Page 1 of 6 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#45612 - 12/25/10 07:51 AM Concerning Isolate Psyche (re: M. Aquino)
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
The thread to which this is a continuation was locked, but therein, Dr. Aquino wrote:

 Originally Posted By: Michael Aquino
The isolate existence of the ba/psyche is discussed in some detail in Chapter #4 of Black Magic


And here is a small slice of that chapter:

 Originally Posted By: Michael Aquino
The essence of the psyche, stated Set in The Book of Coming Forth by Night, is such that its existence is neither dependent on the material nor imprisoned in it for testing or task fulfilling purposes. Rather the physical body provides a vehicle in which the psyche can become aware of itself and then reach out towards the limitlessness of its conscious existence.


My focus will be on the particular statement: "The essence of the psyche is such that its existence is n<ot> dependent on the material". And to my comprehension, this is demonstrably false.

Prior to the conception/birth (I'll leave aside the debate concerning the onset of personhood) of an individual, no psyche exists, therefore the latter is dependent in terms of origin.

The nascent psyche develops in complete accord with the material/physical development of the brain, as is evidenced by the field of developmental psychology, specifically that of very young children. Concepts, language, rationality, and emotions proceed hand in hand with repeated neuron-firings, thereby establishing such well-traveled "psychic highways". We have no single substantiated instance of a newborn quoting the sonnets of Shakespeare. The developing person must at some point be materially exposed to the works of the Bard before such a thing becomes possible. Therefore, the psyche is dependent in terms of development.

Damage the brain, and the psyche becomes damaged in perfect proportion. In many cases, we even know which precise areas of the brain, when damaged, will damage the psyche in exact synchronicity. Therefore, the psyche is dependent in terms of disorder.

When certain chemicals (be they called neurotransmitters or even drugs) are physically delivered to the brain, certain psychic effects follow without fail. Therefore, the psyche is dependent in terms of cause and effect.

I'll leave aside the brain death = psychic death issue due to the fact that is is incapable of either proof or disproof, and therefore must be considered a question of faith. I don't want to red-herring the discussion.

So, at least to my understanding of things, it is indisputable that the psyche is fully dependent on the material world (specifically the brain) for every feature of its genesis, development, and operation. Every piece of evidence we have scientifically acquired supports this position, and no piece of evidence exists which argues against it.

As an aside, my original critique of the doctrine of isolate intelligence was directed against a statement in The Book of Coming Forth by Night concerning the unnaturalness of consciousness vis a vis what is termed the "objective universe". I find these to be related issues insofar as the one is a global statement, while the other is a specific one. It remains to be demonstrated how such a "bicameral" worldview (if I may) makes any sense whatsoever. The unresolved issue of "binding" seems fatal even given no other reasons for dissent. But I'll leave that for future rejoinders . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#45623 - 12/25/10 04:36 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Jason King]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
Prior to the conception/birth (I'll leave aside the debate concerning the onset of personhood) of an individual, no psyche exists, therefore the latter is dependent in terms of origin.

The nascent psyche develops in complete accord with the material/physical development of the brain, as is evidenced by the field of developmental psychology, specifically that of very young children. Concepts, language, rationality, and emotions proceed hand in hand with repeated neuron-firings, thereby establishing such well-traveled "psychic highways". We have no single substantiated instance of a newborn quoting the sonnets of Shakespeare. The developing person must at some point be materially exposed to the works of the Bard before such a thing becomes possible. Therefore, the psyche is dependent in terms of development.

Damage the brain, and the psyche becomes damaged in perfect proportion. In many cases, we even know which precise areas of the brain, when damaged, will damage the psyche in exact synchronicity. Therefore, the psyche is dependent in terms of disorder.

When certain chemicals (be they called neurotransmitters or even drugs) are physically delivered to the brain, certain psychic effects follow without fail. Therefore, the psyche is dependent in terms of cause and effect.

The process of each incarnated psyche [I use the Greek term, because the more accurate and complex Egyptian comprehension of the ba, ka, etc. is a bit MEGO for this discussion] becoming self-aware through interface with its physical shell/systems I have sometimes analogized as "training wheels on a bicycle". When no longer needed, they - and in this case the material body and its subsystems - are discarded. If this happens prior to a P's full realization of itself, it will - as in your "physical damage" examples - be to a relevant extent incoherent. This has been extensively explored by a good many researchers - see Categories #17 & #19 of the Temple of Set Reading List - and was colorfully illustrated in the 1980 film of Paddy Chayefsky's Altered States.

The "awakened" P [and for this subtopic cf. Ouspensky's Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution & etc.] moves progressively into its own Subjective Universe, against which the Objective Universe becomes equally progressively just one of infinite optional frames of reference. A P failing to interact practically with the OU would be perceived as "insane" by intellects still completely bounded by it.

Indeed here, within the boundaries of computers, the Internet, the 600C collective, and a language built up from OU sensations, even this conversation is difficult. Yet initiation constantly pushes back this barrier, because the P is insistent upon fully realizing itself. Which, if I may suggest, is precisely why this issue induced you to start this thread. Depending upon your disposition, your adventure will be either this or this. "Enter freely and of your own will."
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#45634 - 12/26/10 07:28 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The process of each incarnated psyche becoming self-aware through interface with its physical shell/systems I have sometimes analogized as "training wheels on a bicycle".


My critique should be understood as going to the specific idea that there is some sort of "dividing line" between SU and OU; psyche and cosmos; microcosm and macrocosm, et al. I do not necessarily find your overall model to be ill-founded, rather I think you've infected it with an excessively dualistic interpretation.

Where you see opposition, I see synergy. Where you see a disconnect, I see a hyperconnected matrix of mystery.


 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
When no longer needed, they - and in this case the material body and its subsystems - are discarded. If this happens prior to a P's full realization of itself, it will - as in your "physical damage" examples - be to a relevant extent incoherent.


The question begged here is why such a thing as "isolate consciousness" would need any form of physical/material "training wheels" at all. This argument reminds me of a similar one made by Christians vis a vis free will vs. relative ignorance. When I've pressed these folks to explain why the divine remains empirically hidden, they invariably resort to a test/training wheels argument. Not trying to paint you with a brush here, just sayin' . . .

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The "awakened" P moves progressively into its own Subjective Universe, against which the Objective Universe becomes equally progressively just one of infinite optional frames of reference. A P failing to interact practically with the OU would be perceived as "insane" by intellects still completely bounded by it.


Double adverbs take skill, so I take my hat off to you, sir. But seriously, the point of contention is that there could be such a thing as an SU not bound to a corresponding OU. For me, neither makes any sense in isolation. Neither can be understood without reference to the other. I tend to use a mathematical analogy when explaining this: any relative measure presupposes a unit against which it must be understood. Without said unit, any so-called measure is meaningless, and correspondingly, a unit without any measures made relative to it would be a "thing" with no contrast (i.e. a nothing).

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Indeed here, within the boundaries of computers, the Internet, the 600C collective, and a language built up from OU sensations, even this conversation is difficult. Yet initiation constantly pushes back this barrier, because the P is insistent upon fully realizing itself. Which, if I may suggest, is precisely why this issue induced you to start this thread.


Outside of obscure Aristotelian notions such as "meditating on the good," I don't see how such initiations or realizations happen apart from or isolate to the phenomena of experience. And I think this is the ultimate bone of contention between us on this topic.

I hold that there can be so self (SU) without a corresponding world of experience (OU). Likewise the converse. And furthermore, there is no truly objective universe, it is an abstraction made by us to refer to that common background against which we all intuit phenomena with some degree of commonality.

JK
_________________________



Top
#45666 - 12/26/10 10:53 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Jason King]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Jason King
My critique should be understood as going to the specific idea that there is some sort of "dividing line" between SU and OU; psyche and cosmos; microcosm and macrocosm, et al. I do not necessarily find your overall model to be ill-founded, rather I think you've infected it with an excessively dualistic interpretation ... Where you see opposition, I see synergy. Where you see a disconnect, I see a hyperconnected matrix of mystery.

I'm not so sure we really differ here, since the P perceives and interacts with the OU through one or more SU "lenses". It cannot really do otherwise, since its external perspective requires such a translation. Many human problems, indeed, result from different SU perceptions & interpretations of the OU.

 Quote:
The question begged here is why such a thing as "isolate consciousness" would need any form of physical/material "training wheels" at all.

Well, let's take yourself as an example. How did you come to realize your existence and your distinction from everything else? By in effect bumping into things that weren't you. For noninitiates this is an OU experience, which is sufficient for a stimulus/response existence within the OU if that's all that matters. This is what I mean by a "training wheels" apprehension of personal identity.

The initiated or "awakened" P takes its sense of identity to the next level, because it is not content to relegate its existence to being just another OU bumper-car. It proceeds into pure, abstract SU creation and construction, at which point the OU becomes just one of many external "not-selves".

 Quote:
... the point of contention is that there could be such a thing as an SU not bound to a corresponding OU. For me, neither makes any sense in isolation. Neither can be understood without reference to the other.

Once the initial crutch/training-wheels of the OU is no longer necessary, it becomes optional. The P now creates and exists within its own SU, and can through it extend to the OU or for that matter to other SUs. But one's "core SU" does not need the OU to "define itself against" any longer, any more than you need OU involvement in your dreams each night.

 Quote:
I tend to use a mathematical analogy when explaining this: any relative measure presupposes a unit against which it must be understood. Without said unit, any so-called measure is meaningless, and correspondingly, a unit without any measures made relative to it would be a "thing" with no contrast (i.e. a nothing).

Within the OU I agree with you; see General Terclis' tech commentary to The Dark Side on my webpage. Also take a look at Appendix #66 "Perfect Symmetry" in my Temple of Set for another interesting OU-measuring phenomenon.

 Quote:
I hold that there can be no self (SU) without a corresponding world of experience (OU). Likewise the converse. And furthermore, there is no truly objective universe, it is an abstraction made by us to refer to that common background against which we all intuit phenomena with some degree.

In short, you are still inside the Big Room and so far have not seen beyond it nor exited it. This being the case, your contention is understandable. GBM is the "Silver Key" to the door, and your curiosity suggests to me that you will eventually use it. Not to prove/disprove anything to me, but because the P, once awakened, will not rest until it attains its full divinity.

I'm pretty sure that I posted "The Prince and the Magician" to 600C previously, but a "search" doesn't find it, so it may have been auto-removed by now. So here it is again:

 Originally Posted By: John Fowles, The Magus
THE PRINCE AND THE MAGICIAN

Once upon a time there was a young prince, who believed in all things but three. He did not believe in princesses, he did not believe in islands, he did not believe in God. His father, the king, told him that such things did not exist. As there were no princesses or islands in his father’s domaines, and no sign of God, the young prince believed his father.
But then, one day, the prince ran away from his palace. He came to the next land. There, to his astonishment, from every coast he saw islands, and on these islands, strange and troubling creatures whom he dared not name. As he was searching for a boat, a man in full evening dress approached him along the shore.
“Are those real islands?” asked the young prince.
“Of course they are real islands,” said the man in evening dress.
“And those strange and troubling creatures?”
“They are all genuine and authentic princesses.”
“Then God also must exist!” cried the prince.
“I am God,” replied the man in full evening dress, with a bow.
The young prince returned home as quickly as he could.
“So you are back,” said his father, the king.
“I have seen islands, I have seen princesses, I have seen God,” said the prince reproachfully.
The king was unmoved.
“Neither real islands, nor real princesses, nor a real God, exist.”
“I saw them!”
“Tell me how God was dressed.”
“God was in full evening dress.”
“Were the sleeves of his coat rolled back?”
The prince remembered that they had been. The king smiled.
“That is the uniform of a magician. You have been deceived.”
At this, the prince returned to the next land, and went to the same shore, where once again he came upon the man in full evening dress.
“My father the king has told me who you are,” said the young prince indignantly. “You deceived me last time, but not again. Now I know that those are not real islands and real princesses, because you are a magician.”
The man on the shore smiled.
“It is you who are deceived, my boy. In your father’s kingdom there are many islands and many princesses. But you are under your father’s spell, so you cannot see them.”
The prince returned pensively home. When he saw his father, he looked him in the eyes.
“Father, is it true that you are not a real king, but only a magician?”
The king smiled, and rolled back his sleeves.
“Yes, my son, I am only a magician.”
“Then the man on the shore was God.”
“The man on the shore was another magician.”
“I must know the real truth, the truth beyond magic.”
“There is no truth beyond magic,” said the king.
The prince was full of sadness.
He said, “I will kill myself.”
The king by magic caused death to appear. Death stood in the door and beckoned to the prince. The prince shuddered. He remembered the beautiful but unreal islands and the unreal but beautiful princesses.
“Very well,” he said. “I can bear it.”
“You see, my son,” said the king, “you too now begin to be a magician.”
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#45676 - 12/27/10 01:50 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
This and similar threads come up often enough. I believe the general question has to do with a state of being outside of the physical organic brain.

You can google around and search the forms where I have covered this before but I will give you Cliff Notes on this:

Quantum Computing -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_circuit

Makes perfect sense right? Well essentially, our brains seem to function very much like a theorized quantum computer. It seems very likely that much of our thought processes occur in an extra-dimensional quantum space and our feelings of consciousness and sentience are how we perceive these quantum effects.

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/penrose-hameroff/quantumcomputation.html

Put simply, much of our psyche exists in, and arguably interacts with, an extra-dimensional quantum universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

We can directly observe a bit of these quantum effects in wave-particle duality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

The fact that the quantum world allows for an apparent break down in Newtonian causality would seem to indicate that it is possible for ESP like phenomenon to occur within a quantum consciousness. I would argue that under the quantum consciousness model, the Setians may be on to something.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#45699 - 12/27/10 08:43 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
The initiated or "awakened" P takes its sense of identity to the next level, because it is not content to relegate its existence to being just another OU bumper-car. It proceeds into pure, abstract SU creation and construction, at which point the OU becomes just one of many external "not-selves".


This appears to communicate something of significance, and yet the more I pore over it, it says less and less each time. No offense. It's probably obvious that I'm not the biggest fan of the Fourth Way either . . .

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
Once the initial crutch/training-wheels of the OU is no longer necessary, it becomes optional. The P now creates and exists within its own SU, and can through it extend to the OU or for that matter to other SUs. But one's "core SU" does not need the OU to "define itself against" any longer, any more than you need OU involvement in your dreams each night.


I think the key word here is "dreams". You are describing a process that can ultimately be reduced to a dreaming model. And this, unfortunately makes it quite unremarkable. Perhaps most humans are incapable of this process, but it has always seemed natural to me. I've been doing the "SU shuffle" (if you will) since I was a child.

 Originally Posted By: Michael A.Aquino
In short, you are still inside the Big Room and so far have not seen beyond it nor exited it. This being the case, your contention is understandable. GBM is the "Silver Key" to the door, and your curiosity suggests to me that you will eventually use it. Not to prove/disprove anything to me, but because the P, once awakened, will not rest until it attains its full divinity.


This is a presumptuous set of statements. I happen to operate via a slightly different paradigm of gnosis. If I critique your use of terminology, and your excessive opposition between the posits "SU" and OU," it should probably be read as exactly that. To imply (or outright claim) that because one does not have a degree of fondness for ToS terminology, they must be "stuck in a box" is to greatly overstate your own worldview.

What has always struck me as interesting about your system is that on one hand, it appears to be a pure idealism, yet on the other, it is a hard dualism. I feel you have done this because you find idealism to be either indefensible philosophically or unlivable practically. I really don't know, and the last thing I want to do is put you in a "Big Room". ;\)

JK
_________________________



Top
#45700 - 12/27/10 08:47 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Fist]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
 Originally Posted By: Fist
The fact that the quantum world allows for an apparent break down in Newtonian causality would seem to indicate that it is possible for ESP like phenomenon to occur within a quantum consciousness. I would argue that under the quantum consciousness model, the Setians may be on to something.


I'm something of a mystic myself, so I won't play the pseudoscience card. However, I think there are far better models out there which encompass this reality. I tend to look East . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#45702 - 12/27/10 10:28 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Jason King]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Jason, I understand your point however, my opinion is based on observation of the facts.

When I look at the human brain as we understand it today, and I look at quantum mechanics as we understand it today, I (and many others who know more about each than me) can only conclude that our brains function as quantum computers processing most of our thoughts in extra-dimensional quantum space.

I have studied this subject up to the point that I am personally capable of understanding it. I provided some links that I think give a good overview of the subject matter. Beyond your affinity for the Oriental world view, what in the above science do you disagree with? In fact, I would argue that our science is increasingly validating more ancient theoretical systems.

Here are a few more links that explain the situation better than I can. Again, at a certain point even I hit the wall with this material. Don't worry if you don't understand everything in these systems. Most guys who work on this stuff in earnest have 'PhD' at the end of their names:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7084/full/440611a.html

http://www.quantummechanicsandreality.com/Primer/iia8_brain.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

In these sorts of conversations I am often reminded of Galileo. This is the basis of scientific discovery. Old knowledge is routinely replaced with new knowledge when better facts become available.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#45703 - 12/27/10 10:42 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Fist]
Jason King Offline
Banned/Martyrdom Denied
active member


Registered: 10/24/10
Posts: 731
Loc: 65?1%833Q!92A24 (It's a code)
Fist, I apologize for my imprecision. There was nothing wrong with any of the material you linked. I was referencing your statement to the effect that the ToS "may be onto something". My critique was toward their model, not much more . . .

JK
_________________________



Top
#45706 - 12/27/10 11:28 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Fist]
Aklo Offline
member


Registered: 08/03/10
Posts: 158
Hi Fist, Jason doesn't really want to do this, so I will step up and take whatever heat there is. First off, there doesn't appear to be anything significantly wrong with your links. They are properly tentative, and may give some insight into what we tend to think of as the "random" or even "free will" aspect of our thinking. The use of extra dimensions, in particular, is validated by quite a lot of modern physics.

The point where "pseudoscience" comes into the picture is when people like Sheldrake start using misconceptions of the uncertainty principle to postulate unfalsifiable "fields" and "resonances" to force an explanation for various commonplace phenomena that require no such explanation. (For example, dogs know their people are coming home because their senses of hearing and smell are significantly more acute, to such an extent that sniffing the air or cocking their head, for a dog, is neurologically similar to reading a book for us.)

The main error in layman / mystic understanding of QUIP is the idea that information can be transferred faster-than-light. This has not only not been demonstrated, but in fact has been shown to be false by numerous experiments. What actually appears to be happening is that information can occur holistically along a complete quantum interaction, regardless of how that interaction is spread out in time and space. Thus, while the observation process definitely affects the outcome, and "instantaneously" yes, the actual significance of that outcome cannot be seen until both ends of the interaction are known.

This is what keeps causality from breaking down on a macro scale at any time. The reason that I'm stressing this now is that you, if you don't want to be jumped by angry physicists, should tend to mention it whenever you speak of quantum tunneling and such in conjunction with magic. Something like "so far as we have seen in the lab, this never seems to break large-scale causality" would be more than enough disclaimer to keep you in the clear (unless you start talking about "energy", which is a whole 'nother thorny subject.)

Note that I'm not saying magic doesn't work, far from it. All I'm saying is, quantum physics has been so abused already in this area, that when an "occultist" even mentions it, alarm bells start going off and therefore it's a good idea to be extreeeeemely specific.

_________________________
Behold, I send you forth as wolves among sheep; eat Lambchop for supper and fuck Bo Peep!

Top
#47199 - 01/22/11 07:51 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Aklo]
Liane Offline
stranger


Registered: 01/21/11
Posts: 29
Loc: Germany
The TOS' basis is Ayn Rand's objectivism which has the main point of stating one objective universe (OU) which exists independently from the observer and is ruled by causality. Additionally, there is the subjective universe (SU) inside the consciousness of the oberver which receives data by the sense organs. There are as many SUs as there are observers, but there is only one OU. This does not just sound like some kind of naive realism - it is precisely that. This is the really lowest level of epistemology, normally held by people who have not even begun to cogitate about that matter. This is the level of the stupid herd.

The OU influences the SU, but since the OU is independent from the observer resp. from his SU, the reverse is not true: The SU does not have any influence upon the OU. In this context, learning means adapting the SU to the OU. It is obvious that due to the OU's objectivity, consciousness can only recognise but not create the OU. Creative magic is impossible here, man is creature and not creator. Now the TOSsers apply a little trick, claiming that conscious acts within the SR would change the OR, this is magic.

No! Exactly that is impossible because if it were possible, then the OU would not be objective any more. The OU does not depend on whatever is happening in the SR, that is the OU's very definition. The OU is ruled by causality, not by the SU. The whole point of objectivity vs. subjectivity would be lost.

Thinking this through, there would be no will because in the SU, consciousness only can react and not create, and the OU is ruled by causality. The objectivism "solves" this problem by redefining will as reason. But this is a sleight of hand which cannot hide that ultimately, man is redefined to be a machine. Reason is not will - reason is a means while will sets goals and uses reason as a tool.

So it is exactly the same as in plain old materialism - the step to objectivism is way too short, too faint-hearted, too small-minded for re-introducing the concept of will in a senseful manner. To put it clearly: as long as a Setian believes in objectivism, he has no will. Just like a TV watcher cannot design the programme but only change the channel. Admittedly, compared to Xtianiy, this is some progress - but how can a Setian be satisfied with that? Does being just a little superior to an Xtian make one elite?

So it becomes even funnier when the TOS throws Set into the OU/SU duality. Set is regarded as god of the SU. OK, then let him settle in the SU, right? That would be perfectly OK if he were seen as archetype or concept. But he is considered as independent person, and so he cannot settle in the SU even if he is the god of the SU.

What about locating him in the OU? Objectivism postulates that the sensual organs are the only means of access to the OU, and Set cannot be seen. So one could either suppose that also pure spirit can exist in the OU - which would let the whole OU/SU difference collapse. Or one could assume some kind of spiritual reality beyond the OU - which would have the same effect.

The TOS has inherited the objectivism from the Church of Satan (CoS) when the TOS parted from the CoS in 1975. The CoS people do not believe in a literal Satan or any other beings, they do not believe that these beings are independent persons in a theistic sense. Not even when they are used in rituals. There is a very good reason for this, namely that this would be totally incompatible with objectivism.

That the TOSsers started to believe in Set as independent intelligence basically shows that they did not grasp the implications of objectivism. It is a bit like stupid Xtians which take omnipotence, omniscience and all-bountifulness as ingredients for some entertaining theodicy problems instead of realising that their definition was nonsense. Setian theodicy, sounds good. It is completely superfluous due to the foundation upon erroneous logic. But it is certainly possible to collect quite a bunch of material and make a great song and dance about that in some pylons instead of sitting down just once and thinking logically.


Edited by Liane (01/22/11 07:56 PM)
_________________________
:) Autonomy without the State

Top
#47216 - 01/23/11 12:48 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Liane]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2548
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
 Originally Posted By: Liane
The TOS' basis is Ayn Rand's objectivism which has the main point of stating one objective universe (OU) which exists independently from the observer and is ruled by causality. Additionally, there is the subjective universe (SU) inside the consciousness of the oberver which receives data by the sense organs. There are as many SUs as there are observers, but there is only one OU. This does not just sound like some kind of naive realism - it is precisely that. This is the really lowest level of epistemology, normally held by people who have not even begun to cogitate about that matter. This is the level of the stupid herd.

I am not particularly bothered by childish pretentiousness such as this, but even the most loutish droolings that Setian philosophy derives in any way from the galloping penis-envy hysterics of Ayn Rand are a blasphemous abomination to the Elder Gods.

[Where Anton LaVey and the early Church of Satan are concerned, the lady has a point: Cf. The Church of Satan, Appendix #11.]

 Quote:
The OU influences the SU, but since the OU is independent from the observer resp. from his SU, the reverse is not true: The SU does not have any influence upon the OU.

Fiddlesticks. Our several SUs influence the OU all the time by rearranging its components according to our imaginative & creative desires [and, where the Great Unwashed are concerned, unfortunately too often by blundering ignorance and stupidity].

 Quote:
In this context, learning means adapting the SU to the OU. It is obvious that due to the OU's objectivity, consciousness can only recognise but not create the OU. Creative magic is impossible here, man is creature and not creator. Now the TOSsers apply a little trick, claiming that conscious acts within the SR would change the OR, this is magic.

Before the OU can be rearranged or exploited according to SU desires, the OU machinery must be recognized and its processes understood.

The OU as an entirety cannot to our knowledge be either created or destroyed, but simply rearranged - as for instance in the interaction of matter and energy, and more interestingly in the production of matter/antimatter from theoretical "nonexistence".

The lady broadly misuses the term "magic" concerning SU operations upon the OU; the proper term is Lesser Black Magic (LBM). Nor is LBM per se required for all SU operations upon the OU; the rearrangement of assorted OU substances into, say, an automobile is not so arcane as to merit the title LBM - except perhaps in the dream-quests of Enzo Ferrari, Colin Chapman, and Carroll Shelby.

 Quote:
No! Exactly that is impossible because if it were possible, then the OU would not be objective any more. The OU does not depend on whatever is happening in the SR, that is the OU's very definition. The OU is ruled by causality, not by the SU. The whole point of objectivity vs. subjectivity would be lost.

Train of thought way off the track here, as creative/convenient rearrangement/utilization of the OU does not alter its elements' or laws' existence.

 Quote:
... in the SU, consciousness only can react and not create, and the OU is ruled by causality. The objectivism "solves" this problem by redefining will as reason. But this is a sleight of hand which cannot hide that ultimately, man is redefined to be a machine. Reason is not will - reason is a means while will sets goals and uses reason as a tool.

Reason is another term for the aforeclarified process of recognizing and understanding the machinery (aka "natural law") according to which the OU functions consistently and reliably. Consequently basic needs & desires, such as owning an automobile, can be obtained by simple/complex application of that machinery. LBM comes into play when one wishes to create or experience a Ferrari, Lotus, or Cobra.

 Quote:
To put it clearly: as long as a Setian believes in objectivism, he has no will. Just like a TV watcher cannot design the programme but only change the channel. Admittedly, compared to Xtianiy, this is some progress - but how can a Setian be satisfied with that? Does being just a little superior to an Xtian make one elite?

Since Setians are not Randian "objectivists", this is all beside the point.

 Quote:
So it becomes even funnier when the TOS throws Set into the OU/SU duality. Set is regarded as god of the SU. OK, then let him settle in the SU, right? That would be perfectly OK if he were seen as archetype or concept. But he is considered as independent person, and so he cannot settle in the SU even if he is the god of the SU. What about locating him in the OU? Objectivism postulates that the sensual organs are the only means of access to the OU, and Set cannot be seen. So one could either suppose that also pure spirit can exist in the OU - which would let the whole OU/SU difference collapse. Or one could assume some kind of spiritual reality beyond the OU - which would have the same effect.



 Quote:
The TOS has inherited the objectivism from the Church of Satan (COS) when the TOS parted from the COS in 1975.

Whatever the Temple of Set carried forward from the Church of Satan in 1975, Ayn Rand was not included. Indeed I think it is fair to say that Anton's early (ca. '66-68) invocations of Rand had nothing to do with her clumsy "objectivism", but just with the notion of "heroic affirmation" that her fictional male-fantasies struggled so desperately to caricature. [A brief pause here while Patricia Neal takes out her female frustrations on Gary Cooper with her riding-crop.]

It got tedious over the years having all sorts of would-be faster-guns-in-the-west trying to out-draw the Temple of Set. Just as it was tedious in the 1966-75 Church of Satan. It becomes mildly humorous when the would-be Clint Eastwood [or Annie Oakley] executes a snappy fast-draw and then shoots his [or her] foot off.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#47218 - 01/23/11 01:11 AM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
But...but...but... on her profile, she lists one of her hobbies as "setian philosophy."

Must be the AUSTRIAN Setians.

Let me get a Diet Coke.... this might get interesting.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#47245 - 01/23/11 12:38 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Jake999]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
And, I will offer this to mix:

In Psychology it is sometimes called the 'cognitive pyramid' - words, thoughts, actions.

Thoughts beget words or actions.

Actions are perceived and give rise to thoughts.

Words are perceived by the listener and give rise to thoughts.

And so on, and so on, in no particular order.

So, in the most basic sense, a SU perception or thought can give rise to very real OU effects. Never discount the power of subjective reality to influence the physical universe.

Is anyone still confused?
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#47262 - 01/23/11 04:52 PM Re: Concerning Isolate Psyche [Re: Fist]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
First off, I’m grateful for my brief time in the ToS. Since joining, and leaving, I’ve made significant strides for the better. I attribute this to the general ToS theme of self sufficiency that was drummed into my head while I was there.

That said, it seems to me that these OU/SU philosophical arguments are more potato/potahto than anything else. Is it really important whether one thinks of the SU as separate from the OU or merely unique within it? Does it matter whether one believes someone/something named Set gave us our consciousness or we acquired it through some other means? I don’t think so. I think it all comes down to this: If I want shit done, I make it happen.

I strongly doubt that Bill Gates would care to contribute to such debates. He’s too busy getting shit done. The same probably goes for Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg and Donald Trump. I guess my question is, why do such debates matter?
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
Page 1 of 6 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.033 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.