Some Liber Tzaddi questions
-
-
Nearly all of the words are anti-Mars (or weak Mars) words: weak, timid, cowardly, tearful are pretty clear on this. The other two are the same rough feel. - As an Aries-themed work, this isn't surprising.
-
@Ash said
"Fantasy? Why would Heru-Ra-Ha bring us fantasy? Is there an antiquated or obscure meaning I'm missing to this word?"
Yes, it means imagination, the ability to create mental imagery. (It's still an odd word in this context, IMO, but the writer was obviously into alliteration here.)
-
@Ash said
"
"21. Light, Life, Love; Force, Fantasy, Fire; these do I bring you: mine hands are full of these."
Fantasy? Why would Heru-Ra-Ha bring us fantasy? Is there an antiquated or obscure meaning I'm missing to this word?
"I understand it as the power of re-birth, continually coming into being.
consider the Esoteric Meaning of the 24th path of Tree of Life, Nun: "The Imaginative Consciousness. It provides an Image to all created things that have an appearance, in a Form fitting to each." -
@Jim Eshelman said
"Hmm. I was thinking about where the question comes from. I suspect you think that there is something unreal about fantasy. On the one hand, imagination is the capacity to forge very substantial things in Yetzirah. On the other hand... material reality comes about much the same way."
Is "fantasy" basically what is created by imagination? Could you help me out with a good definition of "fantasy?" I understand what you're getting at but I feel like I'm missing something that ties it together.
Also: thank you all for your comments.
93, 93/93.
-
@Ash said
"Is "fantasy" basically what is created by imagination? Could you help me out with a good definition of "fantasy?" I understand what you're getting at but I feel like I'm missing something that ties it together."
-
Being able to separate fantasy from reality is very important.
Fantasy has the power to move us. It is the realm of unbridled imagination. Often times our fantasies are the manifestations of subconscious desires and motives.
Sometimes though, our fantasies sweep us away. We become distracted by them. In the substance of each fantasy may be found the true will, but glamor blinds us from being able to perceive it clearly. So blinded are we that we continue indulging in layering fantasies until the True Will is lost and obscured.
There's been a lot of talk about this lately here.
@Jim Eshleman said
"I suspect you think that there is something unreal about fantasy. On the one hand, imagination is the capacity to forge very substantial things in Yetzirah. On the other hand... material reality comes about much the same way."
Could you explain what you mean by this? This statement doesn't seem to make much sense. What do you mean "forge very substantial things in yetzirah"? Why do you say "material reality comes about much the same way"?
Of course a fantasy is "real" to the person experiencing. It's unreal though in the sense that it doesn't exist in some other dimension apart from this one. I say it's important for a person to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality because it's very easy to cross the line into delusion. If we are here defining fantasy, we might as well define delusion.
Acting out fantasies on the material plane, that's another thread altogether.
-
@chioa khan said
"Of course a fantasy is "real" to the person experiencing. It's unreal though in the sense that it doesn't exist in some other dimension apart from this one. I say it's important for a person to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality because it's very easy to cross the line into delusion. If we are here defining fantasy, we might as well define delusion."
This is a good point. I would frame it like this: under the interpretation of Thelema advanced on these forums, is it possible at all for a person to be deluded? If it is, how is a "delusion" defined, how is a delusion distinguished from the acts of imagination that supposedly create "real" things, and by what criteria can an individual distinguish (for himself or herself) the difference between delusions and imaginations in which they supposedly create "real" things?
-
@chioa khan said
"
@Jim Eshleman said
"I suspect you think that there is something unreal about fantasy. On the one hand, imagination is the capacity to forge very substantial things in Yetzirah. On the other hand... material reality comes about much the same way."Could you explain what you mean by this? This statement doesn't seem to make much sense. What do you mean "forge very substantial things in yetzirah"? Why do you say "material reality comes about much the same way"?"
Of coure it doesn't make sense to you. But... I've said it in simple language. Perhaps the piece you are missing is that each of the four Worlds consists ofactual substance, behaving in a particular way distinctive to that Word, and perceptible to those who have their perceptions away in that world.
I'm saying (in part) that the way one forges psychological objects out of psychological substance is fundamentally the same as the way one forges physical objects out of physical substance.
"Of course a fantasy is "real" to the person experiencing. It's unreal though in the sense that it doesn't exist in some other dimension apart from this one."
Suspecting that by "dimension" you mean the same thing that I mean by "World," tjhen you are mistaken. (But you already knew I'd say that, you are baiting me, and you're getting ready to cause a boatload of trouble again for which, in the end, I likely will have to take disagreeable steps.)
" I say it's important for a person to be able to distinguish fantasy from reality because it's very easy to cross the line into delusion. If we are here defining fantasy, we might as well define delusion."
The dictionary serves us well enough. Delusion is a wrong idea. It is error. The word is especially used to mean an intractible idea resistant to reason or evidence, such as the hobby horse you repeatedly ride to the party these days.
One can become deluded as easily from the misvaluation of perceptions of physical aspects of the universe as from the misvaluation of perceptions of the metaphysical aspects of the universe.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Delusion is a wrong idea. It is error."
Ok. And how do you, specifically, determine whether one of your ideas is a "delusion" or whether it is some "reality that you are forging on another World"?
I'm asking how you, personally, specifically, distinguish the two ("to you").
-
@Los said
"
@Jim Eshelman said
"Delusion is a wrong idea. It is error."Ok. And how do you, specifically, determine whether one of your ideas is a "delusion" or whether it is some "reality that you are forging on another World"?
I'm asking how you, personally, specifically, distinguish the two ("to you")."
That depends on the situation, of course. (This is NOT a short answer type of question.) Really, how does one determine whether or not one's perception of physical matters is delusional?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"Of coure it doesn't make sense to you."
That's because it was barely a sentence. It wouldn't have made sense to most people.
Or do you mean to suggest that I am so "beneath you" that I could never apprehend your true meaning? Sounds like you're saying the only people who "get it" will be in your little club.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Perhaps the piece you are missing is that each of the four Worlds consists ofactual substance, behaving in a particular way distinctive to that Word, and perceptible to those who have their perceptions away in that world."
Yes, I get that. The piece I think you are missing is that the word "world" is just a nice convenience. It doesn't mean that on some other planet, or in some other dimension, there is an alternately "real" environment inhabited by creates and forces, the same way that this one is. When moving "through the worlds" you don't actually "travel" anywhere.
@Jim Eshelman said
"I'm saying (in part) that the way one forges psychological objects out of psychological substance is fundamentally the same as the way one forges physical objects out of physical substance."
Again, I'm not sure what you mean with this sentence. Could you be more explicit?
I especially don't know what you mean when you say "forge physical objects".
When I play my guitar, I'm not "making" the notes. I'm not actually "creating" anything. The sounds are a reaction of waves moving through the air, vibrations. The perception of them is made up in my brain, etc. All the matter and energy is already there. This is more like "interacting" in my environment, than "creating" it as I move along.
Even my thoughts are an extension of my physical environment. They are not "forged of nothing". It all has to do with chemicals and neurons and circumstance. All possible ideas and inspirations are just a reaction to the stimulus.
@Jim Eshelman said
"Suspecting that by "dimension" you mean the same thing that I mean by "World," tjhen you are mistaken. (But you already knew I'd say that, you are baiting me, and you're getting ready to cause a boatload of trouble again for which, in the end, I likely will have to take disagreeable steps.)"
Mistaken how? What makes you right, and all these other people wrong? If you could prove such a thing, you'd have won the nobel prize and made big headlines by now.
No one is baiting you for anything. That's paranoid. You don't have to respond. There you go threatening to censor me because I dare to advance an unpopular opinion. Funny how you consider it "causing a buttload of trouble" to subject these ideas to even the smallest bit of scrutiny. The mere idea of a challenge to your perspective is offensive to you, but that's not my fault. Don't put it on me because you can't think of a way to respond that doesn't fall back on your usual pattern of behavior. I can't believe someone as "initiated" as you hasn't found a better way to interact with people like me and Los by now.
Like it or not, the emerging perspective of reality - based on the knowledge we currently have available - is a materialist one. With or without me here on this forum, that's just "how it is". It's like evolution. You can deny it all you want, but it doesn't change anything. I don't have to be here stating this, for it to be apparent.
@Jim Eshelman said
"The dictionary serves us well enough. Delusion is a wrong idea. It is error. The word is especially used to mean an intractible idea resistant to reason or evidence, such as the hobby horse you repeatedly ride to the party these days.
One can become deluded as easily from the misvaluation of perceptions of physical aspects of the universe as from the misvaluation of perceptions of the metaphysical aspects of the universe."
Delusion is the wrong idea for what? I think it's an appropriate word for what goes on here. Especially by the definition you just gave. Resistant to reason, and evidence? Well that sounds like a lot of the stories we read on here. Ghosts, magic powers, past lives, etc.
Nice little twist you put on the end there. As if to say that people who think like me are the real deluded ones. You may disagree but some of us don't believe there is any such thing as a "metaphysical" aspect to the universe. Thats a word that we humans use when we are especially ignorant of very normal, very natural processes. These things often times become "demystified" as humans "figure it out". You'll notice that we no longer believe lightning to be caused by demons. We know the sun does not "die and go away" when it sets.
We've "figured out" so many things by now, that to still think that there are worlds inhabited by goblins is a little silly. It's a fantasy.
@Jim Eshelman said
"That depends on the situation, of course. (This is NOT a short answer type of question.) Really, how does one determine whether or not one's perception of physical matters is delusional?"
Are you seriously asking me how I personally determine fantasy from reality? It's not that hard, I'd be glad to offer you some pointers if you need the help. You correctly point out that the delusion occurs in our perceptions, however I feel the need to reiterate that all matters are "physical matters".
Sorry to Ash for "hijacking" this thread. It seems to have grown from a discussion of the book, to a discussion of what is meant by the word "fantasy".
-
@chioa khan said
"Or do you mean to suggest that I am so "beneath you" that I could never apprehend your true meaning? Sounds like you're saying the only people who "get it" will be in your little club.
"True as that might be, it isn't what I meant. I meant that you've locked your mind against the fundamental spiritual reality of the universe, and there fore you're going to continue not to understand statements such as this.
BTW, I'm not going to continue to engage you in this incarnation any more than on others. As an anti-magical, anti-spirituality bigot, I'm not clear why you're even here on a site that is first and foremost about spiritual, magical matters; but I won't chase you off until you inevitably run things into the ground again.
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@chioa khan said
"Or do you mean to suggest that I am so "beneath you" that I could never apprehend your true meaning? Sounds like you're saying the only people who "get it" will be in your little club. "True as that might be, it isn't what I meant. I meant that you've locked your mind against the fundamental spiritual reality of the universe, and there fore you're going to continue not to understand statements such as this.
BTW, I'm not going to continue to engage you in this incarnation any more than on others. As an anti-magical, anti-spirituality bigot, I'm not clear why you're even here on a site that is first and foremost about spiritual, magical matters; but I won't chase you off until you inevitably run things into the ground again."
Jim, by the phrase "in this incarnation" do you mean: the new forum-incarnation, i.e. new username, for an old ex forum member?
-
@Jim Eshelman said
"
@chioa khan said
"Or do you mean to suggest that I am so "beneath you" that I could never apprehend your true meaning? Sounds like you're saying the only people who "get it" will be in your little club. "True as that might be, it isn't what I meant. I meant that you've locked your mind against the fundamental spiritual reality of the universe, and there fore you're going to continue not to understand statements such as this."
Your statement is not authoritative. There is no fundamental spiritual reality. Conversely I could say you have closed your mind to the fundamental material reality of all things. I suppose time will tell which perspective will win out.
Your argument resembles that of a christian person who refuses to look at the factual basis for evolution. Apparently they don't like being told Jesus never existed either. Nothing you say or think will change the facts.
It doesn't seem like your about to admit you could be wrong about anything. It makes me wonder what makes you so confident that you possess this super power of infallibility.
"BTW, I'm not going to continue to engage you in this incarnation any more than on others. As an anti-magical, anti-spirituality bigot, I'm not clear why you're even here on a site that is first and foremost about spiritual, magical matters; but I won't chase you off until you inevitably run things into the ground again."
Bigot? Oh come on James. That's ridiculous. This is like any christian person who insists that gay marriage is an attack on their values. It's like postulating a non-existent war on christmas. Just like Fox (faux) news does.
I am actually incredibly interested in Magick, with a K. That is the philosophy advanced by Aleister Crowley. He went to great lengths to define what he meant. Have you ever actually read Book 4?
Not only does he say that he chose this special spelling to distinguish his new philosophy from the kind of unscientific and faith-based magic which you promote, but he also defined it very clearly with phrases like "The discovery of the True Will" and "causing change in conformity to the will". Where on earth do you get the assumption that I have to subscribe to all your new age clap trap in order to take an interest?
I always assumed you were here propagating Crowley's philosophy of magick. I was a bit slow to pick up on the fact that you are not interested in Crowley's real philosophy at all.
Now before you accuse me of calling you a fraud, or attacking you, just be sure that I know this is only my opinion. But it's an opinion that I feel I arrived at objectively and without personal bias or prejudice. I wanted to believe you, trust me. I know you certainly believe yourself, so no hard feelings ok?
Thelema actually has nothing to do with practical magic; or paganism; or any new age clap trap. I interpret Crowley's words to suggest that Thelema deals only with the discovery and execution of the true will. Causing changes in conformity with that will, and maybe spreading the message of liberty and freedom for those who are so inclined (it's certainly not a moral imperative). I'm very much interested in this thelema, and in magick, but not at all interested in what you are trying to pass off as thelema. You can understand my confusion.
Since when is it a requirement for people to buy into any religious or spiritualist notion in order to practice thelema?
Perhaps you should think about changing the name/platform of your organization away from Thelema and Crowley, so that you can avoid having to deal with people like me and Los in the future. I only expect that many more people will become materialist or atheist with the passage of time. A lot of the ideas and practices you promote seem awful superfluous and unnecessary to the practice of thelema. The only thing thelemic about it is the imagery and themes you have chosen to display.
Maybe you could call it "temple of Jim's creation", or "temple of generic new age philosophies", or something else like that?
-
Danica, the former.
