Magick: Subjective, or Objective.
-
We can only come to a consensus agreement as far as our minds can collectively fix on definitions, but this is really only important in a textual or literary context which certainly changes once you change languages.
Crowley sternly warned against considering the HGA as a figment of the mind or some anthropomorphic aspect of the "higher self". He certainly, at least toward the end of his life, made it very clear that he believed the HGA is an independent being in its own reality, as are planets, stars and other lofty orders of being.
The only real answers to your questions must be experiential and must be subjectively lived through to fully experience the soak-effect in a feedback returning reality. So you, like Parsifal, must ride around on your poor donkey overcoming the monsters of your own awareness in the very precarious environment you find yourself set in.
On the case of objective angels; We can see that the minds ability to create neuro-toxin is very real. We know that concentrating on negativity tends to create a negative effect in the organism by bathing the neurology in juices the brain secretes as a result of these thoughts - and vice versa. The great thing is, that we can control, to varying degrees, the creation and manipulation of neurological states, which certainly have a very real corresponding effects in the neurology and organism (brain, body, breath, etc).
Weather you personally believe something is real or not, much like in medieval "Glamour" you can think yourself into physiological changes by the power of mind alone. In this way, the auto-hypnosis of invoking an Angel (or demon) can have very measurable results in objective reality which can be verified by other people. This does not prove the existence of exterior orders of Being, perhaps not, but it does prove that the objective existence of these beings is secondary to our "divine" power to cause changes at the organic level using these forms as channels or fulcrums to achieve measurable changes. In that case, the fantasy, subjective Angel is perhaps just as helpful as the objective. In the end, if it creates positive organic changes, it hardly even matters as the method overcomes the message.
-
Tell me if I understand this correctly:
The OP is asking for an opinion. But the expectation is that the opinion must be yes, no or neither, otherwise it's not acceptable.
We are talking about Magick here and it is in fact a "deep" subject. So that's very similar to trying to force a multidimensional experience into a linear answer.
Is my interpretation (hence my opinion of the question) correct?
**Edit: According to 777's definition of a Magus who has solved opposites etc. (wherein the answer of "Both" is also acceptable) this appraoch would be defeating in that it rules out any answer from that level of consciousness. May as well say "Here's the question, Magus' need not apply." It's like denying one-self the ability to listen to a right brain (or beyond) opinion.
-
@Frater MDC said
"May as well say "Here's the question, Magus' need not apply." It's like denying one-self the ability to listen to a right brain (or beyond) opinion."
Or more like "Here's ANY question, Magus' need not apply." Which is probably why they are required to "preach their gospel," so to speak, precisely when they no longer have any "straight" words to do so.
@Liber B vel Magi said
"14. "For the curse of His grade is that he must speak Truth, that the Falsehood thereof may enslave the souls of men"
and- "And woe also be unto Him that refuseth the curse of the grade of a Magus, and the burden of the Attainment thereof." "
@Liber LIX said
""Father, I go back to Memphis. I am the Magus of the Well."
Now he knew the Magus, and answered me:
"Why liest thou?"
And I said "I am come into the world where all speech is false, and all speech is true."
" -
Yeah, makes sense.
My opinion is that magick can be objective when the inner and the outer become one.
-
@Aum418 said
"Our perception of time is most certainly a product of our nervous systems (and therefore our Linear Mind), but it is kind of absurd if you think about it. If time is an illusion, what about the formation of stars and planets and evolutionary history? All those occur in a sequential order."
I do not necessarily think that Linear-Mind is a product of our nervous system, I think Linear-Mind is a product of our cultural and formal conditioning & education.
The idea of the formation of planets in a sequential order may not be completely accurate at or around the Planck Scale, where Space-Time is a discrete relational concept, which fact eludes most C21st scientists. and of course there is the problem of "Initial Cause"; so causality still breaks down at "Singularity", this may be a practical example of the question of the wave-particle duality on a Macrocosmic Scale, our "measurement of time" is merely "A Model of Time" and not "Time" itself, this model may be considered a form of statistical probability of the particle in terms of the wave function, and "Linear-Time" may simply be limiting perception and defining reality in terms of the particle, there is no escape from the fact that at some point the concept of "Causality" breaks down, be it "Singularity" or just plain "Chaos"""The short answer to "are there anti-photons" is "yes", but the disappointment here is that anti-photons and photons are the same particles. Some particles are their own antiparticles, notably the force carriers like photons, the Z boson, and gluons, which mediate the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong force, respectively.""
if anti-photons and photons are the same particle is this not in some sense non-dualistic? I think the fact that the "force carriers" are particularly there own antiparticles is indicative of the nature of "force" itself. I have a strong intuition that Electromagnetic force is directly related to "Consciousness"
"Actually Einstein realized that if you ride on a beam of light and see a beam of light it would be traveling at the sped of light, not equal to oneself. Confusing, I know."
dare might I say it!?.. Einstein might be wrong on this one! Einstein was always threatened by quantum theory and anything that questioned his sacred theories, this may be what ultimately led to his failure in producing a "unified field theory"
"
"There is an experience of time zero. So if one imagines for a moment oneself to be made of light, or in possession of a vehicle that can move at the speed of light, one can traverse from any point in the universe to any other with a subjective experience of time zero. This means that one crosses to Alpha Centauri in time zero, but the amount of time that has passed in the relativistic universe is four and a half years."This seems like a total confusion. Light travels at a certain speed and distances are measured in this (i.e. light-speed). "The relativistic universe" is the one we live in and are aware of, not a 'time zero' one. Light is not infinitely fast."
we have already established that both "speed" and "measurement" are relative to the observer, so both break down where relativity breaks down or at non-duality; such that since it is arguable that photons are non-dual, it is arguable that relativity breaks down at this stage also, conversely on an extremely crude level nothing can be observed "Without Light", we even experience a kind of "Light" in "Dreams" which cannot be accounted for except in terms of virtual photons/ electromagnetic force?!
"
"But if one moves very great distances, if one crosses two hundred and fifty thousand light-years to Andromeda, one would still have a subjective experience of time zero." Terence Mckenna. New maps of hyperspace."That is debatable. People in a fast-moving space shuttle will have their clocks move 'slower' than people in a non-moving station but will the people's subjective perceptions of time be equally skewed? This is not answered by physics.
IAO131"
you are right in that this question is not answered by classical physics, I suppose where one actually to travel at light-speed one would either transcend "motion" entirely and experience omnipresence/omniscience? or unlimited LVX? or otherwise be unable to perceive it.
p.s. I apologize for bringing up an old post if apologies are considered in order, my contemplation has recently returned to this subject.
-
Just cottoned onto this thread now.
From a purely logical / philosophical position the answer is fairly straightforward. Hume was refuted by Kant for making certain metaphysical assumptions. Kant explains that there is no reason for any metaphysical assumption - we know the World through our phenomenal experience (subjectively). We cannot prove noumenal existence (the world as a "thing-in-itself").
The "objective" should not be confused with the noumenal (thing-in-itself), since objective is just collective subjective consensus. Now that's not to say the noumenal does not exist but it does mean that we cannot know a "thing-in-itself", at least via our typical phenomenal perception that results in "an idea" in the mind.
Of course there might be non-intellectual, non-phenomenal means of knowing a "thing-in-itself" (eg: Samadhi)...but then you can hardly discuss this within the limitations of intellectual thought brought about by sense-perception.
-
@modernPrimitive said
"Of course there might be non-intellectual, non-phenomenal means of knowing a "thing-in-itself" (eg: Samadhi)...but then you can hardly discuss this within the limitations of intellectual thought brought about by sense-perception."
On the contrary I believe you can discuss these things by analogy for example the "as above so below" analogy; Is not the Qabalah but such a map for non-discursive thought?
-
@Frater IamAi 1151 said
"
@modernPrimitive said
"Of course there might be non-intellectual, non-phenomenal means of knowing a "thing-in-itself" (eg: Samadhi)...but then you can hardly discuss this within the limitations of intellectual thought brought about by sense-perception."On the contrary I believe you can discuss these things by analogy for example the "as above so below" analogy; Is not the Qabalah but such a map for non-discursive thought?"
Sure. I hear you. But as far as "proof via rational thought" goes we have to remain agnostic to the noumenal. It's more parsimonious to NOT entertain any metaphysical assumption - whether it be in the form of some sort of material existence (as entertained by Naturalism) or a form of mental monism (as entertained by forms of mysticism).
That's not to say we mustn't think about these things or follow the methods of empiricism and / or mysticism etc, just that we don't wholeheartedly buy into any unfalsifiable metaphysical assumption.
-
@modernPrimitive said
"
@Frater IamAi 1151 said
"
@modernPrimitive said
"Of course there might be non-intellectual, non-phenomenal means of knowing a "thing-in-itself" (eg: Samadhi)...but then you can hardly discuss this within the limitations of intellectual thought brought about by sense-perception."On the contrary I believe you can discuss these things by analogy for example the "as above so below" analogy; Is not the Qabalah but such a map for non-discursive thought?"
Sure. I hear you. But as far as "proof via rational thought" goes we have to remain agnostic to the noumenal. It's more parsimonious to NOT entertain any metaphysical assumption - whether it be in the form of some sort of material existence (as entertained by Naturalism) or a form of mental monism (as entertained by forms of mysticism)."
what about mental nihilism?? i think "The Book of the Law" is in the anti-parsimonious Spirit. "...Exceed... Exceed..."
"That's not to say we mustn't think about these things or follow the methods of empiricism and / or mysticism etc, just that we don't wholeheartedly buy into any unfalsifiable metaphysical assumption."
Like you said, this is a parsimonious statement. If we have established that all truth is subjective then to embrace it whole-heatedly or not is matter of personal disposition, my experience is that deep conviction infers "Authority" into ones acts, albeit a "willing delusion".
-
Nihilism, monism, dualism - all opposite sides of the same coin. Not that I understand these principles any more than through a mind hampered by rational thought.
As for the last part of your statement: touche. I couldn't nor would I want to argue with that!
93