On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:18:55 +0200, Bassos wrote:
>
> "alienseer23"
wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.10.26.06.32.01.958935@no-access.uk...>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:13:47 +0200, Bassos wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "alienseer23"
wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.10.24.01.28.07.330911@no-access.uk...>>>> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:51:00 +0200, Bassos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "alienseer23"
wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2006.10.22.05.28.29.758639@no-access.uk...>>>>>> On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:45:32 +0200, Bassos wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Magic in general, depending on ones beliefs could be, literally,
>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> So magick could be anything, but not really anything, because it is
>>>>> dependant on beliefs ?
>>>>
>>>> Alot of things in our lives depend on our beliefs. But, I belive that
>>>> all things are a direct intervention of the divine, or, that all
>>>> things are magical, or holy in their nature.
>>>
>>> Okidoki.
>>> If all things are magical, or holy in their nature, what then does a
>>> limited definition of magick serve, other than it being 'special' ?
>>
>> That is what I was saying.
>
> So you use the term magick to feel special ? (i doubt it, but hey, i can
> be wrong)
Now it seems you are just playing words. "What does a limited definition
of magick serve, other than it being 'special'. " This was a point I aimed
at, and thank you for making it for me. But then again, using the term
special, as in a special state of conciousness or state of mind, a special
state of awareness where all things in nature seem to radiate a certain
quality of profundity and infinite probability, sure, in that sense, I use
the term magick to feel special.
>>>> While it is not incorrect, I
don't believe it can capture the
>>>> totallity of what is
>>>> "Magick".
>>>
>>> So you say it is correct, but actually not correct. Confusing shit,
>>> that definition.
>>
>> Not confusing. Not contradicting. It is like saying, "this ball is
>> red". While it may be true the ball it red, it does not compleetly
>> describe the ball. The ball is also round, about 3 inches in diameter,
>> etc..It is correct, to an extant, but not, to me, a complete
>> description.
>
> So, how is it more ?
> (magick)
please refer to "to me, all things are a direct intervention of the
divine". This would be a good place to start if one wished to discover the
"more" you ask of.
>
>>>>>>>> The most I would say at this point, referring back,
>>>>>> again, to Regardie,
>>>>>>>> is that the psychological world (the inner, personal world), is
>>>>>>>> the exact same as what is commonly referred to as the magickal
>>>>>>>> world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, you called the magical world the psyche. So do elaborate on
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not that the magical world is the psyche, that seems one sided to
>>>>>> me, more that the 2 are the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> The magical world is not the psyche, but they are the same. What's
>>>>> the difference between somethings that are the same ?
>>>>
>>>> It is in how it is called forth. "The magical world is the psyche"
>>>> contains the magical world within the psyche, and could even go to
>>>> the end of removing the magickal in every way, and replacing it with
>>>> psyche.
>>>
>>> So if it can actually mean 'identical', what part of that calling
>>> forth is the deviding factor ?
>>
>> It is a literary issue, in the first sense, when referring to the
>> statent "the magickal world is the psyche". It implies the exact
>> opposite of "the psyche is the magical world". Both statements imply a
>> supremecy of the one, and the illusion of the other.
>
> Wow.
> It does not mean that to me at all.
> Something akin to :
> A is B
> Then B is A.
> (note that *is* is nothing at all like *is a subset of* or *is akin to*,
> or *encompasses*)
Again, the dislike I have for the statement is literary. And in a lterary
sense, it is more correct to say that magick and psyche are the same
ground, over magick is psyche, if one wishes to state that the 2 are
identical. The phrase "magick is psyche" could just as easily describe an
opinion where magick is nothing more than psyche. Literary, not
mathematical. Here, like this, "Magick is psyche..." and then, the
optional add on "...and nothing more." This is not the case I would wish
to make, and I wish not to be misinterpreted, so I would avaoid any
literary structure which might lead to such a misinterpretation, if I
possibly could.
Regardless. I believe that none of the above statements are essentially
correct. Ultimately, I believe it should be stated as, "The psyche is the
common channel through which we all interact with the magical world, all
things in this realm of the psyche, relate directly to what I will refer
to, out of simplicity, 'magickal objects'". I believe that the magickal
world, leaving out any aspect of the magickal which may be apparently
physically manafest, is directly available thru the psyche, and as the
psyche. In this sense the two are interchangable, but only restricted to
non-physical aspects or defenitions of what one may call 'magick'. This is
a special definition.
>> In a totally other sense, to me, it is the same as the
>> red ball, or the
>> rock from Lourds. Partially correct. I still don't see how anyone could
>> be confused how something could be partially correct.
>
> Perhaps now you understand my confusion.
No. I still do not understand how anyone in the world, the entire world,
could not understand the idea of some statement or definition being only
partially correct, and not absolutely correct.
>>>>>>>> I personally feel that anything that adds to ones quality of
>>>>>>>> life, and especially anything that adds to ones sense of
>>>>>>>> community and leads to a betterment of that community is a good
>>>>>>>> thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tricky concept; good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about beneficial?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does beneficial erase the trickyness of the concept ?
>>>>
>>>> I do not consider good, or beneficial to be tricky things. Maybe on a
>>>> totally philosophical level,
>>>
>>> So, actually you do consider them concept to be tricky.
>>
>> No, I don't. Philosophically speaking, anything at all can be tricky.
>> From free will to taking a shit.
>
> So yes you do.
> When talking ontology, it is *philosophically speaking*. (and when
> talking about :"what is magick" we are speaking ontology)
No. To me, the term magick refers to something which is an every-day
experience. Not just something which we philosophize about, or
intellectualize to the point of absurdity. It is a common, living
experience, which we can feel, and interact with on a moment to moment
basis.
>
>>>> but not in the actuality of daily experience,
>>>
>>> It is just that in daily experiences the trickyness of the concept
>>> hardly comes into play.
>>
>> Yes, this is what I was saying. IN real life, in daily experience.
>
> Which does not adress what magick is or should be used for at all. It
> adresses how you feel.
No. Not really. It is saying that in actual living experience, or in real
life, the trickyness does not present itself, only when we
over-intellectualize an issue.
>>>> I believe we all inherantly know the difference between good and bad,
>>>> right and wrong. Politics and fear get in the way of this.
>>>
>>> I am not really asking about if we feel something we do feels good or
>>> bad. I am asking about whether it actually *is* good or bad, and if
>>> there is any way we can tell.
>>
>> How about how we feel about it?
>
> Highly unreliable.
>
> We feel all sorts of things.
Yes, we do, don't we? We feel love, hate, annoyance, joy, happiness,
suffering, pleasure, pain.
>
>> Be honest with ourselves about what we feel.
>
> We cannot do that.
How do you feel about this conversation? Be honest? Sir, or Ma'am, I can
only say that it is my sincere hope that you come to terms with how you
feel, honestly, and without pretense. I can say I am totally honest about
the love I feel for my daughter, my family, my friends. I can say I am
clearly honest about the discontent I plainly feel towards the actions of
my government, any rapist, any murderer or thief. I know these things are
wrong, it makes perfect sense to me how they are not good, without letting
my feelings get in the way. I do not find it presumptuous to assume I
contain the ability to discern right from wrong, good from bad,
and beneficial action from detrimental action in specific and special
circumstances. I believe we all have this ability, but some lack the will,
or integrity and candor to enact their basic moral awareness. And I do not
refer to any special platform of morality, such as the extreme
conservative christian right. I mean simple, honest morality and ethics.
If you cannot find it in yourself to be honest about how you feel about
anything, how do you navigate life? Where do you find your joy, how do you
know when you feel pleasure? When you feel sorrow?...The mind, the
intellect alone is not sufficiant, it does not understand love, awe,
inspiration. The heart alone is insufficiant, it is impulsive, rash, and
overly passionate. The two must work in harmony for the insanity of the
world to wane. A person without the mind and heart in balance, lives a
life out of balance, and is destined to suffer needlessly. This is my
earnest belief. I hold this belief due to what I call wisdom I have gained
thru the experiences in my daily life, in the real world of everyday
experience.
> The stuff we feel is so complex, it is hardly possible to represent it
> accurately.
Words do fail the impressive scope of our ability to feel. Thank God that
we are not restricted to such crude and failable things such as words
when carrying on any inner dialogue or meditation, or the kind of self
honesty I refer to Would truely be impossible. But there are other
things, music, painting, theatre, even ritual or poetry, a kiss or a gift
has been know to also properly convey and represent feelings of vast
scope. I have also found that when words fail, simply looking someone in
the eyes for a time can convey more than any library has room for on it's
shelves.
We are not simple beings, what you say is true, but to begin to understand
ourselves, I do suggest a proper and healthy dose of self-honesty,
particulary in the context of what we intuit and feel.
> (like the chemical
composition of our blood, the contents of our
> stomach, etc etc etc)
>
>> I personally believe that we all inherantly know this good and bad
>> issue, it is a givin known.
>
> And that is kinda a thingy.
> On what evidence do you base your belief that we can feel what is right
> and what is wrong ?
> (Is it another belief ??)
Yes. It is. A belief supported by experience, and tested by life. It is a
personal belief. Do with it what you will. But, please do not belittle me
for this belief, it gives me a hope that some day, people will stop
killing one another for little green pieces of paper, and sticky black
stuff that comes from the ground.
>
>> We know this and can feel it.
>
> Nono, not knowledge.
> Stay away from thinking know.
Huh? "Stay away from thinking know"? Literary again. Do you mean, stay
away from thinking that I know something? Of course I know things, so do
you.
>
>> I also personally believe that we are not honest with ourselves
>> concerning these
>> feelings, and we do not often follow them. It is my firm belief if we
>> all did this, were honest about our feelings on things, especially to
>> ourselves, there would be no debate. There would be so much less
>> suffering in the world.
>
> Maybe.
Maybe? I am not sure I follow your point. At one instance, you say it is
not possible that we can be honest with ourselves at all concerning our
feelings, and just above, here say that if we all were honest, there is a
chance there would be less suffering in the world?
Do you mean to say that if it were possible at all that we could be honest
with ourselves in any way concerning how we feel about things, there
might be less suffering, or that there is a chance we might be able to be
honest with ourselves about how we feel about things?
>
>>>>>>> A particular person's quality of life and hir particular community
>>>>>>> could very well be not at all 'good'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An enhanced sense of wonder and mystery in life, a sense of the
>>>>>>>> miraculous and non-mundane in general seems like much needed shot
>>>>>>>> in the arm to a life fed by a shallow "get more, get now" media
>>>>>>>> 'culture'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmm, a sense of wonder seems nice.
>>>>>>> Mystery seems like that aswell.
>>>>>>> It sorta depends on what one does about that wonder that seems
>>>>>>> relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point. Without getting to far into that for the moment, a
>>>>>> sense of depth in culture is what I am shooting for there.
>>>
>>> Did you read it ?
>>
>> Sorry, no I have not, but I did bookmark it, and plan to when I have
>> time. I apologize.
>
> No need to apologize.
> Just asking.
In good faith, I plan to read it. A busy weekend with the girl-friend's
birthday, and other very large changes in my life. I appreciate your
candor, here.
>
>>>>>>>> Subtracting only the community involvement, that seems to be an
>>>>>>>> all about "summary of benefits" from the practice of magick. The
>>>>>>>> whole communal thing comes in if one assumes, or accepts a
>>>>>>>> oneness or connectedness in the universe or nature in general.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it presupposes that people define their community to the
>>>>>>> entire universe.
>>>>>>> And that anyone can actually know what would be 'good' for the
>>>>>>> universe. And so on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I don't know about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good.
>>>>> (thinking one *knows* something closes the mind)
>>>>
>>>> And what if one does actually know something real?
>>>
>>> That does not matter.
>>
>> ?!?!?!?! Ok, I totally disagree.
>
> Which is fine.
>
>> I believe it absultely matters,
>
> Ouch.
> Such conviction, such a high chance of closing your mind.
Yes, closing my mind to the possibility that it does not matter what the
truth is, what is real in any way. You see, it is what we are discussing
here, you and I. You say your point of view is true, that there is nothing
true, and truth is unknowable, although you seem to know that truth rather
well, and mine...I insist we ought to, that is to say, will benefit
greatly as individuals and as a community as a whole, if we strove to live
closer to the truth, whatsoever it may be.
>
>> since I believe that truth, reality (the real by any definition),
>> etc... is
>> important, and that it is a good thing all around to live in harmony
>> with this truth.
>
> ok.
> What is truth ?
"The real by any definition" What is real is true, what is true is real.
You seem to have a grasp on your version of truth?
Regardless, to humor that question, I will say that I have found Ultimate
Truth to be a thing beyond words, and a thing which one may spend
lifetimes, or at least the entirety of a single lifetime, seeking
learn, understand, and perceive in it's entirety.
>>>> The only thing being that we must be very careful about what we
>>>> believe, and why we believe it.
>>>
>>> Like believing some idea that popped up was actually the thruth (tm)
>>
>> Yes. Like that. We have to examine WHY we adhear to certain things,
>> what motivates our attatchment to certain ideas, or if they are
>> actually true.
>
> *Have to* is such a limiting concept. We have the opportunity to reflect
> on what kind of idea's we like.
Are you saying that life is about what ideas please us and which do not,
and that the truth of things never enters into any relative meaning at
all?
>
>> This is, to me, a lifelong task, cultivating one's faith, one's system
>> of beliefs, and making certain they are not based on hang-ups, or bias
>> or prejudice based on fear or hollow wishing.
>
> *certain*, bah.
Here "...and making certain, to the best of our abilities..."
better for you?
>
> We cannot know anything, at all.
> Yes, nothing at all is knowable.
You seem so certain of that, like you know it, like it is true, real,
beyond question or doubt.
You seem to KNOW how to type? Chemists seem to KNOW the chemical makeup of
water...Do you KNOW how to cook?
You are admitting there, that you know nothing at all, since nothing at
all is knowable in your world, so what exactly have you been trying to say?
And how do you even know how to say it?
What can I gain in conversation with someone that knows nothing, except a
student?
What point can that person ever make? You realize you have been trying to
convince me of your own truth this whole time. A truth you profess to know.
A truth you do not question. A truth that you have closed your mind off to
any possibility that there may be another way.
You speak so much of certainty being the mind-closing devil, you are
ironically certain of this.
I am sorry, that argument holds no water.
>
> Thinking it is one's lifelong task to undertake this impossible quest
> seems, erm, silly.
Not task, privilege. Like your privilege to live in harmony with your
truth that nothing at all is knowable.
>
>>> So if some idea actualy was real, then it still fades to grey compared
>>> to all them other idea's that turned out not to be real.
>>
>> Perhaps with some. True enough me-thinks that memory can be faulty, but
>> some of us remember better than others, and some may cherish the truths
>> they have discovered, and keep them close to the heart. That is, if one
>> considers the truth of things to be important at all. Or, perhaps the
>> truth simply lasts, and shines a bit brighter than all them other ideas
>> that popped out.
>
> If truely true idea's stand the scrutiny of ruthless examinations
> anyway, there hardly seems to be any reason to consider them true.
What? So you are saying that if you ruthlessly scrutinize a hypothesis,
and it turn out that you cannot, in any way disprove it, and that if you
use this hypothesis to successfully predict the outcome of numerous
experiments, that there is no reason to consider it true?
How do navigate life?
How did you come up with the proposed truth "Nothing at all is knowable"?
How did you come to KNOW that?
