|
Post by Antonius on Jan 5, 2008 13:26:27 GMT
its not even so much reexamining, i dont think alot of people have ever even ever looked into this stuff.
im thinking that the way in wich he derrives insights from his observation of nature may be close to the way these esoteric traditions have grown over time. also i think they have been designed to teach us to look and see things we would ordinarily overlook.
anyways no1 replied to my previous post, am i typing to chaoticly again, or am i just being captain obvious?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jan 5, 2008 21:51:15 GMT
>anyways no1 replied to my previous post
Actually I was replying to your statement "the image, no matter how pleasurable it is to us, no matter how lofty an idea we once thought it was, must be killed"
Rather than negate your proposition I suggested a broader framework for evaluating thoughts. Thus - some thoughts are human attempts to reflect Divine Ideas into the mental, emotional and physical worlds and thereby may be considered valuable experiments.
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Jan 5, 2008 22:06:14 GMT
no i ment the one before that about esoteric traditions being models for the internal situation...
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jan 5, 2008 23:48:36 GMT
>i would suggest that you may apply the masonic loge as a model for the situation of thoughts and thinkers
Well the Masonic lodge is probably modeled on the nearest heavenly lodge/mansion and thereby a proper pattern for all sorts of things.
For example, just as there are 7 primary officers in a lodge there are 7 subplanes of the mental plane and thereby (in principle) 7 intelligences operating in the mind. And as a lodge will often have a representative from the local Grand Lodge, the mind will often have a solar angel (soul) available for oversight. (The solar angel is originally from the local temple in the heavens and will return then when its mission is completed)
In the case of most humans the lodge of the mind is not properly tiled (sealed against intruders) hence the name of this thread
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Jan 7, 2008 8:58:46 GMT
well thats what i ment, you know what situations are ideal by looking at the loge, and when you compare that with whats going on inside, doesnt that make it obvious what shouldnt be there?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jan 7, 2008 9:06:22 GMT
>doesnt that make it obvious what shouldnt be there?
Well that might be easy in a physical lodge but it is harder in the human mind as some intelligences pretend to be more than they are and others conceal themselves in the walls
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Jan 8, 2008 0:15:13 GMT
well this may not be the most popular position ive ever taken on anything, but i think that this is why we need psychedelics.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Jan 8, 2008 0:53:03 GMT
>this is why we need psychedelics
It would be interesting to see some academic studies of long term results of therapeutic and shamanistic use of psychedelics
|
|
|
Post by Antonius on Jan 10, 2008 13:04:06 GMT
well considering the legal status these are unfortunatly few and far between. heres an overview of research past and current: maps.org/research/index.htmlthough i think to understand what kind of values are promoted by these things, one has to look no further then the american history. the conflict between the values of the psychedelic natives and their various alcohol fueled invaders. another example is the LSD movement of the 60's. sure that movement never realy ammounted to anything, but look at the moral values that they identified with: peace, equality and oneness with nature. this seems to be quite universal. any large group of people who embrace a psychedelic is allways much more likely to attempt cooperation whereas any group without them is allways much more likely to attempt to dominate. to get back on topic, i realised that we do not only have foreign thinkers in our heads, we also invite them into our lives. when we make friends, buy stuff, go places. we make descisions about wich sensory input we expose ourselves to based on the values they promote. for instance when i deseried to become closer to nature, what i did was start my botanical hobby and put a bunch of plants in my house and started caring for them. so i guess that means that whatever voice we choose to listen to, we listen to we also empower. also, to empower one thing is to deminish whatever is its opposite. wich brings me to the duality issue. if we assume that every thinker has a polar opposit, then one clue that things are not right might be if the balance is tipped heavily to one side.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 4, 2008 23:00:20 GMT
I was reading an article yesterday which was presenting the (old) thought that we are only participants in a dream, and that what we seek is the Dreamer. The author went on to state that what we think we are is probably only literally half true, because we share our dream with others and we are partly what they dream us to be.
When you think of it, in everyday life, we play all the parts and different parts with different people. We are kind and gentle with this person, patient with that person and aggressive with another etc etc. The author said that this was because they are dreaming us to be that way and probably with good reason. You were mad at someone once and now they think you are mad all the time, so you react to their thoughts about you. Sounds feasible. Kindness lasts longer, if someone thinks you are kind you can get away with being mean on the odd occasion... (does that mean love rules?)
If transplants and blood transfusions can change personalities and tastes, and we know our state of mind can affect our bodies, maybe this idea bears some thinking about, and gives us a bit of a practical challenge - to see how we react to different people, and to notice if we treat them as we want to or as they expect us to.
(We had a recent case here in Australia where the transplanted organ changed the blood type and the immune system of the patient to that of the donor. It is causing an earthquake in the medical world re future treatment of transplant patients.)
If as Cayce says, "Mind is the Builder", then being Master of our building might mean not reacting so much to other people, but rather deciding how we will respond.
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Feb 8, 2008 0:29:19 GMT
Promised this bit on the Shadow in another thread but it seems to fit in here quite snugly... The Shadow - or Why We Don't Believe in Ourselves. Excerpts "There are forever two selves present – the one self, for all practical purposes, is the persona that you’ve identified with – the ‘you’ that you are. Then there is another reality, another you that most people know absolutely nothing about. We call this other self the ‘energy body’, and under that heading you can also call it your ‘astral body’, or ‘higher self’ or any other name you wish to call it! But we will make it simple, and merely call it the ‘energy body’. But it is so far removed from this body and this reality here, that for all practical purposes, it is un-attentive of the fact that you are actually sitting here, so vast is the distance between you and your ‘real self’. It’s thought patterns are completely different from your thought patterns. This sounds terrible, but it’s true. In a lifetime your contact with this body happens only very rarely. Once, twice, maybe three times, and then the real self will depart. Now, what exactly IS the energy body? How does it operate? Where does it come from? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So far, you are convinced that YOU are the one who is thinking all the nonsense to which you are listening! But in the meantime, there is an outside energy, a conscious and aware being THINKING ON YOUR BEHALF! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But in the meantime, there is an outside energy, a conscious and aware being THINKING ON YOUR BEHALF! So far, you’ve identified so strongly with what you’ve heard inside your own head, that you really believe that it is YOU who is thinking. But when one sees the truth of human existence, one sees that there are very few human beings who have ever thought for themselves! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.raisingconsciousness.info/HwDld3.pdfThere are other free downloads of Ferdie's work if you explore the site. Half Light, half shadow Half Visible, half not Just like our lodges really. Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 12, 2008 22:19:14 GMT
At the beginning of a day of creation, Brahm, begins to create, his thoughts call worlds into existence. Things are materialized thoughts, or states of mind having been rendered objective.
Few persons have the power to think spontaneously and independently, although all may believe to have that power ; if they were able to manipulate thought they would be able to create.
The majority of men only occupy themselves with the thoughts that come into their mind without their bidding ; they are instruments or " mediums " through which the universal principle of mind thinks, but they are unable to originate a thought, much less to project it into objectivity through the power of the will.
Magic, white and black; or The science of finate [!] and infinate life, containing practical hints for students of occultism ([c1890])
Author: Hartmann, Franz, d. 1912
(And thank you to forum member Synchronicity for posting a link to that free book in the Articles/Papers section. Sync also posted a great link for anyone interested in C C Zain's work. I love Zain's take on Masonry and intend to follow up on the rest of his work.)
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 12, 2008 22:58:21 GMT
they are instruments or " mediums " through which the universal principle of mind thinks If this is true... Then the one big thing we can do to change the world for good, is to change the way we think. Constructive thought-----ll Univ Princ Mind Scale ll----Destructive thought What an awesome (or is it aweful) responsibility! Maat
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 12, 2008 23:29:55 GMT
There is no way to prove a "super-existence" by inference from existence; supernaturalism can be accepted only on faith.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 13, 2008 0:34:09 GMT
How would you then explain the extra ordinary experiences that people have?
Much of what happens to them shakes their faith to the core.
Hypothetical question... What would you assume if you, and a companion, suddenly saw with your wide open eyes any of the following
a ghost an alien type being or space craft some item levitate a gaping wound close up before your eyes etc etc
Would you assume you were seeing things? That you might need to go and see a psychiatrist? Would your friend who also saw these same things also need to see a psychiatrist?
Just interested in what you think your reaction might be. If you say it is never going to happen, why might you say this?
Maat
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 13, 2008 0:48:41 GMT
There is no way to prove a "super-existence" by inference from existence; supernaturalism can be accepted only on faith. Do you exist? Your body is just composed of atoms Scientists have not yet established what the core of the atom is, it has seems to have no substance... closest they come to it is ... light/energy? Therefore what is your definition for the word 'existence'? I think you exist because my mind communicates with your mind (the body being just the dense conglomeration of energy particles that provides our eyes with an object to recognise as the thinker) - but someone else may be thinking us both up, we could be just characters in a play.. Maat PS ... what is wind? It has no substance, but we see evidence of its existance. Mind experiments in laboratories have also demonstrated to scientists, and medical doctors, that Mind, although it has no substance, can have an affect on physical vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 13, 2008 0:53:45 GMT
>supernaturalism can be accepted only on faith I suspect that the human nervous system (on various planes) is designed to be an "antenna" for higher frequency signals. If this is so then a human, properly configured, may receive input from profound levels of existence. That input may result in images (visions) , in a knowing (gnosis) and in impulses to action (a mission in life) History has many examples of visions and gnosis and missions that radically changed human society. Thus the quality and impact of humans driven from within may be sufficient evidence that they contain influences beyond the natural. For example Michelangelo was known in his time as The Divine Michelangelo indicating that those who knew him and his work saw that supernatural present in him www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2004/02_february/05/divine_michelangelo.shtml
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 13, 2008 2:23:55 GMT
Do you exist? Your body is just composed of atoms Scientists have not yet established what the core of the atom is, it has seems to have no substance... closest they come to it is ... light/energy? Therefore what is your definition for the word 'existence'? Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. Existence exists—and only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable. The first and primary axiomatic concepts are "existence," "identity" (which is a corollary of "existence") and "consciousness." "An axomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents … The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action, event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." - Introduction to Objectivist EpistomologyOne can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or "prove") existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to "prove" them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to "prove" existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 13, 2008 3:02:22 GMT
History has many examples of visions and gnosis and missions that radically changed human society. Thus the quality and impact of humans driven from within may be sufficient evidence that they contain influences beyond the natural. For example Michelangelo was known in his time as The Divine Michelangelo indicating that those who knew him and his work saw that supernatural present in him Men of great talent and intellect, such as Michelangelo, DaVinci, and Galileo, were utilising thier full potiential as rational human beings. That others chose to interpret thier achievements through the lens of supernaturalism does not reflect the result of thier productivity, but, rather, the mystical ignorance that they had been steeped in with thier mother's milk. The majority of human's at this time were profoundly ignorant, with the suppression of knowledge by the Church being the culprit. Until the rediscovery of rational philosophy, embodied in the principles of Aristotolean logic and epistomology, mankind wallowed in the pigsty of ignorance and disease. It was no supernatural entity that started the climb out of the pit of ignorance toward the pinnacle of achievement that we enjoy today, but the unleashed potential of the human mind, unfettered by superstition, freed of the tyranny of religious oppression, free to explore the "hidden mysteries of nature and science."
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 13, 2008 3:31:35 GMT
>Existence and identity are not attributes of existents, they are the existents
I experience identity independently of my existence as a human.
So I am not inclined towards objectivism
|
|