What is Spirit?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2014, 08:53 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(21-01-2014 03:04 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  I am not familiar with Alice Bailey - but that shouldn't matter IF you can explain what it is that you believe (?) Just stating so-&-so goes by rules STILL doesn't explain what those rules are. So I still don't know why you'd follow them.
Dig?
I'm a sort of amateur symbologist - making symbols a pretty fun hobby. I can put them to use OR just study their Etymology.
The teaching is about worlds, forces, bodies and laws and relationships between them as they progress in development of certain qualities within certain cycles.
I use this philosophy to cultivate intelligence, love strength, inspiration and insight into various areas of life and society. I work to change mere intellect and concrete knowledge into wisdom. Rationality is OK and a necessary pre-requisite, but I need more than that.

I don't believe in belief. Each student of occult philosophy is responsible for obtaining their private personal evidence and act as much as this personal evidence permits them to act honestly. I have been fairly successful in obtaining this personal evidence and so I have the need for theoretical explanations that permit me to use it constructively. In other words, I've been through enough weird shit to know that the texts are all written to deal with this particular weird shit, nothing else on Earth is (not in such modern form and high quality), so they're very useful to me.

(21-01-2014 03:04 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  (and you're confusing a few things - like "Laws of attraction" doesn't work with ""rules"" per say. ""Derive intuitively" doesn't require ""rules"" either for example)

Off the cuff I'd dial back on development of consciousness if I were you unless have some data to support what you say that doesn't rely on personal experience. That dog just won't hunt. Not here.
(I'm only try to save your head )

So............ I still don't get the *rules* as nothing you've mentioned really stipulates rules. (aka a path you follow which has doctrine) The fact (which I do not know) that Alice comments on some rules doesn't mean squat. Not really.

You've not given any information other than to say So-&-So made comments on rules. WTF does that accomplish? lol
Text alone accomplishes nothing. It is my effort that makes the difference. From what I understand in the texts, it seems that both humanity as a whole or nations and individuals have a work to do that is in our best interest in the immediate future. There are skills to be gained, inequalities to be rounded out, unity to be manifested, old institutions to be replaced.
A student of occult philosophy must keenly identify all that is truly progressive and beneficial for humanity and that which is obsolete. When amateurs do that, they reject what they don't like and accept what suits them, I study to know time and place for everything that concerns humanity.

Do you think that I am trying to convince you or anyone else about something? Part of the deal was, that the merit of the teaching may be judged only by the work that the students do, the text itself is pretty much without evidence. As I said, each student is responsible for obtaining their own evidence. If you think that is a sure way to self-delusion and cheating, well, then perhaps it is a good thing that there is no outside worldly benefit that could be gained from such a cheating. If there is any benefit to be gained, then only through absolute honesty to the self and critical, discriminating mind. Every book in the series has this repeated in the intro, together with Buddha's quote on not trusting traditions, authorities, and so on.

Most people have no use for the teaching, because they never encountered any phenomena that could not be reliably explained by authorities. However, in my case external authorities are grasping at straws and I have to work with this non-dogmatic, non-committal "revelation" for my consideration only. It is not for believing, it is to have something to compare against everything and draw my own conclusions.

(21-01-2014 03:04 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  The second part where you suggest Sheldon might be *off* because he can't have pizza night on Friday.......
maybe read more people and through different threads to get a *feel* for people here. Maybe you shouldn't judge an entire forum, it's style and members from a thread where you're not doing very well.
I get a *feel* for people here. They're mostly survivors of religion and not eager to get anywhere near anything that even remotely resembles religion. That's inevitable and predictable. People like those similar to them and dislike those different. (what a sin Dodgy ) However, there may be a few here and there who recovered from religion and are ready to explore the depths again, or even just acknowledge existence of the subjective depths.
I don't expect to be doing well in this thread. There's too little curiosity about anything but material products, preferably science-approved, government-permitted and available on the market.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 09:12 AM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 03:48 PM by Chas.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(22-01-2014 08:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't expect to be doing well in this thread. There's too little curiosity about anything but material products, preferably science-approved, government-permitted and available on the market.

You need to re-think this. You are making assumptions that are unwarranted and insupportable.

"Too little curiosity"? I find your attitude insulting.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
22-01-2014, 09:21 AM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 09:29 AM by WitchSabrina.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(22-01-2014 08:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(21-01-2014 03:04 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  You've not given any information other than to say So-&-So made comments on rules. WTF does that accomplish? lol
Text alone accomplishes nothing. It is my effort that makes the difference. From what I understand in the texts, it seems that both humanity as a whole or nations and individuals have a work to do that is in our best interest in the immediate future. There are skills to be gained, inequalities to be rounded out, unity to be manifested, old institutions to be replaced.
A student of occult philosophy must keenly identify all that is truly progressive and beneficial for humanity and that which is obsolete. When amateurs do that, they reject what they don't like and accept what suits them, I study to know time and place for everything that concerns humanity.


Erm..........Dodgy

Been there. done that. I found it bullshit myself. And I'd spend the time to shred your post line by line if I had the interest or the patience. I have neither. You'll find some people really get into that line by line post shredding; in the interest of hounding down complete bullshit and calling it out on its ass. I don't do it - but several people here WILL do it. Not fun for you. (And I did try to offer you fair warning)

You've yet to answer the question You created using the term "rules". No one here made you say that. You said it - now back it up.
Angry

You said you follow "rules". I asked you what those rules are.
We are a few posts along here and I still see no list of rules nor what path you claim which has such rules.
Dodgy

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: What is Spirit?
(22-01-2014 08:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't believe in belief. Each student of occult philosophy is responsible for obtaining their private personal evidence and act as much as this personal evidence permits them to act honestly. I have been fairly successful in obtaining this personal evidence and so I have the need for theoretical explanations that permit me to use it constructively. In other words, I've been through enough weird shit to know that the texts are all written to deal with this particular weird shit, nothing else on Earth is (not in such modern form and high quality), so they're very useful to me.


If you can't show it, then you don't know it; and you need to stop pretending like you do.


(22-01-2014 08:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't expect to be doing well in this thread. There's too little curiosity about anything but material products, preferably science-approved, government-permitted and available on the market.


It's called skepticism, a trait which you seem to lack entirely (or at least apply it very inconsistently). Do you know why we defer to science, methodological naturalism, and evidence based studies? They have a proven and consistent track record of working. When has human understanding ever been improved by assuming the super-natural or metaphysical? When has a non-naturalistic explanation ever been a better explanation for a phenonem than a natural one? I'm not aware of a single instance of either in human history.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
22-01-2014, 04:25 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(22-01-2014 09:21 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  Erm..........Dodgy

Been there. done that. I found it bullshit myself. And I'd spend the time to shred your post line by line if I had the interest or the patience. I have neither. You'll find some people really get into that line by line post shredding; in the interest of hounding down complete bullshit and calling it out on its ass. I don't do it - but several people here WILL do it. Not fun for you. (And I did try to offer you fair warning)
I presume you do not physically feel the sensations of having power lines and vortexes embedded in your body? Most of these rules refer to these sensations and how to manage them. Such as, how these sensations are connected with one's emotions, actions, thoughts, life attitudes and so on. The rules say that the power lines and vortexes develop gradually and countless rules are dedicated as to what sequence do they unfold in for a particular type of a personality.
Other rules refer to the sequence of unfolding civilizations, nations, work projects... All related to seven worlds, seven forces, vehicles (bodies) and so on. Some very technical stuff, mostly described for the sake of completeness, not for practical usefulness.

(22-01-2014 09:21 AM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  You've yet to answer the question You created using the term "rules". No one here made you say that. You said it - now back it up.
Angry

You said you follow "rules". I asked you what those rules are.
We are a few posts along here and I still see no list of rules nor what path you claim which has such rules.
Dodgy
It's just a ridiculously, stupendously, mind-numbingly huge topic. If you ask me general question, I'll give you general answers.

If you want a clear rule, then let's say "energy follows thought," that's one of notorious truisms.
On subtle level, this rule is obvious and all exercises and meditations are based on it. In general however we have to count with inertia of matter and of course not all matter is equally responsive to thought. The most responsive matter is of course people. And most of all people the thinkers and visionaries of humanity. Energy, thought and matter are interconnected things, perhaps in some distant sense, some distant level of existence they are the same.

Path. There is just such a teaching on "the Path". All things go back to the source by their shared effort, all things struggle towards something greater than they are, within their limited imagination. The path is one of discipleship and service and to be a disciple means to think and act upon higher ideas for the common good. That's my main attraction to this teaching.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 04:30 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
Quote:It's called skepticism, a trait which you seem to lack entirely (or at least apply it very inconsistently). Do you know why we defer to science, methodological naturalism, and evidence based studies? They have a proven and consistent track record of working. When has human understanding ever been improved by assuming the super-natural or metaphysical? When has a non-naturalistic explanation ever been a better explanation for a phenonem than a natural one? I'm not aware of a single instance of either in human history.
[/quote]

Luminon does apply scepticism consistently but its directed towards evidence based naturalism, logic & reason and the entire scientific method.
Luminon says - he is an occultist with his own experiences which are all he requires (somewhat solipsistic).
Not much point sharing evidence based literature, peer reviewed articles, the latest breakthrough's in science or the greatest contributions from philosophers of science or mind.

EG When challenged Luminon sends me an online book about theories of consciousness and medicine from the 1930's as evidence like we have not learned anything new in the last 80 years (with metaphysical theories about the pineal gland traceable to Descartes blunders).
I'm not into dismissing or making fun of Descartes as he was a genius & brought us many vital contributions in mathematics (Cartesian coordinates !) - but some of his philosophy is very anti-scientific in the sense or armchair reasoning as if you don't have to go and do some real fact finding (minimizing the empiricism required and only depending on rationalism)

This is typical of the radical rationalists which also includes Plato and what Luminon is attempting - to somehow bypass the observable world treating is a completely illusion (Maya, illusion, veil, etc common in Kabbalah, zen, Hinduism etc)

Aristotle demonstrates this with his critique of Plato. The empiricists critiqued Descartes for this hyper rationalizing thinking that somehow just by sitting and thinking or meditating wallowing in the gaps between thoughts somehow all truth will be revealed in an occult fashion. However the opposite is also true with the empirical radicals - we must also beware of the Berkleys & Hume's otherwise we will take scepticism to another extreme and end up denying causation or any rational connections between events (there is just phenomena - cannot infer anything else)
As a method good quality scepticism come from people like Karl Popper or David Deutsch eg
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_deutsch_a...ation.html
[url]



A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 04:47 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(22-01-2014 09:42 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If you can't show it, then you don't know it; and you need to stop pretending like you do.

It's called skepticism, a trait which you seem to lack entirely (or at least apply it very inconsistently). Do you know why we defer to science, methodological naturalism, and evidence based studies? They have a proven and consistent track record of working. When has human understanding ever been improved by assuming the super-natural or metaphysical? When has a non-naturalistic explanation ever been a better explanation for a phenonem than a natural one? I'm not aware of a single instance of either in human history.
If everyone was the same in sensitivity to the world, then you'd be right. But there are ways to perceive and forms of material existence around and within us that most people are not aware of. It is possible to know them subjectively and not be able to show them.
I do not start with assumptions, I start with my personal physical observations. I am can observe this, this, and a few other odd things. So naturally I read up on them and lo and behold, science has not yet covered such things so far. And I don't take negative for an answer, not from science. As long as science has no positive answers yet I have positive observations, then I keep looking elsewhere for theory to back it up. When science positively comes up with something to the point, I'll be curious about it. Such as the hyaluronic acid theory of meridians, that's promising. I am disappointed that no-one here was even remotely curious about it. Shame on you, men without curiosity!

This is a situation where we need to keep in mind the 3 Clarke's laws.
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 05:00 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 05:49 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(22-01-2014 04:30 PM)Baruch Wrote:  Luminon does apply scepticism consistently but its directed towards evidence based naturalism, logic & reason and the entire scientific method.
Luminon says - he is an occultist with his own experiences which are all he requires (somewhat solipsistic).
Not much point sharing evidence based literature, peer reviewed articles, the latest breakthrough's in science or the greatest contributions from philosophers of science or mind.
No, no and no. I don't have a problem with evidence-based naturalism. All is merely a problem of proper terminology, technical knowledge, equipment and funding. There is no principial problem here, I'd never doubt logic and reason! That's an easy way to insult me. But I think you underestimate the technical difficulty, you assume that science would stumble on something that it was not actively searching for, and against all prejudice.
Tell scientist that a quasar million light years away suggests a 0,01 % correction on the cosmological constant and he will believe you. Tell a scientist that a radioactive marker injected into human body spreads in pathways described by ancient Chinese medicine, and he'll send you to hell.
(meaning, my attempt at introducing some science was met with cold welcome)
Why? Because there is an underlying assumption that our knowledge is more complete in all aspects than the knowledge of our ancestors, that nothing got lost or marginalized as a religion or superstition that might have a real basis.

Reason and science are only as good as their instruments. And there is a great disparity in instruments. Scientists assume that human body is always worse as an instrument, which is usually true, but not in this case. Technical instruments will be better some day, but right now, there are technical reasons why this is not so.

(22-01-2014 04:30 PM)Baruch Wrote:  EG When challenged Luminon sends me an online book about theories of consciousness and medicine from the 1930's as evidence like we have not learned anything new in the last 80 years (with metaphysical theories about the pineal gland traceable to Descartes blunders).
I'm not into dismissing or making fun of Descartes as he was a genius & brought us many vital contributions in mathematics (Cartesian coordinates !) - but some of his philosophy is very anti-scientific in the sense or armchair reasoning as if you don't have to go and do some real fact finding (minimizing the empiricism required and only depending on rationalism)
As much as I dislike Descartes, I'd agree with him on this one. I too have strong sensations of vibrations and ringing felt in the place of pineal gland, especially when meditating. It is easy to understand why he'd think that pineal gland is a seat of consciousness, the question is, why it feels like one.
But this is not anti-scientific, this is an empirical observation.

(22-01-2014 04:30 PM)Baruch Wrote:  This is typical of the radical rationalists which also includes Plato and what Luminon is attempting - to somehow bypass the observable world treating is a completely illusion (Maya, illusion, veil, etc common in Kabbalah, zen, Hinduism etc)

Aristotle demonstrates this with his critique of Plato. The empiricists critiqued Descartes for this hyper rationalizing thinking that somehow just by sitting and thinking or meditating wallowing in the gaps between thoughts somehow all truth will be revealed in an occult fashion. However the opposite is also true with the empirical radicals - we must also beware of the Berkleys & Hume's otherwise we will take scepticism to another extreme and end up denying causation or any rational connections between events (there is just phenomena - cannot infer anything else)
As a method good quality scepticism come from people like Karl Popper or David Deutsch eg
As you have completely misinterpreted me earlier, this isn't helping either. I don't doubt science in the least, but I did not make up my empirical observations either. And if science doesn't deal with them, then I will and I can do my own little low-budget research. Is my evidence really crappy? Well, so is my budget. It's a hobby, not a career.
As for the occult revelation, it's not me doing the revelation and it's strictly non-dogmatic. Anyone can think about it what they want. Some day science will set the record straight. Maybe even a few scientists will get inspired by this stuff, I'd be glad if they were, it is basically following the M-theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 05:45 PM
RE: What is Spirit?
(22-01-2014 08:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I get a *feel* for people here. They're mostly survivors of religion and not eager to get anywhere near anything that even remotely resembles religion. That's inevitable and predictable. People like those similar to them and dislike those different. (what a sin Dodgy ) However, there may be a few here and there who recovered from religion and are ready to explore the depths again, or even just acknowledge existence of the subjective depths.

I don't expect to be doing well in this thread. There's too little curiosity about psychotropic pharmaceuticals, preferably laboratory grade, off the government schedule of controlled substances and readily available on the interwebz.

fixt. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2014, 05:52 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2014 05:55 PM by Luminon.)
RE: What is Spirit?
(22-01-2014 05:45 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-01-2014 08:53 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I get a *feel* for people here. They're mostly survivors of religion and not eager to get anywhere near anything that even remotely resembles religion. That's inevitable and predictable. People like those similar to them and dislike those different. (what a sin Dodgy ) However, there may be a few here and there who recovered from religion and are ready to explore the depths again, or even just acknowledge existence of the subjective depths.

I don't expect to be doing well in this thread. There's too little curiosity about psychotropic pharmaceuticals, preferably laboratory grade, off the government schedule of controlled substances and readily available on the interwebz.

fixt. Tongue
As you wish. But it is not the drug that gets you high. It is you. Your self, your brain, your soul, that is thrown out of concept in a specific way. The drug is just an irritant, a footprint in the anthill of your neurons. I prefer to teach my proverbial ants to orderly dance instead of sending them into this desperate outside-induced activity. And the pineal gland is buzzing happily, like the ant queen deep inside the hill.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: