Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Alchemy as viewed through the modern lens of chemistry(or you know, science) is a failed science, certainly. But this is ignoring the inner work mirroring the outer.

So no one ever produced the stone and showed it to the World, but this was only ever the outer work. The real work was personal and thus not subject to our scrutiny.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Alchemy as viewed through the modern lens of chemistry(or you know, science) is a failed science, certainly. But this is ignoring the inner work mirroring the outer.

So no one ever produced the stone and showed it to the World, but this was only ever the outer work. The real work was personal and thus not subject to our scrutiny.

Not until they removed the supposed "real work" from it were they able to utilize it properly. Yes, I'm sure it felt good writing in metaphor and code, and also believing that one was joining in mystical union might give one a sense of empowerment, but then again so does narcotics and laziness.

I was reading the last few pages and starting thinking that Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism are big terms. Too big, really. Then I thought, does spirituality or the belief in God fall into Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism? Does the belief in God make one a Pseudo-Philosopher?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The fruits of magic is transcendence. The fruits of modern science is a disaster; a runaway train we couldn't stop even if we wanted to. Mankind can't handle science, it mostly amounts to black magic in the hands of the uninitiated. This is the fruits of your vaunted science: the military industrial complex.

Not so with magick. Because real secrets are guarded and worthless without the requisite understanding. Blavatsky touched on this. The supreme irresponsibility of science. Science is a blind tool and the scientific community is bought and paid for. Their fruit is the enabling of mass murder on a hitherto unseen scale. High tech murder and the enabling of any sufficiently powerful maniac (or cabal of maniacs) to channel science for his own sick ends.


Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

No, magic is a shapeshifting black cat that talks. Science is but a whore.

a reply to: amazing

I was reading the last few pages and starting thinking that Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism are big terms. Too big, really. Then I thought, does spirituality or the belief in God fall into Pseudo-Philosophy and Mysticism? Does the belief in God make one a Pseudo-Philosopher?

I don't think so. For instance, Kierkegaard was a Christian and a philosopher, but he was honest enough to denounce his belief as faith and not truth. I think when one confuses his faith with truth, he loses the distinction of philosopher. Once again, honesty is of importance.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You know, a lot of people will tell you religion or believing in God is a crutch. They never look at it the other way.. not knowing about such things can be a blessing, and in that way a crutch. Because if one has experienced real suffering the idea of only ever having to live one life seems like the deal of a lifetime. It's not empowering.. but it's very easy.

I didn't understand your first sentence there so you'll have to do with the non sequitur above.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I prefer to defend religion than maintain any contempt for it. People blame it for the world's woes as if it was a living individual, which is laughable. I do not think it is a crutch.

Most of arguments would be near to the embodied cognition school, with some externalism mixed in.

So this is what you believe right?

Consciousness is the body. When people speak of consciousness, mind, awareness and so on, I am reminded of the distinction between the morning star and the evening star—both are misapprehensions of Venus. An owl's consciousness is it's body, an ants consciousness is its body, etc. In other words, there is no "consciousness", there is only the body.

Does this mean that those with missing limbs etc. are less conscious?

Could the universe in its entirety be considered a "body"?

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

All of those mass murderers were taught by the disciples of Blavatsky and Magic.

Science never tells a man what to choose. Science can only tell a man what he has to do in order to get the predictable results of science.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Aahh.. a lot of people do though.

Well, it seems this discussion has run its course which suits me fine as I don't really have the energy to go back and forth like this.

The bed beckons. Good night and may you find what you seek.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Do elaborate on these disciples.. don't know if you're joking !?

a reply to: scratchmane

Does this mean that those with missing limbs etc. are less conscious?

Yes. It sounds sinister, but it really isn't. They cannot interact with the world as they could as if they had a limb there. They are unconscious of the area where their limb once was.

Could the universe in its entirety be considered a "body"?

The requirements of being a body is that it has a boundary, is finite and moves as one. I'm not sure if any of these requirements are yet discoverable.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Aahh.. a lot of people do though.

Well, it seems this discussion has run its course which suits me fine as I don't really have the energy to go back and forth like this.

The bed beckons. Good night and may you find what you seek.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Do elaborate on these disciples.. don't know if you're joking !?

Blavatsky's published Theosophical ideas, particularly those regarding Root Races, have been cited as an influence on Ariosophy, the esoteric movement established in late 19th and early 20th century Germany and Austria by Guido von List and Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels.[301][302] Hannah Newman stated that via Ariosophy, Blavatsky's Theosophical ideas "contributed to Nazi ideology".[303] Nevertheless, Lachman has asserted that Blavatsky should not be held accountable to any of the antisemitic and racist ideas that the Ariosophists promoted,
en.wikipedia.org...

The totalitarian state is a religion, and Blavatsky's holistic mysticism supported all of them.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

The fruits of science are... a level of civilization in which the poorest class lives more comfortably than the richest class of any other age in the history of the universe.

I'm sorry...this statement has been bugging me; are you talking about your native country? You certainly can't be considering India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Somalia, Mexico, Haiti, etc(the list goes on and on and on) when making this statement. Perhaps some level of philosophical or spiritual 'wisdom' will have to be considered along with all this science before what you say will ever (hopefully) be true.

originally posted by: humanityrising

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

The fruits of science are... a level of civilization in which the poorest class lives more comfortably than the richest class of any other age in the history of the universe.

I'm sorry...this statement has been bugging me; are you talking about your native country? You certainly can't be considering India, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Somalia, Mexico, Haiti, etc(the list goes on and on and on) when making this statement. Perhaps some level of philosophical or spiritual 'wisdom' will have to be considered along with all this science before what you say will ever (hopefully) be true.

I would ask how, exactly, 'comfortably' can be defined, because they do say some of the poorest people are the most happiest, in that, they may look to and find (perhaps with no other choice...nonetheless) their comfort in philosophical, spiritual, physical fun and challenges, and other rewarding pursuits that life has to offer (which chasing the almighty buck seems to veer us away), such as the intangibles, rather than money and power. Then again, perhaps there is a message here to abandon all material possessions and the want of them, as do those that attempt to attain enlightenment.

originally posted by: InTheLight

I would ask how, exactly, 'comfortably' can be defined, because they do say some of the poorest people are the most happiest, in that, they may look to and find (perhaps with no other choice...nonetheless) their comfort in philosophical, spiritual, physical fun and challenges, and other rewarding pursuits that life has to offer (which chasing the almighty buck seems to veer us away), such as the intangibles, rather than money and power. Then again, perhaps there is a message here to abandon all material possessions and the want of them, as do those that attempt to attain enlightenment.

A thought provoking concept.
I contemplate this a lot, particularly because my husband and I are very different in terms of our relationship with the material and physical world. I value experience, while he values objects. He is a hoarder (my word for it), he has so much stuff it is literally flooding us out of our own home. We have three bedrooms we cannot use because they are filled with his stuff, and three basements equally stuffed, as well as all kinds of junk outside.

I keep my possessions to a minimum, and feel totally uncomfortable with too much- I feel trapped, stifled, drowning.... unable to feel clearly. He feels safe with all this stuff. Completely opposite emotions.

The thing is, I notice a correlation with our feelings about "freedom". He is reactive to any possible interpretation of being restricted by others. He is quick to interpret others as trying to restrict his freedom, and fight back aggressively.
It seems strange to me. I sort of shrug when it is possible others are trying to restrain my freedom, like say, in a work situation- I'm okay with conforming to rules outside. Whatever. If it helps everyone cooperate and work together in harmony. If I really don't like the limits posed, I walk away. I don't feel much desire to fight. Let those who like the limits live within them (or have fun staying and fighting them, if that is their trip).

In our couple, we've found a way to live together - we turned our stone barn into a nice small apartment that is sparsely decorated. Built it to rent out, but I've been living there for months happily. He comes to sleep with me at night there, but the house has become his territory now.

But this often makes me contemplate the subject of freedom and possession. " That which you possess possesses you as well" is how I tend to feel. He sees differently- that he has chosen himself that which he possesses, just as I feel I choose those who shall possess me, myself.

I'm rambling. Sorry. Early morning and on vacation, indulging in the experience of thinking...

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Now you're reaching. You might as well blame Crowley for the Crusades.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Now you're reaching. You might as well blame Crowley for the Crusades.

Crowley is closer to the reason for the Crusades than Science.

The State is the instigator of mass murder. The State has mystical support because the State serves no good function other than psychological balance for its followers. The State is the default because of mystical blurry thinking by the masses. Excessive mysticism in society is at the root of all totalitarianism.

Science is a human capability, like language and art. Science never provides guidance in life, science is an additional means to acquire or achieve a chosen end. The choosing of the end is more in the realm of Mysticism.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: scratchmane

The requirements of being a body is that it has a boundary, is finite and moves as one. I'm not sure if any of these requirements are yet discoverable.

So are you open to the possibility that the universe is a conscious 'entity'?

Or do you choose not to see this as a viable concept?

a reply to: scratchmane

So are you open to the possibility that the universe is a conscious 'entity'?

Or do you choose not to see this as a viable concept?

I am closed to that possibility. Our notions of the organic are perceived here on Earth at its surface and no where else, and as far as we know it is so rare, that it would be irrational to imply that such a concept is universal.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: scratchmane
I am closed to that possibility. Our notions of the organic are perceived here on Earth at its surface and no where else, and as far as we know it is so rare, that it would be irrational to imply that such a concept is universal.

It might be irrational, to you, but you do not Know if the universe is conscious, you Believe, it seems, that only an organic entity can exhibit consciousness.

There is a massive gap between knowledge and belief. Many believe in different things, but they remain beliefs.

To me you appear as a believer. Am I wrong?