Questions about Hadit's incongruities
-
Los, I would completely agree with you if you were saying "I didn't experience it, it does not exist for me."
But what you are basically saying (all the time!) is: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever."
See the difference? An open mind on the one side, a closed mind on the other; the first one is capable of evolving, the other keeps on torturing itself, running in circles - and when expressed aggressively, seems very much boring to people with whom it tries to communicate
-
@danica said
"Los, I would completely agree with you if you were saying "I didn't experience it, it does not exist for me."
But what you are basically saying (all the time!) is: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever."
See the difference? An open mind on the one side, a closed mind on the other; the first one is capable of evolving, the other keeps on torturing itself, running in circles - and when expressed aggressively, seems very much boring to people with whom it tries to communicate"Where's that LIKE button I requested years ago?
-
Seconded.
-
Like him or not, he killed it with his theory of Hadit. Kudos to you Los.
-
I'll admit, that's what I find so frustrating about Los. Everything in the middle of his post, from "It’s important to keep in mind..." through "...the concept of opposites containing themselves above the Abyss." is well reasoned, consistent, and thought provoking. It acknowledges that there are not one-to-one relationships between symbols and logical definitions and that, to try to reduce a symbol to a simple language-based definition is ultimately pointless.
But then he ends his post with a nice pithy pun that equates those who attempt to grapple with symbols at a non-logically defined level with the simple-minded. It breaks his internal consistency in a shallow attempt to throw dirt.
If he had read Jim's post as written instead of as he wanted it to be written, he might have noticed that nowhere did Jim suggest that there was a "higher type of logic" on which his point depended. As I understand him (and please correct me if I'm wrong), symbols encompass ideas which transcend 4D space-time and therefore cannot accurately be described using 4D logic. Full stop. This is, as far as I can tell, exactly the premise with which Los began his exploration.
@Los said
"So what ideas do they represent? Well, there’s not necessarily a “right” way to attribute ideas to these symbols. The best you can do is to be consistent in the attributions. Seriously arguing about it or trying to figure out the “right” attributions or trying to resolve perceived incongruities from being able to attribute apparently contradictory things to the same symbol is, at the end of the day, about as productive as seriously arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin."
In order to fully understand these ideas, one needs something other than 4D logic. That's not suggesting one needs 5D or 6D or 8D logic (whatever those may be), that's to say one needs something other than logic.
And, as Danica said, when it comes to Los and the possibility of something that is not logic: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever."
Except when he uses it in his own definition of "symbol".
To paraphrase the man himself, there's no point in seriously engaging in conversation with people who just get to rewrite the argument when convenient.
-
@danica said
"what you are basically saying (all the time!) is: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever.""
Well, no, I'm not saying that. I've experienced 8th dimension logic. And that kind of logic reveals incontrovertible evidence that Eshelman is wrong.
Until someone discovers 9th dimension logic, my conclusion stands.
EDIT: Oops, I misspoke. It wasn't "8th dimension logic" after all. It was "8th dimension intuition." It transcends the first seven dimensions and logic entirely. This means that the evidence that this higher faculty reveals is even more strongly in my favor, since I am clearly not depending on logic. QED.
-
@Gnosomai Emauton said
"But then [Los] ends his post with a nice pithy pun that equates those who attempt to grapple with symbols at a non-logically defined level with the simple-minded. It breaks his internal consistency in a shallow attempt to throw dirt."
No. There's no contradiction because nowhere in my post do I do anything "at a non-logically defined level."
People have a very weird idea of logic on these forums.
Attributing meaning to symbols -- and discoursing on those symbols and their meaning -- is a rational process that involves the use of logic.
The mere fact that we can attribute more than one meaning to a symbol in no way means that those attributions are “non-logically defined.”
" nowhere did Jim suggest that there was a "higher type of logic" on which his point depended. As I understand him (and please correct me if I'm wrong), symbols encompass ideas which transcend 4D space-time and therefore cannot accurately be described using 4D logic."
Then he’s advocating the existence of a “higher type of logic” – or some kind of “higher faculty” that “transcends” “4D logic” (what a stupid phrase) and therefore apprehends some kind of “higher truth.”
He’s wrong on both counts: no ideas “transcend 4D space-time,” and there is no faculty that perceives some kind of “higher truth.” At least, there’s no reason to think that either of those assertions is true.
"And, as Danica said, when it comes to Los and the possibility of something that is not logic: "I didn't experience it, it absolutely does not exist - not from any possible perspective, ever.""
No, that’s not my position. My position is that nobody has demonstrated that there is some “higher faculty” than logic that actually does really grant insight into some “higher truth.”
People, of course, can baldly assert such things – and they can poorly reason that their experiences somehow “confirm” such things…but they can’t demonstrate it. They just make baseless claims, which Eshelman does all the time, and which I was parodying by invoking a silly idea like “8D logic.”
After all, can you prove I didn’t discover 8D logic and that I didn’t uncover incontrovertible evidence that Eshelman is wrong? (Sorry, I mean, "8D Intuition")
This is, of course, the problem with all “spiritual claims” that rest on “intuition” or other supposed “higher faculties.” Tons of religious people run around making all sorts of claims – claims that are mutually exclusive with other spiritual claims, mind you – all supposedly supported by their “intuition” or whatever term they come up with for these supposed “higher faculties.”
Which one’s right? How do you tell?
You can’t, obviously. Each one of these religious folks, from Eshelman to the Christian down the street to the Hare Krishna at the airport to the Muslim at the store, etc. – each one makes claims (mutually exclusive with other people's claims) based on some sort of “higher faculty” or whatever. Each claim is equally undemonstrated and equally a bald assertion.
What’s happening is that each of these religious folks has had an experience that they have rationally interpreted in different ways. Then they tell themselves that they have "transcended logic," ironically blinding themselves to the way that reason is leading them astray.
Let me frame this another way. If you look at this thread, whose post is the most informative, well-written, thought provoking, and demonstrates the fullest grasp of these symbols and their place in Thelemic thought? I’m not trying to toot my own horn when I say it’s mine (and that I composed that post in only a few minutes), but I am trying to underline something important: my knowledge, understanding, and insights have all been achieved without believing that there’s some “higher faculty” that gives me insights that are somehow “beyond 4D,” whatever the fluck that might mean.
So what use is the belief that there exist insights that are somehow “beyond 4D”? What use is the belief in some supposed “higher faculty”? It doesn’t seem to be adding anything substantive to the conversation – and certainly, it hasn’t added anything to anybody’s ability to explain any of this stuff (which, at the end of the day is the only way to judge someone’s understanding of a subject).
This claim about the existence of “higher faculties” is undemonstrated, unsupported, hasn’t helped anyone be able to explain the subject, and has added nothing to the conversation.
The evidence clearly suggests that this claim is totally and completely useless and should be discarded until such time as there’s evidence for it.
-
@Aion said
"Its called a theoretical model.
But we've already had this same conversation about three times now."
"See the problem with making sh!t up? If you can do it, I can do it. I just find it harder to keep a straight face while doing it." - LOS
I do not know why anyone engages with him. He's a looped track, a broken record. A troll by any other name is still a troll.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Aion said
"Its called a theoretical model.But we've already had this same conversation about three times now."
"See the problem with making sh!t up? If you can do it, I can do it. I just find it harder to keep a straight face while doing it." - LOS
I do not know why anyone engages with him. He's a looped track, a broken record. A troll by any other name is still a troll."
Lieutenant Dan - looking for his showdown.
[and if he finds that insulting, I'll delete it]
-
Los, it's all made up dude. All of it. Even your lovely explication of the symbolism of Hadit.
-
Ok guys. OP here. Let's just chill out and please refrain from turning this into a thread about how irritating Los (or Jim Eshelman) is.
You may be surprised to learn that I have found each of your responses (concerning the nature of Hadit) helpful. Eshelman's replies AND Los' replies! Oh gosh!
And just to clear some things up, Los,
A dot on a piece of paper can symbolize Hadit in 2D. Of course, that doesn't do a good job conveying any kind of motion. A point in 3D is a better symbol. A point in 4D is even better. I don't know what # of dimensions I am picturing when I picture a ubiquitous central point to an infinite sphere, but I think that it is an even better spacial symbol for Hadit. to paraphrase Jim in a way that I think is more true to what he was saying, a logic founded on 4D time-space can't be counted on to assess (say) 5D or 8D symbols. We are talking about spacial models for Hadit, which as you say, is a symbol for something that is more than just a spacial point. But a spacial point is an alright symbol for it.
But not the only symbol I find useful. Jim, you were not quite correct when you supposed that my original questions arose out of frameworks bounded by finite definitions of space, time. Perhaps finite conditions yes.
I suppose another way to frame my question is, "Is Hadit's nature modifiable? Is Hadit touchable by conditions?" But I think all of you answered my question pretty soundly.
THANKS GUYS!
-
@Bryan said
"I suppose another way to frame my question is, "Is Hadit's nature modifiable? Is Hadit touchable by conditions?""
Crowley's answer was essentially this: No, Hadit is not modifiable; however, by entering into different experiences (joining with different particulars of reality), Hadit goes through a series of changed forms based on new combinations, in the same way that (say) an oxygen molecule doesn't exactly look just like oxygen when it compounds with other elements (say, forming organic compounds that make it look like a fish which, when eaten and redistributed by someone eating the fish, ends up looking like a human being etc.).
But you can extract the oxygen and it's back to being the same oxygen molecule.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"But you can extract the oxygen and it's back to being the same oxygen molecule."
Hmmm... This raises a question in my mind. The oxygen molecule likely won't be the "same" oxygen molecule since electrons in a molecule don't necessarily maintain their relationship to their original nucleus once bonding has occurred. It will look the same, act the same, etc... but it won't actually be the same 8 protons, 8 neutrons, and 8 electrons per atom and it's statistically unlikely that even the same two nuclei will ever bond together again into an identical molecule.
I realize this is nit-picking of a metaphor but... it does beg the question: Is there really anything, at least in the physical universe of 4D space-time, that isn't changed by conditions? I'd say no and extrapolate from that that an unmodifiable Hadit, whatever it is that the symbol is attempting to convey, must by logical definition not be of 4D space-time.
The Hadit called Hadit is not Hadit.
-
The analogy of atomic particularity... Of course, some atoms decay and go through the process of being several different kinds of atoms.
Regardless, the smallest stable subatomic particles are actually stable energetic vibrations in a field. Some call them vibrating "strings." They are stabilized frequencies of vibration.
As a truly "atomic" particle, they cannot be further reduced without becoming nothing, which is Nothing. And this is one way in which each Hadit may be seen as a function of Nuit. Where the analogy of truly "atomic" particularity breaks down is the same place where Hadit dissolves into Nuit.
Or at least, this is my current understanding of the physics and how I make it analogous to The Book of the Law.
-
Makes sense. And, as you said above, it is at this level of the truly "atomic" particle/waves that multidimensionality becomes a necessary tool of current theories of existence. Where standard ideas of matter and mass and energy lose their definitions.
-
93,
The "Imagining the tenth dimension" website has an interesting method of visualizing 10 dimensions which begins with a point of indeterminate size and wraps it up nicely with all possible points, lines, and timelines philosophically accounted for in the tenth. The prior akin to our hadit and the latter our nuit. Worth a look in my opinion.
93/93