BARBELITH underground
 

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


'Vibrations', 'Energy' etc.

 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
 
Unconditional Love
13:02 / 06.04.07
I think it really does make a great deal of difference how you approach your self creation as science, art, religion or which is more predominant in your character and construction, because it colors how you perceive and receive information from others. It also characterizes misunderstanding and reflection upon meaning.
 
 
The Ghost of Tom Winter
13:09 / 06.04.07
Wolfangel, while I see your ideas of magic as only poetry no less valid than another’s idea of defined equations and concepts. It is important to realize, however, that in order to have a fruitful discussion on topics relating to the occult, which is primarily very hard to vocalize, it is important to articulate what the hell you mean by the words you use. Taking Quantum’s example for instance, if I post a thread stating a discourse in thwangdoodle meditation and recovery, I must first make sure everyone is on board with what thwangdoodle means. Other wise we could be talking about two completely different things. Energy has come to be attributed with a million different meanings and if you are not specific by what you mean, well we can assume you’re talking about thwangdoodle.

Even if you find that deconstructing your practice leads to destruction of your practice, if you wish to meaningfully discuss your practice we must have an understanding on the vernacular you use.
 
 
Quantum
13:56 / 06.04.07
i find my ideas and beliefs attacked

Perhaps that's your perception rather than what's actually happening? I for one have no interest in attacking your practice or your beliefs. Remember the discussion here is not practice though, just discussion, and for meaningful communication to take place your reader has to be able to grasp what you intend to convey.
If you wrote your posts in Russian for example, they would mean a lot to you but I would not understand what you meant. Asking you to type in English wouldn't be an attack, would it?
 
 
Unconditional Love
14:09 / 06.04.07
Okay point taken, I cant actually quantify some of the points of experience i am trying to illustrate, perhaps you would have to be me in those moments, and i think that is my point, people really don't have the words or vocabulary for this stuff, except as consciousness as an art form.

The attempts to mix science and magic language wise have ended up as scifi at worst and pseudo science at best, which kind of explains why people use such vague terms as energy to explain things. Magic as far as i can see is simply not a science (please don't dig out Arthur c Clark quotes at me).

Does magic need to qualify itself as a science or academic, personally i don't think so. It confuses an already confusing and confounding area of study.
 
 
Unconditional Love
14:12 / 06.04.07
Or maybe it is that i find ambiguity to be one of the most important elements of magic, Happ, Luck, Fortune, coincidence.

I don't question those things, i let there occurrences keep happening.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
15:01 / 06.04.07
If you say *everything* is energy it becomes meaningless, you may as well say everything is thwangdoodle of some type.

Not really, that's like saying that because we divide things into categories such as animal, vegetable, and mineral, then referring to animals as animals makes the term meaningless; we can further subdivide categories of animals into phylum, class, subclass, order, family, genus, species, binomial name, and common name, so that what starts off as being described as an animal ends up being a household cat, and hence much more descriptive.

By saying that all things are energy, I'm not saying that there is only one category of energy or that it cannot be further described into its component parts. Earlier I mentioned how heat can be termed Re Qi and electricity can be termed Dian Qi, and whilst I'm not familiar with the chinese translation for carrots or the sun, I am reasonbly confident that they too could be termed carrots Qi and sun Qi respectively.

You call the astral plane energy? Why not call it the astral plane? I'd be interested to hear how you see the differences between the mental and astral 'plane', as that's another term like energy that I come across regularly used in very vague ways.

Whilst I have a great deal of conscious sensory experience on the physical level, to the point where I can identify something as an animal and go so far as to identify it as a carnivorous feline, I don't have the same amount of conscious sensory experience on the astral level, to the point where the lines between the two fade into one another like red fades into yellow and yellow fades into orange. It's at this point where I am unable to subdivide energies into different categories with any deal of certainty that I simply acknowledge my deficiency and lump it all under the one term, similar to if I woke up in the middle of no-where and said I was on earth instead of being able to state what country or town I was in.

When dealing with energy at such a point, the only thing I am reasonably certain of is that the majority of it is on an astral level, however a great deal of input is on a physical as well as a mental level, and so don't strictly label it as astral just as I don't label it as being a specific level of the astral - I'm just not that experienced that I can honestly tell the difference.

For instance, I may be walking down the street and sense that someone is looking at me, and the first place I look to find them is right in their eyes; to me that occurs on an astral level as their astral energy encounters my own and I'm sensitive enough to pick up on it, kind of like noticing when a torch is shined on me. I say that I sensed their energy because I'm not 100% sure if it really was their astral energy or their mental energy, or a pure physical chance (that happens a lot), however I am confident enough to say that my reason for knowing they were looking at me had very little, if anything, to do with the physical level of things.

I don't think it is a time saving word, and as your audience I'm going to determine it's use as meaning 'thwangdoodle'.

For me it saves a great deal of time because normally I don't have to explain these things; most people have their own concept of energy or can understand its use, given the right context. If I were to use it in the context of "a lightbulb expends heat and light energy" than just about everyone would understand it as being the same thing, however if I said "that person has a nice energy about them" than some people would perceive it as being a reference to how I'm perceiving that person on a physical level, others may understand that I'm speaking of this as well as how I'm perceive them on an astral level, and others still may understand that it's both of these as well as the mental.

So yeah - when I use the term energy I'm basically saying "I don't know exactly what it is, if anything, but this is a convenient term for it, for now" just as a thawed out caveman might label a lightbulb as magic.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
15:46 / 06.04.07
I'd be interested to hear how you see the differences between the mental and astral 'plane', as that's another term like energy that I come across regularly used in very vague ways.

My experience with the astral planes is that they are similar to the physical, in that I can take in its 'energies' or various forces, and interpret them primarily through the classical five sense model of touch, taste, etc.

My experience with the mental planes is that I can take in their energies however I will not interpret them in the same way as the physical; where on the physical or the astral I might see something as being round, on the mental I don't see anything however 'know' it's there and that it is round.

For the most part I interact with them in a subconscious manner, however occasionally their energies and my own are on similar levels and so I become conscious of them, similar to the way I'm not conscious of the air con at the momment though would be if it were switched down to 15degrees.
 
 
Papess
15:50 / 06.04.07
You call the astral plane energy? Why not call it the astral plane? I'd be interested to hear how you see the differences between the mental and astral 'plane', as that's another term like energy that I come across regularly used in very vague ways. I don't think it is a time saving word, and as your audience I'm going to determine it's use as meaning 'thwangdoodle'.

You are certainly right about that, Quantum. We could call it anything we wanted, but we would still have to define it. ALso, the meaning of "thwangdoodle" would be it's definition, not the word itself. But I understand that you are saying, that without a definition, you have no way to understand what is meant by "energy", in terms of it's use in magick.


In Physics energy is defined as the amount of work a physical system can do on another. Usually calculated energy is named after work of certain force - gravitational energy, electric energy, elastic energy, etc.

Ah, force! I have often been tempted to use this word in replacement of "energy" at times, but it is just as rife with misunderstanding and pop culture reworking (Use the Force Luke!) to be of any better help in communicating subtlety, (unless within the definition of science).

When we have "energy" (or perhaps saying "a force" is better, I dunno) in a form that is comprehensive to us, we give it a name, chair, anger, carrot, Quantum, tree, cloud, etc...and we should be as precise as possible and use the proper word. I think it only gets confusing when trying to describe it in a raw nature, before it takes a form, or possibly what it is that is taking form.

How about this metaphor, because I am noticing the force and form developing...Energy is the mirror, form is the reflection, Emptiness is no mirror. Not scientific, but maybe helpful.

I wouldn't want to confuse magickal definitions with scientific ones, but I am certain it can be confusing if one refers to both fields frequently. I think I use the definitions that science provides and then widen the scope of that definition to include that which science could not measure.
 
 
EmberLeo
19:18 / 06.04.07
Quantum: Contemporary Psychology actually relies on measurability, from IQ tests to introversion, and utilises rigorous scientific method.

Sorry, badly phrased. My point was not that they don't try to measure, but that it's extremely usually ambiguous what they're measuring, and how, and it creates serious problems - which is what makes Psychology a soft science instead of a hard one. Since you already know what I mean by that, I won't elaborate further just now

--Ember--
 
 
Papess
01:32 / 07.04.07
I have been contemplating this, I said in my previous post:

Energy is the mirror, form is the reflection, Emptiness is no mirror.

...and I would just like to remove the "emptiness" part from it. It is incorrect and just mixing up too many concepts.

On another note: I just remembered that I used to call this "energy" stuff (or not stuff), wackymomo when I was a kid.
 
 
Quantum
04:03 / 07.04.07
I prefer wackymomo to energy.

I think it only gets confusing when trying to describe it in a raw nature, before it takes a form, or possibly what it is that is taking form.

So that sounds like odyllic force or quintessence. If I said the vital creative force from the source of existence is formed into patterns (living beings, matter, heat and light or whatever) like different shaped receptacles for the same fluid, would that sound like the sort of conception of energy you're meaning? Sort of the basic nature of reality before it gets given form?

If you say *everything* is energy it becomes meaningless, you may as well say everything is thwangdoodle of some type. (Me)
Not really, that's like saying that because we divide things into categories such as animal, vegetable, and mineral, then referring to animals as animals makes the term meaningless; (Mako)

Those categories are defined by the things they exclude- there's a box or category with animals in and other boxes they are not in (vegetables). If you're talking about *everything*, there is no outside the box, everything is in it by definition.
 
 
EmberLeo
07:42 / 07.04.07
So that sounds like odyllic force or quintessence.

*twitch* Okay, this makes me realize something...

Quantum, you may well know a much more specific word that means what I mean by "Energy", and that's all well and good.

But unless I'm sure a word means what I mean by "Energy", I'm not going to use it, eh? A word like "quintessence" has a history of use that I'm not sufficiently familiar with to feel comfortable that I'm using it correctly.

Which is exactly why I don't say Chi/Qi/Ki instead of "Energy" - I don't know what I may be missing behind the concept of Chi.

--Ember--
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
09:37 / 07.04.07
So why is it okay for science to say that everything it has encountered is made out of atomic matter, which in turn are made out of positive, negative, and nuetral subatomic particles, and in doing so not make the nature of the universe out to be meaningless thwangdoodle? Why can it call the universe the universe and in doing so not make it out to be meaningless thwangdoodle? By these definitions *everything* is in, moreso when multiverse theories get thrown around, yet it's rare that anyone gets confused by these concepts.

Why isn't it just as okay to say that everything I've encountered has been made of energy, yin and yang and a harmonious balance between the two to make a whole, or fire and water and air to make earth? Why isn't it okay to label the universe as the Tao, or Akasha, or Aum, or god, and in doing so not make it out to be meaningless thwangdoodle?

But unless I'm sure a word means what I mean by "Energy", I'm not going to use it, eh?

Which is why I label a carrot a carrot, and something thats beyond the scope of my physical based vocabulary as energy, especially if I suspect it's on an 'astral' level. I may not be aware of what the force is or why it effects me in the manner that it does, but I am aware that some sort of force is present (even if it's just to make me *think* that some sort of force is present) and so I just shrug and label it as energy until I've worked it out.
 
 
Papess
12:08 / 07.04.07
Odic force has a rather close definition, Quantum, (at least to what I am referring to) even if Von Reichenbach couldn't prove his theory. I find it kind of interesting that he is said to have derived the word from the Norse God Odin - although, there is no citation for that.

I prefer wackymomo to energy.

Well, it would make the discussion quite entertaining in the Temple!
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
15:54 / 07.04.07
Speaking of wackymomo would certainly prevent a great deal of the sanctimonious goings on that a great deal of practitioners are unfortunately known for; I don't think anyone could get on a high horse and declare that someone's wackymomo is negative and offensive to the *insert form of wackymomo here*.
 
 
Mako is a hungry fish
04:00 / 30.04.07
Pranayama - The Philosophy

Again, let me quote the words of the yoga guru B.K.S.Iyengar.

"It is difficult to explain Prana as it is to explain God. Prana is the energy permeating the universe at all levels, it is physical, mental, intellectual, sexual, spiritual and cosmic energy. All vibrating energies are Prana. It is the hidden or potential energy in all beings released to the fullest extent in times of danger. It is the prime mover of all activities. it is the energy which creates, protects and destroys. Vigor, power, vitality, life and spirit are all forms of Prana."

The Hindu philosophy says that the entire universe is composed of two materials, one called as Akasha and the other called as the Prana. Akasha is the omnipresent, all penetrating existence and everything that has form and everything that arises out of any combination is evolved out of this Akasha.

Akasha became air, fire, water and earth. The sun, moon, the planets and the stars - in short all the known and unknown originated from Akasha. It is so subtle that it is beyond ordinary perceptions, and can be seen only when it changes from subtle to gross. Before creation there was only this Akasha and nothing else. Everything came out of Akasha and at the time of Pralaya or when the final destruction of universe takes place, all gases, solids and liquids i.e., everything that we can perceive changes back into Akasha and this cycle of creation and destruction takes place again and again. Akasha and the air, fire, water and earth together is known as the Five Elements. The Five Elements by combining in different permutations and combinations change into all living and non living matter.

Ok. I can hear you people asking how the subtle Akasha became gross. What power changes Akasha into five elements and matter? The answer is Prana. Akasha is the infinite, omnipresent material of the universe and Prana is the infinite, omnipresent manifesting power of this universe. At the time of creation, Prana acts upon Akasha and the subtle Akasha changes to gross. Out of Prana evolve all that we call energy or force. At the end of the cycle all the mater change back of Akasha and all the forces or energies change back to Prana. Prana can be called the sum total of all the energies of the universe. The kinetic energy of moving bodies, the potential energy of matter, the chemical energy, electrical and light energies, gravitational and magnetic forces , the bio electricity or the nerve currents – all these are nothing but the manifestation of Prana. When a cycle of creation ends, all the energies being displayed in the universe will change back to Prana and will remain as potential energy till the next creation starts. At the time of the next creation this Prana becomes active and interact with Akasha to manifest again as the different forms of energies.

 
 
jon
18:59 / 13.05.07
It's astonishing how many well-defined meanings of energy there are on Wikipedia ... something related to "potential" comes up in a lot of them, including the physics definition (the amount of work a system can do). While it's certainly subjective and contextual, and it's important to realize that others may have different definitions and connotations for the same words, I often find it useful to talk about various qualities of energy: positive and/or negative, intensity, gender.

Especially with sufficient shared definitions and understanding, metaphors like this can be very good lenses for understanding, reasoning and communicating about holistic, hard-to-describe patterns for which there's no good terminology.

Tantra for example talks about the energy unleashed by desire (and/or the energy of desire) for transformation. Underdefined as this is, it's often a good basis for explaining this aspect of tantra to somebody with backgrounds in other philosophical, esoteric, or mystical traditions. Very quickly highlighting the multiple definitions of energy, desire, and transformation similarly can expose and help generate the richness and depth of possibilities; applying this to a particular situation (with some specific examples of desire and transformation) is often a worthwhile analytical framework. And so on.


In terms of the science/poetry distinction, at least for me this seems unnecessary; I try to practice life as art and science simultaneously.

One of the issues that underlies both this and the science/spirituality/magic discussion is that the current societal definition of "science" includes overly-strong claims of objectivity, is biased strongly towards reductionist approaches, and privileges certain dimensions of value and systems of measurement. I don't think any of these are inherent in science; standpoint theory and situated knowledges, for example, provide frameworks for moving forward even in the absence of traditional notions of objectivity. More generally I think thousands of years of various experimental, inquiry and action research traditions across the world are clear evidence that different approaches to science can be successful.

Still, these perspectives are certainly outside scientific orthodoxy. Looking at "Mainstream Science" it's certainly easy to see it in opposition to art, spirituality, and mystery.

jon
 
  

Page: 12(3)

 
  
Add Your Reply