The Matter and Semantic of Spirits.

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.

Jim Eshelman

@ldfriend56 said

"
@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""

No, I meant exactly what I wrote. (I went back and added the "probably" in rewrite just to add a margin of doubt.)

"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?"

Yes, I saw that you stated that yesterday. I haven't gone back to actually answer that, and I'm not sure I have anything to say that would be useful or interesting to you. I will, however, switch hats and make an administrative remark at the current end of the thread to help it move along the lines you've now clarified.

"
""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."

DIstinct but not different. Distinct in the way that "light above range of human perception" is distinct from "light within the range of human perception," without really being "a different thing." The adjective in "spiritual substance" is a "bandwidth" discrimination just like the adjective in "visible light."

The analogy is close in several ways. For example, the distinction you are seeking in "spiritual" things seems to be "physically insensible" things. (Yes? No?) That makes it an exact equivalent to ultraviolet (and higher) bands of light (and, for that matter, infrared and lower bands of light). It's only the insensibility that distinguishes it, meaning that the distinction is in our ability to perceive it with one set of senses vs. another set.

"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?"

"Matter" just means "mother substance." Generally it is used only for physical matter, which is why I was careful in my syntax in that last sentence. It has, however, been used derivatively, in senses such as "astral matter" (by analogy to physical matter), etc. - Actually, that's not really using it derivatively, since the root meaning is "mother," that from which all things are formed etc. Though I generally only use "matter" to mean "physical matter," I do sometimes use it as a perfect synonym for the One Substance.

"
"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?"

It's just as easy to see as long as you don't use your physical senses. A significant part of magical training is in using nonphysical senses to directly perceive other things.

"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?"

We're all in it together. (You're question really boils down to, Why do different life-forms communicate with eadh other?)

Jim Eshelman

:!:
ADMIINSTRATIVE NOTE:
The original poster has clarified his original question. I quote it below. - In terms of the forum's policy that posts on a thread are expected to stay on-topic to that thread (with the occassional meandering that indirectly gets to a direct path <g>), please use what is quoted below as the definition of this thread. Off-topic posts may be deleted in order to keep the thread on a single track (after giving sufficient time to see if their meandering loops back). - Thank you.
:!:

@ldfriend56 said

"
"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."

gmugmble

@ldfriend56 said

"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?"

Sounds like what you want is a good grimoire, or Agrippa's Three Books, or Barrett's Magus. These are books by people who have spent their lives working to explore the spirit world empirically -- through their own and others' experience -- and they provide both exploration techniques that they know empirically to be effective, as well as maps (lists of demons, angels, etc., their powers and characteristics, etc.) that are the results of their empirical investigation.

The work of Dee and Kelly, and of Alan Kardac fit this characterization, too. If the maps seem vastly different, it's because the spirit realm is a vast and diverse territory.

Bereshith

You got 3 gunas, 7 chakras, 10 sephiroth. If you want to qualify entities made up of the Mind/Force/Substance in a way that humans can relate to it, then you need to start there. They provide both the philosophical base and the ability to confirm the attributions through personal experimentation.

But, honestly, now that the correspondences of 777 were brought up (since the above is what they're based on), I wonder what you can add to that but doubt until you yourself have the inner senses to confirm or deny the taxonomy presented there.

Until you have that,* everything *is merely someone else's pet theory of consciousness, eternally assailable by the sword of Empiricism and the shield of relativity.

oldfriend56

double post, sorry

oldfriend56

@Simon Iff said

"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?"

Thank you for asking! I would say that primarily for the most part of my journey, I assumed spirits, gods, angels, etc etc were somehow apart of my own make up, an aspect of my psyche, or perhaps 'our' psyche, a component or dynamic of a collective consciousness which too is unknown, but more a component of myself than let's say an actual 'other' order of sentience. Although open to other points of view on the matter, for some reason my inner understanding that made the most 'sense', even if vaguely defined by myself. While in my twenties, my explorations were fueled primarily by yoga, meditations, a few magical ceremonies, plenty of psychedelic substances done with a set and setting mindset, and exploring different eastern paradigms, such a buddhism or taoism. All of this of course was mixed with healthy doses of youthful indiscretion, irrationality, absolutely ridiculous reasoning and the perfect amount of naiveté - so I dont trust any of those conclusions

That's the position on Spirits that I am evolving from at this point, and not quite sure what my landing pad will look like as this is a work in progress. Now, 10 -20 years later, after I have consumed heaps of western philosophy, science, technology and futurism while exploring a few traditional practices of indigenous peoples (the shipibo traditions of peru and the lakata traditions of north america) I feel an update is in order - which leads me to answer directly your question.

Working with the more indigenous practices, many of which I always assumed a sort of 'primitive' or natural understanding of the more evolved western hermetic schools have to offer, i found myself having quite paradigm shattering encounters directly with spirits in a way that was distinctly noticeable from my previous experiences. This includes visual manifestations, eyes open or closed, clear knowledge delivery, sometimes prophetic, sometimes bullsh*t, inner alchemical transformations, teaching, and most importantly, healing - both physical, emotional, and 'spiritual' to such an extreme degree I previously never thought possible. I found that my old model of looking at things like 'spirits' really did not make as much sense in this sort of light. Also, because it is more 'primitive' ( i hate using that word here, but for lack of a better term?) - i found it more directly connected to earth, gaia, and therefore more organic in a way that was quite illuminating. It seemed more 'real' to me and therefore more meaningful in the pursuit of uniting both the eastern and western schools of philosophy.

EDIT: Also I should add, Liber Al vel Legis and the broader philosophy of Thelema is a pretty core aspect of my internal dynamic and extremely meaningful to me, so while I do not claim to be a practicing ceremonial magician, I am familiar with the turf so to speak.

oldfriend56

@danica said

"oldfriend56,

a suggestion for a simple exercise in practice:

I"

thank you for taking the time to recommend something to try out Danica, I appreciate it.

oldfriend56

Jim! Thank you for responding here.

@Jim Eshelman said

"
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. (I went back and added the "probably" in rewrite just to add a margin of doubt.)"

A wide margin, no doubt

"
Yes, I saw that you stated that yesterday. I haven't gone back to actually answer that, and I'm not sure I have anything to say that would be useful or interesting to you. I will, however, switch hats and make an administrative remark at the current end of the thread to help it move along the lines you've now clarified."

thank you

"

"
""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."

DIstinct but not different. Distinct in the way that "light above range of human perception" is distinct from "light within the range of human perception," without really being "a different thing." The adjective in "spiritual substance" is a "bandwidth" discrimination just like the adjective in "visible light.""

so to use another analogy, say something more commonly observable (yet still illusory none the less) let's say "one day" which equals both 'day' and 'night'. Noon is quite distinguishable from Midnight, clearly, yet they are both apart of one cycle. Under this sort of analogy, there is where day and night come together and are indistinguishable - for example sunrise and sunset, quite literally 'both day and night' at once.

so - would it not also follow that for physical reality to emerge from a singular substance (that is a subset of a 'higher' unifying substance) and spiritual reality to emerge from another, we would find some substance that was somehow of an equal blend, being of both substances?

"

The analogy is close in several ways. For example, the distinction you are seeking in "spiritual" things seems to be "physically insensible" things. (Yes? No?) "

well, I would say closer to no than to yes, mainly because I have had experiences with my senses of interacting with 'spiritual' energies, intelligences, etc. and not sure if the issue of 'physically insensible' has any meaning whatsoever in this context. I might add that this same 'conundrum' applies not just to experiences of spiritual intelligences, but also things like sensations, feelings, concepts, and ideas which are more common and universal in the realm of human senses. It appears that those might be composed of the same 'substance', to use your analogy, as that of spiritual energies and intelligences (albiet a 'different frequency' to again use your analogy).

"That makes it an exact equivalent to ultraviolet (and higher) bands of light (and, for that matter, infrared and lower bands of light). It's only the insensibility that distinguishes it, meaning that the distinction is in our ability to perceive it with one set of senses vs. another set."

I believe I follow this so please tell me if I dont have what I think i do. The distinction exists in the mind, and therefore it is something in the human psyche that 'forbids' or 'allows' such an experience. This is to mean that there is nothing of the composition itself that influences this? For example, ultraviolet light vibrates at a certain frequency which makes it unregisterable to the human eye, however our other faculties allow us to register it using extensions of our senses (i.e. technology) because it is of a substance that is measurable and predictable. Would a spiritual substance allow us the same liesure? Is it only measurable through our ideas and concepts (creating abstractions) about it?

"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). "

ahh, okay I think this addresses my previous questions somewhat but raises others. Yes I also look at ideas, thoughts, abstractions, concepts as also 'non-material' - however this highlights the very 'hard' problem of consciousness over all from my POV, at least in terms of creating an empirical map. Even if things like ideas are non material in experience but still in principle hold some sort of measurable frequency (closer to the ORCH OR model we discussed in this thread) - we don't experience 'frequencies' we experience having ideas - therefore the whole realm of experience itself could also be said to be non material and the content of the experience material.

This is quite a conundrum to work through, at least empirically. thoughts?

"
"Matter" just means "mother substance." Generally it is used only for physical matter, which is why I was careful in my syntax in that last sentence.
It has, however, been used derivatively, in senses such as "astral matter" (by analogy to physical matter), etc. - Actually, that's not really using it derivatively, since the root meaning is "mother," that from which all things are formed etc. Though I generally only use "matter" to mean "physical matter," I do sometimes use it as a perfect synonym for the One Substance."

ah-ha. okay so you are using the term in the more root meaning sense, not in how the word is used in science (having mass and volume). Is this pre-supposing then purely 'spiritual' matter that would not have mass or volume in any sense that the mind can understand? for all sakes and purposes, would this mean non-physical/physical coupling? I think this is what most would mean by the immaterial/material as it what I have been meaning by the phrase.

I asked: 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?

"
It's just as easy to see as long as you don't use your physical senses. A significant part of magical training is in using nonphysical senses to directly perceive other things."

sure, yes that is my experience and understanding as well. So there is an embedded limitation here, sort of like the speed of light, that somehow prevents the physical senses (and any extensions thereof) from ever measuring and registering this spiritual substance? is that too extreme of an assumption on my part?

I stated: 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?

"
We're all in it together."

I really love this answer! Thank you Jim.

How I interpret this so far, and please if anyone can chime in and make a correction if I am veering or straying to far. Under the circumstances Jim explained quite eloquently. Empirically, we can accept that human beings have access to information that, at present time, does not appear to have any physically measurable component. This information can take the form in experience as thoughts, feelings, concepts, ideas, abstractions, but it can also take the form of an 'other' such as Spirits, Gods, angels etc. Ancient philosophies from antiquity suggest that the realm of the physical, which is simply 'content' in the realm of phenomenology (1st person experience) - share a 'mother' substance in common with all non- physical substance. This substance (SPIRIT singular and proper?) is not measurable and not accessible in the world of the measurable senses - so to even begin the pursuit of discovering empirically this substance in measurable form may be impossible.

This seems to align with the idea that 'consciousness' is this mysterious substance and leads us back to the same hard problems of consciousness from an empirical point of view. From this point of view, what is the distinction between ideas, concepts and abstractions and spirits?

oldfriend56

@gmugmble said

"
@ldfriend56 said
"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?"

Sounds like what you want is a good grimoire, or Agrippa's Three Books, or Barrett's Magus. These are books by people who have spent their lives working to explore the spirit world empirically -- through their own and others' experience -- and they provide both exploration techniques that they know empirically to be effective, as well as maps (lists of demons, angels, etc., their powers and characteristics, etc.) that are the results of their empirical investigation.

The work of Dee and Kelly, and of Alan Kardac fit this characterization, too. If the maps seem vastly different, it's because the spirit realm is a vast and diverse territory."

thank you - yes I have explored these things, as well as in a few other traditions. These do not seem to address the question "what are spirits" empirically, just that empirically, human beings can have experiences with things like spirits and these spirits have a relationship with each other than can be understood in a specific ordering.

oldfriend56

@Bereshith said

"You got 3 gunas, 7 chakras, 10 sephiroth. If you want to qualify entities made up of the Mind/Force/Substance in a way that humans can relate to it, then you need to start there. They provide both the philosophical base and the ability to confirm the attributions through personal experimentation.

But, honestly, now that the correspondences of 777 were brought up (since the above is what they're based on), I wonder what you can add to that but doubt until you yourself have the inner senses to confirm or deny the taxonomy presented there.

Until you have that,* everything *is merely someone else's pet theory of consciousness, eternally assailable by the sword of Empiricism and the shield of relativity."

I'm not sure I want to use esoteric maps for empirical purposes here. The foundation would then have to many assumptions - make sense? Imagine my map is for someone who has no experience in such matters, is cosmologically agnostic (potentially even atheist), and needs a map that can provide them an overview of what they can experience (i.e. thoughts, ideas, feelings) and expand upon those experiences (spirits, subtle energies, healings, etc) while providing an empirical overview of the relationship of consciousness to the content to which it perceives.

Bereshith

@ldfriend56 said

"
I'm not sure I want to use esoteric maps for empirical purposes here. The foundation would then have to many assumptions - make sense? "

Only if I would agree that the Tree of Life is a "esoteric map" instead of an "empirical map," which I don't.

If a magician's evocation and experience of spirits may be called empirical at all, it is in a limited sense. To the best of my current knowledge, not just anybody can draw the symbols, light the smoke, and say the words with the result that the exact results are produced every time for everybody. If we're talking about Empiricism proper, that's my understanding of what's required to fit its criteria. (possibly discussion-worthy)

However, if we allow ourselves to speak of evocation and the experience of spirits as "empirical" simply because the process relies on experimentation - without the condition that everybody can do it given the proper instructions and tools - then I would argue that the Tree of Life is entirely as "empirical" as the evocation and experience of spirits. It is not entirely philosophical in my experience.

"Imagine my map is for someone who has no experience in such matters, is cosmologically agnostic (potentially even atheist), and needs a map that can provide them an overview of what they can experience (i.e. thoughts, ideas, feelings) and expand upon those experiences (spirits, subtle energies, healings, etc) while providing an empirical overview of the relationship of consciousness to the content to which it perceives."

In my understanding, this is entirely the kind of map the Tree of Life provides. I'm beginning to think that you think the Tree of Life is only a matter of occult dogma. It is a map of "thoughts, ideas, and feelings," complete with the transitional pathways between them. For even more precise classification, one may imagine the entire Tree inside each of its sephiroth. But... It is a map of both the process of manifestation and of the human consciousness - macrocosm and microcosm.

For instance, even if we just take three of the concepts you listed, "thoughts, ideas, feelings," you'd still have to relate them to one another in some fashion. You'll have to determine how a "thought" is different from an "feeling" and have a concept map that suggests how "thoughts" are related to "feelings" unless you just want disconnected categories. And, well, that's what the Tree of Life is.

Anyway, I don't mean to beat you over the head with it, but it does seem like you think it exists in a different category than what you're describing, and I think it's almost exactly what you're describing - in addition to being philosophically valid. But it doesn't have to be all dressed up in Hebrew either...

I'm also glad I got the chance to clarify my thoughts on the empiricism wording. That always gets caught in my lens.

Uni_Verse

Hm, while reading over some of the replies, I did a bit of thinking:
There what the spirit/spirits are no only changes with the system but also at one point a person is in that system.

At the outset of a persons spiritual journey, for all intents and purposes, spirits existed outside the person.
Rather, they are outside a persons conscious awareness and control (though, perhaps they may be directed - but that is a slight divergence from my point).
As a person progresses, becomes aware, integrates those entities into their consciousness, for all intents and purposes they become a part of them in whatever fashion suits the spirit(s) in question.

This may make it detrimental to hammering out a definitive empirical placement.
As the Adept who says "they are part of me" might confuse and hamper a Neophytes process of developing awareness with the goal of integration.

Anywho, I hope I did not add to the confusion.

Simon Iff

@Frater Potater said

"I'm wondering how much longer we will continue to dress it in language like "spirits" and "demons". I understand that thinking about this too much can strain the personal work, but I also wonder if this is the most progressive way to be approaching the situation (from an empirical point of view)? I hope that as time moves on we can approach a more universal way of relating these things.

The language we currently employ is pretty "loaded". Words like god, demon, or spirit all carry such a heavy connotation. We don't perceive reality the same way as ancient cultures did. We have a much wider amount of information to base our conclusions on. How do we tread this line and find new ways to effectively explore/communicate these ideas with each other, while at the same time avoiding the creation of yet another dogmatic, useless religious system?"

I am also of this opinion, and don't think simply referring to ancient interpretations of the phenomena of "spirits", "demons", "gods" & "angels" is going to get us any further in understanding them.

Crowley's "Method of Science" (and I agree he must have meant empiricism for many reasons) has not even started to make an impact on research on them; his own work was deemed a starting point by him, not an end until the next 2100-year-cycle started imo.

Bereshith

@Frater Potater said

"
@Bereshith said
"To the best of my current knowledge, not just anybody can draw the symbols, light the smoke, and say the words with the result that the exact results are produced every time for everybody."

What about "if you do certain things, certain results follow"?"

I would ask - Is that intended as a promise for everyone? Is there empirical data to back up that claim if it is understood of a promise for success to everyone? I think it's intended more as a statement of the irrelevance of what one believes about magic while experimenting with the art.

The main difference, as I see it, between Empiricism proper and the empiricism of the magician is that Empiricism proper would demand that anyone can reproduce the results of any experiment - regardless of the degree of their skepticism during the process.

However, in my understanding, many of the experiments of the magician require an element of ...what to call it... affirmative expectation? (faith? belief?) that the operation will be successful. I've tended to make a distinction between experiments that can be successfully be completed by a doubtful person following instructions and experiments that require the affirmative expectation of the experimenter. That fact doesn't make the process of magical experimentation any less experimental, but it does seem to introduce a level of subjectivity that makes me want to make a distinction between what I see as more and less strict versions of empiricism.

Discussion/correction welcome.

@Frater Potater said

"
@Bereshith said
"However, if we allow ourselves to speak of evocation and the experience of spirits as "empirical" simply because the process relies on experimentation - without the condition that everybody can do it given the proper instructions and tools - then I would argue that the Tree of Life is entirely as "empirical" as the evocation and experience of spirits. It is not entirely philosophical in my experience."

How do we determine whether or not we've received any information of value? We may be able to check the results with 777, and we may receive a plethora of information about ourselves, and our relation to any given concept on the tree... but this still doesn't answer such fundamental questions as "what is the origin or purpose of existence, the universe, and spirit/spirits?"

Not unless we make a lot of assumptions based on nothing more than what we experience via the brain..."

Well, honestly, this is a digression from what can be known empirically to existentialism. The fact that the original poster had combined both into his expectations was something I tried to point out earlier as a potential frustration. A decision has to be made somewhere along the way as to whether the "Primal Will" is a "Primal Will to Good" or not. I'm not sure I could call that an empirically derivable result.

@Frater Potater said

"I'm wondering how much longer we will continue to dress it in language like "spirits" and "demons". I understand that thinking about this too much can strain the personal work, but I also wonder if this is the most progressive way to be approaching the situation (from an empirical point of view)? I hope that as time moves on we can approach a more universal way of relating these things.

The language we currently employ is pretty "loaded". Words like god, demon, or spirit all carry such a heavy connotation. We don't perceive reality the same way as ancient cultures did. We have a much wider amount of information to base our conclusions on. How do we tread this line and find new ways to effectively explore/communicate these ideas with each other, while at the same time avoiding the creation of yet another dogmatic, useless religious system?"

lol... Personally, I refuse to take a position. Everything usually boils down to two fundamental perspectives. Depends on the lens, not the object. You know? Words...

oldfriend56

@Bereshith said

"
@ldfriend56 said
"
I'm not sure I want to use esoteric maps for empirical purposes here. The foundation would then have to many assumptions - make sense? "

Only if I would agree that the Tree of Life is a "esoteric map" instead of an "empirical map," which I don't."

really? I'm interested more here - it's been years and years since I played with the tree, and my understanding probably needs an update, but what is the tree if not a map to place our experiences of the subtle realms? it's those subtle realms that I am defining as 'esoteric'.

"

If a magician's evocation and experience of spirits may be called empirical at all, it is in a limited sense. To the best of my current knowledge, not just anybody can draw the symbols, light the smoke, and say the words with the result that the exact results are produced every time for everybody. If we're talking about Empiricism proper, that's my understanding of what's required to fit its criteria. (possibly discussion-worthy)

However, if we allow ourselves to speak of evocation and the experience of spirits as "empirical" simply because the process relies on experimentation - without the condition that everybody can do it given the proper instructions and tools - then I would argue that the Tree of Life is entirely as "empirical" as the evocation and experience of spirits. It is not entirely philosophical in my experience. "

I think the common experience in phenomenology (1st person experience) could be considered 'empirical' to at least list, such as ideas, thoughts, dreams, etc. As to the evocation of spirits, I imagine that is not something your average joe can experience - however the average joe can have an experience of the spirit world by dabbling in DMT or ayahuasca related practices and in this sense, I would imagine that the experience of spirits would be more common

I said: Imagine my map is for someone who has no experience in such matters, is cosmologically agnostic (potentially even atheist), and needs a map that can provide them an overview of what they can experience (i.e. thoughts, ideas, feelings) and expand upon those experiences (spirits, subtle energies, healings, etc) while providing an empirical overview of the relationship of consciousness to the content to which it perceives.

"

In my understanding, this is entirely the kind of map the Tree of Life provides. I'm beginning to think that you think the Tree of Life is only a matter of occult dogma. It is a map of "thoughts, ideas, and feelings," complete with the transitional pathways between them. For even more precise classification, one may imagine the entire Tree inside each of its sephiroth. But... It is a map of both the process of manifestation and of the human consciousness - macrocosm and microcosm. "

Like I said, i probably need an update in my understanding of the tree - I always understood the tree as like a filing system and it's primary concern was mapping subtle phenomenon.

"

For instance, even if we just take three of the concepts you listed, "thoughts, ideas, feelings," you'd still have to relate them to one another in some fashion. You'll have to determine how a "thought" is different from an "feeling" and have a concept map that suggests how "thoughts" are related to "feelings" unless you just want disconnected categories. And, well, that's what the Tree of Life is. "

I'm very skeptical of anything that could map actual 'feelings' because a map is ultimately symbolic and feelings are not words or symbols but pure experiences of being, and at best all we could do would be to just map our idea about the feeling. How would the tree get around this conundrum?

"

Anyway, I don't mean to beat you over the head with it, but it does seem like you think it exists in a different category than what you're describing, and I think it's almost exactly what you're describing - in addition to being philosophically valid. But it doesn't have to be all dressed up in Hebrew either..."

well first off, the tree is not my map, and by map of course I mean something that is communicated in passage, prose, written in copy, not exactly a taxonomy or literal 'map' like the tree - for me to create my own map is a way for me to test my own understanding...I guess that is really what this exercise is for me - I know i can understand something when I can put something into my own language, communicate it, and find agreement with others who have similar understanding.

I am interested in bringing any value of the tree into this, like I said I probably need an update to understanding there.

oldfriend56

@Uni_Verse said

"Hm, while reading over some of the replies, I did a bit of thinking:
There what the spirit/spirits are no only changes with the system but also at one point a person is in that system.

At the outset of a persons spiritual journey, for all intents and purposes, spirits existed outside the person.
Rather, they are outside a persons conscious awareness and control (though, perhaps they may be directed - but that is a slight divergence from my point).
As a person progresses, becomes aware, integrates those entities into their consciousness, for all intents and purposes they become a part of them in whatever fashion suits the spirit(s) in question.

This may make it detrimental to hammering out a definitive empirical placement.
As the Adept who says "they are part of me" might confuse and hamper a Neophytes process of developing awareness with the goal of integration.

Anywho, I hope I did not add to the confusion."

no thank you this is very insightful indeed! it does make the territory more complex, because this would suggest that perhaps spirits are no more than a component of our psyche to begin with to have such a feature.

For example, in my most recent explorations, the world of Vegatalismo from the Amazon. The most common practice amongst the vegatalistas is the 'dieta', where one goes into isolation and drinks, consumes a particular master plant mixture (non hallucinogenic) for a period of time. The process is very alchemical - the practitioner literally has to break down the cells in the body by consuming very little food and what food they consume is bland and devoid of salts, sugars, etc etc. During this process, the 'master teacher' , that particular plant spirit, comes to literally reside in the cells of the body, and is indeed apart of the practitioner physically, and then the practitioner can call on that spirit through an icaro and have the 'powers' of that particular spirit come to aid him/her. So spirits in this manner of a quite distinct order of being if they can be present to multiple people at different locations at once! I hope this does not come off as trite.

Also, as Jim said that the plant spirits of the amazon would be the same as the plant spirits of shinto or the amazon as they would in the west, I am still not convinced they are. I believe there would be some cross over, but the plant spirits of the amazon appear to have many of the same abilities as angels or higher order beings in western magick.

Also, interesting enough, in the amazon there has been much convergence with this practice and outside religion, such as christianity. However, there are many traditions down there that have fused with Rosicrusianism, and blend european esoteric traditions. Indeed, a few shamans claim to use ayahuasca to call in 'the european doctors' as they are called into the room! This is a matter of great interest to me.

oldfriend56

double post again, sorry I am in formatting hell.

oldfriend56

@Frater Potater said

"
@ldfriend56 said
" Is it only measurable through our ideas and concepts (creating abstractions) about it?"

This is the real tricky part.... because the mind is so easily deceived. On top of that, you have everyones conflicting ideas and abstractions competing with each other, and forming into dogmas."

oh yes exactly - and this is what makes the process entirely subjective. Which is how it has become that I want to remodel all of this in as objective as a form as possible.

Take ideas (there does not seem to be much interest here in addressing the relationship between ideas and spirits, but I'm hoping a few will chime in) and even dreams. We all experience ideas and most have dreams, so although the experience of ideas is quite subjective, the fact that we all share some experiential information in common that we refer to as 'ideas' is objective - so relating 'spirits' to ideas seems like a nice foundation to begin.

thoughts here?

My previous comment: How I interpret this so far, and please if anyone can chime in and make a correction if I am veering or straying to far. Under the circumstances Jim explained quite eloquently. Empirically, we can accept that human beings have access to information that, at present time, does not appear to have any physically measurable component. This information can take the form in experience as thoughts, feelings, concepts, ideas, abstractions, but it can also take the form of an 'other' such as Spirits, Gods, angels etc. Ancient philosophies from antiquity suggest that the realm of the physical, which is simply 'content' in the realm of phenomenology (1st person experience) - share a 'mother' substance in common with all non- physical substance. This substance (SPIRIT singular and proper?) is not measurable and not accessible in the world of the measurable senses - so to even begin the pursuit of discovering empirically this substance in measurable form may be impossible.

" I'm wondering what the actual value of this "information" is. What do we get from the experiences if we can't confirm or substantiate anything?"

If we cannot substantiate any information we receive from * heightened personal experience* (a broader term which includes dreams, meditations, visions, communication with other intelligences) through experimentation, trial and practice in practical every day life, then of course it's value objectively is close to zero I imagine.

Consider; how is this not any different from information we receive from the pure experience of having 'ah-ha!'s? Ideas, the experiences therein, also deliver information that is not yet substantiated. The world of the sciences also receives this conundrum that is also rooted in personal experience epistemologically speaking.

How we substantiate any information naturally would make quite a difference I imagine. Human Intelligence appears to me to play a role here, regardless of the truth value of the sources of experience, is that Human Being appears to, objectively speaking that is, be a moderator of information - we naturally organize any information by it's truth value (relational to our points of view, and thelemically, we could even say 'Wills'.) If spirits do or not exist objectively, this is still true either way. If Spirits are true, however, it also may suggest a wider relationship our quality of sentience plays in the universe, which can tell us something about the universe we objectively inhabit. That's another way of looking where I am at in my broader view.

I sort of fumbled the formatting in this post so I am going to address the rest of your post in the next reply.