Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#47374 - 01/25/11 08:42 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: William Wright]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: William Wright
What specifically would such an afterlife entail?

First of all, jettison the concept of "an afterlife"; that's just a profane term for some semblance of your incarnated-image-of-self surviving in some other predetermined environment (such as Heaven, Hell, or Las Vegas).

Rather, once free of your physical body's OU-impression/expression constraints, you will be a god able to create, order, sustain, and destroy your own universe(s). The closest analogy might be "lucid dreaming", except that "LD" is still a somewhat haphazard environment in which "you" are merely an actor, not the creative god. In the universes you create, you will be in complete control [in effect "God"], though you might decide to be an actor in random/artificial circumstances as well.

Amusingly and ironically, one example of this which comes to mind is Christianity, in which the Universe-creator God also chose to participate in a piece of it, and to allow random-outcome recognition and treatment of an incarnated version of himself. You could do that, or whatever else might interest you.

The universe(s) you create can be small & simple, or big & complex, depending on how imaginative or lazy you elect to be. You can just create a couch, a TV set, beer & potato chips, and watch endless reruns of "I Love Lucy" if you want.

The uninitiated/"unawakened" human is so buffeted by the OU stimulus/response that he is only occasionally aware of this innate prerogative, which he experiences in brief spasms of "daydreams", "imagination", "dreams", etc. Lilly took it a significant step further in his isolation tank work, as in Altered States. At first it takes a great deal of concentration and effort - like learning to meditate, except that you aren't shooting for "dissolve-into-the-OU-bliss" of the RHP, but creation of your own imaginative will & visions: LHP. The better you become at this, the stronger and more defined your god-self becomes. You will look back on your OU-fenced, training-wheels time about the same as watching a lab rat in a maze.

Oh, and by the way: You don't have to be a dues-paying member of the Temple of Set to do this. It is inherent in and integral with the Gift of Set. Xeper.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#47375 - 01/25/11 08:58 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Jake999]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
[quote=William Wright]being the son of a mortician, I have seen ZERO cause to believe that there is ANYTHING after one dies... no soul, no great beyond.

That's the discarded training-wheels, Jake.

 Quote:
But there is no proof and currently no provable way to demonstrate the continuation of sentience after death.

You're speaking of "proof" in the OU/laboratory/physical registration/communication sense. Forget that. The post-TW Jake will neither need nor probably bother with such incidentals - or, if he wants them, will simply create them along with the scientists to discover them, philosophers to ponder them, and/or skeptics to scoff at them.

Your ba or psyche is the You within the you within the you, and like the good Dr. Jessup you have to go inward and "find the fucker". I can't do it for you. I am only here, like Arne Saknussemm, to say: "It is there. I did it."
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#47376 - 01/25/11 10:29 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1737
Loc: New York
General response:

Perhaps we are ALL living in a world of illusions and delusions, and each person creates their own which they find the most acceptable.

Some chose gods, and some chose another delusion by trying to understand what we see as true reality in some other form.

Perhaps once the brain disengages itself from its created reality and illusions it will find itself to be completely without meaning and will cause the “self” to descend into madness and discontent.

A truly free mind might become no mind at all.

In a world where everything is an illusion created in the brain, the self might realize that it is itself a mere illusion, and then it will either desperately try to create yet another illusion of there being something more powerful on the outside that it is a part of such as SET or God, and if it can’t do that......well luckily I don’t know what happens because if I did I might end up where Nietzsche and Crowley finally did, in a mental institution understanding everything and viewing the outside world as utterly mad.

With that in mind, I chose the illusion that the cup is on the table when I leave the room, that trees do fall and make a sound even if I’m not there to see it or hear it, that flowers do smell nice, shit is foul, love is good, and the greatest delusion of all, that “I” do exist.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#47377 - 01/26/11 09:38 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Asmedious]
thedeadidea Offline
member


Registered: 08/15/10
Posts: 209
Honestly I doubt the afterlife in any context where I still maintain something that might be analogical to still having the faculty of consciousness will come to pass but if I get there I will try and send a post card. Until then I am probably not going to concern myself with the speculation in any definitive sense. I am intellectually honest to admit that I cannot know this in any absolute terms.

I do know however that reason alone or a logical argument is sufficent to remove one from absurdity. I think disembodied consciousness is again one of these contexts. To repeat my critique if you have consciousness and you describe consciousness and your awareness of it. By it being a detectable phenomenon MFMRI, sense data, language, ability to reason, communicate, think, rationalise, extrapolate information, feel etc down to every iota of you being aware and you accept in the body the nervous system, sense organs etc colour, impinge, help develop etc this thing then you follow this by trying to describe some disembodied consciousness to which noone can make any reference analogous to life experience.

What is one left with ? A misappropiated word as far as I am concerned... One doesnt describe a cat as a dog because words have meaning (beyond some clever metaphors). So the way I see it is if you cannot define disembodied consciousness you are describing you have an essential non-entity. With no definitive primary characteristics what you are left with is an all to quaint word salad.


Edited by thedeadidea (01/26/11 09:39 AM)

Top
#47378 - 01/26/11 10:00 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: thedeadidea]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
 Quote:
The closest analogy might be "lucid dreaming", except that "LD" is still a somewhat haphazard environment in which "you" are merely an actor, not the creative god.


Only if you absolutely suck at it. It's generally regarded that there are 5 levels of lucidity that can be obtained in a dream state. Most 'Lucid' dreams occur at the lower states initially where lucidity is somewhat vapid and intangible, but given enough time, and practice (yes it's a skill and can be practiced), via meditation, visualization work, etc one can pretty much have a high level Lucid dream at will, which is the goal of most Oneironauts. At these levels you can, if you form and focus on that specific intent create the world to the most minute detail. WILD (Wake Induced Lucid Dreaming) means you can resultantly throw yourself into a world that you've created via visualisation beforehand. The real difference is that in a dream state you're devoid of any external input whatever, and it's all a product of your brain. Of course at this point most people are conducting experiments on the dream state to attempt to commune with various aspects of their unconscious mind in a very Regardian/Middle Pillar fashion, or are letting the unconscious throw up images, and dream figures to interact with, as frankly, there's only so many times you can have rampant sexual encounters with harems of your choice, or fly among the stars, walk accross the surface of the sun, sit on a beach that's perfect, stand on Mars etc. The bottom line is, eventually you seek a more enlightening experience.

I digress, my point is that it's Neuron activity that causes dreaming, which creates a model of external input. That's why it only happens in REM sleep, or pre-Delta sleep. It's a function of the physicality of the brain. Without that physicality, you can't imagine, visualise or dream anything, so to assume that by visualizing, imagining or dreaming in any way trains your 'self' how to do that without a physical body is a bit of a leap of logic. In fact we can even identify the exact part of the brain responsible for the 'visual' aspects of dreaming. In patients where this is damaged, while they go into the REM state, they literally don't dream. Doesn't sound like something innate to the self really.


Edited by MindFux (01/26/11 10:03 AM)
Edit Reason: Goat attack

Top
#47382 - 01/26/11 01:15 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Jason King]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2573
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Oh dear, oh dear ... I am once again reminded of John Steinbeck's Travels With Charley, at one point in which JS is so transfixed by the beauty of a vista before him that he seeks to share it with his Poodle (Charley). But the dog is intensely preoccupied with sniffing the base of a nearby tree and could not care less ...

 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., Black Magic
... It is this “self” that most people fear to lose in the event of bodily death. They simply don’t know how else they could know themselves to exist. Take away the reinforcing “hits” from the OU, and the “amorphous feeling” evaporates into nothingness, they fear, like going under a general anesthetic (which also, but temporarily, “removes all hits”).

The Initiate is challenged to find, in the words of Dr. Raghavan Iyer,

"... not the shadowy self or false egoity which merely reacts to external stimuli. Rather there is that Eye of Wisdom in every person which in deep sleep is fully awake and which has a translucent awareness of self-consciousness as pure, primordial light."

This is accomplished through reflective, non-reactive thinking. Thus the individual becomes aware of his authentic self (psyche, soul); and upon activating this as the locus of his consciousness, looks outward at phenomena at the same depth. In other words, the superficial “self” looks out at its level and sees OU events - like bodily pleasure/pain, blue sky, ringing telephones, time defined by clocks and calendars, and so forth. The core or true self, however, exists as a neter and, when looking outward, sees a SU not of the works of other neteru, but of those neteru themselves. One “machine” sees other “machinery”; one “creator/operator” sees other “creator/ operators” ...

If you are content or determined just to sniff around trees, I cannot force you to lift your head; and if I did so you would merely be annoyed at the silly interruption. Eventually, when & if you choose to make the effort & are sufficiently Awake [in the Ouspensky-sense], you will discover this for yourself. The neteru are in no partiular hurry; neither am I.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#47385 - 01/26/11 02:34 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
Fob off reply of the year. What you're saying is that, if one doesn't subscribe to your particular philosophy, then we're sniffing a tree, ignorantly. Yet I have not seen a jot of effort on your part to even defend your beliefset from rational critique from various parties, or illuminate the discussion. You merely re-state the fact that they are not enlightened enough to even comprehend the level of discourse you are producing, then present nothing but reposts of your own material as evidence thereof. (Even when that material has been the subject of their questions in the first instance).

On that basis, all evidence would seem to indicate that you grew your own tree and are sniffing it contently, while others are actually enjoying the vista you believe that your transcendent thinking has caused you to reach. In fact, you're just burrying your nose in a metaphorical tree of your own making unable to posit a justification beyond re-posting your own thesis on the subject, which was the cause of the critique in the first place.

The argument 'You're not sufficiently awake to get my message' essentially means that 1) There's no useful message contained therein because by definition it's unattainable to the uninitiated, so why post it in the first place and 2)It's an appeal to ego, as if to state that by the very act of requesting clarification of your world view people are somehow beneath you, neither of which are in any way logically valid positions, especially as your worldview is of untested merit on this particular point.

I think I'll remain climbing my own tree.

Top
#47387 - 01/26/11 03:00 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: M.A.A., Black Magic
... It is this “self” that most people fear to lose in the event of bodily death. They simply don’t know how else they could know themselves to exist. Take away the reinforcing “hits” from the OU, and the “amorphous feeling” evaporates into nothingness, they fear, like going under a general anesthetic (which also, but temporarily, “removes all hits”).

The Initiate is challenged to find, in the words of Dr. Raghavan Iyer,

"... not the shadowy self or false egoity which merely reacts to external stimuli. Rather there is that Eye of Wisdom in every person which in deep sleep is fully awake and which has a translucent awareness of self-consciousness as pure, primordial light."

This is accomplished through reflective, non-reactive thinking. Thus the individual becomes aware of his authentic self (psyche, soul); and upon activating this as the locus of his consciousness, looks outward at phenomena at the same depth. In other words, the superficial “self” looks out at its level and sees OU events - like bodily pleasure/pain, blue sky, ringing telephones, time defined by clocks and calendars, and so forth. The core or true self, however, exists as a neter and, when looking outward, sees a SU not of the works of other neteru, but of those neteru themselves. One “machine” sees other “machinery”; one “creator/operator” sees other “creator/ operators” ...


I'm not sure if what I think you are saying is correct but that was what I was pointing at with the remark: The real bitch is not even this data but the fact that we are also compiled out of data. So what is there that makes the difference? in the "What is Reality" mental masturbation contest.

The moment one realizes reality is a compilation/creation of the brain and that all data we perceive is produced there, one can't escape the conclusion that, since we are data, we are also a compilation of our brain and that, ultimately, even our brain is our compilation. So the real question is; what is causing that compilation, what is the very creator behind that?

I'm not sure if we're trying to catch the same fish but, from my perspective, they sure look similar.

D.

Top
#47388 - 01/26/11 03:19 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Diavolo]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
 Quote:
even our brain is our compilation


Everything you said logically followed from your premise to my mind, except this last point. While based on your premises which we'll assume are valid, I can get to the point where our conception/perception of the brain is a compilation or configuration of data, and even that the brain itself, may be a compilation of data (assuming once again the validity of your premises) I don't believe we can call our brain 'our' compilation, by virtue of the fact we can't even comprehend it, let alone claim to have consciously manifested, or compiled it to the extent required to own it.

What did you mean by 'our compilation?'

I guess what I'm wrestling with, if we are 'a compilation of our brain' then our brain is a compilation of itself, rather than our compilation of it, and thus we'd still be the result of an intangible 'first cause' or 'first compilation' from which we manifested that we could never reach no matter how far we subjectively strove for it, because by definition it would transcend the SU. Even if we are just a self compilatin of data that compiled a set of data to explicate ourselves and there's the rub, what you end up with solipsism with a twist, but in some weird soft varient where we can also acknowledge the external existance of an OU.


Edited by MindFux (01/26/11 03:33 PM)

Top
#47390 - 01/26/11 03:32 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: MindFux]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I can't answer what causes "our compilation" because that is the very part that puzzles me.

I see our "I" as a product of our brain. I don't believe in free will. We are a product driven by what our brain decides and the "I" merely acts under an illusion. But since the "I" is a compilation of the brain, and the brain appears to be a compilation too, there has to be something deeper that creates these emergencies. This could be called "Self" by lack of a better name. But what it is I can't say anything about besides that it appears to be an actor hiding; the deus ex machine.

My logic might be failing me however.

D.

Top
#47391 - 01/26/11 03:36 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Diavolo]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I can't answer what causes "our compilation" because that is the very part that puzzles me.

I see our "I" as a product of our brain. I don't believe in free will. We are a product driven by what our brain decides and the "I" merely acts under an illusion. But since the "I" is a compilation of the brain, and the brain appears to be a compilation too, there has to be something deeper that creates these emergencies. This could be called "Self" by lack of a better name. But what it is I can't say anything about besides that it appears to be an actor hiding; the deus ex machine.

My logic might be failing me however.

D.


I think your logic is valid, my only questions are with regards the premises, and nothing more and I'm even struggling with that. Why would the manifester of those compilations necessarily be the 'Self'?

I guess here's where the logical break comes in for me (if there is one). I firmly believe that reality is created by the brain, and then we experience that reality. However, if reality is created by the brain, and the brain is part of that reality then we have a logical problem. Either the brain self created, and manifested itself, or there is a higher cause. If we call that cause the self, then it indicates that we can access that higher cause, but to do so would mean transcending the very thing (the brain) that generates our reality for us in the first instance (including presumably our sense of self), which to my mind would be impossible, or at least it wouldn't be 'ours'.


Edited by MindFux (01/26/11 03:38 PM)
Edit Reason: clarification

Top
#47393 - 01/26/11 03:50 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: MindFux]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I call it Self by lack of a better name. X would be good too but Self limits the cause to one brain. Of course assuming that each individual brain has an individual cause.

To go back to computer metaphors; the icons on your screen are created by the programs on your computer and we know they are compiled by the computer itself. What we wonder about is who or what created the computer. Chinese is the probable answer in this case but in our case, it is not as easily answered.

I think deeper cause is more appropriate; higher ones tends to make it all look a bit spiritual.

For those thinking we are raving mad with these brain-reality ideas, I suggest Howard Bloom - Global Brain. I discovered it this week and it explains most of the basics.

We might look a tiny bit more sane after you digested it.

D.

Top
#47395 - 01/26/11 04:08 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: MindFux]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
I firmly believe that reality is created by the brain, and then we experience that reality. However, if reality is created by the brain, and the brain is part of that reality then we have a logical problem.

In the IT there is the general rule that if a endless loop occurs, a programming mistake has been made. Aplied to your reasoning I see a somewhat circular argument which indicates a flaw in reasoning.

In my honest opinion, reality is not created within our brain but merely PERCEIVED. This leaves space that our brain is a part of reality and more specifically a tool to perceive reality. Reality is reality no matter how we perceive it (in a different way).

Along came the question of "the self".
I agree with Diavolo that our brain consists out of data. The most commonly used comparisation is with a computer. A computer will only generate an answer when a certain input has been given. The answer on itself is dependent on:
- The available data (knowledge/education)
- The interpretation of the data (linking it with our knowledge already available)
- The calculations which are happening at the same time (sentiments, emotions, well being,..)
- The program that is being used (From which point of view should it be interpretated, mostly linked with our available knowledge)
- The basic protocols on which the machine run (in short: instincts)
- The processing unit (connections in the brain)
- Past experiences (for the computer that would be the user, for the human being simply "experience" and know-how)
-...

Taking all these different influences and mirroring them towards the human brain might just be an explanation for the seemingly different "I" in the world. All different yet alike.

But then again, I might just be wrong.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#47396 - 01/26/11 04:11 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Diavolo]
MindFux Offline
member


Registered: 12/27/10
Posts: 174
 Quote:
To go back to computer metaphors; the icons on your screen are created by the programs on your computer and we know they are compiled by the computer itself. What we wonder about is who or what created the computer. Chinese is the probable answer in this case but in our case, it is not as easily answered.


I agree completely with this analogy, and this is why I have trouble with ToS doctrine, or anything similar. I have to be logically convinced not only that our 'Self' or 'X' self manifested and then the brain is a mere manifestation of that 'Self', but also that the 'Self' or 'X' that manifested us is accessible to us via the brain. Too often the subjetive 'Sense of Self' and the various 'layers of self' and the subjective experience of psychology becomes offered as proof that we can access it, when all we in fact prove is that we can access a sense of 'self' not necessarily the 'Self'.

To use Lucid dreaming as an example. In a Lucid dream you can be conscious, and have all your normal mental faculty, but can still have the subjective impression of speaking to a 'dream figure' that is seemingly conscious, doesn't behave according to your will or expectation and that seemingly is aware of itself and seperate from you. Of course, as it's a dream you know that you're effectively talking to yourself, or some kind of thought form, but it's extremely convincing, and can withstand enormous scrutany. It can also inform you of things that concsiously at least you were not aware of. (This is of course a subjective experience). Does this mean the dream figure is a higher form of self, or is it just a conscious bit of your psyche. A bit of you that is manifested in the canvas of the dream?

I can make a fair case that when we believe we're communing with a 'higher self' or believe that we are, we're effectively doing nothing more than we are in a Lucid dream. We're engaging with a thought form, or a psychological impression. That's not to say that there isn't a higher 'Self' or 'X' or manifestor, simply that it's hard to state with certainty that you've reached it, rather than some other aspect of your psyche, purely through subjective experience or the description of the subjective experience of another. After all, much like conversations with dream people in dreams, people tend to ascribe their own meaning to the event. To one person it's a psychological experiment, to another they're in touch with an archetype from a circuit of consicousness, to another they're speaking to the 'higher self'.



Edited by MindFux (01/26/11 04:15 PM)

Top
#47398 - 01/26/11 04:21 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino) [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
In the IT there is the general rule that if a endless loop occurs, a programming mistake has been made. Aplied to your reasoning I see a somewhat circular argument which indicates a flaw in reasoning.


It would be a circular argument if the brain creates reality and reality creates the brain. But since the question is about the deeper cause behind this compiling device, there is no loop as far as I see it. That cause is beyond our reality.

D.

Top
Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »


Moderator:  TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Woland, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.029 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.