The following is based on the supposition that unity comprises multiplicity in order to realize itself.
The interaction of unity and multiplicity is called ConsciousNess* and regarded as an inter-extrapolation that relates in a viewpoint which manifests ConsciousNess.
In 2750, an Egyptian priest of Ptah paraphrased it like this: “The seeing of the eyes, the hearing of the ears and the breathing of the nose report to the heart; the heart is the center of cognition, the tongue expresses the cognised” – and since this cognition consists of a reflection & projection, the priest added – “thus gods are made”.
The Egyptians called the cognition Hoor Paar Kraat (Horus the Child) and its Reflection & Projection Isis & Osiris. This relativity, or state of ConsciousNess did apparently not suffice, as they reflected & projected Isis & Osiris with Nephtys & Seth, setting of a contrary Reflection/Projection (R/P) dynamic, wherein Horus became the arbiter of its pole positions – or field limits – and thus an intermediate viewpoint.
Cultures subjected to this contrary R/P dynamic, called it a war of gods. In the Egyptian version, Seth divided Osiris and claimed his throne – or pole position – which put him into opposition to Horus, who joined (wed) his “mother” Isis. With the son of this marriage the entire process repeated itself – that is: the contrary R/P field and its intermediate viewpoint were doubled and turned into an eight-pole R/P dynamic which filled the Egyptian pantheon with numerous Horus (& Osiris) variants.
The history of Egyptian ConsciousNess (or religion) demonstrates, that it was henceforth governed by attempts to restrain this division-multiplication process through a 9th pole (or god) –which might have been the first monopolistic (or monotheistic) attempt to transform the intermediate into an absolute viewpoint – in order to fix the pole positions and thus inhibit the creation of additional R/P fields and viewpoints.
It is not known if the priests realized that thereby they fixed the contraries too, or if they feared losing their prosperous pantheon-managements, when they exiled this so called “Aton” to (or with) the Israeli tribes, whom he henceforth ruled under the term JHVH. And it was the son (Jesus) of this (four-poled) contrary R/P field, whose (cross-shaped) coordinate got established in the Hellenic time/space, where it became a principal pattern for the formation of the Occident.
The R/P patterns of the Egyptians and the ancient Greeks were similar, except that the Greeks established four intermediary viewpoints and thus a contrary field within contrary fields, which brought about a R/P mode that was to become renown as rationalism (after the Latin ratio = calculation) and to give birth to the philosophers and geometricians who separated the fields and assigned one to psyche and one to soma (or spirit & body – mind & matter), turning them into the cornerstones of a polarisation-dynamic that was going to shape – with the help of religion and science – the occidental cultures.
In 1904 appeared the threefold “Book of the Law” LIBER AL VEL LEGIS.
LAL reveals that these Dualisms become reciprocal as soon as they reach their particular limits, thus bringing about a self-complementing unit, in the following called SelfConsciousNess.
The simultaneous Inter/Extrapolation of its R/P-equations (for convenience sake numbered 2-8, 3-7, 4-6) is envisioned spherical and depicted as the following:
GRAPHIC https://waechter418.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/grafik.jpg?w=300&h=295
In LAL the inter/extrapolation (indicated by the doted wave or spiral) is represented by Had and the space (sphere) of its realisation by Nu the Egyptian goddess of All, which makes Had to the measure of the phenomena (Khabs) that manifest in the Selfrealisation-dynamic (Khu) of ConsciousNess.
(Khabs is also translated as body and Khu as light)
LAL I & II are dedicated to Nu & Had, whereas Ra Hoor Khu, the Theban god of war, embodies in Book III the polarisation-dynamic of ConsciousNess. He is the mythological (graphic: geometrical) twin (double) of Hoor-Paar-Kraat, who is now the transformation moment (5) of his brothers contrary R/P (10-01) and thus the Point of View of SelfConsciousNess.
Ra-Hoor-Khu introduces himself in LAL III-3 also as a “god of vengeance”, because in dualism self-realisation is a two-way-dynamic that correlates in the cognition: I am what I do ~ I do what I am (i.e.) I reflect what I project ~ I project what I reflect thus annihilating its innate contradictions.
This self-complementary unit is in LAL called a star, symbolizing a microcosm that relates a macrocosm. Macrocosm is the inter/extrapolation-sphere of the stars, or microcosms. The force of their inter/extrapolation is Love under Will, and the formula of their R/P equation is 101 (LAL: eleven).
The R/P poles of this continuum interrelate in 3 phases. 4~6 is here interpret as cognition, 3~7 as understanding and 2~8 as (Self) knowledge, while the (doted) zero indicates the circumference of the pole relativity 1~1, the sphere (or dimension) wherein micro & macrocosm unite.
The time/space of their interactivity is Now/Here – and it is the task of every man/woman to formulate and thus realize Oneself according to his/her Will and Love.
(* The particular spelling is to emphasize the relativity of Conscious: purposeful, aware – and Ness: being, existence)
2
Reflections & Projections are time/space relativities of the inter/extrapolation of ConsciousNess.
There are three principal Reflection/Projection modes – the alternating, whose manifestations complement each other – the contrary, where they contrast each other – the dualistic R/P, whose manifestations appear separate.
The alternating R/P is typical for the Orient, whereas the contrary R/P has been dominating the Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Hellenic cultures and became the foundation of the dualistic R/P that determines the Occident and its cultures.
(Orient & Occident represent here R/P systems as well as cerebral & global hemispheres)
Every R/P mode has a characteristic time/space and corresponding life- & death rites.
In the alternating R/P the dissolving body (soma) is left to earth, fire, water or air, while the psyche is kept alive with rituals – particularly where it is believed to be essential for the re-incarnation of the soma aspect.
In the contrary R/P the body receives a space, or room, furnished with life-utensils, while (notably in Egypt) symbols and data-cards (Stele) are employed to keep the diseased present. With the doubling of the R/P field, that space is perceives as another world (or dimension) wherein the deceased has to justify his existence to the gods in charge of it – i.e. of the measures and values it is composed of.
In Dualism the times & spaces of the living & the dead are not only divided, but also fractured by the counter-dynamics of its R/P fields. Thus the dead wind up in heavens above and hells below, while the spaces of the living get subdivided into sections for you & me, pasts & futures, inner & outer worlds, one for psyche and one for soma, in short: times & spaces for everything they fear from death – and hope from it as well, since their existence is not only determined by their fear of death, but also by their fear of life.
“Existence is lust and requires strength to bear its joy”
In undivided R/P systems the lust & joy of existence are revered with sex, art & war, and in some cultures with the sacrifice of the body to the feast of life. In the Occident, where the separation of life & death culminated in the sacrifice of the son of its god and where the lust & joy of existence got corrupted by a religion that thrives on misery and merchant-emotions, not only lust & joy degenerated, but also the understanding that when the body dissolves, there remains that which is reflected & projected as its life and death.
Thus there is the death of those whose existence is determined by fear & hope – and the death of those who associate it with the death of the dogs.
There is the death of the one who consumes himself in the fire of Selfrealisation and there is the dissolution of the one who determines his life as well as his death. To him existence is the Great Ritual and death the crown of it.
Who designs his life with death in sight, can be certain of a rich life as well as of a rich death.
Survival concepts may intensify the experience of existence through emotions like fear & hope – but they also confine it into a time/space with a deadly exit.
It is more effective not to try to overcome death, but to overcome the fear of it – and most effective by provoking it and driving it to its limits. A method which, by the way, is not only to be applied to that which is feared, but also to that which pleases, since excess leads to Selfrealisation too – as long as it is motivated by the Will to be what one is.
Attempts to make the mortal immortal, bring about a dual-creature, that stagnates in its incompatibility.
The term re-birth is in so far fitting, that in the R/P of ConsciousNess its manifestations and their constellations appear to be renewing themselves. And since, in the contrary and the dualistic R/P it is thought necessary to fix their formation- & transformation phases as well, death is brought to life.
3
The constellations of the manifestations of ConsciousNess are interactive, their reciprocal changes maintain the balance of existence.
The formation- & dissolution phases of the constellations are concurrent.
That constellations appear to come and to go, to be active or passive, to transform, to consume, to attract or to repulse each other, are angles of a R/P determined time/space and thus local aspects of the Selfrealisation process of ConsciousNess.
The ways the interrelations of the constellations of ConsciousNess are observed, reveal also the patterns and dynamics of the observers Selfrealisation attempts.
The large variety of psycho-somatic relativities and the ways they express, affirm & enjoy themselves, demonstrate the innumerable Selfrealisation possibilities of ConsciousNess and its lust & joy of existence.
Existence is to realize ConsciousNess. In the alternating R/P system, existence appears as a change and in the contrary as an action/reaction that triggers in Dualism feedback-emotions (mostly in form of fear) and promotes notions like existence being a fight, or even a will, of survival. However, fear is not will, but weakness, and the concept of a will of survival is a contradiction as (even according to it) the weak do not survive.
To claim that the components of existence eliminate each other in order to survive is to claim that existence destroys itself in order to exist. This (for the dual/linear perspective typical) contradiction impedes the awareness that the combination possibilities of existence are infinite.
ConsciousNess is a self-complementary continuum stimulated by Will & Love.
4
Will is the force of manifestation and Love the force that relates (unites) the manifested.
Will & Love are complementary and thus the strong force of ConsciousNess.
The force of Will & Love expresses as harmony, beauty & joy – the lack of it as discontinuity, sadness and filth.
The force of Will & Love might be measured through weaknesses, but woe him who tries to measure it.
Where Will is divided, weaknesses arise.
Will cannot be willed, as there are no two Wills.
Will has no cause, nor can it be deduced from effects – Will is cause and effect, both are united through Love.
Will is absolute – unless subjected to moral & purpose, or otherwise fixed in time/space.
Seeking the origins of Will and the construction plans of creation is seeking to avoid self-responsibility.
There is lots of talk about free will – probably motivated by the hope to get wishes fulfilled – but where there is Will there is neither wish nor hope.
Will & Love is also the force of imagination & inspiration – both are essential for self-design and have to be – as Will & Love – unlimited.
Everyone is (or should be) his own creator and has thus infinite self-design possibilities – each of them having, when motivated by the Will & Love to realize oneself, the potential to bring about a self-image wherein all creations complement each other.
5
There is active and passive self-design, the active projects and the passive reflects a self-image, both complement each other through Will & Love.
In the reflection Will & Love may be localized (reasoned, moralized, etc), but that brings about reaction-images which are not complementary.
In the projection is no space for reasons & morals – however there might be a lack of Will & Love that weakens the reflection.
To weak self-images, strong projections may appear as a threat– but that should not restrain the projection, otherwise the force of Will & Love gets dispersed.
The same happens when the projection is tested, since the test affects the reflection – moreover, there is no test for perfection.
Nor is the projection to be charged with expectations, since they get amplified by the reflection, causing divisions & multiplications which interrupt the interactivity of micro- & macro cosmos and fracture the self-image.
The projection has to be free of expectation, reasons or other restrains, in order to enable the reflection to complement the self-image according to its Will & Love.
Self-design enhances the awareness of the Selfrealisation process. The awareness gets impaired when the self-image lacks lust & joy, is loaded and distorted with emotions, mistreated with causalities & moralities, subjugated to parasitical Selfrealisation-attempts and/or infected by the possession virus.
Disorder arises when the Self-designer, instead of exercising his will, represents and executes the wills of “others” – adopts handed down identity rites – or subjugates himself to commercial, religious, ideological and collective identification schemes.
Self-design is subject to Love & Will, the strong force of ConsciousNess. The lack of it could be regarded as a personal debility-period, were there not the many representatives of the weak forces who, for lack of own orders, attach themselves to those of the strong. A relationship (in collective-images represented by rulers and serfs) that seems inevitable, since the strong and the weak forces are complementary and attempts to change this relativity are its balance-mechanisms in order for everything to remain as it is.
But the self-designer ought not to rely on such “auto-controls”, since he is responsible for every aspect of his order – and his weak and their weaknesses are part of it.
One manner of self-design is to arrange the components of the self-image according to their capability to complement each other. In such case it is of little consequence what its reference points are called, or which shapes, scales & quantities they present, since every unity is infinite. Nevertheless, it is recommendable to keep the reference points interchangeable and in small numbers, in order to obtain a flexible and clear self-image.
In rigid structures a reference point might receive disproportionate attributes and thus a priority that provokes comparisons which impede the interactivity of the components and the harmony of the self-image.
Ill ordered self-images may be rearranged with sex and drugs – but with care, as sex can alter the pole positions of the psycho-somatic relativity, whereas every drug has a particular potential and amplifies the intentions it is taken with.
Drugs can also be used to stimulate the imagination that helps furnishing the self-image – which ought to be splendorous, as it intensifies the awareness.
When motivated by the lust & joy of existence, self-design takes place Here/Now and has thus unlimited possibilities.
To claim a self-image being objectively true, is a lie and a fatal one, not because it hides an objective truth – as some of its gurus claim – but because it paralyses the creativity and makes the creator a victim, or prisoner, of his creation.
Self-design with the help of teachers and teachings seems to be the easiest, but is more complicated, since most of them have rules & restrictions regarding Selfrealization, not to mention, that every teacher has & represents a particular self-image. Moreover, there is of course the risk of getting caught in parasitic images and in the traps of self-denial – that is: to be something else than one is.
6
One cannot change oneself – but one can realize oneself.
The notion of changing oneself is self-denial and most common in Dualism, because of its presumption, that the viewpoints which relate its manifestations, are having different time/space positions. A misconception that leads – due to the counter-dynamics of the (dualistic) R/P fields – to the assumption that one could be different than one is, and that one state of existence is imperfect and another better – or at least: more advantageous.
There are more perverse ways of self-denial, like the Judaic/Christian concept of Homo being the crown of a creation whose aim it is, that he subjugates its manifestations – and thus himself.
Another currently popular self-denial is the Occidental evolution- & selection dogma – despite that it should lead, according to its own logic, to the realization that every man & woman is what he/she projects/reflects and that therefore no one can be elevated or put down, improve, worsen or otherwise be changed.
The, in every R/P system common (because most simple) manner of self-denial, is the causality concept, according to which a manifestation is either the cause, or the effect of another manifestation. A notion that not only undermines the self-response-ability of Homo, but makes him to a victim as well, even more so, when he tries to find causes for his existence and begins to reason it – and thus himself.
7
Every R/P system has its particular ways of dealing with reasons, and quite often also problems in dealing with the reasoning of other systems. At least that’s one of the reasons why Occidental thinkers categorically reject, and at times even attack, the ways their Oriental colleagues handle reason – or get around it, like Taoists and the logicians of Zen.
Reason is a closed circuit, as it compels to reason itself and thus to invent respective reasons, triggering a division/multiplication process which often determines the search for oneself and at times the identity rites of an entire culture.
Reason becomes fatal when Homo tries to reason his existence in order to confirm his interpretations of it, because this leads to an intellectual fundamentalism which justifies its thereby growing walls with its own reasons and deprives their builders (and victims) of the possibility to question them, by declaring them as their sole meaning and purpose. Nevertheless, reason might – when driven to its own limits – lead to the cognition that the entrance to its labyrinth is its exit as well.
8
Order arises from Will & Love – disorders take place where this strong force of ConsciousNess is lacking.
There are no by chance orders. There are the manifestations of the alternating and of the contrary R/P modes and the, in time & space scattered, manifestations of Dualism (which sometimes do seem to relate to each other by chance). And then there is the Point of View of the R/P equation, the unknown factor of its manifestations, which cannot be known, i.e. reflected/projected, without fracturing their order.
Disorder is a discontinuity-field, or –phase, which disappears as soon as its components are transferred to, or absorbed by a unity.
9
Unity comprises multiplicity and a corresponding number of possibilities to realize itself. When the possibilities are differentiated, multiplicity is established.
Unity cannot be measured, but only cognized and understood. The unities of measurements are half-measures that can be added up and concealed with unity-terms, but such Selfrealisation-attempts are self-deceptions as they veil the quintessence of unity and thus of SelfConsciousNess.
The dimension of unity can neither be related nor located – but only be experienced.
Dimensions that can be related, are division/multiplication abstructs. They may serve to focus on unity, but cannot effect it, since its time/space is not extended – wherefore unity disappears when manipulated.
10
When dualistic R/P modes reach their (linear) limits, a (non-linear) inter/extrapolation takes place whose equation is the cognition: I am what I do – I do what I am (or) I reflect what I project – I project what I reflect.
This cognition (graph: 4-6) is complemented by the phase-equation of understanding (3-7) and the one of self-knowledge (2-8). Their interactivity constitutes the continuum of SelfConsciousNess (indicated with 10-01 i.e. 1O1).
The entire process is revealed in LAL III by the formula “abrahadabra” when the letters of “abra” are replaced by numbers (1-2-18-1) and their sum 22 (44) is superimposed on the 4 (8) poles of the R/P fields of Dualism. Their interactivity reveals the pole relativity of “had” (8-1-4) whose sum (13) corresponds to “achad” the cabalistic term for unity.
LAL contains a series of ordeals that are based on the three R/P systems and activated through the interactivity of its three books and their particular word- & letter combinations. This enables everyone to relate himself according to his particular perspectives and circumstances and eliminates the possibility to draw comparisons between the stars, which is important, as every star is a unity and the totality of stars an order of complementary unities of which each one is an order.
Truly fantastic article full of extremely interesting and useful information. Its too bad that so many efforts feel the need or fall to the pressure of justifying their ideas at the expense of Ancient concepts which get treaded upon until made utterly unrecognizable or inapplicable in their original forms in order to serve the new idea which is using them as sort of Gucci brand name prestige qualifiers.
That was the tendency during the Occult revival period and even found its way into much work done in the late 1800s and early 1900s up until today in its New Age and Neo-Pagan or Pagan revivalist forms. Even Mormonism and modern Hindu efforts show this tendency of giving “shout outs” to things even if they end up losing their purpose or position while being re-formatted to fit concepts which have their own unique lineage or conceptual etymology.
I really liked what I read, but I wish history didn’t have to pay the price for a lack of confidence or a fear of low sales or value due to no antique associations.
[hr]
My criticism was not at all towards you but a certain tendency in Occult revival authors. Your work provided here is excellent and of tremendous quality and should not be discouraged.
What an entrance to the forum!
Really wonderful and informative post. Thank you so much for joining and posting that here. I hope that sort of advanced material continues to be the standard and norm for this website.
The interaction of unity and multiplicity is called ConsciousNess* and regarded as an inter-extrapolation that relates in a viewpoint which manifests ConsciousNess.
Thelema = Dialectical Monism.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Splintered+Divine+ugarit&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&prmd=ivmn&ei=HYACWd_YCqiQ0gKnrZL4DQ&start=0&sa=N&biw=360&bih=568
Thank you for the welcome !
Please write more and create more topics of interest, flood this place with your great work and writing and ideas while you are here and online.
how is one to realize oneself through the images of others, if ones does not know one’s own?
I would argue that what we call ones own is first an embodiment from without which we ingest and transform into our own.
I think so too.
how is one to realize oneself through the images of others, if ones does not know one’s own?
I would argue that what we call ones own is first an embodiment from without which we ingest and transform into our own.
Yes, it is a foolish statement :huh: is there a way to erase it?
Not foolish at all. 🙂 It has stimulated discussion and is therefore of great value to the forum.
how is one to realize oneself through the images of others, if ones does not know one’s own?
I would argue that what we call ones own is first an embodiment from without which we ingest and transform into our own.
Yes, it is a foolish statement :huh: is there a way to erase it?
No, it’s great that you posted something that I can relate to philosophically – there are two ways of looking at self-realisation, either we have an authentic self within us, or we are structured from the outside and strictly speaking, it’s actually both of these as Thelema is expressing a two sided coin of reality – it is one and two, otherwise known as the oneness of duality.
There are lots of similarities between what Crowley wrote and what previous and later philosophers wrote, in particular Schopenhauer, Kant and Nietzsche, who I believe influenced Crowley deeply.
In regards to Will and Love, I agree that Will is a force, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer most definitely saw Will in the same way, but I would say Love is a Law, rather than a force?
Love is the Law – but i choose to combine it with Will, in order to have a force that creates and relates.
(I am not a fan of chaos)
Cool, but from my understanding, forces obey laws and so love and will are inseparable, yet separate in Thelema, hence why it is a dialectical monism.
None… and two. For I am divided for love’s sake, for the chance of union. This is the creation of the world, that the pain of division is as nothing, and the joy of dissolution all.
Also:
The world exists as two, for only so can there be known the Joy of Love, whereby are Two made One. Aught that is One is alone, and has little pain in making itself two, that it may know itself, and love itself, and rejoice therein.
The approach of Thelema, or dialectical monism, may serve to eliminate that which impedes and to crystallise that which supports Selfrealisation.
There is the death of the one who consumes himself in the fire of Selfrealisation and there is the dissolution of the one who determines his life as well as his death. To him existence is the Great Ritual and death the crown of it.
I like this part, death is a particular of life, life is centered by death and being-towards-death makes life a project, a work of art. In a way, we do not project, so much as, we are on the recieving end of a projectile coming towards us which we either embrace or resist.
Can you define or explain a number of crucial terms realted to Thelema in the format of writing the term followed by “:” and then a thorough explanation of what exactly is intended or meant by that term?
Will:
Love:
But also any other terms, like Self: or whatever else might be helpful.
There are three principal Reflection/Projection modes – the alternating, whose manifestations complement each other – the contrary, where they contrast each other – the dualistic R/P, whose manifestations appear separate.
I wonder if Lacans ‘The Real, Symbolic and Imaginary’ has any similarities to this? Something about it seems similar.
That is definite. It is totally in line.
Can you define or explain a number of crucial terms realted to Thelema in the format of writing the term followed by “:” and then a thorough explanation of what exactly is intended or meant by that term?
Will:
Love:
But also any other terms, like Self: or whatever else might be helpful.
The ideas were formulated in German language. To translate them into English required often a reformulation and the use of approximate terms – for example: I could not find an equivalent for “Weltbild”. (I used instead “Selfimage”)
I hope that the meaning of the key terms establishes through their contexts.
That is very cool, could you provide the German originals, the translations, and then a detailed description of how it is used and quotes by Thelemites or Crowley which seem to confirm it or materials Crowley or Thelemites or Gnostics might tend too use as examples which might bolster or demonstrate the ideas? It isn’t that your article is lacking in clarity, I just thought it might help people more and be something good for your website as well as this website simultaneously if you were to write such a thing.
[hr]
I think Ontical and I are big fans of terms, German, French, and Greek philosophical and Metaphysical terminology, and have an interest in Early 20th Century and Late 19th Century Occult ideas, movements, and figures such as Crowley as well as German Philosophers and Theorists from around that time and French ones from before, and after.
That is very cool, could you provide the German originals, the translations, and then a detailed description of how it is used and quotes by Thelemites or Crowley which seem to confirm it or materials Crowley or Thelemites or Gnostics might tend too use as examples which might bolster or demonstrate the ideas? It isn’t that your article is lacking in clarity, I just thought it might help people more and be something good for your website as well as this website simultaneously if you were to write such a thing.
[hr]
I think Ontical and I are big fans of terms, German, French, and Greek philosophical and Metaphysical terminology, and have an interest in Early 20th Century and Late 19th Century Occult ideas, movements, and figures such as Crowley as well as German Philosophers and Theorists from around that time and French ones from before, and after.
Some of the German texts appear in waechter418.wordpress.com/selbstbewusstsein/
while the majority are stored in a drawer. I haven´t taken time to dig through 11 years of handwriting – and even less, since i began to make my living as a farmer (which is a full-time job) :blush:
I’d love for all your great work to be transcribed and saved online. Others here are also interested in thingslike farming and self-sufficiency.
[hr]
https://books.google.ca/books?id=6LkSKIfWr7oC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=Eliphas+Levi+on+Muhammad&source=bl&ots=iWMKcDrb5_&sig=qrYE_EoNbuo4ipJ9ZSgyHgiVQoA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqk5Dr_cjTAhUQ6GMKHfmAAOI4ChDoAQhKMAw
As the quote goes on it mentions some things which may be relevant here.
Mental/physical self-sufficiency might serve as a base (LAL: “island”) to disengage from, or deal with, a psycho/somatic auto-fragmentation – and is thus a main objective of this work.
I try to distinct between personal Self-design and circumstantial Self-image. Latter is common, prior can bring about a Selfrealisation in form of a reflection-projection equation.
I try to distinct between personal Self-design and circumstantial Self-image. Latter is common, prior can bring about a Selfrealisation in form of a reflection-projection equation.
How can you tell what is indirectly ‘you’ and what is made by ‘you’?
I’d love to hear all and every members answer on that as well. In my view I can not really distinguish credit regions as anything more than convenient figures of speech.
Credit regions?
Haha yeah I noticed that too, I am glad you did as well. It means distinct regions or borders where responsibility or credit is assigned. For example, a gun, a hand, a body, a deliberate thought.
The gun is considered an object and may be considered a credit region, so when someone says “the gun went off” it is putting the responsibility or fault or credit around the gun region and what it encompasses like its mechanisms.
The hand by itself is considered or can be considered an individual credit region, so if someone says my hand just jolted then they are distinguishing the hand from their self and making it clear the hand has or is its own credit region or can be.
The body likewise can be distinguished when it acts without a sense of control or awareness.
What most people consider their self or give credit to is their conscious and deliberate seeming thought processes which appear to command the body, but the body itself can be blamed individually and distinct from the conscious and deliberately planning mind, the thoughts of which also passively arise.
Right, got you. Thanks.
I just made up that term though but if you know of a better one or one in use already I could pick up that might help too.
[hr]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyss_(Thelema)
[hr]
Can you all write about that concept and the various components mentioned in the article and what you think of it and them and personally?
The only notion I coupd find for now is the phenomenological pre-reflective and reflective consciousness, but I think there may be better terms in Nietzsche, who deals with deeply unconscious, embodied, embedded drives, desires, values and beliefs. One consciousness is deliberative, the other reflexive.
I try to distinct between personal Self-design and circumstantial Self-image. Latter is common, prior can bring about a Selfrealisation in form of a reflection-projection equation.
How can you tell what is indirectly ‘you’ and what is made by ‘you’?
Selfrealisation in form of R/P equation could be called a loop which might manifest as the recognition: i reflect what i project=i project what i reflect (or) i am what i do=i do what i am
The latter part points to performativity, a script we have incorporated and learned over time that we enact socially and mentally.
I see ‘I’ like an onion of layers, no matter how much I peel away, there’s always something I have embodied.
The latter part points to performativity, a script we have incorporated and learned over time that we enact socially and mentally.
I see ‘I’ like an onion of layers, no matter how much I peel away, there’s always something I have embodied.
Self-design is practised in every R/P system (see: Buddha, Moses & Freud) and an option for him who is unable to realise himself in Dualism and has difficulties with the Selfrealisation envisioned & practised in the Orient.
¨I¨ serves as a coordinate of the psycho/somatic relativity. When used as a cover-term for (lack of) identity every attribution increase its complexity and confusions
I like this I as coordinate idea, can you discuss what the spacial field or plane in which this coordinate would be given context or relevance is, I am looking for a complete cosmology in simple terms.
Most people believe that the I is a body or inside a body used as a vehicle within 3d space.
The I as a coordinate seems to imply exclusive boundaries on a plane or fields that is vaster than the coordinate.
To me, “I” is like a placeholder of sorts, kind of like zero.
Haha that is very good on so many levels, I like the ideas, I think it deserves some lengthier clear cut reasoning. I asked for ideas regarding it on Lunatic Outpost as FreedomStands and several related things but nothing much seemed impressive from people. In my view I am just a front or a puppet for uncontrollable power.
The latter part points to performativity, a script we have incorporated and learned over time that we enact socially and mentally.
I see ‘I’ like an onion of layers, no matter how much I peel away, there’s always something I have embodied.
How about I being the onion and the peeler 😉
Yeah, which is fine either way so long as each version can be explained clearly. The Magician generally prefers to view themselves in an active and deliberate position, all the language and ideas tend to focus on deliberate craft and craftsmanship. Ironically, this is at times coupled with more passive language regarding “rules” or “laws” which govern these beliefs or concepts.
If we consider them being complementary, we might find new ways of explanation.
Yes, totally, I look forward to more detail from you regarding this whenever possible!
how is one to realize oneself through the images of others, if ones does not know one’s own?
I would argue that what we call ones own is first an embodiment from without which we ingest and transform into our own.
Yes, it is a foolish statement :huh: is there a way to erase it?
Thanks Brothers! (i erased the misleading statement)
Serious work requires quality control.
I don’t see anything you wrote as at all misleading. Kudos to you however for being willing to evolve your ideas though.