0=2 and the Will of God
-
Pure Will =The Essence of Motion.
True Will = The Unique Natural Motion(orbit) of a specific Individual Object differentiated from all other objects, but generally harmonious within context. (To discover and effect change according to this "Will" is Crowley's definition of "Magick")
Will Power= Momentum towards a short- term goal, aided by intent and mental concentration, this is irrespective of the Natural motion of the Object/ Individual.
-
If we split the 'modes of being' based on QBL leading from Ain (the veil of non-existence) to Keter-Crown, we see that Ain can reasonably exist as a vacuum without any object-subject phenomenon. Its clearly stated that there is no effectual reality matrix in the sense of viewer and viewed, or even a God in his Domain. Even in Keter, there is a sense of placement of the unity of God within a living sphere which includes permutations of that sphere which are intelligable seperate from God.
Keter, on the other hand, is the Crown of a kingdom, its part of a schema which includes duality below its feet, or throne, the abyss or what have you. This duality (or triplicity in the case of Supernals) appears at first as a non-dual and yet presupposes a separation between the vacuum (indeterminate) and active (living-determinate) principle.
(Vacuum (Ain, non-existence) = Object/Subject (living Keter)) | 0=2
To comment on Scapegoats analogy:
Pure Will =The Essence of Motion.If being 'pure' made it the essential motion principle (the dynamis, Mars) then it is also the 'true' motion principle, and here we get bogged by attempting to imply that, even in collision, there is somehow an un-truth. In fact stars collide all the time, as do microscopic particles, each truthfully, fruitfully and purely following their orbits. This is an observable phenomenon which more or less displays the idea that no matter your attachment to expectation (ie lust of result) things collide naturally and harmoniously.
In this sense there is simply motion and stillness, without the misplaced moral deterministic factor of true & untrue, pure and impure. In the Judeo-Christian bible it is said "God works in mysterious ways" which implies that ones concepts of justice or Truth (True, Untrue, Pure and Impure, Right, wrong, good & bad) are simply humanistic labels based on preconceived patterns or preconditioned expectations.
More:
"True Will = The Unique Natural Motion(orbit) of a specific Individual Object differentiated from all other objects, but generally harmonious within context."This implies that if one thinks they are witnessing a generally in-harmonious action or motion (conceivably collision) that there can somehow be an un-truth, which is simply not the case.
As I mentioned before, there is motion and the dynamic "Will-to-Be" in both the micro and macrocosmic sense, essentially the exact same principle in both singular and sum-total applications.
What makes Will true or un-true, pure or impure, is simply ones ability to deflect or reject the natural dynamic of the Will itself. In this sense, as AC certainly did use the terms 'True' and 'Pure', he was utilizing duality (forgive me for this) 'Below the Abyss' to speak to people in dualistic terms which satisfy their moral goggles of right & wrong, where particles and stars can have un-true or impure orbits.
Will is simply Will. And motion is simply motion. Collision is no less harmonious, or in effect rain drops would not collide with the lake surface. In nature, collision is at the heart of beauty, as is perfect stillness.
A vacuum is no less true or pure than a duality, etc. All of these are moralistic interpretations of fundamentally unchangeable, immutable forces which do not bend to ones moralistic, dualistic interpretations.
-
"To comment on Scapegoats analogy:
Pure Will =The Essence of Motion.If being 'pure' made it the essential motion principle (the dynamis, Mars) then it is also the 'true' motion principle, and here we get bogged by attempting to imply that, even in collision, there is somehow an un-truth. In fact stars collide all the time, as do microscopic particles, each truthfully, fruitfully and purely following their orbits. This is an observable phenomenon which more or less displays the idea that no matter your attachment to expectation (ie lust of result) things collide naturally and harmoniously."
It seems my use of English befuddles you, allow me to clarify;IMO the use of the word "pure" is not specifically used within the duality of pure/impure but is essentially for emphasis, that is, it is used to distinguish "Will" from all other phenomena, such that it only bears relation to itself, and not relation to an object, or anything else for that matter, in other words, a self contained concept. Such that the sentence; "I am doing my "Pure Will"" does not make much sense, whereas "I am doing my "True Will" does".
"
More:
"True Will = The Unique Natural Motion(orbit) of a specific Individual Object differentiated from all other objects, but generally harmonious within context."This implies that if one thinks they are witnessing a generally in-harmonious action or motion (conceivably collision) that there can somehow be an un-truth, which is simply not the case."
once again you misconstrue the terminology, what one "thinks" is irrelevant, "generally" in this context may be exchanged for the word "usually" so it does not pertain to any specific action, as in the context of "generalizations", I concede that that elaboration may have been unnecessary, but I deemed it possibly helpful to some. The terminology "True Will" IMO is simply "Pure Will" manifested in the instant, in its particulars or specifics as relates to any object. This is done more for grammatical correctness more than anything else, such that. Each object has a "True Will" which is "Pure Will" in a specific manifestation not as a definition. An analogy might be the difference between "an universal blueprint" for "A House" and any number of actual "Houses" which would differ from each other in specifics, though they have the same general structure.
"Will is simply Will. And motion is simply motion. Collision is no less harmonious, or in effect rain drops would not collide with the lake surface. In nature, collision is at the heart of beauty, as is perfect stillness."
this all depends on your definition of harmonious, i would probably use the phrase "no less beautiful"
"A vacuum is no less true or pure than a duality, etc. All of these are moralistic interpretations of fundamentally unchangeable, immutable forces which do not bend to ones moralistic, dualistic interpretations."
My definitions have nothing to do with either duality nor morality,just language. What we have is simply a failure to communicate, in this case it is the medium of "English" that fails us, and our personal understanding of the terminology used. At the end of the day our individual apprehension of these terms is secondary, I put mine out there as it may be of help to some. Debates on the semantics of language do not necessarily translate to spiritual enlightenment.
-
Ave Amicus de Lux!,
Thanks for the coffee break chat. Great fun and a super-available topic.
It seems my use of English befuddles you, allow me to clarify;IMO the use of the word "pure" is not specifically used within the duality of pure/impure but is essentially for emphasis, that is, it is used to distinguish "Will" from all other phenomena, such that it only bears relation to itself, and not relation to an object, or anything else for that matter, in other words, a self contained concept. Such that the sentence; "I am doing my "Pure Will"" does not make much sense, whereas "I am doing my "True Will" does".
Rather I simply disagree with your stated concept of Will in its apparent permutations. No big whoop. Just as a caveat, given your line of reasoning, you wouldnt be able to even discuss Will without an object to compare it to, so it is always in relation to an object in this case. All objectification is bathed in duality.
If you can "Do your True Will" it would of course follow that you can conceivably "Do your False Will" by mistake or in diametrical opposition which is IMHO a patently absurd notion. I believe the point is fairly clear, but thats my take. "Pure Will" of course also implies partial or impure Will can exist, but this is the very definition of beating the horse.
To reiterate and not unduly; you wrote:
"True Will = The Unique Natural Motion(orbit) of a specific Individual Object differentiated from all other objects, but generally harmonious"
If this holds true, perhaps you can give a single (1) example of specifically (as opposed to generally) in-harmonious, Partial or False Will? The permutations or states of Will (True, False, Pure, Partial, etc) seems to be the topic we are discussing.
I certainly appreciate the clarity and discussion.
"once again you misconstrue the terminology, what one "thinks" is irrelevant, "generally" in this context may be exchanged for the word "usually""
As to the above what is "generally usual" for you may be "specifically unusual" for everyone/anyone else and the usage of generalizations, especially around the topic of Thelema/Will, is at the heart of our discussion.
While it is certainly possible I'm misunderstanding your word usage, syntax, etc, I am more focusing on what you actually wrote, my friend. This is a typical pro/con conversation with points, replies, counterpoints all respectfully expressed. Thats beauty value of open conversation - it goes both ways. Lets hold on to the premise that "what one "thinks" is irrelevant" in context of Will.
"An analogy might be the difference between "an universal blueprint" for "A House" and any number of actual "Houses" which would differ from each other in specifics, though they have the same general structure."
In this line of reason your concept of True & Pure Will lays in direct relation to objects (what you think of or believe in, as in structures like houses). Can you comment on "Impure Will" (within the context of Thelema) manifesting in any permutation, weather relating to a specific object, time, instance or even a base generalization? I'd love to hear more about this if you have the bandwidth. Its a difficult premise, I would submit.
"this all depends on your definition of harmonious, i would probably use the phrase "no less beautiful"
I was commenting on your original usage of the word harmonious "generally or usually" equating with True. Hope that was clearly in quotes.
"Debates on the semantics of language do not necessarily translate to spiritual enlightenment"
Wasn't aware that we were competing to appear spiritually enlightened. That was rather out of left field. (Get it? Left field? (chuckle))
"Not thee do we adore, for that which adoreth is also thou. Thou art that and That am I"
- Liber XV
93 93/93
-
"Rather I simply disagree with your stated concept of Will in its apparent permutations. No big whoop. Just as a caveat, given your line of reasoning, you wouldnt be able to even discuss Will without an object to compare it to, so it is always in relation to an object in this case. All objectification is bathed in duality."
if you will, take "Pure Will" as an abstraction, which when manifest becomes "True Will".
"If you can "Do your True Will" it would of course follow that you can conceivably "Do your False Will" by mistake or in diametrical opposition which is IMHO a patently absurd notion. I believe the point is fairly clear, but thats my take. "Pure Will" of course also implies partial or impure Will can exist, but this is the very definition of beating the horse."
Both of these concepts represent "Ideals"that are never fully manifested on this plane( as such are married to perfection, as in the context used in Liber CCXX), mere allegories meant to guide the seeker, neither can "False Will" allegorically be fully manifested, but each object is somewhere between the two at any point in time. Moreover none of these concepts are my inventions, this is merely my commentary on the concepts. If you disagree with the use of the phrases you need to take it up with the source!!! There is really no need to drag this further purely for argument sake, well at least that is not my forte.
"Debates on the semantics of language do not necessarily translate to spiritual enlightenment"
Wasn't aware that we were competing to appear spiritually enlightened. That was rather out of left field. (Get it? Left field? (chuckle))"what i meant had nothing to do with appearances, your statement may be a Freudian - slip. I meant there may be no practical gain in endless nit-picking for its own sake. I am honestly burnt out on this topic, it was just my 2 cents(ok maybe 4
). Now I seek to go to the holier place!!we do seem both to enjoy writing though, at least we have that in common!!
nice meeting you, you show a lot of passion for your ideas. -
I know algebra!
0=2
I dare to minus one from both sides!
0-1 = 2-1
Which is equivilant to:
0-1=1 or -1 = 1
I will do it again!
0-1-1 = 2-1-1
Which is equivilant to:
0-2 = 0 or -2 = 0
If I really wanted to go crazy..
0 = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1...
Did I do the Math right ?
If so...
0 = Infinity
I should just keep silent
-
@Uni_Verse said
"I know algebra!
0=2
I dare to minus one from both sides!
0-1 = 2-1
Which is equivilant to:
0-1=1 or -1 = 1
I will do it again!
0-1-1 = 2-1-1
Which is equivilant to:
0-2 = 0 or -2 = 0If I really wanted to go crazy..
0 = 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1...
Did I do the Math right ?
If so...
0 = Infinity
I should just keep silent"Our Maath is similar Uni. 0 = 2 = infinity =1
-
I like the visuals.... lol....
<img src="http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-6/738102/zeroEqualinfinity.jpg">
But it ends up a little more Art and a little less Precision. What can I say? it's fun for me...! It's art that communicates...
0 = Infinity = on, off, on, off, on, off = 10101010101010101010101 = VVVVVibration = 101 = lol = Laughter
"on, off, on" = "101" x Phi =
-...330816.101.618033...+
in every direction from every star, where 101 represents the laughing heart of an individual star, Phi radiating outward in every direction and into the hearts of other stars, which are really the Same Star... lol...
-...01.6180334774330816.101.6180334774330816.101.6180334774330816.10...+
where "4774" was a term supplied by Wizardiaoan's "proof."
-1 = 1
VVVVV
VVVVVLike I said... It's Art. I wish Wiz could have enjoyed it too! Ironically, it doesn't make any sense without him... Ah... well...
Having a blast, guys...!
Peace.
p.s. I think we totally hijacked this thread. I only just noticed. Sorry...
-
but if I take out the 4774, then you could use the 9...
Oh... how about the 8 as a symbol of the same concept we're playing with..
-89330816.101.61803398+
ehhh.... I guess it doesn't matter.
Oh... wait... there's a repetition in phi anyway.
-...101.6180339887498947889330816.101...+
-...498947889330816.101.618033988749894...+
Like a wave.... Like breathing... I don't know... I just like it.
-
@PatchworkSerpen said
"How can one do their True Will any more or less effectively if the equation must always be exactly fulfilled?"
Greetings from "across the ditch". Lovely city Melbourne; I don't get there often enough.
Expressions from quantum physics such as “borrowed energy” (in connection with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle) and “virtual particle” occur to me. I’ve no doubt an individual “Star” can divert from his/her True Will for a limited time, but the inertia of the Universe will force (or perhaps rather “gently persuade”) that Star back into the “path of least resistance” (isn’t it called karma?)
OTOH, perhaps the True Will of the Universe is built by the True Wills of each individual considered together; rather as “inertia” can be seen as the net effect of the gravitational fields of every body and particle in the Universe. The fact that inertia is (as far as we know) a universally similar phenomenon does not invalidate the fact that everything exerts its own gravitational pull.
Through the sheer randomness of human nature, the divergence of one Star from its True Will is balanced out by another that is diverging in the “opposite” direction. Rather like driving round a bend on the wrong side of the road and discovering some other idiot coming the opposite way, doing exactly the same thing. Free will, life and the Order of the Universe is preserved.
There are philosophical “world-pictures” that claim Free Will [there’s the adjective no-one’s mentioned yet*] and predestination are not necessarily incompatible. Maybe someone who’s been more deeply into that subject can give a few citations. Broadly, I think the idea is we’re free to choose, but when seen from outside Time the course we do/did/will choose is as it is and cannot be otherwise.
As someone ruefully contemplating a collapsed wall said in my hearing recently: “this has always been going to happen.” I was left wondering whether that statement was profound, utilitarian or totally meaningless**.
Maybe we’ve each got a “soulmate” or a group of them who is/are “quantum entangled” with us, so when we’re “up” they’re “down” and vice-versa. Our "mission" is not just to achieve our own True Will but by doing so to get the other(s) closer to it.
Just a few thoughts.
*As a result of the “Pure Will v True Will” thread a while ago I still have somewhere on my desk a Venn diagram whose circles are labelled P, T and F – but I keep changing it
** I think what he actually meant was: “I have always known this was going to happen”, but in the form it was said it’s still worth pondering.
“The (divine) Fool has said in his heart ‘there is 0 (God)’.” [Psalm 53:1, adapted]
I’ve always liked the cartoon (I saw it on an office wall and have no idea of its provenance) that showed a large group of figures bowing and kneeling to altars featuring images of the figure 0 and the letter N. Someone whose very different costume proclaims him to be a foreigner is tapping one of the crowd on the shoulder and asking “Is nothing sacred?”
Good question.
OP
-
"There are philosophical “world-pictures” that claim Free Will [there’s the adjective no-one’s mentioned yet*] and predestination are not necessarily incompatible. Maybe someone who’s been more deeply into that subject can give a few citations. Broadly, I think the idea is we’re free to choose, but when seen from outside Time the course we do/did/will choose is as it is and cannot be otherwise. "
Actually, you just drew a picture in my head of that electron particle vs wave experiment. The particles behave differently when observed... like a particle in one instance and like a wave in another.
It made me conceive of Time as something in which events (like electrons) exist as "predestined" when perceived from "outside," but when not observed or questioned, these events actually occur as a different phenomenon due to the difference in perception and attention.
In other words, the very real difference between Free Will and Predestination could simply be a question of one's current perspective.
If I act, truly taking the perspective that Free Will is real, then perhaps I actually make my own Will more free by the power of conscious attention.
Yet when I act, truly taking the perspective that the "math has all already been done," then I make my actions more predestined, also by the power of conscious attention not to resist the inevitable.
The concept of Free Will could then be said to stimulate activity / sympathetic nervous system.
The concept of Predestination could then be said to stimulate passivity / the parasympathetic nervous system.
Perhaps it's simply the conundrum of the "Illusion of Time"/"Reality of Time" itself that acts as the "gas and brakes" for resistance vs acceptance of one's current state.
What do you think? Did I bring everybody else with me on that one or what? I believe pretty strongly in the necessity of being able to switch back and forth between two perspectives. Some people try to solve that riddle. Perhaps its simpler to understand and implement it in our lives.
Perhaps this is also the difference between "pure Will" and "true Will." The difference really could depend on the state of consciousness of the observer.
Yeah.... Clear as mud.... LOL..!
-
With this line of discussion i think we are approaching the need for a definition of "Time" itself(i do have one) and if not a definition, then a description of it's nature. This would naturally also include the idea of "Alternate time lines" and/or Universes. Generally however I am at present partial to "Novelty Theory" by Terence Mckenna. That is to a certain extent the Beginning and End are fixed, but what happens in -between is somewhat flexible.