BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

The Internal and the External.

  
 
6opow
09:10 / 01.08.01
In the pursuit of the magickal "highest" road, let us start with this premise:

1) The interiour world of our consciousness is equivalent to the external world; that is, in a loosely Jungian sense, the external reality is a manifestation of our psyche.

Now, I ask any who wish to respond:

1) What does this mean to you?
2) How could adopting this belief influence the way you live your life?
3) Do you think that such a premise can account for magickal occurrences?
 
 
SMS
09:10 / 01.08.01
1)

We must define all external realities based off of the structure of our minds --- we must give up any notion of an objective world in the intuitive sense. Instead, the basis for interactions must be the world of shared subjectivity.

2)

As a result of thinking in this way, I have become much more accepting of various contradictory models used to describe the universe and our daily lives. Every statement gains its validity by fitting into a self-consistent model, and by becoming a useful tool to myself or others.

3)

It validates the thinking of a chaos magician, but I do not have any reason to believe that it implies that chaos magic works. I don't think it accounts for magic, though, because magic needs to be in some way experienced by a group before it can be something that isn't otherwise accounted for.

Say I observe another using magic purely for the sake of spiritual enlightenment and unlocking his own potential. The effects are thus all in HIS mind from MY perspective. There is nothing here which is explained by thinking in terms of shared subjectivity that is not explained by thinking in terms of objectivity. Clearly, they both can explain the perceived action, but one doesn't do it better than the other.

Now say that I observe that same magician use magic to effect changes in the world. My science cannot explain it, but I think my view of magic can. But I find it hard to justify thinking in terms of the magician living in an objective world, for here, things we cannot quantify, we do not understand. But in the subjective world, I can use this magical view, and, at the very least, believe my eyes.

But when you get down to it, science CAN explain this magical phenomenon. Science is no more than an account of what is observed, made as brief as possible.
 
 
grant
17:41 / 01.08.01
quote:Originally posted by the godog:
1) The interiour world of our consciousness is equivalent to the external world; that is, in a loosely Jungian sense, the external reality is a manifestation of our psyche. What does this mean to you?

It means metaphor, allegory, symbolism are really important.
It means causality might have more to do with interpretation and less to do with observation.
It means my psyche is much larger and less ego-centric than I might at first have believed.

quote:
2) How could adopting this belief influence the way you live your life?

In my case, living like this has woken up a certain religious sense to things; however, it also fits nicely with my fatalistic laziness.

quote:
3) Do you think that such a premise can account for magickal occurrences?

yeah, pretty much. it's what I think of as magick anyway.
 
 
the Fool
02:55 / 02.08.01
quote:Originally posted by the godog:
1) The interiour world of our consciousness is equivalent to the external world; that is, in a loosely Jungian sense, the external reality is a manifestation of our psyche

Now, I ask any who wish to respond:.

1) What does this mean to you?

that there is no interior, there is no exterior. What you believe affects what is. What you believe is what is.

2) How could adopting this belief influence the way you live your life??

I'm not adopting any belief I can't divorce when the honeymoon turns sour.

Believing this, believing that, I think I'm going to be a belief slut and sleep around until I find my true love. Then we shall never part.

3) Do you think that such a premise can account for magickal occurrences?

Yes, no, maybe, sometimes...
 
 
6opow
06:58 / 06.08.01
quote:Originally posted by grant:
...it also fits nicely with my fatalistic laziness.

Oh man! I understand this one all too well!

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: the godog ]
 
 
6opow
07:35 / 06.08.01
Well, I hoped this would be a more interesting topic but...

Thanks and props to the three of you who have responded!

Now, I must apologize for the mistake I've made when I said, "...that is, the external reality is a manifestation of our psyche," because that is a little misleading, and does not capture the equivalence of the internal and external. It is more like the external world is a manifestation of our psyche, and the psyche is a manifestation of the external world. So now that I've clarified...

SMatthewStolte: With the clarification in mind, your response to 1) is a little off the mark. I think we want to get beyond a merely subjectively shared realm of interaction, but at the same time not be led into thinking of a world of "hard" reality. We need to look at the internal-external as a dichotomized expression of a singularity. Our interactions manifest within the context of this singularity. That said, I have to agree very much with your response to 2)(and I also think it is an important ability to posses).

Grant: I like all your responses. For 1) I wonder if you have interests in the world as a metaphor; that is, as the things in the world not as concrete things, but as things which are pointers to an ultimate reality that we can not access (sorta' in a Kantian sense). The comment you make about the proper place of personal ego is excellent. I would like you to elaborate (if you'd be so kind) on your, "...causality might have more to do with interpretation and less to do with observation," because I think this can lead into some really interesting stuff.

better the fool...: in a similar sense to my response to SMS (and because of my original misleading statement) we can see that not only does, "[w]hat [we] believe affects what is, [and] [w]hat [we] believe is what is," but that what is affects what we believe, and that what is is what we believe.

I guess what I am looking for with this thread is the degree to which us magicians, sorcerers, witches, et. al. come to identify with the whole. It seems to me that most sorts of magickal-mystical paths lead to this idea of a singularity. My interest is with this singularity itself. It can not merely be our psyche, and yet, it can not merely be the objective reality. What then, is this Oneness?

Crowley says that magick is the art of changing consciousness with will. I wonder what he was referring to. Is this consciousness and will that of the singularity? How do we differentiate between our ego's consciousness and will and that of the One?
 
 
pacha perplexa
07:35 / 06.08.01
quote:Originally posted by the godog:

Crowley says that magick is the art of changing consciousness with will. I wonder what he was referring to. Is this consciousness and will that of the singularity? How do we differentiate between our ego's consciousness and will and that of the One?

Usually I know when the One is "speaking" whenever my intuition comes to play. It's not exactly a "voice" - it comes more like a sudden enlightenment which doesn't last long (less then a fraction of second, actually), and it's like holding an incredible amount knowledge about the universe, much, much more than the "ego" alone could bear. And then it goes away, leaving a "message".

And this intuition doesn't depend on the "fiction suit" I'm wearing at the time (the ego(s)). I can try and give all kinds of good reasons not to follow this "will", I can even make rituals and tell myself I have a psychological disorder... But eventually (days, months or years later), I'll end up knowing that it is what I have to do, period.

I'm sorry, godog, is this too confusing?
 
 
grant
17:11 / 06.08.01
quote:Originally posted by the godog:
Grant: I like all your responses. For 1) I wonder if you have interests in the world as a metaphor; that is, as the things in the world not as concrete things, but as things which are pointers to an ultimate reality that we can not access (sorta' in a Kantian sense).

Thanks.
Yeah, I do have an interest in the world as self-referential metaphor. I think there is some sort of ultimate reality, but that its existence is so tied into our perceptions that we'd have to no longer exist as ourselves to really apprehend it.

quote:The comment you make about the proper place of personal ego is excellent. I would like you to elaborate (if you'd be so kind) on your, "...causality might have more to do with interpretation and less to do with observation," because I think this can lead into some really interesting stuff.

I suppose it's that whole taking-the-universe's-word-for-it thing.
I believe that by flipping the light switch I am causing the light to go on.
It's the easiest explanation, but I can't properly refute the idea that there's some form of "light entitity" perpetually out there in the very near future and unknowable to me that reaches back in time and causes me to flip switches. That is, the light causes me to flip the switch.
I'm also not sure what it is in me that desires the light to go on in the first place. There may be some function out there manipulating my desires to cause me to seek light. Who knows?
I can't prove or disprove either of these things.
Thus: causality is a convenience, because our brains like to 1. create lines of actions through time and 2. put the ego at the center of things ("I made this happen; that other individual made that happen; I would have made this happen had that other individual not interfered.) It's perfectly sensible if you're willing to accept what you observe as the sum total of existence.
Which is tricky, you know, since you can't watch everything all the time.

So it goes.
 
 
Wyrd
18:30 / 06.08.01
quote:Originally posted by the godog:
Now, I ask any who wish to respond:

1) What does this mean to you?
2) How could adopting this belief influence the way you live your life?
3) Do you think that such a premise can account for magickal occurrences?

It can be boiled down to a very old adage:

As above, so below.

We could get into fractals, but I'm not a mathematics freak I'm afraid.

What it means to me that that separatedness is an illusion, we all are interconnected. It influences me in that I know that what I do has effects beyond me, sometimes it is hard to judge what they are. That does not mean that I don't believe in doing anything proactive (either magically or non-magically), but that I hold myself responsible for my actions, and do my best to affect the best path for myself, and for others.

Yes, the interconnectedness has a lot to do with the way magic works. When you realise that you are part of a web of connections, then it's a matter of learning how to read those patterns and to shape them occordingly - though, there are always unexpected changes due to the rest of the world operating on the same web.

Well, something like that...
 
 
6opow
20:25 / 06.08.01
quote:Originally posted by pacha mama:
I'm sorry, godog, is this too confusing?

No, not at all, and I even know in an experiential sense what you are saying. I had my intuition speak to me on an occasion where I did not listen, and then I ended up having a big hassle with the police. I wonder if, as we pursue a magickal-mystical path, if we (perhaps unwittingly) fuse our ego with this One? Thus, it becomes not a denial of Selfhood, but a deeper and broader revelation of what Selfhood is.

quote:Originally posted by grant:I think there is some sort of ultimate reality, but that its existence is so tied into our perceptions that we'd have to no longer exist as ourselves to really apprehend it.

YES!!!I think we would have to come to identify with the ultimate reality (UR); that is become it. However, I think this is a difficult thing to accomplish because it seems to imply forsaking any sort of comprehensible (from our meager human perspective) existence. I mean, the UR has to be all things and yet nothing (in the sense that it is at one and the same time entirely static in an "eternal" sense, but also, entirely dynamic in an "infinite" potential, or "becoming" sense).

Thanks for the clarifying. I too tend to think that we interpret time (and the spatial extension of events in time) as an A leads to be leads to C type progression, but that this is not in reality the way things are. With a nonlinear conception of time, we could think that the light coming on is what caused to flip the switch. Even more serious (as you hint at) is that we can not keep up with the intricate web of being where the death of a star hundreds of light years away and occurring right now maybe affecting the strokes I make on this keyboard (via, the words being chosen). This feeds back into the above "dynamic-static" paradox, and also into the "personal Ego-divine Will" unification now brought in by pacha mama's post.

"And so it goes" 'round and 'round, it is enough to make ya' dizzy!

quote:Originally posted by Wyrd:It can be boiled down to a very old adage:

As above, so below.

We could get into fractals, but I'm not a mathematics freak I'm afraid.

Indeed! It's the whole "microcosom-macrocosom" unity, as well, from, "as above, so below" it is easy to derive "as within, so without."

(BTW: I am a bit of a math freak, and recently wrote a paper called, "The Fractal Structure of the Dispositional Universe." It uses a modern metaphysical theory of dispositions put forth by the philosopher Charlie Martin to assert that the underlying structure of the universe is (like the title suggests) a fractal. I was lucky enough to be able to attend his final seminar class before his retirement. His theory of dispositions is very interesting, and I think can bring things like science, magick, religion, etc, into an increasing harmony.)

quote:Originally posted by Wyrd:
What it means to me that that separatedness is an illusion, we all are interconnected...I hold myself responsible for my actions, and do my best to affect the best path for myself, and for others.

HELL YES!, because under this view there is no "self-other" dichotomy. However, it does make me wonder why there is so much suffering in the world? Are the "shadow" traits of the Self so alien (in the sense of being not yet integrated) to us that they wreak havoc through the manifestations of sombunal of the apparent "others."

quote:Originally posted by Wyrd:
When you realise that you are part of a web of connections, then it's a matter of learning how to read those patterns and to shape them occordingly - though, there are always unexpected changes due to the rest of the world operating on the same web.


I had a friend who was "witchy" (he has since become a Xtian, so maybe that is it's own explanation of the following) who used to say that he recognized the pattern, but could not pin down the meaning. Another philosopher friend of mine agrees that there is a connection between, say, the way that the ice melts in a bucket, and the events taking place in hospital three miles away, but he is not convinced that there is a rule-book which is not changing from moment to moment to describe the connection.

So, is the symbology of the occult a way to try to pin down the rules of the book? That is to say, by agreeing (as we do in language) that certain symbols carry certain sense-references do we manifest those very things? Yet this seems to imply the that subjectivity is the true reality, which I think misses the mark...

'round and 'round, no wonder insanity is always lurking on the horizon.

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: the godog ]
 
 
SMS
20:41 / 06.08.01
A couple questions:

1)What the devil are people talking about by "ultimate reality"? What makes it ultimate? ANd what makes some other reality not ultimate?

2)What's the difference between you turning on the light switch and causing the light to go on, and a light entity travelling backward through time and causing you to decide to turn the light swith on at precisely the moment the light comes on? I would think that they are quivalent statements unless some observable difference is implied.

I get the feeling I'm missing something.
 
 
grant
15:20 / 07.08.01
On 1: the reality that includes all other realities. The One from which all "alternates" are merely iterations.

On 2: Well, yeah. The idea is that they're both equivalent -- and that there could very well be something not directly observable going on behind the scenes.
 
  
Add Your Reply