*raises hand* I have a question

User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:58 pm
Location: Infinitely Many Projections.

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by blindwake »

Neofight,

While you have a valid point about the chicken and egg thing, I don't think it's actually possible to resolve which came first. It's a circular dependency. My general solution is to simply realize that neither of them came first because time doesn't need to have a beginning. It's an infinite chain:. ... chicken, egg, ...

Shawn Blackwolf,

The problem with your "code" is that it's not a valid proof in the context of most topics. It's akin to using advanced mathematics in an elementary school; no one understands why it works, so it's essentially useless to them. This means that if you want it to use it as a meaningful explanation, you need to give reasoning as to why it is valid; you need to provide a proof for it.

For example, you say certain numbers mean different things, but your assignment seems arbitrary. This assignment needs to be explained or else it looks like you just randomly chose numbers to fit your use case.
For example, you need to explain why "gibberish = 326" instead of "gibberish = 25" (or any other number).

Also, the term "gibberish" (and your other words) are highly unspecific. This means that you can interpret them any way you want. This also means that your system is logically invalid until you specify an exact definition for each of your words. In one interpretation, "gibberish" might mean "chicken" because I don't understand chickens and they appear to be gibberish. Or, "gibberish" might mean "7" because 2 + 2 = 7 and I think that's gibberish. I can interpret "gibberish" to mean "a non-sense number" or "a complicated animal", or anything else. This is especially bad because you are using an adjective instead of a noun.
By the way , I did not see anyone asking for "proof" in the thread...just sayin'
You misunderstood the definition of the word. I didn't say "provide proof". I said "provide a proof". A proof isn't about empirical evidence; it's about logic and derivations. A proof is an explanation of why something must be true based on it being logically impossible for it to be false. Essentially, you make your case by ruling out all alternatives, not by finding some evidence which points to you being right.

Spida,
I'm seeing a few scenarios here involving different concepts of Time. I will only go into a couple. First you have Physical, or Macrocosmic Time. And you also have 'Perceived' Time, Microcosmic Time as it relates to consciousness. Macrocosmic Time is synonymous with 'Change", and Microcosmic Time is also change, but it is change 'within', i.e. a passing of moments.
That's a good point. I don't think I've even considered macrocosmic time in my paradigm; it simply doesn't have a definition. The idea of objective time doesn't really stick with me because I have difficulty defining the boundaries of objective reality. Also, if the primordial consciousness for whatever reason never experienced a certain part of a supposed objective reality, then it's not entirely accurate to say that that objective reality has a timeline because such a "line" would have holes in it.
Now with regard to the "Initial Cause". Perhaps it would be Physical Time that would be static and frozen, in the absence of space where it is impossible for physical change to occur.
The physical not yet having been reached by the primordial consciousness is still. Then consciousness which acts out the physical's characters, one at a time, turns stillness into animated life. I agree totally.
But this Primordial Consciousness may have sense of time. And this would eliminate the problem of something(change) occurring in the absence of Time. Now of course this would also render this Primordial Consciousness Eternal. To avoid a recurring problem of a "no Time" Paradox.
Agreed.
Now what Mr. Blackwolf said about everything existing in a static state all at once. I have looked at it that way, and I like that concept. I actually even arrived at that myself independently. It would be an Infinite and timeless construct where everything does indeed exist "at once". The time paradox is an issue here, but I don't think that invalidates the idea.
Not really a paradox. Consider that all permutations of reality exist in theory, but are only animated when the primordial consciousness acts them out. Treat every permutation of reality as being like a number on a line. Do all the numbers exist before we assign them to some variable? So too then, do all realities lie in wait, ready to be assigned to consciousness.
So in effect the inflation of the Universe would be feeding off of this static copy of Infinity. Permutations involving an anabolic process implementing a Divine Fractal Architecture of a sort. As one idea.

So in summary. The Primordial Consciousness, which would have perception of time. Would be the initiator (creator) of 4D Spacetime. This would resolve the no time paradox, but changes things a bit.
Agreed. Though I'm not sure creation is the right word. More like discover. I can't fathom how you could create or destroy any primordial substance, so I can infer that they have simply always existed. I think of consciousness as weaving together disjoint parts in order to create complex parts. Not so much an act of creation, but more so an act of organization.

Side note: I feel like the phrase "exists in theory" works a lot better than saying something "exists timelessly" (after all, we don't really have a meaning for "not time", as things are defined in terms of moments of time / states). Anything that's "timeless" hasn't been made a part of time, and therefore, has not been actualized / executed. This means that timeless things are akin to theories, but "theory" is a much more understandable term. Everyone understands that something theoretical can exist, but doesn't. Perhaps you could term an object outside of time a theoretical object (not quite imaginary, because it has a definition, but not presently existent, because it is only a possibility).
When everything makes too much sense, that's when you know you've got none. It's this confidence in reality that makes me uneasy.

Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by Shawn Blackwolf »

This is exactly why I don't talk to you , or post in a thread you are in , Blindwake...

We are ***SO*** different , and you just don't get it...

I don't give a damn ( nice word ) what someone thinks of the code , or thinks I need
to offer a proof for it...I have more than worked with it long enough , taught enough
people , and had it confirmed by elders of different traditions , to know it is ccorrect...

I post what I post , and if someone gets something from it , great...

If others don't , great...

As far as placing logic , and rational debate on a pedestal , as if we all should revere it ,
to me that is not only ridiculous , but those who follow that path are already lost , as far
as I am concerned...Crowley called them reasoning dogs...but each to their way...

Just don't expect me to ever fulfill your needs in that arena...okay ?

... [wink] ...

User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:58 pm
Location: Infinitely Many Projections.

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by blindwake »

Shawn,
We are ***SO*** different , and you just don't get it...
I understand perfectly. I just think you have it in you to be reasonable.
I don't give a damn ( nice word ) what someone thinks of the code , or thinks I need
to offer a proof for it...I have more than worked with it long enough , taught enough
people , and had it confirmed by elders of different traditions , to know it is ccorrect...
Then it is unfortunate that you will be unable to transfer such wisdom to the likes of me, as people like me will not take anyone's word as god given truth.
If what you say is true, and you have so much personal evidence for your code, it should be trivial to prove it, or at the very least, explain why it works.

Keep in mind, I'm not a skeptic. You aren't fighting against some irrational belief that your code is invalid. All I want to see is why it works before I assimilate it. Like why a person might want to check that the light switches all work in a house before buying. There's no bias whatsoever. I too find skeptics pathetic.
As far as placing logic , and rational debate on a pedestal , as if we all should revere it ,
to me that is not only ridiculous , but those who follow that path are already lost , as far
as I am concerned...Crowley called them reasoning dogs...but each to their way...
That's kind of sad that you think that reason and logic are not to be followed. Ironic really, because everything you do has a reason whether you want to believe it or not, and whether your reasons are sound or not.
Just don't expect me to ever fulfill your needs in that arena...okay ?
Don't worry, I already don't. [wink]
When everything makes too much sense, that's when you know you've got none. It's this confidence in reality that makes me uneasy.

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

neofight wrote:If you had to choose: what is the fundamental nature of all existence?

CHAOS ORDER

please choose one, and explain.
Now if you consider the Quantum World as being 'most' fundamental to Existence, i.e. core components that define the overall structure of reality. Plus various interactions pertaining to Quantum Mechanics that define experience.

And if you realize that this "Quantum World" does not follow the same rules as the Macrocosmic World. Such as bizarre phenomena that appears to 'defy' reason on some levels. One could be inclined to associate this as relative to Chaos, or approaching Chaos, or so bold as to call it Chaos.

This concept has a tendency toward Chaos as fundamental nature of Existence. In any event, once again you have 'Order' resting on top of, coming out of, or being formed out of 'Chaos'.

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

So Consciousness would serve as intermediary between Chaos and Order: Chaos --> Consciousness --> Order. You obviously don't have Complex Order emerging out of Chaos without any Guidance. The Complex Anabolic Processes require many Eons to arrive at this current State.

Not to mention that without any type of preservation, i.e. a world that lacks the required amount of Method to the Madness. Building up Processes could be destroyed just as easily as they are Created. Progress would be very difficult, and new feelings of insecurity may develop with regard to such things as circling around a massive flaming ball of nuclear fusion and fission, and "Nobody is Home?"

It seems so simple and elegant for Consciousness to first emerge from Chaos, and then comes the complexity of Order fortified with some flavor of Primordial Intelligence. Some would call them Angels(workmen), but not the 'Winged' variety.

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:58 pm
Location: Infinitely Many Projections.

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by blindwake »

Spida,

That might be overkill. Just look at the anthropic principle. Except reject the part where it says that the world is fine tuned. Effectively, we must have order because otherwise we wouldn't be able to think about it.
Doesn't mean there's any method to the madness. It can be random luck.

Though, I'd agree that consciousness being eternal, if first degenerated to chaos, would need to start an anabolic process to reach order. Perhaps it randomly combines certain elements of its experiences until a degree of restriction arises in what it may experience. Then because it can't experience infinity, it can't combine infinite elements anymore, so it has to start using permutations of what it already has in order to create compounds, etc. You could say that consciousness is an overcreative kid with a very high IQ, but his toybox has been reduced by so much that he has to use repetition and permutations to create new things.

The real question here is how we get back to chaos once we already have order.
When everything makes too much sense, that's when you know you've got none. It's this confidence in reality that makes me uneasy.

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

What it comes down to for me is being torn between two paradoxes. On the one hand, you have an eternal Consciousness so as to avoid a no-time paradox; possibly for other reasons as well, and on the other hand you have the periodic emergence of Consciousness which somehow Creates/Initiates Time, from a no-time realm. However this does solve the problem of Infinite regression, which apparently isn't an issue for everyone.

I'm having trouble seeing an infinite series of 'moments' that reach into an Infinite Past. To me this doesn't mesh with Finite Linear Time, which NEEDS a Beginning. This is the reason for the Universe? A beginning for Time? For one anyways. It seems Time needs a Past, Present, and Future. If the Past is infinite, then I don't see how you can progress to a Present, or Future.

An infinite amount of linear time becomes Eternal, and time loses all meaning in an eternal context. It makes more sense to me at the moment that Finite Linear time segments(such as the Universe)are created within an Eternal Construct and that they are not extending indefinitely in one direction while at the same time progressing forward. Anyway, I would call that Infinite Linear Time, of which I am not an advocate at the moment.

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by Shawn Blackwolf »

There could be another shape for the reality of linear infinite time :
and within that cycles of patterns of chaos consciousness order ;
Attachments
37094cf3edb272ebe0712195c1063f3d.jpg

User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:58 pm
Location: Infinitely Many Projections.

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by blindwake »

Shawn Blackwolf,

THANK YOU (in the event that I'm not completely misinterpreting your image)
That's exactly what I was getting at. Chaos to order, and order to chaos, eternally.

Spida,
What it comes down to for me is being torn between two paradoxes. On the one hand, you have an eternal Consciousness so as to avoid a no-time paradox; possibly for other reasons as well, and on the other hand you have the periodic emergence of Consciousness which somehow Creates/Initiates Time, from a no-time realm. However this does solve the problem of Infinite regression, which apparently isn't an issue for everyone.
The main issue is that by definition, nothing exists outside of time, so consciousness can't be there to initiate anything. It's acceptable though, to accept consciousness existing outside of our objective time line, then it goes in an out of it at will. You cannot ignore the infinite regression of causation problem; if you do, you cannot properly define the first cause without an axiom, and that axiom would be arbitrary, so the paradigm is broken.
I'm having trouble seeing an infinite series of 'moments' that reach into an Infinite Past. To me this doesn't mesh with Finite Linear Time, which NEEDS a Beginning. This is the reason for the Universe? A beginning for Time? For one anyways. It seems Time needs a Past, Present, and Future.
You do have a beginning for finite linear time, it just doesn't exist within finite linear time so it's stupid to try and find it from here. Your finite universe's timeline is like a tangent on a curve. The orderly universe only exists for some arbitrary period of time before returning to chaos.

Image

(You might be able to swap the order and chaos points depending on how you want to interpret. I'm just going for a quick and bad visual)
If the Past is infinite, then I don't see how you can progress to a Present, or Future.
If the past isn't infinite, you get a problem where some moment doesn't have a cause and "just happens" without explanation. That doesn't make sense. If all the other moments have previous moments as causes, the first moment should as well. This problem is resolved by realizing that you're not looking at a sequence, but a function. If you took the function y = x, would you ever be confused about why the line has no start or end? Well, the things you can do with numbers you can also do with anything else.

It's a chicken vs egg thing. It's a circular dependency. By definition, a circular dependency cannot be resolved. Therefore, it doesn't: the line is endless.
An infinite amount of linear time becomes Eternal, and time loses all meaning in an eternal context. It makes more sense to me at the moment that Finite Linear time segments(such as the Universe)are created within an Eternal Construct and that they are not extending indefinitely in one direction while at the same time progressing forward. Anyway, I would call that Infinite Linear Time, of which I am not an advocate at the moment.
I can't tell if we're on the same page here. But yeah, the linear time is finitely spanning the tangent at peak order. Actually, you could probably put a finite linear timeline at any region of the function and you'll just variably sized regions. The linear time is finite, then the primordial consciousness continues to the next realm, then the next, and so on; maybe it'll return to old realms at some point, maybe not.
When everything makes too much sense, that's when you know you've got none. It's this confidence in reality that makes me uneasy.

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

The depiction of Ouroboros is a good choice here. The only thing is that I would ensure there is the inclusion of an outermost 'Existential' loop(not merely a time loop).Transparent and paradoxical as it may be. The outermost existential loop would contain periods of time and no-time(a lacuna coil). The (figurative)outermost loop would encapsulate all of Existence, as well as Negative Existence.

I was thinking for a moment as to whether or not finite linear time segments would be better applied to elements of a physical nature, and cycles would be more relative to metaphysical elements. It's also true that there appear to be 'Broken' cycles, i.e. cycles that are not contiguous, but are eternally recurring.

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by Shawn Blackwolf »

Blindwake ( and Spida )

Yes , I did post Ouroboros purposefully , for just that reason...

As far as the two loops , Spida , I cannot remember the book right now ,
but I have it in my library somewhere...I shall look tomorrow , sometime...

( 2:45 am , now )

Dion Fortune wrote a book with chapters on *two "rings - pass - not" * ,
however I shall have to check again on what she was referring to...

I believe it dealt with something along the lines of what you just suggested...

Hmmm...just researched for 10 minutes...not quite what I remembered ,
yet possibly applicable , and give you something to look into...

http://www.clockwurx.com/cosmic_trinity.php

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

Shawn Blackwolf wrote:Blindwake ( and Spida )

Yes , I did post Ouroboros purposefully , for just that reason...

As far as the two loops , Spida , I cannot remember the book right now ,
but I have it in my library somewhere...I shall look tomorrow , sometime...

( 2:45 am , now )

Dion Fortune wrote a book with chapters on *two "rings - pass - not" * ,
however I shall have to check again on what she was referring to...

I believe it dealt with something along the lines of what you just suggested...

Hmmm...just researched for 10 minutes...not quite what I remembered ,
yet possibly applicable , and give you something to look into...

http://www.clockwurx.com/cosmic_trinity.php

Thank You Shawn.

I haven't looked at the link yet, but I remember cybernetic_jazz mentioned the ring-pass-not a while back. I can't recall anything about it from TMQ, doesn't mean it's not there though. I bet Blavatsky probably goes into that as well. I always assumed intuitively that it either had something to do with a forbidden perimeter encompassing the Supernal Triad or a boundary at the edge of the Universe. Just guesses, which means they could be(are probably) incorrect and I should not have mentioned them. I see Trinity is mentioned in the link though :-)

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

@Shawn

I just looked at the link. I don't recognize anything there as familiar. I've heard the term "ring-pass-not", but that's it. I'd have to spend a little time on it before having an opinion, or anything. So I'm in the same Boat as you, it's not what I expected.

Thanks Again.

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

neofight
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:43 pm

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by neofight »

I wanted to say some things. First I'd actually like to defend Shawns number system. I understand how gematria works, and I think it is a useful tool for contemplating word association but I do not believe it is a secret code that reveals much more than the fact that one idea can lead to the next.

I also enjoyed your provoking me into thinking about nothing. Nothing is not something, and so... does it exist at all? I guess we should be considering it the absence of a thing, and not nothing.

I notice too, that there is a belief that conscious is eternal, and I wonder why you think this to be true?

I am definitely on the side of the idea that chaos is just something as-yet unexplored or discovered, though it also has other meanings.

The really important question here, as we are students of the occult, and that typically means we are magicians is: what is your desire, and are you willing to compromise the order to attain it? Waffling between choice is okay should you still be considering, but the true power of magic comes from making a decision.

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

neofight wrote: I also enjoyed your provoking me into thinking about nothing. Nothing is not something, and so... does it exist at all? I guess we should be considering it the absence of a thing, and not nothing.
As above so Below. As Within so Without.

Any profound idea that you arrive at that involves the Macrocosm(The Universe)should also have a corresponding reflection in the Microcosm(the Self, or Consciousness)

Now if we consider the existence of 'Nothing', or close proximity to it:

In the Macrocosm we consider the 'creation' of space as analogous to the expansion of the Singularity AKA Primordial Consciousness. This is a Zero Dimensional Point. It does not require Physical Space for it's existence, and furthermore is the creator/initiator of it as it does precede it, as part of an Eternal Cycle.

Now if any Macrocosmic Theory is correct, then you will most certainly find it reflected in some form in the Microcosm. Creation uses Replication(fractal patterns) and Division extensively, hence the Hermetic Axioms.

So we have an expansion of the Primordial Consciousness that creates space and how is this reflected in the Microcosm?

Dreams...

Dreaming is a function of Pure Consciousness. Remembering that Consciousness is a zero Dimensional Point that operates and exists independently of Space. It is only the 'vehicle' employed by consciousness that requires Physical Space.

When we are asleep and not dreaming or are in Deep Sleep our Microcosmic World is Void; non existent. Then something happens. A Microcosmic Dream World is initiated and expanded upon via our 'own' version of Space and time. Populated with things that come from 'within'. This is 'one' reflection(inferior replica) of The Primordial Consciousness, and it's creation of space and time.

Of course one is Superior to the other, but the reflection is evident.

Also when we "wake up" everything becomes more coherent and focused(order). Analogous to the Primordial Consciousness emerging from the "no time" realm and manifesting order.

Perhaps the Formless Matter of the Unmanifest(if true) would be reflected as incoherent dreams in the Microcosm.

The never ending cycle of creation and destruction. An outward flow, and then drawn back in is reflected in the Microcosm as 'Breathing' - The Hermetic Principle of Rhythm.

So I would equate the entirety of Existence having periods of Time, and No Time as analogous to periods of Sleeping and Waking in the Microcosm. Revision of Ouroboros as a Lacuna Coil :-)

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

User avatar
blindwake
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 218
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 7:58 pm
Location: Infinitely Many Projections.

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by blindwake »

Spida, no real offense intended, but that description sounds nearly religious. I feel you could explain it better. Also, I enjoy being the devil's advocate.

What does an "expansion" of consciousness even mean? Are you talking about it getting more and more data? Are you talking about it growing like a balloon? If like a balloon, how can that work if consciousness isn't even a visual thing?

If it is a "zero dimensional point", where does it exist if not in physical space? Calling space physical is kind of meaningless because there are plenty of spaces exactly like our physical one: dreams, literally any 3D space, etc.

How does consciousness create space? What even is space in this context?
Now if any Macrocosmic Theory is correct, then you will most certainly find it reflected in some form in the Microcosm.
You talk about reflection here, but where does the macrocosm exist if not in the eyes of minds? If you kill all consciousness, does the macrocosm still exist?
Are you sure they aren't "reflected" as a result of their being the exact same thing? The macrocosm could easily be the microcosm looking onto the microcosm.
Not all of reality is symmetric; you put too much burden on the guideline: as above, so below.
Creation uses Replication(fractal patterns) and Division extensively, hence the Hermetic Axioms.
Can you prove this? Can you prove that reality has a limited number of building blocks and has to use replication? Are you sure that's not merely specific to our present world?
Dreaming is a function of Pure Consciousness
What would a non-pure consciousness be? What does "pure" even mean here?
Remembering that Consciousness is a zero Dimensional Point that operates and exists independently of Space.
Then within what restraints does it operate if not some space?
It is only the 'vehicle' employed by consciousness that requires Physical Space.
So if consciousness is just inside of the 'vehicle', then where does it go when it gets out of the vehicle? Better yet, how did it get into the vehicle?
I'd buy you a drink if you could explain in full detail how consciousness is bound to a physical body, and why it stays in it.
When we are asleep and not dreaming or are in Deep Sleep our Microcosmic World is Void; non existent. Then something happens. A Microcosmic Dream World is initiated and expanded upon via our 'own' version of Space and time. Populated with things that come from 'within'. This is 'one' reflection(inferior replica) of The Primordial Consciousness, and it's creation of space and time.
Can you prove this? Can you prove that some people don't dream? I remember reading that what really happens is that you dream but don't remember. You still have REM sleep.
What is 'within', what is our 'own' version of space and time (our own special chunk?). This sounds completely unintelligible.
Also when we "wake up" everything becomes more coherent and focused(order). Analogous to the Primordial Consciousness emerging from the "no time" realm and manifesting order.
OR! If you have brain damage, everything is still chaotic and unintelligible, or if you didn't get enough sleep, nothing is focused at all, etc. "no time" is as ambiguous as "heaven"; seems emotionally loaded, but nothing else.
Perhaps the Formless Matter of the Unmanifest(if true) would be reflected as incoherent dreams in the Microcosm.
Formless matter is a complete oxymoron. It's barely even valid syntax for a noun. If you mean it as an analogy to an abstract concept, just go the extra mile and actually explain rather than providing a riddle.
The never ending cycle of creation and destruction. An outward flow, and then drawn back in is reflected in the Microcosm as 'Breathing' - The Hermetic Principle of Rhythm.
That sounds analogous with confirmation bias. Lots of things cycle. Some things also don't cycle. Therefore, rhythm is really more of a guideline at best.
So I would equate the entirety of Existence having periods of Time, and No Time as analogous to periods of Sleeping and Waking in the Microcosm. Revision of Ouroboros as a Lacuna Coil :-)
Maybe, except macrocosmic time doesn't stop when you're sleeping, and it certainly doesn't stop in the microcosm.
When everything makes too much sense, that's when you know you've got none. It's this confidence in reality that makes me uneasy.

Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by Shawn Blackwolf »

Blindwake :

Lovingly and jokingly said ;

If you love being the "devil's advocate" the devil must ***love*** you , you do such a good job at it... [lol]

P.S. How do you know there is a devil ? Can you prove it ?

JK

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

I know someone, I'm not sure who [wink] made a reference to "Reasoning Dogs". I didn't pay too much attention to it at the time. Now it haunts me :-)

I know Crowley talks about this, and it's scattered throughout his works. There was a time when I thought 'reason' was everything, however time has taught me otherwise.

Sure there is a lot that can be explained(or reasoned out), and there is a lot that cannot. So I will part with this for now:

Reason is not a Bridge to ALL truth :-)

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

blindwake wrote:Spida, no real offense intended, but that description sounds nearly religious. I feel you could explain it better. Also, I enjoy being the devil's advocate.

What does an "expansion" of consciousness even mean? Are you talking about it getting more and more data? Are you talking about it growing like a balloon? If like a balloon, how can that work if consciousness isn't even a visual thing?
The Expansion depends on whether we are talking about Primordial Consciousness, or Microcosmic(Human)Consciousness. As stated elsewhere here, expansion of Primordial Consciousness is the Initial expansion of the Universe. This occurs from a Zero Dimensional Point of infinite density, also referred to as 'Inflation'; occurring at Superluminal speeds and eventually slows after some time. This 'Inflation is the Universe becoming filled with Space, and also marks the beginning of a Finite linear time sequence, measured in Eons.

I suppose the "Balloon analogy" fits, and as far as more and more data? Instead of going down that road, perhaps it could be thought of as the execution of a Divine Algorithm. Maybe a Fractal Program where the output, or results are Galaxies and Solar Systems, although the process is infinitely more complex, but I suppose could at least be chipped away at.

I would suspect that the reason, for one, that Consciousness is not a Visual Thing is the it is a ZDP. You can't see energy or particles in the Quantum World, but they exist. Invisible energy can transmit data over the air and manifest images on a display. A Magical act of a sort that these days has become mundane.
If it is a "zero dimensional point", where does it exist if not in physical space? Calling space physical is kind of meaningless because there are plenty of spaces exactly like our physical one: dreams, literally any 3D space, etc.
The only existence PC can have being a ZDP is 'Within'. It would not Occupy 4D Space since it has not been created, but it's existence would be "Infinite Within". Perhaps the Human "thought process" could serve as an analogy for this(Dreams have been mentioned already) I can have vivid and detailed thoughts of Landscapes, Seascapes, et cetera. But these only exist 'Within' for me. No one else can observe this. I can't prove it, and these do not exist in Physical Space in the way that anything of a 'Physical' nature does.

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

neofight
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:43 pm

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by neofight »

Chaos magick isn't about "being chaos" so much as it is about realizing that there is no absolute (so far as mankind will know) about what is, and how to do it, and that is why he spits on reason- it inhibits action to sit and debate. Crowley was about impulse and embracing destiny and for those that have a good life, it is a good idea. Those of us who were not born into liberty and wealth must do otherwise. This is where he drops the ball, imo. His knowledge may be accurate: we are all free to act; but it is in the acting that we get into trouble (of which he leaves it up to the magician to navigate).

As mankind cannot sustain itself without reason and wisdom, Thelema is incomplete, though it is also the doorway to that understanding. Sophism is still alive and well.

User avatar
Hound
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:14 pm

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by Hound »

Simply responding to the original post.

You cannot separate yourself from either. They are two sides of the same coin. To remove chaos would create stagnation. Stagnation is death. To remove order would leave only decay. This has been expressed already by a few people in the thread.

I think the main point of contention some people have with these concepts is we approach them from a limited point of understanding. The human perspective. People image chaos to be random, without intent. To, for all intents and purposes, end at the destruction of something. But fail to stick around long enough to see the life that comes from natural chaos. Chaos with purpose. And the order that grows from said life. The human mindset may be black and white, but our existence is not.

Chaos as a concept is rarely explored with genuine interest. It's a social taboo and rarely do people look past surface associations.

neofight
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:43 pm

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by neofight »

I started this thread because it is a fundamental question that all people must take. If we think that Chaos is the absolute, then our actions would follow suit to that design. If it is Order, then we would be that way. In light of magic or theology, we have the presence of a God, and so what we choose to believe to be true- Chaos or Order- would reflect onto our God. As magicians we want power, and that power comes from our decision of what is true- Chaos or Order.

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

It's true that Chaos could be better understood. Or at least elaborated more upon. Maybe Chaos/Order would be better thought of as something akin to a Spectrum, and not just black and white(or along those lines).

I was thinking about Divine Chaos and whether or not Fractal Patterns could be thought of as such. I'm considering a merging of Chaos and Order to a degree so as to say that some things that appear Chaotic, are actually Orderly. Or that there are certain Creations that are both Chaotic And Orderly simultaneously.

So with Fractals you have things such as Clouds, Mountains, and Trees. That appear to be Chaotic in construction, but are actually manifesting as a more obscure type of order, i.e. Fractal Geometry.

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

Shawn Blackwolf
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:09 pm

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by Shawn Blackwolf »

"I was thinking about Divine Chaos and whether or not Fractal Patterns could be thought of as such. I'm considering a merging of Chaos and Order to a degree so as to say that some things that appear Chaotic, are actually Orderly. Or that there are certain Creations that are both Chaotic And Orderly simultaneously." ( Click On Image For Full Effect )
Attachments
tumblr_nca1mdB68h1txeruoo1_500.gif

User avatar
CCoburn
Forum Member
Forum Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2015 3:48 pm
Location: New England

Re: *raises hand* I have a question

Post by CCoburn »

That Video. The first thing I think of when I look at that is Micro and Macro Infinity. The Inner progression of the Spiral approaches Micro Infinity, and the outer progression approaches Macro Infinity.

Neither here nor there : CCoburn : The Road Scribe

Post Reply

Return to “Chaos Magick”