Finding the 'Child Perspective'
-
@Labyrinthus said
"There was no name calling there, Veronica.
There was a negative characterization of what I consider not just weak but dangerous viewpoint in a negative light."
There seems to be a lesson to learn here: That what you call "a negative characterization," Veronica calls "name calling."
It seems to me that real communication often arises out of actually understanding what the other person is saying rather than fixating on their word choice, and that you already understood what she was saying.
"There is a HUGE difference between identifying an action as cowardly and calling someone a coward in direct fashion. I have noticed that many people lack the ability to discern the two."
That's an extraordinarily liberal perspective for you. It's what left-wing educators of the '70s and '80s called "criticizing the behavior, not the child." It was IMVHO a really fine approach that (among other fine approaches) later deteriorated into excessive "political correctness."
(In what you might regard as an extraordinarily conservative perspective for me, I should admit that, as a self-identified liberal, I've long detested "PC propriety." For example, I regret that the election of John Paul II as pope pretty much put an end to rampant Polish jokes, and (in most contexts) I'd rather use the actual "N word" than use the words "the N word." I detest people being so psychologically bound up that a couple of words or a joke can routinely trigger their reactivity - it makes them weaker. On the other hand, I'm all for exercising reasonable courtesy in conversation with people, and not unnecessarily and knowingly triggering reactivity. Etc. etc. and so forth as I ramble.)
"I believe a positive attitude towards one own nation is a good thing and has a functional place in Spiritual Unfoldment. A recognition of a nation's errors is good but many today seem to obsessed with self-flagellation to a destructive degree. A balance needs to be found."
I agree with this more or less as written, though I might use different words. For example, instead of "Spiritual Unfoldment" in this sentence I'd use "psychological health," which I regard as a prerequisite for spiritual unfoldment.
OTOH I think it important to distinguish our mortal and immortal aspects - our transient, personal, biological aspects (which, by genetics and territory, most definitely includes defense of family, community, and country) from our eternal, transpersonal, spiritual aspects (to which issues like nationality are indifferent). As long as we are spiritual beings with occasional physical experiences, we need to give play to both aspects, but not necessarily to let either of them determine the direction of the other.
I see "my country, right or wrong" not as meaning, "I will say we are right, no matter what!" but as meaning, "I own my passionate loyalty to my country [as to my friends] both when it is right and when it is wrong... and I regard it to be the highest form of patriotism to call it out publicly when I think it's wrong."
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"It seems to me that real communication often arises out of actually understanding what the other person is saying rather than fixating on their word choice, and that you already understood what she was saying."
I used to see it that way and still do to a degree but in certain situations I have found that "give 'em an inch and they take a mile" will very often set in when protracted (and especially political or emotional) disagreements are involved. The failure to use precise and disciplined rhetoric will degrade and then one is soon being held to account for not what was said but what was incorrectly paraphrased.
@Jim Eshelman said
"That's an extraordinarily liberal perspective for you. It's what left-wing educators of the '70s and '80s called "criticizing the behavior, not the child.""
Yes, I was very liberal and a registered Dem for the first half of my adult life, donating to ACLU, etc. and that is still good advice.@Jim Eshelman said
"I agree with this more or less as written, though I might use different words. For example, instead of "Spiritual Unfoldment" in this sentence I'd use "psychological health," which I regard as a prerequisite for spiritual unfoldment."
This advances my point a bit, thanks. I really meant 'Spiritual' as opposed to simple psychology there. The self respect one gains once past the early crisis stages does extend from the immediate self to family and community. To see and recognize this is a genuine step in unfoldment, IMHO.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I detest people being so psychologically bound up that a couple of words or a joke can routinely trigger their reactivity - it makes them weaker. On the other hand, I'm all for exercising reasonable courtesy in conversation with people, and not unnecessarily and knowingly triggering reactivity."
This is a good point, but the negative reaction is inevitable when certain ideas are expressed. There are things I want to say. Some or even most, especially in a Liberal community, will react negatively but I keep looking for the occult community that knows how to process an idea that conflicts with their world view. If I were to withhold the ideas that I want to express because I knew that some would react negatively, I would have to withhold 90% of what I wanted to say. On an open forum this is almost inevitable.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I see "my country, right or wrong" not as meaning, "I will say we are right, no matter what!" but as meaning, "I own my passionate loyalty to my country [as to my friends] both when it is right and when it is wrong... and I regard it to be the highest form of patriotism to call it out publicly"
Yes. As I said, it is good to recognize the error but to fixate on the negative and deny the positive is not healthy psychology.
-
I find it to be in rather bad taste for so-called Thelemites to waste such time bickering over something as arbitrary as politics.
I truly hope that this much effort is put into magically practices and the discussion of worthy topics.
Simply read this thread from beginning to this point and see how much anyone's perspective has been enhanced by this trivial discussion. I do believe the "Child Perspective," as a group of adults have reduced themselves to children shouting at each other on a playground, totally missing the point that forums ought to be fun and engaging. Instead I have found name calling and foot stomping. It is very very disheartening for a new comer to a forum such as this to see this crap.
Be adults and be magicians and try to keep the discussions relevant to topic without insulting each others beliefs, countries, or race. 
72
-
@TheSilent1 said
"I find it to be in rather bad taste for so-called Thelemites to waste such time bickering over something as arbitrary as politics. "
Silent1, politics is applied Spirituality, a good deal of the time. Not on the mundane level, of course. But it is there on a very critical level.
This idea might take a bit of getting used to for those deeply indoctrinated in the common manner of infoldment, but it is plain as day to those with sufficient experience in the consciousness expansion/growth field.
-
@Labyrinthus said
"Silent1, politics is applied Spirituality, a good deal of the time. Not on the mundane level, of course. But it is there on a very critical level."
Before you define what Politics is in relation to "Spirituality", please define the word "spirit."
Sorry for the trick question.
@Labyrinthus said
"This idea might take a bit of getting used to for those deeply indoctrinated in the common manner of infoldment, but it is plain as day to those with sufficient experience in the consciousness expansion/growth field."
I could only get used to this idea only through a tremendous effort.
Now, politics is the process by which any group of two or more make a collective decision. That is fine by me and quite easy to understand and accept. When my wife and I discuss who will do what chore and what we shall eat
, that is politics in it's most basic form.The problem occurs when one party believes that they know what is best for another. I may be well suited to eat dirt and derive nourishment thereby, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I can go into the world and proclaim the virtues of my diet to the world and that is OK too. I become a tyrant when I try to force my dirt into the bellies of others and mock, torture, and/or murder those who will not follow my particular way of thinking.
Perhaps the missing elements is seduction. People (especially Americans... I am an American and I am married to an extremely fierce feminist who is also a linguini spined European. Trust me when I say: she would destroy you entirely for your remarks.
) rarely seduce each other anymore, or for that matter allow themselves to be seduced. Children are masters of seduction and as adults we could learn a lot from them. Success in magick (especially invocation) depends upon seduction, and if we are to make progress in our knowledge and conversation we have to allow ourselves to be seduced by the Angel.If I want someone to go along with my ideas, rather than shout someone into submission, I show them how well my way works for me. Which in itself is seduction.
That is how I "apply spirituality."
72
-
@TheSilent1 said
"Now, politics is the process by which any group of two or more make a collective decision. That is fine by me and quite easy to understand and accept. When my wife and I discuss who will do what chore and what we shall eat
, that is politics in it's most basic form."I get the usefulness of this point in your overall message, but wanted to nit-pick about definitions. I think politics requires a minimum of three people. Two people can either agree or disagree. With three people, one can forge an alliance with someone else against the third. That's politics!
-
@TheSilent1 said
"Before you define what Politics is in relation to "Spirituality", please define the word "spirit."
Sorry for the trick question."
That's okay. Not too tricky... How is this?;
In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was...
nah... basically, to me it is THAT which issues from the realm ... hmmmm ... I am still trying to wrap my brain around the difference between that which is beyond the abyss of Da'ath and Ain Soph Aur so I am not sure exactly how to phrase it in Thelemic vocabulary... but it is the pre-duality Flow from the Heart of the Creator. It has to split somewhere between here and There but ultimately the recognizable part of the flow here that I call Spirit is the part of the Flow that draws one back to the Heart of the Creator.
-
"Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance. I shall deal hardly with them."
How does this interface with game theory, e.g. Nash equilibrium and Prisoner's Dilemma?
Each man and woman pursuing his and her own interest, doing his and her own will, yet punishing those who restrict his and her will through collective action (War) and individual retaliation (Vengeance). This is exactly what game theory would suggest for many real life situations - they call it a tit-for-tat strategy.
-
Even Nash rejects Nashs early Game Theory these days.
The Prisoner Dilema, rather than proving that selfishness is the key to harmony just showed how a paranoid schizophrenic saw the world at that time.
If we need to start referencing Thelema to every odd thought by a crazy person then its going to take a long time to get through it all.
What I don't get is this constant "What about the Thelemic perspective on .... bellybutton fluff....?"
Does it matter? Or is it more important how Thelema helps inform YOUR perspective on things? -
@rpin said
""Now let it be first understood that I am a god of War and of Vengeance. I shall deal hardly with them."
How does this interface with game theory, e.g. Nash equilibrium and Prisoner's Dilemma?Each man and woman pursuing his and her own interest, doing his and her own will, yet punishing those who restrict his and her will through collective action (War) and individual retaliation (Vengeance). This is exactly what game theory would suggest for many real life situations - they call it a tit-for-tat strategy."
Interesting perspective. Gave me some food for thought. Thanks.
@Poe said
"If we need to start referencing Thelema to every odd thought by a crazy person then its going to take a long time to get through it all. "
Well. Throwing Nash into the mix might not be the best example, maybe "good" but probably not the best. I suggested his work on governing dynamics since he has been quite a scientifically useful “crazy person”.
@Poe said
"What I don't get is this constant "What about the Thelemic perspective on .... bellybutton fluff....?"
Does it matter? Or is it more important how Thelema helps inform YOUR perspective on things?"I think everyone here can agree that your perspective and yours alone is what really should matter to you.
-
I disagree that your own perspective matters.
What matters is the truth, when in experiment it shows that your perspective falls short of truth, then you MUST cast it away without a second thought.
TRUTH alone in the most important. Better to be without a perspective, ie to be totally unsure and bewildered than to hold a perspective that does not match objective evidence, as discerned in controlled experiments.
-
But what if there is no truth? What if there are only 6 billion truths?
And if there is just one truth, then I'm betting on it not being the Boss Hog perspective, yee-haw.
Nash's Paranoid schizophrenia became such an integral part of the American Psyche during the Cold War, I think that many have yet to shake it off.
-
93
@Froclown said
"
What matters is the truth, when in experiment it shows that your perspective falls short of truth, then you MUST cast it away without a second thought.TRUTH alone in the most important. Better to be without a perspective, ie to be totally unsure and bewildered than to hold a perspective that does not match objective evidence, as discerned in controlled experiments.
"When I mentioned “perspective” I meant it as in your own unique, evolving perspective on Thelema in particular. In other words your opinion of what Thelema means to you.
Naturally, the scientific method is ideal to get the best possible reliable results. Personally I am careful with classifying these results as absolute truth. In time I might gain greater understanding on the given subject and understand that what I saw as truth was actually a part of a greater more complex structure and therefor only part true.
-
This, There is no truth is an absurd notion.
Why not say there is no bowl of fruit, because there are 100 paintings of it and they are all a bit different.Well, if there is no model, then what are the artists painting? how do they know to paint fruit and not tees or tractors.
Your brain is only an impression of a REAL and thus TRUE event in the world. No matter what you do with magick, it only alters the way in which your brain makes impressions and how it makes guesses based on those impressions.
The universe that is annihilated in Samadhi is not the real world, the fruit bowl is never changed, only the mind is wiped clean and no impression is cast upon it. The mind can then re-order the way in which it takes impression from the ground up, from the first step in the algorythm of perception
- Is there a Being, if YES go to 2 if no go to 3
- What color is the Being if RED go to 4 if Blue go to 5.. etc
- Nothing is here, Go to 1.
That is a rather simplified version. But step one related to Kether and thus to Hadit.
-
@Froclown said
"
The universe that is annihilated in Samadhi is not the real world, the fruit bowl is never changed, only the mind is wiped clean and no impression is cast upon it. "Just for clarification: have you attained, that is, actually experienced, Samadhi?
(Note: I have not.)
I ask because your arguments thus far seem to be leaning very strongly toward the intellectual/rational/logical side of things, and leaning away from the experiential side, and both my logical studies and my (admittedly non-extensive) experience have shown to me that logic and intellect, applied to such topics as "the nature of existence itself" or "mystical states far-removed from normal consciousness," tend to fail or produce circular or nonsensical answers - think about the nonsense physics has thus far produced from attempting to directly reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity (i.e. negative probabilities, infinities, probabilities with imaginary factors, etc.).
-
Also, for the record - due to the principles described in general relativity theory, all observers will measure the same speed for light regardless of their relative motion to each other - this will cause them to disagree on elapsed time and distances.
Due to this and due to our motion relative to each other, you and I will not see the same bowl of fruit as we go to paint it - we will see the bowl of fruit as it was some finite time in the past due to the finite speed of light, and so it is with all perception, which takes place over a finite amount of time. We never see anything external as it "is," only as it "was." Not only this, but we will disagree about when it was due to motion relative to each other, assuming there is any.
Mainstream science only deals with observable phenomena - the entire range of phenomena that we can observe, however, will be necessarily distorted by each of us due to these principles - you and I cannot observe the same atoms in the same way, and we also disturb these atoms by observing them.
If you know of wavefunctions, then you will know that it is impossible to pinpoint any qualities particles have without observing and necessarily disturbing them. The "reality" of the particles appears to depend intimately on whether or not we observe them, and how.
The absolute external reality of anything at all is not quite as firm as it may seem, IMO.
-
That is a totally false notion of QM.
When you look at say a tree, it is not changed by observation.
Let's say however you are blind and can't see the tree from light reflected from it, so you have to hit the tree with an ax to know where it is, Well in this case you are chopping holes in the tree thus changing it by means of your method of observing it.This is exactly what you have in QM, in order to see say an electron you have to bash ether a huge photon into it that knocks it off course or a small photon that it collects and has to slow down. So you can ether hit it hard and know how fast it was moving when you hit it but now it has changed location. or you can hit it lightly and know where it is, but it will change speed. You can't ever know both location and speed, because the means of measuring one changes the other.
Yes, our perceptions will be different, because we have different brains that are effected by in the case of sight the effect of light on the eyes. We have different retinas too, and different angles to from the tree, etc.
However, if I shut by eyes the tree does on stop existing, or else when I close my eyes the tree would vanish for you also. Since I know that when others shut their eyes the world still exists, that proves than the world is not in anyone's mind, it is in the world.
Magick rituals effect the mind and senses of the performer, not the world. Say there is a picture that can be seen as a duck or a cow, depending on if you look at the white or the black as the foreground. I can do a magick ritual than helps me to see the white as the foreground and behold I have changed the duck into a cow. But, I did not change the photo at all, I changed my brain. In no way does the fact that I see the cow going to make it so that other people will see the cow.
All so called paranormal effects can be traced to a change in the way the brain interprets perceptions and memories. Maybe you bump a candle with your arm, and your brain decided to remember it as if the candle fell mysteriously, in order to confirm your bias to prove the existence of poltergeist phenomena.
-
@Froclown said
"That is a totally false notion of QM.
When you look at say a tree, it is not changed by observation."
The tree is, in fact, changed by observation, just not on a perceptible level, and in this case we aren't consciously shooting photons at it.
Everything a photon touches is necessarily changed - in order to see anything, you only see it as it is after it has been changed by a photon... some finite time in the past.
I'm just trying to say that science can only deal with observable phenomena, and all observable phenomena have natures that are dependent on the observer.
@Froclown said
"
This is exactly what you have in QM, in order to see say an electron you have to bash ether a huge photon into it that knocks it off course or a small photon that it collects and has to slow down. So you can ether hit it hard and know how fast it was moving when you hit it but now it has changed location. or you can hit it lightly and know where it is, but it will change speed. You can't ever know both location and speed, because the means of measuring one changes the other. "Yes, but there is absolutely no evidence that the electron possesses a definite, unique speed or location until we force it to assume one or the other by the act of observation, which necessitates change. Of course the tree isn't macroscopically changed by photons hitting it, but to say the tree isn't changed at all by photons hitting it just isn't the case.
The idea of decoherence isn't fully worked out, as far as I know - there appears to be a change in rules, if you will, as one moves from the microscopic to the macroscopic, and there is no one theory that adequately describes this transition as of yet, but certainly all macroscopic objects also behave quantum mechanically at that level.
The "hidden variables" concept is very hard to include, and, by Occam's Razor, we really don't need it - quantum mechanics works (in the sense that our mathematical descriptions of it are coherent and accurate), in spite of our "common sense" and assumptions about how the universe should work.
(Also, just for the record, the photons are just more or less energetic, not bigger or smaller. Just trying to keep everything factually accurate).
-
The tree is changed by photons hitting it, which has nothing to do with my observation.
The very same photos hit the very same tree, no matter if after the fact those photons strike some one's eyes or not. So the act of placing your eyes in front of the stream of photons deflected from the tree does not change the tree.
-
As far as I'm aware, though, until the system is formally and mathematically observed, the entire system is in a superposition, including all of the photons, as far as we are concerned (and we can't separate this system from us, because it's a construction of ours).
Have you heard about the experiment where they fired photons down 1 of 2 paths, with detectors on the other end, and when they had the detectors off, not only was it impossible to determine which path the photon took to the end, but it mathematically traveled both paths? (And mathematically is the most "real" we can get at this level).
I really wish I could remember the names of the experiments; Brian Greene talks about them in The Fabric of the Cosmos, IIRC; if not that, then The Elegant Universe.
My points are thus:
- Until observed by a human observer (apparently), quantum systems do not behave as though they are rigidly determined, or have definite characteristics.
- Quantum mechanically, reality behaves according to mathematical law and probability. We have no idea what actually "exists" at that level, however; is an electron a particle? Is it a wave? Is it just a mathematical construction to explain something that follows a pattern but is basically bewildering beyond that?
- We cannot separate the observer from the observed, for they do not make sense without each other. It makes no sense to say a planet occupies a particular point in space; we have to specify its location in relation to something else. I don't believe it is possible to ever specify anything absolutely - everything must be explained relative to something else.
How, then, can we talk about trees or bowls of fruit unless we specify which tree or which bowl of fruit, and according to whom or what? We can't even talk about existence without relating it to non-existence.
To bring this into a Crowlean arena:
Zero equals Two; once the Two are annihilated, there is Nothing left. There is no tree unless there is not-tree to compare it to (in this case, a human observing the tree).If there is an "objective world," we surely cannot know it as it is in and of itself.