The Matter and Semantic of Spirits.

oldfriend56

""The Matter and Semantic of Spirits"- hahahahaha brilliante my good sir, that is a glory-filled pixel-tiled title in the land of confusion. Such a cypher is as enlightening on matters of confusion as it is confusing upon lighted areas of "that which has been thought... and thought again"!"

I was hoping someone would get it

oldfriend56

Some my find this article interesting in this context. Steve Beyer gives the subject matter a good tackle

www.ayahuasca.com/spirit/primordial-and-traditional-culture/what-are-spiri

Jim Eshelman

@ldfriend56 said

"I am curious about the word [spirit] - and [spirits], as well as their various meanings used in various contexts. Sure, I can see how Spirit is one thing and spirits another. Clearly both ocean and fish share something in common, i.e. water - and I am contemplating everything the roots of these words can mean and share. For example, in German mind translates as 'geist' which also translates as spirit. Spirit and or Spirits proper seem to have broad usage and broader meaning, I'm exploring crunching down the semantics into hopefully something objective."

In almost every language, words for "breath" and "mind" (including very abstract 'spiritual' aspects of mind) are the same word, or words from the same roots. Heck, even a ghost is a gust. It's true in Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Germanic languages, and at least three separate times in Hebrew - just for starters.

"not sure if I would classify the experience of the plant 'spirits' of, for example, amazonian vegatalismo - or the earth spirits of Shinto with the low level vibrational astral critters that are vaguely defined in the west."

Oh, I certainly would! Plant spirits are so low-vibration that they're nearly organic. (They might even BE organic compounds rather than non-material.) - I hope you know that by "low-vibration" I don't mean "evil, bad, crappy," etc. Rather, I mean the same thing that is meant when we say the vibratory rate of ice is lower than that of water, which in turn is lower than that of steam.

"Yet, like you mentioned, ocean and fish, they share water in common "

No, you exactly missed the point: Ocean and fish don't "share water in common." Ocean IS water (or, alternately, water is the substance of what saturates the context called "ocean"). Fish are animals that occupy and live in water. That's exxentially the difference between Spirit and spirits.

"I'm exploring what the objective validity of this particular phenomenon could be, across all philosophies and all esoteric practices. A heady exercise to be sure "

Heady indeed! That was part of my original point: It doesn't serve much (or anything) but the head. I suppose that makes it useful if you are undertaking practices in gnana yoga.

"
"We can't even say that they share the quality of immateriality."

Not sure I understand how you mean this - if we postulate the existence of gods, angels, spirits as being immaterial, then they share information (non substance) in common, however something is still shared amongst them as a phenomenon even if vaguely defined, would you agree?"

I went on to explain: The way that Spirit is used in magick (identical with Akasha), it includes physical matter. Therefore, one can't say that Spirit has an inherent quality of immateriality unless you regress back to that by definition - by defining that spirit is at odds with matter.

"If this is true in some sense, then it means that perhaps there is something objective we can learn about the whole lot, outside of the world of magick and mysticism but still squarely in the realms of philosophy."

"Something objective we can learn... squarely in the realms of philosophy"

Since when is there anything objective purely within the realms of thought?

oldfriend56

thanks for participating in this exercise jim!

"In almost every language, words for "breath" and "mind" (including very abstract 'spiritual' aspects of mind) are the same word, or words from the same roots. Heck, even a ghost is a gust. It's true in Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Germanic languages, and at least three separate times in Hebrew - just for starters."

yes, I'm intrigued by this

"Plant spirits are so low-vibration that they're nearly organic. (They might even BE organic compounds rather than non-material.) - I hope you know that by "low-vibration" I don't mean "evil, bad, crappy," etc. Rather, I mean the same thing that is meant when we say the vibratory rate of ice is lower than that of water, which in turn is lower than that of steam."

I assume you are using vibration as a metaphor for something and not something of any sort of objective measurement.

"No, you exactly missed the point: Ocean and fish don't "share water in common." Ocean IS water (or, alternately, water is the substance of what saturates the context called "ocean"). Fish are animals that occupy and live in water. That's exxentially the difference between Spirit and spirits."

I get your metaphor of ocean and fishes to spirit and spirits - however not sure we are looking at things the same way after that. Both fish and oceans are products of water, clearly. You cannot separate a fish from water no more than you can separate an ocean from water. Water is a compound they share in common for their very existence. Oceans are more than just water as in H20, it is comprised of animals, plants, various chemicals, salts, minerals, etc. Fish are also composed mainly of water but also other chemicals and organic compounds. Ocean and fish share a set of information called 'h20'.

lol - The Fishes are in the Ocean, not the Ocean in the Fishes (sorry could not resist the opportunity for a little liber al humor)

"Heady indeed! That was part of my original point: It doesn't serve much (or anything) but the head. I suppose that makes it useful if you are undertaking practices in gnana yoga."

Well I'm enjoying the pursuit and thanks for going through this with me.

"I went on to explain: The way that Spirit is used in magick (identical with Akasha), it includes physical matter. Therefore, one can't say that Spirit has an inherent quality of immateriality unless you regress back to that by definition - by defining that spirit is at odds with matter."

I'm not sure what to make of any definition of Spirit, immaterial or otherwise nor do I have one i favor at this time - my only point is that spirits/spirit/gods/angels of any sense share something in common with the 'supernatural' order of things as opposed to the physical order of things in the realms of the senses which appear to have objective measurement. I dont know for sure what that set of common information is yet, that's what I'm currently exploring here.

maybe I am doing Gnana yoga

"Since when is there anything objective purely within the realms of thought?"

I think we may be mixing the planes a bit here? By objective I mean 'shared' information. There is nothing about dreams for example that is objective in nature and hardly two dreams could ever be alike, however most sentient beings dream and therefore there must be something 'shared' in the essence of dreaming for all sentient beings to participate in the experience for us to call them 'dreams' in the first place. I'm trying to find the shared information between Spirit, Spirits, Gods, Angels, Demons, etc. Low vibration intelligences and high vibration intelligences beyond the physical senses must share something in common for the metaphor of 'vibration' to be used amongst them.

Jim Eshelman

@ldfriend56 said

" I assume you are using vibration as a metaphor for something and not something of any sort of objective measurement. "

No, not a metaphor. I intend a specific measurement. Now, I can't tell you what the thing is that we have to measure, or what device (aside from the human mind) would do the measuring. But I'm speaking of an actual vibrational shift, essentially the same as the vibratory rate difference between a solid, a liquid, and a gas. There is the same variety of "progressive rarification" as one moves from Assiah to Yetzirah to Briah to Atziluth.

"Both fish and oceans are products of water, clearly."

No. Not clearly. Oceans aren't a "product of water" (and, even if you can twist the words that way, they certainly aren't a "product of water" the way fish are ("produce of the sea"). Oceans ARE water.

"You cannot separate a fish from water no more than you can separate an ocean from water."

I have fish separated from water all the time, sitting right on my plate. They are two different things. Where my fish are, water is not! (Well, except in my glass. And that isn't ocean water!)

"Water is a compound they share in common for their very existence."

Uh, no. Ocean IS water. Hence the use of the words "the waters" to specifically mean "the oceans."

Fish (like, say, humans) have some water running through them. There are fish without water (say, on my plate). There is no ocean without water anymore than there is atmosphere without air.

"I'm not sure what to make of any definition of Spirit, immaterial or otherwise nor do I have one i favor at this time - my only point is that spirits/spirit/gods/angels of any sense share something in common with the 'supernatural' order of things as opposed to the physical order of things in the realms of the senses which appear to have objective measurement."

This, of course, is not what you said you were talking about. We've been running around in circles when you really wanted to talk about something else.

OK. That makes it easy. I'm done here.

"
"Since when is there anything objective purely within the realms of thought?"

I think we may be mixing the planes a bit here? By objective I mean 'shared' information."

You have a tendency to use words for something other than their actual meaning. That has nothing to do with the meaning of objective. (Which is all the more infuriating because you said you were interested in definitions. In truth, you don't really give a shit what words mean.)

So... thanks for wasting my time (he said sarcastically).

Simon Iff

Hm.

Two things I have noted in your debate besides what has already been said.

One, I do not agree with J.E. that asking oldfriends question is mostly limiting and confusing oneself, especially in the beginning. I understood his question as an attempt to produce an empirical, predictive model about what entities of the mostly nonmaterial persuasion actually are. (In a purely functional way; I agree with J.E. in that it doesn't make sense to get into philosophical knots about the "real existence" of such entities. But then, I would apply the same logic to everything else) What has happened to "Reaching the aim of religion with the method of science", J.E.? (If I have misunderstood some of what any of you two had to say on the subject, so sorry, would then be thankful to be enlightened upon my misinterpretation).

Second, I do think that there are different plains of existence ontologically, the plain of the subjective (nearly not intersubjective, happens only to me) and the objective (nearly intersubjective, happens to everyone nearly the same way). And the kind of entities debated here seem to fall into a third category, a partially intersubjective one, and however you choose to call it, that I find fascinating. This third category is one western culture has largely declared nonexistent, some other and older cultures used it but without, it seems to me, any deeper understanding than "if I press this button, roughly that will happen, and beyond that there be dragons".

So I think it is an interesting question, and want to point out respectfully that both of you seem to have hung yourselves up on symantics, and have debated something without checking first what the other one actually meant by their terms, such as in "Spirit" (as in the environment of, amongst many other phenomena, spirits) and "spirits" (under which you two meant different rungs of an evolutionary ladder of entities of the "third kind" if I may use my own definition from above).

Hope to contribute, I find the topic quite interesting myself

Simon

Jim Eshelman

@Simon Iff said

"What has happened to "Reaching the aim of religion with the method of science", J.E.?"

Since you asked...

Crowley didn't really mean "science." He picked the wrong word. He meant "empiricism." That is, his actual examples of it boil down to "try stuff, observe results, draw conclusions," or "just observe what works." He didn't employ the "formulate hypothesis, test, prove or disprove hypothesis," and he didn't much care for theory (in the specialized way that the word is used in science).

In brief, his "The Method of Science - The Aim of Religion" wouldn't care what "spirits" are, but would only care that a magician could do XYZ and interact with them.

"(If I have misunderstood some of what any of you two had to say on the subject, so sorry, would then be thankful to be enlightened upon my misinterpretation)."

Either way, that's cool. It furthers discussion

"So I think it is an interesting question, and want to point out respectfully that both of you seem to have hung yourselves up on symantics"

Semantics is the subject of the original question. I do try to address the actual question presented, and this question was specifically about semantics.

"and have debated something without checking first what the other one actually meant by their terms"

Maybe I could have taken even more time to specifically inquire. I did, however, start with the exact point of clarifying definitions and in talking about the problem of definition with that word. I agree with you that this is pivotal.

oldfriend56

Jim! although your response is quite the snippity retort, I still believe there is much to learn from you

"No, not a metaphor. I intend a specific measurement. Now, I can't tell you what the thing is that we have to measure, or what device (aside from the human mind) would do the measuring. But I'm speaking of an actual vibrational shift, essentially the same as the vibratory rate difference between a solid, a liquid, and a gas. There is the same variety of "progressive rarification" as one moves from Assiah to Yetzirah to Briah to Atziluth."

Sorry to nitpick here, but I scrolled to the bottom of your post before I responded, where you mentioned I do not understand the meaning of words, especially the word objective. Yikes! my understanding of one of my fav words is under attack! Yet you begin telling me that there is a specific measurement of spirit as a vibration. Vibrations, as defined, are; " mechanical phenomenon whereby oscillations occur about an equilibrium point. The oscillations may be periodic such as the motion of a pendulum or random such as the movement of a tire on a gravel road." Yet then you say you can't tell me what this thing is that would be measured, which tells me you personally therefore have never measured it. I don't see how this could be any more of an assumption, even if an appropriate one. It's certainly not objective philosophically by any means objective is defined other than the statement is viewable online and could have varying truth values.

Perhaps if one were to say; 'based on my experience, we can think of spirits like oscillating vibrations, each with an unique frequency, measurement or tone, whereas each tone would represent the unique intelligence of that spirit' we would be being more objective about our own position.

Just sayin'

" Oceans aren't a "product of water" (and, even if you can twist the words that way, they certainly aren't a "product of water" the way fish are ("produce of the sea"). Oceans ARE water."

Oceans are LARGE bodies of fluids, salt and water to be specific here on earth, but methane or something else elsewhere, organized between land masses, and contain much more than just h20 - not sure why this is so hard to understand, but it goes back to this objectivity thing you seemed upset about. If I have to list the ingredients of an ocean objectively, I can assure you the list will extend beyond h20. My cup is filled with water, but it's not an ocean nor is it ocean water.

I know your making a few assumptions on how I am defining things and you mention a concern of me straying from definitions. Water is defined objectively, scientifically, as h20. You need no more than h20 to have water. To have an ocean, you need more than just h20

Oceans; defined as the word ocean

1.) the vast body of salt water that covers almost three fourths of the earth's surface.

any of the geographical divisions of this body, commonly given as the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian, Arctic, and Antarctic oceans.

3.a vast expanse or quantity: an ocean of grass.

Perhaps, if you dont mind me making the offering - your point would be better served if you were to suggest "Hey Olpal56 - think of Spirt and Spirits like Water and Fishes" you would not only find perfect agreement, but perhaps a new line of in query.

"I have fish separated from water all the time, sitting right on my plate. They are two different things. Where my fish are, water is not! (Well, except in my glass. And that isn't ocean water!)"

a dead fish on your plate no longer exists as a living breathing fish because it was removed from the water which gave it life and produced it. You would not have it on your plate unless it came from water nor would it have it's life to offer you.

It's like it's operating at a different vibrational oscillation than an actual living fish

"Uh, no. Ocean IS water. Hence the use of the words "the waters" to specifically mean "the oceans.""

the waters can mean the ocean, yes, but oceans are not just water, objectively that is.

"Fish (like, say, humans) have some water running through them. There are fish without water (say, on my plate). There is no ocean without water anymore than there is atmosphere without air."

well regardless, remove water and you also remove living breathing fish which are solely a product of water, need water as a fundamental component of their existence, and like oceans but to a varying degree, share h20 in common with oceans.

water is NOT a product of ocean, there are vast clouds of water that exist in space and pre date oceans. oceans are formed from water and earth stuff. Oceans, like fish, are products of water. Oceans may be the 'grandmother' to the fish as a metaphor, but to say that an ocean IS water is simply not a complete statement about either oceans or water.

objectively speaking of course.

"This, of course, is not what you said you were talking about. We've been running around in circles when you really wanted to talk about something else."

Yikes! Jim this is an assumption on your part here and not a very objective statement about my communications and my topic of thoughtful speculation. I think you mis interpreted my first post and assumed a few things about my query, that is all - and I take partial responsibility so now I am focusing my communication so you can better see what I mean. That way we can perhaps share some information in common about spirit, spirits, which is currently a topic of objective philosophical inquiry for me, which apparently you do not approve of.

Somehow this appears to have offended or annoyed you

"OK. That makes it easy. I'm done here."

Alas, if only it were true. You are actually about to deliver your final blow to my quest to form a thesis regarding Spirt, Spirits - the matter and semantic thereof.

"You have a tendency to use words for something other than their actual meaning. That has nothing to do with the meaning of objective. (Which is all the more infuriating because you said you were interested in definitions. In truth, you don't really give a (****) what words mean.)"

well this is quite an honorable challenge here Jim, thank you!

funny thing about words, we all assume we use them in exact duplication as to our own personal understandings of what they mean to us. Although I would not define the word 'Objective' as 'shared information' - this is a philosophical definition, not a prescription for usage. I can most assure you Jim, if we want to understand what objective can truly mean philosophically, and certainly what I mean, Objective certainly MUST, and I mean MUST with a capital MUST - MUST refer or reference something shared. It is ONE thing that has MANY distint possible points of view to it.

It's like that metaphor often used - the three blind men who all touch and feel an elephant, yet all report a distinct phenomenon. The distinct phenomenon reported by each is very subjective, personal to each, yet it would not exist unless all three blind men shared the set of information we can reference as 'elephant' in common. Elephant is the purely objective information. that's not very easily nor readily accessed, on any plane I imagine.

I assume this discussion has troubled you enough not to engage me on this anymore.

I wonder what would happen if you stayed and we continued? I suggest that you and I would only begin to find some 'shared' information with each other and the various POV's of Spirit, Spirits and we could only do so by being honest and objective with each other.

oldfriend56

@Simon Iff said

"So I think it is an interesting question, and want to point out respectfully that both of you seem to have hung yourselves up on symantics, and have debated something without checking first what the other one actually meant by their terms, such as in "Spirit" (as in the environment of, amongst many other phenomena, spirits) and "spirits" (under which you two meant different rungs of an evolutionary ladder of entities of the "third kind" if I may use my own definition from above)."

Yes thank you for your contribution here! fortunately the discussion took a u turn into word usage, however that is the original intention somewhat, the 'matter and semantic' of spirit. Let's tease these things apart and put them back together! For understanding sake, and for wisdom!

Funny, even the word semantic itself can be used differently. I use semantic to mean 'pure meaning' which is one level up from the actual word itself and can be expressed using a variety of language. Some people seem to use it to refer to language.

I dont use 'semantic' to mean language specifically, language is to semantic what fishes are to water

oldfriend56

@Simon Iff said

"Hm.

Two things I have noted in your debate besides what has already been said.

One, I do not agree with J.E. that asking oldfriends question is mostly limiting and confusing oneself, especially in the beginning. I understood his question as an attempt to produce an empirical, predictive model about what entities of the mostly nonmaterial persuasion actually are. (In a purely functional way; I agree with J.E. in that it doesn't make sense to get into philosophical knots about the "real existence" of such entities. But then, I would apply the same logic to everything else) What has happened to "Reaching the aim of religion with the method of science", J.E.? (If I have misunderstood some of what any of you two had to say on the subject, so sorry, would then be thankful to be enlightened upon my misinterpretation)."

I think you did a far better job than I of defining my position! thank you. I too agree with the point that the philosophical meaning of the matter of existence of spirits is irrelevant to actually practicing magick, shamanism, mysticism, etc etc. I dont have any idea of what this phenomenon is yet and yet have found myself interacting with it on numerous occasions.

"
Second, I do think that there are different plains of existence ontologically, the plain of the subjective (nearly not intersubjective, happens only to me) and the objective (nearly intersubjective, happens to everyone nearly the same way). "

Oh yes I see the same thing. It's also why I find liber al so intriguing, to me this is summarized as Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Liber Al, these two distinct levels of reality, or as I like to say, the two distinctions of environment. Nuit is our shared environment, the body of stars, while Hadit is our personal environment, the heart of the star itself. I believe this distinction is necessary to understanding other planes of existence and without this distinction, our understandings will be swamped in confusion with no understanding of any knowledge we may have.

"And the kind of entities debated here seem to fall into a third category, a partially intersubjective one, and however you choose to call it, that I find fascinating. This third category is one western culture has largely declared nonexistent, some other and older cultures used it but without, it seems to me, any deeper understanding than "if I press this button, roughly that will happen, and beyond that there be dragons"."

Well your getting me super excited here, we are on the same page it seems. Although the entities that most define both distinctions with the easiest of clarity is of course us human beings

Right now I am trying to find a most refined empirical definition of 'spirits' and am seeking to find, if there is one, a distinction between 'ideas', especially 'memes' and 'spirits'. Are spirits just metaphors for memes or are memes just metaphors for spirits?

oldfriend56

@Dar es Allarah said

"Crowley said that it doesn't matter about whether spirits are real or not in order to practise magick. However - if you want to produce an empirical, predictive model about what entities actually are - then it matters a great deal. "

yes indeed. i find another thelemite that can explain my position better than I. I need to get myself more of this thelema

"For one - you have to check if the question contains any faulty presuppositions before you proceed to build the model. In this case then then you first have to check whether there's any such thing as a nonmaterial entity, and as Jim said: "the way that Spirit is used in magick (identical with Akasha), it includes physical matter". I think the Orch OR model of consciousness has validity above the threshold of reasonable doubt and so I would naturally reject the idea of non-material entities completely. Spacetime - down to a quantum level - has a physical existence in the Universe. Consciousness (and therefore spirit - see above defnition) is as much a quality of the Universe as Energy or Gravity, being a product of the interaction of the two - whether consciousness is located in a body or not."

Well I think here is where all the philosophical juice is and is actually the primary point of focus in the dialectic of consciousness in philosophy proper. Cartesian Dualism (spirit and matter) or materialism (spirit is matter, specifically, consciousness is just a state of the brain, i.e. there is no wonder tissue, there is no spirit, it's just the interaction of neurons and can be explained using chemistry and physics)

What I find intriguing in physics, especially when it is assumed consciousness can be explained by physics and chemistry, is the very definition of what 'matter' is has come to find itself in a slippery slope with Dark Matter and Dark Energy being used to explain keeping the universe together. I think we will find many shared distinctions between DM and DE, and the questions of Spirits, Matter, and consciousness. This is actually part of what I am exploring philosophically and where I am seeking a broader empirical map of Spirit, Spirits.

"I see little point in seeking to build a model upon a faulty presupposition that makes spirit an opposite quality of physical matter, unless you're engaged in writing fantasy fiction."

Again, quite a hot topic philosophically. Nothing of course pre supposes spirits being composed of subtle matter (like DM for example, or simply 'fields') - but there is also nothing that pre supposes that the material could not have a compliment in the immaterial. Both of these things really rest on how we understand and define 'material'. If by material we mean what is apparent to the physical senses, well that gets challenged of course by the advancements in science with QM and DM and DE. If by 'material' we mean that which reflects or emits light - then the whole question of 'material' is under attack, and referring to DM and DE and matter and energy at all is highly assumptive.

"On the other hand - if you do not make the presupposition that spirit is an opposite quality of physical matter, then you can do a great deal of modelling on what I like to call 'the Evolution of Consciousness' - starting with Paola Zizzi's work and the hypothesis that consciousness occurred at the start of the big bang - and continuing to chart it's evolutionary progress with the appearance of stars, planets, moons and asteroids, and then the evolution of consciousness in respect of living things the pre-cambian era, and the explosion of lifeforms possessing consciousness in the cambian era, (all in line with Darwinian evolution) - until the present day."

yes interesting stuff, but then we have to understand what we mean by 'consciousness' because now material reality in the emitting light sense is also consciousness and having an experience, which makes consciousness fundamental to the material - while the materialistic model makes the material fundamental to intelligence, which is then fundamental to consciousness.

these are very profound questions in philosophy proper. I dont have any clear answers yet, I do have some intuitions and very eager here to continue this exploration with you.

"When thought about in this way several classes of 'spirit' or consciousness naturally emerge. Just quickly and working out a rough and very basic model, these might be:

An original consciousness that spans the entire universe (identitcal to a Universal 'God' conception).
Different types of consciousness evolved by Stars, Planets and Moons (planetary spirits).
A more complex and self-aware consciousness being developed by planets that have moons given the macrocosmic potential for such huge 'gaia/atman' like consciousness's to conceive of a self and an other, although solitary planets may be able to do this anyway as long as they orbit a star. However - the interaction of a planetary mind with it's moon or star would be of different qualities. But anyway- there is a high potential for differentiation of consciousness (more complex classes of planetary spirits).
Planets In the Goldilocks zone - capable of sustaining life - evolve and differentiate their consciousness further and we see the emergence of Will in respect of lifeforms. (Spirits of plants, fungi, animals etc.)
Recycling becomes necessary for further differentiation and certain lifeforms are tasked with the process of decay (spirits of 'hell').
Further differentiation occurs over the aeons leading to increased individual and smaller conceptions of conscious entities with diverse qualities."

so fundamental to consciousness in your model is both experience and intelligence, yes?

"Infinite diversity in infinite combinations. For the fun of consciousness! "

a great sport indeed! thank you

oldfriend56

@Dar es Allarah said

"Oldfriend,

You seem to be engaged with bating Jim with a lot of involuted crap that has no bearing on your original question whatsoever. "

lol, well my response to Jim admittedly has as much bearing to my original question as his response does. But seriously, really? Crap? My original post said "I was hoping I could find a little engagement around a topic of deep philosophical study and contemplation for me right now - the matter of spirit/spirits. I'm hoping through an exchange between bright minds of Thelema, I and the community can come into a deeper level of understanding and wisdom regarding this word and it's meaning"

Far as I can tell, I am still on topic. What does the words Spirit and spirits refer to in their usage?

"What the hell was the point you were trying to make with your badly constructed fish/water/ocean metaphor when it comes to spirits?"

I think the metaphor of ocean to fishes and spirit and spirits, was, ahem, Jim's metaphor. I think my response to Jim's metaphor confused him as to my meaning in my query so I attempted further clarification.

I'm trying to be as clear as I can - this is tough territory to transverse here, you all have been helping me clarify and I thank you for it.

"I have endeavored to answer you enquiry above, but as you don't seem interested in the topic any longer and seem more engaged in compensating for what I can only imagine is a tragic phallic deficiency that drives you to make a prick of yourself on this forum - then perhaps this thread ought to be closed..."

I appreciate your answer. Sorry if this has been upsetting to you. Not my intention.

oldfriend56

@Dar es Allarah said

"
@ldfriend56 said
"Are spirits just metaphors for memes or are memes just metaphors for spirits?"

Only if you're being spectacularly narrow minded."

Really? how so? If I am being narrow minded, I would appreciate any assistance in my expansion of the topic. What specifically is narrow minded about asking the question?

"Seriously - is that the best you have to put on the table for debate? "

I did not come here with the intention of debating what spirits are or are not. I came here seeking further understanding from a philosophical perspective, outside of the realm of magick and shamanism. The community here claims to have an understanding of Spirits and Spirit - I'm just trying to tease out the meanings

" No original thoughts of your own? Ok... that's right on par then. "

sheesh, no one asked me what I thought spirits or Spirit are. If you curious about my original thoughts on the matter, just ask

oldfriend56

@Jim Eshelman said

"Semantics is the subject of the original question. I do try to address the actual question presented, and this question was specifically about semantics."

Semantic means 'meaning' - not words specifically, which simply refer to meaning. Yes the subject matter is 'The Matter and Meaning of Spirits'. 'Matter' being a slight play on the words, as in the composition of spirits in a measurable sense, and the 'matter at hand' in the discussion, Spirits, by which I mean what do the words mean in relationship to the matter of what spirits are?

Sorry if this has proven to be a controversial and debatable topic.

"Maybe I could have taken even more time to specifically inquire. I did, however, start with the exact point of clarifying definitions and in talking about the problem of definition with that word. I agree with you that this is pivotal."

I agree it is pivotal - thank you for clarifying.

Bereshith

Let's found out what Spirit/spirits is/are "empirically."

conflicts with

Let's get there through philosophical discussion.

conflicts with

Let's also attempt to reason "independent[ly] of our ideas and experiences about them."

conflicts with

Let's also include all historic popular references from multiple languages in what we're considering.

You have created an impossible task for yourself.

oldfriend56

@Dar es Allarah said

"You need to get yourself to something because the rest of your post reflects that you don't understand what I'm telling you at all."

yikes! strike hard and low! nice, okay, what a great opportunity it is for me then to obtain some greater understanding regarding spirit and spirits, the actual intention of what I came here for. So you wish to introduce a new postulate regarding me into this discussion. While I am not the topic of discussion, Let me review again what you wrote below and see what I missed.

"For one - you have to check if the question contains any faulty presuppositions before you proceed to build the model. In this case then then you first have to check whether there's any such thing as a nonmaterial entity, and as Jim said: "the way that Spirit is used in magick (identical with Akasha), it includes physical matter". I think the Orch OR model of consciousness has validity above the threshold of reasonable doubt and so I would naturally reject the idea of non-material entities completely. Spacetime - down to a quantum level - has a physical existence in the Universe. Consciousness (and therefore spirit - see above defnition) is as much a quality of the Universe as Energy or Gravity, being a product of the interaction of the two - whether consciousness is located in a body or not."

at this stage, I come with no pre suppositions regarding spirit, consciousness, or matter for that, ahem, matter. I can look at the subject from a myriad of points of view - assuming a immaterial/material dialectic OR simply oscillating scale of frequency of spirt which converges into the physical reality we bear our sense on. You apparently have a favorite scientific model of consciousness. join the club! if i had a nickle for every scientific model of consciousness out there, I'd have enough for a subscription to a peer reviewed journal of your choice.

Not sure what I am missing here, I seem to follow you quite clearly. It's classical philosophical conundrums going on here.

Perhaps you do not understand me yet?

"The Penrose/Hammeroff Or OR model falls into neither category. It explains consciousness on a sub-neuron network level that extends beyond 'the brain' via the virtue of quantum switching proteins and microtubules. It is material in the sense that the universe is material but consciousness does not start and end in the brain. I suggest you actually look it up (given that it's been a valid hypothesis for 20 years now) and actually try and respond to me from a position of peer review instead of assuming that you understand what I'm talking about. All the evidence so far suggests that you do not. "

Okay so you have a favorite model of consciousness that uses math and physics to offer an explanation. So? Western materialsim assumes the primacy of the material, i.e. the material is fundamental to consciousness and consciousness is a state of the brain and is dependent on the brain to be accessed. So there are a few scientific models that suggest variations of this theme, they still are not suggesting that there is a cartesian dualism of spirit and matter. The interaction between 'spirit' and 'matter' is a fundamental problem in philosophy over all and there are numerous POV's on the subject matter.

also, might i suggest, if you want me to understand you, it's always easier when your not insulting the querent! just saying. common decency and that sort of thing. but I dig the 'strike hard and low' style, truly. I hope you do too

"Again - you need to do more reading if you want to engage in a philosophical debate on this subject with me. "

I see...so a reading list is in order, a prerequisite to be able to discuss with you. I shall not trouble you with the converse! I would not want you to suffer through the volumes of study I have had to sift through on this topic over the years. It's unnecessary actually, especially since we are not debating much of anything, really.

"The terms 'Dark Matter' and 'Dark Energy' are misnomers that easily throw off the beginner to the subject, and since you don't seem to have any understanding of the Orch OR model to begin with - it's useless to debate with you further on the role of either when it comes to of Quantum Consciousness. "

Sheesh, when did this turn into a debate regarding quantum consciousness? What does DM and DE have to do with that anyway? A 'quantum' is a measurable bit. A measurable bit has mass and therefore sits squarely in the realm of material physical reality. That's a physical model of consciousness and has nothing to do with Cartesian Dualism or the inherent problems of ANY model of consciousness from a philosophical perspective. You're talking about scientific models. I am talking about philosophical models.

There are some distinctions there you would do good to take note of! (and a few reading lists)

I don't think you understood my reference to DM and DE, but I dont care, let's toss it from the discussion.

"[Further useless speculation and drivel snipped for brevities sake.]"

such subjectivity! the only thing that i find useless so far in this discussion is the necessity of a reading list to understand you.

Uni_Verse

Spirits is what you get drunk on, the spirit is the essence of drunkenness.

Bereshith

"I can look at the subject from a myriad of points of view - assuming a immaterial/material dialectic OR simply oscillating scale of frequency of spirt which converges into the physical reality we bear our sense on. You apparently have a favorite scientific model of consciousness. join the club! if i had a nickle for every scientific model of consciousness out there, I'd have enough for a subscription to a peer reviewed journal of your choice."

So what's the point? You profess understanding of all the models.

You even describe the model where all spirits (as all else) are essentially comprised of Spirit.

What's the point? What do you want to discuss? Or do you just want to play "nobody can pin me down" all day?

Uni_Verse

@ldfriend56 said

"Oceans are more than just water as in H20, it is comprised of animals, plants, various chemicals, salts, minerals, etc. Fish are also composed mainly of water but also other chemicals and organic compounds. Ocean and fish share a set of information called 'h20'. "

This is only applicable when dealing with oceans on this planet.

Do not forget all the fishes in rivers and lakes!
Also in peoples houses and tanks...
Most importantly, be polite and say : "Thanks!"

Simon Iff

The good thing (for me) is, that my reply helped generate a revitalised debate on a topic I find interesting.

The bad thing (again for me) is, that the tone has gotten a bit unnescessary rough imo. Had I to guess I would assume that some of you guys have a problematic history with each other and that injects itself into the debate at some point.

I can already say that my point of view on the whole thing (and the proposed "third" option besides subjective and objective phenomena) goes into a possibly similar direction as Dar es Allarah's quantum consciousness intuitions. Also J.E., your saying about science and empiricism I would actually sign on to, I would only add to that that science, ideally, should be based on empiricism and not a "sceptic" (misuse of word by the way) naive realism based rationalism. The later is a step back from empiricism imo, not one forwards, for any endeavour of seeking understanding of nearly whatever.

Will write something concerning the topic at hand tomorrow as it is very late already where I live and I am tired.

Good night everyone.