5=6
-
@Scapegoa said
"What I'm getting at is that Crowley said it is possible to achieve similar results to his system by other means, that assumed to be true, there would logically be a parallel of attainment at certain points within both systems or whatever means was employed. Therefore there should be a neutral way corroborate this attainment across all systems,"
First point of clarification: A term like 5=6 or 7=4 doesn't exist outside the context of a given system. For example, what 7=4 would mean in the old GD is dramatically different than what it would mean in A.'.A.'.. Therefore, any talk of qualifications, criteria, labels, etc. has to be placed within the context of a specific system before there can be meaningful communication about it.
Regarding 7=4 A.'.A..'.: Neither here, nor in any other A.'.A.'. grade (nothing past the pre-admission Student phase) does any intellectual attainment entitle one to any grade or mark a distinctive actual step. The criteria for being recognized as a 7=4 are that one attains to, and then completes the work of, a 6=5; and yes, there are objective tests on most of the stages.
But (if I'm reading you correctly), yoyu're looking for criteria and qualifications that would be confirmable to the profane world. In most cases (especially with the inner grades), you aren't going to find that. The tests are objective in most cases, but only when witnessed by someone that has developed the skills and capacities to see. (It's the equivalent of, say, the objectivity of seeing bacteria with one's own eyes, but only after a microscope has been obtained and one knows how to use it.) And we really don't much care about the profane world's sense of all of this.
"So if one is able to put forth a Thesis, which by its own merit, regardless of Author, through the process of an objective analysis from someone deemed qualified within the AA, such that it definitely reflects a level of attainment pertinent to the standards set forth in said curriculum, and furthermore, is able to publish this thesis, hence known as a leader of a school of thought. One could not but conclude that such a person has at least attained an aspect of 7=4 attainment"
No, such a conclusion wouldn't be reliable. The intellectual attainment reflected in this doesn't (by itself) at all show the authenticity of any such grade attachment. Even the Student level (pre 0=0) could attain to 7=4 (so to speak) on a purely intelectual level, and it would do no more than qualify them to be admitted as a 0=0.
Now, it's true that after the full attainment of 5=6 Within, one supportive measurement of its authenticity is the "gold" that appears in one's work over time. (There's a certain time period after the attainment where this most commonly happens.) This is part of, "By their fruits ye shall know them." But that's a different thing than you're talking about.
"In other words there may be an objective way to define attainment other than only in terms of the particular system used to achieve it in a specific case or cases?"
In theory, yes; but it's the particular system that defines the labels and gradation that you're talking about so, in practice, it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to talk about such a thing outside the framework of a particular system. One could paraphrase "A.'.A.'. 7=4" by calling it something that sounds more system neutral like "attainment of the the Sephirah Chesed in the World of Briah," but that's just substituting one sets of words for another.
"And if there isn't, I believe one needs to be developed as a service to those who wish to go the individual route,"
See, that's where I thought you were going all along: You want to be able to claim titles without having someone else evaluate and assess you. That's just ego talking, and sets you up for serious disappointments.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@Scapegoa said
"What I'm getting at is that Crowley said it is possible to achieve similar results to his system by other means, that assumed to be true, there would logically be a parallel of attainment at certain points within both systems or whatever means was employed. Therefore there should be a neutral way corroborate this attainment across all systems,"First point of clarification: A term like 5=6 or 7=4 doesn't exist outside the context of a given system. For example, what 7=4 would mean in the old GD is dramatically different than what it would mean in A.'.A.'.. Therefore, any talk of qualifications, criteria, labels, etc. has to be placed within the context of a specific system before there can be meaningful communication about it."
Yet even though 7=4 is different, in each system there must still be parallels like maybe a 5=6 A.'.A.'. is similar to 7=4 GD according to certain standardized criteria, such that it is the criteria that is my main concern not the numbers associated with each grade.
"But (if I'm reading you correctly), yoyu're looking for criteria and qualifications that would be confirmable to the profane world. In most cases (especially with the inner grades), you aren't going to find that. The tests are objective in most cases, but only when witnessed by someone that has developed the skills and capacities to see. (It's the equivalent of, say, the objectivity of seeing bacteria with one's own eyes, but only after a microscope has been obtained and one knows how to use it.) And we really don't much care about the profane world's sense of all of this."
you are mistaken about that, my desire are qualifications which are comfirmable to a scientist with no bias toward any particular system, unlike the profane who are biased against such pursuits. Do you not accept adeptship outside of this or similar systematizations? And if one were to come across another, how would each determine their individual attainment in cases where convergence of circumstances tended towards assimilation into one system from another?
"Now, it's true that after the full attainment of 5=6 Within, one supportive measurement of its authenticity is the "gold" that appears in one's work over time. (There's a certain time period after the attainment where this most commonly happens.) This is part of, "By their fruits ye shall know them." But that's a different thing than you're talking about"
No this is exactly what I'm talking about, the "fruits" being emphasized over "method of pruning", that is, assuming the "fruits" are the main driving force of this system? and if not what is?
"
"In other words there may be an objective way to define attainment other than only in terms of the particular system used to achieve it in a specific case or cases?"In theory, yes; but it's the particular system that defines the labels and gradation that you're talking about so, in practice, it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to talk about such a thing outside the framework of a particular system. One could paraphrase "A.'.A.'. 7=4" by calling it something that sounds more system neutral like "attainment of the the Sephirah Chesed in the World of Briah," but that's just substituting one sets of words for another."
Now we are getting somewhere, what is left when you strip a practitioner of these labels and grades? Nothing? This is the heart of the matter that concerns me. Not the framework itself but the essence that moves through it, the electricity not the circuit.
"
"And if there isn't, I believe one needs to be developed as a service to those who wish to go the individual route,"See, that's where I thought you were going all along: You want to be able to claim titles without having someone else evaluate and assess you. That's just ego talking, and sets you up for serious disappointments."
Another assumption, which though understandable, is wrong again. I have no desire for titles; my desire is a personal apprehension, from both a subjective perspective, and as an objective one as possible. To see clearly, and thereby erase all doubt as to my necessary course of action. Moreover the contrary is also true in regards to having someone assess me, this is my point exactly, I am all for assessment and corroboration as a necessary safety net, and i see no reason why objective standards, (even based on the assumption the assessor is qualified and honest or in other words based on the assumption that indeed this system is effective in creating adepts but may not be the only one) cannot be considered. This system in my mind is merely equilibrating the momentum generated towards attaining to ones "True Will" however that Will must exist independent of the system, otherwise we open another can of worms. Crowley encouraged each to explore and reason for themselves.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"So if one is able to put forth a Thesis, which by its own merit, regardless of Author, through the process of an objective analysis from someone deemed qualified within the AA, such that it definitely reflects a level of attainment pertinent to the standards set forth in said curriculum, and furthermore, is able to publish this thesis, hence known as a leader of a school of thought. One could not but conclude that such a person has at least attained an aspect of 7=4 attainment"No, such a conclusion wouldn't be reliable. The intellectual attainment reflected in this doesn't (by itself) at all show the authenticity of any such grade attachment. Even the Student level (pre 0=0) could attain to 7=4 (so to speak) on a purely intelectual level, and it would do no more than qualify them to be admitted as a 0=0."
So by admitting to the fact that one may attain 7=4 on an intellectual level you have admitted that an *aspect * of 7=4 may be attained by other means, even though the person exhibiting such aspect may yet be admitted as only a 0=0, that does not detract from his intellectual attainment. And my point being that since one has shown to attain to 7=4 in one aspect despite this one aspect being inadmissible for full acceptance of the grade, it is impossible but to induce that the same person(s) or different person(s) may have achieved to another aspect of this grade by different means other than intellectually according to the aspect. To me then my first step would be to break each grade down analytically aspect by aspect, and to re-interpret each aspect in non-technical terms pertinent to the particular system. Intuitively such a process at its worst can only force new ways of looking at the system, and this is evolutionary not involutionary! and at its best consolidate and universalize standards within the esoteric community, and thereby even possibly extend its appeal. So to an extent you are right that i am concerned with the welfare of the profane, and I believe they are crossing over to us in light of current history, to me it seems obvious. I don't see any reason why we cannot go half-way with them and create a bridge for those who are sincere. It would have to be a cross- system collective effort, such that the garbage is weeded out, and the methods can be shown to be scientific. But that still is just an underlying theme, a possible added advantage, which may be based on a false assumption, this line of questioning is my way of furthering my own understanding.
-
@Scapegoa said
"Yet even though 7=4 is different, in each system there must still be parallels like maybe a 5=6 A.'.A.'. is similar to 7=4 GD according to certain standardized criteria, such that it is the criteria that is my main concern not the numbers associated with each grade."
Agreed. In many (most?) cases there is a crfoss-mapping possible, especially if you step back from the minutia and focus on main thresholds. In this case, I'd tweak it just a little from whyat you said: If a real 5=6 (in the A.'.A.'. sense) had appeared in the G.D., they would have regarded them as an 8-3 - in fact, Crowley made that same interpretation in 1906 when he was going through what was (in retrospect) very obviously his A.'.A.'.-level 5=6 attainment, but thought it was 8=3.
The G.D. 7-4 is developmentally pretty identical to A.'.A.'. 4=7, though the practical curriculum has a lot of 3=8 in it - a lot of emphasis on Gnana Yoga alonog with the Bhakti elements.
(Gotta run, so I'll answer the rest of this later.)
-
@Scapegoa said
"So by admitting to the fact that one may attain 7=4 on an intellectual level you have admitted that an *aspect * of 7=4 may be attained by other means, even though the person exhibiting such aspect may yet be admitted as only a 0=0, that does not detract from his intellectual attainment. And my point being that since one has shown to attain to 7=4 in one aspect despite this one aspect being inadmissible for full acceptance of the grade, it is impossible but to induce that the same person(s) or different person(s) may have achieved to another aspect of this grade by different means other than intellectually according to the aspect. To me then my first step would be to break each grade down analytically aspect by aspect, and to re-interpret each aspect in non-technical terms pertinent to the particular system. Intuitively such a process at its worst can only force new ways of looking at the system, and this is evolutionary not involutionary! and at its best consolidate and universalize standards within the esoteric community, and thereby even possibly extend its appeal. So to an extent you are right that i am concerned with the welfare of the profane, and I believe they are crossing over to us in light of current history, to me it seems obvious. I don't see any reason why we cannot go half-way with them and create a bridge for those who are sincere. It would have to be a cross- system collective effort, such that the garbage is weeded out, and the methods can be shown to be scientific. But that still is just an underlying theme, a possible added advantage, which may be based on a false assumption, this line of questioning is my way of furthering my own understanding."
While I am not an initiate of the A.'.A.'., but rather the OTO of which I only took my 1st degree oaths back in '94, I feel that I may be able to answer some of this from an outside perspective. I do not claim to have acheive K&C of my HGA but rather have spent more than 20 years practicing ceremonial magick. I have had friends who were initiates in one of the Thelemic orders or other, in the GD and in Wiccan circles. I was interested in the COT and AA over 15 years ago. I still could be but I am getting off the point. Why would it be necessary to have any connection with the self-initiation process? It isn't like you can't get the attainment on your own. After all isn't that what Abramelin is all about? The publishing of that book was a deomonstration of self-initiation. The originalSecret Cheif was a person who accomplished this very thing. The grading system is man made no matter how you look at it from whatever order. If there wasn't an ability to make this connection without initiation it wouldn't happen.
Most of the people I know who need to feel a connection with an order are doing it. Those that don't are less than interested in what an adept has to say about their accomplishments. Your connection with the "profane" is the grading system. If someone is prepared and wants to be subjected to it and are a worthy student I don't see the AA, COT or most other orders keeping them out. I think the saying goes, "When the student is ready, a teacher will appear..." or something like that. Like I said since the late 80's I've had several people in my life that I would consider to be enlightened and that has worked for me.
When I settle down and decide to stay in an area for long enough that I feel I can devote my time and energy in a matter appropriate for a better education I will seek it. For now I know my situation is in transition and I wouldn't be able to give the dedication to an order that I feel is mutually beneficial.
So I guess thanks for the sentiment but I'm not sure it's necessary.
-
@Scapegoa said
"No this is exactly what I'm talking about, the "fruits" being emphasized over "method of pruning", that is, assuming the "fruits" are the main driving force of this system? and if not what is? "
I'm a huge fan of fruits. Huge. But for "the main driving force," I'd have to step back and call them no more than indicative phenomena. The real "driving force" is in the inner access of progressively opening areas of consciousness in ways that only the one undergoing it can judge. (Of course, the moment that person opens his or her mouth and starts to claim anything about it, other people get involved in the process <g>.)
PS - Apologies for my assumptions and jumping to inaccurate conclusions. I appreciate, however, that you saw where I was coming from on that.
-
@Scapegoa said
"So by admitting to the fact that one may attain 7=4 on an intellectual level you have admitted that an *aspect * of 7=4 may be attained by other means, even though the person exhibiting such aspect may yet be admitted as only a 0=0, that does not detract from his intellectual attainment."
True in and of itself - but so misleading as to be virtually misrepresentative. '7=4 on the intellectual level" really doesn't mean anything more here than, "Knows lotsa esoteric shit." In terms of real movement along the Path, the person is still at 0=0.
I suppose one could say that it represents "attainment of the sub-Sephirah of Chesed in the sub-Malkuth field of the Q'lippoth. "And my point being that since one has shown to attain to 7=4 in one aspect despite this one aspect being inadmissible for full acceptance of the grade, it is impossible but to induce that the same person(s) or different person(s) may have achieved to another aspect of this grade by different means other than intellectually according to the aspect."
And that's the kind of conclusion I'm advising against - the whole basis of my resistence to this line of thinking. One's level of intellectual knowledge says essentially nothing about one's growth in any other aspect.
"To me then my first step would be ..."
Over the years, and especially from working the A.'.A.'. system path by path and sephirah by sephirah, I've come to the conclusion that the best matrix for cross-comparison is the Four Worlds. The Sephirothic model of the A.'.A.'. and G.D. map to this quite meaningfully (but also quite differently - which gets past the same-name-grade confusion). So do the best of the Eastern systems and quite a few others. Cross comparisons become quite lucid when you frame the question as, "At what point in the system can you count on the fact that someone has opened to World X, and then stabilized there."
The A.'.A.'. grades essentially migrate worlds up the Middle Pillar - advancement from 1=10 to 2=9 is substantially an opening from Assiah to Yetzirah (and knowing what to do there!). The next three grades then stabilise in Yetzirah and build stronger connections from there to Briah. The move from Dominus Liminis to Adeptus Minor is keyed by a sufficiently stable opening to Briah, and subsequent grades stabilize and deepen that, and build increasingly sturdy bridges to even deeper. The Supernal Grades are then in Atziluth (though there does seem to be an initial Briatic level of 8=3; but, in general, the "crossing the Abyss" phenomenon shows a significant measure of the deep maturation of Briatic consciousness etc.).
In contrast, the original G.D. system is worked entirely in Assiah in the First Order, and the admission to 5-6 marks the place where very pointed training and intention to activate sophisticated work in Yetzirah is undertaken. (Not surprisingly, this stabiliation is in the move from Z.A.M. to Th.A.M.) Opening to Briah in the original G.D. system would have been an 8-3 accomplishment.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
"To me then my first step would be ..."
Over the years, and especially from working the A.'.A.'. system path by path and sephirah by sephirah, I've come to the conclusion that the best matrix for cross-comparison is the Four Worlds. The Sephirothic model of the A.'.A.'. and G.D. map to this quite meaningfully (but also quite differently - which gets past the same-name-grade confusion). So do the best of the Eastern systems and quite a few others. Cross comparisons become quite lucid when you frame the question as, "At what point in the system can you count on the fact that someone has opened to World X, and then stabilized there."
The A.'.A.'. grades essentially migrate worlds up the Middle Pillar - advancement from 1=10 to 2=9 is substantially an opening from Assiah to Yetzirah (and knowing what to do there!). The next three grades then stabilise in Yetzirah and build stronger connections from there to Briah. The move from Dominus Liminis to Adeptus Minor is keyed by a sufficiently stable opening to Briah, and subsequent grades stabilize and deepen that, and build increasingly sturdy bridges to even deeper. The Supernal Grades are then in Atziluth (though there does seem to be an initial Briatic level of 8=3; but, in general, the "crossing the Abyss" phenomenon shows a significant measure of the deep maturation of Briatic consciousness etc.).
In contrast, the original G.D. system is worked entirely in Assiah in the First Order, and the admission to 5-6 marks the place where very pointed training and intention to activate sophisticated work in Yetzirah is undertaken. (Not surprisingly, this stabiliation is in the move from Z.A.M. to Th.A.M.) Opening to Briah in the original G.D. system would have been an 8-3 accomplishment."
Thanks for that Jim, this is a satisfactory place for me to begin.
-
you know Jim i have to commend you, you were really able to see where i was coming from with that line of questioning; I also have an interest in AE religion/culture and I have been in various dialogues with a certain eminent proponent of AE culture/religion, in fact it was through Tamara being on that list that i ended up on this forum, here your 7=4=0=0 theory may be applicable, he is undoubtedly an excellent academic, but I am unconvinced of his adeptship, although being that I do not claim adeptship, i probably am in no position to judge, his theory however is that the AE game of "Senet" or "Zenet" is as superior to QBL as the AE culture is to Hebrew and other derivative writing cultures. He presents a solid argument, and possibly the message may be greater than the messenger, however curiously both threads have ultimately led to the same conjunction, "THE FOUR WORLDS"
another improbable synchronicity among many on this path I travel. In conclusion I am to a certain extent convinced of your adeptship, although once again, I'm really in no position to judge, however I still have my suspicions whether magical theory cannot be updated(or as it were backdated). -
What I find here is the same problem as we have with psychology.
A grade like a psychological disorder, is diagnosed or awarded by the symptoms or subjective expressions of the person by a presumed authority. Yet the underlying presumption that a patters of symptoms relates to a common essence or state of being (the disease or grade), can not be proven. We can not look at the brain and see if a child is ADD, ADHD, or mildly autistic, or a host of other names for the same set of behaviors. Jungians will appeal to archetypes, behaviorists to environmental conditions, cognitive psychologists to the learning style, neurologists to the brain structure, etc. But none of these different systems can discern the one true cause of the behavior. If we use Robert Anton Wilson's agnostic approach as put forth very well in the "psycho-metaphysics" chapter of the Principia Discordia. It seems than each explanation is part of a gestalt than tells us part of the picture, but never the whole picture, even systems of description which seem to contradict others are part of the whole gestalt. Thus saying one is a 5=6 is not a whole picture, one is also a 3=8 of the GD and also rooted it tiphereth, and in a personal relation with ones inner christ, and filled with the holy spirit, a dhayana adept in buddhism, and also some mystic nut case or brain washed Crowley worshiper. These all express some truth and hide other truth.Bellow the abyss, we can only approach truth by these relations of different aspects of the gestalt, Which Crowley describes as the duality which resolves to naught above the abyss. This is because above the abyss all is unified even opposites, so than not this or that limited particular system is chosen to define the experience or truth. All just is allowed to be what it is in it self, with its IS-ness dissociated from its manifestation in the rational mind, its definition or explanation which is all relational, to the arbittary categories of the Ruach.
At least this is something like my 7=4 thesis or whatever.