Ch. 4 Our "Selves" & Our "Universes" (2/23-3/1)
-
-
Let a sexual partner team (husband/wife or two lovers) re-enact their most recent quarrel. (If nobody will admit that they "quarrel," let the chosen subjects re-enact their most recent disagreement.)
-
Let this couple then reverse roles and let each one "play" the other in a continuation of the disagreement. Attempt to employ the technique of Method Acting: let each player try to feel the point of view of the other while acting the other.
-
See if you have two people in the group with opposed views on some "hot" issue (e.g., abortion, gun control, the war on drugs, etc.). Let them each attempt, by Method Acting, to present the point of view of the other, as sincerely as possible.
-
Let one member of the group acquire the following thirteen items:
- a toy fire-truck;
- a Barbie doll;
- a reproduction of a Picasso painting,
- a brick;
- a screw-driver;
- a hammer;
- a turkey feather;
- a piece of balsa wood;
- a rubber ball;
- a piece of hard wood, such as birch;
- a "ghetto blaster" (portable stereo)
- a pornographic novel;
- a philosophical treatise by Bishop George Berkeley.
Place these items on the floor and let everybody sit around them. First, divide them into two groups — red things and not-red things. See how many times ambiguous cases arise (e.g., should a book with a red-and-white cover go in the red pile or the not-red pile?).
Let the 13 items be divided into another two groups — useful objects and toys. See how many ambiguities arise. (Does art belong among toys? Does pornography?)
Each week, as long as the group continues, let somebody think of another dualism and divide the 13 items into two piles according to that new dichotomy.
Note each case where two things which fall into different groups according to one dualist system fall into the same group according to another dualist system.
(E.g., balsa wood and hard wood will fall into the same group if one divides "wooden things" from "non-wooden things," but will fall into different groups if one divides "things that float" from "things that do no not float.")
Note how the Aristotelian argument "It 'is' either an A or a not-A” appears after you have found several things that belong on the same side of one[…]
-
-
H Hannah pinned this topic
-
I really enjoyed the exploration of maps in this chapter.
All kinds of maps or models also show, on examination, the personality or "mental furniture" of their creator, and, to a lesser extent, of the creator's society and linguistic system(s) — the semantic environment.
I think this is important for qabbalists to remember because the Tree of Life is a model.
The only "thing" (or process) precisely equal to the universe remains the universe itself.
That being said, direct experience and the unknown are both incorporated into the Tree, but we still have to remember that it is a map, and all maps are limited by the language in which they are formed.
I am reminded of what it is like to use a map in the backcountry. We need maps to plan our course, so we don't get lost... but along the way, playing close attention to the actual terrain in front of us yields a much deeper awareness of our environment. Knowing the patterns like, how the earth makes a bowl when there is a lake ahead, discerning what animal made those tracks in front of us, being able to tell from the cloud patterns whether a storm is brewing.
I think this vigilance of attention is of the utmost importance when learning qabbalah.
It is not enough to know the associations on the Tree, how one sephiroth theoretically embodies the essence of say "Venus." Magick is the utilization of a model of the universe to cause change in one's consciousness, but the juiciest part of this is in exploring the new terrain with an observant, receptive mind and full awareness of our senses.
-
System unpinned this topic
-
"Let the 13 items be divided into another two groups — useful objects and toys. See how many ambiguities arise. (Does art belong among toys? Does pornography?)"
I had the pleasure of doing this exercise in person with a couple of people. We collected all of the objects and then sorted them, comparing and contrasting each person's assignments.
For the most part, there was more agreement than disagreement when we performed the exercise. Nonetheless, it was valuable experience. Although it is easy to make these assessments based on what one can picture in their mind, doing the exercise with the material objects allowed us to make specific connections about the objects we chose.
To illustrate my point, a toy fire truck from the Dollar Tree is very different from a realistic, model toy fire truck from, say, a craft store. A toy fire truck from the Dollar Tree may not have all of the features that a nicer model truck has. This effects how much we can glean about an "actual" fire truck (which I do not have access to). The Dollar Tree truck we had was cheap, and lacked working doors or details about the hose system. If we think of these objects as maps in and of themselves, then the Dollar Tree truck is not a very good map to demonstrate how to use a fire truck, whereas a highly detailed model truck might be used as a training model.
Similar to what the chapter describes, seeing the physical object forced us to test our mental maps of these objects. It also indicated how diverse the functions of these objects can be. By picturing the object, depending on how detailed our mental picture is, one might constrain the functions and manifestations of these objects to one projected possibility (the one most conveniently available to the mind). This is much more common than we realize. I know that I find myself easily limiting myself to what is readily available to my mind.
Interestingly, however, our associations with the objects did not change much over time. I suspect that the instruction to observe categories and objects over time was more so for people who have not explored these ideas much. It's not to say that there's no value in that half of the exercise, but rather that people who have a more rigid mental map might benefit from observing how that map can evolve over time (especially when these maps are called into question and informed with new information).
So much of the Great Work is precisely about this. We begin with a relatively "bad" map (why else would we be looking to change our perception and discover possibilities we didn't otherwise know about?). As we study different domains of Esoterica, whether it is Tarot, Astrology, or the Tree of Life, these are all different maps of the same terrain. Each of these maps interact with each other and feed into one another. With some progress, we may even be able to acknowledge and hold multiple maps in our mind, picking the proper map for the proper moment. Even better is when we can see how these maps overlap one another to create a better relief of reality.
As we develop our maps and fill them out, we get closer to seeing things as they "are". It becomes even more apparent as we interact with others that try to limit experience to one map. I often find that when I try to describe something to someone, I have to rely on multiple maps to contextualize what I am describing. I am capable of communicating these different contexts in varying degrees of accuracy and coherence. It is further complicated by the other party's maps and levels of receptivity which directly affect if they can properly decode what I am telling them.
However, I have found time and again that if the other person's map doesn't align with mine, the other person may or may not be able to decode what it is I'm saying. Even worse, I have had instances where people simply do not perceive what I am describing, simply because their map doesn't actually have a variable to describe what I am pointing to. In better cases, the other party actually does agree and understand what I am saying, they simply do not understand the words I am using or the contexts. In these cases, their map usually has different names for the landmarks I try to describe. When these situations arise, there is usually a distinct feeling of progress and relief when the other person realizes that our maps converge, even if they are in a different language.
It is precisely for this reason that being able to interpret different maps develops skills that prevent us from mistaking the map for the territory.
-
"Let the 13 items be divided into another two groups — useful objects and toys. See how many ambiguities arise. (Does art belong among toys? Does pornography?)"
I had the pleasure of doing this exercise in person with a couple of people. We collected all of the objects and then sorted them, comparing and contrasting each person's assignments.
For the most part, there was more agreement than disagreement when we performed the exercise. Nonetheless, it was valuable experience. Although it is easy to make these assessments based on what one can picture in their mind, doing the exercise with the material objects allowed us to make specific connections about the objects we chose.
To illustrate my point, a toy fire truck from the Dollar Tree is very different from a realistic, model toy fire truck from, say, a craft store. A toy fire truck from the Dollar Tree may not have all of the features that a nicer model truck has. This effects how much we can glean about an "actual" fire truck (which I do not have access to). The Dollar Tree truck we had was cheap, and lacked working doors or details about the hose system. If we think of these objects as maps in and of themselves, then the Dollar Tree truck is not a very good map to demonstrate how to use a fire truck, whereas a highly detailed model truck might be used as a training model.
Similar to what the chapter describes, seeing the physical object forced us to test our mental maps of these objects. It also indicated how diverse the functions of these objects can be. By picturing the object, depending on how detailed our mental picture is, one might constrain the functions and manifestations of these objects to one projected possibility (the one most conveniently available to the mind). This is much more common than we realize. I know that I find myself easily limiting myself to what is readily available to my mind.
Interestingly, however, our associations with the objects did not change much over time. I suspect that the instruction to observe categories and objects over time was more so for people who have not explored these ideas much. It's not to say that there's no value in that half of the exercise, but rather that people who have a more rigid mental map might benefit from observing how that map can evolve over time (especially when these maps are called into question and informed with new information).
So much of the Great Work is precisely about this. We begin with a relatively "bad" map (why else would we be looking to change our perception and discover possibilities we didn't otherwise know about?). As we study different domains of Esoterica, whether it is Tarot, Astrology, or the Tree of Life, these are all different maps of the same terrain. Each of these maps interact with each other and feed into one another. With some progress, we may even be able to acknowledge and hold multiple maps in our mind, picking the proper map for the proper moment. Even better is when we can see how these maps overlap one another to create a better relief of reality.
As we develop our maps and fill them out, we get closer to seeing things as they "are". It becomes even more apparent as we interact with others that try to limit experience to one map. I often find that when I try to describe something to someone, I have to rely on multiple maps to contextualize what I am describing. I am capable of communicating these different contexts in varying degrees of accuracy and coherence. It is further complicated by the other party's maps and levels of receptivity which directly affect if they can properly decode what I am telling them.
However, I have found time and again that if the other person's map doesn't align with mine, the other person may or may not be able to decode what it is I'm saying. Even worse, I have had instances where people simply do not perceive what I am describing, simply because their map doesn't actually have a variable to describe what I am pointing to. In better cases, the other party actually does agree and understand what I am saying, they simply do not understand the words I am using or the contexts. In these cases, their map usually has different names for the landmarks I try to describe. When these situations arise, there is usually a distinct feeling of progress and relief when the other person realizes that our maps converge, even if they are in a different language.
It is precisely for this reason that being able to interpret different maps develops skills that prevent us from mistaking the map for the territory.
@jjones that is so cool you were able to do the exercise with others! What you were talking about concerning the ways our mind fills in information based on the maps we are using brings to mind the ways in which my postpartum brain interprets signals differently.
While pregnant and after having a baby, the amygdala is more activated, which helps mom stay vigilant to potential dangers. As a result, my fear and anxiety have been easily triggered. This started when I first became pregnant, I started to see bugs crawling everywhere and was abnormally concerned about the doors being locked in the house. This is surprisingly a common occurrence, first trimester hallucinations. Now, 10 months postpartum, I still interpret shadows as figures, triggering a fear response immediately before my brain has time to interpret the information. It is a protective measure for myself and my baby while we are compromised.
The model I am working with is built from the language of hormones triggering different biological and therefore, psychological, effects. Quite literally, I am seeing the world differently than anyone else who is not a mother. This brings to mind all kinds of questions about how physically-rooted our mental maps are.
-
@jjones that is so cool you were able to do the exercise with others! What you were talking about concerning the ways our mind fills in information based on the maps we are using brings to mind the ways in which my postpartum brain interprets signals differently.
While pregnant and after having a baby, the amygdala is more activated, which helps mom stay vigilant to potential dangers. As a result, my fear and anxiety have been easily triggered. This started when I first became pregnant, I started to see bugs crawling everywhere and was abnormally concerned about the doors being locked in the house. This is surprisingly a common occurrence, first trimester hallucinations. Now, 10 months postpartum, I still interpret shadows as figures, triggering a fear response immediately before my brain has time to interpret the information. It is a protective measure for myself and my baby while we are compromised.
The model I am working with is built from the language of hormones triggering different biological and therefore, psychological, effects. Quite literally, I am seeing the world differently than anyone else who is not a mother. This brings to mind all kinds of questions about how physically-rooted our mental maps are.
@Hannah Wow! I had no idea about these kinds of experiences that come with post partum. I can imagine how difficult it can be to navigate that (though whatever I can imagine most likely doesn't compare to what you're experiencing!).
You know, this really opens a Pandora's Box as it were, considering this biological difference between males and females does absolutely affect our mental maps associated with our socially constructed gender. To speak more plainly, given this is a biological difference between the sexes, and males do not have the potential to bear children (without bodily modification in most cases, I suppose), this kind of goes against some of modern gender theory which argues gender is constructed by society and not determined by biology.
It's not to say that modern gender theory is "wrong" or "inaccurate" but rather this really challenges me to add another layer to my own maps of the genders and how biology can interact with that psychic image.
I know that my mom had distinct experiences of fear about my safety after she gave birth to me. This honestly helps me understand and contextualize some of my own experiences of being the child in that situation.