Thelemic Materialism (Thelemic Philosophy)
-
@Frater 639 said
"Let's keep it going - this is FUN!
."Okay let's do it
"
Ok. I understand what you mean here. I'm using this definition from Wikipedia, when I refer to objectivity:
Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "mind-independent"—that is, existing freely or independently from a mind (from the thoughts, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject).
I think "pure" objectivity is just as spooky-ooky (or whatever) as goblins. We can theorize that something exists without perception, but that's about it. And, as you pointed out, we Kant tell for sure without involving subjectivity.
"Objectivity can be understood as 'without bias' how I use the term. I think the Wiki definition is reasonable, especially for journalism and science. "Objective" is also a hot button word, many philosophers don't like the term and quite often college students get irate when it's used. So we can look at objective as 'without bias' and subjective as 'with bias'.
"
Well, I don't want to get caught up in semantics, but I think intersubjectivity is the proper term: where the relations and perspectives are shared. Based on perception, my "truth" (read "assertation of event/evaluation of phenomena involving the senses") is mine, your truth is yours, and our truth is ours. Outside perception nothing exists, and if it does, you cannot prove it."Well, it depends upon how it is used. Personally I do not like the term intersubjectivity because the word removes the 'dialectic' which 'objective/subjective' contains - and I love dialectics.
"
Of course, that MYSTERY to me is "potential." So, instead of moving it into a three value system, I like to break it down this way:
Truth = subjective phenomenon multiplied by magnitude (degree of belief in subjective phenomenon) minus intersubjective phenomenon multiplied by magnitude.
Basically, this "subjective minus intersubjective" value balances the "inner" and "outer" phenomenon - when things become balanced, there is no difference between "within and without".
See Hobson's AIM model, if you want to see the medical basis used for this formula. Note: Hobson's model and further research (his books) have a lot to do with non-linear states of consciousness, "interior" activity, etc., not just dreaming.
www.willcov.com/bio-consciousness/diagrams/Consciousness%20Model%20-%20Hobsons%20AIM%20Model.htm
Anyway, this is all divided by duration (time) that this "truth" belief value is held."
Hmmm, for fun I will put my ternary process into Thelema and Liber Al
NUIT = the Objective Material Universe, our 'shared' environment. a Continual counting of '1' to infinity which contains no final number (1,1,1 am I not the ox, and none by the book?). The objective universe is ONE environment for ALL (points, Hadit). We all have access to this ONE environment and the information in this one environment is shared by all. This is the 'world' of the objective sciences who study the ONE environment. Science is nothing more than the worship of NUIT. We can see than an infinite and eternal material universe is also a shared MYSTERY for ALL but yet continually reveals new discovery and understanding that becomes our shared 'objective' understanding of Nuit through the progress of the physical sciences.
HADIT = the individual Subjective (and spiritual!) universe. The world of feelings, visions, dreams, ideals but also delusion, deception.(there is great danger in me). Our private universe is HIDDEN from all other points of view. So while your subjective universe is MYSTERY to me, my subjective universe is TRUTH to me (and me only). Hadit as ONE point brings ART to the SCIENCE of the physical universe (Nuit) and therefore we can understand the relationship of ART and SCIENCE to be a child of the relationship between NUIT and HADIT in our progress as a species.
Using Liber Al as the metaphor here, we can see that the objective universe (Nuit) is nothing more than an infinite number of points (Hadit, sentience) supporting her existence through the progress of the arts and sciences historically speaking.
So we have the 'dialectic' in thelema between Nuit and Hadit, Objective and Subjective, Art and Science, both of which are contained in each of us through all of us.
So what about the third value in Liber Al?
RHK = Mystery, potential manifesting NOW in our historical progress, struggling within the dialectic of Nuit and Hadit, indeed becoming aware of this dialectic as a species. RHK is BOTH Nuit and Hadit, at once. Or, Mystery is BOTH True, AND False, simultaneously.
There may not be 'pure' objectivity - but there is certainly 'pure' mystery.
"
I'll PM you the actual proof that I've written, if you'd like to see it."
Please do! I actually work with dialectics as a platform developer for mediation and conflict resolution. I am quite big on them and love all ternary systems that address them (hence my fascination with Liber Al)
"
Anyway, these individual "truth" values are either shared or not. The values that are shared between POVs are intersubjective truths (that can also last a given duration). These truths could be considered "objective," but, again, I think the more definitive term would be intersubjective."
yes, that is quite the common preference, but it is just semantics. I just dont like intersubjectivity because there is no balance with 'interobjectivity' and I am a freak on perfect couplings
"
Then, going further, the negative side, or value "left over", that are not shared truths, or even individual truths, are "potential" IMHO."
well to me MYSTERY is when there is no distinction between personal and shared, the true and the false, art and science - they are both simultaneous and there 'is no truth here' until Nuit and Hadit can become unraveled and distinguished by us as a species (which according to this model, never ends - a continual Mystery that continually reveals science and inspires art).
"
So we have: Potential, Intersubjective, Subjective.
Nuit, Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Hadit.
Outside/around the head, heart, genitalia.
See Liber V.Just another interpretation, I guess. What do you think? "
Well it's ternary and we are referencing similar things, I just have a preference for ternary systems that have the formula of 1 + - 1 = 0, or Yin + Yang = Wu Chi/Tao (or something like this). I like to see the 'dance of the opposites' in a ternary system so we can see that the synthesis, child, or even parent of the coupling. I accept this as a formula of the universe that is shared and objective, just hidden and mysterious until it is discovered.
The Subject and Object dance is still a real phenomenon. But like you said it is semantics, and I know that 'objective' is often a polarized word that many Kant stand seeing. But I think it's because we are holding the ideal of 'objective' (which by nature is almost never reachable) as the actuality so I also understand the problem many have with it.
Ironically, in ternary logic, we have 1 = true, 2 = false, and 0 = unknown - which coincidentally supports the Nuit Hadit attribution I am applying as well as in order of chapters in liber al
- even cooler (lol projection by myself) in the philosophy of math, the ordering and counting principle of the numbers 1 and 2 also are truly 'objective' manifestations of this principle. I can explain if your interested.I've probably done a rush job of explaining this model, and not the most complete summary, but I can go on here if your interested. It's actually a very neat and nested process, to me of course
- but I love being able to explain it to someone else 'objectively' as a practice. Ha! -
@Los said
"
In contrast, when you leap to supernatural conclusions, you're not being objective at all because nothing about the evidence leads to those conclusions, and the thing that's driving those conclusions is your preference for the ooky-spooky. If you objectively examined the evidence, you wouldn't be having this problem."Lol, this is both true and false
Problem is Los is that while this is true in one sense, it's invalid and inconsistent when you're using a bivalent True vs False framework. One can very easily have a profound mystical experience, say they experience leaving the body, floating around the room, and then return to their body. Just like your hunger metaphor, one can assume, objectively, that they left their body and then returned. Any assumptions about what this means can all be possible, and be kept in the 'unknown' category, but objectively, someone can still say that they left their body because they looked down from the top of the ceiling and saw their body lying there. Fyi, I can say this. This would happen to me quite often as a child, and I have clear memories of the experience to this day. It's probably what lead me to explore these kind of things because at a young age, I can certainly say I left my body and returned. I dont know what the 'I' is or how this was possible, but I do know sir that I left my body!
"
Hint: the proper practice of Thelema is learning how to objectively look at your True Self. Training your mind to look at all issues objectively is part of the training."
I dont know if this is the proper practice of thelema or not, but I actually AGREE with this and there is an experience of 'pure objectivity' about self and universe that is available. Ironically however, I can say this only from experience!
EDIT: When one can see themselves objectively, this is only because they can also see themselves subjectively at the same time while observing the MYSTERY or third value
-
@ldfriend56 said
"One can very easily have a profound mystical experience, say they experience leaving the body, floating around the room, and then return to their body. Just like your hunger metaphor, one can assume, objectively, that they left their body and then returned."
No, the objective conclusion is that the person has had an experience that seemed like he was leaving his body.
This is where the comparison to hunger breaks down: "hunger" is a label for an entirely internal feeling. Paying attention to one's internal feelings is more than sufficient for demonstrating that one is hungry. But "leaving the body and traveling around" isn't (supposed to be) a label for a similar kind of internal feeling or daydream -- the implication of the label is that one really has gone outside of the body and is capable of perceiving things (like, say, things in the next room) that, under a typical understanding of the way stuff works, that person shouldn't be able to perceive by sitting still with his eyes closed.
If all you mean is "I had a dream where it seemed like I left my body," I wouldn't bother questioning that at all. But if what you're saying is that you really did, honestly and truly, leave your body, then just observing your own experience doesn't furnish you with sufficient evidence to make that claim.
If you really left your body, then you would be able to "astral travel" into the house next door where a neutral third party has printed two random words from a book on a piece of paper, read the words, return to your body, and report the words to another neutral third party who stays with your body. You would be able to do this over and over again, to the degree that it would be obvious that this isn't some daydream you had -- it would be crystal clear that you really did leave your body and really were gaining new information that you couldn't have had otherwise.
But nobody can do that. Because "astral travel" seems to be the rough equivalent of having a strong daydream.
-
The Ganzfeld experiments have demonstrated exactly this repeatedly.
The current objection among the scientific community is that it challenges the materialistic paradigm they believe in.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"The Ganzfeld experiments have demonstrated exactly this repeatedly."
No, they haven't. They're ill-designed and stupid.
These are the ridiculous "tests" where subjects try to demonstrate psychic powers by babbling until something they say seems like it resembles something in a videotape playing in another room or something. It's utterly ridiculous. By having them try to "see" something with so many variables, open to interpretation, the "experiment" is worthless.
Here's a good revision: put the subjects in a room, and next door are twenty signs numbered one through twenty. Have someone go into the other room and turn all of the signs around except one (so that only one number is visible). Have all the test subjects try to guess that one number.
Do that thousands of times. Call me when you get something that seems like anything more than rolling a d20 for days.....
-
Even when the tests have been redesigned by sceptics, they continue to perform better than possible by chance. You're just not capable of being objective, because of your beliefs.
And, by the way, the experiments don't resemble what you imagine. It's just another example of you having an a priori judgment of something you haven't even researched.
-
@Los said
"
No, the objective conclusion is that the person has had an experience that seemed like he was leaving his body."
In my case, the experience was not leaving my body, but returning to it. In the mornings when I would awake, I would see my body sleeping in bed next to my little brother. I would feel a 'pull' in my stomach and float down until I entered my body.
"
This is where the comparison to hunger breaks down: "hunger" is a label for an entirely internal feeling. Paying attention to one's internal feelings is more than sufficient for demonstrating that one is hungry. But "leaving the body and traveling around" isn't (supposed to be) a label for a similar kind of internal feeling or daydream -- the implication of the label is that one really has gone outside of the body and is capable of perceiving things (like, say, things in the next room) that, under a typical understanding of the way stuff works, that person shouldn't be able to perceive by sitting still with his eyes closed."
I have no idea what your talking about. I would look down in waking consciousness and see my body and float down to it. There was no dreaming, I was awake and I could also feel the sensation returning to my body.
"
If all you mean is "I had a dream where it seemed like I left my body," I wouldn't bother questioning that at all. But if what you're saying is that you really did, honestly and truly, leave your body, then just observing your own experience doesn't furnish you with sufficient evidence to make that claim."
I dont need evidence to make the claim, I experienced it. to say ' it appeared like I was entering my body' is just as relevant as saying it appears that I am typing this sentence right now. yes it certainly does appear that way when it actually appears that way.
"
If you really left your body, then you would be able to "astral travel" into the house next door where a neutral third party has printed two random words from a book on a piece of paper, read the words, return to your body, and report the words to another neutral third party who stays with your body. You would be able to do this over and over again, to the degree that it would be obvious that this isn't some daydream you had -- it would be crystal clear that you really did leave your body and really were gaining new information that you couldn't have had otherwise."
I have no idea if this was 'astral travel' or not, and I did not have control over it, but I was able to observe my room, my self, and my brother as exactly as they were in the room.
"
But nobody can do that. Because "astral travel" seems to be the rough equivalent of having a strong daydream."Lol to be objective, you mean "Because "astral travel" *appears to me * to be the rough equivalent of having a strong daydream".
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"the tests [...] perform better than possible by chance."
Yeah sure, whatever you say, buddy.
One of my favorite mockeries of this kind of nonsense was written by Robert Todd Carroll in his article "What if Dean Radin's Right?" [Radin being a wackaloo who supports this kind of nonsense, of course]
A few choice excerpts that sum up my feelings on the subject as well:
@Robert Todd Carroll said
"The evidence Radin presents, however, is little more than a hodgepodge of occult statistics. Unable to find a single person who can correctly guess a three-letter word or move a pencil an inch without trickery, the psi researchers have resorted to doing complex statistical analyses of data. In well-designed studies they assume that whenever they have data that, by some statistical formula, is not likely due to chance, they attribute the outcome to psi. A well-designed study is one that carefully controls for such things as cheating, sensory leakage (unintentional transfer of information by non-psychic means), inadequate randomization, and other factors that might lead to an artifact (something that looks like it's due to psi when it's actually due to something else).
The result of this enormous data that Radin cites is that there is statistical evidence (for what it's worth) that indicates (however tentatively) that some very weak psi effects are present (so weak that not a single individual who participates in a successful study has any inkling of possessing psychic power). Nevertheless, Radin thinks it is appropriate to speculate about the enormous implications of psi for biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy, religion, medicine, technology, warfare, police work, business, and politics. Never mind that nobody has any idea as to how psi might work. That is a minor detail to someone who can write with a straight face (apparently) that:
@Dean Radin said" lots of independent, simple glimpses of the future may one day innocently crash the future. It's not clear what it means to "crash the future," but it doesn't sound good. (297)"
No, it certainly doesn't sound good. But, as somebody once said, "the future will be better tomorrow."
[...]
As noted above, in The Conscious Universe, Radin uses statistics and meta-analysis to prove that psychic phenomena really do exist even if those who have the experiences in the labs are unaware of them. Statistical data show that the world has gone psychic, according to the latest generation of parapsychologists. You may be unconscious of it, but your mind is affecting random number generators all over the world as you read this. The old psychic stuff—thinking about aunt Hildie moments before she calls to tell you to bugger off—is now demonstrated to be true by statistical methods that were validated in 1937 by Burton Camp and meta-validated by Radin 60 years later when he asserted that meta-analysis was the replication parapsychologists had been looking for. The only difference is that now when you think of aunt Hildie it might be moments before she calls her car mechanic and that, too, may be linked to activity in your mind that you are unaware of."
The lawls come hot and heavy when the subject is insane tripe written by people who make grandiose claims on the back of a handful of number games they play. It really is a trip. Full article: www.skepdic.com/essays/radin.html
-
@ldfriend56 said
"I dont need evidence to make the claim, I experienced it. to say ' it appeared like I was entering my body' is just as relevant as saying it appears that I am typing this sentence right now. yes it certainly does appear that way when it actually appears that way."
Right, let's say you seemed to be typing a sentence into a word processor, and then you go to bed, but when you wake up the next day, the sentence is gone. Word processor is still up, but no sentence is on it. No signs that anyone has been in your house. No signs that the computer has experienced any kind of "crash" or "glitch." What you thought that you did the night before has left absolutely no trace at all on anything. Now you have some reason to be skeptical that you actually did write that sentence, even though it seemed that you did.
Let's say that it also seems you can leave your body. But when you do this, you can't go and obtain any information -- at all -- that you didn't already know or couldn't have guessed on your own. You've not only got grounds to be skeptical that you really left your body, but if you seriously can never obtain this kind of information when you "astral project," you have absolutely no reason to think you actually left your body, no matter how convincing it may have seemed to you.
You disagree? Then astral project into a room where a neutral third party is waiting with random words printed on a piece of paper, read them, and report them to the other netural third party who waits with your body. Report the correct words and do this several times.
What's that? No? Gee, what a surprise....
-
So statistics are no longer valid when you dont like the results.
How objective.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"So statistics are no longer valid when you dont like the results."
You know the old saying, "Figures don't lie but liars figure." Statistics are very open to manipulation, and that's just when conducting very simple kinds of opinion polls or collecting data on crime. Nevermind performing complicated meta-analysis of data and demonstrating that guessing games might, if we run a large enough number of guessing games, produce results that are a tiny bit higher than what we might assume by chance.
What in the world do you think that demonstrates?
Look how paltry this stuff is. This is your "evidence" for the outrageous claims you make and the outlandish beliefs you accept as given fact?
It's a joke. Like I said, name the two words printed on a piece of paper. Over and over again. Name the correct number out of twenty. Over and over again. If someone could do something like that even half the time or a third of the time, it would be incredible. But of course it doesn't happen because this stuff is all malarkey.
I realize you want to believe it, and this flimsy stuff gives you the excuse you need to pretend that your make believe games are actually doing something.
Good luck with that.
-
Even the most hardcore, objective sceptics who don't believe in remote viewing admit that there is an unexplained statistical anomaly at play here.
My point is that you're a biased fanatic.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Even the most hardcore, objective sceptics who don't believe in remote viewing admit that there is an unexplained statistical anomaly at play here."
Call me severely skeptical of that, but even if I were to grant you that something (incredibly minor) is happening that cannot be explained, what do you think that would demonstrate?
It's not exactly an easy jump from "We don't know what this is" to "people have psychic powers" or even "Magic goblins grant my wishes."
-
Semmelweis demonstrated a statistical correlation between hand washing and hospital survival rates decades before Pasteur demonstrated that germs exist.
Scientists are the ones discovering new stuff. Fanatics are the ones saying it can't be done.
I don't care whether remote viewing is true, or not. I just object to you pretending to know the truth, and to pretend you're a scientist. The universe is to big to justify such hubris.
-
I asked you a question. Even if I were to grant that something minor is happening that we cannot explain right now, what do you think that would demonstrate?
-
That information can be transmitted in ways other than the experiment prevented. It could demonstrate telepathy, precognition, or something else.
Regardless, it ain't chance.
We just don't know.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"We just don't know."
Correct. Even if the experiments actually indicate what some readings of the data might suggest -- and it's a big if -- the most that they would demonstrate is "we just don't know" what's actually going on.
It doesn't make any supernatural claims even slightly more likely to be true.
In logic, this kind of fallacy is called an "argument from ignorance." Just because we don't know something, it doesn't support any particular claim. Witness, for example, Creationists who try to find things that evolution can't explain, thinking that if they can demonstrate the existence of something that cannot be currently explained, it supports their supernatural ideas.
But "we just don't know" can never support a claim. Just like not being able to explain something in biology doesn't make creationism any more likely to be true, not being able to explain some statistical anomaly (which may or may not exist) in guessing games doesn't make any supernatural claims any more likely to be true.
-
Well, I'm not trying to convince you to believe in something, so that's irrelevant.
Now, if you were alive between when Semmelweis and Pasteur did their main contributions, you would be correct to say:
We need more evidence
There's a statistical anomaly here
I haven't seen definitive proof of germsBut a Baffoon to say:
Germs do not exist
Nobody has good reason to believe in germsWhen you say the first things, you can have your mind changed. When you say the second things, you're being a fanatic.
The world will go on being what it is, regardless of you or my silly opinions. Skeptics and scientists are focused on discovering what that world is. Fanatics are busy worrying about making everyone believe the same as them.
You're a fanatic. Not a skeptic. And as long as you go around acting like one, I'm gonna keep pointing it out.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"But a Baffoon to say:
Germs do not exist
Nobody has good reason to believe in germs"Before there was sufficient evidence for germs, nobody had good reason to believe that they existed. The time to believe a claim is when the evidence is there for it, and as you've adequately demonstrated over the last few posts, these guessing-game experiments aren't evidence for any claim.
EDIT: And to anticipate your likely next line, of course it's fine for people to do experiments to try to demonstrate the existence of germs or magic or whatever. But nobody -- including the people performing the experiments -- has sufficient reason to accept the claims until these experiments generate evidence for those claims.
"You're a fanatic."
Oh, please. It's not being "fanatical" to not accept outlandish claims on the basis of the flimsy crap you've been pointing to.
It's also not being "fanatical" to point out that nobody is justified in using the flimsy crap you've been pointing to as evidence of any of the wildly outlandish claims that are routinely discussed on this forum as if they were self-evident fact.
-
"Before there was sufficient evidence for germs, nobody had good reason to believe that they existed. The time to believe a claim is when the evidence is there for it, and as you've adequately demonstrated over the last few posts, these guessing-game experiments aren't evidence for any claim."
There was always sufficient evidence for germs as long as germs existed. People just hadn't noticed the evidence yet. There's a difference between what is, and what we happen to notice.
Semmelweis noticed a statistical correlation. He ended up saving lots of lives at a hospital because of it. He had sufficient evidence. But the scientific community didn't consider it sufficient.
"Sufficient evidence" is therefore subjective.
"Oh, please. It's not being "fanatical" to not accept outlandish claims on the basis of the flimsy crap you've been pointing to."
You're entitled to your own opinion. You're free to not accept anything you don't personally have sufficient evidence for.
"It's also not being "fanatical" to point out that nobody is justified in using the flimsy crap you've been pointing to as evidence of any of the wildly outlandish claims that are routinely discussed on this forum as if they were self-evident fact."
You're right. A more accurate term would be "dogmatic".
You're peddling your own dogma.