mystical voyeurism
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"Yeah, I think that is the wide definition of the conception of telepathy of W. Burroughs, in which the information goes both ways. He often insists in the idea that what an artist do (or more generally a communicator of any kind) is to remind people what they already know."
Or, even further than this...such as the work of Dawkins...in the profane "scientific" community. The ideas of "collectivity" are very old...spirits and such. To remind someone of "something that they already know" is a slippery slope. When is the transfer to a priori knowledge? Is there such a thing?
"Telepathy" is an interesting word. It involves communication without speech? Could this be a meme? Could this be like the phenomenon related to mass hysteria? Or, its sister, mass media?
Can you explain what you mean by "telepathy"?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I think that likely is not true. Excess of knowledge (in the individual) tends to (a) reduce the inner necessity to access transcendant faculties and (b) outright block access to non-rational areas of mind that might otherwise be emerging."
Hell yes.
That's been my experience, at least.
But, we're talking about two different kinds of "knowledge", correct? Ruach as opposed to Neshamah?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"I think that likely is not true. Excess of knowledge (in the individual) tends to (a) reduce the inner necessity to access transcendant faculties and (b) outright block access to non-rational areas of mind that might otherwise be emerging."
Yeah I agree, talking in the individual case.
@Frater 639 said
"Or, even further than this...such as the work of Dawkins...in the profane "scientific" community. The ideas of "collectivity" are very old...spirits and such. To remind someone of "something that they already know" is a slippery slope. When is the transfer to a priori knowledge? Is there such a thing?
"Telepathy" is an interesting word. It involves communication without speech? Could this be a meme? Could this be like the phenomenon related to mass hysteria? Or, its sister, mass media?
Can you explain what you mean by "telepathy"?"
"Telepathy" was related to the comunication mentioned which goes in both ways.. I´m sorry I couldn´t explain it better right now, as that of the "a priori knowledge".. Maybe, personally, I´ve always found more affinity with the ideas that I first think by my own, and then after that read something that say the same thing.. But maybe it´s not exaclty like that.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"Maybe, personally, I´ve always found more affinity with the ideas that I first think by my own, and then after that read something that say the same thing.. But maybe it´s not exaclty like that."
Teasing apart (or putting it back together?) the Ego and the Non-Ego is a part of the Work.
-
Frater 639:
"Teasing apart (or putting it back together?) the Ego and the Non-Ego is a part of the Work.
"Wat? I don´t understand.
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"Wat? I don´t understand."
In this context, I was referring to an aspect of the Great Work. If you are not familiar with that term, this site provides valuable information as to what that is, as well as elucidation of techniques and milestones of the achievements associated with it. As an example, this thread in particular has a wealth of information.
Read up and, most of all, have fun!
-
No no.. I know that, I mean I didn’t understand the context in what you said that. I think maybe you misinterpreted something, anyway I was not much clear: I was referring to the “a priori knowledge” mentioned with the sentence you quoted, I was trying to explain it in some way:
"Maybe, personally, I´ve always found more affinity with the ideas that I first think by my own, and then after that read something that say the same thing.. But maybe it´s not exaclty like that."
In any case, no problem bro.
-
Dar es Alrah:
"I think when you have a sufficiently good meta model of the universe then this complication disappears. Qabalah is a pretty good as a universal meta-model but there are something's that you can't hang on the tree, and it's that sort of knowledge that becomes 'blocking'. The tree provides for no explanations for why things are the way they are unless you are prepared to accept religious accounts of the creation of the universe or the place of consciousness in it.The tree describes. It does not explain. For someone with a scientific mind, that' an unacceptable state of affairs... so they have all this 'knowledge' they're assimilating but nowhere to hang it on their overall meta-model. Instead they end up with several different paradigms that are unable to be unified and assimilated in the individual, causing a sort of cognitive dissonance that can block him until such a time that they find one universal meta-model that is a sufficiently good map of the universe. A sufficiently good universal meta-model is one that allows for new explanations, data, knowledge of all kinds, to be easily assimilated into just that ONE universal meta-model, including the incorporation/explanation of transcendent faculties to it so that they remain open and use-able."
I agree in general. I assume that by "blocking knowledge" you´re talking about dogma, or, more than a sort of knowledge in special, the relationship that one have with knowledge in general (which on the other hand could be a specific sort of knowledge?). I refer to the fact of how for some people the greatest words of truth or freedom, or the scientific method even, can become pure dogma and lies. I´m pretty sure that if dogma is stayed ayaw, right (or superior, or whatever) knowledge has way to become progressively more and more clear.
-
Smoke, I wonder if you're using "knowledge" in a different way than I am (which would account for some seeming disparity). I'm careful to use "knowledge" as a technical term that excludes the transrational. My remarks explicitly presumed you meant "rational, intellectual knowledge" (which is redundant, but I stretched it to communicate <g>).
-
"Noosphere - In the original theory of Vernadsky, the noosphere is the third in a succession of phases of development of the Earth, after the geosphere (inanimate matter) and the biosphere (biological life). Just as the emergence of life fundamentally transformed the geosphere, the emergence of human cognition fundamentally transforms the biosphere. In contrast to the conceptions of the Gaia theorists, or the promoters of cyberspace, Vernadsky's noosphere emerges at the point where humankind, through the mastery of nuclear processes, begins to create resources through the transmutation of elements. It is also currently being researched as part of the Princeton Global Consciousness Project.[7]
For Teilhard, the noosphere emerges through and is constituted by the interaction of human minds. The noosphere has grown in step with the organization of the human mass in relation to itself as it populates the earth. As mankind organizes itself in more complex social networks, the higher the noosphere will grow in awareness. This concept is an extension of Teilhard's Law of Complexity/Consciousness, the law describing the nature of evolution in the universe. Teilhard argued the noosphere is growing towards an even greater integration and unification, culminating in the Omega Point, which he saw as the goal of history. The goal of history, then, is an apex of thought/consciousness. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere"SmokingMonkey - Earlier, you referred to Chardin's noosphere. As I recall (you may correct me), Chardin believed that a Global Consciousness of Humanity (or the Earth) existed and that it was evolving toward the "Christ" (Jesuit) or "Omega Point." It's sort of a Collective Unconscious idea, but with the added idea that there is an evolving sum-of-knowledge that moves humanity as a whole toward Christ Consciousness.
Am I correct enough?
and
Does that get at your use of "knowledge"?
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"No no.. I know that, I mean I didn’t understand the context in what you said that. I think maybe you misinterpreted something, anyway I was not much clear: I was referring to the “a priori knowledge” mentioned with the sentence you quoted, I was trying to explain it in some way:
"Maybe, personally, I´ve always found more affinity with the ideas that I first think by my own, and then after that read something that say the same thing.. But maybe it´s not exaclty like that."
In any case, no problem bro."
Yeah. Anytime you start talking about this stuff, misinterpretations are bound to happen. No worries.
That's the beauty of Reason. Words are never completely true; they introduce their opposite as soon as they're spoken. And, of course, all of this stuff is just a convenient way of talking about things anyway. Models are just that -- models. Just like Dar es Alrah said very eloquently. (nice to see you, Dar es Alrah! )Anyway, what I was trying to explain is the difficulty in teasing apart what the source of certain information fields are. In the end, it doesn't really matter -- the fact is, you're interfacing information. It's what you do with that information, not how we choose to believe the source of where it comes from.
What I was referring to when talking about a priori knowledge, in this context, was the source of the information fields, which are definitely one part ego (interfacing with learned identity) and interfacing with gene expression (one part non-learned identity - which contributes to the" a priori" aspects, which I consider only a convenient means of classification), and also, what we consider the "environment", amongst other variables, known and unknown. Hell, we could throw "telepathy" in there; although, it is a little irresponsible from a profane scientific POV, at this point...a little premature...they'll call us New Age!
Our biology AND psychology are shifting based on what they interface (biologically, emotionally, and intellectually), how they interface, and the environment (nurture) in which they interface - and it all isn't "known". And all that bullshit I just spewed is a model, based on a convenience. And, it's this kind of "knowledge" that I believe the ego latches onto, and makes the transcendental more difficult to access. This may be the ego latching onto concrete processes, because its afraid of impermanence...but that's another model...
Teasing this apart (and putting it back together) is an aspect of the Great Work...that is closer to what I was trying to say before.
I hope that was easier to understand...but honestly, I just didn't want to write down that much. I do have things to do, you know...dishes and whatnot..."tangible" stuff...
-
Dar es Alrah:
"It could be dogma .... but it could also be something as simple as the knowledge of quadratic equations or Brownian motion or as profound as the knowledge of the Fibbonacci sequence found in nature. For instance - do you know why we find the Fibbonacci sequence in nature? And if/when you do know the answer to that question, how do you fit that explanation into a qabalah based universal meta-model?
It's not actually the knowledge that is blocking or at fault, it's what your brain does with the knowledge - how it is processed in a meaningful way for you. This is why people walk around wearing a dozen different hats and suppose each one is a crown (the false crowns of da'ath? ). What you really want is One Crown so you can chuck all the hats away.
"I imagine there can be a way for put that Fibonacci theory in a Qabalah squeme, with enough knowledge of both fields. Theorizing or hypothetically, at least. It can´t be much serious, assure a firm or “dogmatic” point about that would be absurd. If it could be helpful per se in a meaningful way.. depends, I think, in part of if you get it in a dogmatic way, precisely..
Jim Eshelman:
"Smoke, I wonder if you're using "knowledge" in a different way than I am (which would account for some seeming disparity). I'm careful to use "knowledge" as a technical term that excludes the transrational. My remarks explicitly presumed you meant "rational, intellectual knowledge" (which is redundant, but I stretched it to communicate <g>)."
Ok let´s see, my point is that the capacity for avoid dogma impliccates in some way the approachment to a “kind of" knowledge less discriminative, a knowledge that integrates better duality... If that can be considered a transrational skill (the Neshamah we´re talking about), or a special kind of knowledge, Briahtic or something, I have no idea. ¿Maybe could be more certain the second, assuming that Neshamah is something that one not know or not do exactly, or something like that?
And a second question, related with the first. You said before that the acces to the Neshamah implies a expanding of knowledge in some ways, but not otherwise. Therefore I can´t assume a relationship of compensation or similar between both (like in the Jung´s concious and the unconcious, for example), or maybe there´s some others factors that have influence in the operation (if there´s such a thing). Anyway, ¿there´s a relationship of compensation or similar of any kind between Neshamah and the elements of the Ruach, or the Ruach in general? ¿What kind of relationship, if yes? Thanks.
Sardonyx:
"SmokingMonkey - Earlier, you referred to Chardin's noosphere. As I recall (you may correct me), Chardin believed that a Global Consciousness of Humanity (or the Earth) existed and that it was evolving toward the "Christ" (Jesuit) or "Omega Point." It's sort of a Collective Unconscious idea, but with the added idea that there is an evolving sum-of-knowledge that moves humanity as a whole toward Christ Consciousness.
Am I correct enough? "
Yes, that was the point, the correspondence between ideas of an evolutionary consciousness. But I also was referring to some theories of theory of information and theory of chaos, for which unfortunately I have no copies in English for put here, and is too much complicated to try to explain right now without references..
"Does that get at your use of "knowledge"?"
Mmm, yes it was related to that, but as I say it was referring too to the development of the culture of information and so on..
-
Well, since no one else is on right now. [edit: oh, I was mistaken, my bad. lol...]
To my mind, the difference lies in whether we're talking about conscious or unconscious knowledge. Maybe I'm just catching up.
Chardin's idea seemed to involve the evolution of conscious knowledge and a sort of resulting utopia. I'm not sure whether or not he attempted to describe the "Omega Point" in terms of human society or whether he just used the term as a teleological variable.
And I think that's a point of distinction here. One may imagine the Omega Point as the culmination of human knowledge and society and may imagine that knowledge is non-contradictory. So, the culmination of knowledge would seem to result in the idea of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
However, when we're talking about humanity opening to Neshamah, we're talking about first coming to terms with the fact that knowledge is very tangled up within the individual perspective. Opening experiences to Neshamah, if I'm correct, involve relationships and experiences within such a larger self that some of the fundamental perspectives of our rules for knowing are suspended as inadequate. Cause and effect, individual and other - these make up some of the basic assumptions of ontology and knowledge, but they are inadequate to express the truths/experiences of Neshamah.
In this sense, the proliferation of knowledge could be inhibiting (and I think that's Jim's point) because the supposed "certainty" of it blocks openness to experiences where the foundational presuppositions of our ontology are required to be suspended (Alrah's point).
Anyway, I hope I'm not tangenting or being superfluous.
-
(I see the forum has a lot of speed and activity, which is really great, but I´ll continue later, write and read all this accurately in english takes me a bunch of time and now I have things to do..)
-
What Chardin may have imagined as the Omega Point may be what Jim was describing when he talked about the main task of humanity at present as being the achievement of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel.
Maybe what Chardin imagined as the Omega Point was a human society where humanity as a whole was operating in K&C and that this would develop in individuals as surely as puberty.
I do see the proliferation of knowledge leading more and more in this direction... Magic being able to be understood psychologically, reducing fear. The acceptance of Eastern cultures and their spirituality. That kind of thing.
All that to say, I think it's the introduction into this conversation specifically of the experiences of Neshamah (and in what way they can or can not be understood as representing "knowledge") that is most kinking the discussion.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Smoke, I wonder if you're using "knowledge" in a different way than I am (which would account for some seeming disparity). I'm careful to use "knowledge" as a technical term that excludes the transrational. My remarks explicitly presumed you meant "rational, intellectual knowledge" (which is redundant, but I stretched it to communicate <g>)."
A quick one for explain myself better: yes, “rational, intellectual knowledge” in the usual sense, implying“dogmatic” in some way, in opposition to a superior, Briahtic or whatever knowledge who integrates better duality.. I hope that completes my last explanation.
..And now I´ll keep arguing elliptical and referentially like if there´s no tomorrow: I´m wondering if could be such a correlation between the Unconscious of Jung, the Real of Lacan, and the Neshamah or the Supernals... I remember Jung saying that the knowledge of the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious is something that in the current state of the psychology (well, in times of Jung´s life) is practically in it´s childhood, which I think is quite similar to what is said about the transition between the Osiris Aeon to the Horus Aeon..
-
@SmokingMonkey said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Smoke, I wonder if you're using "knowledge" in a different way than I am (which would account for some seeming disparity). I'm careful to use "knowledge" as a technical term that excludes the transrational. My remarks explicitly presumed you meant "rational, intellectual knowledge" (which is redundant, but I stretched it to communicate <g>)."A quick one for explain myself better: yes, “rational, intellectual knowledge” in the usual sense, implying“dogmatic” in some way, in opposition to a superior, Briahtic or whatever knowledge who integrates better duality.. I hope that completes my last explanation."
Then I come back and reassert: No, increase in knowledge (thus defined) does NOT per se increase access to Neshamah. Increase in rational content, if anything, is discouraging of transrational awakening.
However... it can be confusing because... the awakening of transrational processes can have a secondary effect of enabling one to handle vastly greater amounts of rational content. One isn't really handling it via rational processes (or even as rational content per se) - one is often leaping over it - see the neurological discoverings in the process of insight that I've been lecturing on under the neading of New Aeon Cognition.
"I´m wondering if could be such a correlation between the Unconscious of Jung, the Real of Lacan, and the Neshamah or the Supernals..."
Jung's "unconscious" is an imprecise term, since it incorporates both subconsciousness (Nephesh) and superconsciousness (Neshamah).
-
Jim, if I may over simplify, and in doing so hopefully reach some understanding of what is going on here - instead of the word "knowledge," what if we used the word "experience" (as in personal experience or witnessing of "point events")? Can we say "an increase in experience can lead to the access to Neshamah?"
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"No, increase in knowledge (thus defined) does NOT per se increase access to Neshamah. Increase in rational content, if anything, is discouraging of transrational awakening.
However... it can be confusing because... the awakening of transrational processes can have a secondary effect of enabling one to handle vastly greater amounts of rational content. "
This is true, and something I need to remind myself every time my Ruach, in its intellectual insecurity, seems to imagine that if I just amass enough knowledge, I'll "get there".
-