, just try paying attention to what I say instead of paying attention to the fantasy-Los you've built in your head."
It is an observable fact, you have simply chosen not to believe in it.
-
@Uni_Verse said
"The distinction is that you possess a belief, where a fact is accepted."
I'm not quite sure what you mean. The way I use "belief," I mean "accepting a claim as factually true," and -- under this particular definition -- a belief can be held based on sufficient evidence or insufficient evidence. At no point does "certainty" enter the picture: when I say that I believe a claim is true, I mean that I am convinced, by evidence, that it is very likely to be true and that I will tentatively accept it as true until new evidence surfaces. If I say that I "know" something or believe something is a "fact," then I mean that think there is so much evidence for it that it would be absurd to doubt it. I'm still not claiming any kind of absolute certainty: I'm merely expressing the degree to which the evidence supports the claim.
There's a different set of definitions, in which one might use the word "knowledge" to designate what I'm calling "belief supported by sufficient evidence," and then describe that knowledge in terms of varying levels of certainty (that is, "I'm fairly sure I know X to be true, but I'm more confident, based on evidence, that I know Y is true"). A person using this kind of definition might oppose knowledge to belief, which would be defined here as choosing to accept a claim as true without sufficient evidence.
Under the second set of definitions, all belief whatsoever is an impediment to discovering the True Will, and the goal of the magician is to rid himself of all beliefs in this second sense.
Personally, I find the first set of definitions more convenient, but the words we use don't matter as much as the point: that basing one's ideas about reality on evidence tends to greatly help one navigate that reality.
-
@Los said
"The way I use "belief," I mean "accepting a claim as factually true," and -- under this particular definition -- a belief can be held based on sufficient evidence or insufficient evidence"
This is how you have chosen to define your beliefs,
That is not how you define belief