Is Thelema not so d...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Is Thelema not so different?  

Page 10 / 14
  RSS

mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
15/07/2009 6:15 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
How can I be sure you are more competent on Thelemic matters?

By judging my competency based on what I'm actually saying about Thelema in each particular post, instead of deciding what you'll think of my words before even reading them.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/07/2009 8:27 pm  

93,

"To roads diverged in a yellow wood..." and they never met up again. Then one road spends the rest of its existence pretending to be the other road, while the other road is completely at ease with being what it is.

I know, make no difference... but still. Some things are as they are, and I see them as above.

Enjoy! 🙂

93 93/93,

Az


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/07/2009 11:22 pm  

Los:
Or do you think that doing your true will makes all fantasies vanish?

No. But fantasizing about doing something else with your life will vanish.

So your method is to "explore" one's symptom (how, exactly?) until one "activates" the true will (is this a synonym for "discovers"?) and confirms this by means of a "disruption" in the Symbolic field (can you give a hypothetical example?).

I cannot tell you how to explore your symptom because I have no idea how you understand yourself. If you are an atheist and do not believe in the self, possibly you do not recognize or have rationalized away any symptoms in yourself. If true, your interest in True Will is symptomatic in that the concept itself requires a subject (subconscious, unconscious, the divine within, higher self - pick your metaphor) to express it. Keep hacking away at the concept and you will definitely discover it.

I don't see how this follows at all. Your claim is that someone doing his true will will never (or rarely) encounter bad luck?

No, I said someone who is having a string of heavy bad luck is on bad terms with their True Will. The force works against them because they have not learned to align themselves with it. Or don't understand what is happening - typical ordeal stuff. Conversely I would not say someone doing his True Will never (or rarely) encounter bad luck, although Crowley did say the universe comes to the aid of the person doing their True Will.

Erwin:
So - are you aware of any such successful, rigorous, documented and replicable experiments which establish the objectivity of astral communications to a standard which would be accepted by any reasonable and impartial observer?

Off the top of my head - no. But your questions needs to be placed in context. There is no objective way to measure the presence of consciousness nor do we know what it is. This is scientific fact. But no one would claim pursuant to the aforementioned that consciousness does not exist. So who, exactly, are these reasonable and impartial observers?

Azidonis:
Nice to hear your input.

As for Will... I hold the opinion that the common consciousness of the average Joe is puppeteered by his Ego. This includes all of his sensory perceptions and virtually everything that makes Joe "who he is". When it comes to Will, the Joe has to turn himself inside out. Joe has to recognize the Divine within himself, and allow that Divinity to become the puppeteer. It is much easier said than done as most of us know, but there is a major difference between being tossed about by the senses and common mankind issues, and being able to distinguish between even the slightest impressions upon those senses and then utilize EVEN THE NEGATIVE ONES in order to fulfill one's purpose.

I fully agree with the sentiment that "Joe has to turn himself inside out".

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you will kill you."
- Gospel of Thomas


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
16/07/2009 1:43 pm  

I don't know how I'm supposed to respond to this. What do you want me to do, exactly?

stop fantasizing about teaching, take some lessons in performance art.

an esthetic consideration...

"Anyway, I don't even know where the disagreement is. The dream interpretation example shows that _((( I )))_am fundamentally in agreement with ))_you_(((. Your method of discovering the will -- cutting through mind stuff and attending to what's left over -- is virtually identical to mine.

Where is it that we disagree, exactly?" my fantasy?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
16/07/2009 2:44 pm  

Los Vs. The Tyger.

In the End, both shall burn bright.

🙂


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
16/07/2009 4:15 pm  

In the End, both shall burn bright.

good
lookin
out
😀


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/07/2009 5:07 pm  

The bone of contention here concerning our perspectives on 'reality' has been thoroughly gnawed by now, and the fact remains concerning that perspective, IMO: Balance: Good! Imbalance: Bad! 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/07/2009 3:17 am  
"tai" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
So - are you aware of any such successful, rigorous, documented and replicable experiments which establish the objectivity of astral communications to a standard which would be accepted by any reasonable and impartial observer?

Off the top of my head - no.

Right. No.

"tai" wrote:
But your questions needs to be placed in context.

I suspect you're about to abuse the concept of "context" again, but let's see where you're going with this.

"tai" wrote:
There is no objective way to measure the presence of consciousness nor do we know what it is. This is scientific fact.

Yup. I was right.

There certainly is an objective way to detect the presence of consciousness, whatever you think "measuring" it might mean in that context. Any conscious person can observe unambiguously that they are conscious. It's easy. Give it a try, sometime. By observing that other people are awake and respond sensibly to stimuli and communication, you can detect the presence of consciousness in them, too. So much, then, for your "scientific fact". Sure, we don't know much about what consciousness actually is other than the fact that it appears to arise in the brain, but happily it turns out that this lack of knowledge doesn't affect us, here.

"tai" wrote:
But no one would claim pursuant to the aforementioned that consciousness does not exist.

No, they wouldn't, because the "aforementioned" is nonsense.

"tai" wrote:
So who, exactly, are these reasonable and impartial observers?

First of all, if you think the irony of you trying to claim that there can be no "reasonable and impartial observers" after you've just got done telling me I'm "close-minded" for not believing that Crowley's "instructions on how to verify the reality of astral visions" do what you think they do and that his experiments which you believe to "observe the objectivity of their astral communications" actually do so, then you're sadly mistaken. Either you think the "objectivity of astral communications" can be observed and the "reality of astral visions" verified, or you don't. Which is it going to be?

Secondly, we're not talking about consciousness, so yet again you're indulging in the "straw man" argument you regularly accuse other people of. To demonstrate the "objectivity of astral communications" is it neither necessary to determine what consciousness is, or even that consciousness exists at all - all that is necessary is to determine that a message transmitted "astrally" has been actually received, similar to any other study of "ESP" or "telepathy". You could give someone a word, or a picture of a shape, or any number of other things, and get them to "astrally communicate" them to someone else under controlled conditions. If that someone else is able to reliably and consistently correctly report the contents of those communications, then at least you have evidence that something unusual is going on, even if it might be something other than "astral communication". So far, nobody has ever been able to show that anything supernatural is going on, let alone the specifics of such supernatural phenomena. Ever.

So no, crying about a poor understanding of consciousness doesn't get you out of this one. You've claimed that the "objectivity of astral communications" can be observed, and indeed designing experiments to attempt to observe this would be easy. So you're still left with the problem of explaining why nobody has ever, in this history of time, been able to demonstrate this, despite over 100 years of various types of "parapsychological" research. After over 100 years of parapsychological research, and after an even longer amount of time for occultists, every man jack of them is still at the point where they haven't even been able to determine that they have anything going on at all, let alone what the nature of that something might be. At some point there is going to have to come a time where continuing to take such possibilities seriously is not being "open-minded" - it's just being gullible and credulous. After the lack of such results as I've described, that point is now long past, as far as I'm concerned.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
20/07/2009 5:13 am  

There certainly is an objective way to detect the presence of consciousness, whatever you think "measuring" it might mean in that context. Any conscious person can observe unambiguously that they are conscious. It's easy

So, "objectivity" is determined by subjective experience??? I observe thus and such and therefore conclude that thus and such "must be so???"

Descartes doubts until he can't doubt that he's doubting?

And then appeal to a subjective experience of "consensus reality" to reinforce conviction that such perception is "objective," "real" and not uncomfortably relative???


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
20/07/2009 12:55 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
So, "objectivity" is determined by subjective experience???

Detected by, not determined by. Objectivity is detected, conclusions are determined.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I observe thus and such and therefore conclude that thus and such "must be so???"

Yes. Isn't the scientific method a marvel? You can observe things and draw conclusions, and stuff, instead of just inventing random conclusions based on how invigorating they seem. Give it a try, sometime, you'll be amazed.

"kidneyhawk" wrote:
And then appeal to a subjective experience of "consensus reality" to reinforce conviction that such perception is "objective," "real" and not uncomfortably relative???

You're confusing yourself with word games. Again. The fact than an experience is "subjective" in the "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought" sense in no way implies that it can't be used to detect objectivity in the "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" sense. That's a good thing, too, because, since all experience is "subjective" in that sense by definition, we'd otherwise all live in a world where objectivity had no discernible meaning whatsoever, and your "argument" would consequently fall unceremoniously onto the floor. As it has anyway, in fact.

If a line of thought leads you to conclude that your own chosen terms in your own chosen argument are meaningless, that's usually a pretty good sign that you made a mistake somewhere, and that you might want to look for that mistake before you post about it to the world with ten marks of interrogation in four sentences.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
21/07/2009 6:34 am  

Detected by, not determined by. Objectivity is detected, conclusions are determined.

Splitting hairs. My point was that you made a statement indicating that one's subjective impressions of an "objective reality" were an "objective way" of determining something. I'm sorry-I didn't realizing that "subjective detection" qualified as an "objective way." It seemed to me that you've been critical of this view. 😯

So, let me get this straight. We "subjectively detect" a presumed "objective reality" and are, by virtue of this "way," qualified to "determine conclusions." I summed this up as

I observe thus and such and therefore conclude that thus and such "must be so???"

to which you replied

Yes. Isn't the scientific method a marvel?

Again, I thought my subjective experiences, perceptions and so on were being dismissed as "fantasies."

You can observe things and draw conclusions, and stuff

Like observing that the sun moves across the sky each day, therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that it revolves around the earth?

That actually IS a reasonable conclusion and I don't think our ancestors who thought this was a FACT were entertaining "fantasies" at all. They were working with the information at their disposal, the best they could. What WAS observed helped in practical matters and would ultimately lead to a wholly different understanding. Just because they were "free of fantasy" and "drawing a conclusion" didn't indicate any substance to the idea. Being open to another possibility, despite what you "know," can be a very helpful thing, Erwin.

Your alternative to this is "drawing random conclusions."

"Random conclusions?" A random conclusion would be: We exist in a heliocentric universe therefore the dog has looked in the mirror from the opposite side (and even that is not wholly "random" but surrealistic...random would imply "without any line of connectivity whatsoever." Can you give an example of ANYONE on this website EVER drawing what could be defined as a "random conclusion???")

Give it a try, sometime, you'll be amazed.

I've been operating with the method of observing, drawing conclusions and allowing that process to accumulate into a helpful body of working knowledge for some time now. It IS amazing. As is life.

since all experience is "subjective" in that sense by definition, we'd otherwise all live in a world where objectivity had no discernible meaning whatsoever, and your "argument" would consequently fall unceremoniously onto the floor. As it has anyway, in fact

What are you talking about? My "argument???" LOL! I asked you a series of questions as your statement seemed to contradict your emphatic stance on certain ideas in the past. I presented no "argument" here.

But let's look at what you wrote:

since all experience is "subjective" in that sense by definition, we'd otherwise all live in a world where objectivity had no discernible meaning whatsoever

No. Acknowledging that thus and such is "true" or "real" is in CONTEXT of our SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE which we cannot escape. I don't hem and haw over whether or not its "really real" that my car needs gas and gas will keep it moving. For all practical purposes in my world, the car, gas and so on is "really real" and it's not a philosophical issue. I'm filling up the tank! But my "conclusions" regarding how things are operating in this scenario are ULTIMATELY subjective conclusions. They work and I operate accordingly. Nor does this particular issue require much more examination in terms of my Will at the moment. But there ARE other aspects of perception which DO ask to be seen from vantage points outside of my "knowledge bank," with its limitations.

For my perception to be subjective, it relates to what I am, with both limitations and capabilities. To willfully alter these conditions is to "adjust the lens" to see with a different focus. I do not need to justify this "perspective adjustment." My Will, my "Essential Nature" is doing its thing and moving on its Path. Perhaps your Path doesn't have any need whatsoever to displace what you "know" with something you "could know." That's cool. But let me add this: we observe an animal. Our pet cat or dog, for example. These are not creatures devoid of "reason." They come loaded with instinct (as do we) and begin to acquire knowledge about their environment to which they respond. One dog learns from a series of beatings that "men are bad, put up the defense," even when one is standing there with nothing to offer but affection and treats. It makes sense but we think that, as humans, we can do one better than the animal. We have more information at our disposal, more possbility in our potential to work with it towards our betterment. That dog or cat , we might surmise, is more advanced in these skills than a fish. The fish can act with more options and self-determination than a rock.

Is it not conceivable to you that there exist both humans and non-human entities who are likewise beyond your present capabilities of operating in the fields of perception and action?

I know..."Show me the proof." Ever read Flatland? I may as well try to "prove" to a dog that the earth is revolving about the sun. The faculties have to be adapted to the environment to attain to a different perception. We also have this potential as human beings.

Kenneth Grant made a point of observing that LANGUAGE, our mode of communicating, must be transformed to accomodate these changes in perception and perspective. This is most likely why a literalist cannot understand Grant at all. I know this because I was one of those "literalists." I read Grant for the first time and thought: WTF??? When perspective changed, I reread baffling, disturbing or seemingly preposterous passages and was amazed at the directness of his prose.

ten marks of interrogation

Didn't realize you were being waterboarded on the boards here. I'm just observing YOUR arguments coming apart at the seams and questioned what you were saying.

I suspect you'll say he's "below you," but I'd suggest reading some Robert Anton Wilson (such as Prometheus Rising) with half an open mind. It might help you see that your view-and the conclusions you've drawn-are not the only ones. Nor the most valid for your fellow creatures.

When you see this, you might gain some insight into those "fellow creatures" which significantly alters how you communicate, from one "subjective universe" to another. It's not JUST the things you share in common that is meaningful but the ability to bridge a gap between those things you don't.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/07/2009 6:52 am  

Erwin:

There certainly is an objective way to detect the presence of consciousness, whatever you think "measuring" it might mean in that context. Any conscious person can observe unambiguously that they are conscious. It's easy. Give it a try, sometime. By observing that other people are awake and respond sensibly to stimuli and communication, you can detect the presence of consciousness in them, too. So much, then, for your "scientific fact".

My "measuring" comment refers to debates in AI on whether a machine can ever become sentient. A machine can display all the characteristics of consciousness in terms of behaviour or even claim that it has consciousness - much like humans - but neither of the aforementioned proves anything. To put it simply, an objective test able to conclusively determine the presence of consciousness does not exist. As someone noted, science is about objective measurement and logical implications therefrom, but the very nature of subjectivity is that you cannot measure subjective experience - you can only measure correlates of it, such as behaviour. A very loose analogy can be seen, for example, in the debate whether parrots can really talk or if they are randomly repeating certain phrases without intent. We don't know.

Take another look at my scientific fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Sure, we don't know much about what consciousness actually is other than the fact that it appears to arise in the brain, but happily it turns out that this lack of knowledge doesn't affect us, here.

Of course it affects us here. Perceptions of the real and the imaginary cannot exist without consciousness. You are happy to overlook the fact objective verification of consciousness does not exist, then proceed to demand verification of the astral (like a petulant, demanding child, I might add). One issue is grounded in the other. This does not mean the scientific method is bogus but rather its inability to grasp the center has real implications for everything we think we know. You call this "abusing context" - I call it putting your demands in their proper place. All your objections (why in 100 years of parapsychological research it has never been conclusively proven, the gullibility of occultists etc) ignore the primary issue: why is it that humans have been unable to ascertain consciousness when we have been using it since the dawn of evolution? Why do we know so little about the brain works? Your 100-year window is dwarfed by the time-span I am looking at. We are inside the big question, not outside of it.

Now you may think this is all leading up to some defense of the astral realm, but this is not the case. I support the scientific method and have no problem admitting tests carried out so far have shown nothing conclusive on the objectivity of astral projection:

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si91nde.html
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/publicationslinks/Alvarado-ESP-during-OBEs-JP-1982.pdf
http://www.psychwww.com/asc/obe/missz.html

Do these tests convince me that the astral realm is entirely subjective? All things considered - no. Is it possible the content of the astral realm is entirely subjective? Yes.

On the other hand I have followed the instructions in Liber O and unexpectedly seen things that did not strike me as mere hallucinations or imagining things. In fact Crowley's warnings were uncannily accurate - a fact I only realized much later. Now if you, Erwin, have done astral projection or seen visions on the astral, carefully analyzed the experience, and reached the conclusion that you were merely imagining things - I can respect that. If however your assertion that the astral realm is imaginary is based entirely on second-hand experience, then you do not know what you are talking about.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/07/2009 7:12 am  

Nicely put, Kidneyhawk.

My thoughts on ontological matters :

One can't ever "know" an "object", except through one's relationship to it.

Such a relationship defines that "object", to oneself.

One can only know one's relationships to things/people, not the things/people themselves. That which is real and oroven is one's relationship only - the things behind it (you and the object/person) is mere conjecture, abstraction, an unnecessary one at that.

It's dynamic, not static; fluid.

Another of Grant's gems of insight in this regard is regarding Dream: how, when dreaming, normally, one encounters "objects" as "objects", not as figments of imagination. They happen, and stuff happens, to one, the way things happen when "awake". Those things are "objects" known to one only through one's experience of and relationship to them, in exactly the same way they are in the waking mind.

But they happen nonetheless. That makes them as "objective" as anything else.

The Universe has its being within consciousness, not the other way around.

Row, row, row your boat
Gently down the stream

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily
Life is but a Dream.

Regards,
N.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
21/07/2009 8:09 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Again, I thought my subjective experiences, perceptions and so on were being dismissed as "fantasies."

Are you serious? Did you actually miss the first half of this thread?

Things generated by the imagination (contingent on a mind) are labeled as fantasies; things not generated by the imagination (aka "not contingent on a mind") are labeled as reality.

My imagined table is a fantasy; my perception of my table is a perception of reality, regardless of what the "nature" of that reality is (whether it's the matrix or maya or some other silly, unprovable, irrelevant idea).

And the things we label as fantasies are not being "dismissed" by anyone -- they can be quite useful to you, as in your dream interpretation example or in the example of imagining something so as to draw it. Getting good at identifying and labeling fantasies can also be of great help to the process of doing your will, as you yourself indicate when you advise one to "cut through the mind stuff" and attend to what remains.

However, confusing fantasies for reality will lead you to false conclusions, which *can* restrict your will.

Like observing that the sun moves across the sky each day, therefore it is a reasonable conclusion that it revolves around the earth?

Right. Because knowledge is something that comes from a rational interpretation of evidence. But when reason is incorrectly applied, or applied to faulty or incomplete evidence -- as it is in the sun example -- it can lead to false conclusions. That's why we are always gathering new information and adjusting our understanding of the universe (again, to determine what's most likely to be true to the best of our current understanding).

If you abandon reason, though, you'll be less likely to notice the mistakes you might make while using reason. So, you might falsely reason: "I experienced the sun at different positions; therefore the sun travels around the earth." But if you think, "I've transcended reason! My experience proves it!" you'll be less likely to notice that you've made an error in your reasoning.

Or, you might falsely reason: "I had an experience of an angel speaking to me; therefore, angels exist." But if you think, "I've transcended reason! My experience proves it!" you'll be less likely to notice that you've made an error in your reasoning.

See the "therefore" in both of those false arguments? People rarely articulate their own reasoning process to themselves like that, but that's exactly what you're doing when you draw the conclusion "angels exist."

Similarly, "I have an experience of the astral plane; therefore, the astral plane exists."

Or, "I have an experience of talking to my spirit guide, Zidonisos; therefore Zidonisos exists."

The culprit is reason, misapplied -- aka, the dogs of reason.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
21/07/2009 9:02 am  

Los-

Are you serious? Did you actually miss the first half of this thread?

Emulating Erwin's tone is NOT an admirable thing. Seriously. I don't think you are as narrow as he is in his approach and I honestly think some of your initial inquires deserves some serious consideration.

The point you seem unable to grasp is this: the idea that ANYTHING exists which is somehow "not contingent on a mind" is an ASSUMPTION not a FACT. You can only perceive by virtue of this "mind" and therefore your mind is an essential and inseparable part of what is being perceived. All you are doing is assuming that things continue to exist outside of your perceptive field. This does not evoke great consternation on my part. Things SEEM to function like this. But that "seeming" is understood by the MIND. This is why you went from "reality is reality" to expressions of things being "likely to be true" based on observation.

my perception of my table is a perception of reality, regardless of what the "nature" of that reality is (whether it's the matrix or maya or some other silly, unprovable, irrelevant idea).

Dude, follow this line of logic. You acknowledge that your

perception of my table

may belong to some negligible category and yet you want to assert that it is somehow a perception of "reality." Fine. I don't have any problem with that. ALL is "reality." Your "silly, maya" table and my imagined table. What we need to do is assess the nature of what we are experiencing and operate in relation to it.

Los, seriously, we are not so impoverished in our use of the english language that we cannot understand each other. And if, perchance, there is any misunderstanding via our "mode" (online communication), it's fairly easily addressed.

There is no "abandoning reason" going on here. I do not see any need for conflict between reason and "trans-rational" approaches to experience. Our buddy, Blake, wrote that "contraries are necessary for progression." WE become the "seat of balance" whereby this "progression" (or "Going") can occur.

Keep assuming that stuff exists which "not contingent on a mind." That thought is rooted wholly in your MIND! Don't "reason with me" on this one. Try to get out of it and then tell me how you did it. Observe, draw conclusions and tell that a single IOTA of it happened OUTSIDE of your mind.

I have no axe to grind with "reasoning." I actually LIKE it. But when you assert that thus and such is so in any absolute sense (i.e. it remains so outside of your experience of seeming so), I disagree.

I gave a practical example above. Pumping gas into my car. It really is NOT an issue in that context (or a million others like it!). But the subjective nature of perception APPLIES to certain willed alterations of perception which moves consciousness into non-baseline territory. If doing so is truly NOT your Will, I have no problem with that. And we can get along just fine. I have daily interactions with many people who are focused in completely different directions than myself. As it goes, I can get along with, enjoy and appreciate that. Not in a "pat on the head" way but in a genuine fashion.

As to the existence of "angels, aliens and the like," I think its apropo to cite Mr. Lon Milo DuQuette from his brilliant Chicken Qabala:

"Are the spirits real or just imaginary?"

"The spirits are both real and imaginary, but most of us do not realize how real our imagination is."

The inquiry continues:

"Are the spirits part of me, or do they live an existence independent of me?"

"The spirits are inside you, but most of us do not realize...how big our insides really are..."

To quote Mr. Hessle:

you'll be amazed.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
21/07/2009 10:13 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
ALL is "reality." Your "silly, maya" table and my imagined table. What we need to do is assess the nature of what we are experiencing and operate in relation to it.

You keep using a different and utterly useless definition of "reality." If everything is reality, then the word "reality" has no meaning at all. There needs to be something else in order for the word "reality" to be distinguished and have a meaning.

In the example you give, the nature of your imagined table is that it stops existing when you stop believing in it -- i.e. it arises entirely in your mind. The nature of my physical table is that it continues to exist even if I stop believing in it -- i.e. it is not at all contingent on what I think about it.

Observe, draw conclusions and tell that a single IOTA of it happened OUTSIDE of your mind.

I mean, we're really going in circles here because this is the exact tactic you pulled earlier in the thread.

And I'll even use an example from earlier in the thread: I have piled up a big stack of books before and walked away. When I came back later, I found that the books had tumbled to the ground in my absence. Before I returned, I had expected to find the books in the exact way that I left them.

My thoughts, my beliefs, my ideas had nothing to do with the state the books were actually in. In fact, my one thought about them, my epectation, didn't accord with what actually was. In that instance, I would say that my thought was wrong about reality.

Reality is just the name we give to the stuff whose existence does not depend on what we think about it. You seem to be having a really hard time grasping that.

My experience is entirely subjective, but I'm capable of distinguishing between things that I experience that are entirely contingent on what I believe and things that I experience that are not at all contingent on what I believe. To point out one obvious distinction, I can't think away stuff that is not at all contingent on what I believe.

"Lon" wrote:
but most of us do not realize how real our imagination is."

Again, this is an entirely different usage of the word "real."

Maybe this would help advance the conversation: could you please define the word "reality" or "real" as you're using it? Please don't write ten paragraphs. Just a sentence will do.

And while you're at it, could you provide an example of something that you would consider "not real"? If "real" has a meaning, then you would have to be able to also define what's not real and provide an example of something that it is not real. Anything will do: purple, invisible leprechauns, for example (unless you believe that those exist....).


ReplyQuote
James
(@james)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 251
21/07/2009 10:35 am  
"Los" wrote:
My experience is entirely subjective, but I'm capable of distinguishing between things that I experience that are entirely contingent on what I believe and things that I experience that are not at all contingent on what I believe. To point out one obvious distinction, I can't think away stuff that is not at all contingent on what I believe.

Do dreams fall into the category of things that are not dependent upon what I think or believe? What about hallucinations or DMT elves?

Regards

Jamie


ReplyQuote
James
(@james)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 251
21/07/2009 10:45 am  

P.S. I don't thing it is the word 'reality' that is the only word being used in different ways there is the word 'mind' also.

Los you are using mind as that which thinks/imagines and possibly feels only etc. whereas Kidneyhawk uses mind as the seat of all consciousness, including perceptual consciousness i.e that which cognizes material and mental perceptions.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/07/2009 10:50 am  
"IAO131" wrote:
"Sphynx" wrote:
"michaelclarke18" wrote:
OTO doesnt kick people out for expressing the opinion that leadership is substandard. You have to do a little more than that. Im aware of many high level members who routinely criticize OTO but they do so in a legitimate way.
IAO131

Oh, like who? Name them, and tell me their criticism (so I can report them!).

And what do you define as "Legitimate" criticism - criiticism made in a way which the target approves of?

Are you saying that only pre-approved criticism is welcome, and all the rest is filtered out? A bit pointless, wouldn't you say?

What if one criticism made is the very fact that this is the only type of criticism which they accept?

Sounds a bit "gangsta" to me.

Regards,
N.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
21/07/2009 11:37 am  
"Los" wrote:
Again, this is an entirely different usage of the word "real."

93!

Of course it is, but it is an entirely "legal" usage. Why bother to let all parties name their definition of "reality" or accept one definition as a prerequisite for the discussion? Scientists and philosphers are still debating about that. It is just your decision (or fantasy or fancy picture or belief) to think that the realists have the one and only correct answer to that. Your methods seem to work for you, and the reason that not all are "buying" them, might indicate that their concept of reality is different. But why the heck should your concept be the better one? It surely is not a bad concept, it is a relatively easy concept, it is a coherent concept even, but it is still simply one concept of reality. People who share this view might learn a lot by applying your methods, others might not be satisfied with it. In "your" reality, people who are not satisfied with it, seem to have some unresolved fancy pictures or whatever that prevents them from finding out what's "real". People with "other" realities might ask what is your fancy picture that lets you feel so satisfied so easily. It is probably impossible to come to final conclusions, but it is very important to accept this impossibility, there is much to learn for all parties.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1827
21/07/2009 6:25 pm  

You keep using a different and utterly useless definition of "reality." If everything is reality, then the word "reality" has no meaning at all.

Does this imply that the word "everything" is also useless and has no meaning?

There needs to be something else in order for the word "reality" to be distinguished and have a meaning.

In other words, "reality" should be an idea rooted in a dualistic view of life, the universe and everything?

I can see you repeatedly going towards this quality of contrast in your definition of the word. As I have tried to convey, I have no problem with using the word in this sense. It is practical and it is how the average person understands it. But in context of this dialogue, which is addressing issues of knowing, assessing, experiencing and so on in relation to (amongst other things) this unmeasurable "intangible" thing called the "True Will," we need to go beyond some of the commonplace assumptions and ideas. After all, Crowley is addressing a very commonplace condition that requires remedy in MTP, the view that a lot of folks are lost, self-defeating and ignorant of a quality within that requires some adjustment to get at.

So, its fair then to ask

could you please define the word "reality" or "real" as you're using it? Please don't write ten paragraphs. Just a sentence will do.

Reality is what exists.

Everything exists.

The simple issue we seem to be bumping heads on is the nature or quality of particular "existences." This is not always the case, though. We ARE capable of reaching similar conclusions on matters pertaining to "metaphysical" phenomena here and there (such as our look at how the psyche can take a self perpetuating response to a projection of its own self-defeating tendencies ala "Frank"). The issue here is not that "Frank" isn't real or doesn't "really" exist. "Frank" was a very real image, really perceived and expressing a real state of affairs. This has no bearing on the value of the image, perception or what is giving rise to it. But we utilize a little introspection and reasoning (itself a "metaphysical" thing) and move with a motivation to go beyond our "first impression" and NOW we have an UNDERSTANDING of "Frank." In this case, the assessment may be very helpful in starting to unravel the tendencies which gave rise to it.

But this is not a summary of how "dreams" work. It is a specific example. Other factors may rise, cloaked in the same "mental material" and embody something much deeper and different than the emotional baggage we found formulating Frank.

I have been repeatedly pointing out that all this talk, argument, perception and so on about "objective reality" can only be understood subjectively. However, it must also be acknowledged that this viewpoint ITSELF is subjective. I HAVE to acknolwedge this. The idea that I am perceiving things subjectively is itself a SUBJECTIVE idea.

Subjectivity eats itself and there is no more foundation for it to rest on. Therefore, notions of "Objective" and "Subjective" things become meaningless in any sort of absolute sense.

Again, Onion Peelings. We tried to get at the core and found there WAS NONE. But there is still existence in a myriad of forms. We perceive it. We are part of it. It is perceiving itself.

There is far more in this space than the fish can experience and there is far more than we can experience. But we have picked up a self understanding of our own growth as seeming "portions" of the Grand Consciousness (what AC idenntifies as the phenomena of being an "aggregate of experience"). There is no set limit to what the aggregate may become.

"Man is ignorant of the nature of his own being and powers. Even his idea of his limitations is based on experiences of the past, and every step in his progress extends his empire. There is therefore no reason to assign theoretical limits to what he may be, or to what he may do." MTP, Theorem 12.

I am very serious when I tell you, Los, that I am not trying to best you in argument by dancing about with words. The breakdown of objectivity and subjectivity, the collapse of absolute knowledge has definite relevance to certain states of consciousness we may implement with intention along the Path.

I have no problem reverting to and maintaining "commonplace" terms in "commonplace communications." I have no interest in amusing myself by speculating on how little green Irishmen COULD be at the end of certain rainbows. I fully grasp that your "Leprechaun" is what it is, an "imaginary" character from folklore for which the human race has no demonstrable physical evidence whatsoever (unless we count the Lucky Charms commercials). I am sure there are mystics and magi who work in the Celtic Tradition who have a deeper and more metaphysical view of the little fellas. I wouldn't sneer at this as it implies a different "level" or "plane" of the total reality which certainly goes beyond "commonplace experience" but does not imply error, confusion or self-hindrance.

And methods of getting outside of the "starting box" is what Crowley sought to convey with his work. In wholly nontechnical terms, the basic message is Wake up, Get up and get Going. And hold onto your Hat! Even if you're not wearing one. 🙂

This has us emanating the "leaping and laughing" mantram: "How splendid is the adventure" as opposed to dragging a ball and chain fashioned from a limited viewpoint.

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
21/07/2009 7:14 pm  

93,

One of the first Instructions I ever received, many years ago, was "make no conclusions". Perhaps it was for all of the various reasons above.

Oh ya, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/ ... cool stuff, imo.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
21/07/2009 8:03 pm  
"Los" wrote:
You keep using a different and utterly useless definition of "reality." If everything is reality, then the word "reality" has no meaning at all. There needs to be something else in order for the word "reality" to be distinguished and have a meaning.

Interesting.

Earlier on in this thread, you were upholding the original poster's phrase "Reality is reality, and that's the ultimate test" as some sort of profound insight.

Where, in what you clearly regard as a nugget of wisdom, is this "something else" that is needed?

If someone were to assemble a collection of "utterly useless" definitions of reality, that little gem would surely be there.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
21/07/2009 9:26 pm  
"Kidneyhawk" wrote:
But in context of this dialogue, which is addressing issues of knowing, assessing, experiencing and so on in relation to (amongst other things) this unmeasurable "intangible" thing called the "True Will," we need to go beyond some of the commonplace assumptions and ideas.

Right, most people are led away from their True Will by what Crowley calls a "fancy picture" of themselves -- an image of self that is entirely imaginary, that is distinguished from the real thing (not arising in the mind) that is called True Will.

When you say, "Reality is what exists. Everything exists," you are defining the word "reality" in a completely unhelpful way. That fantasy of yourself being a stock broker (let's say, as an example) most definitely does *not* accord with the reality of your will. You could say, "Oh it's real, in the sense that it's a real fantasy"...but it's nevertheless a fantasy, and its *content* doesn't correspond with reality.

Look, maybe this will help. You seem to be getting all worked up over the word "reality." Let's use a different word. Instead of "fantasy" and "reality," I'm going to use the words contingy (as in "contingent on a mind") and non-contingy (as in "not contingent on a mind").

Everything we experience is subjective, sure. But we can distinguish, within our subjective experience, between contingy and non-contingy things. It's overwhelmingly obvious that those books in my last post are non-contingy, since my thoughts about them have no effect on them. And meanwhile, the pink elephant I'm imagining is very clearly contingy, since I can make it go away with my mind.

What I'm saying is that it's important to distinguish between contingy and non-contingy because your true will is non-contingy. By definition.

If your true will is non-contingy, and you are thwarted from doing your will by your contingy ideas, clearly it would hamper your will to confuse the two categories. Mistaking the contingy thought, "I should be a stock broker" for the non-contingy True Will, for example, would clearly lead you astray.

Similarly, angels exist only as contingy entities, as far as we can tell. That's why it wouldn't work to invoke a (contingy) angel and ask it about your (non-contingy) will. It's the same error as in the last paragraph.

That's all I've been saying.

"Jamie" wrote:
Do dreams fall into the category of things that are not dependent upon what I think or believe? What about hallucinations or DMT elves?

Dreams are contingy, clearly. They're completely contingent on the existence of a mind. The same thing with hallucinations.

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Earlier on in this thread, you were upholding the original poster's phrase "Reality is reality, and that's the ultimate test" as some sort of profound insight.

Where, in what you clearly regard as a nugget of wisdom, is this "something else" that is needed?

Well, as I said earlier in the thread, my emphasis was on the "test" part. The test of a claim is whether it matches up to reality.

Oops, sorry. Translated: The test of whether a claim is non-contingy is whether it is supported by non-contingy evidence. (Implicit in the idea of "non-contingy" is the existence of "contingy," something else)

So, let's say I want to determine whether purple leprechauns are non-contingy (not regular leprechauns, Kidneyhawk! The purple ones!). I look to see how much non-contingy evidence exists for them: none.

Without any evidence to indicate that purple leprechauns are non-contingy, the default position is that they are (very likely to be) contingy.

I'm sure they're very real to people experiencing them. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether they're "contingy" or not.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
21/07/2009 10:39 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Well, as I said earlier in the thread, my emphasis was on the "test" part. The test of a claim is whether it matches up to reality.

The formulation "reality is reality, and that is the ultimate test" is gibberish, and so is your talk of emphasising the "test" part of it. After all, what is the "test" here? That A is the same as A? Some test!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/07/2009 10:40 pm  

What, may I ask, is "contingy"?

Are you trying to say "objective"?

There's no such thing - except in your mind.

There is only your RELATIONSHIP to something you PRESUME has some sort of -imaginary- "objective existence" independently of your consciousness. But you can never, ever know this aspect as a fact, only your relationship, thus that "objective" aspect is in fact only imaginary, conjectural. As soon as you find something out about it, it enters your consciousness to that extent, a relationship obtains with it, proving my point. The relationship is the only reality. This is what radical subjectivism is all about. Pretending "objective" things have some sort of "real" existence independently of your relationship to them, except as an abstract exercise, is the essential flaw in Aritotelian thinking.

The same can be said for yourself. There's no such thing, except through its RELATIONSHIP to the rest of the universe through consciousness, in the same way that the rest of the universe has no being except through its RELATIONSHIP to consciousness, in consciousness. The relationship is the only real thing, and is both "subjectobject" all together, and neither, at once.

Don't expect the universe to fit your categories. It came first.

The "pink elephant", "purple leprechaun", and "kidneyhawk the accountant" you conjure in your invocation above are all real (congratulations!), just not literally real. Literal truth is not the only type of truth. If they weren't real in some sense, we couldn't talk about them at all. They wouldn't "exist".*

*existence is impossible and purely hypothetical. Only being is real.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
21/07/2009 11:25 pm  

Los, the entirety of your last post is contingy, isn't it? Does that make it a fantasy?

Why are you imagining pink elephants?

All of the posts here are contingy. Dependent on mind to write; dependent on mind to read. Can you make them go away with your mind?

I'm surprised you cop to a belief of knowing the nature of Angelic existence.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 12:18 am  

Making up a word like "contingy" automatically makes it, itself, "contingy".

Twice.

N.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
22/07/2009 1:25 am  

Terminology note:
My invented word "contingy" means "contingent on a mind"
My invented word "non-contingy" means "not contingent on a mind"

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
After all, what is the "test" here? That A is the same as A? Some test!

No, the test, as I explained above, is "whether a claim is non-contingy." The test of that is "whether it is supported by non-contingy evidence."

After all, it's very useful to know which aspects of our experience are contingy and which aspects are non-contingy -- and, based on the definition of will given by Crowley, distinguishing between the two is really important ("fancy pictures" are contingy, after all).

"Noctifer" wrote:
What, may I ask, is "contingy"?

Are you trying to say "objective"?

No. I'm saying "contingent on a mind."

There is only your RELATIONSHIP to something you PRESUME has some sort of -imaginary- "objective existence" independently of your consciousness.

I'm not presuming or imagining anything of the sort. I am observing and drawing the conclusion that certain things are not contingent on a mind. I have good reasons for drawing such conclusions.

For example, when I see that books have tumbled to the ground in my absence, contradicting my thoughts about them, I have good reason to think that they are not contingent on my mind.

And it's not just an isolated incident that convinces me of that. Consistently, I can observe that what I think about them does not affect them. After I discovered them lying on the floor, I could have tried *thinking* them back up into a pile. But that wouldn't have worked because what I think about them has no effect on them. So I put the label "non-contingy" on them. I'm not proposing any theories about the "objective existence" of them, in the sense that you seem to be using the term. I may very well be a brain in a vat dreaming all of this -- but within my dream, the books are non-contingy. Other things, like my thoughts about the books, are contingy.

The "pink elephant", "purple leprechaun", and "kidneyhawk the accountant" you conjure in your invocation above are all real (congratulations!), just not literally real.

Sure, ok. Under the new terminology I'm adopting, those things may be "real" in some sense, but they're also contingy. They only exist in minds.

If kidneyhawk starts thinking "kidneyhawk the accountant" is non-contingy -- like his True Will, which actually *is* non-contingy -- he's going to be led astray. And if so, I'm not letting him do my taxes!

[Note: I'm not presuming that I know what kidneyhawk's true will is; just an example]

The relationship is the only reality.

Sure, but there are different kinds of relationships. The relationship I have to the pink elephant in my imagination is totally different from the relationship I have with my friend. Confusing the two is going to lead me away from my true will.

"zardoz" wrote:
All of the posts here are contingy. Dependent on mind to write; dependent on mind to read.

They're not contingy. The ideas in them are, but the words themselves have now been committed to the internet and depend on electrons and servers and...however the internet works.

You ask "Can you make them go away with your mind?" Of course not. These words are still here on the screen, no matter what I think about them. They still say the same exact thing every time I look, no matter what I think about them. (Of course, I might *notice* different ideas each time I read if I'm not carefully paying attention)

Things that you can't think away -- like the words in this post -- are non-contingy.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 2:03 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
What, may I ask, is "contingy"?

Are you trying to say "objective"?

No. I'm saying "contingent on a mind."

Yeah - sorry, I didn't find that definition until it was kindly pointed out to me by admin, thanks. So I mis-read your definition as the opposite of what you mean, which is subjective, not objective.

You're just re-inventing the wheel. We already have words to talk about this idea, and they are "subjective" (=contingy) and "objective" (=non-contingy).

Contingy is the only possible reality. Non-contingy is impossible except as a theoretical abstraction which can only indirectly be known through the medium of contingy.

(Noctifer said) - There is only your RELATIONSHIP to something you PRESUME has some sort of -imaginary- "objective existence" independently of your consciousness.

, Los said: I'm not presuming or imagining anything of the sort. I am observing and drawing the conclusion that certain things are not contingent on a mind. I have good reasons for drawing such conclusions.

Yeah- there you go - "drawing a conclusion" ! That is contingy. You are making it up. That's contingy! You have good reasons, I have mine, they're all contingy, just like everything else!

All you can know is your experience, relationship.

Reason is not reality, and reality is certainly not reason!

Noctifer said: The "pink elephant", "purple leprechaun", and "kidneyhawk the accountant" you conjure in your invocation above are all real (congratulations!), just not literally real.

Los said: Sure, ok. Under the new terminology I'm adopting, those things may be "real" in some sense, but they're also contingy. They only exist in minds.

Yes, like everything else!

Consciousness contains "the universe", not the other way round!

"Noctifer" wrote:
The relationship is the only reality.
"Los" wrote:
Sure

There. That wasn't hard, now, was it? End of discussion.

All other distinctions are of plane only. The fact is the relationship is the only reality, which you have just admitted.

You ask "Can you make them go away with your mind?"

Of course not. These words are still here on the screen, no matter what I think about them. They still say the same exact thing every time I look, no matter what I think about them. (Of course, I might *notice* different ideas each time I read if I'm not carefully paying attention)

Yes, of course you can make them go away with your mind! You use your mind to lift your arm, move the mouse, and click on the little x in the top right-hand corner of the window, and poof! They're gone! (making you a lucky Winner of the Ordeal X!)

Things that you can't think away -- like the words in this post -- are non-contingy.

Only in your mind, Los.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 2:09 am  

Ah- I made an error of word choice above. Where I say that the "objective" can only be known through the medium of the subjective, I should have said "imagined", which is what I mean, and is correct.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 2:13 am  

This is analogised by the play of Nuit -the subjective, manifest, visible, knowable, real, universe; and Hadit -the unmanifest, unknowable, invisible, unreal, atomic "thing" which is never actually a reality for anyone except through the medium, or mother, Nuit, which provides the form, and is essentially everything. (i.e., subjectivity is the only possible reality).


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/07/2009 3:59 am  

93,

"Los" wrote:
Terminology note:
My invented word "contingy" means "contingent on a mind"
My invented word "non-contingy" means "not contingent on a mind"

www.dictionary.com - "No results found for contingy:
Did you mean counting (in dictionary) or Counting (in reference)?"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/ - "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search bar above. "

http://www.psychology.org/ (Encyclopedia of Psychology) - "Error: no matching records"

www.google.com - In on the front page of search results, I looked to at least 5 of the top searches for the word, all of which were mispellings of the word "contingency".

Is "contingy" in the same dictionary as "ZIDONISOS"?

I just couldn't help myself. Don't worry, I have a contingy plan in case this post receives negative reviews.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/07/2009 4:07 am  

93,

Oh, I think I found the proper reference.

contingent - adjective

1: likely but not certain to happen : possible
2: not logically necessary ; especially : empirical
3 a: happening by chance or unforeseen causes
b: subject to chance or unseen effects : unpredictable
c: intended for use in circumstances not completely foreseen
4: dependent on or conditioned by something else
5: not necessitated : determined by free choice

synonyms - accidental

contingent - noun

1 : something contingent : contingency
2 : a representative group : delegation, detachment

From the Thesaurus -

Entry Word: contingent
Function: noun

Text: a body of persons chosen as representatives of a larger group
Synonyms - delegation
Related Words - embassy, legation, mission; crew, detachment, gang, outfit, squad

93 93/93

P.S. Paul, I'm not sure if quoting the dictionary or citing such sources as I have cited is some sort of foul on the Terms of Service. 🙂 If so, I assure you I won't be too upset if you removed the posts, or asked me to. 🙂


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 4:20 am  
"Los" wrote:
Things that you can't think away -- like the words in this post -- are non-contingy.

Words are meaningless without intrepretation by some mind. They also wouldn't be there unless generated by some mind. Therefore extremely contingy by your defintion.


ReplyQuote
Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
22/07/2009 9:57 am  
"Noctifer" wrote:
We already have words to talk about this idea, and they are "subjective" (=contingy) and "objective" (=non-contingy).

But I don't mean "subjective" and "objective." I'm happy to concede that all of our experience is subjetive.

I'm drawing a distinction within our subjective experience. I'm saying some of our subjective experiences we can classify as contingent on a mind, and some we can classify as not contingent on any mind.

It's not a contradiction. Think of the example of my books. Everything I experience is subjective, but it's trivially easy to determine that my subjective experience of the books reveals that they are not contingent on a mind. It's something we do in a split second.

So let me repeat: I'm not talking about the ultimate nature of reality here. Maybe it's true that we're in the matrix and that "life is but a dream," as you put it. Put that question aside for a moment and focus on what I'm actually saying here.

I'm saying that within our subjective experience -- whatever its "ultimate reality" -- we can distinguish (very easily, in fact) between things that are contingent on minds and things that, to the best of our knowledge, are not contingent on minds.

The fact that you confuse my new word "contingy" with "subjective" leads you to write a whole post in which you totally miss the point.

You say "All other differences are those of plane." I'm talking about differences of plane.

I'm talking about the difference between the table I'm typing this on and the image of an oompa loompa in my mind. They're both experienced by me subjectively. However, one of them is entirely contingent on my mind, and one of them is not contingent on any mind. I am quite capable of determining which is which.

For those of you playing along at home -- which one do you think is which? How do you think I could possibly know the difference?

Special bonus question: if the oompa loompa starts telling me that my true will is to build a miniature replica of a chocolate factory so that his spirit buddies can romp and play forever there...could this actually be a good way to discover my true will? Why or why not?

"zardoz" wrote:
Words are meaningless without intrepretation by some mind. They also wouldn't be there unless generated by some mind. Therefore extremely contingy by your defintion.

Words as a communicative tool (that which signifies) exist only in minds and go away when you stop thinking of them; words as a bunch of symbols that appear on a page or on a computer screen continue to exist even if you're not thinking of them.

"Azidonis" wrote:
Is "contingy" in the same dictionary as "ZIDONISOS"?

Sorry, that's above your grade.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/07/2009 10:25 am  
"""" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
Is "contingy" in the same dictionary as "ZIDONISOS"?

Sorry, that's above your grade.

Which part is above my grade, my pointing out your ability to make up words for your own sake, or my ability to mock you for it?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 10:37 am  

Loss, two things.

You really seem to be making this unnecessarily complicated, but for now I am happy pretending to be part of a Socratic dialogue in Renaissance style - in the garb of Sagredo, or Salvati, perhaps. For now.

Here they are.

1. "Contingent upon my mind".
This is such a strange use of language that I had to look up "contingent" in the dictionary just to be sure you meant what I think you meant. The meaning which emerges is:

"dependant for its being upon the pre-existing condition of the co-existence of my mind".

That describes everything.

If you are mindless, or never had a mind("consciousness"), you wouldn't be in a position to judge or perceive anything, would you. Bingo, no universe.

2. Why do you say the image of the oompa loompa is more "contingent upon your mind" than the desk you're writing on?

How do you know you weren't made to think of it by an external, "non-contingy" force (like me, for example) which, at your stage of development, is still beyond your ability to detect as such?

You can invent an answer, if you need to, but it's just as contingy as the rest.

*


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 10:40 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Noctifer" wrote:
Special bonus question: if the oompa loompa starts telling me that my true will is to build a miniature replica of a chocolate factory so that his spirit buddies can romp and play forever there...could this actually be a good way to discover my true will? Why or why not?

"zardoz" wrote:
Words are meaningless without intrepretation by some mind. They also wouldn't be there unless generated by some mind. Therefore extremely contingy by your defintion.

Words as a communicative tool (that which signifies) exist only in minds and go away when you stop thinking of them; words as a bunch of symbols that appear on a page or on a computer screen continue to exist even if you're not thinking of them.
.

Many things contingy continue to exist when you're not thinking about them, such as these posts.

Oompa loompa's ... pink elephants...??? The incredible weakness and pointlessness of this myopic mentally deficit argument is underscored by your condescending, dismissive and pitifully arrogant attitude toward occultism. You sound like you're addressing a nursery school audience - which should give some idea of where you're coming from.

You want to talk about reality but can't even debate in anything but a child-like fashion.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 11:25 am  

Hey, why am I mentioned in that post? I didn't say those things, zardoz!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 3:40 pm  

93,

It's been a while.

This is analogised by the play of Nuit -the subjective, manifest, visible, knowable, real, universe; and Hadit -the unmanifest, unknowable, invisible, unreal, atomic "thing" which is never actually a reality for anyone except through the medium, or mother, Nuit, which provides the form, and is essentially everything. (i.e., subjectivity is the only possible reality).

That pretty much sums it up for me, Noctifer.

I don't really see the purpose of round-about word games and semantics. Even trying to use language to debate the meaning of words like "reality" seems arbitrary.

For example, I think many Magicians have struggled with the dilemma of doubting or questioning weather or not this or that is "external", "real" or "imaginary, where they would have been better off accepting it as:

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted"

I have struggled with this and think that maybe it's better to approach the matter with detachment. Ritual is certainly hindered by constant intellectualization I think.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 4:02 pm  

...yeah, like in all relationships, hk! Analysis is a blade, and blades aren't good for luuurve!

The issue of "objectivity" or not, is dealt with perfectly, I think, at the very beginning of Liber O.: It is 'immaterial' whether things are 'real' or not, and the student is advised strongly to not attribute 'objective' validity to any of them. The question is simply to be set aside, of no interest to him. Just do, observe, participate, record. That's it.

He was only talking about spirits etc. in that book, but for me these days the question naturally extends the other way too. All the way.

regards,
*
N

XC
III


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 5:39 pm  
"Los" wrote:
But I don't mean "subjective" and "objective." I'm happy to concede that all of our experience is subjetive.

I'm drawing a distinction within our subjective experience. I'm saying some of our subjective experiences we can classify as contingent on a mind, and some we can classify as not contingent on any mind.

It's not a contradiction. Think of the example of my books. Everything I experience is subjective, but it's trivially easy to determine that my subjective experience of the books reveals that they are not contingent on a mind. It's something we do in a split second.

So let me repeat: I'm not talking about the ultimate nature of reality here. Maybe it's true that we're in the matrix and that "life is but a dream," as you put it. Put that question aside for a moment and focus on what I'm actually saying here.

I'm saying that within our subjective experience -- whatever its "ultimate reality" -- we can distinguish (very easily, in fact) between things that are contingent on minds and things that, to the best of our knowledge, are not contingent on minds.

[Added emphasis my own.]

Los, you are qualifying your entire position with "to the best of our knowledge," which assumes that "our knowledge" (and experience and understanding of these), collectively, I assume, is sufficient to make these determinations and judgments infallibly, unquestionably. This is the 'rock' upon which you base your position? Am I following you here?


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
22/07/2009 6:53 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I'm drawing a distinction within our subjective experience. I'm saying some of our subjective experiences we can classify as contingent on a mind, and some we can classify as not contingent on any mind.

I tried to do this as well here, and was received just as poorly. I don't understand why some people refuse to acknowledge the difference between perceiving a stack of books on a table, and perceiving the hallucination of a pink elephant. All perceptions may be subjective, yet with the books you are experiencing something that exists regardless of your perception of it (hence not contingent on any mind) and with the pink elephant you are experiencing something that does not exist without you perceiving it (hence it is contingent on the mind). This is a very straightforward distinction.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
22/07/2009 7:31 pm  

I know, my dear. We're such a hopeless bunch, aren't we?

As a matter of interest, could you tell me, mika, why you use the term "contigent on the mind" when the term "dependent on the mind" is more precise and - quite an advantage when you are seeking to communicate - more readily understood? Indeed, somebody in this thread or another pasted in a variety of dictionary definitions of "contingent" which seemed to demonstrate that Los's use of the term was somewhat eccentric. It's a surprise, therefore, to find you using the same eccentric phraseology. Next thing you know, you'll be using the adjective "contingy", and then there really will be no hope.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
22/07/2009 7:33 pm  

93,

"mika" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I'm drawing a distinction within our subjective experience. I'm saying some of our subjective experiences we can classify as contingent on a mind, and some we can classify as not contingent on any mind.

I tried to do this as well here, and was received just as poorly. I don't understand why some people refuse to acknowledge the difference between perceiving a stack of books on a table, and perceiving the hallucination of a pink elephant. All perceptions may be subjective, yet with the books you are experiencing something that exists regardless of your perception of it (hence not contingent on any mind) and with the pink elephant you are experiencing something that does not exist without you perceiving it (hence it is contingent on the mind). This is a very straightforward distinction.

And a very obvious one.

What's interesting to me is that some of these more recent threads are not only rehashing some of the topics we all dealt with quite extensively many years ago, they are rehashing it from the beginning. That would explain my personal lack of interest.

We all know it, we all get it. A pink elephant is a fantasy of the mind, and this computer is a reality of the mind, yet both of them are reflections, if you will, of some part of the mind.

It really seems to me that the argument between subjective and objective, or even real and imaginary is learned and taught when one begins Astral travel at the latest, so that one doesn't get caught up in fantasies and confused.

I assumed that "perfect control of the Astral Plane" would probably affirm that one has mastered the ability of not getting them confused to a degree.

That said, I don't see how all of these masters, and adepts find this type of regurgitated conversation meaningful in any way.

As for those who are newer to the boards, I can see how this sort of dialogue is useful for them in building their foundational idea of the type of language and use thereof which is common in these Forums, but they could most likely find the same information elsewhere on the Forums, especially where this topic was dealt with quite extensively in the past.

As for the word play: I did that on purpose. To discuss something being "real" or "not imaginary" in any shape or form while at the same time using imaginary words to describe the state is just bogus if you ask me.

In closing, it is said, "make no difference".

93 93/93,

Az


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 7:35 pm  
"mika" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
I'm drawing a distinction within our subjective experience. I'm saying some of our subjective experiences we can classify as contingent on a mind, and some we can classify as not contingent on any mind.

I tried to do this as well here, and was received just as poorly. I don't understand why some people refuse to acknowledge the difference between perceiving a stack of books on a table, and perceiving the hallucination of a pink elephant. All perceptions may be subjective, yet with the books you are experiencing something that exists regardless of your perception of it (hence not contingent on any mind) and with the pink elephant you are experiencing something that does not exist without you perceiving it (hence it is contingent on the mind). This is a very straightforward distinction.

This is a "very straightforward distinction" only when qualified by examples such as stacks of books compared to pink elephants, neither of which are under discussion here until you make straw men out of them.

What you are engaged in here, generally, Mika, is a broad brush condemnation of occultism, religion and such. I wholeheartedly agree with you that both of these preoccupation's are worthless and defunct in the world today without radical rehabilitation from historical precedent. This was Aleister Crowley's position on the matter, as well, and he engaged in said rehabilitation . He did not, however, foolishly imagine for a moment that religion, for example, was going to vanish from the face of the earth when placed under close scrutiny. It was not and is not going to vanish. It is, as a matter of fact, evolving back into relevance, and even occultism is doing the same.

It is futile to scream, "Come on people, get real!" - when you are clearly unable to define reality itself without reference to stacks of books compared to pink elephants. That is just not good enough. The matter is not that simple, and wishing that it was will not make it so.


ReplyQuote
mika
 mika
(@mika)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 360
22/07/2009 9:03 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
"mika" wrote:
I don't understand why some people refuse to acknowledge the difference between perceiving a stack of books on a table, and perceiving the hallucination of a pink elephant. All perceptions may be subjective, yet with the books you are experiencing something that exists regardless of your perception of it (hence not contingent on any mind) and with the pink elephant you are experiencing something that does not exist without you perceiving it (hence it is contingent on the mind). This is a very straightforward distinction.

This is a "very straightforward distinction" only when qualified by examples such as stacks of books compared to pink elephants

The example of books v. pink elephants is not a qualification, it's an illustration. The distinction I and Los have described, the difference between being contingent on the mind and not being contingent on the mind, does not require any qualification. Something either is or isn't.

"Camlion" wrote:
It is futile to scream, "Come on people, get real!" - when you are clearly unable to define reality itself without reference to stacks of books compared to pink elephants.

"Clearly unable"? You are clearly incorrect, as I have defined reality, on p10 of this very thread. This is what I wrote:

"mika" wrote:
Reality is what you are directly experiencing in the present moment; where by "directly" I mean "prior to being described by the mind".
Since you asked me for my definition, I first described reality in my own words, but if you prefer an academic definition this one also applies:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality?o=100074
reality:
5. Philosophy
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.

So, you see, it isn't futile at all for me to say "get real", since I am clearly defining what I mean by "real", and it is clearly easy to get.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
22/07/2009 9:47 pm  
"heartkore" wrote:
I don't really see the purpose of round-about word games and semantics.

Well, the folks here have all decided to use the word "reality" in a way that does not match the way that anyone else on the face of the earth uses the word. So, I felt at liberty to invent my own terminology. If you want to go back to dictionary definitions, I'd be happy to do so.

"Nothing is true, everything is permitted"

Nothing is true, including the statement "Nothing is true," right? Oh wait....

Ritual is certainly hindered by constant intellectualization I think.

Ah, you think that, eh?

We're not engaging in ritual here. We're talking about what actually is. And that necessitates the use of your thoughts. Thoughts are necessary, as you point out, to reach the conclusion that "ritual is certainly hindered by constant intellectualization."

"Noctifer" wrote:
How do you know you weren't made to think of [your table] by an external, "non-contingy" force (like me, for example) which, at your stage of development, is still beyond your ability to detect as such?

I don't know that -- I also don't know, for example, I wasn't made to think it by invisible fairies that live in my underwear drawer.

I do know that those claims ("Noctifer is making me think of this table" and "fairies are making me think of this table") have absolutely zero evidence behind them and make zero difference to my ability to distinguish contingy from non-contingy. Even if one of those claims is true, it doesn't change the fact that there is a huge difference between the table that Noctifer's making me think of and the oompa loompa that Noctifer's making me think of (one of the most important being that the table's existence doesn't depend on my thoughts about it).

As far as I can tell, from within my subjective experience -- which might well be the matrix or a dream created for me by the all-powerful Noctifer -- I can draw a very clear distinction between the table and the oompa loompa, and I can do it in a very simple way indeed.

"zardoz" wrote:
Many things contingy continue to exist when you're not thinking about them, such as these posts.

The posts aren't contingy. One of the ways we know that they're non-contingy is that they continue to exist when you're not thinking about them.

Oompa loompa's ... pink elephants...??? The incredible weakness and pointlessness of this myopic mentally deficit argument is underscored by your condescending, dismissive and pitifully arrogant attitude toward occultism. You sound like you're addressing a nursery school audience - which should give some idea of where you're coming from.

I'm not trying to be consdescending -- I'm showing you the kinds of ridiculous propositions your position forces you to adopt. If you seriously believe that we can't distinguish -- within our subjective experience! -- between things contingent on a mind and things not contingent on any mind, then you have to accept the claim that an oompa loompa is just as likely as the table to be not contingent on any mind.

It's a reductio ad absurdum. The position being advanced by some people here is laughably absurd, and one way to make it clear is to use unquestionable examples.

"Camlion" wrote:
Los, you are qualifying your entire position with "to the best of our knowledge," which assumes that "our knowledge" (and experience and understanding of these), collectively, I assume, is sufficient to make these determinations and judgments infallibly, unquestionably.

No, I don't think anything is "unquestionable." We draw tentative conclusions -- both collectively and individually -- based on the best evidence available to us (within our subjective experience, yes).

If you have some data that indicates that the oompa loompa in my head is not contingent on a mind, I'd like to hear it. If your evidence is strong enough, I may reconsider my position.

All within my subjective experience, still.

"Azidonis" wrote:
We all know it, we all get it.

Apparently not, because we still have folks saying stuff like, gee, how do you know your table isn't thought into existence by me every night while you're sleeping?

To discuss something being "real" or "not imaginary" in any shape or form while at the same time using imaginary words to describe the state is just bogus if you ask me.

All words are "imaginary" in that they're tools that exist only in minds. But those words point to things outside of the mind (or at least they should). There's nothing remotely "bogus" about inventing terminology, any more than it's "bogus" to invent terms like "khabs" and "khu" to describe parts of the self.

That said, I don't see how all of these masters, and adepts find this type of regurgitated conversation meaningful in any way.

I don't find it meaningful. I find it fun to talk about. If you don't, ignore the thread.

In closing, it is said, "make no difference".

Oh, right. It was you who implied in the chat box the other day that there are some people here who don't understand Liber AL. I guess this is what you were talking about.

So tell us, what do you think that verse means? You think it means we should never draw a distinction between imaginary stuff and real stuff, and instead walk around in a mystical trance all the live long day?

Surely, if you know that there are posters here who misunderstand Liber AL, then you must be in possession of the one true interpretation of that verse, and I'm sure you'll share it with us in unambiguous terms.

"Camlion" wrote:
It is futile to scream, "Come on people, get real!" - when you are clearly unable to define reality itself without reference to stacks of books compared to pink elephants. That is just not good enough. The matter is not that simple, and wishing that it was will not make it so.

Ah, see what you're saying there? You're saying the matter is not so simple and that anyone who has thoughts that the matter is simple is not in accord with reality.

Your statements presume the existence of "the matter" and rely upon whether or not people's thoughts accord with "the matter."

Anyway, since my examples are "not good enough" for you, let's use some more: all demons, angels, gods, spirits, fairies, praeternatural intelligences, oompa loompas, etc. are entirely contingent on minds. I'd be happy to change my position on this if anyone has convincing evidence that any of those beings are not contingent on minds.

I'm not trying to dismiss any of those things or say that they have no value. They can be very meaningful to people. Read Joseph Campbell's work sometime -- the gods he speaks of are entirely contingent on minds, entirely imaginary beings, yet they are very meaningful as symbols.

The meaning and the value *increases* by our recognition that the beings are just symbols and not "real" in the sense that my table is "real."

Sheesh.

And thanks, Mika, for the sane comments.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
22/07/2009 10:24 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Well, the folks here have all decided to use the word "reality" in a way that does not match the way that anyone else on the face of the earth uses the word. So, I felt at liberty to invent my own terminology. If you want to go back to dictionary definitions, I'd be happy to do so.

I fear it's too late in the discussion to revert back to any stable ground.

Nothing is true, including the statement "Nothing is true," right? Oh wait....

Dissecting that quote really just defeats the purpose of what it is trying to convey, but of course anyone can turn it into paradoxical nonsense if they want.

Ah, you think that, eh?

We're not engaging in ritual here. We're talking about what actually is. And that necessitates the use of your thoughts. Thoughts are necessary, as you point out, to reach the conclusion that "ritual is certainly hindered by constant intellectualization."

I agree. I think that is an obvious conclusion. I was just using ritual as an example.

Maybe?:

Chicken is to Egg as Will is to Knowledge, where: here we are using Will = Perception and Knowledge = Reality.

Damn I just lost brain cells with that one. That's why semantic driven discussions are bad for you. 😀


ReplyQuote
Page 10 / 14
Share: