| From the Galleries |
2088 pictures in 33 albums
Personalities
Rose Edith Kelly, aka Ouarda
Last Updated Picture:
Allan Bennett
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
33,787,340
Yesterday's visits:
32,075
Registrations:
Today: 0
Yesterday: 2
Overall: 6988
Newest Members:
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
My joy is the joy of eternity, and my laughter is the drunken laughter of a harlot in the house of ecstasy.
-- Liber 49 - The Book Of Babalon
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Erwin |
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
 Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 04:52 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
DNA wrote: › "So you're actually claiming you can walk through walls, now? OK, post a video to youtube of you doing that, let's all take a look at the power of your belief. This should be interesting"
Erwin, yet again, you are taking somebody's post out of context, and subjecting it to your usual infantile and foolish scrutiny. Detracts from quite an interesting thread, really.
Perhaps you can explain how my comment is taking "you are attempting to tell someone who crosses [through a wall] which you believe is uncrossable that such a thing is impossible to do" out of context? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 04:55 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › No, that's not what reality means uniquely, that's what it can mean. In fact, reality has a lot of different meanings....Why not check out all the different meanings of "reality" a simple dictionary gives
Capital idea:
re⋅al⋅i⋅ty
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5. Philosophy.
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
6. something that is real.
7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
—Idiom
8. in reality, in fact or truth; actually
All of which appear to accord perfectly with the way I am using this term. If you can find a dictionary definition of "reality" which implies imagined goblins or spacemen can be classified as "real", I'd be happy to take a look at it. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 05:05 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
MichaelStaley wrote: › Erwin wrote: › There are no spacemen out there which you can contact via the power of your mind in a trance state ...
I don't recall Kyle referring to spacemen. This is no doubt a lapse in my recall, so I'd be happy for you to refresh my memory.
Certainly. I'm always glad to help out by backing up my statements, Michael:
Kyle: "If all we have is some 'belief' in Aliens and Fairies and Angels and such, backed by nothing, we really ARE in sorry shape."
I simply use "spacemen" in place of "aliens" or "extraterrestrials" which may be your preferred term to justifiably draw attention to how ridiculous these supernatural claims are, to reduce the chances of people losing sight of that. If you're using gigantic radio-telescopes to try and pick up radio signals from distant galaxies then "aliens" is a perfectly appropriate term. If you're trying to contact them by sitting in an asana, "reaching out" with your mind and concentrating really, really hard on your muludhara chakra, then "spacemen" is arguably better, or even "goblins" which I sometimes use also as a generic "don't be so silly" marker.
Hope this helps. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 05:32 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › No, that's not what reality means uniquely, that's what it can mean. In fact, reality has a lot of different meanings. What you are talking about is realism, i.e. The view that there is a reality independent of any beliefs, perceptions, etc. Just because you dislike some groups doesn't make your view of reality more "true". Why not check out all the different meanings of "reality" a simple dictionary gives, and then go even further and think about Phenomenological Reality or the definition(s) of reality in Quantum Mechanics or in different schools of philosophy. Your view of reality is of course okay and compatible with Thelema, but other views are also.
Furthermore, this kind of approach is getting dangerous close to descending into word games. It doesn't matter whether or not other people use the word "reality" in different ways. I've made it pretty clear in what sense I'm using the word, so when you hear me say "reality" you know what I'm talking about. If you feel strongly about it, then you can use a more specific term when you reply to me, but we should be focusing on the actual thing I'm talking about it, without getting hung up on what word I'm using to describe that thing.
This is why people habitually confuse themselves utterly with philosophy. They read that it's theoretically impossible to determine whether there is a physical "reality" or not, and then use that narrow sense of the word to argue against all kinds of completely different senses of "reality". It's just a word game. This philosophical conundrum has absolutely no bearing at all on being able to determine, for instance, on whether tarot cards really do accurately predict the future, which can be decided independently of deciding the existence of an external physical "reality".
You yourself advance the idea that the word "reality" may have different definitions, so I'm sure you'll appreciate how foolish it is to criticise what I am describing as "reality" by using a definition that is nothing whatsoever to do with what I'm talking about just because different things can share the same label. Let's focus on the actual things being discussed instead of getting distracted by word games. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 05:40 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 782
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
Hi Erwin
as I said, your definition is not wrong, but it is not the only one. If you read on in your online dictionary you will find more.
I think the following 7 definitions are quite useless in our case, unless of course you are absolutely sure what reality is in the first place, like you are. They merely show that "reality" is the noun form of "real". Just ask "what is beauty?" and put in "beautiful" for "real" (and "quite nice" for "apparent") and I hope you see what I mean.
Erwin wrote: ›
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs
6. something that is real.
7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
—Idiom
8. in reality, in fact or truth; actually
That leaves us with your 5th point:
Erwin wrote: › 5. Philosophy.
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
In the Philosophy dictionary I find also:
c. That which there is. The question of how much of it there is forms the dispute between realists and anti-realists. Does it include: numbers, possibilities, the future, the past, other minds, colours, tastes, the external world, mind as well as matter, or matter as well as experience?
d. All of your experiences that determine how things appear to you
There are numerous concepts of reality. It is a struggle for philosophers from the earliest beginnings of philosophy on.
Philip K. Dick said it perfectly: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." So what if you don't believe in goblins and so forth , but they don't go away?
Love=Law
Lutz |
_________________
"Economic pressure is destroying the ideal of the family; and the craze for pleasure is both eating away the health of the individual and mortgaging the future of the state. - What other remedy than this: the Law of Thelema?"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 05:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 782
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
Oops, Erwin
I did not see your next post, so just ignore mine if you like. It is all in a spirit of fun anyhow...
Love=Law
Lutz |
_________________
"Economic pressure is destroying the ideal of the family; and the craze for pleasure is both eating away the health of the individual and mortgaging the future of the state. - What other remedy than this: the Law of Thelema?"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 06:00 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I think the following 7 definitions are quite useless in our case, unless of course you are absolutely sure what reality is in the first place, like you are.
Well OK, but I think it's pretty odd to ask me to "check out all the different meanings of 'reality' a simple dictionary" and then just say that you think 7 out of 8 of those definitions are "quite useless". I mean, do you want me to look in a simple dictionary, or don't you?
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › They merely show that "reality" is the noun form of "real". Just ask "what is beauty?" and put in "beautiful" for "real" (and "quite nice" for "apparent") and I hope you see what I mean.
So just look up "real" in a simple dictionary as well, it really (pun intended) isn't that difficult:
re⋅al
–adjective
1. true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2. existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3. being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.
4. being actually such; not merely so-called: a real victory.
8. Philosophy.
a. existent or pertaining to the existent as opposed to the nonexistent.
b. actual as opposed to possible or potential.
c. independent of experience as opposed to phenomenal or apparent.
–noun
14. the real,
a. something that actually exists, as a particular quantity.
b. reality in general.
(mathematical, optical, and informal definitions omitted)
Again, they all focus on "not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent", "being an actual thing", "actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious", "not imaginary", "something that actually exists", and "independent of experience". Again, they all accord precisely with the sense in which I am using the term. All of them. Even the philosophical ones.
I mean, look, you asked me to look up all the definitions in a "simple dictionary", and I've done it. I can't really help it if you don't like the results.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › In the Philosophy dictionary I find also:
First, you asked for a "simple dictionary", not a "Philosophy dictionary". Second, I wouldn't wipe my nose on a "Philosophy dictionary", unless I was actually trying to discuss philosophy, which I'm not.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › There are numerous concepts of reality. It is a struggle for philosophers from the earliest beginnings of philosophy on.
Yes, philosophers routinely confuse themselves greatly with simple concepts. I'm using the everyday accepted meaning of "reality" - as evidenced by my quotes from a simple dictionary that you requested - that everybody who hasn't confused themselves with philosophy or occultism would easily recognise and understand. I do this deliberately to make communication easier. The concepts I am discussing here are very simple.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Philip K. Dick said it perfectly: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." So what if you don't believe in goblins and so forth , but they don't go away?
Then you'd be instantly world famous. Find me any such goblins, and I unreservedly promise you I'll pay a great deal of attention to your momentous and unprecedented discovery. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Alastrum |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 06:07 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 240
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
I'm delighted to be reminded that my HGA is none other than my own subconscious mind... now, if one of you could perhaps just point out to me exactly where my subconscious mind is located...?
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Poelzig |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 06:57 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
Posts: 283
Status: Offline
|
|
Alastrum wrote: › I'm delighted to be reminded that my HGA is none other than my own subconscious mind... now, if one of you could perhaps just point out to me exactly where my subconscious mind is located...?
Most likely within the neural activity within the brain-tissues encased in your skull. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Alastrum |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 07:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 240
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
As a working hypothesis, I'm happy to accept that. Just as I'm happy to accept the entire concept of a "subconscious mind" as a working hypothesis (even though less people have actually seen a subconscious mind than have seen goblins, which by some of the logic exhibited in this thread, makes it even less likely to exist). Or even a HGA, for that matter.
Some people seem to be confusing the map with the territory, and others seem to be asserting there is no map, just the territory. Personally, I find maps useful, as long as it is remembered that sometimes interesting places don't always appear on maps... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
gurugeorge |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 07:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
Posts: 311
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Nice to see Erwin back stirring things up
Erwin, once again I find myself in partial agreement and partial disagreement with you. I like your rationalism, and I share it to a large extent, but it has to be said that if you are claiming that Crowley thought the Magick stuff was trivial, or anything of that kind, then that's just plain wrong.
Liber O is a foundational text in a one-to-one teaching tradition, the agnostic showing there is meant as a "set to zero", a kind of calibration. Of course Crowley did believe in "praeterhuman intelligences" and such, and said so more explicitly in his later writings (from his assumption of the Grade of 666 onwards I think). Similarly, in many other of the other early writings his mindset was different, as he himself says - much more rationalist. But he didn't remain a rationalist all his life: he was a committed believer for most of it, and only retained as much rationalism as he thought useful for teaching purposes.
Now the thing is, it's a rational procedure to not give belief to that which hasn't been tested scientifically. But (as you well know) there is no guarantee to be found anywhere in the process of knowledge-gathering.
The Magickal theory of the Universe is a bold punt. If it's true, then it really opens up our knowledge, it's potentially a huge prize. It is not entirely without empirical support, it's just that the empirical support is still weak (and remember, we've only been at this science thing for a few hundred years) - it's still largely anecdotal.
Now, if we take the entire body of what we have that we now think is knowledge, which is strongly empirically supported, then from that point of view the Magickal theory is anything from unlikely to plainly and obviously wrong. But there's an interesting logical thing here: our current knowledge (which is basically physicalist) cannot possibly include the Magickal theory. The Magickal theory can, however, comfortably include the materialist theory as a subset. Again, as I said above: if it's true, it would be a tremendous win in knowledge. And my innate wisdom tells me to keep a weather eye open for the unlikely.
So, on the whole, while I personally don't give belief to Magick stuff (I'm a committed Mystic, but I find that more inherently congenial to rationalism), I've think that in the next hundred years or so, with advances in science going at the pace they are, it will be possible to definitively decide about the Magickal theory. That is to say, either we will have pinned down brain mechanisms that give rise to strong illusions of real entities, etc., that kind of thing, OR we will have discovered that actually, somehow the fugue/trance state is like a kind of "radio" for communication with entities the existence of which had always been believed in, but couldn't be definitively tested for.
On a practical level, say in the area of meditation (which I know is distinct from the question of praterhumanity etc.), it's actually only recently that scientists have had access to the living brains of highly experienced practitioners in some of the Asian initiatic schools. And the results are looking interesting. So, one might say, proper scientific investigation into the Mystical side of things is already underway, it's just the Magickal side that is yet to be looked into. I honestly think it will take a bit more time before the Magickal theory can be looked into in this way: it's really hard to conceive of experiments that would properly test it.
I don't consider any of the research done up till now that I've glanced at ("Psi" research, that kind of thing, or OOBE research, etc.) to be on the right track, because all that research is done either with ordinary folks or obvious charlatans. But the people you need to look at are real experts - e.g. the equivalent of the Tibetan cave-dwelling monks of recent meditation research.
Are there any such? I don't know, maybe some of the people here, but I would be inclined, again, to look to the Asian tradition equivalents, in long-established traditions such as Daoism, where the "magick" element is pretty strong, and pound-for-pound almost identical to the Western version.
How would you scientifically test what Daoist Master Chuang is really experiencing when he "talks to spirits", and is there any way one could test the real-world effectiviness of his magick? |
_________________
"To wake up is to wake the world up" - D.E. Harding
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 07:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
Alastrum wrote: › even though less people have actually seen a subconscious mind than have seen goblins,
Out of interest, exactly how many people do you assert have "seen goblins"?
Alastrum wrote: › which by some of the logic exhibited in this thread, makes it even less likely to exist
Some remedial lessons in logic may be in order, then.
Anyone can directly perceive a part of the mind other than the conscious part by simply stopping the conscious mind from chattering for a while. It's easy for anybody to do with a little practical application. Now, whether this "part" corresponds well to any proposed models of the "subconscious mind", whether it is properly classified as a "part" of anything or just another aspect of a single thing, or whether the "mind" can be said to have any separate existence from thoughts and feelings at all is entirely another question.
For the practical purposes Crowley was talking about, these kinds of questions are wholly irrelevant; what is relevant is that that part of the mind - whatever its nature may or may not be - can be directly perceived and interacted with on a more-or-less reliable and consistent basis. It is simply unnecessary to assert any factual claims about the universe in order to do this. Believing in the metaphysical reality of the "subconscious mind" as a distinct entity is no more necessary than believing in goblins is. You don't need to believe in the existence of a subconscious mind to do this any more than you need to believe in the solidity of a wall in order to hang a picture on it.
Of course, we can reasonably assume that having a good understanding of the mind would be very helpful, but right now we don't. That in no way prevents us from interacting with it, any more than not understanding the physical makeup of subatomic particles prevents us from picking up an apple.
When you observe something happening reliably, you can make evidence based claims, but you can only make evidence based claims according to the type of evidence that you have. In this case, we can assert that there seems to be something that fits the term "subconscious mind" and we can assert that the conscious mind often gets in the way of it, because we can directly observe these things. But, based on those observations alone, we cannot make any assertions about what the actual nature of those things are. And, in this case, that doesn't prevent us from working with them.
This is not the case with supernatural claims. For instance, take the claim that tarot cards predict the future. After reading the above, almost inevitably someone is likely to pipe up and say "this is what we've been saying all along!! Truth doesn't matter!!! Just if it works!!!" But that's the thing with supernatural claims: they don't work. If anyone actually sat down and conducted a proper study themselves of whether tarot cards actually predict the future, they would conclude that they don't, because they don't. People who hang onto the belief that they do simply haven't investigated the matter properly. When they say "it works" they're just guessing, and selecting the alternative that appeals most to them.
Many occultists want to draw a bright line between "scientific" measurement and "personal experience", but scientists observe things with the exact same "subjective perception" that these people claim to perceive their goblins with. The point for all these occultists is that not even their "subjective perception" indicates the existence of goblins. They can only maintain their beliefs by deliberately not looking too closely into the truth of their claims, by actually ignoring the evidence their "subjective perceptions" provide them with. If you evoke Bune every week and ask him to give you the winning lottery numbers, your own "subjective perceptions" will tell you quite clearly themselves that that's not what you're actually getting. Your own subjective perceptions will, if you only pay attention to them, reveal that you're not "conjuring demons to physical appearance" at all, but merely making believe that you are.
People who believe in goblins because their "personal experience" tells them that goblins exist are actually failing to pay enough attention to that "personal experience" that they claim is informing them, because that "personal experience" is precisely where the evidence to support or reject factual claims comes from. The idea that "it doesn't matter if it's 'true' if it works" falls flat on its face, because a closer investigation will reveal that it doesn't work at all. The "it's true if it works" approach is only ever going to discredit supernatural claims, not support them. A belief in the supernatural can only be maintained if one steadfastly refuses to find out for oneself whether or not it actually does "work". |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 08:10 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
gurugeorge wrote: › Erwin, once again I find myself in partial agreement and partial disagreement with you. I like your rationalism, and I share it to a large extent, but it has to be said that if you are claiming that Crowley thought the Magick stuff was trivial, or anything of that kind, then that's just plain wrong.
Well, good job I haven't claimed that, then. I know you're jumping late into a relatively lengthy thread but really, if you're not going to read what I've been saying, don't try to imply that I'm "wrong".
I haven't said anything at all about what Crowley thought of the magick stuff, just that on the whole it appears he didn't buy into supernatural explanations of it. I did say that I thought the results he obtained from communications with "praeternatural entities" were "trivial and insignificant", but not only did I not say that he thought there were, I actually went out of my way to say that he probably didn't.
gurugeorge wrote: › Liber O is a foundational text in a one-to-one teaching tradition, the agnostic showing there is meant as a "set to zero", a kind of calibration. Of course Crowley did believe in "praeterhuman intelligences" and such, and said so more explicitly in his later writings (from his assumption of the Grade of 666 onwards I think).
Of course Crowley did say that he believed in that. Whether or not he actually did believe that is far less clear, especially when we're talking about isolated cases written towards the end of his life that, if taken seriously, would amount to an almost wholesale rejection of the entirety of his body of work. And since other writings in that same period suggest the opposite, this is pretty unlikely.
He may have believed in "praeterhuman intelligences". He may have just been trying to impress people who he thought were likely to believe he was in contact with such intelligences. Let's not forget that in The Equinox of the Gods, where on the one hand he was asserting that Aiwass was his own personal Holy Guardian Angel, and was possessed of all kinds of superhuman powers, he also said that "whether Aiwass is a spiritual being, or a man known to Fra. P., is a matter of the merest conjecture."
gurugeorge wrote: › Now the thing is, it's a rational procedure to not give belief to that which hasn't been tested scientifically.
No, this isn't true. There are plenty of things in which it is "rational" to believe but which have not been "tested scientifically". It has not, to my knowledge, been "tested scientifically" that I exist, yet I don't have much of an issue asserting that I do.
Too many people criticise "rationalism" on the grounds of "science can't measure everything", but as I said in a recent post, scientists use the same old "subjective experience" that we all have to measure things. That "subjective experience" is perfectly capable of distinguishing between evidence-based claims and fantasy-based claims all by itself without having to subject those claims to "scientific testing". Again, if people only paid attention to their own "subjective experience", they wouldn't believe in these supernatural claims either, because their "subjective experience", assessed impartially, would not support such claims.
gurugeorge wrote: › But (as you well know) there is no guarantee to be found anywhere in the process of knowledge-gathering.
Neither is such a guarantee necessary in order for something to qualify as "knowledge".
gurugeorge wrote: › The Magickal theory of the Universe is a bold punt. If it's true, then it really opens up our knowledge, it's potentially a huge prize. It is not entirely without empirical support, it's just that the empirical support is still weak (and remember, we've only been at this science thing for a few hundred years) - it's still largely anecdotal.
Disagree completely. I think the "empirical support" can rightly be described as "zero". Sure, there may be crackpots around who claim they talk to goblins and this might be described as "evidence", albeit really, really poor "evidence", but "empirical support" comes from an assessment of the relevant evidence as a whole, and as a whole there has never been anything to even hint at the truth of supernatural claims.
Moreover, it is not just a case of "testing supernatural claims" in and of themselves. In order to accept many supernatural claims, you'd also have to reject plenty of other facts which do have an enormous amount of empirical support. You have to look at both sides of the question.
gurugeorge wrote: › How would you scientifically test what Daoist Master Chuang is really experiencing when he "talks to spirits", and is there any way one could test the real-world effectiviness of his magick?
This is missing the point. For the current purpose, "what [he] is really experiencing" is irrelevant; the relevant fact is whether or not he actually is "talking to spirits". And you "scientifically test" that by pointing out that not only has science never found any evidence for the existence of "spirits", but it has accumulated a vast amount of empirical evidence that would have to be wholly overturned if the claim that "spirits" exist were to be accepted.
Similarly, the "real-world effectiveness of his magick" could be tested very easily. If he can't point to specific and concrete results, then he has no grounds for saying that his magick is "effective [in the] real world". If he can point to specific and concrete results, then those can be tested. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zardoz |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 09:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 457
Location: Grass Valley, CA USA
Status: Offline
|
|
| Whether prater-human entities or supernatural phenomena objectively exist or not seems irrelevant to me. Temporary suspension of belief in one's favorite reality can lead to new experiences of expanded consciousness. The 'as if' method - allowing the possibility of alternate realities "as if" they are real and external- can greatly aid the exploration and mapping of inner spaces. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 10:01 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
gurugeorge wrote: › The Magickal theory of the Universe is a bold punt. If it's true, then it really opens up our knowledge, it's potentially a huge prize. It is not entirely without empirical support, it's just that the empirical support is still weak (and remember, we've only been at this science thing for a few hundred years) - it's still largely anecdotal.
More on this, because this is pretty vexing to hear.
You strike me as a pretty reasonable guy, and a long way from being an idiot. I do note that you say below that you "personally don't give belief to Magick stuff" but I have to take issue with the above paragraph. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether or not there is a "magickal theory of the universe" at all, let's take a look at what those who make various "magickal claims" would have us believe.
We're expected to believe not only that these supernatural powers and events exist, but that they are pretty easily available to anyone who cares to investigate them. We have high school teenagers experimenting with Wicca, casting spells and actually believing that they have an effect. Dowsers all over the world think they can reliably find water with a stick. Ditzy blonde dabblers who dabble in the tarot think they can foretell the future having learned "the art" from some raven-haired grandmother. Occultists want to believe that they can just go along to a ritual and immediately start observing "occult effects". It's pretty rare to have someone coming along devoutly believing in this stuff but complaining that they've never been able to get it to work. If we are to believe the stories, it seems that every occultist who takes up practice can "validate for himself" that demons and goblins and all the rest exist.
In other words, this "magickal theory of the universe" holds that not only are these things real, but that they are commonplace. If this type of claim were true, then any independent observer anywhere in the world should, with only a little application, find himself with incontrovertible evidence coming out of his ears. He should only need to look at a wand and demons would come crawling out of the laboratory walls.
In fact, according to the tales these things are so commonplace and easily experienced that they should be occurring without any effort at all, to such an extent that it should never occur to anybody to doubt them. That in itself is enough reason to dismiss these claims out of hand, but it also brings us to another point. We are expected to believe that there are legions of demons, angels and spirits floating around the place with all manner of superpowers such as telepathy, telekinesis, being able to move through matter, being in two places at once, being able to appear and disappear, and all the rest. Yet, are we really to believe that these super-powerful creatures will only reveal themselves to some pimply overweight occultist with a confidence problem, who puts on a brightly coloured robe and bellows some words out a book he just bought at his local branch of Barnes & Noble? And all this just for the spirit to help him get back at his boss for telling him off for not sending them faxes that night?
Just look at some of the weirdos we get here. They can hardly string two sentences together some of the time, yet we're expected to believe that they only have to sit down, get into a trance state, and suddenly they're conversing with super powerful "praeternatural intelligences"? And that these "praeternatural intelligences", who apparently represent "the one and only chance for mankind to advance as a whole", are otherwise sitting around unconcerned for the human race, until one of these specimens decides to think really really hard with his mind, and then and only then do they reveal themselves and put their plans into immediate action through the invincible and terrible power of number puzzles, bad poetry and automatic drawing? What kind of "praeternatural intelligence" would behave in such a way?
Seriously, it shouldn't need pointing out how appallingly tawdry and pathetic this whole sorry charade is. You talk about "advances in science" and "empirical support" as if this "magickal theory" is actually a serious set of hypotheses worth actual consideration. It isn't. It's mindnumbingly inane and ridiculous. To actually conduct serious "research" into this type of stuff would be incredibly foolish. Sure, it would be a "big win" if it were true, but it would also be a "big win" if we could learn to shoot fireballs from our fingers, or, to paraphrase a weirdo showing up here recently, if we could learn to get "all mad powerful like Skeletor". I mean, think of the military applications. But nobody seriously talks about conducting actual scientific research into such things for the simple reason that the idea is truly boneheadedly stupid, and exactly the same thing goes for this "magickal theory". There are millions of other patently stupid claims that aren't worth testing, either, and there's absolutely no reason to single out this "magickal theory" as being an exception. As I said, you strike me as a reasonable guy, but what you are indulging in with this is wishful thinking of the most objectionable kind.
And as for this "magickal theory" itself - there isn't one. There are only magickal claims. Nobody has been able to advance any serious and workable "theory" about how any of this is supposed to function, and whimsical ramblings about "vibrations on the astral" and "all existence is consciousness" aren't going to qualify.
Take a step back for a moment. Imagine a proposal where we wish to cause an accident to occur to our arch-nemesis (since we're all obviously involved in scary black magick wizard wars), so we write their name on a bit of paper, roll it up and tie it with a ribbon, then set fire to it and drop it in a pewter cauldron bought from the local curio store while whispering some mysterious words under our breath. Or, we want to know what's going to happen to our business venture, so we get some sticks, throw them up into the air, and draw conclusions based on how they land.
Now, seriously, who in their right mind who has never been exposed to these "magickal claims" is going to consider either of those proposals and think to themselves, "yeah, that sounds like it might work." No self-respecting scientist is going to think "hey, you know, this just might be worth looking into!"
The whole sorry affair is nothing but ludicrous, crackpot, sentimental high-school piffle. To even suggest that it warrants scientific investigation is to give it far more credence than it deserves, which is none. I know there are plenty of people around who think it is only polite to let these fools indulge in their fantasies without being challenged, but doing that really doesn't render any service to anyone or anything. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
MichaelStaley |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 10:10 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 1294
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Hope this helps.
Yes, it certainly does. It establishes that Kyle never used the term "spacemen". I've never come across someone who "debates" as dishonestly as do you. Admittedly I use the term "debate" advisedly; "pugilism" is more appropriate. |
_________________
"It's all in the egg".
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 10:20 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
MichaelStaley wrote: › Yes, it certainly does. It establishes that Kyle never used the term "spacemen".
You didn't ask if he "used the term 'spacemen'" - you asked if he was "referring to spacemen". "Aliens" and "spacemen" refer to the same thing, as I already told you. If he was referring to one, then he was referring to the other, too. You're the kind of guy who would probably argue "I wasn't referring to oranges!! I was referring to globose, reddish-yellow, bitter or sweet, edible citrus fruits!! Stop misrepresenting me!!!"
MichaelStaley wrote: › I've never come across someone who "debates" as dishonestly as do you.
Gee, talk about the "container of earthenware, metal, etc., usually round and deep and having a handle or handles and often a lid, used for cooking, serving, and other purposes" calling the "metal container in which to boil liquids, cook foods, etc." black. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
zardoz |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 10:40 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 16, 2004
Posts: 457
Location: Grass Valley, CA USA
Status: Offline
|
|
| [quote="Erwin"] gurugeorge wrote: ›
Seriously, it shouldn't need pointing out how appallingly tawdry and pathetic this whole sorry charade is. You talk about "advances in science" and "empirical support" as if this "magickal theory" is actually a serious set of hypotheses worth actual consideration. It isn't. It's mindnumbingly inane and ridiculous. To actually conduct serious "research" into this type of stuff would be incredibly foolish. Sure, it would be a "big win" if it were true, but it would also be a "big win" if we could learn to shoot fireballs from our fingers, or, to paraphrase a weirdo showing up here recently, if we could learn to get "all mad powerful like Skeletor". I mean, think of the military applications. But nobody seriously talks about conducting actual scientific research into such things for the simple reason that the idea is truly boneheadedly stupid, and exactly the same thing goes for this "magickal theory". There are millions of other patently stupid claims that aren't worth testing, either, and there's absolutely no reason to single out this "magickal theory" as being an exception. As I said, you strike me as a reasonable guy, but what you are indulging in with this is wishful thinking of the most objectionable kind.
And as for this "magickal theory" itself - there isn't one. There are only magickal claims. Nobody has been able to advance any serious and workable "theory" about how any of this is supposed to function, and whimsical ramblings about "vibrations on the astral" and "all existence is consciousness" aren't going to qualify.
Take a step back for a moment. Imagine a proposal where we wish to cause an accident to occur to our arch-nemesis (since we're all obviously involved in scary black magick wizard wars), so we write their name on a bit of paper, roll it up and tie it with a ribbon, then set fire to it and drop it in a pewter cauldron bought from the local curio store while whispering some mysterious words under our breath. Or, we want to know what's going to happen to our business venture, so we get some sticks, throw them up into the air, and draw conclusions based on how they land.
Now, seriously, who in their right mind who has never been exposed to these "magickal claims" is going to consider either of those proposals and think to themselves, "yeah, that sounds like it might work." No self-respecting scientist is going to think "hey, you know, this just might be worth looking into!"
The whole sorry affair is nothing but ludicrous, crackpot, sentimental high-school piffle. To even suggest that it warrants scientific investigation is to give it far more credence than it deserves, which is none. I know there are plenty of people around who think it is only polite to let these fools indulge in their fantasies without being challenged, but doing that really doesn't render any service to anyone or anything.
Very true, Erwin. True for yourself in your mind. Can you prove that any of these statements are true outside your mind? You can no more prove the objectivity of any of these statements than the conjurer can objectively prove the existence of prater-human intelligence. Fantastic sarcastic examples are meaningless and prove nothing.
Occultism is called occultism for a reason. If everyone knew about it, it wouldn't be occult. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Alastrum |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 10:41 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 240
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Out of interest, exactly how many people do you assert have "seen goblins"?
Dunno, never counted them. But I've seen various books and magazines full of tales of people from all over the world who claim to have seen goblins/demons/something similar, but I've never heard of anyone anywhere claiming to have seen a "mind".
Erwin wrote: › Anyone can directly perceive a part of the mind other than the conscious part by simply stopping the conscious mind from chattering for a while. It's easy for anybody to do with a little practical application. Now, whether this "part" corresponds well to any proposed models of the "subconscious mind", whether it is properly classified as a "part" of anything or just another aspect of a single thing, or whether the "mind" can be said to have any separate existence from thoughts and feelings at all is entirely another question.
Exactly. So this whole idea of mind is a mental construct in itself, a working hypothesis that will do until we have a better model, so that we can all deal with it in terms we can understand. One day perhaps, someone will be able to demonstrate exactly what "the mind" is, and then we'll know for sure, and we can dispense with the "model".
But my point is that exactly the same principle apply to HGA's, goblins, or what have you: maybe they don't have an objective existence outside of consciousness (nothing does, does it?) But people do have very real experiences. They cannot classify or make sense of those experiences according to the 'rational' world, because the 'rational' world denies that the experience occurred, when the experiencer knows that it did. So all that's left is to seek answers in the "irrational", where such experiences ARE allowed. If someone wants to adopt a culturally predetermined 'dress' for those experiences, and call it a unicorn or a goblin or an angel, that's up to them, or perhaps their "subconscious mind" does the dressing up for them. If it helps them deal with it in a meaningful manner, fine.
Anyone who's actually done magick has usually seen or experienced something that every prior thing they've learned about "reality" says couldn't possibly have occurred. It's when "reality" fails to explain the experience that other explanations are sought elsewhere. And all you've done so far is pour scorn on those alternative explanations... maybe you could offer a better explanation for all these experiences that people have, if you really want to convince them? So come on then... all you're doing is offering nothing to counter everyone else's beliefs except scorn; what's your grand theory of how the universe works? Do tell us precisely where we are all going wrong...
And your argument about observing the mind is faulty anyway: because it's the mind doing the observing! This is like trusting a faulty computer to correctly diagnose what's wrong with itself, LOL.
Oh, and just for the record, Tarot cards CAN predict the future, depending on how they are used. They don't tell fortunes, like "you will marry a rich Swede", but they can predict future astronomical events. This was most probably one of their original uses, which presumably led eventually to the misperception that they can tell fortunes. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
magispiegel |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 11:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 543
Location: London
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin,
"Imagination is more important than knowledge... "
Albert Einstein
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
I think you have come up with some interesting arguments in this thread. However, I do remember that your erwinhessle forum consisted of slating my work (which you have not seen?) and even my profession?! But you have never met me?, you don't even know me? and you have never read any of my work? This suggests that you are not scientific individual, and do not follow logical processes, but rather resonate with patterns of personal delusion. My conclusion therefore places your arguments in this thread as arising from an internal position of a 'conflict' within yourself i.e. your ideas and your actions do not match. In fact by the above example, you are as unscientific as you can get. But hey, that is 'your' reality bubble is it not so? 
The above quote by Einstein signs and seals the redundancy of your incessant need to be acting like an intellectual heavy weight, that keeps the see-saw 'fixed' at one end, rather than in 'motion'. It is funny for a moment, but after a short while it then gets rather irritating for the other person, as they 'know the game', that see-saws are meant to go up and down .
Even as a scientist, we all know that this universe is in 'flux', so much so, that our enquiry into the nature of matter at an atomic level has established that the results of an experiment are determined upon the 'tools' that we use/engineer to extract the data, and even that 'data' is ambiguous depending upon what we are observing and where we are observing it from.
Man has been graced with an 'imagination', and it is through the activity of our 'imaginings' whereby some great men have stumbled upon something unusual, which does 'not fit in' with the commonly held concensus. Later, that 'imagined idea', if 'powered' or 'earthed' correctly, is translated into a methodology which later can support a scientific procedure (experiment) to get closer to the 'nature of how things really are'. In physics, the imaginings belong to the theoretical physicists, and the experiment belongs to mathematical calculation. However, if ALL theoretical physicians were ignored, then Einstein's ideas would have been sidelined. In this respect, I see no incongruency with science if an individual uses the idea of 'praeter-human intelligence' as a metaphysical spring board to touch that finer level of clarity into the nature of things i.e. ones genius (augoedies). Such stumblings or epiphanies/ideas or whatever you want to call them are hidden from people like you because you have no interest for them. There is nothing wrong with a 'belief' either? If man does not have any beliefs, he would be stuck, like you, in a conflict. However, a man should not become fixated on ones beliefs either, because such an acitvity is also disastrous.
Erwin, I suggest that you put your energy into something more productive, and maybe work on discovering a way by which you could 'explain' this process of accessing genius, instead of seeing things as black or white and dismissing things you do not understand. You are not scientific.
Most people really interested in A.C.'s message to humanity understand that there are dormant faculties within our human experience that can become activated by using (doing) 'certain things' to get 'certain results'. Most people interested in Crowley want to explore life. Why?, for many reasons! Maybe to attain some experience that makes their life more fulfilling?. The concept of 'praeter-human intelligence', whether it exists or not, does not create some delusion or fantasy that you go on and on about. On the contrary, it can create profound states of 'space' in the stillness of mind to 'see things how they really are', liberating man outside the oceans of suffering which are plagues mankind. Ultimately, the idea of praeter-human intelligence provides the perfect spring board in my experience to 'look beyond' our selves, and to look more into the human experience.
So, please do not limit yourself Erwin, as these experiences were actively pursued by A.C., and he used his 'imaginings' to create certain tools by which a number of his bizarre 'imaginings' were then translated in an expression of a genius that can be shared by mankind today.
Best Wishes
Charles
P.S. BTW, is the colour of your screwdriver box sky blue?  |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 11:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
Alastrum wrote: › Dunno, never counted them. But I've seen various books and magazines full of tales of people from all over the world who claim to have seen goblins/demons/something similar,
"Claims". What a surprise. Claiming to have seen a goblin and actually seeing a goblin are two very different things.
Alastrum wrote: › Exactly. So this whole idea of mind is a mental construct
Every idea is a "mental construct".
Alastrum wrote: › But my point is that exactly the same principle apply to HGA's, goblins, or what have you:
See? I predicted someone would do this. I even took the trouble to explain in advance why this response wasn't going to fly.
Alastrum wrote: › maybe they don't have an objective existence outside of consciousness (nothing does, does it?) But people do have very real experiences. They cannot classify or make sense of those experiences according to the 'rational' world, because the 'rational' world denies that the experience occurred, when the experiencer knows that it did.
For the umpteenth time, this is utter nonsense. The "rational world" does not deny that an experience occurred. The fact that you had an experience demonstrates to the contrary. What the "rational world" does is challenge your rational interpretation of what that experience actually represented. Nobody is denying that you had an experience, but when you start to claim that, as a result of that experience, you actually did meet a goblin, the "rational world" says "no you didn't".
So the "rational world" categorically does not "deny that the experience occurred" - it concludes that the experiencer is not rationally interpreting his experience correctly when he concludes he actually did witness something supernatural. This should not be difficult to comprehend.
Alastrum wrote: › Anyone who's actually done magick has usually seen or experienced something that every prior thing they've learned about "reality" says couldn't possibly have occurred.
No, they haven't. "Reality" quite comfortably allows, at the extreme, for almost any type of hallucination imaginable. More frequently, it allows for the existence of a huge amount of self-suggestion. Both these explanations are quite adequate to deal with any report of supernatural phenomena.
Alastrum wrote: › It's when "reality" fails to explain the experience that other explanations are sought elsewhere. And all you've done so far is pour scorn on those alternative explanations...
Because they're stupid. I mean, listen to what you're saying here: "If I can't find a good explanation, I'll just randomly pick a stupid one instead." If you can't find a good explanation, then the rational response is to conclude that you just don't have a good explanation, not to randomly adopt a contemptible one.
Alastrum wrote: › maybe you could offer a better explanation for all these experiences that people have, if you really want to convince them?
I don't need to provide a better explanation to point out that any particular explanation is boneheadedly stupid. I don't need to know precisely how the universe originated to determine that it wasn't created by some complex being.
Alastrum wrote: › Do tell us precisely where we are all going wrong...
Accepting ridiculous and stupid claims without having any evidence at all, that's where you're all going wrong, as I keep saying.
Alastrum wrote: › And your argument about observing the mind is faulty anyway: because it's the mind doing the observing! This is like trusting a faulty computer to correctly diagnose what's wrong with itself, LOL.
What balderdash! Your eyes are part of your body, and they can see other parts of your body, so your body doesn't seem to have any problems observing itself. If you've ever noticed yourself having a thought, then your mind has observed itself. If you can't even trust your mind to correctly determine whether you're thinking or not, then you have far bigger problems than believing in supernatural claims. Really, think before you speak.
Alastrum wrote: › Oh, and just for the record, Tarot cards CAN predict the future, depending on how they are used. They don't tell fortunes, like "you will marry a rich Swede", but they can predict future astronomical events.
Oh really? How, exactly? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 11:35 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
magispiegel wrote: › I think you have come up with some interesting arguments in this thread. However, I do remember that your erwinhessle forum consisted of slating my work (which you have not seen?)
Your memory is as faulty as ever. I slated your podcast and your bizarre notions, and raised a question of what quality we could expect your "work" to be as a result.
And I certainly do remember that my forum "consisted" of rather more than just that.
magispiegel wrote: › and even my profession?!
Well, you and I continue to disagree as to whether "faith healing" constitutes an actual "profession". I prefer to describe it as "fraudulent quackery". I suspect that most real medical professionals would take issue with you claiming to be amongst their number.
magispiegel wrote: › But you have never met me?, you don't even know me? and you have never read any of my work?
And if I have anything to do with it, it will remain that way for quite some time.
Snipped the rest of your regular inane irrelevant babble for obvious reasons.
magispiegel wrote: › P.S. BTW, is the colour of your screwdriver box sky blue?
No. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
magispiegel |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 03, 2009 - 11:48 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 543
Location: London
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Well, you and I continue to disagree as to whether "faith healing" constitutes an actual "profession". I prefer to describe it as "fraudulent quackery". I suspect that most real medical professionals would take issue with you claiming to be amongst their number.
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.ph ... p;cat_id=5
Get my profession right. Like I said. You are in conflict.
Best Wishes
Charles |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 04, 2009 - 12:16 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
magispiegel wrote: › http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=42957&cat_id=5
Get my profession right.
Seems to confirm what I originally said - the placebo effect masquerading as actual medical treatment. Even your patient admits that "scepticism won’t do you much good". It's all faith healing in my book, however many medical sounding names you want to give it.
I note with interest that there's no regulation of "acupuncturists" in Cyprus or the UK, and that any quack can set themselves up as a practising one. That doesn't sound very much like the "medical profession" to me. Since a profession requires "systematic knowledge and proficiency", and since "there is no known anatomical or histological basis for the existence of acupuncture points or meridians", it sounds suspiciously unlike a profession of any kind, as I said.
But I digress. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
magispiegel |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Posted: Mar 04, 2009 - 12:19 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 543
Location: London
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alastrum |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Posted: Mar 04, 2009 - 12:21 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 02, 2003
Posts: 240
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin, I'm not going to pick apart your post as it's too easy, and I can't be bothered. I really don't give a flying **** whether you agree with me or not. But I do find your position quite strange: I'm as much of a skeptic as anyone when it comes to woolly claims, but I've had encounters with beings that you assert don't exist, and I'm prepared to entertain the notion that more is happening than a simple "hallucination". I envy you (not really, just kidding) your vast knowledge that enables you to confidently assert that my "mind" (if such a thing exists, when there is no 'hard' evidence) is "playing tricks on me" (what a pathetic hide-behind that is, no attempt at actually coming up with an alternative explanation at all).
Were my encounters "useful"? Not in the sense that any being said "Here Rob, here's a tenner towards the phone bill" (which would have been personally useful), or "Here's the plans for that teleporter you wanted" (which would have been useful to humanity generally), no. But my life is richer for them nevertheless, and any meaning (for me at least), other than that already gleaned, will become more apparent as time goes by.
You twisted my meaning, deliberately or not: I simply stated that the "rational" world offered no satisfactory explanation for my (and others) experiences, other to say that they couldn't have happened. Yet, I have a memory so vivid that I can see, hear, smell and feel the experiences still. And that memory is indistinguishable from my memory of the smell and feel of an apple I held weeks ago. Is one a "mental" construct" and not the other? If both, is one "real" and one not? How can YOU tell? How can I tell? Of course, I'm not stupid: I'm pretty certain my "encounter" didn't involve me leaving the house, or at least certainly not the East Wing anyway, and I definitely didn't wander round the grounds or my boots would have been muddy and the hounds would have barked. Nevertheless, my "experiences" were REAL to me, at the time, as real as any other sensory experience regardless of circumstances. As the "rational" world cannot come up with any explanation other than "hallucination", which is actually nothing more than a name for something science doesn't fully understand, I seek other answers regardless of where they come from. Not until I've got all possible answers in, will I then evaluate which is the "best". You classify science's explanations as "good", yet science admits it doesn't even know what causes hallucinations. So please stop hiding behind "rationality" and throwing rocks, until you can actually come up with a solid argument, and PROOF (that's what science does, doesn't it? Offers proof?) that you're right and everyone else is wrong. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re:
Posted: Mar 04, 2009 - 01:39 AM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 692
Status: Online!
|
|
Alastrum wrote: › You twisted my meaning, deliberately or not: I simply stated that the "rational" world offered no satisfactory explanation for my (and others) experiences, other to say that they couldn't have happened.
And that's the key. The "rational world" offers a perfectly good, consistent and sensible explanation, just like I told you, but that explanation is not "satisfactory" to you. You just refuse to accept it, regardless of whether or not it's true. So you make up some supernatural nonsense instead, because that makes you feel a lot better, makes your life "richer", and gives you more "meaning".
Alastrum wrote: › Yet, I have a memory so vivid that I can see, hear, smell and feel the experiences still. And that memory is indistinguishable from my memory of the smell and feel of an apple I held weeks ago. Is one a "mental" construct" and not the other? If both, is one "real" and one not? How can YOU tell? How can I tell? Of course, I'm not stupid: I'm pretty certain my "encounter" didn't involve me leaving the house, or at least certainly not the East Wing anyway, and I definitely didn't wander round the grounds or my boots would have been muddy and the hounds would have barked.
Then what on earth is all this "How can I tell?" nonsense all about? You immediately follow up that question by saying that you certainly can tell, and in fact, did. So what exactly is the problem, here?
Alastrum wrote: › Nevertheless, my "experiences" were REAL to me, at the time, as real as any other sensory experience regardless of circumstances.
Yet, as you've just stated, you can nevertheless reliably determine now that what was "REAL to [you], at the time", was actually not "REAL" at all. I tell you that hallucinations are things that seem "REAL to [you], at the time" but actually are not real, then you rubbish that idea, and then you turn around and state that you agree that that's exactly what happened to you. You can't seem to keep your story straight from one sentence to the next.
Alastrum wrote: › As the "rational" world cannot come up with any explanation other than "hallucination"
In this case, "hallucination" is not an explanation, it's a description. If you are claiming that you had an experience that seemed absolutely real, indistinguishable from "everyday life", but that you have since determined that it didn't happen, then you were hallucinating. That's what a hallucination is. It's not "a name for something science doesn't fully understand", it's a name for exactly what you claim happened to you. You thought you experienced something that you now accept that you didn't.
Personally, what I strongly suspect you are actually suffering from is not hallucinations at all, but an extremely overactive imagination and a keen desire to believe yourself to be special and a super spooky occultist. If you actually are having the kind of hallucinations you describe, what I'd suggest is seeking immediate medical attention.
Alastrum wrote: › You classify science's explanations as "good", yet science admits it doesn't even know what causes hallucinations.
It doesn't have to, it just needs to know that they occur. We don't need to understand what causes thunderstorms in order to determine whether or not one is occurring.
Alastrum wrote: › So please stop hiding behind "rationality" and throwing rocks, until you can actually come up with a solid argument, and PROOF
If you're making supernatural claims, you're the one that needs to provide the "PROOF", sunshine. We've been through this already. Quite apart from the fact that you've already told me that you've determined that these experiences of yours did not actually represent anything real, so exactly what you want me to prove is a bit of a mystery, right now. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Los |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 04, 2009 - 02:08 AM
|
|
Joined: Nov 02, 2008
Posts: 317
Location: NY
Status: Offline
|
|
Hi everyone,
It's seems I've missed most of the fun today, particularly the discussion of what constitutes "reality."
If I may chip in my two cents: there is such a thing as "subjective reality" and another thing entirely called "objective reality."
There are some things that only exist for me (purely subjective realities). My beliefs, my desires, my ideas, etc. are real, but they are only real for me. The same goes for my imagination. I can imagine a dragon right now, and that mental image is certainly real...but only for me.
Now I could perhaps communicate my imagined dragon to someone else --by drawing it, if I were a better artist -- but that would just be a representation of the imagined dragon. The dragon in my imagination exists only for me.
In contrast, there are things that exist for everybody, not just me (objective realities). As such, we can collect evidence that indicates that they are true (evidence means "data that is independently verifiable and repeatedly confirmable").
My coffee cup that I'm looking at right now is objectively real. I know this because there's a lot of good evidence for it -- anybody who wants to inspect my coffee cup can come to the same exact conclusion: the coffee cup exists.
The objective world is detected by our subjective senses. But our senses can mislead us, so it is very, very possible that what we think we experience is actually something else. For example, my (subjective) experience is that the sun rises and falls in the sky -- however, when I examine the (objective) evidence (independently verifiable and repeatedly confirmable data), I can discover that my subjective experience isn't quite right.
There are people here who have had the (subjective) experience of "talking to spirits." Nobody is denying that the experience is real (just like my experience of watching the sun rise and fall in the sky is real) -- subjectively real.
What we're talking about now is whether that subjective experience corresponds to something objective. In order to demonstrate that, we would have to gather enough independently verifiable and repeatedly confirmable data to determine that these "spirits" that we think exist actually do exist for everybody.
I see that nobody has addressed my point from earlier. I asked (something along the lines of) whether the Christian who thinks that he talks to Jesus actually has "evidence" that Jesus is actually real. Undoubtedly, such a person really does have the "spiritual experience" he reports. But what we're talking about is whether that experience matches up to anything.
He thinks that his subjective experience is "evidence" that Christianity is true. Do you accept this?
Is "talking to Jesus" evidence that Christianity is true? Why or why not? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
kidneyhawk |
|
|
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE:
Posted: Mar 04, 2009 - 02:38 AM
|
|
Joined: Jun 02, 2006
Posts: 1573
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote: ›
We don't need to understand what causes thunderstorms in order to determine whether or not one is occurring.
But that's just it, Erwin...it is an experience BEING EXPERIENCED BY A MIND and HOW its processed is very relative to innumerable factors. To a "primitive mind" it could be the roaring of an angry fellow in the sky. To we who are schooled in modern science, there's an analytical assessment of the phenomena which is now common amongst gradeschoolers. These examples are differing degrees of assessing the experience-which may or may not approximate an agreed upon understanding of what the experience reflects in and of itself.
We don't need to understand to how light and the human eye, optic nerve and brain work to perceive "red." Yet rationalistic science tells us that there isn't some fundamental "red" present...it is the way we, as organisms, are uniquely responding to the phenomena. Modifications to the machine will modify experience. Drugs show us that. Yet are we to assume that baseline human experience unamplified in such a manner is the correct or "best" manner of experiencing phenomena? With all the diversity amongst the "undrugged," we might need to default to another "condition" and what is THAT? General Consensus? Consensus rationality once held, with years of scientific development and backing, that presently accepted astronomical phenomena was impossible and even unscientific itself!
We can agree for the moment that there is "something" we are perceiving and therefore experiencing. When you state that a "hallucination" is not "real," it doesn't change the fact that its being experienced. Hence, it has an "existence," which is to say a "reality." How that "reality" fits into another's assessment of reality is different thing.
Without specific examples of what we are dealing with, it really IS silly to take pot shots at imaginary culprits who you've placed on the other side of Erwin's Acceptable Assessment of Reality. I'm not particularly compelled to transcribe 100 pages of my "magickal record" to offer "proof" which might win me this "debate" with you. However, your critique, when it doesn't devolve into mere mockery of others (or their own knee-jerk responses to YOU) IS something I've given serious thought and consideration to outside of yapping on the forums.
Artistic inspiration from my "spiritual spookiness" aside, I DO perceive a reality to discarnate Intelligences. I also think that your questions and critique are something to account to as a good portion of what we are as humans is built to assess things in a way that is beneficial to our survival. Hence, the deluded soul who thinks fire is his friend may meet a flesh-frying end over the campfire. And if the voices in my end are telling to take a leap of faith right out the third story window, my "rational self" is a good companion asking me to weigh out all of what I know about what I just experienced, as the results could be more than merely getting the warm fuzzy feeling you (most likely PROPERLY) see as a motivator to seek or engage with such "supernatural experiences."
The "reality" which these Intelligences I refer to inhabit is one which I believe we may contact and increase our ability to contact. But it is a sphere which is qualitatively different in nature from that which rational assessment is capable of apprehending. "Emotions" are very real things. But we don't jaunt into the store and buy a box of one. Yet they are an essential aspect to what we are as humans. My feelings of sadness, rage or happiness are not, as such, "illusions." They are realities, experienced by MYSELF, not of necessity shared with the person next to me. They are part of a changing flux of phenomena which we all swim in. And they are an "intangible" aspect of the human mind. By the same token, I can see discarnate minds expressing the same discarnate qualities. Without brains or physical medium? Yes. Without medium? No. And what, then, would such a medium be? The Universe is a vast energy field and aspects of that field not perceived on levels commonly available to human perception may still have a very real existence.
I don't think that as "thinkers," we need to default our appeal to the mass market. We are looking at this whole works much more closely.
I can appreciate Robert Anton Wilson's approach (which was quite influenced by Crowley) when he assessed his own experiences with communications from Sirius. He set up many different "models" which might explain what he experienced. But he didn't sink into one of them and let it shut him off from other possibilities. He kept inquiring and enjoying the inquiry. I'll keep doing the same. It's an amazing colorful reality we exist in and although the phenomena of a plant's growth may be just as fascinating as "Coffee with Aiwass," neither one discredits the other. The Universe in my front yard shouldn't insist that I stop at its perimeter and not bother with non-corporeal beings from Sirius. By the same token, the intrigue and exploration of such "otherworldly" territory shouldn't blind us to the amazing and fantastic things in our commonplace "physical" world, either.
Again, how we deal with it all is best guided by taking Joe Campbell's advice and "following our Bliss." And our accountability to this will be to ourselves.
Just some evening thoughts on the discussion thus far.
Kyle |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Poelzig |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Mar 04, 2009 - 02:41 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
Posts: 283
Status: Offline
|
|
| What amuses me most about this thread is how much I agree with Erwin, yet I still think Crowley's writings on Magick are his strong-suit (from a depth psychology perspective of dealing with the unconscious by way of symbols), and that LIBER AL is a low-water mark in his writings - whereas I get the impression that Erwin regards some of the more philosophical/ethical implications of AL as the redeeming element in Crowley's work. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 20° 
: 
in 29° 
: Anno IVxvii 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
