Thelemic Materialism (Thelemic Philosophy)
-
-
I prefer a big wand to a big sword. YMMV.
-
@Legis said
"I've spoken some on this, so first let me be clear and make a separation between true Materialism and Scientism.
True Materialism simply says that there is nothing that exists that is not matter or energy. For me, there need be no even apparent division between matter and spirit because I simply view everything as energy under different forms. But popular Materialism (as I guess I'd have to call it) sees itself as drawing a line between matter/energy and something else that is neither: spirit. In my opinion, this distinction is the result of a long history reaching back into forms of spirituality that saw matter as evil and spirit as good, thus demanding that they be of different essential natures. Personally, I don't agree with the necessity of that moralistic division. To me, it's all the same stuff: energy in different forms. So, with that in mind, you might consider me a Materialist (because I don't buy into the existence of anything that isn't ultimately energy of some kind), but you could also consider me what is classically referred to as a Monist (precisely because I don't see any ultimate, essential division in that which takes form as both matter and spirit).
"
Hello Legis thank you for your thoughtful reply. You raise a good point and something I too hold - but herein a problem presents itself. While true that materialism holds that all reality is composed of matter and energy - matter and energy itself is also defined and the type of energy that you or I may be referencing is unfortunately ruled out as 'energy' in physics. Energy to be energy in physics must be able to do 'work' and at some point convert into mass. Hence the whole issue in materialism with anything 'spirit' related, even concepts such as Qi, Kundalini, any healing energy ( I have worked with these energies for quite sometime and personally can validate their existence) because there is no evidence of any energy converting into any work or mass that is not accounted for in standard classical physics. This is why Los and other materialists will inform us that what we are working with is not really energy, it's just our imagination/delusion.
So when you and I use the word energy, it's a metaphor for something we do not yet have defined in any physical sense, and when a materialist uses the word energy, it has a very specific type of measurement. Our energy at best would be an unknown energy beyond the scope of physics or chemistry currently.
Materialism, Physicalism, Scientism - all of these schools of thought are very interrelated and interdependent on one another. Scientism is just saying what materialism/physicalism states and vice versa, Materialism derives it's knowledge from science or scientism.
But here is not where we get stopped by science or philosophy, by any means. Now cosmology and philosophy of science has to reckon with 'Dark Matter and Dark Energy' which is just a placeholder for, in a way, what we are saying - 'mystery energy'. Considering now that our universe is composed primarily of this 'mysterious unknown matter and energy' and the matter and energy of classical physics only makes up 4% of the universe - what actually defines 'materialism' is on shaky ground philosophically because now no one knows what the hell matter and energy is except for a very small, one could say almost insignificant portion, of the material universe.
So while it's the same word, I am not sure it's fair to say that this makes us materialists because we also accept everything is energy. Our understanding of energy would still fall into a classification of dualism. Odd, because at face value, you can see that a form of dualism in a sense is still present in 'Matter and Energy' which makes Materialistic Monism have it's own duality.
-
@RulesOfAir said
"I think the more that we understand about the nature of the laws of physics and what matter/energy/physical manifestations are, the more we slip away from the popular Materialism that Legis referenced. That doesn't neccessarily mean we then must begin to attritube inner experiences to anything in particular.
Personally, I generally tend to agree with Los (though I haven't read through all of your back and forth discussions). I'm a newbie to magical practice and thelema in general, but I tend to view the gods/spirits/symbols as a framework, a language through which the subconcious and unconcious mind uses to inform our concious minds, and the whole of the practice is forming that language to be usable. That's how I see it at the moment. It's nearly impossible to fully explain the inner workings of our minds and nature of conciousness, so I leave that as an unknown, a realm without much need for explanation.
I like what Lon DuQuette said "It's all in your head, you just have no idea how big your head is.""
For the longest time I too held something close to this, that it's all in my head. Now after years of experience entering into these realms, I can't quite say I agree that it's just all in my head. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. Or maybe it's both, it's in my mind but my mind is not just in my head. I dont know. But the experience doesnt present itself that way, especially when there is the same spirit phenomenon with more than one observer, or when there are relationships that begin to form. I think this is what Legis was referring too, because at a certain level of experience, all reason just gets tossed because it makes equally no sense to use reason to try and understand it.
Until one has experience in these realms, it's all just theory. Once someone has experience in these realms, it all makes less and less sense!
The only thing I know for absolutely certainty is that I do not know and that brings me comfort to have a little certainty in the equation
-
-
So, even though I’ve lately been ignoring a lot of the people who have demonstrated themselves to be mostly incapable of holding decent conversations, I’m going to point out something that needs correcting in the OP.
My purpose is largely to supply information to lurkers.
"Philosophical Materialism is the dominant 'belief system' […] it assumes there is only the measurable physical reality"
As I said in that other thread, this is a mischaracterization of materialism as I define that term to be most useful for a practice of Thelema. My argument here is not merely semantic gameplaying: the OP is talking about X, and trying to argue from that perspective, while I’m talking about Y. Unless people are clear about what they're talking about, it's impossible to converse.
I often use the label “naturalism,” as I do on the blog post I linked to, but I tend to use that word interchangeably with materialism. I define it as the position that the natural world is the only world that people have sufficient evidence to accept. As I use the word, it’s not an “assumption,” nor is it a “belief system,” and it requires not even the slightest bit of faith.
It is, quite simply, the observation that the physical world obviously exists and, further, the position that claims about the existence of other worlds (“spiritual” worlds) haven’t met their burden of proof and that, therefore, nobody is justified in accepting that such other worlds exist. At least, people are not justified right now with the evidence at our disposal.
The position that I just described is not an “assumption.” It might be better to characterize it as an “observation.”
Anyway, that’s what I mean by “materialism.” Now, I understand that there are other ways to define materialism, but I don’t find those definitions terribly helpful or reflective of my positions or the positions of any person I’ve ever actually met.
If labels are really important to you, though, then call my position whatever you like. If you want to call my position fdasklfnsak-ism, then fine. I’m a fdasklfnsak-ist.
My position is that I accept that the material world exists and I don’t accept that other worlds exist. I’m not affirming that other worlds do not exist – nor am I affirming that they are impossible – but I’m simply observing that nobody has sufficient evidence for thinking that they do exist. I’m also observing that it’s looking kind of unlikely that such evidence will surface, but I’m willing to have my mind changed by evidence. It’s a position rooted in evidence and observation.
That’s fdasklfnsak-ism for ya. Now, when I write about fdasklfnsak-ism, I call it “naturalism” or “materialism,” so now you know what I mean by the term.
My argument is not only that Thelema is consistent with fdasklfnsak-ism, but that Thelema is best practiced in the context of fdasklfnsak-ism. I’m going to switch back to using “naturalism” or “materialism” now.
Why “best practiced”? Because Thelema is, at its heart, a system of skepticism, and by applying skepticism to claims regarding worlds other than the material world, the objective conclusion is that nobody has sufficient evidence to think those worlds are real. Having as accurate a mental map of the territory as possible makes it easier to navigate through that territory and Thelema is a philosophy concerned in steering oneself through the territory by the light of the True Will.
Anyway, that’s as far as I’m going in this post. I intend to mostly ignore responses to this post unless they (preferably briefly) make something approaching a decent point (or, alternatively, something so wildly inaccurate that it necessitates being corrected). I’d be willing to engage the OP in a conversation if – and probably only if – he agrees to discuss this subject one (1) issue at a time, talking about that one (1) issue only until we mutually agree to move on to another topic.
-
" So, even though I’ve lately been ignoring a lot of the people who have demonstrated themselves to be mostly incapable of holding decent conversations, I’m going to point out something that needs correcting in the OP.
My purpose is largely to supply information to lurkers."
Fair enough, you supply the information, and we will supply the understanding.
You wanted to address this: Philosophical Materialism is the dominant 'belief system' […] it assumes there is only the measurable physical reality.
"
As I said in that other thread, this is a mischaracterization of materialism as I define that term to be most useful for a practice of Thelema. My argument here is not merely semantic gameplaying: the OP is talking about X, and trying to argue from that perspective, while I’m talking about Y. Unless people are clear about what they're talking about, it's impossible to converse."
Los - if your saying that people here are getting confused over the language you are choosing to use, it's safe to assume that may also apply to any lurker who may stumble upon this forum seeking information. So we agree people need to be clear. That's how some words are important to clarify. If you use Materialism as a body of philosophy in your commentary, Materialism has a pre defined understanding and anyone with any knowledge of philosophy will naturally assume you mean Materialism in the standard classical sense.
It's pretty clear from the previous thread that you were not using it that way and you have your own understanding and something you want to share with the lurkers here to clarify...
"
I often use the label “naturalism,” as I do on the blog post I linked to, but I tend to use that word interchangeably with materialism. I define it as the position that the natural world is the only world that people have sufficient evidence to accept. As I use the word, it’s not an “assumption,” nor is it a “belief system,” and it requires not even the slightest bit of faith.
It is, quite simply, the observation that the physical world obviously exists and, further, the position that claims about the existence of other worlds (“spiritual” worlds) haven’t met their burden of proof and that, therefore, nobody is justified in accepting that such other worlds exist. At least, people are not justified right now with the evidence at our disposal."
I think for the rational lurker out there that is depending on this information you post here, a few things have to be clarified. 'Evidence' can mean the evidence provided by physics and chemistry, and 'evidence' can also mean the evidence supplied directly to the senses, as in I look outside and see sky and trees and that's good enough for me that sky and trees exist.
In previous discussions, you were very vague here so I know you want to clarify more to the lurkers about this...
"
The position that I just described is not an “assumption.” It might be better to characterize it as an “observation.” "
Okay, so evidence by appeal to the physical senses but yet with the assumption that all matters of physics and chemistry are true based on the observations of scientists who are the only ones qualified to evaluate such information.
"
Anyway, that’s what I mean by “materialism.” Now, I understand that there are other ways to define materialism, but I don’t find those definitions terribly helpful or reflective of my positions or the positions of any person I’ve ever actually met."
You should go hang out at a university campus and chat with students of philosophy or maybe a professor or two - those are the ones with the 'other' definitions which are printed in text books and summarized quite simply on wikipedia.
But no worries, you mean by observation - so the lurker has some clarity the natural world that is observable is the only world we have evidence via our senses for and that is the only world that we can say for certain exists.
That makes sense. Doesn't matter to me what you call it either, there are a number of different words and schools of thought that have their own semantics for that POV. And that POV is rational too.
"
If labels are really important to you, though, then call my position whatever you like. If you want to call my position fdasklfnsak-ism, then fine. I’m a fdasklfnsak-ist. "
It's most important, especially for the random lurker out there, for you to be 'consistent' with your position, even if it's referred to as fdasklfnsak-ism (which I have just added to my spelling dictionary
"
My position is that I accept that the material world exists and I don’t accept that other worlds exist. I’m not affirming that other worlds do not exist – nor am I affirming that they are impossible – but I’m simply observing that nobody has sufficient evidence for thinking that they do exist. I’m also observing that it’s looking kind of unlikely that such evidence will surface, but I’m willing to have my mind changed by evidence. It’s a position rooted in evidence and observation."
okay - great that is your opinion/position POV.
"
That’s fdasklfnsak-ism for ya. Now, when I write about fdasklfnsak-ism, I call it “naturalism” or “materialism,” so now you know what I mean by the term.
My argument is not only that Thelema is consistent with fdasklfnsak-ism, but that Thelema is best practiced in the context of fdasklfnsak-ism. I’m going to switch back to using “naturalism” or “materialism” now. "
ah - ha!
Okay that does clarify your POV to me and hopefully to the lurkers. I guess if your a fdasklfnsak-ist - Thelema, Buddhism, Shamanism, Judaism, actually any mystical tradition is best practiced in the context of fdasklfnsak-ism, no?
I want to see if you can explain to the lurker how Thelema would be better suited than Shamanism or any other tradition to be practiced within the context of fdasklfnsak-ism.
"
Why “best practiced”? Because Thelema is, at its heart, a system of skepticism, and by applying skepticism to claims regarding worlds other than the material world, the objective conclusion is that nobody has sufficient evidence to think those worlds are real. Having as accurate a mental map of the territory as possible makes it easier to navigate through that territory and Thelema is a philosophy concerned in steering oneself through the territory by the light of the True Will."
Ok, this makes sense, you are suggesting that Thelema has allowances for skepticism (I am sure many here would disagree that its the 'heart' of the system but that aside your point is taken) and therefore skepticism can be used as a tool to unlock the values of Thelema to her aspirants.
"
Anyway, that’s as far as I’m going in this post. I intend to mostly ignore responses to this post unless they (preferably briefly) make something approaching a decent point (or, alternatively, something so wildly inaccurate that it necessitates being corrected). I’d be willing to engage the OP in a conversation if – and probably only if – he agrees to discuss this subject one (1) issue at a time, talking about that one (1) issue only until we mutually agree to move on to another topic."
oldfriend56, (hereby referred to as "OP") here does solemnly vow to focus solely on the context of fdasklfnsak-ism (herein never referred to as 'Materialism') that is described by Los - and any notes and commentary herein by OP non relating to fdasklfnsak-ism should not be considered an invitation for deliberation between OP and Los. Such commentary is only for the information and understanding of the 'lurking' party.
Signed, OP
Since fdasklfnsak-ism is defined as having allowances solely for evidence based maps of reality, that's great! Best of luck. I assume each individual can use the principles of rationality, reflection, and clarity to determine their own evaluations of what constitutes evidence and each individual can determine for themselves based on such considerations if further evidence or discovery is likely.
I need no further clarifications from you at this point - but if you wish to provide something for the lurkers please feel free to continue Los and thank you for participating.
-
Is there one (1) specific issue or question that you have?
From scanning that tedious wall of words, I tentatively concluded that this is the question you have for me:
"I want to see if you can explain to the lurker how Thelema would be better suited than Shamanism or any other tradition to be practiced within the context of fdasklfnsak-ism *."
Confirm that this is the one (1) topic you would like to discuss. If you do, then I will answer the question and we will go back and forth on this one (1) and only one (1) topic until we both agree to move on to another topic.
-
The huge faith required by Los belief system is it's the best way of looking at things.
That's what defines all fanatics: the idea that a single point of view is suitable for everyone else.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"The huge faith required by Los belief system"
I don't have a belief system.
-
@Los said
"Is there one (1) specific issue or question that you have?
From scanning that tedious wall of words, I tentatively concluded that this is the question you have for me:
"I want to see if you can explain to the lurker how Thelema would be better suited than Shamanism or any other tradition to be practiced within the context of fdasklfnsak-ism *."
Confirm that this is the one (1) topic you would like to discuss. If you do, then I will answer the question and we will go back and forth on this one (1) and only one (1) topic until we both agree to move on to another topic."
Not necessary thank you Los - if you read the bottom of the post you would see that I understand your meaning and have no further questions.
-
@Los said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"The huge faith required by Los belief system"I don't have a belief system."
Semantics.
There's a gulf between saying something, and reality. Our belief systems can easily be invisible to us, while obvious to others.
But I'm not here to debate you. I'm just bringing balance, for the sake of lurkers.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"So while it's the same word, I am not sure it's fair to say that this makes us materialists because we also accept everything is energy. Our understanding of energy would still fall into a classification of dualism. Odd, because at face value, you can see that a form of dualism in a sense is still present in 'Matter and Energy' which makes Materialistic Monism have it's own duality."
Yeah. The main question is whether consciousness is a function of matter/energy or whether consciousness is more fundamental than matter/energy. That's the real line. And for me, while I can most easily think the thoughts that it's All matter/energy, the question arises: but matter/energy existing in what? And I come to time and space too. And for me, those things are measurements. There's a sort of empty reality of pure-matrix-for-relationship that is no less real for being empty. And to me, these are qualities of consciousness. When we get to that point, I just skip quite easily over into an area in which time is a function of consciousness and space is function of consciousness, and since they are necessary for matter/energy to exist within, then consciousness seems like a more fundamental aspect of the universe - though, it must be said, we aren't talking about the complex human form of consciousness. More of a pure consciousness itself kind of consciousness.
So, at the end of the day, I'm a monist because I can't think of any more fundamental aspect of the universe than consciousness, which I tend to capitalize and refer to as Mind. The universe is ultimately "mental" - of a mental nature, within which matter/energy is a particular function of what is ultimately Mind (anciently understood as "spirit" or the "spiritual realm").
Now, once you get there and ponder a bit of the whole quantum question, there come the questions of why and how some kinds of Mind affect other kinds of Mind. And that gets psychological really quickly, when we're talking about different perceptions of "Self" (our relationship to other-seeming Mind). It opens up. The quantum story we are living very much seems to come alive in terms of multiple relationships between multiple perceptions of Self. And that's our spiritual life.
Sometimes people do go into stories and fantasies. You make a change in yourself and then you have to deal with it psychologically, and as there are other perceptions of Self than merely the personality, that psychological outworking engages one's personal spirituality. And from that engagement, we create these stories and fantasies we have to work out as our "spirit" comes to deal with it all in the new relationship we have discovered/created. We learn the stories of those relationships as we live them out, projecting them outward on our lives.
And to the degree that you can accept it, I believe there is a point where these stories touch and interact with our existences on the quantum level, where they really do affect our experience of the flow of time. So, for me, I think it's more than* just* a psychological fantasy we live out. Instead, we really do affect our "story," drawing certain kinds of experiences to ourselves. In that sense, it's both spiritual and truly "magical." But it is definitely psychological no matter what way you go with that belief or whether you think is "just" psychological alone, without a quantum-reality aspect.
-
And just continuing, as I do, that "empty reality of pure-matrix-for-relationship that is no less real for being empty" is called Nuit. So, you have two things, one thing that can be understood in the physical terms of space and time, and and another thing that is a technique of giving it a name, and a face, and in *The Book of the Law *a voice.
Whether the human state of consciousness equated with the consciousness of Nuit is really the same exact thing as the "pure-matrix-for-relationship" that exists in our external physical reality, that's when you get into the "map versus the territory" question. Either way, there is a territory to be mapped, and this technique gives a means of associating our own minds and emotions with something that otherwise seems an empty and cold "physical" temporal reality. And with such understandings, one can develop a relationship with the Universe, with the rest of the qabalah mapping it all the way down to the individual personality level.
But, in my opinion, the whole point of The Book of the Law is to initiate such a relationship with the Universe. And I don't know what else to say but that I experience that relationship as real, in spite of being able to understand the psychological symbolism of the "map" as something abstract and separate from that real relationship.
-
@Legis said
"but matter/energy existing in what?"
Nobody knows. It’s quite possible that matter/energy doesn’t exist “in” anything at all. It might be all that exists.
"And I come to time and space too. And for me, those things are measurements. There's a sort of empty reality of pure-matrix-for-relationship that is no less real for being empty. And to me, these are qualities of consciousness."
Ah, the old “I don’t know what the answer is so I’ll randomly declare that it must be consciousness” argument.
Even if this conclusion of yours wasn’t a gross logical error, there would be another problem: if matter/energy exists in consciousness, then what does that consciousness exist in? Maybe more matter/energy. Hmm, but what would this more matter/energy exist in? Etc.
Maybe it’s matter all the way down. Either way, we’re back to “nobody knows,” which is the only honest answer.
"So, at the end of the day, I'm a monist because I can't think of any more fundamental aspect of the universe than consciousness"
This is a textbook argument from ignorance. “I can’t think of any answer but X, so it must be X” is a logical fallacy.
-
The Orch OR model has consciousness starting from energy,
navigating spacetime (writing and reading various bit's of 'qualia' as it goes)
then it hits the microtubules in your brain and body (hello gravity - bye bye super-position)
and voila - you have consciousness inside of a fleshy body (be that a man or paramecium).So consciousness is an emergent property of the universe rather than a causal property by this account.
If consciousness exists just as one of those things that pop up in the universe (most especially local to planets), then it has nothing else to do but observe the stars and get spaghettified by the odd black hole - except on earth where it found all the building blocks of life and gave itself a project.
Hello consciousness!
HELLO WORLD.
-
NO-body expects the Spanish Inquisition!
http://media.avclub.com/images/433/433015/16x9/627.jpg?6905
Cardinal Fang! Fetch...THE COMFY CHAIR!
lol...
You say, "field," and I say, "mind."
I say, "consciousness," and you say, "time."
"Field," "Mind"
"Consciousness," "Time"
Let's call the whole thing o-off...You say, "energy," I say "vibration."
You say, "matter," ...I say "prima ...materia."
Let's call the whole thing o-off...But Oh..., if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part,
And Oh..., if we ever part
That would break my heart...I say "Thelema," you say "Thelema"
Sugar, what's the problem?
For we know we need each other so
We'd better call the calling off off...Oh let's call it off,
Oh let's call it off
Oh let's let's call the whole thing off -
hahaha Gold.
-
@Los said
"Either way, we’re back to “nobody knows,” which is the only honest answer."
There is this thing that exists that we try to use words to understand.
Your version serves to protect you and those who use it from getting lost in certain kinds of experience. I can respect that, as I've had to learn to put my holy foot down against certain kinds of experiences myself.
It worries me, though (and very honestly), that your version may eventually serve in an attempt disconnect you and others from the full experience of the Universe, which further worries me (and very honestly) that it may ultimately serve the function of building a large Black Tower, so to speak. That being said, I don't exist inside your full conception, and I can't actually see whether or not that is the case. That's just what the potential looks like to me from my outside perspective.
I've already had enough proof for myself that I am inexorably connected to everything else. Prove it to you? The proof isn't really of a nature that can be forced upon another. There seems to be somewhere a rather holy and inviolable set of "rules" against that kind of thing - protection of sanity and all that. And if I hadn't been through it all myself, I think your words might carry more weight with me.
But as it is, my experiences simply* require *a more Unified Theory of Everything that involves not only matter/energy and space/time but also consciousness at the most fundamental levels.
There simply is no way for me to go backward into a theory that does not include consciousness at a fundamental level, barring some damage to my own memory and the reintroduction of doubts that have already been shattered.
-
@Legis said
"I've already had enough proof for myself that I am inexorably connected to everything else."
I wonder if you’re talking about the one-with-everything feeling, which is, of course, extremely easy to generate (and is, at a deeper level, the none-with-everything-and-nothing feeling).
If that’s what you’re talking about, then you’re fundamentally confusing two things: just because you feel one with everything doesn’t mean you actually are one with everything.
It all depends on what we mean by the words. If you just mean that “I” emerge from the blind, purposeless, mechanical laws of the universe and that “I” and everything “I” do is all part of that system and that individuality is just an idea and that it’s actually impossible to draw a firm boundary between “I” and “not I” since the whole universe ultimately is probably nothing more than a lot of particles bumping up against each other…then sure, I’m “one with everything” in that sense.
But if you mean that “everything is consciousness” or that my mind is somehow “linked” to the universe or that if I think really hard I can make coincidences happen or that I can learn information about the universe by closing my eyes and murmuring a bunch of mantras or that rocks are really “conscious” and I’m “linked” to them and can “talk” to them…then no, nobody is “one with everything” in that sense.
I appreciate it really feels that way to you, but feelings alone can’t demonstrate to anybody – least of all you – that it’s actually the case.
