Brain as organ of c...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Brain as organ of consciousness versus filter

Page 1 / 2

christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

Dear LAShTAL
I generally dislike philosophical imaginings but sometimes as merely a simple human I cannot stop myself from asking questions or coming up with theories just like everyone else. The thing that popped into my head the other day has me intrigued.

Generally as Western Science would have it, and what I disagree with hence this idea, is that consciousness and thus memory, identity etc essentially all our data is stored in the brain and thus to their view comes from the brain.
We can see that when people are brain damaged or injured their faculties in certain respects, or perhaps certain memories are damaged, leading scientists to believe this. ( I think)

Where my idea comes in, is I just had a flash idea that based on Out of Body (henceforth OOB) research and experiences of myself and others, as well as alluding to our cultural historical wealth of knwoledge in terms of soul, spirit, ka/ba, hun/po, what have you, these speak to me as indicative of Self and thus consciousness being stored Elsewhere , outside the body, in some kind of electro magnetic energy known as spirit.

That in mind, (what if) the brain is no mere organ or originator of consciousness, but is rather as I came to think of it, a simple sieve or filter. Well, a complex filtering system.

It seems to me that the data is being stored elsewhere, and the brain merely acts as an interpretor or filter for said information to be able to be used in a human biological form.

This would explain both the necessity of having a brain (our biological entity cannot use pure spirit energy or data without an interpreting interface), and also how injuries and brain damage effect behaviour.

What do you all think?
Just an idea I thought made a lot more sense to me than prevailing scientific thought.


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Hi Christibrany,

Research currently suggests that the brain is the seat of and origin of consciousness and also a filter for it.

For example one can consciously make oneself aware of the feeling of clothes next to the body, or the ticking of a clock by turning this filter off.

Evidence for this (and lots of it) can be found on sites such as Univerity College London's Functional Neuroimaging Laboratory http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/ a site I have quoted from before when defending reason from speculation.

Kind regards

Paul


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Yes! now here we have something 'vital'-studies of the pineal gland have been represented throughout many cultures,and it being represented as the seat of consciousness. I would agree that the data is being sent/stored elsewhere although it can be modified to also send rather than just receive. You have brought a topic that has been my main study for the last five years. Thank you, Christibrany.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 

Well, the thing is that from everything we can tell, consciousness depends on brain chemistry, such that changing brain chemistry changes consciousness. It's not just that when a person's brain his damaged, his personality changes: it's that when we have done experiments where a mild current is used to activate different parts of the brain, it has triggered changes in consciousness (zap this part of the brain, and it brings back memories; zap this part, and it calls up a certain smell in the olfactory sense).

There's a lot of evidence that consciousness depends on brain chemistry, but there's no good evidence that it's the other way around. You write

based on Out of Body (henceforth OOB) research and experiences of myself and others, as well as alluding to our cultural historical wealth of knwoledge in terms of soul, spirit, ka/ba, hun/po, what have you, these speak to me as indicative of Self and thus consciousness being stored Elsewhere , outside the body, in some kind of electro magnetic energy known as spirit.

But there's no good evidence that demonstrates that these out of body experiences are anything more than daydreams, and there's no evidence that consicousness is "stored" somewhere other than the brain.

I'll tell you what you could do to demonstrate your claim, though: design a double-blind experiment -- with a number of unbiased witnesses and some skeptics to observe the experiment -- where one group selects a word randomly out of the dictionary and writes it on a piece of paper that they put on a table. The test subject, who is in another room (or another building, even, but preferably a soundproof room), "astrally projects" or whatever and floats on over to the room where the group is and reads the piece of paper. He returns to his body and writes it down. This experiment is repeated again and again and again (let's say a few hundred times), and then you compare the actual results to the results you'd expect from random chance.

Hell, why not have ten individuals separately astrally projecting into the room and reading the paper? Let's see how many of their answers agree with each other in addition to what's actually on the table.

I mean, let's face it: if people really can "astrally project" in a way that is not just a daydream, then succeeding in something like this -- and succeeding over and over and over -- should be child's play. Why do you think it is that no one's ever done this?

Alternatively, if you think that consciousness is sotred in "electro magnetic energy" that is outside of the body, then we should be able to measure this energy (where the hell is it, anyway?), and discover the mechanism by which it enters the brain.

Given the lack of good evidence to demonstrate that astral projection is anything more than a daydream, the best conclusion is that "consciousness" is just a word for what brains do.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

Los,
All I can say right now given I haven't the time being at work, to search out the information and details, is that I have read in Monroes books, and his institutes scientific experiment result papers, (cant think of a better term) that he and other researchers have both recieved OOB and verified in real life, actual information that was accurate. For example he 'met' a boy that had recently died, and had yet to reincarnate, and the boy gave him his first and last name, and address, and when he went back in body, monroe looked up the guys information in the phone book and called and got his parents and all the information was correct.
I don't know how much more verificatino you could get . I reccomend searching his sites monroeinstitute.org i believe, articles. Any comment?
Of course you can say he is simply lying but he has no real motivation for when the book was first released he was a 'nobody'and barely made enough money to make a hoax worthwhile, let alone pour in hundreds of thousands of dollars into a research instutite if he knew it was all bunkum.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

Los, I responded only after reading your first two paragraphs.
When you say "I'll tell you what you could do to demonstrate your claim, though: design a double-blind experiment -- with a number of unbiased witnesses and some skeptics to observe the experiment -- where one group selects a word randomly out of the dictionary and writes it on a piece of paper that they put on a table. The test subject, who is in another room (or another building, even, but preferably a soundproof room), "astrally projects" or whatever and floats on over to the room where the group is and reads the piece of paper. He returns to his body and writes it down. This experiment is repeated again and again and again (let's say a few hundred times), and then you compare the actual results to the results you'd expect from random chance.
"
This has been done 🙂 If you research the C.I.A, and U.S. Military's remote viewing (or RV for short) program in the 70's I believe it was, they got tonnes of such verification not just of small things like terms on a paper, but also of coordinates, buildings, and other things of the Russians. They poured millions of black budget money into this, and the results that they got proved to them it was accurate and their experiments were all scientifically conducted. If it were useless the government would not waste such money on it . Here are some findings:
http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/cia_remote_viewing_sri.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20060501072556/http:/www.parascope.com/ds/articles/CIAparapsychology.htm

essentially in a nutshell the government said it was accurate but not reliable. Which means it is doable but the input of resources and training as well as difficulty in finding suitable candidates, makes it unreliable, also because there is so much data floating around they have a hard time honing in. Likewise they were unable to scientifically devise a way to discern between RVing and clairvoyance.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

you might like this
it was prepared by the official RV people in the government, (ooo PhD's! scientific credentials! ) for general public dissemination;
[PDF] An Evaluation of Remote Viewing: Research and Applications. Michael D. Mumford, PhD. Andrew M. Rose, PhD. David A. Goslin, PhD. Prepared by ...
Research Library, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, Anomalous
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.95.5009&rep=rep1&type=pdf


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"christibrany" wrote:
This has been done 🙂

Well, there are indeed all sorts of kooks who study "parapsychology" and have a vested interested in convincing themselves (and especially others) that they're studying real phenomena.

But the data doesn't bear them out. You never see their papers being published in any reputable peer-reviewed journals (where other scientists could check their results), and you never even see them generate results that are statistically significant.

You probably have heard of James Randi's marvelous hoax "Project Alpha" -- he sent two fake psychics into a parapsychology research project, and they used simple magic tricks and sleight of hand to convince researchers that they really were psychic. The researchers were so gullible that they believed these young men, without taking any precautions to guard the experiments against cheating, whether conscious or unconscious cheating.

I think that these "research" projects are run by people who have confirmation bias and have a vested personl and professional interest in believing this stuff. If it's real, let's see it done in a double-blind experiment in front of skeptics and unbiased observers.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"christibrany" wrote:
(ooo PhD's! scientific credentials! )

Science isn't based on what a handful of PhDs say. When a scientist proposes an idea, he or she is just some person making a claim -- it's only after that scientist's claims are subjected to peer review from reputable scientists that they become likely to be true.

Anyway, to inject Crowley into this, we do have Crowley's claim to have "tested" astral projection with a partner in Hong Kong. He says that the experiment yielded results but that the times were off.

So here we have Crowley engaging in the testing of astral projection. Why doesn't someone else test it according to the protocol that I outline above? If you could do it, you could permanently shut up us skeptics, and you could win a million dollars from the James Randi challenge.

Why not?


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

I have told you they have. You just have to search out the articles.
It seems to me like a case of not wanting to go find them because you (and its a common thing for sure) not wanting to shake up a comfortable world view you have consctructed all your life.
It reminds me of the old addage which I can't recall exactly how its phrased, but there comes a point where no matter how irrefutable the evidence may be due to being prevalent in many different lay, scientific, and government communtiies, but like anything in existence it comes down to Will. If it is your will to believe in something or not, no amount of proof is ever good enough for most skeptics. They just claim hoax, fraud, or as you said 'kooks' because the 'reputable'journals they happen to be published outside of are only comfortable with their own self limiting modes of thought for want of 'respect' of other like minded 'scientists'. I say that in quotes because a majority of scientists long ago stopped looking for new knowledge and instead keep the status quo with a cowardly blindered view.
So the reputable journals are more interested in keeping the status quo as well due to funding and other issues instead of challenging borders of knowledge like science used to be or is supposed to be about. Tesla is a case in point. Since the peer reviewed journals seem to be the end all be all of the Truth for you instead of well thought out experiments and results, perhaps I can root some out for you. Right now I only have time to respond generally like this instead of delving deep , in between tasks at work. So I apologise for the general overview.

Anyone else interested in my theory of brain as filter versus origin of consciousness? 🙂 The OOB stuff was only peripheral to the idea anyway and we seem to have gone on a slight tangent, however related.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

sorry to double post, but the other thing that comes to mind, is the whole Thing of 'Science'was started to test the physical world.
It is by nature not well equipped to study things by which their definition exist outside of this Phsyical framework. You wouldnt use a altimeter to measure the depth of the ocean.
So if it doesnt fit into your scientific box, by nature of round pegs and square holes, does that mean the block doesnt exist? I dont think so...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thank you for posting those links. An Out of Body Experience is nothing like day-dreaming,lucid dreaming,or astral projection. Remote viewing,lucid dreaming and astral projection have many excercises one who is vulnerable an viligant can equally attain -some exponetially faster an more talented than others. We have these story's of near death experiences that are corrupting a lot of the field research on OOB's since people are confusing these 'over the hospital bed' white tunnel of light' experiences with a true out of body experience. These things don't just happen to everyone,and in fact their very hard to have twice (Most don't have them even once during a lifetime). If you have one - you will know it. The vibrations begin building,and if you can make it past that point where you lose your breath when your body enters a suspended state then 'out' but I regress.

Back to the subject at hand -the pineal gland,and the brain as a complex filter for consciousness. Okay let's assume that all this information is false (All of life is merely a dream,and you are an imagination of yourself) if this was a fact where or what would be causing this phenomenal noumenon?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"christibrany" wrote:
the whole Thing of 'Science'was started to test the physical world.
It is by nature not well equipped to study things by which their definition exist outside of this Phsyical framework.

If your claim is that individuals have the ability to project their consciousness outside of their bodies and actually observe things in the world (and not just the contents of their own minds), that is most certainly a claim about the world that can be tested scientifically.

Your implication that most scientists are "more interested in keeping the status quo" rings false -- the entire history of science is based on using evidence to *overturn* assumptions of the past.

If there were any actual good evidence for the existence of this paranormal nonsense, real reputable scientists would be all over it because it would be their avenue to fame and fortune. If a scientist could ever demonstrate that the paranormal exists -- by means of evidence that could be replicated and repeated by others -- he would receive a nobel prize and be world famous. He'd get all sorts of grants to pursue this field of study.

Further, other reputable scientists would *flock* to parapsychology, all eager to make new breakthroughs and stake their claims.

The fact that this hasn't happened is extremely strong evidence that there is insufficient evidence to think that any of this parapsychology stuff is anything other than daydreaming.

So, just for fun, I've randomly selected two words out of books I have nearby and written them both on a piece of paper. I'm leaving this piece of paper face up next to my computer with both words clearly visible. I'd like any "psychics" reading this to "scry" these words and report them back to the group.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Hi Los,

Inspired by the pseudo-scientific theories put forward on this thread I'll try and scry the two words written by your computer................................................................................

.....................having astrally projected and used other supernatural faculties I deem the words to be Bull and Sh*t.............can anyone tell me what the * stands for? First correct answer gets a PhD in parapsychology.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

"I" Donald Robert Wesson -P.H.D in parapsychology, Thank you Paulus


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

My pleasure... Well deserved!


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

just fyi the reason I started this thread was not to attempt to convert anyone or change anyone's point of view. Just to start some food for thought and perhaps an expansion of knowledge. If one is unwilling to attempt to even speculate on possibilities outside the norm I am not interested in wasting time spoon feeding articles, journals, or experiments, which are all readily available. 🙂 take care!
I find it funny too that depending on the topic, if one were to show the same type of government sponsored PDFs, and former military indivuals' websites on different topics just like I have done, no one would have trouble believing it. But now because the topic is so different it somehow automatically becomes necessary to have credentials and famous journals because non big name journals are somehow not reputable...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Dear christi"brainy",

There are ruminations about the brain and consciousness in a reputable, big-name journal (sadly sans government funding, yet): Starfire, Vol.1 No.5.

My own present view is that the entire human body, brain included, is "an organ", an experession of the will (-as-means) of something else, which "is elsewhere" and supra-, or meta-, physical.

Nanu nanu
Noctifer


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

If you want an informed cleric of science's viewpoint on this, Rupert Sheldrake ( http://www.sheldrake.org/About/biography/ ) is all over this stuff.

There are (as one may expect) always more questions than answers in consciousness research - whatever the pretensions which uninformed, naive believers in rationalism may comfort themselves with.


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 655
 

Christibrany, you started an interesting thread, but even if such things truly are happening, best thing to do in life is, keep the mind of the 'skeptic' even if you have experienced such things yourself, that's one important thing I honour Crowley deeply for, I read, I think in more than one publication that he always kept the mind of the 'skeptic'.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

i heartily agree, which is why I think one should only judge on things they have both well researched and experienced for themselves, yet still not indulge in an entirely 100% pro or con view but rather maintain a healthy distance .Nothing wrong with stating what you feel to be true though as long as it doesn't close your mind to other possibilities to the negative or positive side of an issue. 🙂 I always find it funny to meet people on the site of a celebrated mystic, magician, and astral explorer who would undoubtedly say his greatest Work was what we would term metaphsyical or new age, who sound like they don't believe any of it, and it makes me wonder why they are here . It is dizzing really, but the more the merrier! Keep on keepin on everyone.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"Paulus" wrote:
I deem the words to be Bull and Sh*t

While you're not correct, Paul, you get an A for effort.

Now I seriously did write out two words selected randomly on a piece of paper. Not only is the paper in plain sight, I've been thinking of those two words all day.

Surely, someone out of the many "psychics" who visit this site should be able to come up with the two words. I wonder if they'll all agree on what the two words are....

"christibrany" wrote:
I always find it funny to meet people on the site of a celebrated mystic, magician, and astral explorer who would undoubtedly say his greatest Work was what we would term metaphsyical or new age, who sound like they don't believe any of it, and it makes me wonder why they are here

Well, some of us are interested in Thelema, and some of us are interested in magick ritual as performance art or as psychodrama capable of triggering entirely subjective states of consciousness. Still others just like the art that Crowley and others have produced.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Gee, that's been disproven, then, hasn't it. Good on you, Los. Can't argue with that.

No, wait, I'm wrong. There's a problem with the methodology, it's unscientific. You obviously weren't thinking about the words properly, or hard enough. Or maybe your overall intention, to debunk any notions of psychism, automatically sabotages the process. You see, if minds can interface without material media, then this would be a problem.

Rupert's experiments seem quite reasonable to me, and as he is in fact a professional scientist, they're worth far more than any amount of verbal flatulence from the unqualified. That's if you go in for all that "scientific" stuff.


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
 
"christibrany" wrote:
I always find it funny to meet people on the site of a celebrated mystic, magician, and astral explorer who would undoubtedly say his greatest Work was what we would term metaphsyical or new age, who sound like they don't believe any of it, and it makes me wonder why they are here .

I enjoy The Lord of the Rings immensely, but I don't think Sauron was real.

Fortunately, I have yet to meet people who ask: "How can you be a real fan of Tolkien if you don't believe Sauron really existed?"


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
 
"christibrany" wrote:
I find it funny too that depending on the topic, if one were to show the same type of government sponsored PDFs, and former military indivuals' websites on different topics just like I have done, no one would have trouble believing it. But now because the topic is so different it somehow automatically becomes necessary to have credentials and famous journals because non big name journals are somehow not reputable...

Just because some research is sponsored by a government does not mean it's good science.

The Soviet Union had a legion of academics publishing a ton of papers about how Soviet Communism was a superior form of society that would outrun, outperform and eventually wipe out the inefficient and outmoded Western Capitalism.

Ditto for Lysenko crippling Soviet biology for decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkois m"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

And, by the way: wouldn't it be far easier to simply demonstrate remote viewing or similar supernatural phenomena, than to complain about "big name journals" and other conspiracies that are keeping you down...?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"HG" wrote:
"christibrany" wrote:
I always find it funny to meet people on the site of a celebrated mystic, magician, and astral explorer who would undoubtedly say his greatest Work was what we would term metaphsyical or new age, who sound like they don't believe any of it, and it makes me wonder why they are here .

I enjoy The Lord of the Rings immensely, but I don't think Sauron was real.

Fortunately, I have yet to meet people who ask: "How can you be a real fan of Tolkien if you don't believe Sauron really existed?"

Tolkien never claimed that Sauron "really existed". Bit different, innit.


ReplyQuote
James
(@james)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 251
 

Perhaps just to take a slightly different slant on this there is the view of consciousness proposed in the Buddhist doctrine of the 18 dhatus.

It assumes that there must be consciousness of something and links as co-dependent the organ of sense, the object of sense and the aligned consciousness. Thus we have

colour/form - eye - seeing
sounds - ear - hearing
tastes - tongue - tasting
smells - nose - smelling
tactile sensations - body - feeling
mental objects - cognitive organ - mental consciousness (remembering, thinking etc.)

These are the 18 dhatus. The point of this scheme is to say that each triad is interdependent and that consciousness cannot arise without an object of sense or a working sense organ. Thus consciousness is not one thing, neither does it have one source but is what arises when the necessary causes and conditions are present for it to arise.

So does consciousness arise in the brain - well that would be yes & no because a brain that receives no stimulus either internally from itself or externally from a functioning sense organ cannot be conscious. In other words what this doctrine is saying is that consciousness is non-local it is not a thing in the sense of a brain being a thing. It isn't the brain neither is it separate from the brain. If this were so then consciousness of nothing would be possible and this doctrine says this is not so.

As a fan of popular science programmes, a recent documentary on neuroscience seemed to point to something like this when it found that consciousness arises when different sections of the brain talk to each other. In other words there is no one location in the brain or anywhere else for that matter rather consciousness is not a thing but and event which arises when all the necessary ingredients needed for it to occur are present here and now.

Regards

Jamie


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

I just wanted to thank you all for thinking about my theory and putting up with my idle imagingnigs. That's all this was meant to be but somewhere along the line I took the bait of people wanting to make it an argument.

At any rate I really have enjoyed the posts so far. I agree that just because a government publishes something doesn't make it good science. But in some senses such a statement reminds me of some others I have met who insist on mainstream media to validate facts as if something can not exist without the consensus of the people in charge who generally do no thinking for themselves.

Just appreciative of your indulgence. Because I also realise I have a hard time phrasing things a bit more open ended and so that may be why something that is meant to be just fun or an idea and not a debate always seems to turn into one. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Hi Christibrany,

I like your idle imaginings. When it comes to consciousness and awareness I think there is more to it than simply "it's all in the brain". Certainly some experiences rely upon the brain and the 5 senses, and some aspects of consciousness too, but there's more - and perhaps true awareness does not rely on the brain - but can be channeled, or tuned in, via the grey matter.

Here are a couple links to some interesting data on OBEs and NDEs. The first is an account of a clinically brain-dead woman experiencing OBE during an operation on her brain, the other links to a study by P. van Lommel PhD, et al., regarding NDEs.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html
http://sedna.no.sapo.pt/death_scresearch/pdf_docs/sdm_nde.pdf

I'm also reminded of Robert Anton Wilson once saying that he had an out of body experience while his brain was "flat-lining", but I can't find the original source, or details, of that incident. Does anyone have any more information on that, by any chance?

Best,
a.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
 
"christibrany" wrote:
I just wanted to thank you all for thinking about my theory and putting up with my idle imagingnigs. That's all this was meant to be but somewhere along the line I took the bait of people wanting to make it an argument.

When you post an idea in a public forum, you are implicitly saying that you want to discuss that idea. Discussion includes legitimate criticism of an idea; it doesn't just consist of people slapping you on the back and saying, "Jolly good show! I just *know* there's more to consciousness than the brain."

I think it's a legitimate criticism to point out that there's no good evidence at all for any of this stuff. Even the anecdotal tales seem to dissipate when you put in minor controls to prevent bias from coloring any potential tests.

Case in point: no one seems to be able to scry the two words I have randomly selected and written next to my computer. Come on now, I have them written in plain view, and I've been thinking about them for two days now. Where are all the psychics?

Of course, I'm not expecting anyone to seriously try because obviously it's impossible to do. Go on -- prove me wrong.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2964
 

93,

"christibrany" wrote:
Dear LAShTAL
I generally dislike philosophical imaginings but sometimes as merely a simple human I cannot stop myself from asking questions or coming up with theories just like everyone else. The thing that popped into my head the other day has me intrigued.

Generally as Western Science would have it, and what I disagree with hence this idea, is that consciousness and thus memory, identity etc essentially all our data is stored in the brain and thus to their view comes from the brain.
We can see that when people are brain damaged or injured their faculties in certain respects, or perhaps certain memories are damaged, leading scientists to believe this. ( I think)

Where my idea comes in, is I just had a flash idea that based on Out of Body (henceforth OOB) research and experiences of myself and others, as well as alluding to our cultural historical wealth of knwoledge in terms of soul, spirit, ka/ba, hun/po, what have you, these speak to me as indicative of Self and thus consciousness being stored Elsewhere , outside the body, in some kind of electro magnetic energy known as spirit.

That in mind, (what if) the brain is no mere organ or originator of consciousness, but is rather as I came to think of it, a simple sieve or filter. Well, a complex filtering system.

It seems to me that the data is being stored elsewhere, and the brain merely acts as an interpretor or filter for said information to be able to be used in a human biological form.

This would explain both the necessity of having a brain (our biological entity cannot use pure spirit energy or data without an interpreting interface), and also how injuries and brain damage effect behaviour.

What do you all think?
Just an idea I thought made a lot more sense to me than prevailing scientific thought.

Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Check out "The Science of Synch" - I forget the author but it's well worth the read. Little tiny book. Enormous implications.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Greetings

"Los" wrote:
I think it's a legitimate criticism to point out that there's no good evidence at all for any of this stuff. Even the anecdotal tales seem to dissipate when you put in minor controls to prevent bias from coloring any potential tests.

Case in point: no one seems to be able to scry the two words I have randomly selected and written next to my computer. Come on now, I have them written in plain view, and I've been thinking about them for two days now. Where are all the psychics?

Of course, I'm not expecting anyone to seriously try because obviously it's impossible to do. Go on -- prove me wrong.

This would be an interesting experiment, Los. I would love to take part too, but I’m afraid I would never manage to find those words by myself. I’ve taken a similar test in the past and the positive results were more or less about 50%. (On the other hand, I never claimed that I can read the mind, although it would be awesome, I have to admit, and I’ve heard about people who can do that).

I’m only a channeler and often receive very specific guidance, but once or twice that I asked ‘them’ to prove themselves to the others, they didn’t care to do that, so I stopped asking. There were many cases though where people came with a deeper disbelief which they never expressed, and actually received the confirmation they needed during the session. On the other hand, I hesitate sometimes and try to cross-check the info before I say it (then I often make a statement sound like a question) just to find out it was right.

To be more specific, I was often shown in the past that they give me an amount of energy (I remember feeling it like a balloon of energy growing big behind or around me) to turn it into words (and they are often words and meanings that I’d never think to use by myself). There are times that they bring me packages of words, thoughts and images altogether. And there are times that I wait, and wait and wait to get an answer but it never comes, or instead, there is a sudden feeling of a void, as if they have taken away all the energy from my sight, and I know then that they don’t wish to talk about it.

Who are ‘they’? They often introduce themselves by their names; other times they don’t, but almost always they give a special emphasis on the fact that we are one. “You and I are one” they kept saying, and by and by they taught me to see them as other aspects of my broader Self, yet each one of them having an individual expression in the great Whole which we are.

But is it only me? Does it all take place in my mind? Sometimes Elijah, my guide, arranges meetings for me. Once he had been asking me repeatedly to call a friend (namely Athenais, who registered here sometime ago) and ask her to come and meet me. I didn’t, because I felt it wouldn’t be nice of me to ask her to get in such a trouble (she lives at the other end of the city and has a tight schedule herself). So he let me alone but (as I found out later) he went to her and asked her to call me and arrange a meeting. She did as he asked and only then we realized that he had a plan. 🙂
As a matter of fact, this is how Elijah got us together the day Aleister introduced himself to us. And this motif keeps happening with several others now and then.

Yet, although I’ve been channeling for almost five years, I feel very close to your point of view, Los. That’s why -knowing that what I channel can be, at least in some cases, just my own wishful thinking-, I do this work for free and I always ask the persons who come for a session to think everything for themselves and seek to find their own truth and their own connection to their divine self -or whatever one wants to call it. (As a matter of fact only a few bits of info are given and most of the work aims to help them see within). It is obvious that the energy I channel uses my own profile to manifest (since I’m awake and participate consciously in the process) and the result would be different if this energy had been manifested through another person.

I’ve been guided and taught to see diversity as a blessing and, although each one’s connection to Spirit (God/Prime Creator/Source of Life, etc) is unique, I believe that Spirit’s will is to be finally expressed as a whole through every single manifestation of it. Someone in the forums used the picture of the sea and her waves once, and I think it’s a great analogy that shows precisely what I have in mind regarding the way we connect with each other.

I’ve been shown that I’ll have everything I need to run my own life, under the condition that I won’t meddle with others’ lives and that Spirit wouldn’t really care to apply a certain line of action to humanity (and therefore to convince anyone), at least not from outside. What they wait for is, as I see it, our own action. They wait for us to manifest and experience life, as if the resultant of our awareness as human kind would create the next step of our journey in space and time. So I finally got it, that humans don’t really need someone to take them from the hand and guide them to a distant god, but all they need is to recognize their own divinity and allow themselves to manifest it.

And, to close this rather long message here, this is also why I was so happy to meet Aleister Crowley and the reason I deeply revere his work and keep talking to people about him: he lived his life and endured all its strange turns and worked to liberate humans from their inner slavery and help them stand on their own feet.

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Greetings...again

I just remembered something that could be quite interesting in the context of this thread.

In 2006 I visited Israel to attend a Kryon Seminar. Yes, yes, channelings, new age stuff, etc. There I met Dr. Todd Ovokaitys, a scientist and esoterist who presented a workshop on sound! After a short introduction, he said he would make a few sounds for us and then he would teach us how to make some basic sounds too.

However, I experienced a quite weird and upsetting feeling while listening to his sounds. I felt my aura falling apart around me, just like a piece of crystal collapsing in thousands of little pieces! I got frightened and looked to Elijah. “Do you really believe that you could experience something that wouldn’t be appropriate for you?” he answered. This made me sit and wait quietly until the next coffee-break. Then I went to Dr. Ovokaitis and told him what had happened to me during his class. His answer was that the sounds he made aimed to, let’s say, shake the brain cells and release the stuck energy, and he used them as a way to help the energy flow better during his course.

To complete this story, at the end of our discussion, I realized that my aura was back again, and I think it was some sort of resonance with his energy.

I found it interesting that I didn’t feel the effects of the sound in or around my head, but instead I felt it as a radical change of my own aura. I can only speculate that what I experienced as a collapsing aura was merely the projection of a layer of energy around my brain cells…

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

Los about message boards pt well taken 🙂
Since you like scientific journals and I wanted to find some for you here are specific scientific articles on OBE that have appeared in journals
http://obebibliography.info/science.htm
you will probably say they are not 'reputable' but what do i know?
this was also in the journal for physical research, done by the psychology dept at UC Davis:
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ctt_articles2.cfm?id=31

another interesting article by an MD but not in a reputable journal yet very pertinent to this topic you all might find interesting
http://www.astraldynamics.com/home/obe-techniques/241-brain-anatomy-and-the-theory-of-consciousness.html

also to answer your question on proof i believe Near death experiences are simply unwilled OBEs (obviously you are not in your physical body anymore) and so the articles in journals such as Science (Ehrsson study)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience

Very interesting too
http://www.tricksterbook.com/Intro.htm


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

PS
oh and Los, since no one can change your mind for you but you regardless of what journalistic science words they are publishing in a piece of papers, and since skepticism is a type of curiousity i urge you to try to astral project for yourself. then you will get all the proof you need. if you cant do it because you are too skeptical , ok, but at least try you might be suprised 🙂 just an idea.
http://www.forums.astraldynamics.com/index.php
http://www.forums.astraldynamics.com/viewforum.php?f=18


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

azidonis are there bits in that Gurdjieff book about OBEs or APs? Why did you recommend it? Just curious 😀


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2837
Topic starter  

oh and los since your experiment mainly falls in the realm of remote viewing, since most people that do OBE have no interest in proving things to others and are too busy exploring or improving themselves when doing so, your 'test' falls more securely in the realm of remote viewing. here is a nice paper done by the American Institutes for Research, by Drs Mumford, Rose, and Goslin PhDs discussing their findings on the objective reality of remote viewing and the ability to gain information from a distance
http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/remoteviewing/rvevaluation.pdf
they basically found there was 'an effect' or the results were positive and they got more successful hits or information from the remote viewers than failures, but due to the need for verification it was not valid as an intelligence tool. And while they ceded the results were promising more study was necessary to determine if the study showed 'paranormal' phenomenon versus natural ones.
The sheer number of data on positive remote viewing experiments leads me to believe in its validity, and most scientific journals are genuinely not interested in paranormal phenomena so their not being in mainstream journals is not indicative of value or fidelity but rather lack of interest due to social conditioning and mindset.


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 655
 

Hecate, but Aleister, wasn't the only one who lived his live and endured all it's strange turns, and was an emancipator of humans, their are others as well, needless to say Aleister was a very powerful emancipator of humankind.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"christibrany" wrote:
Where my idea comes in, is I just had a flash idea that based on Out of Body (henceforth OOB) research and experiences of myself and others, as well as alluding to our cultural historical wealth of knwoledge in terms of soul, spirit, ka/ba, hun/po, what have you, these speak to me as indicative of Self and thus consciousness being stored Elsewhere , outside the body, in some kind of electro magnetic energy known as spirit.
"christibrany" wrote:
That in mind, (what if) the brain is no mere organ or originator of consciousness, but is rather as I came to think of it, a simple sieve or filter. Well, a complex filtering system.
"christibrany" wrote:
It seems to me that the data is being stored elsewhere, and the brain merely acts as an interpretor or filter for said information to be able to be used in a human biological form.
"christibrany" wrote:
What do you all think? Just an idea I thought made a lot more sense to me than prevailing scientific thought.

Chapter 5, in the book Hidden Wisdom: A Guide to the Western Inner Traditions, co-authored by the publisher and editor in chief of Gnosis magazine from 1985-1999, Jay Kinney, and titled "Magicians: Sculptours of the Astral Light", might be of some relevance here. This chapter is also where Crowley's work is discussed in the said book. (This chapter is available for free at google books.)

On page 104 in this chapters subsection 'The Art of Will' the following is written: "The mystic, as described earlier, is principally concerned with reaching the Divine using the most direct path; everything else is a mere distraction. The esotericist, on the other hand, while also seeking ultimate union with the Divine, wants to learn about the landscape that appears along the way. The occultis or magician wants not only to view the landscape, but to interact with it as well."

This chapters has a subsection titled 'The Astral Light' starting on page 106. On the same page Éliphas Lévi[which Crowley believed to be his former incarnation] is quoted with the following sentence concerning the Astral light: "It is the common mirror of all thoughts and forms; [...] the images of all that has been are preserved therein and sketches of things to come, for which reason it is the instrument of thaumaturgy and divination."

"Hardware, software, and networks together form cyberspace, a dimension that, while in no way separate from the workings of computers, seems to obey its own laws and possess its own reality." The former sentence is here on page 107 used as an anlogy for the all encompassing astral light, and its relation to the workings of the physical world.

On the same page it is mentione that the astral light is a substance figuratively refered to by some esoteric teachings as "water", because the images within this substance rise and fall like waves, and the following is also written on this page:

"At its core, occult magic is concerned with navigating the watery world of the astral light, usually by astral travel, divination, or ritual."

"Hecate" wrote:
I’m only a channeler and often receive very specific guidance, but once or twice that I asked ‘them’ to prove themselves to the others, they didn’t care to do that, so I stopped asking. There were many cases though where people came with a deeper disbelief which they never expressed, and actually received the confirmation they needed during the session.

"Hecate" wrote:
[...] To be more specific, I was often shown in the past that they give me an amount of energy (I remember feeling it like a balloon of energy growing big behind or around me) to turn it into words (and they are often words and meanings that I’d never think to use by myself).
"Hecate" wrote:
There are times that they bring me packages of words, thoughts and images altogether. And there are times that I wait, and wait and wait to get an answer but it never comes, or instead, there is a sudden feeling of a void, as if they have taken away all the energy from my sight, and I know then that they don’t wish to talk about it.
"Hecate" wrote:
Who are ‘they’? They often introduce themselves by their names; other times they don’t, but almost always they give a special emphasis on the fact that we are one. “You and I are one” they kept saying, and by and by they taught me to see them as other aspects of my broader Self, yet each one of them having an individual expression in the great Whole which we are.
"Hecate" wrote:
Yet, although I’ve been channeling for almost five years, I feel very close to your point of view, Los. That’s why -knowing that what I channel can be, at least in some cases, just my own wishful thinking-, [...]

Or a certain quality of your thinking, or a certain way of your thinking.

"Hecate" wrote:
I’ve been guided and taught to see diversity as a blessing and, although each one’s connection to Spirit (God/Prime Creator/Source of Life, etc) is unique, I believe that Spirit’s will is to be finally expressed as a whole through every single manifestation of it. Someone in the forums used the picture of the sea and her waves once, and I think it’s a great analogy that shows precisely what I have in mind regarding the way we connect with each other.

The all encompassing astral light mentioned earlier in this posting, is by some esoteric teachings refered to as "water."

"Hecate" wrote:
And, to close this rather long message here, this is also why I was so happy to meet Aleister Crowley and the reason I deeply revere his work and keep talking to people about him: he lived his life and endured all its strange turns and worked to liberate humans from their inner slavery and help them stand on their own feet.

'Hecate', I guess you are aware of that all the Class A texts at the core of Thelema, are presented as being channeled to A.C.

Crowley specified that these channeled texts are works that are not to be changed, even to the letter. He worked much with writing comments upon the above-mentioned channeled texts.

On page 66 in The Weiser Concise Guide to Aleister Crowley by Richard Kaczynski and James Wasserman, the 'The Comment', also called 'The Short Comment' or 'The Tunis Comment', is presented as a Class A text received in 1925. (The relevant page is available for free at google books.)

A common idea about the last Class A text that Crowley channeled, is that it presents the interpretation of the often cryptic channeled Class A texts within Thelema, as being the responsibility for the reader alone.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Greetings

"alysa" wrote:
Hecate, but Aleister, wasn't the only one who lived his live and endured all it's strange turns, and was an emancipator of humans, their are others as well, needless to say Aleister was a very powerful emancipator of humankind.

Yes alysa, he wasn’t the only one, and I honor them all, but somehow Aleister found his way to my heart and made himself at home (literally) 🙂

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Or a certain quality of your thinking, or a certain way of your thinking.

Indeed.

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
The all encompassing astral light mentioned earlier in this posting, is by some esoteric teachings refered to as "water."

I know that there is a correspondence between the element of water and the astral field, but in this case I’d say that the analogy goes much deeper.

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
'Hecate', I guess you are aware of that all the Class A texts at the core of Thelema, are presented as being channeled to A.C.
Crowley specified that these channeled texts are works that are not to be changed, even to the letter. He worked much with writing comments upon the above-mentioned channeled texts.
On page 66 in The Weiser Concise Guide to Aleister Crowley by Richard Kaczynski and James Wasserman, the 'The Comment', also called 'The Short Comment' or 'The Tunis Comment', is presented as a Class A text received in 1925. (The relevant page is available for free at google books.)
A common idea about the last Class A text that Crowley channeled, is that it presents the interpretation of the often cryptic channeled Class A texts within Thelema, as being the responsibility for the reader alone.

No wellredwellbred, as a matter of fact I wasn’t aware of that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. However, having this in mind I do understand why the interpretation of these texts is left on the reader…


ReplyQuote
alysa
(@alysa)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 655
 

I really hope he's enjoying his home in your heart, but I do not doubt it!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Hecate, so somehow Aleister has found his way to your heart and literally made himself at home. And you are soon to receive the updated version of the major A.C.-biography Perdurabo.

Having read the first version of Perdurabo, I grant myself the liberty of warning you that even someone as thick-skinned as me, was thoroughly disapointed by what I read there about his relational behaviour, especially with intimate partners.

On the other hand, even a thick-skinned person like me who usually avoid poetic and lyrical literature at all cost, found it an absorbingly moving experience to read the, presented as channeled, Class A texts constituting the core of Thelema.

These texts have been published as The Holy Books of Thelema. Yea, though it would, in line with the subjectmatter of this thread, be interesting to discuss if these texts were derived from Crowley's brain as an organ of his consciousness, or entirely filtered through his [and/or others] brain[-s] deriving from some outside source[-s], I find them to represent something fine, if not the finest, I can associate with Aleister Crowley. And I hope you will find some 'antidote' in these texts (also available for free on the internet), to the also less finer sides of him, mentioned among everyhing else covered in the now even more well-researched updated edition of Perdurabo.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Just watch her when she starts asking for money. 😀

(it's a joke - I think Aleister could probably have done with some Hecate in his heart, rather)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Los,

Your two-word test is intriguing. Of course, a third party (i.e., a moderator) should be made aware of the two words, in order to confirm any hits/misses.

I don't know if any lashtalians claim to be psychic (or whatever), but it would be fun. Why not, right?

a.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Greetings

"Noctifer" wrote:
Just watch her when she starts asking for money. 😀

LOL Noctifer 😀

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
Having read the first version of Perdurabo, I grant myself the liberty of warning you that even someone as thick-skinned as me, was thoroughly disapointed by what I read there about his relational behaviour, especially with intimate partners.

Well, I’ve already read and heard a few things about his behavior and I had a hard time accepting him in the first place –and explaining this decision to others as well. However ‘my’ Aleister (that is to say, the vibration of Aleister I am connected to) has very little in common with this personality. He can be a real handful at times, but he comes with the crystal clear (but well grounded) quality of an ‘Ascended Master’ and almost always along with the Christ energy. He said his symbol is a light blue/white lily (which I always see it as a fleur-de-lis) and uses a very light blue as his color. A few months ago I read “The diary of a drug fiend” and I found it interesting that he described the dome (which I think stands for the spiritual world) of the Abbey temple in Cefalu as being decorated with Fleur-de-lis.

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
On the other hand, even a thick-skinned person like me who usually avoid poetic and lyrical literature at all cost, found it an absorbingly moving experience to read the, presented as channeled, Class A texts constituting the core of Thelema.

A thick-skinned person? This implies for me the idea of resistance and non violent defense as well as the idea of the borders of our 3D territory. By the way, have you ever tried to visualize a person without his/her skin? You’d make some interesting discoveries about personality… Anyhow, acceptance comes from the heart. At some point I was shown how to open my heart and make place for everyone/everything, asking them at the same time to balance themselves before they enter the threshold. It worked with AC as well, although I realized that it was my own hang ups that made me feel upset in the first place.

A few months earlier than that I was guided to do the same thing with no less than Hitler and it was painful, but it didn’t make it much easier to work with AC later, as they expressed very different archetypes. (I don’t mean to compare the two men here; I merely refer to my personal steps of awareness.)
Perhaps it would be interesting to have a thread about the archetypes represented by Aleister Crowley in the collective subconscious.

"wellredwellbred" wrote:
These texts have been published as The Holy Books of Thelema. Yea, though it would, in line with the subjectmatter of this thread, be interesting to discuss if these texts were derived from Crowley's brain as an organ of his consciousness, or entirely filtered through his [and/or others] brain[-s] deriving from some outside source[-s], I find them to represent something fine, if not the finest, I can associate with Aleister Crowley. And I hope you will find some 'antidote' in these texts (also available for free on the internet), to the also less finer sides of him, mentioned among everyhing else covered in the now even more well-researched updated edition of Perdurabo.

Thank you for the recommendation; I’ve already read the Book of the Law and now I will try to read the rest Class A libri as soon as possible, but I’d rather use AC’s poetry as an ‘antidote’. 🙂 Like you, poetry never appealed to me before and all I could recall were the first verses of the Greek national anthem, but AC changed that.

It’s true that his difficult personality makes it hard to believe (even for those who accept the idea of channeling) that this person really channeled something or that what he channeled was from the ‘right’ source but, leaving aside the ‘good / bad’ polarity, I have the impression that he channeled much more than the class A texts.

He was a great poet and artists are said to have an “open channel”. Then, when you reach a point where you are connected/aligned with the inner fields most of the time, it’s not always easy to say what you channel and what you don’t. There are several ways of channeling. You can ‘hear’ very specific words and sentences or just start talking or writing and allow their energy to blend smoothly in the process. There are even times that you realize you had been channeling only after you have finished saying something. So I believe he did it in most of his writings, but he tried to keep it clear and left out what he thought that looked like his own mind’s work.

And, to get back to the topic –at last-, I think it would be fair enough to say that brain is a broadcasting device…. All we’ve been trying to do is to find out who is the one who broadcasts.

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Correction:

In my previous post I said:
“A few months ago I read “The diary of a drug fiend” and I found it interesting that he described the dome (which I think stands for the spiritual world) of the Abbey temple in Cefalu as being decorated with Fleur-de-lis”

I didn’t feel sure about my description and thought to check it again. This is what it says:
“A blind dome of marble rimmed with a balcony at the base crowned the tower, circular, with many tall windows Gothic in design, but capped with fleurs-de-lys; and this was set upon eight noble pillars joined by arches which carried out the idea of the windows on a larger scale.” (p. 359)

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"Hecate" wrote:
A thick-skinned person? This implies for me the idea of resistance and non violent defense as well as the idea of the borders of our 3D territory. By the way, have you ever tried to visualize a person without his/her skin? You’d make some interesting discoveries about personality…

No,I have not "ever tried to visualize a person without his/her skin", but recall something to that effect being covered in the horror film "Hellraiser" directed by the theater educated Clive Barker, who also wrote the book "The Hellbound Heart" on which the said film is based. This film lead to a follow up film including use of a Crowley portrait and A.'.A.'. images and effects as stage props. Hope I will now not soon make some 'nightmarishsly' interesting discoveries about personality in my sleep.:shock:

"Hecate" wrote:
Anyhow, acceptance comes from the heart. At some point I was shown how to open my heart and make place for everyone/everything, asking them at the same time to balance themselves before they enter the threshold. It worked with AC as well, although I realized that it was my own hang ups that made me feel upset in the first place.

Well, a special kind of acceptance is involved in what I will refere to as the "crossing over" described in the horror book - and films mentioned by me above. That book and the first of those films are classics that i recommend for your perusal. If for nothing more, so for an impression of how "crossing over" can be described in pop culture.:wink:

To get somewhat more back to the topic:

All the class A texts at the core of Thelema, are presented by Crowley as channeled to him, deriving from some external source[-s]. Even if all these texts are to the contrary derived from Crowley's brain as an organ of his consciousness, we still, in the chapter 7, under the subheading 'The Editing of the Book'[= The Book of the Law] in Crowley's book The Equinox of the Gods, (written in 1927 or 1930), have the following comment from him:

""Change not so much as the style of a letter" in the text saved me from Crowley-fying the whole Book, and spoiling everything."
Source: http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox-of-the-gods/eqotg7.html

To me that comment constitute Crowley wisely advising readers of the class A texts at the core of Thelema, to disassociate his personality from their understanding of these texts.

Below are some information about A. Crowley from the 1920s being aware of his reputation being damaged beyond repair:

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Though Crowley thought bad press was a good thing, believing he could merely wait it out, from the 1920s he was so keenly aware of how his reputation was damaged beyond repair that he contemplated a life in hiding and separating the person Crowley from his promulgationary efforts of his Law. This culminated during his Ipsissimus initiation where he declared that Aleister Crowley literally died.

"Patriarch156" wrote:
However his plan of ruling things from behind the scenes failed and after this he started numerous but failed attempts to rehabilitate his name. Everyone of them attempting to paint his in a positive light of the kind S.I. indicates in his post (mystic, climber, poet, patriot, philosopher and yes the founder of a new religion, the Law of Thelema).

"Patriarch156" wrote:
Besides his socalled transgressive values never even went so far that he wanted his various organisations to break the law. As he remarked in a letter to Norman Mudd on may 27th 1924, that "[o]n no account will orders be given which would infringe the law of the country where they are to be carried out. Our whole object being to establish a just and strong law, our first principle must be for law as such however unjust.

The quotes above are taken from Patriarch156's first posting at page 12 in the thread 'Politics and Thelema':
Source: http://www.lashtal.com/nuke/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=4344&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=politicalstart%3D330&start=330


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

wouldnt the brain just be the physical manifestation of conciousness?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

no, consciousness is a manifestation of billions of neurons synching up....

From Publishers Weekly

Strogatz is a Cornell mathematician and pioneer of the science of synchrony, which brings mathematics, physics and biology to bear on the mystery of how spontaneous order occurs at every level of the cosmos, from the nucleus on up. In this eminently accessible and entertaining book, Strogatz explores the mysterious synchrony achieved by fireflies that flash in unison by the thousands, and the question of what makes our own body clocks synchronize with night and day and even with one another.

He explores the sync of inanimate objects, inadvertently discovered by Christiaan Huygens in 1665 when he observed that his two pendulum clocks would swing in unison when they were within a certain distance of each other.

A case of spontaneous synchrony occurred on the 2000 opening of the Millennium footbridge in London when hundreds of pedestrians caused the bridge to undulate erratically as they unconsciously adjusted their pace to the bridge's swaying-it was closed two days later.

Strogatz explores synchrony in chaos systems, at the quantum level, in small-world networks as exemplified by the parlor game "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" and in human behavior involving fads, mobs and the herd mentality of stock traders. The author traces how the isolated and often accidental discoveries of researchers are beginning to gel into the science of synchrony, and he amply illustrates how the laws of mathematics underlie the universe's uncanny capacity for spontaneous order.

Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: