The Matter and Semantic of Spirits.

oldfriend56

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

My original query is regarding the nature of Spirit and Spirits, and, as put eloquently by a few on this forum, I am simply seeking a more empirical model for 'spirits'. My approach is philosophical, and although informed by science and the materialist schools, not restricted by them, meaning; I am come here open minded, as a practitioner of a few esoteric arts while seeking objective understanding.

Now the point seems to have evolved though, and the point seems to be more about me, as many in the community are making it. It appears the point somehow really is that my questions are 'narrow minded' and unnecessary, foolish, a waste of time, poorly understood by myself while at the same time arrogant in my reasoning - all of which tell you plenty about me but nothing about spirit or spirits.

lol - And I'm thinking....I must be on to something

"

What do you want to discuss? "

I would like to calmly, honestly, objectively and thoughtfully discuss 'Spirits' and 'Spirit' - I guess you could say on many planes, from the linguistic semantic to the incorporeal straight up to the mystery of it all. I have been contemplating this for a bit and seek to create a larger empirical map - and thought, and still assume, that this community can be quite helpful in forming this. After all, if it's empirical it's something we all can share in.

thoughts?

"

Or do you just want to play "nobody can pin me down" all day?"

well, that's always fun when people are trying to pin me down

oldfriend56

@Simon Iff said

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

yes, thank you simon, this was indeed a good thing and i look forward to exploring this with you.

"The bad thing (again for me) is, that the tone has gotten a bit unnescessary rough imo. "

Well, I would like to submit to you the possibility that this is also a good thing. It's healthy when the conflict of idea presents itself, especially in a place of public media which creates a fresh environment for rational discussion. I think we all are going to learn a lot.

"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 have hardly discussed with those here before - maybe a comment here or there. I too found this response a shock, it wasn't what i was expecting by any means. I think this may have something to do with what we all stand to learn - but that also just may be a hope

"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. "

I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts here, thank you Simon IFF

Jim Eshelman

@ldfriend56 said

"it would be great if as a community we could focus on the inherent mysteries of spirits and spirit and consciousness and the like, before we go around parading our favorite truths about the subject at hand."

You want mysteries but you don't want truths? Yagh and choke and spit twice, but those are pretty much the same thing.

I returned, against my better judgement, to see if this thread had sorted itself out in my absence. It hasn't. So I'll give you one more shot:

Please state, in one or two sentences, as concretely and specfically as possible, exactly what you are asking or exactly what you are saying.

If you believe you have already done this, then please excuse my mental insufficiency and copy or restate it so there is a clear starting point for response.

Thank you.

Bereshith

"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."

This is what he's asking: "What is the shared information between Spirit, spirits, gods, angels, demons, etc.."

By "shared information" and "objective information" he means "substance," but he's trying to use a word that avoids the material/immaterial distinction. He wants to know what the substance is and how it becomes spirits.

He thinks he doesn't have any biases, though, so don't be surprised when he challenges whatever you present and then accuses you of being attached to bias.

His bias is empiricism - that spirits can be classified using a system based in the lowest common denominator in humanity - that of sense experience. He's been told that to describe what spirits actually are would require the invention of some new vocabulary and would still be very difficult to communicate because it's not based in humanity's lowest common denominator of sense experience. He ignored this, and persisted with his own bias, which he thinks he doesn't have.

@Oldfriend said

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

"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. "

Again, notice that the querent insists that spirits have something to them that is objectively measurable. He, however, does not put forward any theories as to what such objectively measurable information is. But he insists both that it exists and that we should have the ability to describe it to him in empirical terms.

Also note from the above quote: "philosophical objectivity." The querent wants a philosophically derived and philosophically objective empirical map of the relationship between Spirit and spirits as well as between spirits and spirits.

Now, remember, anything but that, and* you're* just biased, unlike him. Because, of course, all this is* certainly* possible.

And if I am incorrect in my presentation, I certainly welcome and challenge OldFriend to clarify.

Jim Eshelman

This is probably a very astute, cogent, and accurate assessment.

I see no reason to engage him further unless HE embraces this. I won't have any further conversation with him unless he agrees (concretely and precisely) what we're talking about, so that every detail of interchange thereafter (in that thread) can be referred to that starting definition - but OTOH there are some points you've raised that I'd be happy to respond to, in case that actually resolves the matter.

@Bereshith said

"He wants to know what the substance is and how it becomes spirits."

There is only one substance in the universe. You can express or describe this in various ways - e.g., in material terms, as diverse kinds of quanta interacting and vibrating at different rates and mixing in different combinations and relationships - but, mostly, those details don't matter. The Mysteries tend to call it "The One Substance," thereby expressing its most important characteristic without getting bogged down in other labels.

This One Substancer exists at different states of vibration. "Vibration" may ultimately turtn out not to be the right word, but, so far, it serves pretty much everything in physics (down to the most subtle levels - "plucked strings"), and, at the very least, it gives a conceptual way to talk about the matter that doesn't require post-graduate math. The analogy - no, actually, it's not an analogy, it's an actuality - but the path to entering an understanding of this is to leverage our knowledge that molecular velocity (rate of vibration; essentially, heat) is the only distinction between ice, water, and steam; or between iron and molten iron; or between mercury and mercury vapor. Increase the particle velocity - and you move from the most tenuous forms of matter (gas) into energy. (That's basically what E=MC{2} says.) And so forth.

These rates of vibration exist in "bands" that we can call all sorts of things - states, worlds, dimensions, or whatever - even though the gradual increase of vibration is continous. For example, the "line" between red and orange doesn't exactly exist (they're just a different rate of vibration), because there are infinite gradations of red-orange in between; however, the dividing line between "below visible light," "visible light," and "above visible light" is quite dramatic (if slightly varied per perceiving organism). Physicists, similarly, have divided the EM spectrum into larger categories above and below visible light. These each have different characteristics, despite the smooth continuity of vibrational change along the spectrum.

So: There is one substance, and it exists across a continuum of vibration, with different "bands" of that continuum having more or less common characteristics.

"Spiritual beings" are formed from "spiritual substance" exactly the same way that "physical beings" are formed from "physical substance." At least some types of beings exist on multiple planes simultaneously; for example, humans (among others) are physical, astral, intellectual, and 'spiritual' beings (I use the latter in a reserved sense, not in the broad "not material" sense - since astral and intellectual levels are also "not material" if we mean physical matter).

All things we can perceive have vibrations, so they are all "living." OTOH, not all things have the appearance of having their various layers concentric to a distinctive sense of existence. But that's a whole other topic.

Hopefully this simplifies, rather than confuses, the matter.

"Also note from the above quote: "philosophical objectivity." The querent wants a philosophically derived and philosophically objective empirical map of the relationship between Spirit and spirits as well as between spirits and spirits."

It's all there in the sentence: Spiritual beings" are formed from "spiritual substance" exactly the same way that "physical beings" are formed from "physical substance."

Now - having enjoyed this interchange with you - I wait to see if OF will similar pin down, in a sentence or two, what he is asking or affirming, as a precise point of departure for anything going forward.

oldfriend56

Jim, thank you for returning and your willingness to assist here.

@Jim Eshelman said

"You want mysteries but you don't want truths? Yagh and choke and spit twice, but those are pretty much the same thing."

Well it would be great to understand the objective mysteries as well as what is believed to be true about Spirit, Spirits from a ceremonial magickal perspective. So we are clear and do not get caught up in semantic word dance again. I assume there are inherent mysteries and unknowns in this subtle realm that are equally unknown to all of us, while somethings just might be unknown to some and not to others. As for what is 'true' the only thing I know for absolute certainty about spirit, spirits is that the experience of communicating, interacting, and obtaining knowledge that is verifiable happens and that I can say this is what 'true' means to me in this context. You might phrase that differently, but that is the assumption we are building this off of.

"Please state, in one or two sentences, as concretely and specfically as possible, exactly what you are asking or exactly what you are saying."

I'm looking to build an empirical map of what can be referred to as Spirit, Spirits - specifically; What are they exactly, how much can empirically be known about them? What is a rational and intuitive way to frame this particular set of phenomenon in relationship to the physical, measurable phenomenon of material reality? What does this tell us about ourselves, where we are from and where we are going?

I should add that my empirical map is not 'of' the spirit world and the occult, it is a map of human consciousness and all the capabilities therein. Personally, I view the realm of spirit as purely of an entirely different order than that of the physical senses, but seeking further understanding in clarifying this.

I don't assume anyone here as the ultimate answers, and some but not all will have key insights into specific mysteries here. I'm hoping the dynamics of the discussion may bring further things into light to the benefit of everyone, but that's a hunch and nothing more.

And just one more point - If my request reads peculiar, forgive me - I am a responsible adult who runs a business, has a family to look after for, and in my spare time I spend much around my hobby, philosophy and primarily the realms of ontology and dialectic. I just want to be transparent here and show that I am up to no shenanigans and at worst just mildly eccentric

Jim Eshelman

@ldfriend56 said

"Well it would be great to understand the objective mysteries"

You're missing the meaning of "Mystery." The Mystery of a thing is that part that is unknowable. It doesn't fit within rational terms, is inherently indecipherable by most cognitive processes. One can pursue it - move closer to it - move through one's own projections about them and other veils. The value of Mysteries is that one constantly pursues them, moves into them - and thus moves past one's own perception and cognition limitations. The value is both in what is unknown, and what is unknowable . The ultimately unknowable is the most true of a thing.

Bereshith

Oh... You want to make a taxonomical classification system for non-corporeal entities.

In order to do this, I don't know how much you'd have to actually delve in to mystery. Like, I really have no idea. For instance, the taxonomical systems existed before the theory of evolution. Don't know. Just thinking out loud.

Well, you could start with the regular one and think from there:

Domain
Kingdom
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Species

That would be interesting.

You need some categories though.

Ahah! You need some categories.... Now I'm caught up. Thanks for clarifying.

Jim Eshelman

777 (and similar works) already provides the taxonomic system.

Bereshith

@ldfriend56 said

"I should add that my empirical map is not 'of' the spirit world and the occult, it is a map of human consciousness and all the capabilities therein."

@Jim Eshelman said

"777 (and similar works) already provides the taxonomic system."

I never thought of it like that before.

oldfriend56

"Scientific Models of consciousness come and go and at the end of the day, they are just models and the inherent problem of consciousness as a field of study remains. What would be interesting is if you take your favorite model of consciousness, the Orch OR model, and showed how spirits would be modeled therein."

" See what I mean? * I already did that in my second post to you on this thread. * You didn't understand it - or even try to. "

why so angry?

[EDIT: just went back to re read your thread, if you made a specific reference in the Penrose model as to what Spirits are, it's didnt come across to clearly to me and hoping you can explain in a way that I am also not simultaneously wrong]

"It really wouldn't have taken you long to familiarise yourself with the basics of the model (a well spent day or two) and that would have opened up whole new philosophical vista's for you that reconcile some of the most fundamental dualisms in philosophy. Understanding the model therefore is pretty pivotal to understanding how Liber Al vel Legis reconciles 'all existing schools of philosophy', never mind about your silly dualistically framed debate bout spirits. But it seems you just can't be bothered to learn anything new and assume you know it all. What are you posting for if you aren't interested in learning anything?"

I'll check it out, thanks!

"And btw - it's not 'any old model'. It's been tested for 20 years and remains viable. How many models last a week these days - never mind 20 years? It is the leading scientific model of the day when it comes to a theory of consciousness. "

" It also has a substantial amount of scientific evidence to verify it and it was pioneered by a Nobel Prize winning professor - Sir Roger Penrose (the guy who shares the Wolf prize with Stephen Hawking? Heard of him?).
"

You would like this blog - Conscious Entities. It's one of my favs. www.consciousentities.com It lists a few other popular models of consciousness along with Penrose. I'm more familiar with some than others but have reviewed all of them. None of those guys agree with each other, and there is no over all consensus on any scientific model of consciousness other than their proponents of the actual models themselves and their students. You have a favorite. Congratulations.

I don't yet have a model of consciousness I prefer, I'm still exploring my options.

oldfriend56

Dr Freud!

Somewhat flattered I am still such a hot topic of discussion here...

@Bereshith said

"This is what he's asking: "What is the shared information between Spirit, spirits, gods, angels, demons, etc.."By "shared information" and "objective information" he means "substance," but he's trying to use a word that avoids the material/immaterial distinction. He wants to know what the substance is and how it becomes spirits. "

I would say that is a pretty good summary to start, but quickly begins to veer of course. I dont mean to use information as a placeholder for 'substance'. I am unsure if there is a shared substance and that is part of my query. I prefer to use 'shared' information because it seems more objective and devoid of philosophical assumptions.

"He thinks he doesn't have any biases, though, so don't be surprised when he challenges whatever you present and then accuses you of being attached to bias."

this one is a bit too quick off the draw. I'm pretty transparent about my biases.

"His bias is empiricism - that spirits can be classified using a system based in the lowest common denominator in humanity - that of sense experience. "

hmm, that's not what I am claiming, that is what I am seeking to see is possible. I also would not say I am biased towards empiricism - but I do appreciate it. I would say if I have a bias it would be more towards rational thinking and intuition, meaning any idea or solution must have an appeal to both. So you kind of half close.

Also, the point of my exercise is to build my own map, based on my own work, on my own language. I might come to the same conclusions as what is already out there.

"He's been told that to describe what spirits actually are would require the invention of some new vocabulary and would still be very difficult to communicate because it's not based in humanity's lowest common denominator of sense experience."

To me, that statement above is in the unknown category. not sure if it was put to me quite like that, however that sounds like a theory of spirits. If I was told this, was I supposed to accept it as true? I accept it as an unknown for now. I'm not so quick to shrug off that a model of spirits cannot be communicated in simple - or broader terms, maybe even modernized a bit.

"He ignored this, and persisted with his own bias, which he thinks he doesn't have. "

at this point, you're describing more of the oldfriend56 in your head than you are me....but the one in your head and me both share some information in common! but do we share substance in common?

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

"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. "

Again, notice that the querent insists that spirits have something to them that is objectively measurable."

huh? I made no such claim and your misinterpreting me here.

" He, however, does not put forward any theories as to what such objectively measurable information is. But he insists both that it exists and that we should have the ability to describe it to him in empirical terms."

Now it's just you and olfriend56 in your head having your own kind of party, and didn't even invite me along.

"Also note from the above quote: "philosophical objectivity." The querent wants a philosophically derived and philosophically objective empirical map of the relationship between Spirit and spirits as well as between spirits and spirits. "

Rather, the querent wants to see how empirical a map of Spirit, Spirits can get, where it's boundaries are, etc etc

"Now, remember, anything but that, and* you're* just biased, unlike him. Because, of course, all this is* certainly* possible. "

I have never presented me as unbiased as anyone in this community as biased, ever, nor has it ever been implied. Any mention of bias towards ideas such as this I was quite careful to be honest and say either 'we' or 'us'.

"And if I am incorrect in my presentation, I certainly welcome and challenge OldFriend to clarify."

I say give it another roll. good first pass.

since you enjoy psychology, don't you find it interesting how easy it is for us to project online?

oldfriend56

@Frater Potater said

"It's true that this statement does not contain an exact question... but for what it's worth, I have been thinking a lot about this stuff too. I'm glad to see a thread come up on the subject, and would be disappointed if it doesn't actually go anywhere."

me too! Thank you for your patience, I hope I am communicating clearly and apologize if my communication seems a little gobled in places. It's part of the exercise for me coming here, to help me clarify to myself my own query. sometimes finding the appropriate question is harder than obtaining the answer.

oldfriend56

@Jim Eshelman said

"
@ldfriend56 said
"Well it would be great to understand the objective mysteries"

You're missing the meaning of "Mystery." The Mystery of a thing is that part that is unknowable. "

yes, I understand that is what mystery means

"

It doesn't fit within rational terms, is inherently indecipherable by most cognitive processes."

agreed. however it is quite rational to see that it is unknowable, and therefore foolhardy to project any meaning onto it

"

a One can pursue it - move closer to it - move through one's own projections about them and other veils. "

yes, wonderful work and a big part of my practice

"

The value of Mysteries is that one constantly pursues them, moves into them - and thus moves past one's own perception and cognition limitations. The value is both in what is unknown, and what is unknowable . The ultimately unknowable is the most true of a thing."

this is a core element in my own personal philosophy, writings, and life's work. When I said "it would be great to understand the objective mysteries" that's me referring exactly to what you stated. What are the pure unknowns as opposed to my own personal veils shielding me from them.

but yet again, the only response i get has more to do with an assumption about me....(tear)

oldfriend56

@Jim Eshelman said

"This is probably a very astute, cogent, and accurate assessment."

lol, you mean "hopefully this is a very astute, cogent, and accurate assessment"

"

I see no reason to engage him further unless HE embraces this. "

that seems a little unfair and to be honest, somewhat abusive - but I dont take it personally!

"

I won't have any further conversation with him unless he agrees (concretely and precisely) what we're talking about, so that every detail of interchange thereafter (in that thread) can be referred to that starting definition"

well I did that and you only responded with how much I dont understand something. How is it I have to not understand so much for a few people here to share some information or thoughts on the matter?

@Bereshith said

"He wants to know what the substance is and how it becomes spirits.
There is only one substance in the universe. You can express or describe this in various ways - e.g., in material terms, as diverse kinds of quanta interacting and vibrating at different rates and mixing in different combinations and relationships - but, mostly, those details don't matter. The Mysteries tend to call it "The One Substance," thereby expressing its most important characteristic without getting bogged down in other labels."

"

This One Substancer exists at different states of vibration. "Vibration" may ultimately turtn out not to be the right word, but, so far, it serves pretty much everything in physics (down to the most subtle levels - "plucked strings"), and, at the very least, it gives a conceptual way to talk about the matter that doesn't require post-graduate math. The analogy - no, actually, it's not an analogy, it's an actuality - but the path to entering an understanding of this is to leverage our knowledge that molecular velocity (rate of vibration; essentially, heat) is the only distinction between ice, water, and steam; or between iron and molten iron; or between mercury and mercury vapor. Increase the particle velocity - and you move from the most tenuous forms of matter (gas) into energy. (That's basically what E=MC{2} says.) And so forth."

I'm following that vibrations work in physics which cover material reality down to the quantum level. Unsure if this covers the world of DM or DE, but that's just my own lack of knowledge. Unsure if this applies to the spiritual realms, although I accept that is what you are suggesting.

"

These rates of vibration exist in "bands" that we can call all sorts of things - states, worlds, dimensions, or whatever - even though the gradual increase of vibration is continous. For example, the "line" between red and orange doesn't exactly exist (they're just a different rate of vibration), because there are infinite gradations of red-orange in between; however, the dividing line between "below visible light," "visible light," and "above visible light" is quite dramatic (if slightly varied per perceiving organism). Physicists, similarly, have divided the EM spectrum into larger categories above and below visible light. These each have different characteristics, despite the smooth continuity of vibrational change along the spectrum.

So: There is one substance, and it exists across a continuum of vibration, with different "bands" of that continuum having more or less common characteristics."

okay I am following

"

"Spiritual beings" are formed from "spiritual substance" exactly the same way that "physical beings" are formed from "physical substance." "

so spiritual substance and physical substance are distinct, yet somehow apart of one substance. Am I following Jim correctly here? Hoping someone can chime in since Jim is unlikely to respond.

"

At least some types of beings exist on multiple planes simultaneously; for example, humans (among others) are physical, astral, intellectual, and 'spiritual' beings (I use the latter in a reserved sense, not in the broad "not material" sense - since astral and intellectual levels are also "not material" if we mean physical matter). "

what can material mean other than physical matter?

"

All things we can perceive have vibrations, so they are all "living." OTOH, not all things have the appearance of having their various layers concentric to a distinctive sense of existence. But that's a whole other topic.

Hopefully this simplifies, rather than confuses, the matter."

we have one substance with two clear distinctions, spiritual substance and physical substance. Is that a simplified summary or over simplified?

"
It's all there in the sentence: Spiritual beings" are formed from "spiritual substance" exactly the same way that "physical beings" are formed from "physical substance." "

so we have some sort of a spiritual/physical coupling here, not unlike the dialogue between the immaterial/material. My question is that the physical stuff is easy to define, and find. What is the spiritual substance?

I am still seeing a dialectic here between one world and another world. One property and another property. My questioning takes me to this place...What is our grand environment which contain both properties and what is our role in it that we seek help from spirits yet they seek no help from us?

"Now - having enjoyed this interchange with you - I wait to see if OF will similar pin down, in a sentence or two, what he is asking or affirming, as a precise point of departure for anything going forward."

donzo.

Simon Iff

I wanted to write something concerning this topic, but understood that there is a lot of talking at cross-purposes going on, including my own interest in the topic. Methinks a lot of different experiences, levels of experience, terminologies, taxonomies, and to top it off also different models in the backs of heads are crashing into each other here.

My impression is that there are three points of view at war here (potentially creatively at war):

Oldfriend ...

Oldfriend wants an exploration of what in his terminology is termed "spirits", by anecdotal evidence I interpret, to arrive at some sort of taxonomic system to describe the nature and objectivity (or not) of human interaction with his definition of "spirits".
Oldfriend has not decided on a favourite model of consciousness as he seems to be of the persuasion that there are too many and the data available does not sufficiently allow selection between them, at least as far as the question of what he defines as "spirits" is regarded.
Oldfriend is more theoretically oriented I speculate, his questions are not coming from a big heap of experiences but more from theoretical considerations. Or at least it seems to me that way reading the thread.

Dar es Allarah ...

Dar es Allarah wishes Oldfriend to stop going in philosophical circles, as Dar es Allarah perceives Oldfriend as doing so, and this makes her angry.
Dar es Allarah has a favorite theory of consciousness that has its merits and is one of the few that link quantum ontology, neuropsychology and therefore perhaps psychic phenomena into one whole, and wants to work on the question, if at all, from that model outwards.
Dar es Allarah has some kind of relation between some kind of practical experience with "spirits" (which she interprets as "part of the human mind" if I'm not mistaken) and the model she thinks is best to attack the problem with.

J.E. ...

J.E. sees all this from a very hands-on, practising and practical perspective and wishes for Oldfriend to please clarify what exactly it is that he wants and to define that properly, as otherwise he has the impression of wasting his time here.
J.E. has a favourite theory of consciousness that is rooted in lots of practise with Liber 777 and its elaborations and suggests to simply use this as far as terminology and taxonomy are concerned.
J.E. is more interested in the functional use of "spirits" (in his definition) than in theoretically expounding them.

So, at least I got to a (quite speculative) theory of at least three spirits

@Jim Eshelman said

"The Mystery of a thing is that part that is unknowable. It doesn't fit within rational terms, is inherently indecipherable by most cognitive processes. One can pursue it - move closer to it - move through one's own projections about them and other veils. The value of Mysteries is that one constantly pursues them, moves into them - and thus moves past one's own perception and cognition limitations. The value is both in what is unknown, and what is unknowable . The ultimately unknowable is the most true of a thing."

I find that to be one of the best definitions of the term "Mystery", if I may say so.

@Dar es Allarah said

"For anyone else interested in consciousness, you might find this talk by nobel prize winner, Professor Roger Penrose - interesting.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=f477FnTe1M0

and also -

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEpUIcOodnM&feature=related

and the implications of this are discussed with Deepak Chopra -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPMwuc0Us_U&feature=relmfu

A series that discusses reincarnation - the hard problem of consciousness, qualia, life after death, etc. - The *philosophical *implications."

Sounds interesting, Penrose, always good - will do (watch, that is).

@ldfriend56 said

"... Conscious Entities. It's one of my favs. www.consciousentities.com It lists a few other popular models of consciousness along with Penrose."

Also interesting - will have a look too.

I finish with the observation - that includes everyone and me too - that having one's pet model in mind, however good it may be or is - has it's dangers. It might stop listening to others who would have something useful to say or to ignorance of some empirical data that might show up.

And no one should claim they have no models. You cannot have no model. I hope none of you guys think that this is air that you are breathing

Cheers

Simple (?) Simon

oldfriend56

@Simon Iff said

"I wanted to write something concerning this topic, but understood that there is a lot of talking at cross-purposes going on, including my own interest in the topic. Methinks a lot of different experiences, levels of experience, terminologies, taxonomies, and to top it off also different models in the backs of heads are crashing into each other here.

My impression is that there are three points of view at war here (potentially creatively at war):"

ideas are always at war, that is an intrinsic part of their nature.

"

Oldfriend ...

Oldfriend wants an exploration of what in his terminology is termed "spirits", by anecdotal evidence I interpret, to arrive at some sort of taxonomic system to describe the nature and objectivity (or not) of human interaction with his definition of "spirits"."

close, though I am not sure I have yet my own working definition of spirits.

"

Oldfriend has not decided on a favourite model of consciousness as he seems to be of the persuasion that there are too many and the data available does not sufficiently allow selection between them, at least as far as the question of what he defines as "spirits" is regarded. "

yes, consciousness to me is still the purest mystery out there, I am not convinced we can even have an empirical model of consciousness that is complete.

"

Oldfriend is more theoretically oriented I speculate, his questions are not coming from a big heap of experiences but more from theoretical considerations. Or at least it seems to me that way reading the thread."

actually the converse is true, it is after a few years of continuous contact with what can only be regarded as the spirit world that has taken me to this place to really want to come to a deeper understanding of spirit, spirits, both empirically, philosophically, and spiritually.

"

Dar es Allarah ...

Dar es Allarah wishes Oldfriend to stop going in philosophical circles, as Dar es Allarah perceives Oldfriend as doing so, and this makes her angry.
Dar es Allarah has a favorite theory of consciousness that has its merits and is one of the few that link quantum ontology, neuropsychology and therefore perhaps psychic phenomena into one whole, and wants to work on the question, if at all, from that model outwards.
Dar es Allarah has some kind of relation between some kind of practical experience with "spirits" (which she interprets as "part of the human mind" if I'm not mistaken) and the model she thinks is best to attack the problem with."

kind of how i was seeing this too, but was unaware he was a she!

"

J.E. ...

J.E. sees all this from a very hands-on, practising and practical perspective and wishes for Oldfriend to please clarify what exactly it is that he wants and to define that properly, as otherwise he has the impression of wasting his time here.
J.E. has a favourite theory of consciousness that is rooted in lots of practise with Liber 777 and its elaborations and suggests to simply use this as far as terminology and taxonomy are concerned.
J.E. is more interested in the functional use of "spirits" (in his definition) than in theoretically expounding them."

as I see it too

"

So, at least I got to a (quite speculative) theory of at least three spirits "

hah!

"
And no one should claim they have no models. You cannot have no model. I hope none of you guys think that this is air that you are breathing

"

hey thanks for coming in and cleaning things up! not sure what you mean when you say "no one can claim no model' unless you mean an incomplete model. I have not yet found a model of consciousness , or even a school of philosophy (dualism, materialism, etc etc) that I can get behind, although many I find interesting, but none enough to say 'this is it!' the only thing I can say for certainty is that consciousness exists and that I am consciousness. I am comfortable with the mystery there too, I dont feel antsy not have a complete model. As for spirits, since spirits interact with us, or at least appear to, I am fascinated by the discussion itself regarding their existence. Especially the question "How do I know spirits are not just a component of my own psyche?" - it reminds me of the classical philosophical question "how do I know any one exists and is not just a product of my imagination?" taken to a more elaborate level.

Ultimately, it would be great to relate the experience of spirit, spirits to a more empirical word that we all can relate too, that while on the one hand can take use closer to acknowledging the mystery, takes us closer as well to acknowledging the shared truth of the experience.

Currently, I am playing with the concept that spirits are simply ideas. I find ideas just as mysterious as the world of spirits, and hoping that maybe a link between the two will shed more light on the mystery of ideas than the mystery of spirits, if that makes any sense.

Simon Iff

Oldfriend, after reading your reply, perhaps you could clear things up more from your side by relaying a bit on your experiences with what you consider to be spirits? A few anecdotes that were pivotal for you? That lead you to ask the (admittedly, also for me) a bit fuzzy question you are asking here?

Danica

oldfriend56,

a suggestion for a simple exercise in practice:

define for yourself what is Spirit and what spirits. simply choose a definition that you find most suitable now, and don't worry too much if that is not 'the final answer', the ultimate truth etc.
just choose a working definition to go with now.
take Book 4, read the instruction there and contact Spirit and/or spirits accordingly.
try to ask Spirit / spirits directly: "what is your nature?" (and even about semantics, if you will ).
prepare a notebook where you'll write down about these experiences.
repeat this for couple of times (you decide how many, but do take not less than 3 and more than 10 for example).

before that, after that, or in the meantime:
decide that for, say 14 days, you'll formulate & write every day your own definition of the term/concept 'objective', in such manner that every day it has to be different. not necessarily completely different, but different enough that you consider it as not the same definition

THEN if you Will so come back here and share your experience.

p.s. while you're at Book 4, take a look at section named Liber E, part I & section named Liber O, parts I, II and III

Uni_Verse

The 'Objective Mystery' is entirely subjective in nature.

Take a concept such as that of Babylon.
While there may be an objective reality to the concept, our knowledge and understanding of it is entirely drawn from the system which it finds itself a part of.

That is, one can not convey WHAT Babylon is, except when dealing with Babylon within the Thelemic philosophy.
We might try and describe Babylon with Christian symbols, start calling her the Mother Mary, but once again we become reliant on previously established relationships.