PDA

View Full Version : Theurgy or Pseudo Science



Ghislain
03-22-2016, 01:19 PM
Religion thrives because the followers are asked to believe in what they cannot see; convenient?

If you are OK with blind faith then read no further, but if you think it would be healthy to point the lens at the possibility of doubt prey continue.

You have to be aware that science as we know it today has bias. Money is the engine of most scientific studies and thus profit is its God; without profit it is difficult, if not impossible, to get funding. Go to a bank and ask for a loan to set up an alchemical lab...here's the trick, tell them it's for home improvement or a new car; they love to blanket you with their debt if they have a valid reason.

Having said this, scientific method does have its benefit, the benefit of being able to review and reproduce the given experiment by others.

Let's look at the scientific process...




Formulation of a question

As in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" [or maybe "how can I produce the Philosophers Stone"]

Hypothesis

For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested. [e.g. God is not falsifiable.]

Prediction

This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. [Evidence is stronger if it is not bias from previously known results - postdiction, this is an explanation after the fact. Many religious text were written postdiction. See Hindsight Bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindsight_bias)]

Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem)).

Testing

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world [if this is a "real" world] agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects.

Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false.

Analysis

This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question. [Note the secrecy in Alchemy forbids this sharing of information, which may be due to the illegality of the practice in days gone by, but this would not be a factor today]

Replication

If an experiment cannot be repeated to produce the same results, this implies that the original results might have been in error. As a result, it is common for a single experiment to be performed multiple times, especially when there are uncontrolled variables or other indications of experimental error. For significant or surprising results, other scientists may also attempt to replicate the results for themselves, especially if those results would be important to their own work.

External review

The process of peer review involves evaluation of the experiment by experts, who typically give their opinions anonymously. Peer review does not certify correctness of the results, only that, in the opinion of the reviewer, the experiments themselves were sound (based on the description supplied by the experimenter), this occasionally may require new experiments requested by the reviewers, it will be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The specific journal that publishes the results indicates the perceived quality of the work.

Data recording and sharing

Scientists typically are careful in recording their data, a requirement promoted by Ludwik Fleck (1896–1961)["Denkkollektiv" ("thought collective")] and others. Though not typically required, they might be requested to supply this data to other scientists who wish to replicate their original results (or parts of their original results), extending to the sharing of any experimental samples that may be difficult to obtain.

Source: Scientific Method Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

So now let's introduce some neysayers for discussion. This will be the general form for the duscussion within this thread. It will become clear that as time moves on, due to research, a lot of the subjects remarked on by these naysayers have since been scientifically proven.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=752V173e31o

Ghislain

zoas23
03-22-2016, 01:42 PM
I don't think it is a problem related to money.

There's 2 amazing books that follow an identical logic:

"On God as Not-Other" by Nicholas of Cusa and Wittgenstein's Tractatus.

The two of them explain the same thing:

Science works with formal propositions.
A formal proposition can't define itself ("this sentence is true" has no meaning... Or, technically it has no value -considering the two possible logical values: True or False).
Any fact of this world has to be expressed as a proposition to be either true or false.
The value (true or false) of any proposition is defined by another proposition.

If science arrived to the utopia of a final proposition that defines all the other propositions "below" it, this utopic proposition would still need another proposition that defines its value either as true or false.

The result of this problem is that the scientific method can't arrive by this intrinsic problem to the sense of anything. It is simply like a tautology that will never have a definitive value.

The solution of Cusa was to define God as a special and non-scientific definition: The ONLY definition that defines itself... Thus God becomes a Not-Other in relation to all the others (propositions).

Wittgenstein took very much the same path, also stating that science will never define the sense of the world... Because of the same intrinsic problem that Cusa saw centuries ago.

Though he left a non scientific door open: Mysticism.

It's not a matter of money, it's a problem with the method itself.

(If you enjoy these issues, there is an amazing sci-fi tale by J. G. Ballard: "The life and death of God"... The plot is that science"discovers" God as an empirical fact... And the religions unite themselves and together they state that the existence of God is questionable and incite people to believe that science is probably wrong and that God is very likely to be just a fiction). An amazing take on the old debate between Pistis and Sophia.

Ghislain
03-22-2016, 05:30 PM
I think you went far deeper in interpreting my proposition about the bias of science than I was trying to put forward, I was not looking into the philosophy that say's scientific method is wrong, rather pointing out that people have hidden agenda's and one of them is money.

Science has done some amazing things, whether classed as good or bad.

We have flight...tons of material lifted thousands of feet in the air.

We have communication across the globe...as we are using right now.

We have materials that make life a lot simpler.

I don't think one can argue that a scientific approach is worse than a random shot at something...If it is the word science that is the problem then let's just call it methodical study.

I have seen things of which I have no true explanation, but that doesn’t mean I won’t keep looking for one. It is my belief that everything has an explanation however weird that explanation may be.

With communication and some sort of method I may find this to be either true or a figment of my imagination.

That is the purpose of this thread.

If you want to propose scientific method is wrong please feel free to do that, but not in reference to what I said about scientific funding, as we all know that happens; you are bringing another dish to the table.

I don't wish this thread to become one of semantics at this early stage, and to answer your post fairly I would have to read your proffered books, which would take a considerable amount of time...I'm a slow reader.

The "this sentence is true" example is not really a sentence in itself as it needs a subject, which I would presume is "Sentence" and a verb again presuming "true", but the verb for true would have to be...trues, truing, trueing or trued as true is an adjective...but I am no expert in the English language and I'm getting into semantics. :confused:


Ghislain

Awani
03-22-2016, 07:20 PM
There are things that science just cannot explain no matter how hard it tries. Perhaps with theory, but never in a way that completes all the steps of the scientific method.

I am talking of course about The Mystery. It is beyond words, numbers and methods. It has no interest of being explained, and even - even - if someone manages to explain it that explanation would be so advanced and confusing and simple and contradictory that IT will just reinforce The Mystery.

The Mystery has to be experienced.

Harry Potter does not try and understand the world where the writer of the Harry Potter books lives in.

As for "smaller" questions and mysteries then sure. Investigate!

:cool:

zoas23
03-22-2016, 08:12 PM
If you want to propose scientific method is wrong please feel free to do that, but not in reference to what I said about scientific funding, as we all know that happens; you are bringing another dish to the table.

Private science often does not get involved in investigations without seeking for a profit... because it's an investment that leads to a loss of money. THough there are some exceptions.

Public science (financed by governments) in many countries support investigations that are not ALWAYS seeking for a profit (i.e, most of what the Astronomers study may bring profits in a very distant future, but the study of, say, black holes... it doesn't have any kind of economic benefit).

Anyway, I think the BIG problem is about epistemology, not about how science receives funds.

Even if the USA one day decided to say: "Breaking news: we have decided to give up the army and be like Costa Rica... and the WHOLE of the money that was going to fund our military adventures and invasions of non-white countries will go to study the existence of God"... then nothing will be achieved anyway.

The problem is, in my opinion 100% related to epistemology.

I don't have an anti-science point of view at all.

Ghislain
03-22-2016, 10:03 PM
There are things that science just cannot explain no matter how hard it tries. Perhaps with theory, but never in a way that completes all the steps of the scientific method.

I am sure that theory is part of the scientific method Dev. Most of our scientific discoveries that we have applied are, or once were, just theories...

Heliocentrism: Copernicus, 1543
Oxygen theory of combustion: Antoine Lavoisier, 1770s
Plate tectonics: Alfred Wegener, 1912; J. Tuzo Wilson, 1960s
Statistical mechanics: James Clerk Maxwell, Ludwig Boltzmann, J. Willard Gibbs, late 19th century
Special relativity: Albert Einstein, 1905
General relativity: Einstein, 1915
Quantum theory: Max Planck, Einstein, Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Max Born, Paul Dirac, 1900–1926
Game theory: John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, 1944 (with important embellishments from John Nash in the 1950s)
Information theory: Claude Shannon, 1948
Evolution by natural selection: Charles Darwin, 1859

And we haven’t even mentioned Isaac Newton (1643-1727)


Long after his death, Newton’s influence continued, with no real challenges to Newtonian physics arising until the early 20th century and the Theory of General Relativity. Most modern observers tend to define Newton by his contributions to mathematics, optics and calculus, but he made contributions to theology, philosophy and the natural sciences, too.

He was also studying Alchemy.


I am talking of course about The Mystery. It is beyond words, numbers and methods. It has no interest of being explained, and even - even - if someone manages to explain it that explanation would be so advanced and confusing and simple and contradictory that IT will just reinforce The Mystery.

I am sure that is what was thought by the people living before all the above. Imagine what they would think if they were brought here today...I don’t mean with the ecology, they may be disgusted...I mean technology, and as that technology evolves it accelerates that evolution; I would never say never...unless I already have...I can’t remember.

This is why I wrote the post "The answer to a question you may never ask (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3802-The-answer-to-a-question-you-may-never-ask)" because there are mysteries we know nothing about right here in our hands, but we could know if we had the inclination.


The Mystery has to be experienced.

I would have to agree with you there Dev and this is why I do the things that I do, for I am far too dumb to understand where we are at now even. :)


Harry Potter does not try and understand the world where the writer of the Harry Potter books lives in.

Perhaps that is what we are doing right now, trying to find the author...Is it you? ;)


As for "smaller" questions and mysteries then sure. Investigate!
I am not sure of the size of the mystery yet Dev...Can a mystery have a size?


Private science often does not get involved in investigations without seeking for a profit... because it's an investment that leads to a loss of money. THough there are some exceptions.

Public science (financed by governments) in many countries support investigations that are not ALWAYS seeking for a profit (i.e, most of what the Astronomers study may bring profits in a very distant future, but the study of, say, black holes... it doesn't have any kind of economic benefit).

I whole heartedly agree with that, I was trying to say be careful what you believe and look for the hidden agenda’s.


Anyway, I think the BIG problem is about epistemology, not about how science receives funds.
That is in part what this thread is about, but this can also confuse the issue with word games.

Take a look here...Self-Refuting Ideas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea)

I was talking to someone tonight on this subject and she sent me that link and funnily enough it mentions Wittgenstein's Tractatus; coincidence or synchronicity?


Even if the USA one day decided to say: "Breaking news: we have decided to give up the army and be like Costa Rica... and the WHOLE of the money that was going to fund our military adventures and invasions of non-white countries will go to study the existence of God"... then nothing will be achieved anyway.

Well a lot of different people would become suddenly rich. I am not saying anything needs funding, I am saying that money has corrupted a lot of the information we have so one has to be careful what one believes or not. It is not money that needs to be thrown at the situation, but our attention.

Another thing that should be requisite is that we try not to include our ego, as that is the enemy IMO; Newton had a big ego and I believe it held him back.



The problem is, in my opinion 100% related to epistemology.

That is peculiar zoas23 for I see that as the solution.

Ghislain

Awani
03-22-2016, 10:22 PM
I am sure that is what was thought by the people living before all the above. Imagine what they would think if they were brought here today...I don’t mean with the ecology, they may be disgusted...

The Mystery I am talking about is about 200 000 years old at least. Since the dawn of consciousness in humans. In fact what those ancient people knew is probably closer to the truth than what scientists know today. But they are getting closer. As above, so below... but they are too stupid to see it... ;)

As for smaller mysteries, like how does the eye work and stuff like that... well they'll find those things out properly I am sure... but the Great Eternal Mystery is untouchable... i.e. what makes it divine. Even science bow to the Big Bang. Ha ha ha... and before that?

The Mystery!

They will never find out, nor would I want them to be. Life is more fun with Santa Claus than without.

:cool:

zoas23
03-22-2016, 10:41 PM
I was talking to someone tonight on this subject and she sent me that link and funnily enough it mentions Wittgenstein's Tractatus; coincidence or synchronicity?
Ghislain

Ghislain! Are you a superstitious person who believes in coincidences???? ;)

The Tractatus is quite hard to read if you are not very much into "hardcore formal logic", because Wittgenstein mostly used a strict logic method to "exhaust" logic and take it to its limits.
Its limits: the mystical experience, the sense of the world. That one was, for Wittgenstein, the intrinsic limit of logic and thus the intrinsic limit of natural sciences.
For him the fact that Science has not discovered "God", "the sense of life" or answered any transcendental question is simply because those issues are intrinsically beyond what logic (and science) can even dream to define.

This is a short version of the Tractatus... it offers a quite complete explanation of what it says, except for the parts in which the Tractatus begins to deal with very specific issues of formal logic.
(The Tractatus has 7 points and each point has sub-categories numbered like 1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.21, 1.22, 1.3 as if they were footnotes inside other footnotes).

What I LOVE about this book is that it follows a very strict logical path to demonstrate that logic can't answer the BIG issues that we dearly love to talk about.
The subtitle of the book could have been "How logic destroys itself demonstrated by logic itself".

1 The world is all that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.2 The world divides into facts.
2 What is the case (a fact) is the existence of atomic facts.
2.1 We picture facts to ourselves.
2.12 A picture is a model of reality.
2.141 A picture is a fact.
2.172 A picture cannot depict its pictorial form: it displays it.
2.19 Logical pictures can depict the world.
2.223 In order to tell whether a picture is true or false we must compare it with reality.
2.224 It is impossible to tell from the picture alone whether it is true or false.
3 A logical picture of the facts is the thought.
3.01 The totality of true thoughts is a picture of the world.
3.1 In a proposition, a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.
3.332 No proposition can make a statement about itself, because a propositional sign cannot be contained in
itself.
4 The thought is the significant proposition.
4.001 The totality of propositions is language.
4.003 Most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical.
4.0031 All philosophy is a critique of language.
4.11 The totality of true propositions is the whole of natural science
4.112 Philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a doctrine, but an activity.
4.461 Propositions show what they say; tautologies and contradictions show that they say nothing.
4.464 A tautology's truth is certain; a proposition's truth is possible; a contradiction's truth is impossible.
5 A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth- function of itself.)
5.5302 Russell's definition of '=' is inadequate, because according to it we cannot say that two objects have all
their properties in common. (Even if this proposition is never correct, it still has sense .)
5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.
5.61 We cannot think what we cannot think; so what we cannot think, we cannot say either.
5.621 The world and life are one.
5.63 I am my world. (The microcosm.)
6 The general form of a truth-function is [p, E, N(E)]. This is the general form of a proposition.
6.1 The propositions of logic are tautologies.
6.11 Therefore the propositions of logic say nothing. (They are the analytic propositions.)
6.13 Logic is not a doctrine, but a mirror-image of the world. Logic is transcendental.
6.2 Mathematics is a logical method. The propositions of mathematics are equations, and therefore pseudo- propositions.
6.21 A proposition of mathematics does not express a thought.
6.22 The logic of the world, which with logic is shown in tautologies, is shown in equations by mathematics.
6.3 The exploration of logic means the exploration of everything that is subject to law. And outside logic everything is accidental.
6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world.
6.431 At death the world does not alter, but comes to an end.
6.4311 Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death.
6.4 All propositions are of equal value.
6.42 There can be no propositions of ethics.
6.44 It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists.
6.5 When the answer cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into words. The riddle does not exist. If a question can be framed at all, it is also possible to answer it.
6.51 Scepticism is not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it tries to raise doubts where no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist only where a question exists, a question only where an answer exists, and an answer only where something can be said.
6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.
6.521 The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?)
6.522 There are, indeed, things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.
6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science—i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy—and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person—he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy—this method would be the only strictly correct one.
6.54 He who understands my propositions recognizes them as senseless. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.
7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silence.

Ghislain
03-23-2016, 02:35 AM
Thanks for that Zoas23, I'm hooked, I'll have to get a copy now.

To be clear about why I started this thread, I will state my belief at the present time.

First I should say that this will not be complete, I shall get to that at the end...I guess you took that for granted Dev ;)

I believe we exist in nested dimensions [if “we” are “we” at all] and we populate all those dimensions top down, simultaneously. However we are in a sleep state in all but the one dimension where we are conscious; that will be the lowest dimension that you personally occupy.

If we die in this dimension we wake in a higher dimension and in that other dimension this was just a game and that other dimension we now perceive as reality or that is how it should be; nothing is perfect.

We create these dimensions ourselves and we are about ready to start creating more; that is just the way of things.

You can move up in dimension by ending the life in the present or you can go down in dimension by entering it from here once created, that will be your choice, although not an informed one normally.

Dimensions are created out of a sort of necessity, as the end point of this dimension becomes uncomfortable; and that comes about by design.

Each dimension we create has rules and they can differ from dimension to dimension. Under normal circumstances those rules cannot be broken, but in the initial stages they have to be optimised. Once we enter a dimension, we have to stay for what we perceive as a lifetime.

You can re-enter any dimension lower down from the one you are in over and over and at any point in time you wish and wherever or whoever you wish to be, but be careful what you wish for. ;) You cannot move over to a dimension started in a higher dimension...If it was diagrammatical I’m sure you could imagine it would be in the form of a hierarchical tree.

In any of the lowest dimensions you will perceive that as your only world; however in a higher dimension you will have all the knowledge of any lower dimension you may have played, but none of any higher.

We start building the next dimensions when we reach critical mass; that should be at around the 11 billion mark, so if you’re in a hurry help the Africans. ;) There can only be a given amount of people in a given era so if you want to be a caveman you may have to wait a while or make sure you book early. ;)

Souls are travelling to and from dimensions continuously, but always more coming in than leaving, hence the top down growth.

Ok so that, in short, is my belief theory at present... now for my theory of my belief theory.

I always wondered how you got people like Einstein, Newton, Plato...etc. I think it’s a glitch, you are not supposed to come to this lower level with that amount of processing power or hindsight. Unless they are sent on purpose to speed things up, but that implies there are always present, in all dimensions, souls with their full faculties about them as no one here would normally be aware anything is wrong. Is that what we call angels?...no wonder they are pissed at us ;)

At the beginning of a new dimension, the creators will be able to hack, they are magicians. Soon people will be sent in to stop the hacking, they will need to know they are in the game, they are Illuminati, but they start to abuse their position and get very rich and very powerful, but that’s ok so long as they help the game along. Perhaps the hackers became Illuminati...hell, you may have already been one :) ... I guess if I had to live here with that knowledge I’d want a lot of money...it’s a very long game ;) So you see why you have to think the reality you are in is real...if you didn’t we would all run amuck because it wouldn’t matter...that’s also where emotion and moral code comes in...enter the ego.

I wonder if you ask for a short game they put you in peril lol

Ok if you can realise this all the way up and out...I’m lost...I had a vision of pure energy streams that were infinite, you can read this in The Bible II, The Last Testament ;o) (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?p=35646#post35646) You will see my belief has changed a little, but that’s me, always in flux.

Hope that wasn’t too spaced out.

If you want to see the film for yourself, it's called Ayahuasca...I think it's adults only...well it should be there are some scary clips in it.

If you have any money invest in the virtual reality industry...it's a sure bet ;)

Ghislain

Ghislain
03-23-2016, 04:33 AM
Is this a glitch; short circuit of the inhibitor that stops us communicating with the source?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n_nlhV_aXk

Ghislain

zoas23
03-23-2016, 06:15 AM
Thanks for that Zoas23, I'm hooked, I'll have to get a copy now.

I'm glad to hear it!
There is a specific branch of (academic) philosophy that I dearly love: Plato, Plotinus, (pseudo) Dionysius the Areopagite, Nicholas of Cusa and Wittgenstein. There's more, of course, but those are my favorites.
All of them explored gnoseology in different ways, and all of them end up arriving to an almost identical conclusion... that the "truth" is beyond the rational knowledge... and yet none of them endorsed blind faith, but developed non-rational theories of knowledge.


Is this a glitch; short circuit of the inhibitor that stops us communicating with the source?

Interesting video.... Take a look at this one, which is less interesting, but it's mostly about the systematization of a "savant" system by using a real abacus first and then replacing it for an "imaginary abacus":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgFEckm-rRA

Is this incredibly different to the old fashioned "art of memory"?

It looks like the natural savants and the "artificial" savants are both using a similar technique, which is relating maths and numbers to images or colors or shapes or objects... Using the brain in a different way.

It is a coincidence that I quoted Wittgenstein above:
"6.2 Mathematics is a logical method. The propositions of mathematics are equations, and therefore pseudo- propositions.
6.21 A proposition of mathematics does not express a thought."

I do agree with Wittgenstein...
√(10^-4) is a pseudo proposition... a pure logical abstraction that works in our brains as something completely unrelated to perception... though it seems that the "savant trick" (I mean the savants specialized in maths) are creating a link between this "abstraction" and an artificial perception (a shape, a color, a feeling, etc)... and thus extending the area of the mind that is working to solve the problem.

Something quite similar happens with other systems. Probably Qabalah is a great example. If you have a moderate knowledge of Qabalah, it works very much like the "imaginary abacus", except that for philosophy* (probably because it makes the abstractions become very "touchable" for the mind).

* It doesn't do the "trick" for maths though, at least in my experience it doesn't (I need to use a calculator to calculate very easy equations, I am certainly not talented as a "human calculator" at all).

Ghislain
03-23-2016, 02:49 PM
zoas23, I would need a few years to catch up with just "your favorites". I picked one that stood out because of the prefix "pseudo" out of curiosity. I took me quite some time just to get through the initial paragraph of a description of Dionysius so hopefully I have a slight inkling of where you are coming from.

I am not well read in any ancient texts, not even the bible. :( I can see what an advantage this may have toward a better understanding of where we are today, but alas I do not think I have enough years left to catch up.

So I have to look for other alleys of enlightenment, perhaps irrational ones ;)

I wonder if you could briefly relate to us your personal beliefs at present and perhaps a little of the road that brought you to this train of thinking? Do you look at religion from a third party perspective i.e. an interest without participation or are you practicing a religious path? In layman's terms if possible :)

In the video I posted about Daniel Tammet they did cover a class being taught the abacus and finally disregarding it to do extremely fast calculations mentally, so I agree it is something we can learn, however they did not say if these children go on to adapt this method to learning languages or art etc...

If this method of mathematics is so efficient why are we not teaching it in our schools? It obviously has other benefits of opening pathways to memory that would also be beneficial.

So now I have to wonder about conspiracy...the dumbbing-down of the populace to do the bidding of the Oligarchy the politicians who also serve the Oligarchy and not their constituents. Then adding this to the fraudsters who would sell you their wonder courses and potions, how can one ever hope to find the truth in this realm let alone the next.

It brings into question for the evolutionist why these neural paths have not evolved in us naturally as it is sure to be an advantage.

How many other wonders are out there that we should bring together for the next generation.

Technology is evolving at an exponential rate and together with these techniques who knows what sort of world lays ahead for our children, perhaps even in our lifetime.

Dev do you think that evolution in the right direction could bring us to a knowing of what is?

Ghislain

Awani
03-23-2016, 03:06 PM
Dev do you think that evolution in the right direction could bring us to a knowing of what is?

Never. Unless you mean an evolution which means we are never born in the first place but remain in the Arcade Hall.

:cool:

Ghislain
03-23-2016, 03:56 PM
Could you explain your reasoning why you think this knowledge is impossible to attain, or is it a gut feeling?

Ghislain

Awani
03-23-2016, 04:00 PM
Could you explain your reasoning why you think this knowledge is impossible to attain, or is it a gut feeling?

I did explain it earlier in this thread:


Harry Potter does not try and understand the world where the writer of the Harry Potter books lives in.

Because it is impossible for him to do so, unless J.K. Rowling decides to put that in the storyline. ;)

:cool:

Ghislain
03-23-2016, 04:03 PM
Because one person does not go in a certain direction should all others abstain from doing so?

Should all of the worlds explorers have stayed home and accepted their lot for what it was?

Maybe the answer to that is yes, but it was just an example ;)

Ghislain

Ghislain
03-23-2016, 04:07 PM
So are you saying that everything we do is determined by some other being?

Therefore there is no free will.

Ghislain

Ghislain
03-23-2016, 04:14 PM
IMO the whole purpose of creation was to test a hypothesis...give it free reign and see where it ends up. Perhaps the ultimate goal is to end up back where we started.

Ghislain

Awani
03-23-2016, 04:30 PM
So are you saying that everything we do is determined by some other being?

Maybe the example was bad. I just mean when you are playing the game you cannot see the creator of the game... even if we are that creator.


Perhaps the ultimate goal is to end up back where we started.

Of course. Why you think alchemy is the only "science" that makes sense.

LOOK AT THIS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros)

:cool:

LOL, is it not weird to debate with yourself as I am you and you are me and we are all in this together...

Ghislain
03-23-2016, 05:22 PM
LOL, is it not weird to debate with yourself as I am you and you are me and we are all in this together...

See how they run like pigs from a gun see how they fly (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=177z7_mEt5s) ;)


It is not money that needs to be thrown at the situation, but our attention.

This is almost becoming the same conversation we tried to have before, say hello to Bob. ;) Perhaps you could explain Bob.

I see it like Dan's picture below...I have seen similar on my own journey's...Alex grey has many images like it. I interpret it like my train of thought, I see a general picture but when it gets to the top it just explodes into chaos.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftse3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.M 18ee7220cd9c727982209afa9d2986f4o0%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

I'm losing the original purpose of this thread :( I had an idea where I wanted it to go, but it has gone far deeper.

Let's see where it takes us.

Ghislain

zoas23
03-24-2016, 08:12 AM
zoas23, I would need a few years to catch up with just "your favorites". I picked one that stood out because of the prefix "pseudo" out of curiosity. I took me quite some time just to get through the initial paragraph of a description of Dionysius so hopefully I have a slight inkling of where you are coming from.

I am not well read in any ancient texts, not even the bible. :( I can see what an advantage this may have toward a better understanding of where we are today, but alas I do not think I have enough years left to catch up.

So I have to look for other alleys of enlightenment, perhaps irrational ones ;)

I wonder if you could briefly relate to us your personal beliefs at present and perhaps a little of the road that brought you to this train of thinking? Do you look at religion from a third party perspective i.e. an interest without participation or are you practicing a religious path? In layman's terms if possible :)

There's too many reasons why I know about classical literature:
1) When I was a kid, my parents used to read me before going to bed books for kids that were somehow like a version for kids of the classical myths (Egyptian, Greek, Babylonian, etc)... and I enjoyed those tales a lot, the landscape of my imagination was populated by those myths.

2) When I was a kid, my country had a Fascist Military Dictatorship. My parents were left-wingers and quite close to the Resistance movement against the Dictatorship... and we had a treasure at home: BOOKS.
Maybe you've seen the movie "Life Is Beautiful"... a family is sent to a concentration camp and the father invents stories for his son to keep him happy and pretend that they are playing a game...
My parents did the opposite, they explained me everything that was going on in a very clear way and also told me that I had to keep my mouth shut or they could kill all of us... and we had a room for the special treasure of the forbidden books. Those were times in which the Militaries could get into your house and if a "forbidden book" was found... the chances of ending up dead were more or less 100%. The list of "forbidden books" included probably any book that is worth reading.
So I grew up giving a lot of value to those books... knowing that they were so important that some persons could kill us all just for having them, and yet they were like a "treasure". The dictatorship finished when I was 8 years old.

3) When I was around 10 years old, I got an amazing gift: a skateboard.
I got obsessed with it and I got very good skating... So I started to go to some galleries where they had skateboard shops to buy magazines & zines about skateboarding. In those shops they also sold recorded cassettes with music that was, by then, associated with skateboarding. They were very cheap, so I started to listen to punk, hardcore, darkwave, industrial... I related all those musical genres to skateboarding.
One of those cassettes was by Bauhaus and my favorite song was called "Antonin Artaud":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsuKDoAt9dA

I loved that one!!!! So I was skating on the street and I stopped next to a bookstore. I got inside and I saw a book: "The Theater and Its Double" by Antonin Artaud.

And I felt like: "WOOOOOW!!!! So this song I like is about a writer!!!! I need to read this book!!!!".

I bought the book and it completely blew my mind!!! It was talking about ancient rites of the mexican aborigines, alchemy, making life become like a theater play full of symbols. So I invented my own game of skateboarding across the Double, the land where imagination is the King. I also got obsessed with Artaud and bought all the books by him I could find.

4) With Artaud I discovered Surrealism... and with Surrealism I discovered the ancestors of Surrealism: Lautreamont, Nerval, Novalis, Blake... I was reading that literature when I was still in primary school.

5) When I began the secondary school, I acquired a new habit... after the dinner I would pick my skateboard and a book and go skating to a specific monument that is placed in a park that was somehow close to where I lived by then. I liked the monument because it had stairs below it (so I could sit down and read) and it had lights, thus it was possible to read during the night... and I liked the park because it was always empty during the night (I used to stay till 2 or 3 am). It is funny for me that during those days I never payed attention about what was this monument about:

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/20/64/22/centro-cultural-la-recoleta.jpg

LOL... it was a Statue of Eros!!!!!!
And illuminated by the same lights that illuminated the Statue of Eros, I started to read classical philosophy during the nights... especially neo-platonism. I arrived to neo-platonism by a famous book: "Isis and Osiris" by Plutarch. Of course I knew that couple, I had gone to sleep infinite times hearing the tales about them when I was a kid... and Plutarch lead me to Plato, Plotinus, Iamblichus, etc.

6) When I was 15 I got interested in psychedelics and extreme literature. William Burroughs & the Beat Generation, J. G. Ballard, James Joyce, Dadá... and contemporary art (I liked classical literature, but I didn't like classical art by then). So I started to read a lot about the early avant-garde movements (Dadá, Cubism, Abstractionism, Expressionism, Futurism, etc). My interest in psychedelics decreased a lot when I became 18 (when I was between 15 and 18 I had the philosophy of "I have to try everything at least once... and quite often more than once")... and it mostly completely stopped when I became 24 (I met by then a girl who was spending the whole day smoking cannabis and I didn't like her habit at all, but we were always filming stuff together... So I completely gave up using any kind of "narcotic" substance as to show her that spending the whole day high on THC was silly. We're still very close friends, though she's no longer a she, but a "he" after a sex change surgery... my non-biological sister became my non-biological brother).

7) When I was around 18 years old, I joined the now defunct Thee Temple ov Psychick Youth (TOPY).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuTda6lK0UU

I did it because I was interested in ANYTHING that I considered "extreme"... and because I didn't know anyone who had my interests.

I was the only person in South America that was involved with TOPY.
So I wrote to the Station (the headquarters of TOPY) and said that I wanted to travel to the USA. They organized for me a TOPY tour, travelling from State to State and staying at the house of different individuals involved with TOPY.

The amazing thing of TOPY is that the core of it was Austin Osman Spare, but then each person was interested in different sides of the Occult (Thelema, Chaos Magic, Classical Hermeticism, Gnosticism, Paganism... the widest range of "etcéteras" you can imagine).

On the next year I decided to travel again and repeat my "TOPY tour", meeting even more persons and staying at their homes (It is that way how I learnt a GREAT lesson: I host for free persons involved with any branch of Hermeticism at my house for free when they travel to Argentina... sometimes it's the friend of a friend of a friend of a friend... a complete stranger... A lot of people have told me: "you are crazy, they are going to steal you something, they can be dangerous, etc, etc"... I never had any kind of incident, but I received a lot of very nice gifts, I had very interesting conversations, I learnt from them).

8) During my two TOPY tours I stayed both times at the house of a person whose name is Kirk. I was in love with the "TOPY culture" of Zines, publications, etc... it was a very productive order (the "Alchemy Forums Anthology" certainly took me to those days... I KNOW the value that such projects have).

This is the collection of Zines and Publications and other issues that I received whilst I was in TOPY (I was involved with several of them). None of them is "lessons" like the ones that an Order like A.M.O.R.C. would send you to your house, but Zines that were created just like we did OUR "Anthology":

http://s17.postimg.org/f8a7gfyxr/11011238_10207395463552590_744112911391071704_o.jp g

I was fascinated by this "anarchist" Order and its experimental ways, but Kirk sat next to me one day and told me: "What we have is fantastic and very avant-garde... and you love Avant-Garde art and thus you know that it has its real roots in an old Tradition... You need to study the old Hermetic Tradition or you will only be scratching the surface of something that is bigger". He also showed me for the first time ceremonies that were related to Hermetic Qabalah... which opened my eyes.

9) When I returned home, I started to investigate some Orders which were more related to classical Hermeticism and Gnosticism and got involved with some of them. What I was learning there perfectly matched the neo-platonic philosophy that I already LOVED... So I got in touch with the Hermetic Classics in a systematic way.
Though I am VERY glad that my first Order was TOPY, an "anarchist" Order that taught me not to take bullshit from anyone (I've never been part of a group that doesn't accept women and treats them as equals to men. I've never been part of a group that discriminates by sexual orientation, race, social status, etc. I've never been part of a group were the ones with "high grades" act as if they were the new Messiah and treat the "new" ones as if they were smelly shit).

10) I studied Philosophy and then Film Making at the University... in both universities I've learnt that if you want to really understand something, you must study its "genealogy", its "History"... So I got addicted to study the "genealogy" of the things I like.

And the ones who know about Qabalah say that for some reason 10 is in 1.... but we understand the one by its reflection on the 2... So I'll return to the second point:

I have been very "lucky" to live my childhood in a very adverse context (a Fascist Military Dictatorship) that had an index of forbidden books and was even killing people for owning some books. I've learnt to respect them as something "sacred", something that frightens the oppressors so much that they are even capable of killing a person simply because he likes reading. You know, these Fascists were even more scared of the books than they were about guns.

Each time I return to that park with the Statue of Eros, I silently look at it and whisper: "thank you!".

As for the question about my Religion... I am involved with a classical Gnostic Church with Valentinean tendencies that only works in my country and in Norway and Sweden...
It's very small actually.

But I give a GREAT importance to the scriptures of ANY Religion, even if I deeply dislike how mostly every "mainstream" Religion decided to be incredibly demiurgic and the beauty of their texts was destroyed by fanaticism, dogmatism and lies.

I can identify myself with any Religion, but not with how it is practiced.

That's how I arrived here... in short: parents who enjoyed reading classical myths to me before sleeping, a skateboard, a dictatorship that hated books, a Statue of Eros that was my "partner" for a lot of nights... and not much more.

... How you became who you are? :)

Ghislain
03-30-2016, 12:58 AM
Thanks for that zoas23, a very interesting read. I shall try and reply in kind, but it is late now so it will be later.

Ghislain