From the Desk of Dr. Cthulu
“…does [your example] extend to formless energies of unknown origin, as in the "magickal entities" we speak of?”
Why not? I mean, sure it could, but I myself lean towards interacting with entities that are immediately present, and not ones that I might “create” or “manifest” as merely a product of my mind. For God’s sake this world is busy enough already—I needn’t make it much more noisy, OSISTM. What I guess I’m saying is that in my life so far I have encountered v. little by the way of “magickal entities” beyond those entities which appear to me on a regular basis. Certainly, I’ve “felt” presences on occasion, but if those things were “real,” then yes, they are as embedded in the immediate context as I am, and thus, they are equally as made to manifest by myself and the other things present as we and those are by them.
“If mutual apprehension is necessary for existence, does this negate the possiblity of noumenal existence?”
Hmm, this term “noumenal” (from Kant et. al., yes?) is the flip side of “phenomenal,” IIRC. That is, it is a mere dichotomized division of a singularity; thus, it doesn’t so much negate the possibility of a merely “noumenal” existence: it undermines the idea that there is a separation from the phenomenal and so-called “noumenal” world(s). One and the same (like the giant and the bell-hop—see Twin Peaks).
“Can a thing be just a thing if not apprehended by another in some manner? In other words, if a tree falls in an empty white titanium room, is it still green?”
Well geez, this gets into the discussion that Quantum and I were engaged in over in the Headshop awhile back about things and relations. On the view I currently hold (and this is the aspect that caused much debate between Q and I) there can be only emptiness or nothing if there is a single thing; that is, if there is a thing, then it is composed of relations between other things, and there can be no manifest atomics—everything needs a partner. So, the tree would still be “green” iff there was an entity present who experienced the greenness of the tree, otherwise the quality of being green does not have a partner for mutual manifestation. However, the tree would still be a tree wrt it’s inter-relations amongst its parts & wrt its relations to (partnerings with) all the bits of stuff that partner together to make the “white titanium room.” Two entities here wrt tree and room. And how many things are there wrt the composition of the room and the tree?!
” However, I suspect that there exist classes of beings that are outside of our current understanding of what constitues intelligence or sentience. Aliens, hyper-dimensional entities, hive minds, ascended masters, secret chiefs, and reincarnated llamas, are perhaps but a few of these possibilities.”
Hmm, I don’t know if I see it so much this way myself. Certainly I do think that there are beings we don’t understand as being intelligent, but I think that these entities are no more than what is already present to us in the here and now. That is, take a grove of trees or even a single tree. I think that these things have intelligence and communicate at least with each other (but more deeply, everything, I think, communicates with everything—reality can be seen as a wave front of intertwined information). However, there sentience and communication isn’t currently within the scope of our definitions of “thinking things.” So, the list of things that you have given seem more to me to be manifestations of those sorts of intelligences: the mountain communicates with us, but we are forced to see that communication as “gnomes,” say—merely because that is along the lines of how we are going to process such contact: we need it to make some sort of sense to us—after all, mountains don’t talk or think, right?
As for “hyper-dimensional” entities, I dunno’. I used to think that there were things like that, but now I am more thinking that the only hyper-dimensional beings are instantiations of us and/or things like tress and rocks and birds and what have you. I mean, I think that I am a “multi-dimensional” being in the sense that not only am I consciously carving out a “world-line” (see Relativity) in a four dimensional spacetime matrix, but I am also carving out an infinite number of possible lives in an infinite number of possible worlds: the real me is that creature that is that collective set of experiences. I am but a tentacle or appendage of a larger being that is still identified with a “core” (if you will) me. My problem is that I only use a bit of my brain to decode a v. small amount of the assload of information received each moment. I have an intuition that the more I can learn to “see,” the better access I have (but still from a “limited human perspective”) to interacting as if I was more than a mere appendage of this strange and wonderful creature, but as a set of appendages.
On a total tangent now, this sort of model is what I use to encourage personal growth. Not only do I envision the Self that I desire to become, say, a better skater, I also picture shifting my perspective closer and closer to that set of world’s where not only am I a damn good skater, but I am a sponsored skater. Now, I can’t quite slip into that world since I still have so many attachments to this one—both immediate, in my past, and in my future. This set of attachments prevents me from fully jumping into the appendage of my Self where I am that pro skater.
If anyone can even make out what I am saying through all that nonsense!
 |
