THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.skeptic,alt.paranormal,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,alt.pagan From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) Subject: Various: Evidence for Noncorporeal Entities Date: 30 Jun 1997 20:12:39 -0700 ~From: john.sentrax@mail.ndirect.co.uk (John Everall) Josh: >I am amazed (and rather disappointed) at the number of folks in this and >other threads who are determined to reduce Liber AL (and magick in general) >into something comprehensible to them within the limits of conventional >thought -- e.g. "repressed parts of his mind", "multiple personalities", >etc. By the gods, I do believe that Thelemites are getting _conservative_ >-- and disgustingly pedantic. Bleaugh. Research into 'abnormal' mental states and the correlational practices of certain artists, schizophrenic patients, etc does not seem to me to be an exercise in reductionism or indicative of a conservative mind-set. In fact, quite the opposite. Rimbaud's programme for poetry(making oneself a seer via a systematic derangement of the senses), Baudelaire's theory of correspondences, the Surrealists adoption of "pure psychic automatism" are conceivably valid areas of study for the magically inclined. Also the writings/artwork of schizophrenic patients, many of which are quasi-qabalistic in nature: Adolf Wolfli's drawings and numerologically determined musical compositions can be studied in John Maizels book "Raw Creation" (Phaidon books) - Wolfli was a completely uneducated peasant incarcerated in a hospital for the criminally insane, but possessed of a genius that flowered as his descent into incurable schizophrenia deepened. I think it absurd to place Magick in a hermetically sealed vessel(no pun intended) and view it as completely separate to other areas of human endeavour. Personally I can't see how the value of AL is reduced by speculating that Crowley tapped into a deeper level of his own psyche in order to pen the book. Didn't Jung do something similar with the "Septum Sermones"? >In all this argument over stylistic similarities and A.C.'s political >awareness, no one has spoken to the side of Liber AL which A.C. thought was >the best evidence for an origin in a mind other than his own. That is, the >fact that many of the openly-stated principles of the book are confirmed by >encoded numerical symbolism, based on information unknown to A.C. at the >time the book was delivered. One of the most important of these -- the >hidden coding based on the number 31 -- was never discovered by A.C., but >had to wait 14 years for Frater Achad. > >I'd like to hear how this side of A.C.'s "proof" fits into y'alls >rationalizations. The Surrealist painter Victor Brauner(this is not anecdotal and is easily confirmed by looking at the history of SurrealisM) obsessively painted self-portraits with only one eye, and in one of these a knife was inserted into the empty socket with the letter 'D' on the handle. Years later at a party, a somehat inebriated Oscar Dominguez threw a bottle which smashed and put out one of Brauner's eyes. Brauner accepted that his own subconscious was somehow aware that this future event was going to occur. Granted, it is a strange story, but perhaps demonstrates the knowledge contained within the hiiden areas of one's own psyche. Crowley's numerological keys don't seem particularly dramatic when examined in this context, especially as he was a student of gematria. Best wishes, John Everall. ============================================================ ~From: Tim Maroney>Why should a superhuman entity bother to >answer your invocations, if you are not willing to entertain the >possibility of its existence? I wouldn't know -- I've never had much problem getting an answer from my ceremonial affirmations of their reality, despite my disbelief on a more literal level of engagement. >You personally accept the existence of other people every day, on >the basis of little better evidence. Every time you answer a message on >this list, you accept the existence of a being who wrote it. (If not, why >are you bothering to write here at all?) Actually I write pretty much to please myself. Other people's messages are a convenient springboard, but if they're just fabrications of my own mind, that makes them no more or less useful. But this is a side issue. >Every time you open a textbook or >manual to learn something new, you are accepting the assumption that some >sapient being somewhere possessed that knowledge before you understood it, >and that the information conveyed is meaningful. Why are you so determined >that this one form of communication cannot be evidence of the existence of >an independent, intelligent being? I have a lot more evidence of the independent existence of other people than I do of independent spiritual beings. People register on every sense and many of these impressions can be captured and reproduced by technological equipment. The impressions are highly reproducible and do not vary greatly depending on my own mental state. People can be explored in detail and there is a large, reproducible body of knowledge resulting from detailed dissections and investigations down to the molecular level. I already have first-hand experience of the existence of one member of the class, myself, which is more than I can say for ethereal bodiless beings; and my sense impressions of other embodied humans are quite similar to my sense impressions of myself. In contrast, spiritual beings are completely non-reproducible. They do not register on any sense, except for internal senses which are known to produce such unreal (but interesting) phenomena as dreams and hallucinations. There is no technology that can capture impressions of them and they cannot be dissected. I do not know of such a being first-hand, as I myself have a body. The internal impressions made on me by spiritual beings are highly dependent on my own mental state, and those practitioners who have cross-checked observations of different people trying to observe the "same" entity have noted that the entity changes for each person who observes it. This "personalization" effect has been noted even by believers (including you, Ben, if I recall correctly) so it can't be discounted as a sheep/goat effect, but believers have no explanation for it. There is no such personalization problem for other people; while subjective attributes such as attractiveness and personality do vary from observer to observer, and even for the same observer in different mental states, non-subjective attributes such as hair color and height are highly reproducible. It would appear that "spiritual beings" have _only_ subjective attributes. This seems easiest to explain if the perception of the entity is a creation of the perceiver's nervous system. >Let me ask you something: What sort of evidence could a non-physical entity >-- one which is knowable to you only through information it conveys -- give >for its existence that _would_ convince you of its independent existence? Short answer: Reproducibility to something approaching the same extent as that of embodied entities. I'd like some way of measuring these beings technologically and recording the impressions for later playback. If the technology involves performing rituals to consecrate talismans or whatever, that's fine as long as the results are reproducible for a broad class of observers using the same equipment. Barring that, I would need some way of reproducing reports about the being across a broad class of observers and showing that certain attributes of the being are immutable in the absence of suggestions about what those attributes might be. This could be arranged in a double-blind setting by invoking or evoking the being, establishing some nexus of contact (again, perhaps a talisman of some sort) and then presenting the talisman to various observers unaware of the purported characteristics of the being. Once existence was established, then I would expect that the same methods could be refined to produce an ever-growing set of reproducible results and improved technologies for evocation/invocation and for detailed observation of such beings. My confidence would still be fairly low at the point where existence was ostensibly demonstrated by the first wave of experiments, but it would grow to near certainty as the body of reproducible information grew to the point of creating new technologies and entering new levels of detail, over the course of a few decades or perhaps only years. -- Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org http://www.maroney.org ===================================================================== ~From: tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com (nigris (333)) 49970625 aa2 Hail Satan! Josh Norton : #I am amazed (and rather disappointed) at the number of folks in this and #other threads who are determined to reduce Liber AL (and magick in general) #into something comprehensible to them within the limits of conventional #thought -- e.g. "repressed parts of his mind", "multiple personalities", etc. this has been addressed by the Wizard. more people in my vicinity seem to be willing to accept gods and the God than these psychological explanations. I probably hang around with 'strange crowds' tho. :> I hope you have heard me say that I tend to suspend judgement as to the Final Answer, however, even while I may occasionally argue what I find attractive at the time. #fact that many of the openly-stated principles of the book are confirmed by #encoded numerical symbolism, based on information unknown to A.C. at the #time the book was delivered. One of the most important of these -- the #hidden coding based on the number 31 -- was never discovered by A.C., but #had to wait 14 years for Frater Achad. gematria has never persuaded me of the claims made by those who utilized it for this purpose. it is neato, but I don't find it has the same kind of substance to it that revelation might to an individual. even so, revelation (as I can personally confirm occurs through experience) can be explained away by so much psychological theory also (unconscious intrusions into the conscious realms, etc.). you and others have asked after what evidence the more skeptical of us would consider reasonably convincing as regards the existence of noncorporeal entities. given that I have experienced many *myself* and still allow for the possibility, perhaps even support the likelihood, that what I was having conversations with and playing in the pool with and making love with was some portion of my own mind, I hope that you'll see that the issue isn't really one of experience, only skepticism and Occam's Razor. the evidence I think I would like to see would not just be an appearance to me (I've danced with Kali dammit!), but a group vision, interaction, beyond the intermediate. not a channeller who manifested the personae of the gods or angels or daemons or djinns, but the whole group of the skeptical and disbelievers and convinced alike in my company seeing a distinct and obvious materialization. I've often watched for such things in demonstrations put on by conmen, but there was always a 'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain' (do not scrutinize this chamber as a debunker would, etc.) clause packed along with it. an example might suffice. yesterday the Abyss and I were lounging outside Haus Kaos on the porch and suddenly she pointed into the sky and I followed her finger. there in broad daylight was a glowing apparition unlike any I have seen before, a kind of comet-like sparkling which moved like a satellite. it was like no plane I have ever seen before, and I thought it must be a 'shooting star' or a perfect reflection of a plane which we could not understand (the angle may have been correct for such reflection of the late afternoon sun). I coughed just at the moment the Abyss again commented "it's gone!" and sure enough it had disappeared, though without some sort of twisting saucer-movement, just winking out of existence. now we've both seen a 'UFO', though I suspect it was an intense shooting star which broke through into the blue daylight. we both saw it, however. if the thing had grown larger and suddenly we could discern a distinct saucer-like shape, if it had landed in the front yard or just hovered over the house like in 'Close Encounters' or any other sci-fi flick, if the little people with big eyes had got out and gave us a paw-shake as real as the poltergheist in the movie of the same name or the hilarious martians in 'Mars Attacks!' then I'd consider that to be 'proof' of their existence beyond my own mind (as long as the Abyss saw it too). in the same way if I could get (not that I'm looking real hard for it) some sort of evidence of this nature as regards consensual experience regarding my own paranormal experiences I'd be much more ready to believe that they didn't just originate inside my own mind. anecdotal evidence, such as the recent visible-playmate mentioned within this elist is great, but insufficient for me to fully believe. I don't expect others to take seriously the weird things that have happened to me. nor will I go beyond my own means of assessment in the justification of any religious doctrine or movement (this is too often the *motive* for these assertions). _______________________________________________________________________________ nigris (333) -- tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com -- http://www.hollyfeld.org/~tyagi/ EOF -- (emailed replies may be posted) ------- join the AMT syncretism!!! see http://www.abyss.com/tokus ---------- call: 408/2-666-SLUG!! "sa avidya ya vimuktaye" -- "that which liberates is ignorance"
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|