|
Post by wayseer on Mar 3, 2007 22:55:05 GMT
The discussion - I'm lost - Love the cartoons!
|
|
imakegarb
Member
One wee, sleeket, cowran, tim'rous beastie
Posts: 3,573
|
Post by imakegarb on Mar 3, 2007 23:35:41 GMT
The discussion . . . K, I could be wrong. I often am. But I think Tamrin is saying he won't believe until he is able to put his fingers into the holes in his hands, feet and side. Or can pet the unicorn. Or swim with the Sea God. That that's the proof he would accept.
And Russell is content to have not seen but still believe.
I hear you can't safely get near a unicorn unless you're a virgin. So I think that means you should seek out the unicorn loooong before you seek out the Sea God. Though it would seem you can seek out the Sea God most any time.
That and . . .
Yeah . . . the cartoons are really cool ;D
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 3, 2007 23:37:21 GMT
You're right! See this actual photo of a unicorn! Or is it a Snark imitating a seagod, imitating an alien, imitating the tooth fairy ... imitating a dog, imitating a unicorn? In the midst of the word he was trying to say, In the midst of his laughter and glee, He had softly and suddenly vanished away— For the Snark was a Boojum, you see. Seriously though Russell, your argument is all over the place: You ridicule explanations explaining physical evidence, yet elsewhere suggest unicorns may not have physical bodies (another positive step)!? You cite as proof of unicorns, agreement as to their essence, yet bring in Chinese and Arabic 'animals', which Europeans have identified with unicorns, even though they are very different creatures (e.g., having scales rather than silky coats)!? You cite a website in support of your case, whereas, though a bit fanciful, it actually argues against the existence of unicorns!? Give it a rest! BTW KarenAnd Russell is content to have not seen but still believe. For the record, he not only claims to have seen unicorns but he also alludes to having ridden them (not sure if he was with the companions he described flying their unicorns over the North Pole). My objection is chiefly that, just as the proposition that, the moon is made of green cheese, appears to have been uttered in demonstration of a logical fallacy; so too it appears that the unicorn was proposed as a demonstration of the fallacy that we can invent an entirely fanciful creature (instead we can only compose our fancies from parts with which we are familiar). In a sense, part of the true essence of a unicorn is its non-existence. Considering the unicorn as an exemplar among fictitious animals, could its use in heraldry suggest humble origins? In other words, does its inclusion by a College of Heralds, in an Achievement of Arms, allude to a nouveau-nobility without aristocratic roots? This conjecture may be supported by the common depiction of heraldic unicorns featuring collars with broken chains, perhaps suggesting a release from vassalage.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 3, 2007 23:52:45 GMT
>If you turn your back on the magnificence of your 'mundane' reality and cling to your delusions of superhuman abilities, it is your choice: However, please do not expect everyone else to fall-in-line.
I am not sure if you are answering the propositions about the nature of reality or attacking the proposer
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 3, 2007 23:54:13 GMT
>I hear you can't safely get near a unicorn unless you're a virgin.
Karen
I think this may be veiled in allegory
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 4, 2007 2:53:43 GMT
>If you turn your back on the magnificence of your 'mundane' reality and cling to your delusions of superhuman abilities, it is your choice: However, please do not expect everyone else to fall-in-line. I am not sure if you are answering the propositions about the nature of reality or attacking the proposer Cheers Russell Next please.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 4, 2007 3:01:54 GMT
>I hear you can't safely get near a unicorn unless you're a virgin.
Karen
The point here is not the virgin but the virgin's milk
When you have penetrated that veiling you will understand why the unicorn is milk-white
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 4, 2007 3:47:17 GMT
Bro. Russell wrote (reply #53, this thread): The white unicorns are fairly easy to locate but the black unicorns stand off a long way and are hard to see >I hear you can't safely get near a unicorn unless you're a virgin. Karen The point here is not the virgin but the virgin's milk When you have penetrated that veiling you will understand why the unicorn is milk-white Cheers Russell What about the black ones?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 4, 2007 3:48:31 GMT
>What about the black ones?
Lets wait until you have found the white ones
Cheers
Russell
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 4, 2007 5:21:38 GMT
Is looking for unicorns (black or otherwise) like the proverbial experience of Systems Engineers looking for a black cat (anon.)? The same is said by atheists about theologians (but I didn't want to go there). Mechanical Engineering is like looking for a black cat in a lighted room. Chemical Engineering is like looking for a black cat in a dark room. Software Engineering is like looking for a black cat in a dark room in which there is no cat. Systems Engineering is like looking for a black cat in a dark room in which there is no cat and some one yells, "I got it!"
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 4, 2007 5:35:52 GMT
Psychology—looking for a black cat in a dark room.
Behaviourism—not looking for a black cat in a dark room.
Sociology—looking for a black cat in a dark room in which there is no cat.
Economics—looking for something in a dark room, tripping over a chair and saying it was a black cat
Metaphysics—claiming that you've found a black cat in a dark room in which there is no cat.
Science—looking for a black cat in a dark room with an infrared camera.
Mathematics—building a room, turning out the lights and then filling it with black cats.
Art—taking a white cat out of a dark room with only a black cat inside.
Ethics—wondering whether or not it is right to keep a black cat in a dark room.
History—looking in any room for a cat that's no longer there.
Secular Humanism—closing the door to the dark room, black cat or not.
Scientific Creationism—seeing a tan cat in a bright room, then turning out the lights and claiming there's a black cat there.
Physics—putting a black cat in a dark room, rotate it, flip it, drop it, smash it, nuke it, and still claim the black cat is in there.
English—writing about a black cat in a dark room using a white cat in a bright room as a metaphor.
Politics—denying you were ever in a dark room with that cat.
Freemasonry—any suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 4, 2007 6:12:24 GMT
Freemasonry - a black cat lost in a dark room
Cheers
Russell
|
|
staffs
Administrator
Staffs
Posts: 3,295
|
Post by staffs on Mar 4, 2007 6:24:19 GMT
The discussion - I'm lost - Love the cartoons! Me too...great discussion ....although i once had a black cat that ran off and dissapeared ? maybe it is in the black room still ??
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 4, 2007 6:36:52 GMT
How about:
Freemasonry—Being told in a dark room you represent a black cat and are then congratulated for having found it.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Mar 4, 2007 7:13:59 GMT
or how about:
Making darkness visible by removing the hoodwink, allowing the light to suffuse the room, and observing whether or not there is a cat, and if so its colour.
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Mar 4, 2007 7:15:27 GMT
(but of course, as we are met not as operative but accepted and symbolic masons, it is the moral to be derived from the contemplation of the cat to which we should draw our attention... etc )
|
|
|
Post by moose on Mar 4, 2007 15:13:35 GMT
On another thread russell said that to identify an esoteric freemason you can do it buy the eyes I was going to coment on that but didn't feel the need I think this is exactly right. You can actualy tell alot from the eyes when you know what your looking for. I had assumed that russell had knolledge of this kind from his own experiance but I read here that he has not at least the unicorn any way. Or at least thats his stand on a public forum. You know I actualy attempted to ask russell about these types of visions/encounters in lodge but didn't feel quite confortable and now that a subject along the same lines has come up. "Russell" > Job 39:9 - Show Context Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Job 39:10 - Show Context Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? "Perhaps it would have been better if I had given my account in terms of unnamed "astral" entities rather than use specific examples" - canst thou bind the unicorn
- unname astral ebtities
- Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee
- harrow the valleys after thee?
I never knew those were in the bible but I'll lookinto it. the fact that you descibe the texture of the thing is very interesting to me. Unnamed astral entities if you have ever experience something like this you would find that there is a strugle and the one thing you remember is the texture and the effort. After I chickend out of talking to russell about this I was given a book by a fellow aprentice it is a book about magic but not in the context you think. It is called "the key to solomons key" in it the author describes magic as control of ones self and demons and angels as parts of your own brain/mind the same names represent the same areas in every one but it was a very interesting read for me but it's not the white unicorn I'm intersted in. Russell would you tell us about the Black unicorn and what it would want? "Harrow the valleys after thee" and "crib" struck a note an I assume that "crib" would have something to do with family line ? as I'm not the first person in my family line to experience this. Or if it has other avatars as I believe they are called you mention it itself is an avatar(what it represents) not the avitar itself but the thing behind the avatar. Don't really want to go into detail but maybe something to do with a lion aswell. I'd probably need to go into detail for that to make any sence but thats as good as it gets here. Just thought I'd through that in there probably not for this thread but it's along the same lines. Sean W M
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 4, 2007 22:31:51 GMT
>You know I actualy attempted to ask russell about these types of visions/encounters in lodge but didn't feel quite comfortable and now that a subject along the same lines has come up. Sean You are pretty brave raising visions in this thread. Anyway I shall defend your character as required. >the fact that you descibe the texture of the thing is very interesting to me. Touch (sensation) is usually the first inner sense developed > the author describes magic as control of ones self and demons and angels as parts of your own brain/mind Well the demons certainly find parts of the mind to conceal or disguise themselves. For example, what is the origin of extreme materialistic rationality? >Russell would you tell us about the Black unicorn and what it would want? "Harrow the valleys after thee" and "crib" struck a note an I assume that "crib" would have something to do with family line ? as I'm not the first person in my family line to experience this. Sean, you may have noticed that the black unicorn allocated to this solar system claims you as its own The black unicorn is for the healing of planets and appears black because its frequency is too high to be seen - except at the edges of its aura where you may see a gold or white fringe. (Lucky this is an esoteric thread) The black unicorn thereby is commonly visible by a black blotting out of stars (to our inner vision) with a gold/white outline This unicorn is putting a hoof on this planet and you may see the myriad black threads anchoring in various kingdoms - perhaps including your family line (I assume there is some scottish there somewhere) As for what it wants with you, the answer may be that it wishes to use you and your kin to press upon those in the human race who are ready to play their part in the grand dance of the heavens >Or if it has other avatars as I believe they are called you mention it itself is an avatar(what it represents) not the avatar itself but the thing behind the avatar. My experience of avatars is very limited. I do not think the unicorn is in the same category. For example it does not incarnate in any fundamental sense >Don't really want to go into detail but maybe something to do with a lion aswell. Certainly. You may like to try an experiment: Go to Mt Tibrogargan journals.worldnomads.com/whitneyj/gallery/1741/36943.aspx This photo is from the north side but from the south you may easily see a lion lying on the top looking out to sea Go to the Tibrogargan lookout (gravel patch next to the Bruce highway) and sit on the leyline that goes straight through the gravel car park. The line comes from the lion who looks East North East and goes to the seagod standing a bit east of Noosa (Philip, don't bother) If you sit on that line for a little while inwardly looking along the line to the ENE then you are quite likely to see a white unicorn coming down to check you out. A number of people have had this experience And it is not accidental that the lion and the unicorn appear on the UK coat of arms. Those beings are fundamental in maintaining the spiritual balance particularly where the human race has yet to understand its proper functions Cheers Russell
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Mar 4, 2007 22:50:12 GMT
This thread has a number of areas that are, from my perspective, somewhat talking at cross-purposes.
On the one hand there is the original question about what we may each be willing to accept as 'proof'. As I mentioned earlier, personally I think this very question also blurs what are really two inherent question: the first a general epistemological one; the other one more pertinent to socio-psychology and the force of evidence for specific individuals within specific cultural contexts (with all the differences individuals have, and all the subtle world-views social constructs in which are embedded individuals).
For the sake of completeness, I'll simply re-state here (in a more succinct form) that, on the one hand, each and every field or area of study or investigation has its own unique epistemological considerations, and on the other the psychological strength of the evidence will be unique according to individual disposition within a specific social construct.
If I look through the thread, what strikes me is what appears as though there is quite some talking at somewhat cross-purposes. I'll first attempt to accept each viewpoint as having its merit (even if its expression leaves aspects that are more ad hominem - which may too be important!).
So let me try to do each view some justice.
Let's take the experience of unicorns.
There's no doubt that some individuals (whether or not in this thread is immaterial - excuse the pun) claim to have not only seen unicorns, but consider having seen them (or touched them) in the same manner as one sees and touches a horse or dog or cat: physically, able to trot in a field or valley, through trees... errr... I mean around trees, etc.
Problem is (in terms of acceptable 'evidence') that this may well be sufficient for the individual concerned, but will never do for the rest (or most) of us who need some kind of explanation as to what kind of animal this can really be, especially given that historical accounts seem to relate more to descriptions of two types of 'unicorns', the first as gazelle, the other as rhinoceros. Quite distinct to the more 'recent' (basically late mediaeval times) description and depiction of unicorn as horse-like.
I am also aware, by the way, of the forced growth of a goat's horns into a single entwined one made by some wiccan-oriented individuals in California in the mid-1980s. I trust this is not what is meant by unicorn, for then, I would suggest, the smell and feel of the unicorn is (strangely!) exactly the same as that of a goat.
Despite these, what to make of claims of those rare encounters with horse-like uni-corned creatures that are at various times reported? Either there is some animal, albeit quite rare, that is not generally known or acknowledged and that those who encounter such need to either keep quiet or be considered .... how shall I put it... over the edge; or their claim is not of any physical encounter.
So what of the non-physical (but experienced) unicorns? On the one hand, there is the possibility (irrespective as to any 'genuine' astral or equivalent form) that individuals experiencing such are deluded, in the sense that the experience arises out of particularly poignant neural firings encouraging fantasy, without an attendant, or a diminished, faculty of discernment.
It is this aspect that, in part, seems to be presented by Tamrin. And personally think that it would be misguided to not develop a healthy scepticism or, as more traditionally presented, that important word (again): discernment.
This does not prevent that for the many amongst us who accept that the world is simply more than physical manifestation, that there are beings or entities without physical embodiment that nonetheless take various shapes or form, and that these may be experienced with senses more akin to the faculty of imagination. For those who have consciousness of this faculty, it becomes even more important to develop discernment of spirit. Nonetheless, such experiences may then give rise to beings described as unicorn, and, I would suggest, having indeed qualitative characteristics such as purity, 'silkiness', and a host of other descriptions that one would in the mundane world characterise as mythic (in the sense of mythos) characterisations of love, surrender, and sacrifice: white, gentle, steadfast, that-which-evil-cannot go near or touch, etc.
I've already made this post far longer than intended, so had better stop here...
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 4, 2007 23:07:22 GMT
>over the edge; or their claim is not of any physical encounter
This is a common problem when ufo encounters are examined in detail. The witnesses may be many and irreproachable but the events reported manage to offend the "laws" of physics.
What to do?
We could lock the witnesses up as insane or exorcise them or burn them.
Or alternatively, we could consider whether the physical reality of the world might be a bit more fluid than we would like
Cheers
Russell
|
|