Delivered from dualism (delivered from lust for result.)

Home Forums Thelema Magick Delivered from dualism (delivered from lust for result.)

Viewing 7 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #111508

    pegasus
    Participant

    quoting DOM Consider laughter: it is the highest emotion, for it can contain any of the others from ecstacy to grief. It has no opposite.

    Crying is merely an underdeveloped form of it which cleanses the eyes and summons assistance to infants.

    Laughter is the only tenable attitude in a universe which is a joke played upon itself. The trick is to see that joke played out even in the neutral and ghastly events which surround one. It is not for us to question the universe’s apparent lack of taste.

    The laughter comes with seeing what cannot be unseen.

    laughter IS indeed the opposite end of the scale to crying. One can even cry with laughter, it encompasses both as crying also contains ecstasy and grief as laughter can.. BOTH are a way of releasing tension, dealing with a happening, feeling an emotion… infants for example use “crying” as their basically first communication method, at that moment of time crying holds life….. which gives crying a depth of importance across the board.. and if this deliverance from dualism is to be believed, laughter is the final step to accomplishing deliverance…

    Crying is echoed above as below, the rains cleanse the earth, refresh and renew, giving life and movement and renews just as crying does to the entire being.

    BUT this was written by a man, in a time where men didn’t cry and so were not in touch with the value and necessity of crying.

    .

    DOMRegardie covered habit control in his classic on magic in which he borrows AC’s Jugorum technique. PJC calls it “Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness” and defines this as the Great Work which has a far-reaching purpose leading eventually to the discovery of the True Will.
    Even a slight ability to change oneself is more valuable than any power over the external universe. Metamorphosis is an exercise in willed restructuring of the mind

    . To proceed, select any minor habit at random and delete it from your behavior: at the same adopt any new habit at random. The choices should not involve anything of spiritual, egocentric, or emotional significance, nor should you select anything with any possibility of failure. By persisting with such simple beginnings you become capable of virtually anything. All works of metamorphosis should be committed to the magical diary.

    MAGIC Success in this part of the syllabus is dependent on some degree of mastery of the magical trances and metamorphosis

    the above quotes contradict the following

    DOM
    or when high emotionality paralyzes its normal functioning. At these times the sigil is concentrated upon, either as a mental image, or mantra, or as a drawn form. Some of the times when sigils may be charged are as follows: during magical trance; at the moment of orgasm or great elation; at times of great fear, anger, or embarrassment; or at times when intense frustration or disappointment arises. Alternatively, when another strong desire arises, this desire is sacrificed (forgotten) and the sigil is concentrated on instead.

    * no mastery with “great fear” “anger” and especially “embarrassment” they should of been well outgrown and shed, as with “sigils” by this time of their journey

    * at the moment of orgasm, great elation, finding joy and laughter with everything should be utilized by the Magi to charge THEMSELVES not an object, in this case a sigil. which is a weakness in the work

    This verse is best interpreted by defining ‘pure will’ as the true expression of the Nature, the proper or inherent motion of the matter, concerned. It is unnatural to aim at any goal. The student is referred to “Liber LXV”, Cap. II, v. 24,

    It is actually natural to aim at one goal, which the great work is all about, – the self “improving” “growing” “learning” “becoming”

    true will = INSTINCT
    a lost part of our genetic”ness”

    (i.e. And I laid my head against the Head of the Swan, and laughed, saying: Is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging? Is there not weariness and impatience for who would attain to some goal?)

    * goals keep you going, spark you on, yes each day brings adventure, yes treat everything as a joke and laugh ( but try and do it silently in a court of law) yes live in the day, enjoy just being… but goals can be adventure and joy and ..

    * serenity in knowing goals can fail, falls happen, life can be completely different in 1 2 or 6 months time, plans can be diverted… BUT the “banking on” the goal being obtained at all or say within a time frame or successfully… that part of it is the problem… the emotions, toll and total of that failure… AND so not the fool

    impatience .. ???

    state of mind to overcome – is achieved by patience

    Weariness

    comes from wariness – a state of mind to overcome

    “Unassuaged” means “its edge taken off by” or “dulled by”. The pure student does not think of the result of the examination.

    once “pure” is achieved one is no longer a student. Students who do not think of the result of the examination are just going to be students.

    and to the “Tao Teh King”. This becomes particularly important in high grades. One is not to do Yoga, etc., in order to get Samadhi, like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper; but for its own sake, like an artist.

    Don’t do yoga etc like a schoolboy or a shopkeeper?

    Not sure about the grammar there as what if our schoolboy or shopkeeper are getting busy and ‘in the zone’? Maybe schoolboys can’t do their true will, maybe he echoes my earlier point about children’s self-piteous and lazy protests on having to do tasks.

    It means Schoolboys learn because they have to not want to. Shopkeepers are only in it for the money and on that note a child is the refection of their environment self pity and laziness are learned from so called adults…

    “an hour three times a week at a yoga class two days” “a week of martial arts” you will not know Yoga, you will not learn the essence of yoga

    remember it from your core. You hold the memories “hello” who weren’t out there building dams and tending fields or warring and were out in fields, climbing mountains, studying nature, the learners students, teachers who used the knowledge and secrets of Yoga to Be.

    to sum that up Yoga flows but you have to find the tune inside

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  pegasus.
    #111510

    Tiger
    Participant

    Regardie covered habit control in his classic on magic in which he borrows AC’s Jugorum technique. PJC calls it “Metamorphosis The transmutation of the mind to magical consciousness”

    when high emotionality paralyzes its normal functioning.

    at the moment of orgasm or great elation; at times of great fear, anger, or embarrassment; or at times when intense frustration or disappointment arises.

    At these times the sigil is concentrated upon, either as a mental image, or mantra, or as a drawn form. Some of the times when sigils may be charged are as follows: during magical trance

    when another strong desire arises, this desire is sacrificed (forgotten) and the sigil is concentrated on instead.

    Our minds are obscured by propensities and delusions .
    Until we have dispelled the clouds,
    drive away the hindrances and clear the interference,

    OM KHANDAROHI HUM HUM PHAT

    purify the ordinary conceptions and appearances ;
    train
    the mistaken conception/appearance,
    and let all the distracting conceptual thoughts cease;

    we will not be able to transform the mind;
    and allow the practitioner to travel/awaken to
    the place from where death comes from,

    and advance beyond imputed conception
    and let the substances of dualistic appearances subside
    into lack of inherent existence .

    #111513

    Jamie J Barter
    Participant

    @dom :

    No seriously don’t be defensive
    Moi?

    and by that i include silly insulting comments also.
    Where? *

    You don’t know what a ‘double negative’ is. Right?
    Wrong!

    You thought you were reprimanding me with the “NO!! For fuck’s sake etc” when i explained it to you but I’ll now give you the benefit of the doubt and you can explain to me my error.
    NO!! I thought I was contrasting this with your “for clarity’s sake” for comical effect.
    (* Apart from this, that is)
    It doesn’t appear to have worked, however.

    If you;re going to borrow a term from sentential logic trhen i have to be sure that you know what you’re talking about otherwise, well otherwise i’m talking to someone who isn’t on the same page at all.
    I wasn’t aware I was making a specifically “sententially logical” remark but will bow down to you O superior master of logic, as this seems to be what you’re after: your “gotcha”‘s got me ok?!

    “Seriously”, this is all getting a bit over-anal-ytical isn’t it?

    Moving on & off to the (Visconti/Woodmansey) holier holier place,
    N Joy

    #111541

    Tiger
    Participant

    “Dao is neither being nor not-being in any sense which Europe could understand. It is neither existence nor a condition or form of existence. At the same time, TO ON gives no idea of Dao. Dao is altogether alien to all that class of thought. From its connection with “that principle which necessarily underlies the fact that events occur” , one might suppose that the ‘Becoming’ of Heraclitus might assist us to describe the Dao. But the Dao is not a principle at all of that kind. To understand it requires an altogether different state of mind to any with which European thinkers in general are familiar. It is necessary to pursue unflinchingly the path of spiritual development on the lines indicated by the Sufis, the Hindus and the Buddhists; and having reached the Trance called Nerodha-Sammapati, in which are destroyed all forms soever of consciousness, there appears in that abyss of annihilation the germ of an entirely new type of idea, whose principal characteristic is this: that the entire concatenation of one’s previous experiences and conceptions could not have happened at all, save by virtue of this indescribable necessity .”

    The Equinox V No 3 pg 64,65 A.C.

    “In Brahmin philosophy, the Rishis explained the Universe by saying that God created it. The question instantly arose, “ Who created God ? “ To answer this it was necessary to make God self-sustaining, and therefore they proceeded to analyze His attributions. In the end it was found that any positive attributions not only implied limitations, but led directly back to the original mass of ignorance; and they were accordingly forced to conclude by denying all qualities or quantities soever to the Supreme God, Parabrahman.

    In other words, they found themselves obliged to reduce their God to Nothing .

    The Chinese, being more practical, cut out all the waste work and started with the Nothing of the “ Great Extreme “ , which we may consider as really the equivalent of the Dao . WE represent this Dao geometrically by a point. But since since this Dao is not only Nothing but also non-existent in respect to all other possible predicates, it turns out on analysis that a thing which is in no way no thing may just as well be regarded as something .”

    The Equinox V No 3 pg 472 A.C.

    #111558

    arthuremerson
    Participant

    David,

    In the context of the non-disinterest discussion, Jamie made reference to the grammatical ‘double negative‘, not the logical ‘double negation‘. The former takes as its referent a grammatical construction, which is not identical to the notion we find logic (sentential or otherwise). Now, you are right to think that we can symbolize these grammatical constructions in logic. However, sentential logic is not appropriate here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, sentential logic, as its name suggests, takes sentences as its atoms, not singular terms (the very first sentence of chapter 2 in our book says just this). So when we translate into the formal syntax of sentential logic, we translate all and only sentences. Take the following sentence, for instance, which I derive from the section of Liber Null in which this odd locution appears: non-disinterest is a state of mind. We could just symbolize this as, M (or whatever, the letter is arbitrary), but you (should) already know this. Secondly, sentential logic is just too weak to do any robust work for us in conceptual analysis general, let alone here. That it won’t work here follows from the observation that sentences are the atoms of sentential logic- it simply can’t be brought to bear on an analysis of Carroll’s bizarre “non-disinterest”, since it is not a sentence. We need the more robust machinery of predicate logic, which will afford us the distinction between predicates and singular terms that will allow us to deal with this particular problem.

    Since you seem to have intuited what would be needed in order to analyze Carroll’s locution, I will make a brief comment about your analysis. I’m not sure that either you or Jamie are correct. I’m not sure that this is a double negative as understood grammatically for the same reason that I’m not sure that double negation is the appropriate syntactical translation, in the main because I think that “non-disinterest” is ambiguous (and vague). Even taking non-disinterest to mean not disinterest, it’s not clear to me what is meant. While it’s true that interest is a kind of non-disinterest, it seems to me that ambivalence would be too, or, say, elation. Really any other state of mind, as Carroll characterizes non-disinterest, could be a candidate, so long as it isn’t disinterest itself. If this is the case, then double negation won’t be an appropriate translation. In order to make the translation, and this is incredibly important, we have to understand what’s being said. Understanding first, translation second.

    Now, about the forward slash. You are right to say that it is often used grammatically to suggest an “or”, but I’m not sure that’s what’s going on here. Even if it were, it’s not always necessary to understand every grammatical instance of “or” to be a disjunction- it might just mean “otherwise speaking”. I had initially thought the forward slash might just be being used as a marker of identity or equivalence between the two terms, so that non-attachment and non-disinterest are just the same thing. This makes sense, I think, if you consider that disinterest might be a kind of active mental state where you are making an assessment about some mental item (“I’m not interested in x”), whereas non-attachment (and so non-disinterest, if they are being identified) might be a state in which one’s interest or otherwise is simply not assessed at all. This still seems the best reading to me (not reading Carroll is probably the best reading, but I digress), as I believe is evidenced by the following claim made by Carroll just down the page (17 in the 1987 first edition), “Non-attachment/non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result”. This sounds like to me he is simply saying that these terms (either jointly or singularly) describe some one thing, namely the appropriate mental state that accompanies, or precipitates, acting without lust of result.

    Best,
    æ

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  arthuremerson. Reason: minor edit for clarity
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  arthuremerson. Reason: clarity
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  arthuremerson. Reason: clarity
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  arthuremerson. Reason: clarity
    #111564

    dom
    Participant

    @arthuremerson

    David,
    In the context of the non-disinterest discussion, Jamie made reference to the grammatical ‘double negative‘, not the logical ‘double negation‘.

    Yes I realized that too late, he (Jamie) was referring to the two ‘non’ statements which Carroll separated with the forward slash..

    The former takes as its referent a grammatical construction, which is not identical to the notion we find logic (sentential or otherwise).

    Yes.

    Now, you are right to think that we can symbolize these grammatical constructions in logic. However, sentential logic is not appropriate here for a couple of reasons. Firstly, sentential logic, as its name suggests, takes sentences as its atoms, not singular terms (the very first sentence of chapter 2 in our book says just this).

    Yes I was reviewing that today as I completed chapter 2. For example entire sentences such as e.g. ” The president has his breakfast in his bedroom” we could represent with ‘B’

    So when we translate into the formal syntax of sentential logic, we translate all and only sentences. Take the following sentence, for instance, which I derive from the section of Liber Null in which this odd locution appears: non-disinterest is a state of mind. We could just symbolize this as, M (or whatever, the letter is arbitrary), but you (should) already know this

    Yes.

    Secondly, sentential logic is just too weak to do any robust work for us in conceptual analysis general, let alone here. That it won’t work here follows from the observation that sentences are the atoms of sentential logic- it simply can’t be brought to bear on an analysis of Carroll’s bizarre “non-disinterest”, since it is not a sentence. We need the more robust machinery of predicate logic, which will afford us the distinction between predicates and singular terms that will allow us to deal with this particular problem.

    Ok.

    Since you seem to have intuited what would be needed in order to analyze Carroll’s locution, I will make a brief comment about your analysis. I’m not sure that either you or Jamie are correct. I’m not sure that this is a double negative as understood grammatically for the same reason that I’m not sure that double negation is the appropriate syntactical translation, in the main because I think that “non-disinterest” is ambiguous

    Yes the term ‘non’ does denote that it is necessarily the direct opposite of that specific term ‘interest’. I missed that totally.

    (and vague). Even taking non-disinterest to mean not disinterest, it’s not clear to me what is meant. While it’s true that interest is a kind of non-disinterest, it seems to me that ambivalence would be too, or, say, elation. Really any other state of mind, as Carroll characterizes non-disinterest, could be a candidate, so long as it isn’t disinterest itself. If this is the case, then double negation won’t be an appropriate translation. In order to make the translation, and this is incredibly important, we have to understand what’s being said. Understanding first, translation second

    Yes.

    Now, about the forward slash. You are right to say that it is often used grammatically to suggest an “or”, but I’m not sure that’s what’s going on here. Even if it were, it’s not always necessary to understand every grammatical instance of “or” to be a disjunction- it might just mean “otherwise speaking”

    Ok.

    . I had initially thought the forward slash might just be being used as a marker of identity or equivalence between the two terms, so that non-attachment and non-disinterest are just the same thing. This makes sense, I think, if you consider that disinterest might be a kind of active mental state where you are making an assessment about some mental item (“I’m not interested in x”), whereas non-attachment (and so non-disinterest, if they are being identified) might be a state in which one’s interest or otherwise is simply not assessed at all. This still seems the best reading to me (not reading Carroll is probably the best reading, but I digress), as I believe is evidenced by the following claim made by Carroll just down the page (17 in the 1987 first edition), “Non-attachment/non-disinterest best describes the magical condition of acting without lust of result”. This sounds like to me he is simply saying that these terms (either jointly or singularly) describe some one thing, namely the appropriate mental state that accompanies, or precipitates, acting without lust of result.
    Best,
    æ

    That makes sense Arthur, thanks.

    Best.
    d

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom. Reason: spelling
    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  dom.
    #111581

    Shiva
    Participant

    Negatives and Negations. Two for t5he price of one … with care.

Viewing 7 posts - 31 through 37 (of 37 total)
  • You must be logged-in to reply to this topic.