Thelemic Materialism (Thelemic Philosophy)
-
OBEs where you see (often somewhat dreamlike versions of) your physical surroundings instead of astral worlds are usually referred to as Etheric or low Astral.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
You are the one that is making the claim, not I. I don't investigate OBE and am not making any claims about the phenomenon other than I had an experience where my consciousness was outside of my body. You say there is no evidence that people leave their bodies and all the evidence suggests they have not.SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE/STUDY/RESEARCH PLEASE. You think you can just make a claim and expect me to believe it?
there you go making claims again. You keep on citing some research or study that shows that astral travel never leads to anything, yet continually fail to cite the research or even replicate the argument beyond a few sentences. You're not being very transparent as to how you are coming to your conclusions."
To be fair to Los here, the burden of proof is on you. You don't go out proving the negative and then there's the old extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. I guess some folks are saying OBE are not extraordinary though, but the point about not needing to prove a negative still stands. Just as an aside.
-
Absolutely.
However, what we have here is a conflation of two different concepts, hidden by a false dichotomy.
"Nobody has good reason to belief x" is a positive claim, and is completely separate from "I have not seen sufficient evidence for x".
-
@Deus Ex Machina said
"
To be fair to Los here, the burden of proof is on you. You don't go out proving the negative and then there's the old extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. I guess some folks are saying OBE are not extraordinary though, but the point about not needing to prove a negative still stands. Just as an aside."
Burden of proof is on me? For what? I am not claiming anything other than a personal experience that happened to me. I summarized my experience within reason. I am not asking Los to believe me, I am asking him to show me how what I am claiming is unreasonable. He claims that he has 'evidence' that shows me that 'I' (what ever that means) did NOT leave my body. I want to see that evidence or hear that argument.
I dont want tautologies (You didn't because it's impossible. You didn't because there is no evidence) from him. I want 'reason' and 'insight' from him. If someone cannot explain their argument and address reasonable questions, then their POV has no integrity and is meaningless, objectively speaking
EDIT:
Clarifying my question to Los: I am not asking Los or anyone here to accept my claim that I (what ever that means) left my body as true. I am asking Los to explain his POV which suggests I should not accept my own claim as true. Clearly, the burden of proof is on Los because he claims there is evidence that shows this is impossible. Show me the evidence. If I am provided with evidence and reasoned argument, I shall adjust my claim accordingly, as it is the reasonable thing to do. -
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Frater 639 said
"
I have to point out that this is patently absurd. I've read this same POV from many others, too -- generally, in very early stages of training. I should know because I was one of them - it is what we like to call an ordeal. A further indication of why someone may argue passionately against the truth.Liber O part V specifically says that these "travels" don't really do too much, other than train to a specific type of dharana. Part VI addresses Rising on the Planes, which is written very cryptically...
"
Is consciousness/mind outside of the body 'automatically' astral travel by definition? I am not claiming it was astral travel (maybe it is I dont know). My later experiences in life where I did experience 'astral realms' was nothing like my OBE. My OBE there was nothing but my room, no 'grids', no phantasms, no energy or lights. Just my normal, everyday room."
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"OBEs where you see (often somewhat dreamlike versions of) your physical surroundings instead of astral worlds are usually referred to as Etheric or low Astral."
I like Av's description here. In medical terms, an OBE seems to be more consistent with same phenomena that are present when the cholinergic system is more "actively" engaged than in "astral travel." When we have the nonlinear brain patterns that are correlated with dreaming, we see a predominance of acetylcholine in the system, which will actually help to inhibit motor activity. Thus, we "dream" of moving, but our bodies don't actually move, thank god. It could get dangerous.
"Astral travel" (proper) seems to be more consistent with the aspects of a more actively engaged aminergic system, which is why the "adventures" can be recalled in a more "linear" fashion. It is this system of "activation," that causes us to recall more readily and in greater detail. The more adrenal system byproducts introduced to the event (especially when developed over time (LTP)), it is proven that a larger synaptic bond will be developed, thus causing the memory (recalled phenomenon/symbology) to strengthen. Hobson's AIM model does a great job elucidating both systems rather well (aminergic and cholinergic), and gives a great reference to examine these phenomenon from a scientific perspective.
Both are definitely related, and are mixtures of linear and nonlinear brain patterns. However, like I mentioned above, OBEs are seemingly more predominated by the cholinergic system, whereas "astral" work is seemingly more predominated by the aminergic system. Hence, it follows that "astral work" seems to be more "controlled" by the part(s) of the brain responsible for identification, observation, and orchestration ("conscious" thought) -- seemingly more related to the neocortex as a whole, rather than more concentrated in the prefrontal cortex.
As far as the value of "astral travel," to discount it as useless would be like saying to the cardiologist, "You don't need a stethoscope to be able to perform heart surgery, so get rid of it!"
Completely confused thinking...
As far as someone actually "leaving their body," we'd have to decide what "I" is. If it is the "perspective of consciousness," then I would (in most cases) say yes. If we're talking our brain, or whatever one chooses to call this "seat of consciousness," I think it impossible to say one way or the other, due to limited measurement capability and the lack of evidence that proves where consciousness resides. It seems rather unlikely though, in the strict physical sense of the argument.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Decades passed before others replicated Semmelweis' experiments."
Sure, but long before any of those replications took place, the people working closely with Semmelweis still had very good reason to think he was right: he could demonstrate that this handwashing stuff resulted in significant reductions in people getting sick. He didn't have to do complicated statistical analyses of tons of data and argue, "Look! If we do enough trials, the handwashing group is a whole 5% less likely to get sick than we'd expect (but to a degree that nobody could ever notice until I did my nifty data analysis!). QED, yo!!!"
There were noticeable, detectable, demonstrable reductions of infections.
Show me some demonstrable effect of these supposed superpowers that you're so eager to hold out hope for.
Show me someone who can somehow access the random word plucked out of the dictionary next door and keep doing it.You can't because that sort of thing doesn't happen. Ever.
" I'm saying that nobody has good reason to accept your claim that "nobody has good reason to believe x"."
Ah, but you see, nobody has good reason to accept your claim that 'nobody has good reason to accept [Los'] claim that "nobody has good reason to believe X,"'" no backsies!
Seriously, stop acting like a child. Between the two of us, one is claiming (to at least be holding out realistic hope) that there are superpowers. It's completely uncontroversial to say that nobody's ever demonstrated the existence of superpowers and that if anyone could, they'd be world famous, rich overnight, and deserving of a Nobel Prize for demonstrating something that humanity currently does not have any evidence for.
Ball's in your court here, buddy. You're telling me that you actually base your belief on a couple of dudes playing with numbers to suggest that people are "psychic" without even knowing it, to an extent that has no detectable effects in day-to-day life?
That's a good one. If you seriously are persuaded by that, I've got a rock to sell you that makes you more likely to earn more money, except it works on such a subtle level that nobody can ever detect it during day-to-day life, but trust me, the math definitely shows that something unexplainable is going on. PM me your best offer.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"You are the one that is making the claim, not I."
Egads, you're claiming that you somehow magically left your body and your evidence for this is...drumroll, please...that you had an experience where it seemed like you left your body.
Jeez Louise.
If your claim was that you walked your dog down to the park, I wouldn't say anything because people walk dogs down to parks all the bloody time. But if your claim is that you somehow magically left your body, no, I don't just accept that -- because as far as we know, people don't leave their bodies. People dream about leaving their bodies, sure, but nobody -- so far as we know -- has ever literally left their body and come back with new information that they didn't already know or couldn't have guessed (you know, like people don't ever wake up from dreams with new information that they didn't already know or couldn't have guessed).
Here's the thing: obviously, nobody other than you -- who's a reasonable person -- is going to think you left your body. But -- and this a big but -- you should also be skeptical of it, for exactly the reasons I've been explaining.
I mean, cripes, if I heard my couch start talking to me telepathically, I know one thing for damn certain: my couch is not actually talking to me, no matter how much it seems like it is. I would know that I would be in need of serious medical attention.
In rather similar way, having a dream you left your body is great and all, but it's not actual grounds on which to base such a grandiose claim.
Have you ever tried testing this superpower (assuming that you can project more or less at will)? Or do you just blindly trust whatever it feels like is happening?
-
If your going to make up my arguments for me, then I'll just let you keep playing with yourself.
-
Los it seems to you every notion can be dismantled with logic/rhetoric. I thought the point of magick was learning to see that life isn't exactly perfect order, as with thelema, there are no exact methods or results to prove anything to anyone but yourself.
-
@Los said
"
Show me some demonstrable effect of these supposed superpowers that you're so eager to hold out hope for.
Show me someone who can somehow access the random word plucked out of the dictionary next door and keep doing it.
"To what end Los? To satisfy your nasty nature? This is not my Will, this is your will.
Based on my research of your Internet presence here, Lashtal, and that blog of yours you keep shamelessly promoting via other people's sites, I would never invite you to a dinner with me. But should I, I could show you the fruits of my labors. I could show you my lovely kitchen which I adore because I'm a big fan of cooking for pleasure. I could show you my home office where I have two magnificent computers and multiple monitors ranging from 17 inch to 46 inch and Sony multimedia sound system. My house. The east to west rectangular room I built a fully functional "temple" in (perfect for no more than three people as far as size goes, splendid as all for just myself).
In other words, I would show you the fruits of my labors. And if I even liked your personality just slightly enough I'd invite you to stay with me some time. And you'd witness my behaviors; my regulations as another friend called them. You'd see me up every morning, hungover or not, underslept or not, at 4:30 am. You'd see me wash and clean the things that need washing and cleaning. You'd see me getting to work typity typity typity type type type. You'd watch me enjoy my pets. So on and so on. You'd witness discipline.
As you got to know me you'd make note of one most definite truth; I DO NOT TELL LIES. This is very important to me. Everything that I depend on has to be true because I'm allowing myself to depend on it. I depend on the existence of electricity, the existence of the the Internet, telephones (most other things I could work around with solutions of my own). Everything that exits my lips has to be true because I depend on the results of my voice to get me the things I depend on. Also, I'm aware that other people are dependent upon me (even though we have no blood or other specific relationship outside of commerce, I know they are dependent upon me). For this reason I cannot tell a lie. It is more than an ethical opinion for me, it is a way of life - it is in fact a matter of life and death.
The more time you spent with me you'd see I have a purpose to my life. I'm not saying that this purpose was created by some divine so-and-so sitting on a throne for aeons hoping I'd come along and figure out my particular purpose; but I will say that a higher source of information than just my lowly fleshly persona is the fount of this purpose. And I find for myself that when a need arises, or if externals such as weather or whatnot create a situation beyond my control that leads to a need of rescue, or whatnot (name your poison), I can say after practicing a magical operation "this will be so" and it becomes so. Not out of thin air, not without reason and cause and effect lines that anyone could acknowledge, but regardless you seem to miss the point in your mother's basement there (I'm only guessing or teasing, you decide) that my life is indeed a magical life. You can rationalize all you wish, you can intellectualize and compartmentalize all your humanity to your heart's content, but I remain convinced (and I suspect you would too if you were allowed by me to hang out and participate in my life with me) that things arrive for me from a greater source than mere logic can explain.
These things, these thaumaturgic magics that I do from time to time do work because it is my Will to be fulfilled, not some egoic need to prove my pride or validate an argument. This is not something I do on the basis of a whim or to satisfy your ego with your specific demands of "make this so, and I will believe it is so," but what I do "that I may accomplish my Will."
-
@ Takamba:
Man, that was beautiful. Thank you.
So much of that echoes my own experience. It seems your experience had some explanatory power to me.
I call it Love.
-
@Los said
"
Egads, you're claiming that you somehow magically left your body and your evidence for this is...drumroll, please...that you had an experience where it seemed like you left your body."Not how I described it. Without the weasel words. I claim I left my body, without defining what 'I' means, often as a child. Never said is was done magically, never claimed anything supernatural, and never claimed any evidence. It's value is in the experience and for the purposes of my own reasoning, no one elses.
"
If your claim was that you walked your dog down to the park, I wouldn't say anything because people walk dogs down to parks all the bloody time. But if your claim is that you somehow magically left your body, no, I don't just accept that --"
WHO CARES?? I am asking you to explain why I should not accept it.
"
because as far as we know, people don't leave their bodies. "
who is the 'we' you refer to, the people whom have never left their bodies or whom have never had such an experience as I?
If so it would make sense that such an illustrious group would not know or have the experience as evidence to juxtapose with anything.
These must be the fdasklfnsak-ists
"
People dream about leaving their bodies, sure, but nobody -- so far as we know -- has ever literally left their body and come back with new information that they didn't already know or couldn't have guessed (you know, like people don't ever wake up from dreams with new information that they didn't already know or couldn't have guessed)."
who is this 'we' again? Regardless of who it is, why should I care if this group of yours has no knowledge of such things? Hardly a reason for me not to accept my claim.
"
Here's the thing: obviously, nobody other than you -- who's a reasonable person -- is going to think you left your body."
Well that's quite a claim yourself, but again, who cares? I am asking you to show me how it is **I should not accept my claim **based on reason. So far the only reason you're giving me is that you have a bunch of pals whom have no knowledge of such thing and you and your pals would never believe me.
"
But -- and this a big but -- you should also be skeptical of it, for exactly the reasons I've been explaining."I'm skeptical about everything, including this claim you have about your 'bunch of people'. I dont have 100% certainty about anything other than you and I and a bunch of other people exist.
I'm 99% certain I left my body, but I come to this conclusion after years of reflection *and reason. *
What's your reason again why I should not? What complex argument of reason do you supply?
"
I mean, cripes, if I heard my couch start talking to me telepathically, I know one thing for damn certain: my couch is not actually talking to me, no matter how much it seems like it is. I would know that I would be in need of serious medical attention."
I've never heard any reports of talking couches, but there certainly is an archived body of evidence for people describing various out of body experiences throughout all history and all cultures, plus I had them too for my own personal clarification.
If there were reports of talking couches throughout history from all cultures, and you find your couch start talking to you, I would keep an open mind
"
In rather similar way, having a dream you left your body is great and all, but it's not actual grounds on which to base such a grandiose claim."Now your claiming I had a dream because I must have had a dream, right? That's called an assumption. I claim I had it in waking consciousness. I sort of trust my own reflection here more than your weasel words.
Your challenge is to show me within reason how it is I should reject my claim.
"
Have you ever tried testing this superpower (assuming that you can project more or less at will)? Or do you just blindly trust whatever it feels like is happening?"
Nope. Not something i had control over then and to be honest, I am not really a super power explore kind of guy with this kind of stuff, at least not OBE. When things like this happen, I just let them happen but don't actively seek them. To be honest it's not really that big of a deal to me. I've had ceremonial experiences and private experiences in my adult years that I could say would fit the description of astral travel, but it wasnt like my experience as a child and I am not really interested in trying to prove it one way or another. Besides, I don't need to. I determined this through reason + direct experience.
Now, back to YOUR original point that you're STILL avoiding in this exchange with me.
You said I have 'NO REASON' to accept that I left my body. You claim that there is EVIDENCE that suggests such a thing never happens.
For you to stay relevant in this discussion, I request you
1.) List this evidence or study that shows such a thing is non occurring in humans.
2.)List the 'reasoned' arguments as to how I should change my claim. I am sorry but the 'reason' you keep repeating is simply 'there is no evidence' and ' a bunch of people you know won't believe me'. I'm just not finding that very compelling, especially since you still have not produced the evidence, study, or research that backs your claim conclusively or given a consistent reasoned argument that refutes me.
HINT! If you're 'using' reason, that means by definition it must hold a logical consistency. Even better for you, if I have 'no reason' that means my argument is feeling based, and likely to produce a contradiction in exchange with a reasoned point of view.
It should be very easy for you to 'crush' my claim this way.
I'm still looking forward to this, as well as the 'lurking parties' reading your every post!
-
@ldfriend56 said
"I'm 99% certain I left my body, but I come to this conclusion after years of reflection *and reason. *"
Well, of course you come to this conclusion by using reason. All conclusions are the products of reason operating on evidence. But not all conclusions are created equal: some conclusions, for example, don't properly follow from the evidence or are based on a faulty understanding of evidence, and for this reason it's very possible to use reason to draw conclusions that seem to make sense but are in fact wrong.
In your case, the evidence is your experiences, on multiple occasions it seems, on which you appeared to have left your body.
Your conclusion, based on this evidence, is that you really did leave your body.
The unstated premise (or enthymeme) in this argument is "When I have an experience in which it seems like I did X, it's incredibly likely that I really did X."
(Here, "really did X" is meant to distinguish "really doing X" from something like "just dreaming (or daydreaming) about doing X")
So we can summarize your own thought process like this:
- When I have an experience in which it seems like I did X, it's incredibly likely that I really did X.
- I had an experience in which it seems like I left my body.
- It's incredibly likely that I really did leave my body.
(Where "really did leave my body" is meant to distinguish "really leaving one's body" from something like "just dreaming (or daydreaming) about leaving one's body)
Before I show you why this reasoning is flawed, I'd like you to confirm that the syllogism above is an accurate representation of the reasoning that led you to this conclusion.
A simple yes is all that's required, but please correct anything I got wrong.
-
@Los said
"
Well, of course you come to this conclusion by using reason. All conclusions are the products of reason operating on evidence. But not all conclusions are created equal: some conclusions, for example, don't properly follow from the evidence or are based on a faulty understanding of evidence, and for this reason it's very possible to use reason to draw conclusions that seem to make sense but are in fact wrong."yes, that's reasonable, but how does this apply to my claim that I left my body?
"
In your case, the evidence is your experiences, on multiple occasions it seems, on which you appeared to have left your body."
correct, but also hearing similar experiences from others
"
Your conclusion, based on this evidence, is that you really did leave your body."
Correct, but we never talked about what the 'I' means. So we are on the same page, I mean my consciousness and POV left my body.
"
The unstated premise (or enthymeme) in this argument is "When I have an experience in which it seems like I did X, it's incredibly likely that I really did X.""
Correct, similar to common everyday application of such form, such as 'I am having an experience typing this sentence right now, it's incredibly like that I really am typing this sentence right now.'
So you're suggesting this common application is a logical fallacy of some kind?
"
(Here, "really did X" is meant to distinguish "really doing X" from something like "just dreaming (or daydreaming) about doing X")"Now you just made a leap sir outside of your form! You are introducing day dreaming into the scenario. I was not day dreaming.
"
So we can summarize your own thought process like this:
- When I have an experience in which it seems like I did X, it's incredibly likely that I really did X. "
Correct
"
- I had an experience in which it seems like I left my body."
correct
"
- It's incredibly likely that I really did leave my body."
True, but written in poor form. The way you write it here assumes that what makes 3 true is points 1 and 2, and that doesnt come to follow in my case. There was more into it that 1 and 2. Please stop projecting your tautologies onto me
"
(Where "really did leave my body" is meant to distinguish "really leaving one's body" from something like "just dreaming (or daydreaming) about leaving one's body)
Before I show you why this reasoning is flawed, I'd like you to confirm that the syllogism above is an accurate representation of the reasoning that led you to this conclusion.A simple yes is all that's required, but please correct anything I got wrong."
Well, it's tautologically accurate, but it's also incomplete. Because I am a third value guy, I would have to answer both yes and no. Since your a two value guy - I can say yes to you if you want, but I would not rest your argument on your tautology if I were you!
But carry on, I look forward to seeing what you do here.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"True, but written in poor form [...] it's tautologically accurate, but it's also incomplete."
Ok, then write a syllogism that accurately reflects the reasoning that led you to your conclusion, and I'll respond to that.
-
@Los said
"
@ldfriend56 said
"True, but written in poor form [...] it's tautologically accurate, but it's also incomplete."Ok, then write a syllogism that accurately reflects the reasoning that led you to your conclusion, and I'll respond to that."
For what purpose? This seems unnecessary to me. You claimed there is reason to conclude there is no evidence for such a claim and that such a claim is impossible. I've asked you to provide this to me about 5 times now. I already explained to you that I came to my conclusion through Occam's Razor. That if my claim was not true, that it was 'all inside my head' that I would by definition be then assuming many more things about reality than by just taking the experience at face value, like I do with any other direct waking experience. Sometimes the simplest explanation is best.
The assumption that it was all inside my head does not address the fact of how that information got inside my head considering I had a direct POV of myself. This means if it is in my head, my brain has the ability to generate a 'holo deck' type experience that can match sensory information perfectly even though any sensory inputs (such as my eyes) were closed off from it. Since I am only claiming this is true for myself, and no one else (I am not requesting anyone believe me, I too would be skeptical of anyone whom made such a claim) - I am again asking you to explain how it is that I should change my personal understanding of my experience.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"
@Los said
"
@ldfriend56 said
"True, but written in poor form [...] it's tautologically accurate, but it's also incomplete."Ok, then write a syllogism that accurately reflects the reasoning that led you to your conclusion, and I'll respond to that."
For what purpose?"
So that I can show you where the flaws are in your thinking and demonstrate that you have drawn a conclusion that is invalid or unsound.
"You claimed there is reason to conclude there is no evidence for such a claim and that such a claim is impossible."
What I said is that no one -- including you -- has sufficient reason to accept the claim that you left your body.
You were very clear earlier that it was your use of reason that led you to the conclusion that you left your body. If you'll illustrate the thought process that led you to the conclusion that you left your body (by constructing a numbered syllogism), I'll gladly show you where your reasoning is invalid or unsound.
I took a stab at constructing such a syllogism above, but you suggested that I was misrepresenting your thought process (since you said the syllogism was "written in poor form" and "incomplete"). Ok, so construct a syllogism that doesn't misrepresent your thought process, and I'll show you where your reasoning flawed.
-
A is a subset of B
A only contains odd integers
B contains no even integers -
@Los said
"
Ok, so construct a syllogism that doesn't misrepresent your thought process, and I'll show you where your reasoning flawed."You have my reason. You can place my reason inside of one of your syllogisms if you want. But I asked you to show me the evidence you mention, that this is impossible. You cannot prove that to me by deconstructing a syllogism, if it were that easy Philosophy would have ended a long time ago. I'm not going to waste my time feeding you pivoting away from this discussion. If your relying on me phrasing something a specific way to make your point, you're already floundering.
If you're implying now that there is only insufficient evidence to accept that people leave their bodies, we are in agreement if you mean scientifically speaking. If your implying that I have no reason to accept that I left my body because all the evidence suggest I can't, then you need to show me that evidence or accept that it's unknown scientifically which would allow anyone having the experience to need to rely on more than just scientific consensus for them to interpret their own experience accurately.
If you wish for me just to accept your claims at face value and assume they are true, sorry, I can't do that.
-
the basis of the universe in the thelemic sense is the divine will. This divine will is the force that causeth the ain to concentrate within itself the point of kether. The three supernal sepheroth are beyond the comprehension of the intellect. they are unknowable in the most profound sense. they are not quantifiable-not measuable. science in the emperical sense has nothing to offer here. it is not by intellect or measurement that one becomes aware of this sublime revelation. it is by clearing the dross of mind phantoms through mystical and magickal means that one sees that one has as ones own core this unknowable transendant aspect within oneself. There is little to be written even in the most poetic forms about this state or revelation or vision.
This discussion about materialism et al while seemingly intruguing has nothing to do with the core activity of thelemism. Yes, discuss it as you will, but you are not advancing into the teachings or understandings which constitute thelema or the A.'.A.'.
This is useless spinning of wheels in the MUD OF THE INTELLECT. This while my opinion is also simply true. All the books of science and all the discoveries of science in the material vien are but phantoms to dillude you into thinking that the self described ascendancy of the intellect is a reality when the intellect can barely rise as high as tipareth in yetzerah. the intellect burns away before one enters the city of the pyramids. What then of all that it discovered? the abyss is that very boundary which separates the bull from the shit.