Weather as Emotion

There is a dynamic parallelism between natures 'moods' and our own.

In the traditional Kabbalistic schema, the objectification of our own inner hierarchy are called Seraphim, Chayoth and Ophanim; translated into our inner faculties this is thought-intellect, Emotion and Vitality.

Nature is one grand metaphor for our own inner reality, which means, indeed, mankind's collective psychic condition regulates the weather of nature.

As explained, using the Kabbalistic doctrine, the Seraphim are the objectification of our mental attitudes towards things. These mental attitudes stimulate the movements of the Chayoth, which means 'beasts', or would probably more accurately be termed 'anima', as in a force which animates something else. These Chayoth are the objectification of the emotions created by mental attitudes. Next in the schema of causality, is the Ophanim, which literally means 'wheels', referring to the super-physical processes which govern the laws of nature. The Chayoth provide the basic thrust for the Ophanim, which then translates this cosmic information into the vitality which powers the manifested realm.

In other traditions, such as the popular North American Indian 'rain dance' (actually popular in most shamanic traditions), the weather is purportedly influenced by the collective emotion of the participants in the ritual. Some say this is categorically impossible. WELL, such people are obviously not versed in traditional metaphysics. Man DOES possess the ability to influence the rains, and in fact all weather is indicative of his own inner processes.

So, why has the weather been all screwy lately? Have our attitudes become more abject then they already are? Or, perhaps, is nature anticipating a change as an intuition which we all innately feel? Are the wars on the horizon, which clearly seem more likely every week, notifying the present moment of a time not far off? And is this why nature, in her own confusion, marshal's the winds, heat, cold and other powers within her grasp in a manner contrary to the normal balance?

reply to post by dontreally


You dont think its the other way around,,, that weather and greater nature,, has interlocked and created man in this process,,, and everything and anything man does is his attempt at coping with this situation,,, science,, is man using his inner and outer faculties, to use the nature that molded him, against nature for himself and against himself for himself?

Originally posted by dontreally
And is this why nature, in her own confusion, marshal's the winds, heat, cold and other powers within her grasp in a manner contrary to the normal balance?

I do not think Nature is confused nor would she ever direct her forces, for any reason, in 'a manner contrary to the normal balance.'

That is not to say I don't see the point you are making, and in fact, I tend to see things in much the same light as you are presenting...however, what I perceive is that any turmoil or unusual weather patterns are Nature's measures in maintaining her crucial balance (for balance = strength) in particularly stormy conditions in man's sea of mixed emotions.

reply to post by queenannie38

I do not think Nature is confused nor would she ever direct her forces, for any reason, in 'a manner contrary to the normal balance.'

I meant 'confused' metaphorically, of course. Disorder in nature obviously serves a higher order.

I've been noticing alot of synchronization lately between my thoughts and the wind - starting to feel pretty connected with nature in that respect. Also, my freeing thoughts always lead me to see a bird sailing. I've seen more birds lately and heard them more than ever before. Which part of my journey is this? I think I'm a step past the chakras which was a step past relating with humans on a deep level. I'm super happy and positively driving my thought-force in a great direction but is there anything else I could be doing? I know my diet could improve, I drink too much Monster and eat too much candy but I'm skinny so I forget I have to eat healthy haha

I think it makes more sense to believe that nature is affecting human emotion with rather, rather than believing that humans can affect the weather. What about the animals and the insects? I think this is discriminating towards other forms of life.

April showers bring May flowers has is meaningless this year.

reply to post by arpgme


Animals don't have free will. They are essentially automatons following the only impulse they know: instinct. Therefore, they do not have 'attitudes', or the level of 'seraphim' does not relate to them. In philosophical terminology, they do not have the faculties to engage the 'logos' - the inner logic and order creating faculty of the universe.

It's not 'discriminatory' to point out that animals are spiritually inferior to human beings. Obviously, in the greater scheme of things, all creatures serve their purpose, but mankind is at the top; this is patently clear and requires no proof.

I think, if I'm reading you correctly, that you would benefit from reading Rene Guenon (a metaphysician/philosopher). The human being is a microcosm of the universe (the macrocosm). All the levels of reality that exist in him, namely, his intellect, his emotional powers, his vital self and his body, are mirrored (or projected) in the universe outside him. This is a basic foundational principle of all religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism (read the upanishads and puranas for a detailed discussion of this).

The 'objectification' is the principle - as opposed to its manifestation. This is a subtle and abstract idea that many people have difficulty comprehending if they aren't accustomed to philosophical reasoning, particularly metaphysical. When you look at the physical world, all you're seeing is the outer 'body', which parallels man's own body. But ontologically (that is, considering each reality as possessing an objective existence) above the level of 'body' is the force which moves the body, which is the vitality; the energy of the body. And what motivates vitality? Emotion. And what excites emotion? An idea. For example, you hear good news: the idea (intellectual concept) excites and generates an emotional response, which excites the limbs and organs of the physical body, culminating in physical movement. Likewise in nature. The physical world we see has levels and worlds paralleling our own spiritual-physical constitution. The Hebrew words (and this has cognates in other systems, I'm sticking with the Hebrew because it's what I'm more experienced with) for these objectified conditions are Seraphim - which are described as 'firey' beings, alluding to the intellect, Chayoth - animating forces, which 'charge' forth from the seraphim, these being the objectified 'emotions', and Ophanim, the 'wheels' or vitalizing principle behind creation.

How is it do you think magic works? It's manipulating these basic forces of creation. After all, the Indian rain dance is a primitive magic which is designed as a supplication to the mother goddess - nature - to give of her rains to the earth. It works not because there really is a 'mother goddess' which answers human petitions, but because man's collective psychic emotion directed towards this goal (causing rain) induces the chayoth (objectified emotional powers of the macrocosm) to direct the ophanim (objectified vital power of the macrocosm) which in turns creates the weather patterns that create rain.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by arpgme

 

Animals don't have free will. They are essentially automatons following the only impulse they know: instinct. Therefore, they do not have 'attitudes', or the level of 'seraphim' does not relate to them. In philosophical terminology, they do not have the faculties to engage the 'logos' - the inner logic and order creating faculty of the universe.

It's not 'discriminatory' to point out that animals are spiritually inferior to human beings. Obviously, in the greater scheme of things, all creatures serve their purpose, but mankind is at the top; this is patently clear and requires no proof.

I disagree. In fact, I don't think humans are much more advanced than any animal here on Earth in any way. Sure dogs don't have nintendos, but what need do dogs have for them? Every animal, including the human, is given a purpose determined by their physical capabilities, and the intelligence of each animal is defined relatively based on how well they use what they have been given.

Some would say mankind is at the bottom.

Are we not "automatons" following instinct and survival mechanisms as well? Anything beyond that is not "more advanced". Actually it is probably more self-defeating. All you need to do is to survive.

Yikes...children....sorry but...no need for volumes of explanation...

If someone showed up and post two word...but meaninful...I would be in awe...

Drivel makes me vomit....sorry

Originally posted by dontreally
Animals don't have free will. They are essentially automatons following the only impulse they know: instinct. Therefore, they do not have 'attitudes', or the level of 'seraphim' does not relate to them. In philosophical terminology, they do not have the faculties to engage the 'logos' - the inner logic and order creating faculty of the universe.

There are people that use a similar argument to explain away free will in humans. There is no good reason to believe that animals do not have attitudes. Animals have emotions and beliefs. For example, dogs will cry when sad, bark when angry, and wag its tail when happy.

Originally posted by dontreally
It's not 'discriminatory' to point out that animals are spiritually inferior to human beings. Obviously, in the greater scheme of things, all creatures serve their purpose, but mankind is at the top; this is patently clear and requires no proof.

You are saying that humans are superior to animals. If you can't see it try replacing "animal" and "human" with two different races in your mind.

Originally posted by dontreally
I think, if I'm reading you correctly, that you would benefit from reading Rene Guenon (a metaphysician/philosopher). The human being is a microcosm of the universe (the macrocosm). All the levels of reality that exist in him, namely, his intellect, his emotional powers, his vital self and his body, are mirrored (or projected) in the universe outside him.

No thank you, this person has an egotistical "belief" that the universe is a macrocosm of the human.

Originally posted by dontreally
This is a basic foundational principle of all religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism (read the upanishads and puranas for a detailed discussion of this).

Do you know "all" religions? Even some pantheistic ones saying that all existence is alive and is god? Humans, Animals, and Objects? Even if they all did say that humans are superior, that doesn't mean that it's true just because all of them are saying it.

Originally posted by dontreally
The 'objectification' is the principle - as opposed to its manifestation. This is a subtle and abstract idea that many people have difficulty comprehending if they aren't accustomed to philosophical reasoning, particularly metaphysical. When you look at the physical world, all you're seeing is the outer 'body', which parallels man's own body. But ontologically (that is, considering each reality as possessing an objective existence) above the level of 'body' is the force which moves the body, which is the vitality; the energy of the body. And what motivates vitality? Emotion. And what excites emotion? An idea. For example, you hear good news: the idea (intellectual concept) excites and generates an emotional response, which excites the limbs and organs of the physical body, culminating in physical movement. Likewise in nature. The physical world we see has levels and worlds paralleling our own spiritual-physical constitution. The Hebrew words (and this has cognates in other systems, I'm sticking with the Hebrew because it's what I'm more experienced with) for these objectified conditions are Seraphim - which are described as 'firey' beings, alluding to the intellect, Chayoth - animating forces, which 'charge' forth from the seraphim, these being the objectified 'emotions', and Ophanim, the 'wheels' or vitalizing principle behind creation.

Animals have emotion, too. You are using a philosophy to justify that animals are lower but there's other philosophies out there. You'll have to show why your view is accurate, and if you can't that, then it isn't as obvious as you thought.

Originally posted by dontreally
How is it do you think magic works? It's manipulating these basic forces of creation. After all, the Indian rain dance is a primitive magic which is designed as a supplication to the mother goddess - nature - to give of her rains to the earth. It works not because there really is a 'mother goddess' which answers human petitions, but because man's collective psychic emotion directed towards this goal (causing rain) induces the chayoth (objectified emotional powers of the macrocosm) to direct the ophanim (objectified vital power of the macrocosm) which in turns creates the weather patterns that create rain.

How do you "Know" this is the way it works? You are stating this as fact. How do you 'know' that it is magic and not a coincidence or synchronicity? How do you 'know' that there is no mother goddess answering them? How do you 'know' that it is creation and not a living part of the creator itself?

Some compare human to nature and say that nature reflects human instead of comparing nature to humans since it was here first to say that humans is a reflection of nature.

Maybe weather (nature) effect human not other way around.

reply to post by arpgme

There is no good reason to believe that animals do not have attitudes.

Oh, they have attitudes: they just can't consciously direct or even challenge an attitude. They can't give moral value judgements - they can't assess the reason of any action. They are automatons in the true sense of the word: they act instinctively without conscious intervention.

When my Dog stops at the street, she doesn't stop because she considers what will happen if she continues: she stops because I have trained her to, her stopping being nothing more than a function of habit. She nears the street and the impulse to stop and sit overwhelms her. Therefore, she stops and sits.

You are saying that humans are superior to animals.

Damn fricken right Humans are superior to animals.

No thank you, this person has an egotistical "belief" that the universe is a macrocosm of the human.

Well then I guess you reject the perennial wisdom inherent in all religions: in the Hebrew Kabbalah, in the western Neo-Platonism/Hermeticism and Christian Gnosticism, In Islamic Sufism and the Hindu Vedanta. All these traditions are unanimous: the Human being is a microcosm of the Universe (macrocosm). You know that Beetles song? "I am the Eggman" - look that up. Eggman is a metaphor for Purusha - the universal man.

Maybe weather (nature) effect human not other way around.

If you've carefully followed this thread, as in the OP, you would understand I already acknowledged that weather affects humans; and likewise, humans can affect weather. It is a mutual relationship, akin to the relationship between man and his environment: environment "conditions" one's attitude, but at the same time, one has the ability to rise above the environment and condition it (for instance, man's transformation of nature). Or, the relationship between soul and action. Actions are the result of one's spiritual makeup, that is, one's past experiences dictate future actions, but, one can also consciously break from habit (one's inclination to act in a certain way) and change the direction of the action. By doing so, action changes the soul by inclining the soul in new directions.

Left to ourselves, that is, in passivity, we are controlled by nature and our environment. But by conscious - active - intention, we can change nature/our environment.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by arpgme

 

There is no good reason to believe that animals do not have attitudes.

Oh, they have attitudes: they just can't consciously direct or even challenge an attitude. They can't give moral value judgements - they can't assess the reason of any action. They are automatons in the true sense of the word: they act instinctively without conscious intervention.

Again, How do you KNOW this?

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by arpgme

 

You are saying that humans are superior to animals.

Damn fricken right Humans are superior to animals.

And yet, you offer no proof.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by arpgme

 

No thank you, this person has an egotistical "belief" that the universe is a macrocosm of the human.

Well then I guess you reject the perennial wisdom inherent in all religions: in the Hebrew Kabbalah, in the western Neo-Platonism/Hermeticism and Christian Gnosticism, In Islamic Sufism and the Hindu Vedanta. All these traditions are unanimous: the Human being is a microcosm of the Universe (macrocosm). You know that Beetles song? "I am the Eggman" - look that up. Eggman is a metaphor for Purusha - the universal man.

Again, I ask, how do you know that it's true? Not all religions say humans are superior, there are Pantheistic views which sees all thing living and non-living as God. Even if "ALL" religions DID say it, that does not automatically mean that it's true.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by arpgme

 

Maybe weather (nature) effect human not other way around.

If you've carefully followed this thread, as in the OP, you would understand I already acknowledged that weather affects humans; and likewise, humans can affect weather. It is a mutual relationship, akin to the relationship between man and his environment:

Notice that I said "not the other way around". That means that I did read your post, and while I agree that the weather affects humans, I don't necessarily agree that humans can change the weather just by rain dancing.

Humans are a part of nature, and nature is the larger part. It doesn't make sense to start with the human when the nature was before the human.

reply to post by arpgme


Animals not only have consciousness/personality but feelings and respond to Love overall, even most savage beasts. They also express altruism, ie, not just for survival's sake, ie, a polar bear diving and saving a kitten that fell in the pool and cuddles it for some time. A male at that. A good book on the real research is When Elephants Weep (or cry).

Now, as to whether dancing affects weather? Why not, everyting is frequency and we have alot more affect than anyone here knows.

We can overcome weather, volcanism, earthquakes can reduce a tidal wave, and united, with peace and giving good things to others, equalizing, we can lesson all gravity related events and mitigate asteroids and meteors.

We are so much more in this testing ground than has been told.

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by arpgme

 

Now, as to whether dancing affects weather? Why not, everyting is frequency and we have alot more affect than anyone here knows.

But we can't really know that. Even if it does happen, it doesn't automatically mean that we did it. Maybe the energy of the weather caused us to pray for rain on a subconscious level. Maybe it is a synchronicity, they happen to be doing the rain-dance while at the same time the rain happens to be coming.

Do animals go to shelter because the rain is coming? Or the rain come because they are going to shelter?

reply to post by arpgme

Again, How do you KNOW this?

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...INFERENCE. try using it sometime.

And yet, you offer no proof.

requires no proof.

Not all religions say humans are superior

I was addressing your statement "No thank you, this person has an egotistical "belief" that the universe is a macrocosm of the human. " and I'm explaining to you EVERY RELIGION ON EARTH believes that. Kabbalah = Adam Kadmon, Islam = al-insan ramz al-wujud (the human being is the symbol of all existence), Christianity/Gnosticism = Anthropos, which is Jesus Christ, Hinduism = Purusha (or his incarnation as Krishna)...

Even if "ALL" religions DID say it, that does not automatically mean that it's true.

For the love of God read a book.

Originally posted by dontreally

Not all religions say humans are superior

I was addressing your statement "No thank you, this person has an egotistical "belief" that the universe is a macrocosm of the human. " and I'm explaining to you EVERY RELIGION ON EARTH believes that. Kabbalah = Adam Kadmon, Islam = al-insan ramz al-wujud (the human being is the symbol of all existence), Christianity/Gnosticism = Anthropos, which is Jesus Christ, Hinduism = Purusha (or his incarnation as Krishna)...

Even if "Every" religion believed this that still wouldn't make it anything more than a belief unless it can be prove. Then it can cross over from being belief to knowledge (wisdom). Again, even if "every" religion believe this, it does not make it correct. This is not a good way to argue for your beliefs. See: Argumentum Ad Populum

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by arpgme

 

Again, How do you KNOW this?

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...INFERENCE. try using it sometime.

So if I don't have the same belief as you then I must not be using inference.... Inference works better with evidence and I have no evidence which leads me to believe that humans are superior. You are telling me that you believe because you think "everything" religion says this and not "all" religions do.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by arpgme

 

And yet, you offer no proof.

requires no proof.

And with this, our conversation is concluded. The only evidence you have is, "all religions say so", which is not even true because all religions DON'T say that, like some of the pantheistic ones for example, and you don't care to offer any proof, so I have no reason to discuss this further with you.

You can not convince me unless you have proof, or at least some type of evidence or logical reasoning, and not JUST because "religion says so".

We can use observation to know that animals are just as alive as humans, and it is only by belief that you are thinking otherwise.

I am done responding to you about the consciousness / free-will / spirit-soul of the animals.

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by arpgme

 

There is no good reason to believe that animals do not have attitudes.

Oh, they have attitudes: they just can't consciously direct or even challenge an attitude. They can't give moral value judgements - they can't assess the reason of any action. They are automatons in the true sense of the word: they act instinctively without conscious intervention.

There are some differences in animals and humans, but we are all relatively the same. You speak of reason as a determining factor of intelligence, and while it may be true that some animals don't have the capacity for reason, that doesn't mean that all of them don't. Some would say our reasoning is unreasonable anyway. Maybe they don't want to reason. Why would they? Isn't reasoning a form of distrust? When you ask the question, "Why?". I say, don't ask me why, just trust me.

But that's dogs. I'm sure the self-aware beings like dolphins, chimps, and elephants have the capacity for reasoning.

Maybe on some, maybe not on other points raised by OP.

I've seen "rain dances" work incredibly well, like from clear, cloud-free skies to torrential downpour in ten minutes. I've also seen people "melt" clouds (and I know they disipate, but how many torus shaped clouds do you see, melted from inside out?) .

I've also known some very complex animals that I would bet had reasoning skills, just not as complex as some people's. I had a dog that lied, too.

But if man is a microcosm of the universe, we have a flawed, petty, unfinished ape-like universe with an over-bloated ego and nasty disposition (well, perhaps the universe does have a nasty disposition).

The universe is too cool to compare with man... yet.

Originally posted by Baddogma
Maybe on some, maybe not on other points raised by OP.

I've seen "rain dances" work incredibly well, like from clear, cloud-free skies to torrential downpour in ten minutes. I've also seen people "melt" clouds (and I know they disipate, but how many torus shaped clouds do you see, melted from inside out?) .

I've also known some very complex animals that I would bet had reasoning skills, just not as complex as some people's. I had a dog that lied, too.

But if man is a microcosm of the universe, we have a flawed, petty, unfinished ape-like universe with an over-bloated ego and nasty disposition (well, perhaps the universe does have a nasty disposition).

The universe is too cool to compare with man... yet.

How did you get to know the people that did these things? Where are these kind of friends made?

...