Jump to content


- - - - -

Scientific Illuminism: A Unified Language of Phenomenology


58 replies to this topic

#21 RifRaf

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 616 posts

Posted 16 May 2009 - 05:46 AM

qazse said:

Hold your horses, you two - I'm getting to it as fast as I can; life (as in "not" OC forums) comes first, after all. I have a response in the works...however, the way I see it, it cannot be rushed: a decent topic requires an equally decent response, am I right?

Have patience...and stop jumping to conclusions in the meantime.

QaZsE

1

Posted Image

We dance around in a circle and suppose, but Baphomet sits in the center and knows.



http://fraterooe.livejournal.com


#22 IAO131

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 416 posts

Posted 16 May 2009 - 03:50 PM

Caliban said:

This is "Ceremonial Magic" how?

Because it deals with describing the results of Scientific Illuminism of which most practices are under 'Ceremonial Magic'?? Do you really not see the connection between a language of communicating results of CM to CM?

qazse: Now everyone is waiting on you, and depending on you to elucidate these matters - no pressure. :)

IAO131
* The Homepage of IAO131 *
* IAO131 on Facebook *
* The Journal of Thelemic Studies *

Love Magick & Occultism but hate the archaic & un-scientific Supernaturalism?
Check out Naturalism Occultism if you will...

#23 qazse

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 135 posts

Posted 16 May 2009 - 07:43 PM

Quote

qazse: Now everyone is waiting on you, and depending on you to elucidate these matters - no pressure

I see - didn't think my position mattered all that much to most people here; fooled me, anyways.

#24 RifRaf

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 616 posts

Posted 16 May 2009 - 09:28 PM

You can't just post that you have something to say and then not say it! But, of course, you "have a life" I forgot.

Your view isn't that important, but you told us not to "jump to conclusions", so now I have to see what you had to say.

We dance around in a circle and suppose, but Baphomet sits in the center and knows.



http://fraterooe.livejournal.com


#25 qazse

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 135 posts

Posted 16 May 2009 - 10:12 PM

Quote

You can't just post that you have something to say and then not say it! But, of course, you "have a life" I forgot

...To be fair, RifRaf, my post wasn't so much concerned with informing people: "Hey, I'm working on a response - look at me...I'm smart, too (as you [and others] seem to have assumed)" in so much as it was (technically) formulated in response to these thoughts here (...of which I had quoted originally, mind you [...seems you might have missed that]):

Quote

I'm really not surprised that no one has commented upon this yet...

Quote

RifRaf: It is technical and detailed - I wouldnt expect too much

...I had concluded that you're assumptions (yours and IAO131's) were, frankly, a little unfair towards people here - that people were not responding due to a lacking intelligence, as it were (ie: that this work was just too "high-minded" for them, the "little people"); I thought I might respond and offer (through myself [as an example]) an possible, real-world scenerio that didn't merely assume people were just too stupid to respond.

As I said then, stop jumping to conclusions in the meantime - have patience.

EDIT:

Quote

Your view isn't that important

...And you can come to this conclusion "how" (without knowing my PoV [...as it hasn't been posted yet])?

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE

1

#26 RifRaf

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 616 posts

Posted 17 May 2009 - 12:04 AM

qazse said:



...And you can come to this conclusion "how" (without knowing my PoV [...as it hasn't been posted yet])?

Thanks for your time,

QaZsE

1

I've read your posts. To me your view (or really anyone on the internet even IAO) is immaterial no matter what the thread is about, especially when the person is trying to make assumptions about you, i.e. we must not have a life outside of the forums, when they don't know you at all.

We dance around in a circle and suppose, but Baphomet sits in the center and knows.



http://fraterooe.livejournal.com


#27 qazse

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 135 posts

Posted 17 May 2009 - 01:19 AM

Quote

I've read your posts

...Not the ones I have yet to post, RifRaf.

Quote

To me your view (or really anyone on the internet even IAO) is immaterial no matter what the thread is about

There is sense in this (ie: an alternate PoV [in relation to an accepted one] is, technically, "immaterial" [reason-wise] - it "should", indeed, ultimately come down to one's own common-sense judgement whether or not one "agrees" [hopefully based upon sound argument/evidences and the like])...

However, this is senseless:

Quote

especially when the person is trying to make assumptions about you, i.e. we must not have a life outside of the forums, when they don't know you at all

Quite the contrary - "I" didn't assume that of you, you assumed it of "me" (ie: that this is what I think of you [or any others]). This is quite a stretch, really - just because I mentioned that I had things to do outside the forum does not "necessarily" mean that I had been implying "you" do not - after all, I say what I mean RifRaf (...or at least I try my best to); if I had ment it as you assume, I would have made that quite clear.

Thanks for your time,

P.S - Are we about done this/these pissing contest(s)? ...I'm running out of urine. ...All this because I said: "Hey...wait", essentially.

QaZsE

1

#28 RifRaf

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 616 posts

Posted 17 May 2009 - 02:42 AM

If you would have just said "Hey, wait" we could have saved ourselves a lot of time, and apparently piss.

Anyway, I've already told IAO what I thought of this writing in private. I think it's a very valuable piece of writing for Ceremonial Magicians and the only thing I could add would be apophenia, and wishful thinking (which he pretty much covered in his "bias" section with better wording) which is so prevalent with most Magicians.

We dance around in a circle and suppose, but Baphomet sits in the center and knows.



http://fraterooe.livejournal.com


#29 Angelologist

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 459 posts

Posted 17 May 2009 - 05:29 AM

RifRaf said:

I think it's a very valuable piece of writing for Ceremonial Magicians and the only thing I could add would be apophenia, and wishful thinking (which he pretty much covered in his "bias" section with better wording) which is so prevalent with most Magicians.


Good point, I've suffered from wishful thinking a few times. :)

#30 IAO131

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 416 posts

Posted 17 May 2009 - 04:34 PM

Angelologist said:

Good point, I've suffered from wishful thinking a few times. :)

But if you wish hard enough wont it manifest? Isnt that the Secret? lol :)

qazse: I was, and I assume RifRaf was, joking when actually writing about how we were waiting for your response. In fact, I think the attitude you projected onto us (we are so high-minded and technical!) is actually the view I got of you when you said you were preparing some kind of formal response to the piece. Honestly, occult forums like this are not flooded with technical material like this - I am not saying occultists are stupid (some are some arent) or non technical (some occultists are technical to the point of being autistically technical, no offense to the autistic)... but rather that this kind of work isnt normal here. Look at the other threads (other than the ones I started) and youll see what I mean - its usually talking about how a goetic demon fucked me over, man! or how do I combine crystals to get my aura green or something else like that (yes, that is hyperbole). Either way, qazse you are the one starting and continuining the pissing contest - Im not sure why RifRaf is essentially egging you on by responding at all your posts which are essentially "look [at me] quoting other [people's] words" and, in fact, indelibly, using various (rather "strange, yet irrelevant, and [ultimately] unimportant") appositives, to add various prepositional phrases that could, if desired (why would one "desire"), leave entirely out and simply - if one was "Simple"! - say what one "meant." Or: you yourself seem high-minded, technical, and suffering from word-diarrhea. Thats not "bad," its just a bit ironic (and smelly - who wants to come to a thread where people are pontificating like that over nothing).

P.S. Yes, I have a hard time separating my argumentativeness with my bad form of what I call humor.

IAO131
* The Homepage of IAO131 *
* IAO131 on Facebook *
* The Journal of Thelemic Studies *

Love Magick & Occultism but hate the archaic & un-scientific Supernaturalism?
Check out Naturalism Occultism if you will...

#31 AEternitas

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 198 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 01:46 AM

IAO131 and the stir his posts create on every forum are so funny. Here we have a Thelemite and suppoosed Magician who doesn't belive in actual magick or psychic phenomenon utilizing magick and calling it all pshycology and attributing it to theoretical concepts like the "conscious mind" and the "subconscious mind" or the ego or some other such theory, theories that are no more concrete and provable than the actual existence of spirits and psychic phenomenon. He pursues a view of magick that is perceived and practice under the limits of the modern scientific method and its limited technology, as if science and psychology were so advanced as to be the key to all of Nature and the Universe. Meanwhile the possibilty that an intelligence or a personality can exist outside of a physical body or in some other strange and undiscovered way that can be contacted and interacted with is written off as bad superstition. And it always makes such a stir and gets a big, problematic reaction from everybody on every forum he is on.
I don't understand why a) he doesn't just practice science and psychology and leave this whole occult business to the people brave enough to face up to its reality and ;) why a person that doesn't even believe in magick that takes place anywhere outside of human perception is taken so seriously as to even be responded to by other occultists and magicians.
It's easy to view this as being "all in your head" until you have several experiences that all point to the contrary. Given this, despite how many books and papers he has read or wrote on occult theory, and despite how many rituals of one or another kind he may have performed, it seems obvious that IAO131 has never had an actual magical or supernatural experiences.

#32 quex

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 455 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 03:11 AM

AEternitas said:

;) why a person that doesn't even believe in magick that takes place anywhere outside of human perception is taken so seriously as to even be responded to by other occultists and magicians.

If :) wasn't a rhetorical question, I will try to answer, since I've asked myself the very same question, as in, how in the 10th circle of hell did get myself into this mess?
Here's my theory. Human beings are, by nature, helpful. And people who answered, intuitively guessed, there is a problem here. But what I think happened was, we didn't figure out what was the specific nature of the problem. We thought, the problem was in the understanding of occultism is all about, and we tried our best to address the issue. I mean, come to think how can you measure psychic phenomena with a method created to evaluate physical ones?
Obviously, however, we got it all wrong. Using some Psychology 101 one can understand that some problems belong to the realm of the quest for negative attention. I admit I was using the wrong method of analysis. It's a psychological issue, not an occult one, even so because it's not occult at all, it's very visible.

#33 Angelologist

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 459 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 03:44 AM

IAO131 said:

But if you wish hard enough wont it manifest? Isnt that the Secret? lol ;)

Oh god I hate the “Secret”, it’s the bane of the occult.

#34 MagiAwen

    Practitioner of Spirit

  • Gold Member
  • 634 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 04:28 AM

AEternitas said:

a) he doesn't just practice science and psychology and leave this whole occult business to the people brave enough to face up to its reality

Which reality is that exactly?

AEternitas said:

and :) why a person that doesn't even believe in magick that takes place anywhere outside of human perception is taken so seriously as to even be responded to by other occultists and magicians.

But. You did. ;)

AEternitas said:

it seems obvious that IAO131 has never had an actual magical or supernatural experiences.

There are some posts and "papers" written by IAO131 that have apparently been missed.

In any case, everyone, if he's so "stupid", "out of touch" and should not be responded to....why does it go on then? This is something I truly don't understand. So we sit here humming over saying his posts don't deserve to be responded to and even one who isn't sure why he continues to respond. But yet. There are responses.

Personally...everyone has the ability to believe whatever they would like, whether or not I agree or disagree with it. I happen to agree with many of IAO's points and agree that there is merit within them from a magician's standpoint, even a ceremonial standpoint. There are many of his points I don't really agree on, but to each their own.

The idea of measuring psychic phenomena with tools so far used to measure physical phenomena...I would think...boils down to (hopefully) something physical happening via psychic means. That is, while we necessarily may not be able to measure "psychic influence", we can measure what is not happening or at least what is not happening that we can measure. I don't see how that is so crazy or so "against" magic or magician's.

Plus, psychology has a lot to do with magic, especially ceremonial magic. What you think all the prayer,meditation, fasting, gathering of ingredients, symbols, astrology, days of the week and etc is for? Perhaps you are mixing up psychology with therapy? I dunno.
"You never realize how many crumbs there are in crackers until you eat them in bed naked. ~MagiAwen

#35 Transcix

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 433 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 06:54 AM

Hmmmmm, I strongly disagree with SoSI's attempt at a unified language of phenomenology. However, I agree that scientific process should govern spiritual evolution, so I think there could be far worse than what the SoSI presents here.

The problem is that their language breaks down if it is used from a truly enlightened perspective. I suppose that they who conceived of the language are not enlightened individuals, and aim to tackle the subject from the perspective of the lowest common denominator. But there is a problem with this. For if the novice applies the scientific method to their spiritual evolution, it should, though rarely does, become quickly apparent that certain logic and existential problems are of immediate relevance and must be overcome before any real foundation can be realized and worked from, so the process should begin with massive deconstruction (of the false notions we are raised to believe in this day and age). But this language does not address these immediate issues but glosses over them, which is precisely the pitfall of many spiritual novices today.

"Firstly, our model of Consciousness is that there are both conscious and unconscious parts of the psyche. The unconscious parts of the psyche are by definition not conscious and therefore not part of the phenomenological experience."

Not only does this affirm a duality between consciousness and unconsciousness, it also affirms that the unenlightened individual "exists". But in reality, the unenlightened individual does not exist, not really, not in any permanent as opposed to impermanent way. There is no poor soul trapped behind all the mud society accumulates unto one's person from birth, no, all there is is mud. And there is no unconscious that is totally separate from conscious awareness. There is only confusion, conflict, overlapping beliefs and desires that are mutually contradictory/exclusive. Is there experience of this conflict before enlightenment? Sure. But this experience is not of a singular, individualized nature, for it is of an undefined nature, undefined precisely to the extent beliefs and desires overlap in mutually contradictory/exclusive fashion. That is precisely a main obstacle to overcome, to deconstruct this "illusion" that anything of one's individuality is predetermined. Certain tendencies are innate, but however they are merely things and do not constitute individuality. True there is extremely vast realm of ideas and concepts and archetypes and things like this, that one may explore inwards, but it is not the subconscious, and via this exploration belief and desire manifests. And true, in more right-leaning approaches towards spirituality, things like HigherSelf or more generally Spirit can be looked upon for guidance, and a degree of oneness with it can be realized. However one of the greatest misunderstandings of new-age spirituality is the failure to recognize the most basic concepts that personal identity necessarily entails singularity of conscious control agency, there can be no soul or unconscious that is separate, though one can work through the other, but if one is realized to work through the other, then both are realized in singular unity of perspective. If both are not realized in this unity, then something external is believed in with blind faith as being a part of one's self, and that is totally unscientific.

To offer a more specific example, a common pitfall is to presume that misunderstanding of cause-effect correlation between what one puts into one's self through thought, action, choice, etc., and between what one receives as transformation of nature of the character of one's very conscious control agency, that this failure to understand the cause-effect is actually some third-party unconscious presence, force, influence, etc., effecting one's person in ways not fully understood.

#36 IAO131

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 416 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 06:02 PM

AEternitas said:

IAO131 and the stir his posts create on every forum are so funny. Here we have a Thelemite and suppoosed Magician who doesn't belive in actual magick or psychic phenomenon utilizing magick and calling it all pshycology and attributing it to theoretical concepts like the "conscious mind" and the "subconscious mind" or the ego or some other such theory, theories that are no more concrete and provable than the actual existence of spirits and psychic phenomenon. He pursues a view of magick that is perceived and practice under the limits of the modern scientific method and its limited technology, as if science and psychology were so advanced as to be the key to all of Nature and the Universe. Meanwhile the possibilty that an intelligence or a personality can exist outside of a physical body or in some other strange and undiscovered way that can be contacted and interacted with is written off as bad superstition. And it always makes such a stir and gets a big, problematic reaction from everybody on every forum he is on.
I don't understand why a) he doesn't just practice science and psychology and leave this whole occult business to the people brave enough to face up to its reality and ;) why a person that doesn't even believe in magick that takes place anywhere outside of human perception is taken so seriously as to even be responded to by other occultists and magicians.
It's easy to view this as being "all in your head" until you have several experiences that all point to the contrary. Given this, despite how many books and papers he has read or wrote on occult theory, and despite how many rituals of one or another kind he may have performed, it seems obvious that IAO131 has never had an actual magical or supernatural experiences.

You are *edited by Forest Breath* and you dont know me. Ive experienced many magical things but nothing has led me to believe anything Ive experiened is supernatural in any way. This 'occult business' isnt about people brave eough to face up to its reality. In my experience, it is usually occultists who are afraid from reality and so escape into a self-created reality of subtle planes supernatural forces and things which are no different in my mind than the Christian belief in heaven and hell. It seems obvious that *we disagree* (edited by Forest Breath).

IAO131

Edited by Appalachian Crone, 22 May 2009 - 12:54 PM.

* The Homepage of IAO131 *
* IAO131 on Facebook *
* The Journal of Thelemic Studies *

Love Magick & Occultism but hate the archaic & un-scientific Supernaturalism?
Check out Naturalism Occultism if you will...

#37 IAO131

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 416 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 06:14 PM

[quote name='MagiAwen']
There are some posts and "papers" written by IAO131 that have apparently been missed.[/quote]

Indeed... also, I dont make all of my experiences super-public (I dont post about my results in the CM forum of OC...) although fi you read my LJ and websites you will find them if you look...

[quote]In any case, everyone, if he's so "stupid", "out of touch" and should not be responded to....why does it go on then? This is something I truly don't understand. So we sit here humming over saying his posts don't deserve to be responded to and even one who isn't sure why he continues to respond. But yet. There are responses.[/quote]

I always wondered why people who hate me so much are the ones who talk to me the most...

[quote]Personally...everyone has the ability to believe whatever they would like, whether or not I agree or disagree with it. I happen to agree with many of IAO's points and agree that there is merit within them from a magician's standpoint, even a ceremonial standpoint. There are many of his points I don't really agree on, but to each their own.[/quote]

Imagine that - a mature standpoint... you can actually agree with some points and disagree with others without claiming I have no knowledge of the occult (or whatever is in question)

[quote]The idea of measuring psychic phenomena with tools so far used to measure physical phenomena...I would think...boils down to (hopefully) something physical happening via psychic means. That is, while we necessarily may not be able to measure "psychic influence", we can measure what is not happening or at least what is not happening that we can measure. I don't see how that is so crazy or so "against" magic or magician's.[/quote]

Or, if we know that the physical causes are sufficient to produce the effect there is no need to postulate a super-physical cause.

[quote]Plus, psychology has a lot to do with magic, especially ceremonial magic. What you think all the prayer,meditation, fasting, gathering of ingredients, symbols, astrology, days of the week and etc is for? Perhaps you are mixing up psychology with therapy? I dunno.[/QUOTE]

Many people do... I think a lot of people are actually afraid of psychology. Look at the list of perceptual biases (5A) in the text. These are things most poeple do NOT want to confront by any means necessary - people employ defense mechanisms to avoid confronting these biases (hence why they are such strong biases).

[quote name='Transcix']Hmmmmm, I strongly disagree with SoSI's attempt at a unified language of phenomenology. However, I agree that scientific process should govern spiritual evolution, so I think there could be far worse than what the SoSI presents here.[/quote]

You agree scientific progress should govern spiritual evolution (a term I dont think refers to anythign real, but I will grant you this for now) but you dont think a unified language is required?

[quote]The problem is that their language breaks down if it is used from a truly enlightened perspective.[/quote]

Yes and no. I believed this with my whole heart for a while - you an find probably 5+ articles on the ineffability of htemystic experience - yet I also think it is in fact possible. To say perception becomes non-dual with no separation between subject and object is pretty darn specific, and doesnt seem to be a 'problem with language.' I know what you are referring to, and thankfully its not couched in the terms of "I have found the Stone of the Wise!" or "I have become united with God!" or "My Higher Self Speaks to me!"... Those phrases are rather meaningless whereas if we speak in terms of perception (dissolution of boundary b/w subject & object) everyone knows what I mean. That is one example among potentially infinite.

[quote]I suppose that they who conceived of the language are not enlightened individuals, and aim to tackle the subject from the perspective of the lowest common denominator. But there is a problem with this. For if the novice applies the scientific method to their spiritual evolution, it should, though rarely does, become quickly apparent that certain logic and existential problems are of immediate relevance and must be overcome before any real foundation can be realized and worked from, so the process should begin with massive deconstruction (of the false notions we are raised to believe in this day and age). But this language does not address these immediate issues but glosses over them, which is precisely the pitfall of many spiritual novices today.[/quote]

Which pitfalls? Are you talking about the supra-rationality of mystic states? Phenomenology doesnt make any logical claims except that its possible to report experience as it is. If I say "I feel no difference between my body and the environment," "The normal identification with thoughts and ego seems to make no sense; the attempt to fit subject and object over contents of experience seems illusory" How is that a pitfall? It seems a clear representation of what is happening although attempting to express the 'incommunicable' in a way.

[quote]"Firstly, our model of Consciousness is that there are both conscious and unconscious parts of the psyche. The unconscious parts of the psyche are by definition not conscious and therefore not part of the phenomenological experience."

Not only does this affirm a duality between consciousness and unconsciousness, it also affirms that the unenlightened individual "exists".[/quote]

There is a difference but no one ever said they are a duality that is unconquerable. Night is not day and dayi s not night but the difference between night and day is a blurry area known as sunrise/sunset. Same with conscious/unconscious - we call it night and day, conscious and unconscious for convenience. Hopefully most people can appreciate this. Dare I say it is you who is working in the overly logical assumption that A cannot be not-A (consciousness cannot be unconsciouss therefore its dualistic!)

[quote] But in reality, the unenlightened individual does not exist, not really, not in any permanent as opposed to impermanent way.[/quote]

And your bias here is that 'permanence = existence.' I would argue that change, impermanence, 'emptiness' is the REQUIREMENT for existence in the sense we understand it. But thats another topic...

[quote]There is no poor soul trapped behind all the mud society accumulates unto one's person from birth, no, all there is is mud.[/quote]

Theres mud but no soul? There is no assertion of the ego in phenomenology but rather we assert an experience of the ego. That you missed this is your own fault.

[quote] And there is no unconscious that is totally separate from conscious awareness. [/quote]

No one ever claimed such...

[quote]There is only confusion, conflict, overlapping beliefs and desires that are mutually contradictory/exclusive. Is there experience of this conflict before enlightenment? Sure. But this experience is not of a singular, individualized nature, for it is of an undefined nature, undefined precisely to the extent beliefs and desires overlap in mutually contradictory/exclusive fashion. That is precisely a main obstacle to overcome, to deconstruct this "illusion" that anything of one's individuality is predetermined. Certain tendencies are innate, but however they are merely things and do not constitute individuality. True there is extremely vast realm of ideas and concepts and archetypes and things like this, that one may explore inwards, but it is not the subconscious, and via this exploration belief and desire manifests. And true, in more right-leaning approaches towards spirituality, things like HigherSelf or more generally Spirit can be looked upon for guidance, and a degree of oneness with it can be realized. However one of the greatest misunderstandings of new-age spirituality is the failure to recognize the most basic concepts that personal identity necessarily entails singularity of conscious control agency, there can be no soul or unconscious that is separate, though one can work through the other, but if one is realized to work through the other, then both are realized in singular unity of perspective. If both are not realized in this unity, then something external is believed in with blind faith as being a part of one's self, and that is totally unscientific.[/quote]

Seems like a bunch of words with little meaning...

[quote]To offer a more specific example, a common pitfall is to presume that misunderstanding of cause-effect correlation between what one puts into one's self through thought, action, choice, etc., and between what one receives as transformation of nature of the character of one's very conscious control agency, that this failure to understand the cause-effect is actually some third-party unconscious presence, force, influence, etc., effecting one's person in ways not fully understood.[/QUOTE]

What? Isnt that a perceptual bias addressed sepecifically in the text? Perhaps you should read the thing more closely that you intend to criticize. Most of your criticisms are already answered within the text. There is no assertion of a fundamental separation of unconscious and conscious that is absolute, there is no assertion in the objective reality of an ego, and the difficulty of language is the REASON this text exists. Good day.

IAO131
* The Homepage of IAO131 *
* IAO131 on Facebook *
* The Journal of Thelemic Studies *

Love Magick & Occultism but hate the archaic & un-scientific Supernaturalism?
Check out Naturalism Occultism if you will...

#38 Transcix

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 433 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 07:36 PM

IAO131 said:

You agree scientific progress should govern spiritual evolution (a term I dont think refers to anythign real, but I will grant you this for now) but you dont think a unified language is required?
No I do not believe how a language can be divided in the first place. I think that if arguments about how to frame certain terminologies are valid arguments then they don't need any official framework to support their implementation. It is an interactive process.

Quote

Yes and no. I believed this with my whole heart for a while - you an find probably 5+ articles on the ineffability of htemystic experience - yet I also think it is in fact possible. To say perception becomes non-dual with no separation between subject and object is pretty darn specific, and doesnt seem to be a 'problem with language.' I know what you are referring to, and thankfully its not couched in the terms of "I have found the Stone of the Wise!" or "I have become united with God!" or "My Higher Self Speaks to me!"... Those phrases are rather meaningless whereas if we speak in terms of perception (dissolution of boundary b/w subject & object) everyone knows what I mean. That is one example among potentially infinite.
Yeah, I don't think the gist of enlightenment can be described exclusively through verbiage of an enlightened tone and style. However, when speaking in basic and readily digestible terms, it seems it would take a huge length of time to describe the gist of enlightenment, and this is simply impractical. In fact it would take so long, and the course would be such a winding one, that it would be practically impossible to accurately conceive of an overall title and of chapter or section headings, at least not to the extent that they would seem at all appealing to the average person (which sort of defeats the purpose of speaking strictly in basic terms). I think to pull it off in basic terms would take the work of the most enlightened individuals, because it is such an intricate and subtle matter, and I do not believe the SoSI are those people (I don't think they'd claim to be enlightened).

Quote

Which pitfalls? Are you talking about the supra-rationality of mystic states? Phenomenology doesnt make any logical claims except that its possible to report experience as it is. If I say "I feel no difference between my body and the environment," "The normal identification with thoughts and ego seems to make no sense; the attempt to fit subject and object over contents of experience seems illusory" How is that a pitfall? It seems a clear representation of what is happening although attempting to express the 'incommunicable' in a way.
Ah, no no, by pitfalls I was referring to the aforementioned glossing over of immediate issues.

Quote

There is a difference but no one ever said they are a duality that is unconquerable. Night is not day and dayi s not night but the difference between night and day is a blurry area known as sunrise/sunset. Same with conscious/unconscious - we call it night and day, conscious and unconscious for convenience. Hopefully most people can appreciate this. Dare I say it is you who is working in the overly logical assumption that A cannot be not-A (consciousness cannot be unconsciouss therefore its dualistic!)
Hmmmm, what I would say is that although dichotomy between conscious and unconscious admittedly needn't be absolute, but rather a state of consciousness could be both conscious and unconscious simultaneously but simply leaning more or less in one direction or the other, I do think the dichotomy does imply a spectrum of constituency and that there are two ends of the spectrum. I do not think it is false to speak of the unconscious as distinct from the consciousness, per se, in some situations it can be more effective given the conventions of language. However, if we're trying to establish a basic language of speaking that's as clear and direct as possible, then I think it would be counterproductive to do this. I think better ways could be found, for example, we could say there's only different levels of unconsciousness until enlightenment is realized and then there's only different levels of consciousness, or we could say that there's only ever different levels of consciousness, etc. Personally I make a point in my writing to always speak in terms of something being "somewhat unconscious" or "mostly unconscious", but I never say something is unconscious without qualifying how much so. At worst if it would be improper to qualify it precisely, then I would leave it open to any qualification but would specify that it's a relative matter by saying "relatively unconscious", I would never just say "unconscious" (unless it is contextually evident that I mean it in a less-than-absolute sort of way).

Quote

And your bias here is that 'permanence = existence.' I would argue that change, impermanence, 'emptiness' is the REQUIREMENT for existence in the sense we understand it. But thats another topic...
What is meant by "existence"? Let us consider human existence as distinct from unconscious animal existence. How is emptiness involved here? Is it through this empty, through the gates of the Abyss, that wisdom and power can be attained? Does a higher personality exist, soul, HigherSelf, God, etc., that can be realized into transformation of one's person? I would argue that no separate personality exists like this, but only potential, great potential, but potential cannot manifest of its own accord, there is no other will, no other agency of consciousness separate from one's own. To me to think there could be, is to misunderstand the basic concept of conscious agency, it's to say that there is contradiction between various beliefs and desires but that it's OK, there are two separate persons, but it's OK still there is only one person. I am saying that through deconstruction, contradiction can be overcome and one can realize a single unified voice from which great potential can be realized.

Quote

Theres mud but no soul? There is no assertion of the ego in phenomenology but rather we assert an experience of the ego. That you missed this is your own fault.
Are you saying that you assert an experience of the ego as distinct from experience of the soul? Do you also assert experience of the soul, such as in ecstatic spiritual experience, or meditation, or etc.?

Quote

No one ever claimed such...
I am under the impression that distinction between ego and soul, or consciousness and unconsciousness, or however you wish to frame it, is being asserted. If this is false, then what is being asserted?

Quote

Seems like a bunch of words with little meaning...
It just seems to me that one of the most obvious things according to the scientific method is to not take anything for granted, to never assume that something such as the unconscious exists without proof. For example, when intricate thoughts and concepts arise in the sea of mind, that do not flow out of the conscious awareness but from elsewhere, could this not arise from the external universe itself through various means, as opposed to through the unconscious?

Quote

What? Isnt that a perceptual bias addressed sepecifically in the text? Perhaps you should read the thing more closely that you intend to criticize.
Hmmmm, I do not see at all where it is specifically addressed in the text? Perhaps there is a difference of interpretation between us, how do you see that it is specifically addressed?

Quote

Good day.
Alas my day was not the best, among other things my modem stopped working, so that explains my delay in response lol, but it's OK now.

Namaste

Edited by Transcix, 19 May 2009 - 05:34 PM.


#39 IAO131

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 416 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 06:12 PM

Transcix said:

No I do not believe how a language can be divided in the first place.

I read through your entire post and typed a response but honestly I shouldve stopped here. If we cannot agree on such a fundamental idea, it will just be pissing past each other.

I defined that existence is appearance in terms of phenomenology. I never mentioned a soul because that is not a phenomenological term - perhaps you dont understand the idea of language being WORDS? I meant NOT using the words like 'soul' which mean so much that they mean absolutely nothing. You could call the entire consciousness 'soul' or the experience of the ego 'soul' for all I care - its an extra puzzle piece thats not needed in this Work as far as Im concerned.

The discussion over what is the Spirit and what is the Soul and are they the same or different is one example of the type of crap I wanted to get away from with phenomenological language. There is no difference between ego and soul because soul is an empty word that you can essentially affix to anything convenient. Im asserting its a useless word if anything. I dont even speak abotu a Higher or Lower Angel/Self or anything because that isn't phenomenological. If you are expecting a discussion of that you have fundamentally not understood the entire point of the text.

Conscious is not separate from unconscious in some fundamental, inseparable, non-returnable way. They are both part of the PSYCHE - they are two terms for two parts. When I say that night is separate from day, they are most certainly separate but if you look at sunset and sunrise is it morning or night? Both and/nor Neither. In short, they are markers for convenience just like we call 120 degrees 'hot' and 30 degrees 'cold' even though they are both part of Temperature.

IAO131
* The Homepage of IAO131 *
* IAO131 on Facebook *
* The Journal of Thelemic Studies *

Love Magick & Occultism but hate the archaic & un-scientific Supernaturalism?
Check out Naturalism Occultism if you will...

#40 gibil

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 220 posts

Posted 26 May 2009 - 06:22 PM

If I may suggest a lot of us have different view points and in honest the posting style of conversation is well, not very good for an open discussion occultcorpus has an IRC channel on Blitzed. Why don't we use it some time and have an open discussion on these ideas and differences.
I play in a world of fancy and madness in which the wall’s are spackled with illusions. We strike at these illusions but they do not fade. Hence we know the feeling of reality.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users