Original post: Captator
[QUOTE=Specktackular]Kch, perhaps I haven't said it before, but I've read Magick Without Tears. Something can not come from nothing. [/QUOTE] 93!
Perhaps if you stoped that linear thinking of yours at some places, and use it when more appropirate and you would be able to grasp the theory. When I learned about this theory I tried to apply it in nature, and after awhile it's very easy to see the manifistation of nothingness (the word "manifistation" is a contradiction but i don't know how else to describe it). It's so easy to see how the Union of two creates a magickal child, a child that is "two" aswell for instance the concept of "passion and extacy" created in the union, read TBOTL there is a beautiful passage that goes:
14. Above, the gemmed azure is
The naked splendour of Nuit;
She bends in ecstasy to kiss
The secret ardours of Hadit.
The winged globe, the starry blue,
Are mine, O Ankh-af-na-khonsu!
And somewhere in the creation of the child one is able to spot the nothingness!! ("spot" again a word that is a contradiction but again it is the best way for me to describe it).
and there are other passages that talks about this aswell.
45. The Perfect and the Perfect are one Perfect and not two; nay, are none! 46. Nothing is a secret key of this law. Sixty-one the Jews call it; I call it eight, eighty, four hundred & eighteen.
See the depth in this and you will see 0=2. OH SUCH BEAUTY TO MY EYES!!!
The 0=2 itis the most easiest thing to see. But this rambling that seems more like understanding the nothingess itself is useless. For one thing you contradict yourself by saying that "something can not come from nothing" With this statement you say straight out that nothingness has the quality of not being able to produce anything. Can one really ascribe a quality to the nothingness? NO! It is nothing.
What you simply haven't understand is the very simple fact that there can be no theorising around the subject of "nothingness". One can make a theory that seem at first look to contradict itself, but when one starts to apply it on nature, it gets so crystal clear! It is there, but then one can never understand it. There is no "linear link" to the nothiness it self, it is just there beneath everything, and maybe because everything is pure nothingess?
I apologize if I have contradicted myself, but it's easy while speaking of the nothingess, when one is not supposed to...
To me the mathematical expression is not very easy to understand, beacuse I have a hard time to understand the final "clash" what a vulgar symbol to symbolize this "clash" that he uses aswell!
But the third taoist part (Magick without tears) is so freaking easy to understand that even a child can see it.
Conclusion: We can not argue from 0->1 there is no way that we can somehow describe the point between the nothingness and something, because there is no such point, one needs to adapt a diffrent kind of thinking to be able to see it.
And excuse me if saying this but your posts seem only to contain this linear thinking that is trying to get from 0->1 but we can't ride a bus of thoughts from nothing to 1 or 2. Change your way of thinking and see the true beauty yourself! and the thinking itself is pure logic, but it can't be explained going from 0->1...Every busride from 0->1 that we try to take is a busride that is trying in someway to create a quality to the nothingess, therefor there can be no busdrive, the bus is just there someday, out of the blue, and we can never find it's source.
93 93/93
