Secret Chiefs and attainment
-
@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 -
@Uni_Verse said
"
@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"At least, it's not as limited to that, as Los requires it to be in order to manipulate the argument in his favor.
Words, words, words...
Los, to cover the other end of the spectrum of definition, another definition of belief is simply "an opinion," which has little to do with evidence or facts. And in that sense, if you have never performed an experiment where you were of the opinion ("belief"), at least occasionally, that your hypothesis would be supported, then you have never legitimately proposed an experiment.
But, again, it's pointless to try to get you to admit the legitimacy of another perspective. You will only say, "I disagree," and carry on in the same rhetorical manner even after all that work.
I'm just gonna bow out now.
But a final word on the original topic. If it is true that we all live in what may be characterized as an ocean of interacting Mind, both consciously and unconsciously, both psychically and psychologically, then it only makes sense that there are those who are more able than others. Call them what you will.
-
@Legis said
"another definition of belief is simply "an opinion," which has little to do with evidence or facts."
Depends on what you mean. Opinions can be positions grounded in facts or they can be expressions of arbitrary value.
My "opinion" that vanilla ice cream tastes good isn't the same kind of opinion as my "opinion," rooted in textual evidence, that Paradise Lost supports a certain political position.
But sure, I guess a person can perform an experiment with the hunch -- that's how I'd characterize what you seem to be talking about -- that it will work. But after more than a century of "experiments" that produce zero evidence, I would expect that an intellectually honest person would concede that the hunch was more than likely incorrect.
And again, that's what we've got here: people have been pretending to talk to Secret Chiefs for more than a century, hunching with all of their little hearts that it's true. And the "evidence" has been zip: just a bunch of fruity poetry, number games, warm and tinglies, and the rest of it. People who believe in Jesus have far more evidence than this (they, at least, have millions of people who report personal relationships with the guy), so if you hold out the hunch that there are Secret Chiefs, I'm assuming that you also have a hunch that Jesus exists. Otherwise, you're being inconsistent.
But anyway, after more than a century of an utter lack of evidence, I would say that those "hunches" need to be reconsidered.
"I'm just gonna bow out now."
Yeah, I realized a little while ago that you're more than likely Bereshith. Jeez Louise, you occultists change your name more than Prince. If I had known it was you to begin with, I wouldn't have bothered to try to teach you anything.
-
"But a final word on the original topic. If it is true that we all live in what may be characterized as an ocean of interacting Mind, both consciously and unconsciously, both psychically and psychologically, then it only makes sense that there are those who are more able than others. Call them what you will."
When I am presented with an apparent challenge in life, when I question my beliefs, when I wonder what is the truth and real......this single understanding always comes out of my heart to the front of my mind.
I don't always have the right answers. I don't always make the choice of right action. I'm not perfect, but knowing that there are living breathing people in the world whom I can model my actions and beliefs after, whom shine their light without wavering gifts me with the ability to get over myself, and remember that as I look to others as masters, others are looking at me as well.Thanks for bringing up this very important teaching, I am learning the butterfly swimming technique and feeling pretty slow and heavy about it, but while watching Michael Phelps to improve my strokes, I have little girls asking me how I can swim like that.
-
@Los said
"My "opinion" that vanilla ice cream tastes good isn't the same kind of opinion as my "opinion," rooted in textual evidence, that Paradise Lost supports a certain political position. "
Is it still merely an opinion when we begin considering evidence?
What if there is a direct statement by the author disproving the theory?
( -
@Samantabhadra in the Avatamsaka Sutra said
"
Just as all the previous Sugatas, the Buddhas
Generated the mind of enlightenment
And accomplished all the stages
Of the Bodhisattva training,
So will I too, for the sake of all beings,
Generate the mind of enlightenment
And accomplish all the stages
Of the Bodhisattva training" -
@Frater 639 said
"It's why scientists agree to these terms and teach using them..."
What terms would those be? This might be true within specific disciplines (and even then it gets quite messy), but in science at large, the terms employed are extremely divergent.@Frater 639 said
"...I was merely trying to speak scientifically instead of using terms you dream up every time you play with semantics and definitions."
You've created a false dichotomy here. "Speaking scientifically" necessarily involves semantics. Cf., e.g., Korzybski's Science & Sanity.
@Frater 639 said
"...the scientific community."
There's an oxymoron if there ever was one. Science is an anarchy, not a community.@Frater 639 said
"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..."
What observations?
@Frater 639 said
"...while collecting data, and as we move forward with neuroscience...."
We who? This is quite presumptive. I suggest you all challenge yourselves by reading Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience by Sally Satel & Scott O. Lilienfeld and The Science Delusion: Asking the Big Questions in a Culture of Easy Answers by Curtis White, paying special attention to his criticisms of Damasio's Self Comes to Mind. Also cross reference this with the still virtually unchallenged critique of neuroscience by B.F. Skinner et al, Nietzsche's views on science (starting with The Gay Science; keeping in mind Crowley's praises of Nietzsche), and Crowley's comments on science in The Book of Wisdom or Folly. And, of course, Lakatos, T. Kuhn and Feyerabend (skip Popper--Feyerbend dismantles his "conjecture and refutation" efficiently) are indispensable in any discussion of science. And, as usual, you've all simply got to get your Hume (and Kant's re-workings of Hume) down, especially on causality, if your going to make any sense out of the relationship between "magic" and science. Otherwise, you're all going to just keep regurgitating each other's abuses of the distinction between "appearance" and "reality."And lest I'm misunderstood, I'm not taking Los' "side." He doesn't have enough credibility for me to attribute anything as substantial as a "side" to his "Thelemic Scepticism," which is basically just recycled logical positivism and secular humanism. I keep thinking he'll eventually say something original, but alas, he delivers only disappointment.
-
@Los said
"
@Uni_Verse said
"There are "Secret Chiefs," various personages of wealth and power, pulling the strings of government -
Is it so far fetched to propose there are exceptionally spiritual beings effecting the evolution of mankind?"Yes. As Kasper pointed out, the claim that there are some people with more pull than others in the government isn't in the same ballpark as the claim that there are spirits who flitter around unseen, sending "messages" to random weirdos.
"The idea of Secret Chiefs and Hidden Masters has been the foundation of various Orders [and traditions] going back thousands of years."
There have long been ideas of invisible magic men running the universe -- usually called "gods" -- but as far as I'm aware, the specific term "Secret Chiefs," especially as heads of so-called "magical orders," dates back to the eighteenth century.
If you have evidence of the term being used before then, I'd be interested to hear it."
The term Unknown Superior ( aka Secret Chief ) was certainly in use in the 1700s but you can find this idea much further back than that. This term referred to certain leaders of an Esoteric Order and did not carry the same meaning most people in the West attach to it post 1875 ( not post Crowley's birth but post Blavatsky's introduction of the revised concept into the Western Esoteric Tradition ).
Before Blavatsky brought in the concept of Ascended Masters guiding occult organizations, this term was used to refer to "Master Craftsman" that kept their identities secret even from many members of their own organization. A Master was a skilled Teacher of an esoteric craft. They were not viewed as "Ascended Masters' in the Eastern sense where everyone's guru is an Ascended Master of course
but rather as human beings that have attained Mastery of the Tradition / System they are practicing. Their identities were only revealed to very Senior members of the Order and to the rest of the members they were Unknown Superiors.We can see a continuation of this idea in the formation of the Golden Dawn where the identities of the Chiefs were kept secret from the Outer Order. Many modern groups must not be aware of this Tradition thus we see people signing their names publicly with their Chief roles they have given themselves, etc. So basically the identities of the Chiefs/Superiors of an Order were kept secret from lower grade members and the public hence the term 'Secret Chiefs'.
But these Orders always sought to connect to the Divine and have reported many examples of Spiritual Experience. But we all tend to interpret experience from a limited and culturally biased view. So a Christian may believe they were visited by the "Virgin Mary" or Christ; a Muslim, by the Archangel Gabriel; a scientist, an Alien from outer space, etc. The human mind tends to anthropomorphize Spiritual Experience effectively creating God in his or her own limited point of view. Crowley attempted to circumvent this as much as possible by calling the Experience "The Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel" but that has not seemed to stop many Thelemites from doing so
So that doesn't mean the Divine does not exist just because the modern notion of "Secret Chiefs" being Ascended Masters guiding humanity from the Inner planes may or may not be true. Bottom line is that the Divine can be Experienced, there are methods and practices designed to awaken such.
But there is an Abyss between Supernal and Human Consciousness and it makes little sense for Human Consciousness to attempt to rationalize or understand such intellectually, i.e. across the Abyss, we find only NEMO. All the reasoning in the world will never 'prove' Spiritual Experience. That doesn't mean we should not develop and insist upon reasoning where reasoning can add value and is a necessity; it simply means that the finite is incapable of grasping the infinite. And yes, just because someone believes they have been visited by Ra-Hoor-Kuit does not make it so nor is it necessarily Spiritual Experience. On the other hand, nor is it necessary to convince anyone else of your Spiritual Experience (and if you have such a desire it is better to explore your personality's motivation for doing so ).