Secret Chiefs and attainment
-
I asked you a simple question first.
Do you accept the existence of things we have no evidence of?
Or have we already discovered everything?
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I asked you a simple question first.
Do you accept the existence of things we have no evidence of?
Or have we already discovered everything?"
I accept that there are things that we haven't yet discovered, and I accept that claim on the basis of evidence: the entire history of the human search for knowledge has continually revealed new things to learn, and, inductively, we are more than justified in concluding on the back of that massive amount of evidence that there will (functionally) always be more to learn.
-
@Los said
"
In the case of these Secret Buddies of yours, no one's ever detected them, and therefore nobody has any reason to think that they're real. If ever humanity does detect them, then we'll have reason to accept that they exist."
To put a slight fly in your ointment:
Crowley detected them, in fact his whole philosophy, of which you claim to be a follower, is based on just such a claim.
In fact various people have claimed to detect them, whether you accept those claims or not though is down to you.
It could possibly be that these people have simply detected something that you yourself don't have the capacity to detect, by dint of not having developed the faculty's necessary?Not so long ago I was pretty much a nihilist/skeptic, I simply thought that all these 'goblins' and whatnot were patently absurd, stands to reason doesn't it? Anyone can tell you that there are no goblins!
Even though I had had Out-of-body-experiences and seen "Ghosts", I had written them off as hallucinations.
Two things made me not so sure, one was my first experience of Kundalini rising, it was actually happening, and that in itself was a revelation. The second was the Vision of Adonai, I had no idea that it was both as literal and as unexpectedly commonplace as it was.
Now you will probably write these off as my own fantasies or delusions. It doesn't matter really what you think because those experiences have left an indelible mark on my life. I'm not saying that these things confirm to me the existence of secret chiefs, but they do confirm to me that there is more going on in the Universe than my senses detect in the normal course of things.
Anyway, that's my two-pence. Back to Work.
-
@Los said
"
I don't really have to spell this out, do I?If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is a fact, then the statement is demonstrated to be false (since there would actually be a fact, in contradiction to the statement).
If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is an interpretation, then it's just somebody's arbitrary way of looking at things: it's not a fact, and nobody has any reason to think it's correct."
Do I have to spell it out for you? Your God Nietzche (whom you oft quote) said this. Ergo, he meant it exactly as you interpret it. Ergo, it applies to all your beliefs rooted in Nietzche. Ergo, no more hold water do you.
-
How do you define a goblin?
Seems funny, to me, that there should be a definition for something which does not exist.
Yet, at the very heart of a matter, without a definition one can make no argument.
The statement "Goblins do not exist" is a logical fallacy.
A more accurate statement:
"I have no experience with what I define as a goblin."
It is about taking responsibility for your belief system. -
@Archaeus said
"Crowley detected them, in fact his whole philosophy, of which you claim to be a follower, is based on just such a claim.
"This is their detectable effect on the world. Some report an experience of the phenomena of Secret Chiefs and then write things that captivate the mind to the point of our coming here almost everyday to discuss them.
As I said, because of the quality of information presented by those who claim to have an experience of this phenomena, I see no reason why the phenomena should not be investigated by any rational, interested person. Attempts to discredit a working hypothesis by accusations of "acceptance without proof" misunderstand, either willingly or ignorantly, the process of investigating a hypothesis, where an idea must be regarded as potentially true for any* legitimate *investigation and discovery to occur.
As to the possible results of investigating the phenomena of the experience of Secret Chiefs: If they are real, even in Los' strictly defined sense of the word "real," but have by definition simply hidden themselves from the masses, then I see no reason to think that they could not demonstrate their reality beyond the strictest doubt to those who by their work make themselves ready and worthy of an experience of their phenomena.
But the expectation that they would demonstrate their reality to any and all merely curious persons contradicts their primary description, which is "Secret," and thus contradicts the hypothesis itself.
Perhaps, in the end, it is simply offensive to the minds of some that proof should be given to some who are considered worthy by the purpose and quality of their work while others are left in the dark. Yet anyone who has ever wished the attention of a person in high demand faces the same restriction, as many, many others also desire the same attention. In the end, such people usually restrict their attention to those individuals whose purposes and qualities attract their own.
-
@Los said
"
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I asked you a simple question first.Do you accept the existence of things we have no evidence of?
Or have we already discovered everything?"
I accept that there are things that we haven't yet discovered, and I accept that claim on the basis of evidence: the entire history of the human search for knowledge has continually revealed new things to learn, and, inductively, we are more than justified in concluding on the back of that massive amount of evidence that there will (functionally) always be more to learn."
So we live in a universe with (functionally) infinite possibility. Do you accept that there exist things we may never be able to detect?
To answer your question. No, I disagree that no one had any good reason to accept the existence of radio waves before they were detected. Maxwell mathematically predicted radio waves decades before they were detected, as did Einstein with black holes (the existence if which we now are able to infer indirectly). They all had pretty good reasons for believing in the as yet undetected.
As history shows, countless great discoveries were guided by intuition, dreams, insight. Detection and confirmation often comes much later. It's a good thing the initial theorists didn't share your attitude. Einstein, for example, would have dismissed his teenage dream of a farmer electrocuting cows as nonsense, instead of letting it guide him to develop the theory of relativity.
-
Los' science lesson #2:
@Los said
"I asked you to name something you consider real that's not detectable (i.e. not capable of being detected, at all, ever)."
Pretty much every scientific theory. They are not assertoric. However, I consider many of them real based on overwhelming evidence that supports the model -- see the theory of relativity, music theory, etc. But the "force" or "factor(s) infinite & unknown" beyond the model or theory itself is not detectable. Unless you want to consider ideas and imagination to be "real."
"Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown"
Also:
POTENTIAL.
As in, the potential for you to suppliment your admitted unfamiliarity with aspects of science with more education is real. It depends on your decision whether or not you raise your awareness.
Also, the future. We can represent it, but it never is the present -- therefore, it can never be detected in the way you speak of.
You leave out the most important question: detectable by whom? Certain people can detect certain things under certain conditions.
I observe a person with a certain behavior that is annoying to many other people, but that person with the annoying behavior doesn't recognize how other people perceive them. Happens with kids all the time.
Anyway,** the absence of the consideration of perspective is the fatal flaw to your arguments** -- and I suspect it is because you haven't studied the difference and details of qualitative and quantitative evidence and how scientists (not rhetoricians) use it. Observation is directly affected by awareness and so is data gathering! To go further, if you're not aware and you can't detect it -- doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not real. You seem to already agree with that.
Scientists make models according to probability and patterns. From wikipedia:
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force."
My bold.
Experience HAS explanatory power? No!
The Secret Chiefs are a working model. If you choose to work with the model, go for it. If not, and you're not interested in investigating these phenomenon -- don't. Not everybody is science-minded obviously and I'm sure glad that didn't stop Edison from playing with that wacky electricity. But many people like to make biased assertions without putting in the work! Again, to familiarize you with simple scientific observation (observations are qualitative data as we learned in lesson #1):
"In falsificationism, an unfalsifiable and thus unscientific theory is not necessarily intrinsically false or inappropriate, since metaphysical theories might be true or contain truth, but one cannot know for sure. Simply, to be scientific, a theory must entail at least one observation, which may or may not be the case."
Again, observations are called** qualitative **data. If we have scientists correlating related data through quantitative evidence (some amount of correlating factors with the same considered variables), we can come to a consensus and a working scientific theory. It takes multiple perspectives "looking in the same direction" to be accepted as reality within that group consciousness.
And when most people truly start to understand this and train themselves (and not be taught what is correct to believe by the media, academia, etc.), watch out...
Also, we should get your definition of "real," so we can stop playing the semantic games. You unknowingly include subjective perspectives and observations as evidence and then say subjective perspectives aren't "real." It's getting old.
Anyway, the theory is real but *what it truly represents *is not detectable in the material sense of the way you mean "real." What is behind the theory is as "real" as a Goblin -- but if the details of what the theory predicts is useful to the person using it, who cares if the Secret Chiefs gave them the telegraph or God or just plain ol' perserverance. The point is that the telegraph revolutionized communication and it came through some sort of inspiration:
"What hath God wrought?" -- first telegraph message
In short, we should probably stop investigating because we all know God made the sun to revolve around the earth -- the loudest, unscientific fanatics are always right! -- so, obviously, the case is closed.
-
@Takamba said
"
@Los said
"
I don't really have to spell this out, do I?If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is a fact, then the statement is demonstrated to be false (since there would actually be a fact, in contradiction to the statement).
If the statement "There are no facts, only interpretations" is an interpretation, then it's just somebody's arbitrary way of looking at things: it's not a fact, and nobody has any reason to think it's correct."
Do I have to spell it out for you? Your God Nietzche (whom you oft quote) said this. Ergo, he meant it exactly as you interpret it. Ergo, it applies to all your beliefs rooted in Nietzche. Ergo, no more hold water do you."
You think that because a person agrees with some things a thinker says that that person must agree with all things that thinker says?
Do you even read this stuff before you post it?
-
@Archaeus said
"Crowley detected [Secret Chiefs], in fact his whole philosophy, of which you claim to be a follower, is based on just such a claim.
In fact various people have claimed to detect them"
There we are. See? Archaeus seems to agree that real things are detectable things, and he's claiming that some people have detected these Secret Chiefs and that therefore people are justified in thinking that they are real.
There's only a small problem here, one that becomes clear if you broaden the scope of what we're looking at: Pat Robertson, Ray Comfort, Jimmy Swaggert, and many other nutbags -- not to mention millions of other Christians -- have claimed to have detected Jesus. So does that mean that Jesus has been detected and that he's therefore real (meaning that you had all better give up this "magick" stuff if you want to save your immortal souls)? Lots of Muslims have experienced Allah, lots of Hindus have experienced their gods...does that mean that all of those beings have been detected and are therefore real? If it does, then that means that mutually-exclusive god claims have to be simultaneously true -- which they can't be -- which means that at least some of these people are wrong in thinking that they have detected such beings.
The fact is, nobody's "detected" any such beings. People have completely natural experiences, produced by their brains, and falsely conclude that these experiences are the "detection" of oogity-boogities when there is absolutely no reason to draw that conclusion.
"Even though I had had Out-of-body-experiences and seen "Ghosts", I had written them off as hallucinations."
"Hallucinations" is probably too strong. What's more likely is that you made a mistake in concluding what an experience was.
"Two things made me not so sure, one was my first experience of Kundalini rising, it was actually happening, and that in itself was a revelation. The second was the Vision of Adonai, I had no idea that it was both as literal and as unexpectedly commonplace as it was."
None of those things are any more real than out of body experience or ghosts. They're equally conclusions about your experiences that you're making improperly, on the basis of too little evidence.
-
@Legis said
"This is their detectable effect on the world. Some report an experience of the phenomena of Secret Chiefs and then write things that captivate the mind to the point of our coming here almost everyday to discuss them."
See? Someone else admits that real things manifest in detectable ways, and that Secret Chiefs manifest as inspiration to write things -- which is detectable -- and that therefore is evidence for their existence.
Of course, your argument is foolish because the observed effect has no necessary connection to the alleged beings.
You say that Secret Chiefs are seen through inspiration, but we know that inspiration happens through natural means and through imagination, which is rooted in the brain. Lots of people -- including people with entirely secular worldviews -- experience inspiration, all the time. Nothing about inspiration requires the existence of Secret Chiefs.
To draw an analogy, let's say I claim that goblins exist, and I define goblins as "creatures that cause flowers to grow in my garden." After all, real things manifest in some detectable way, and since goblins cause flowers to grow in my garden, we can detect the flowers, and that's proof that they exist!
Of course, it's not. We know that flowers happen naturally (and that nothing about the existence of flowers necessitates the existence of goblins) just like we know that inspiration happens naturally (and that nothing about the existence of inspiration necessitates the existence of Secret Chiefs).
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
" Do you accept that there exist things we may never be able to detect?"
It's possible, but if they exist, then they are at least potentially detectable, even if we never actually do detect them. If something "exists" but is completely impossible to detect -- that is, if it's a thing that no human could ever detect no matter what humans ever do -- then it's functionally equivalent to something that doesn't exist, and no one has any good reason to accept that it's real.
"No, I disagree that no one had any good reason to accept the existence of radio waves before they were detected. Maxwell mathematically predicted radio waves decades before they were detected, as did Einstein with black holes"
Depending on how solid the math is, I would call that detecting them (or, rather, detecting the effect that they have in some way).
Before that math was done, you would agree that no one would have good reason to accept that they exist, right?
"As history shows, countless great discoveries were guided by intuition, dreams, insight. Detection and confirmation often comes much later."
Of course, and also there are plenty of intuitions that turn out not to be true.
I think you misunderstand my "attitude." I'm not saying, "I'm a mean old materialist, and you should never even speculate about anything useless you got rock solid evidence that it's real with your own two eyes that everybody can see and hit with sticks!!!!eleventyshift!!!"
Obviously, I think it's a good thing that people speculate, dream, and investigate possibilities. My qualm is with people accepting claims without sufficient evidence. The OP of this very thread, for example, speaks about "Secret Chiefs" as if it's a foregone conclusion that they exist. Once I started pressing people, all of a sudden the claims start shrinking until now you're talking about some kind of "hypothesis."
Well, that's super, but as soon as I turn my back, everyone here is going to go right back to talking about "Secret Chiefs" as if they're totally real -- and as if they can send you super magic happy day dream communications -- and pretend like this conversation didn't happen.
Here's the thing about "investigating" stuff: investigating stuff is fine, but when investigations consistently yield no evidence, and when everything else we discover suggests very strongly that there's not even any room in the universe for the things predicted by these so-called "hypotheses," then it's time to chuck the hypotheses on the scrap pile of history.
People have been pretending to talk to "Secret Chiefs" for well over a century, and what evidence have these acts of make believe yielded? A bunch of fruity poetry and number games? A bunch of trippy visions by former or current drug addicts who need a shower and shave? Spooky-sounding coincidences that happen to everybody all the time?
It's laughable to even call it a "hypothesis" because hypotheses usually at least start with some observation that suggest, in some way, the thing hypothesized, but we don't even have that here.
The whole thing's a joke, and no one should be the slightest bit surprised when people laugh at these beliefs.
-
@Frater 639 said
"You unknowingly include subjective perspectives and observations as evidence and then say subjective perspectives aren't "real." It's getting old."
What's getting old is your inability to understand a simple point.
A person's subjective experience is real. A person's conclusions drawn from that experience are not necessarily correct, meaning that the person can think that a subjective experience reveals that being X is real when, in fact, being X is not.
So, for example, when Archaeus thought he saw a ghost, he had a real experience of some kind. The conclusion he drew from that experience ("I saw a ghost!") was, however, not true (or, to be more precise, he didn't have sufficient grounds for thinking that it was true), and the ghost that he thought he saw isn't real (or, to be more precise, no one has sufficient grounds for thinking that it's real).
This isn't hard.
-
Los:
Yes of course real things would tend to manifest in detectable ways, but do not forget that there are people with sensoria sighted at a different angle than your own. If something has never been detected by anybody then they would have no reason to suppose it might exist true; but it does not follow that just because a thing has not been detected, or (no! no!) detected by you, that it does not exist.
Don't forget that while one person might see Adonai the glorious, another might see Christ, another might see the easter bunny or even ...wait for it: goblins. Hence all the arguments over the age's about which god id the true god. These things seem to reveal themselves to the beholder in a way that s/he can understand, probably by clothing itself in the mental contents of the beholder. (which lends weight to the 'it's all in your mind' argument) whether or not these things do indeed have any existence outside the mind is something that is hard to verify, and to be honest it's also besides the point. Although the crowd's at Fatima (for example) might disagree with the subjective argument.
As for my actual opinion on the matter: Secret chiefs? Seems a bit far fetched but I'm not discounting it entirely, for all I know you could be a secret chief, or perhaps I am. But I do know that the system works if applied sincerely and with diligence, and to be completely honest that's all I'm really interested in.
-
@Archaeus said
"Don't forget that while one person might see Adonai the glorious, another might see Christ, another might see the easter bunny or even ...wait for it: goblins."
This is just another unsubstantiated claim about the way "spiritual" stuff works, one that is mutually exclusive with the claims of Christians, Muslims, etc.
There's no more reason to think that there's some spiritual reality that each person sees differently than there is to think that Christ is the one true God (and that demons are misleading all of you magicians) or to think that Allah is the one true God (and that demons are misleading all of you magicians.
You're just telling yourself a story that makes you feel good. Which is fine, but if you want to have a discussion with me in public, I'm going to call you out on it.
"whether or not these things do indeed have any existence outside the mind is something that is hard to verify, and to be honest it's also besides the point."
It's not besides the point: it's the subject under discussion on this thread. And the correct answer is that there's no good reason to think that any of these things have any existence outside the mind of the person experiencing them (and yes, that mind is the product of brain chemistry).
"for all I know you could be a secret chief"
Shhhh!
"But I do know that the system works if applied sincerely and with diligence, and to be completely honest that's all I'm really interested in."
You certainly can generate trippy visions. It's downright easy to do that. Whether those visions -- and whether pretending that one of your imaginary friends is your HGA -- does anything for you practically is a different conversation.
-
@Los said
"What's getting old is your inability to understand a simple point."
You have yet to demonstrate that you understand large aspects of the scientific method -- but you've admitted to being unfamiliar with the research methods, so I'm happy to help. Much of what I've witnessed are your beliefs and opinions -- and you change your definitions consistently.
What is real? Please define. You still didn't answer that question. But yet, you use the word all the time so you can hop on both sides of it (subjective/objective) and play semantic games. I'm suspecting you don't want to define it because of the problems you'll encounter with your description...
"A person's subjective experience is real. A person's conclusions drawn from that experience are not necessarily correct, meaning that the person can think that a subjective experience reveals that being X is real when, in fact, being X is not."
"Necessarily correct" in regard to someone else's theories that may have more convincing evidence. Like OJ's lawyers, right? Lawyers get paid to sway perspective -- much like the media, cult leaders, amateur philosophers, etc.
This "sway" can have very real effects. This is part and parcel to magick actually.
Anyway, your point is still problematic. The subjective experience is real and includes being X, then you admit it is real, but then you say it's not real. In comparison with what? Reality? Ugh. You are mixing the planes in your definition of "real." Can't you see that?
You're mixing "real" in imagination (first "real") and "real" materially (second "real"). Big problems. This is most likely due to confusion about qualitative and quantitative phenomenon, which is why I keep going there...
Also, a conclusion is an experience as well. Back to the drawingboard, Los!
"And the correct answer is that there's no good reason * to think that any of these things have any existence outside the mind of the person experiencing them (and yes, that mind is the product of brain chemistry). [actually it's the product of evolution and will] "
Nothing has existence outside of the mind from a subjective POV.
Wait...
OMFG. A BREAKTHROUGH. eleventyshift!!!!!! This is direct contradiction to so many things you've posted in the past...but...who cares?!?
cue enya
A subjective experience is real? Then the imagination is real? If these images are real what causes them? Don't know? Give me some scientific theories?
"The Secret Chiefs=they exist in one's imagination=a subjective experience=real." -- our friend Los
Therein lies the proof.
-
@Los said
"You say that Secret Chiefs are seen through inspiration, but we know that inspiration happens through natural means and through imagination, which is rooted in the brain. Lots of people -- including people with entirely secular worldviews -- experience inspiration, all the time. Nothing about inspiration requires the existence of Secret Chiefs."
No, I didn't. Perhaps you misunderstood.
I said that the experience of the phenomena of Secret Chiefs is reported by those who have written incredibly beneficial and intelligent things, and I suggested that the quality and intelligence of their work lends credibility to their reports (though I did not suggest the reports themselves provide proof).
Crowley claimed to have experienced a Secret Chief in the reception of Liber Legis. That report is known, and I know you dispute this report.
But the more interesting example you don't apparently know comes from Paul Foster Case:
"Shortly after Paul Case fully achieved his spiritual linkage with all
the required levels of this Mystery Training, one day the phone rang, and
much to his surprise the same voice which had been inwardly instructing him
in his researches for many years spoke to him on the phone. It was the
Master R. who had come personally to New York for the purpose of preparing
Paul Case to begin the next incarnation of the Qabalistic Way of Return.
Dr. Case (by then having earned his degree as a Doctor of Theology)
resigned from the Golden Dawn (which was being dissolved by the Masters),
and after three weeks of personal instruction with the Master R., Builders
of the Adytum was formed. Paul Case then retired from a successful and
lucrative career in music to devote his full time to the service of
humanity.www.arcane-archive.org/tarot/paul-foster-case-1.php
"This report meets your criterion for real existence.
Whether or not one feels that the report of a man like Paul Foster Case is credible or not, based on one's knowledge of the mind of the man, his life, and what he had to say... It determines many things about what one is willing to hypothesize
-
@Frater 639 said
"What is real? Please define."
That which actually exists, which is detectable in some way.
Now look, we could, if you wanted to, have a lengthy (and probably insightful and interesting) conversation about reality. But I'm not going to have it with you if you insist on intentionally misunderstanding simple points (like the difference between the thought of a goblin and an actual, honest-to-goodness goblin), if you insist on bogging down discussion with unnecessary jargon and with self-righteous fantasies about how you know oh-so-much more about science than I do, and if you insist on filling your posts with puerile emoticons in the manner that you did when you first tried talking to me, months ago, and got smacked down pretty hard.
If you want to have the discussion, declare your intention not to do any of those dumb things, and I'll consider having it with you. If you don't want to have the discussion, it's been nice talking to you.
-
@Legis said
"
@Los said
"You say that Secret Chiefs are seen through inspiration, but we know that inspiration happens through natural means and through imagination, which is rooted in the brain. Lots of people -- including people with entirely secular worldviews -- experience inspiration, all the time. Nothing about inspiration requires the existence of Secret Chiefs."No, I didn't. Perhaps you misunderstood.
I said that the experience of the phenomena of Secret Chiefs is reported by those who have written incredibly beneficial and intelligent things, and I suggested that the quality and intelligence of their work lends credibility to their reports"
Well, then the point you were trying to make was even worse than I thought.
That someone has written "incredibly beneficial and intelligent things" tells us nothing about whether their spooky tales of contact with spacemen are true.
You might as well say that William Blake wrote incredibly poetry and claimed to have visions of Jesus and various dead people all the time, so therefore the incredible nature of his poetry suggests that there really is a Jesus and that spirits really do exist.
It's a non-sequitur. That someone writes well is unconnected to the veracity of claims they make.
"But the more interesting example you don't apparently know comes from Paul Foster Case:
"Shortly after Paul Case fully achieved his spiritual linkage with all
the required levels of this Mystery Training, one day the phone rang, and
much to his surprise the same voice which had been inwardly instructing him
in his researches for many years spoke to him on the phone. It was the
Master R. who had come personally to New York for the purpose of preparing
Paul Case to begin the next incarnation of the Qabalistic Way of Return.
Dr. Case (by then having earned his degree as a Doctor of Theology)
resigned from the Golden Dawn (which was being dissolved by the Masters),
and after three weeks of personal instruction with the Master R., Builders
of the Adytum was formed. Paul Case then retired from a successful and
lucrative career in music to devote his full time to the service of
humanity.www.arcane-archive.org/tarot/paul-foster-case-1.php
""
Wow, I'm clearly in the wrong business. I should be selling swamp land in Florida or a bunch of magic beans because there's obviously no shortage of people who fall all over themselves to believe BS.
-
I didn't say I believe.
I said I was willing to hypothesize.
As I have already stated, attempts to discredit a working hypothesis by accusations of "belief" misunderstand, either willingly or ignorantly, the process of investigating a hypothesis, where an idea must be regarded as* potentially* true for any legitimate investigation and discovery to occur.
As you will not even entertain the possibility that any report actually fitting your requirements for the real existence of Secret Chiefs could be true, you reveal discussion of these ideas with you to be entirely futile.