Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
"Do you consider reality to be an extension of thought" - You seem to happily replace the word thought with thoughts as if the context alluded to doesnt make a significant difference. Whats the difference in your world between thought and thoughts? That might help get us on the same pagfe so you at least can begin to understand what I am suggesting as it seems you dont as you keep swapping out these words as if it makes no difference, when it really does.
"Do you consider reality to be an extension of thought" - You seem to happily replace the word thought with thoughts as if the context alluded to doesnt make a significant difference. Whats the difference in your world between thought and thoughts? That might help get us on the same pagfe so you at least can begin to understand what I am suggesting as it seems you dont as you keep swapping out these words as if it makes no difference, when it really does.
You appear to be suggesting that the substance of reality outside of the mind and the substance of experience within the mind are equal, and are calling this thought (or thoughts, as you are also swapping these words out without alluding to any difference since your original post.) I do not necessarily agree with this idea.
I do think the you could continue to break everything down until you reach a point where there is no differentiation between anything, and that separation itself might be considered an illusion. But I think it is an infinitely complex illusion that can't really be simplified down to thoughts.
In this context I am using thought/thoughts interchangeably because you were speaking of the mind and it's processes. I consider these to be a form of active mental awareness, rather than a passive experience of autonomous information processing. This active mental principle is how I am using the word thought(s).
If the whole point you're getting at is a concept equating thought with the whole principle of description. That information itself is equal to thought. Then sure, I might agree that physical reality is an extension of thought. But this isn't what I consider those words to mean, and isn't how I read the topic.
Post automatically merged:
Do you consider consciousness to be synonymous with thought, or do you think these are separate?
In the context of my posts here I'm using thought to mean conscious thought. The way that I see some of this, and it relates to my views regarding animism, is that what we call consciousness is this principle of active mental awareness. We have this, but can't know for sure what causes it or what else might have it beyond ourselves. The scientific view that it arises from complex interactions of our brain tells us that dogs most likely have it, while crabs most likely do not. However it's pretty obvious a crab processes information from it's environment and responds to it. And in this same way a grain of sand processes information from it's environment, and translates it into movement and scratches on it's surface. If we're to consider the information processing and response of a bacterium to constitute thought, then the same information processing of a wooden chair likewise constitutes thought. And by this definition objects would certainly have thoughts. I'm not sure you could continue down this specific line of reasoning to say that they are thought though.
Damn, all of you are some smart motherfuckers. I feel intimidated.
BushWhisperer, Solyx, Ewise, everybody. Super impressed by you all guys. Great stuff, everybody. I am honored to be here with you, seriously
OK, I was raised very secular, but my grimoire practice very dramatically opened my eyes to a vastly more weird and wonderful universe, culminating in some stunning revelations (or impactful UPG) in the Thelemic / Folk Catholic visions. Which somehow made total sense with what I was experiencing in my grimoire evocation. These vision sync with Neoplatonism and daimons as administers of your Fate, but that is another deep topic.
I also don't like searching for a philosophical framework ahead of practice (not suggesting anyone is), but I prefer add complexity to my operative models only if it helps make sense and integrate of the effects of the practice. I do this very carefully, and it took decades to wind up where I am now
In my experiences in evocation, which I have been engaged with since the 1990s, I struggled with for many years before I simply just said, "fuck it, I am an intellectually indefensible materialist." Gordon White revitalized animism, and I was like, "Yeah, spirits, 100%." But I'm also uncomfortable with some of the neo-pagan / spooky naturalist versions of this that make humans subservient to the "gods" where all we can do is fall down on our knees and worship them. Neoplatonism places us back in the center of Creation, which I feel is accurate.
I think we are all fine with "All is Mind," but struggle with how that all gets individualized into us, the world, and as daimons (pardon, I am basically a Neoplatonist, and a Christian Neoplatonist with TONS of caveats and qualifications).
BushWhisperer is asking a great question which I honor. Apologies, you are a nuanced thinker, and I apologize for not recognizing it earlier.
You asked, "How does that relate to panpsychism and to animism?"
We don't have a solid , steelmanned Low Platonism, or Sublunar Platonism quite yet. I hope we can all contribute to this. That is my main philopsical interest becasue i feel if it might an help newcomers with their own trad grim practice It is nice to have company on the road.
Taking points from Patrick Harpur and Bernardo Kastrup, as well as the experiences of Gen-X magicians, I started articulating what I call 'Daimonic Idealism, ' which is just an up-to-date term for what we might call 'Operative Platonism,' or' Low Platonism,' starting with Iamblichus, and continued on in the grimoires as well as folk magic practices.
Using Bernardo Kastrup's dreamed-up reality and Patrick Harpur's Neoplatonic Daimonic Reality to try to speak to the question, " How does that relate to panpsychism and animism?"
Well, Daimonic Idealism uses Bernardo Kastrup’s top-down Analytic Idealism to bridge Patrick Harpur’s imaginal Neoplatonism by philosophically grounding Animism while also reframing Panpsychism. Phew!
Standard panpsychism attempts to solve the hard problem of consciousness by building mind from the bottom up - and by basically giving us a silly vision of materialism with sparkle magic.
Panpsychism still assumes physical matter is fundamental and slaps a bit of the sparkly glitter of consciousness onto every electron. This instantly runs into the combination problem and fails to explain how billions of micro-experiences stitch together into a coherent human mind - or a grimoire daimon, I will add.
Daimonic Idealism rejects this physicalist frame. Using Kastrup, matter doesn't contain mind. Matter is simply what a mental process looks like from across from our dissociative perceptual boundary. You don't need glittery micro-minds in atoms, because the universe is already a single, transpersonal Mind-at-Large (the Anima Mundi) , alng with with what we can surmise is is a super consiousness of The One. The qaualites of the One are still hotly debated in esoteric circles.
And Animism proposes a world alive with distinct, relational non-human agencies (spirits, land genii, place-memorie, fae, daimons, etc, ). Daimonic Idealism is a still ery flimsy attempt to give this ancient worldview a modern, steelmanned ontology. Spirit have their own agencies as localized complexes within Mind-at-Large, possessing their own boundary of awareness, per Kastrup.
Then, per Harpur and Iamblichus, they inhabit the Sublunar / Imaginal realm - the middle terrain between pure unmanifest archetype and dense physical projection.
In grimoire evocation, you aren't "hallucinating" nor are you interacting with physical biological organisms. You are engaging with autonomous, non-human complexes within the Soul of the World that also reflect deep processes in what we used to call the "soul."
There are elements here that need refining.
Under Iamblican theurgy and Idealism, because the macrocosm and microcosm share the same mental substrate, an autonomous external daimosn in Mind-at-Large naturally resonates with a corresponding structural node in the practitioner's own psyche. My solve here is Dual-Aspect Monism, but that is another topic
And to place human sovereignty back on the table we need to talk about why Neoplatonism > Neo-Pagan Worship. Neoplatonism putts humans back at the center of Creation to the concept of the Nous (divine spark). In Solomonic/Iamblican magic, the magician doesn't grovel because the human operator acts from the divine central axis, but as mediating between high archetypes and low sublunar spirits. This need some futher unpacking for folks.
And then the role of grimoire tech as a "Sublunar Interface. We need to find a way to desscibe how why grimoire rituals use physical tools like lamens, incense, seals, circles. bit as a way of communiatin,as alangeage, that also does not erase simpfied magic practice. Ihave a few idea, but we hav von rach any type of consensus ere. In a Sublunar Platonism, these physical components of tad pratice aren't causes - they are synthemata (divine tokens/symbols) that allow an individualised consiouess as Mind-at-Large to bridge the dissociative boundary and manifest in the imaginal/sensory space of the operator.
Godammit, you guys are gonna kill me. That is all I have for now. Thank you ll for propsing such compelling questions and ideas.
Post automatically merged:
Pardon. That should have read, "... before I simply just said, "fuck it, I am an intellectually indefensible medievalist "
Damn, all of you are some smart motherfuckers. I feel intimidated.
BushWhisperer, Solyx, Ewise, everybody. Super impressed by you all guys. Great stuff, everybody. I am honored to be here with you, seriously
OK, I was raised very secular, but my grimoire practice very dramatically opened my eyes to a vastly more weird and wonderful universe, culminating in some stunning revelations (or impactful UPG) in the Thelemic / Folk Catholic visions. Which somehow made total sense with what I was experiencing in my grimoire evocation. These vision sync with Neoplatonism and daimons as administers of your Fate, but that is another deep topic.
I also don't like searching for a philosophical framework ahead of practice (not suggesting anyone is), but I prefer add complexity to my operative models only if it helps make sense and integrate of the effects of the practice. I do this very carefully, and it took decades to wind up where I am now
In my experiences in evocation, which I have been engaged with since the 1990s, I struggled with for many years before I simply just said, "fuck it, I am an intellectually indefensible materialist." Gordon White revitalized animism, and I was like, "Yeah, spirits, 100%." But I'm also uncomfortable with some of the neo-pagan / spooky naturalist versions of this that make humans subservient to the "gods" where all we can do is fall down on our knees and worship them. Neoplatonism places us back in the center of Creation, which I feel is accurate.
I think we are all fine with "All is Mind," but struggle with how that all gets individualized into us, the world, and as daimons (pardon, I am basically a Neoplatonist, and a Christian Neoplatonist with TONS of caveats and qualifications).
BushWhisperer is asking a great question which I honor. Apologies, you are a nuanced thinker, and I apologize for not recognizing it earlier.
You asked, "How does that relate to panpsychism and to animism?"
We don't have a solid , steelmanned Low Platonism, or Sublunar Platonism quite yet. I hope we can all contribute to this. That is my main philopsical interest becasue i feel if it might an help newcomers with their own trad grim practice It is nice to have company on the road.
Taking points from Patrick Harpur and Bernardo Kastrup, as well as the experiences of Gen-X magicians, I started articulating what I call 'Daimonic Idealism, ' which is just an up-to-date term for what we might call 'Operative Platonism,' or' Low Platonism,' starting with Iamblichus, and continued on in the grimoires as well as folk magic practices.
Using Bernardo Kastrup's dreamed-up reality and Patrick Harpur's Neoplatonic Daimonic Reality to try to speak to the question, " How does that relate to panpsychism and animism?"
Well, Daimonic Idealism uses Bernardo Kastrup’s top-down Analytic Idealism to bridge Patrick Harpur’s imaginal Neoplatonism by philosophically grounding Animism while also reframing Panpsychism. Phew!
Standard panpsychism attempts to solve the hard problem of consciousness by building mind from the bottom up - and by basically giving us a silly vision of materialism with sparkle magic.
Panpsychism still assumes physical matter is fundamental and slaps a bit of the sparkly glitter of consciousness onto every electron. This instantly runs into the combination problem and fails to explain how billions of micro-experiences stitch together into a coherent human mind - or a grimoire daimon, I will add.
Daimonic Idealism rejects this physicalist frame. Using Kastrup, matter doesn't contain mind. Matter is simply what a mental process looks like from across from our dissociative perceptual boundary. You don't need glittery micro-minds in atoms, because the universe is already a single, transpersonal Mind-at-Large (the Anima Mundi) , alng with with what we can surmise is is a super consiousness of The One. The qaualites of the One are still hotly debated in esoteric circles.
And Animism proposes a world alive with distinct, relational non-human agencies (spirits, land genii, place-memorie, fae, daimons, etc, ). Daimonic Idealism is a still ery flimsy attempt to give this ancient worldview a modern, steelmanned ontology. Spirit have their own agencies as localized complexes within Mind-at-Large, possessing their own boundary of awareness, per Kastrup.
Then, per Harpur and Iamblichus, they inhabit the Sublunar / Imaginal realm - the middle terrain between pure unmanifest archetype and dense physical projection.
In grimoire evocation, you aren't "hallucinating" nor are you interacting with physical biological organisms. You are engaging with autonomous, non-human complexes within the Soul of the World that also reflect deep processes in what we used to call the "soul."
There are elements here that need refining.
Under Iamblican theurgy and Idealism, because the macrocosm and microcosm share the same mental substrate, an autonomous external daimosn in Mind-at-Large naturally resonates with a corresponding structural node in the practitioner's own psyche. My solve here is Dual-Aspect Monism, but that is another topic
And to place human sovereignty back on the table we need to talk about why Neoplatonism > Neo-Pagan Worship. Neoplatonism putts humans back at the center of Creation to the concept of the Nous (divine spark). In Solomonic/Iamblican magic, the magician doesn't grovel because the human operator acts from the divine central axis, but as mediating between high archetypes and low sublunar spirits. This need some futher unpacking for folks.
And then the role of grimoire tech as a "Sublunar Interface. We need to find a way to desscibe how why grimoire rituals use physical tools like lamens, incense, seals, circles. bit as a way of communiatin,as alangeage, that also does not erase simpfied magic practice. Ihave a few idea, but we hav von rach any type of consensus ere. In a Sublunar Platonism, these physical components of tad pratice aren't causes - they are synthemata (divine tokens/symbols) that allow an individualised consiouess as Mind-at-Large to bridge the dissociative boundary and manifest in the imaginal/sensory space of the operator.
Godammit, you guys are gonna kill me. That is all I have for now. Thank you ll for propsing such compelling questions and ideas.
Post automatically merged:
Pardon. That should have read, "... before I simply just said, "fuck it, I am an intellectually indefensible medievalist "
I think I got most of that, but I'll need to experience them more myself to comprehend the imaginal and the distinctness of daimons. Whenever I dip an toe in, it can feel like others have been swimming their whole lives.
Damn, all of you are some smart motherfuckers. I feel intimidated.
BushWhisperer, Solyx, Ewise, everybody. Super impressed by you all guys. Great stuff, everybody. I am honored to be here with you, seriously
OK, I was raised very secular, but my grimoire practice very dramatically opened my eyes to a vastly more weird and wonderful universe, culminating in some stunning revelations (or impactful UPG) in the Thelemic / Folk Catholic visions. Which somehow made total sense with what I was experiencing in my grimoire evocation. These vision sync with Neoplatonism and daimons as administers of your Fate, but that is another deep topic.
I also don't like searching for a philosophical framework ahead of practice (not suggesting anyone is), but I prefer add complexity to my operative models only if it helps make sense and integrate of the effects of the practice. I do this very carefully, and it took decades to wind up where I am now
In my experiences in evocation, which I have been engaged with since the 1990s, I struggled with for many years before I simply just said, "fuck it, I am an intellectually indefensible materialist." Gordon White revitalized animism, and I was like, "Yeah, spirits, 100%." But I'm also uncomfortable with some of the neo-pagan / spooky naturalist versions of this that make humans subservient to the "gods" where all we can do is fall down on our knees and worship them. Neoplatonism places us back in the center of Creation, which I feel is accurate.
I think we are all fine with "All is Mind," but struggle with how that all gets individualized into us, the world, and as daimons (pardon, I am basically a Neoplatonist, and a Christian Neoplatonist with TONS of caveats and qualifications).
BushWhisperer is asking a great question which I honor. Apologies, you are a nuanced thinker, and I apologize for not recognizing it earlier.
You asked, "How does that relate to panpsychism and to animism?"
We don't have a solid , steelmanned Low Platonism, or Sublunar Platonism quite yet. I hope we can all contribute to this. That is my main philopsical interest becasue i feel if it might an help newcomers with their own trad grim practice It is nice to have company on the road.
Taking points from Patrick Harpur and Bernardo Kastrup, as well as the experiences of Gen-X magicians, I started articulating what I call 'Daimonic Idealism, ' which is just an up-to-date term for what we might call 'Operative Platonism,' or' Low Platonism,' starting with Iamblichus, and continued on in the grimoires as well as folk magic practices.
Using Bernardo Kastrup's dreamed-up reality and Patrick Harpur's Neoplatonic Daimonic Reality to try to speak to the question, " How does that relate to panpsychism and animism?"
Well, Daimonic Idealism uses Bernardo Kastrup’s top-down Analytic Idealism to bridge Patrick Harpur’s imaginal Neoplatonism by philosophically grounding Animism while also reframing Panpsychism. Phew!
Standard panpsychism attempts to solve the hard problem of consciousness by building mind from the bottom up - and by basically giving us a silly vision of materialism with sparkle magic.
Panpsychism still assumes physical matter is fundamental and slaps a bit of the sparkly glitter of consciousness onto every electron. This instantly runs into the combination problem and fails to explain how billions of micro-experiences stitch together into a coherent human mind - or a grimoire daimon, I will add.
Daimonic Idealism rejects this physicalist frame. Using Kastrup, matter doesn't contain mind. Matter is simply what a mental process looks like from across from our dissociative perceptual boundary. You don't need glittery micro-minds in atoms, because the universe is already a single, transpersonal Mind-at-Large (the Anima Mundi) , alng with with what we can surmise is is a super consiousness of The One. The qaualites of the One are still hotly debated in esoteric circles.
And Animism proposes a world alive with distinct, relational non-human agencies (spirits, land genii, place-memorie, fae, daimons, etc, ). Daimonic Idealism is a still ery flimsy attempt to give this ancient worldview a modern, steelmanned ontology. Spirit have their own agencies as localized complexes within Mind-at-Large, possessing their own boundary of awareness, per Kastrup.
Then, per Harpur and Iamblichus, they inhabit the Sublunar / Imaginal realm - the middle terrain between pure unmanifest archetype and dense physical projection.
In grimoire evocation, you aren't "hallucinating" nor are you interacting with physical biological organisms. You are engaging with autonomous, non-human complexes within the Soul of the World that also reflect deep processes in what we used to call the "soul."
There are elements here that need refining.
Under Iamblican theurgy and Idealism, because the macrocosm and microcosm share the same mental substrate, an autonomous external daimosn in Mind-at-Large naturally resonates with a corresponding structural node in the practitioner's own psyche. My solve here is Dual-Aspect Monism, but that is another topic
And to place human sovereignty back on the table we need to talk about why Neoplatonism > Neo-Pagan Worship. Neoplatonism putts humans back at the center of Creation to the concept of the Nous (divine spark). In Solomonic/Iamblican magic, the magician doesn't grovel because the human operator acts from the divine central axis, but as mediating between high archetypes and low sublunar spirits. This need some futher unpacking for folks.
And then the role of grimoire tech as a "Sublunar Interface. We need to find a way to desscibe how why grimoire rituals use physical tools like lamens, incense, seals, circles. bit as a way of communiatin,as alangeage, that also does not erase simpfied magic practice. Ihave a few idea, but we hav von rach any type of consensus ere. In a Sublunar Platonism, these physical components of tad pratice aren't causes - they are synthemata (divine tokens/symbols) that allow an individualised consiouess as Mind-at-Large to bridge the dissociative boundary and manifest in the imaginal/sensory space of the operator.
Godammit, you guys are gonna kill me. That is all I have for now. Thank you ll for propsing such compelling questions and ideas.
Post automatically merged:
Pardon. That should have read, "... before I simply just said, "fuck it, I am an intellectually indefensible medievalist "
You present a lot of interesting points to think about here as well. I'd just like to touch on a couple of them from my perspective.
If I'm understanding neoplatonism correctly (and I wouldn't be surprised if I'm not), The One first emanates Nous which might be understood as the principle of ideas/information, I would correlate this with the concept of yinyang, which is the foundation of information(without this principle of separation, there is no way to speak of a thing.) To this point I'm basically in agreement. From Nous arises Psyche, which is the principle animating force. Then Humans, then the rest of creation. And the reason why Humans are special is because they exist between the spiritual and material realms?
And Kastrup’s top-down Analytic Idealism is, to oversimplify, a theory of All-is-Mind/Consciousness?
If we are to consider Nous/ideas/information=thought, then it is my view that yes, this might be considered the core thing underlying all of existence. From there, we only see increasingly complex combinations of this thing. What most people consider consciousness is, in my view, a very complex expression of this thing interacting with itself. By this I mean the self-awareness we humans and some other animals experience. I do not equate the thought process of a snail with consciousness, for example, but I do think that the underlying principle, the stuff that it's made of, might be considered to be the same. Same with the underlying stuff that makes up a bowling ball, or a sine wave, or a laser beam.
I do not view humans as uniquely special, but I do think that we are the single most complex expression of reality that we interact with. It is this complexity of our nature that gives us the ability to do what we do, in my view. The will to generate more complex expressions of reality is at the core of our nature, which is what allows us to produce a new song, or a new game, or whatever else may align with our individual will. Spirits do what they will as it aligns with their nature, and serve or hinder our purposes depending on how and where their influence is applied. In my view, they may be brought under our authority because our nature is vastly more complex than theirs, and through us their own will has a direct route to manifest. I think that it's the only thing they really want, to express their own will as an extension of our own (in practice sometimes this seems to be the furthest from the truth, but this is still how I've come to see it.) This is at least a core component I think is at play here.
The symbols and tools of ritual are there entirely for communication, as an expression of language. And in the same way we might describe the whole of reality as thought, one could also describe it as language. Increasingly complex expressions of an idea communicating with itself.
I've approached the topic from a couple different angles, and the reason comes down to language and semantics. Depending on the meaning of the words we're using, I might agree or disagree. Hopefully this translates to whoever reads what I write. This is a very thought provoking topic @BushWhisperer
Roughly, yes. It's not a bad model, but I’d avoid calling it top-down. And for grim trad magicians it still needs a more robust daimoinc / animistic / "sublunar" aspect articulated, but pairs well with Harpur. Harpur helps us see how Iamblichus fixes Proclus.
Consciousness is the sole substrate, and the physical is the extrinsic appearance of mental processes. But it’s not a top-down causation structure. It collapses the top/bottom distinction into one ontological category. So Kastrup gives us the monism , saying 'all is consciousness' but Harpur, as a sort of Sublunar Platonism, gives us the phenomenology of that monism as the daimonic, imaginative, emotionally charged realm through which consciousness differentiates itself into the sublunar world of magic, the paranormal, poltegeist phenomena, art, daimons, the passion,and sorcery.
(Sorcery is a different kind of magic than the Hermetic Mind Manifestation of New Thought and Chaos Magic - which I love, btw . It can be more raw, and much, much meaner.)
If we add to Kastrup Patrick Harpur’s Daimonic Reality, we get the particular ways the One consciousness manifests. In the Neoplatonic ‘Chain of Manifestation’ the gap between the One and the Many becomes, in Harpur’s terms, the Daimonic realm, as the Anima Mundi or World-Soul. This is not an abstract emanation but is the realm of Imagination itself, the daimons, paranormal manifestation, demons ,angels, fae, and the operative layer of spirit evocation.
It too is not perfect, and need some work to include more animism I feel, but in this chain, the daimons are the particular agents of manifestation as autonomous, affective, shape-shifting forces (and beings) . They are how the One shows up as this muse, or that terror, or an apparition, as well as our personal Daimon. But then so are we. And the sublunar world - our world of generation and decay - is where this chain is felt as emotion and expressed. Emotion is the daimonic tone (Valance? Looking for a better word here.) of the descent. Even 'mundane' art is a theurgic act of bringing a daimonic into particular form.
I notice a lot of talk of The One like it's a mind that has thoughts, so I'll just chime in with some specific knowledge that comes from information theory and undecidability results in mathematics
Claude Shannon formulated information theory as useful signal distinguished from noise. Basically one can think of this as signal divided by noise.
Now, The One is infinite consciousness, right? What happens when you divide a number by infinity? Think about it.
You can also think about it in terms of undecidability. The spiritual maxim for this is, "the teeth cannot bite themselves", or "the Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao". God is defined as the being who, when considering its relationship with everything else, finds no other. God has no one to call Him by His name. God is the creator of reality and so is Himself, not real.
Post automatically merged:
I am not a thought in God's mind. God does not have a mind. God is the sum total of all of consciousness. An infinite canvas that when taken as a whole, is nothing.
I am better described as what functional programming and Category Theory call a Monad. A localized bit of sense-making that has an interface to reason about the undifferentiated void made of the entirety of the rest of consciousness that most people call God.
So @BushWhisperer, while uttering the word "thought" can be construed to refer to everything, I don't think this is an epistemic justification for saying that everything is a thought and internally believing it to be dogmatically true.
I was wondering what your thoughts were with regards to the nature of reality.
Do you consider reality to be an extension of thought?
Do you consider objects as being thoughts?
Or even living beings in their own right?
(Albeit a different order of life altogether.)
How does that relate to panpsychism and to animism?
Do you consider panpsychism and animism as being two sides of a singular coin?
This is an idea that I think is really worthy of consideration. We were churning this out during a conversation this weekend on a live panel.
I have time-stamped the specific part of the conversation for convenience
So I thought to bring it here and share it with you guys. What do you think? What are your views?
Ps. Sorry I couldnt embed the stream here as it was a livestream and WF struggles with video recordings of liveStreams
My personal view, which is animist-ish: Consciousness is the primary state of being of the universe. The physical world is a condensate of consciousness. Sure, a vast, grand cosmic consciousness, but it's sort of like superstring theory, if the strings and vibrations were based on consciousness.
Can objects be extensions of thought? Sure, someone's thought. Maybe not ours as individuals descended into this plane for the experience, as we're busy with all the stimulation of our bodies. That being said, I also believe that every physical object has a "limb" so to speak, some part of it, in a non-physical dimension. Every stone, every brick, every tree, has some meta limb that pokes into a spiritual plane, proportional to the level of entropy that object keeps. Built objects that absorb the energy and intent of those building them would have a larger meta limb or whatever than a random rock or pile of soil. Which is exactly how things can be imbued with energy, places can hold spirits, or an object can retain data used in psychometry. Places and buildings can absorb over centuries the same energy as egregoes need to become something more than themselves. Spiritual locations especially, like churches or grottoes or sacred lands, and it's sort of like bootstrapping the spiritual in reverse. Ultimately, the meta/spiritual plane is a data plane anyway. it doesn't need mass or entropy to exist and do its thing. The energy we put into changing or creating in the spiritual does work there.
Are things alive? Not in this model in the same way that a cat or a tree are alive, but as all things would be condensates of consciousness, all things are "conscious" in a sense. Advanced spiritual journeyers can on rare occasion (or often by accident) jump into objects and experience life as a rock, or a stapler, or whatever. Similar to how people who have near death experiences get a life review, and live their life from the perspective of other people in their lives. They experience their behaviors through others as they felt. Which should terrify anyone not already going through life with empathy.
Be nice to people, places, animals, and things. Act with kindness in your heart and you'll be OK.
I notice a lot of talk of The One like it's a mind that has thoughts, so I'll just chime in with some specific knowledge that comes from information theory and undecidability results in mathematics
Claude Shannon formulated information theory as useful signal distinguished from noise. Basically one can think of this as signal divided by noise.
Now, The One is infinite consciousness, right? What happens when you divide a number by infinity? Think about it.
You can also think about it in terms of undecidability. The spiritual maxim for this is, "the teeth cannot bite themselves", or "the Dao that can be named is not the eternal Dao". God is defined as the being who, when considering its relationship with everything else, finds no other. God has no one to call Him by His name. God is the creator of reality and so is Himself, not real.
Post automatically merged:
I am not a thought in God's mind. God does not have a mind. God is the sum total of all of consciousness. An infinite canvas that when taken as a whole, is nothing.
I am better described as what functional programming and Category Theory call a Monad. A localized bit of sense-making that has an interface to reason about the undifferentiated void made of the entirety of the rest of consciousness that most people call God.
So @BushWhisperer, while uttering the word "thought" can be construed to refer to everything, I don't think this is an epistemic justification for saying that everything is a thought and internally believing it to be dogmatically true.
The way I've always conceptualized this is that the unity of opposites at the foundation of everything, and the unity of all things together, both exist as the same single point. And both throughout and beneath it as a foundation enabling it to exist is an ineffable substance, if it can be called a substance. The all and nothing, unspeakable, dao.
I look forward to BushWhisperer coming back to tell us that none of us are talking about the same thing he is
(Sorcery is a different kind of magic than the Hermetic Mind Manifestation of New Thought and Chaos Magic - which I love, btw . It can be more raw, and much, much meaner.)
This could be another case where I think we all might argue for no reason over semantics. I dig your model, lots of cool stuff there, even though we may totally agree I can see parallels with a lot of what I do think.
The way I've always conceptualized this is that the unity of opposites at the foundation of everything, and the unity of all things together, both exist as the same single point. And both throughout and beneath it as a foundation enabling it to exist is an ineffable substance, if it can be called a substance. The all and nothing, unspeakable, dao.
I look forward to BushWhisperer coming back to tell us that none of us are talking about the same thing he is
It's a bit of a paradox because while "reality" is what both we and, presumably, BushWhisperer are talking about, reality itself is not a single thing but rather the multiplicity of all things, "thought" included.
Post automatically merged:
Follow rational, linear sense-making to its very end, and you reach what is called "performative contradiction", paradox. Sometimes it's hard to turn off the rational mind and appreciate the performance for what it is: the ironic demonstration that provides the motivation for rational sense-making in the first place.
I feel like this is what Hegel was getting at with thesis-antithesis-synthesis. For every passionately argued position, there is a counter-position. For every pair of position and counterposition, there is a performative contradiction that, when attempting to gesture at a truth unreachable by the truths of the world it finds itself in, resorts to ironic demonstration of paradox.
Probably pretty different from most . I have been studying cultural anthropology for around 50 years , so my view is sort of a compendium of the overall human view, across time, locations and culture .
Also i am a bit 'old fashioned' in that I favor a 3 part model ( like humans had before the great change into the Scientific Revolution and a 2 part reality model . I suppose it would be ; the 'Real ' Reality * , the 'Ideal' Reality ** and ' Daimonic' Reality *** .
I think the modern view is very recently formed , doent' answer all the questions involved and ,just because it is the current paradigm , that does not give it overruling validity .
* Things that have 'substance' and conform to ' consensus reality .
** Things that dont have 'substance' but we regard them as real ; example,;thoughts, feelings , etc
***
Notoriously so . Even in 'camp' living in the bush with the indigenous here ... even they smile at my level of giving 'life' and conversation to 'inanimate object '
Eg . 'the boys' are using a chainsaw ... or trying to use one but it will not start . It just came back from repair , they are swearing at it , abusing it and the 'whitefellah' repair man - who probably ripped them off , They are all having a go and throw it down in disgust .
Me ; '' Give me a go .'' I pat it and stroke it ; ''Awwww ... poor little chainsaw , no wonder you dont want to start , everyone being mean to you . I won't do that though, I like you and you will start for me , won't you ?''
The 'boys ' are raising their eyes and making sarcastic noises , My indigenous teacher is there ( and old friend ) an elder , site guardian and Kadaicha and their Uncle ... he is smirking ( he is used to my 'antics' ) . One gentle pull and ... vroom , brummm brummmm ... and hand it back ; ''There you go boys .''
The boys .... ''WTF ! .... HUH ? Noooo ! '' and teacher is pissing himself laughing .
... keeps my old motorcycle trouble free too ... 7 years , trouble so far ? 1 rear puncture .
(Albeit a different order of life altogether.)
How does that relate to panpsychism and to animism?
Do you consider panpsychism and animism as being two sides of a singular coin?
This is an idea that I think is really worthy of consideration. We were churning this out during a conversation this weekend on a live panel.
I have time-stamped the specific part of the conversation for convenience
So I thought to bring it here and share it with you guys. What do you think? What are your views?
Ps. Sorry I couldnt embed the stream here as it was a livestream and WF struggles with video recordings of liveStreams
I have had in depth discussions lately on concepts of self in a forum that includes Daiosm, Vedanta , Buddhism , religion and 'esoteric/magick/ occult '(or western esoteric traditions ) .
Objects are not physical.
There exists a physical reality independent of the mind, but as you separate it into distinct things it is already inside your head several layers of abstraction deep.
I always appreciate the chance to recount a Sufi story
and of course , my favourite Sufi is Mulla Nasruddin ;
As usual, the Mulla was annoying everybody with his philosophies on ' physical reality independent of the mind' and claiming that reality is but an illusion and projection that can be controlled by belief .
Eventually even the king got annoyed and ordered the Mulla to be arrested and bought before him and the clerics in the public arena . The head cleric called out '' O Mulla , do you still assert the unreal nature of reality ? ''
'' Yes. ''
'' Very well ,'' said the King , ''release the lions ! ''
Mulla ; ''Whoa ... hold on a minute ... lions you say ? ''
King ; '' Do you wish to change your mind Mullah ? ''
''Yes please . ''
King ; ''Very well then ... do not release the lions ... you may go upon your way , but will you still insist reality is a projection of the mind now ? ''
Mulla ; ''Yes, I will . ''
King ; '' What ? How can you have both ... by what conditions could that possible depend on ?''
Mulla ; '' It depends on if you are going to release the lions on me or not . ''
Let's not forget that we are made of matter as well, not just of mind. We have a material body but ever since Antiquity, many philosophers seem to be embarrassed by this fact or even deplore it. What's more, there's the tendency to emphasise the mind's reason cogitating ability and denigrate the emotions as irrational and thus irrelevant when compared to rational thinking. To make sense of the human experience as a whole, we'd either have to go for a tripartite division, e.g. body-mind-soul, include the emotions in the mind concept, or scrap this duality altogether and opt for the holistic bodymind principle instead. You can't just leave the body and the emotions out of the equation. There's no such thing as 'pure thought' except in extremely abstract models that overemphasise the relative importance of discursive thought. The body and the emotions colour our every thought, in my opinion, and help us navigate the physical world.
Thought alone is helpless and can't do anything without the body - you can think yourself to the end of the universe but can't get there in person. It's commonly seen as proof that the mind is vastly superior to the body. Another reason for this view is that we're secretly longing for omnipotence where overcoming 'gross matter' would be a mere matter of mental decisions. This yearning for omnipotence is also a major motive for engaging in magic. The human mind doesn't like limitations. Regarding objects as thoughts lowers the bar a bit and suggests that the mental and physical worlds aren't so different after all.
There's a new thread where a member complains about too many posts focused on philosophising and theories instead on practical magic. I think he's right, which is why I'm writing this reply as a reminder that other members would like to hear about the practical implications of various metaphysical models too. If physical objects are in fact thoughts, does that e.g. mean that telekinesis is possible at least in principle? How can I myself profit from such theoretical models?
Another way of bringing such discussions more down to earth would be to deal with such topics from a human perspective. Are all these objects my own thoughts or somebody else's? Is there any way of changing their composition via my bodymind? Or let's turn the question around: can my thoughts be said to be objects? Which is not so crazy as it sounds if you understand 'object' in the grammatical sense, as in "My mind is thinking thoughts". What is the body's reaction to incoming information packages arriving through the senses? To what degree do emotions distort my perception?
I guess I'm arguing for less philosophy and more psychology because that's where my own interests lie, specifically how it pertains to spirituality and magic in a general utilitarians sense. It's just that theory for theory's sake isn't my thing.
Yeah, I love this stuff, but for my main magician practices, the grims, and positive mind metaphysics of New Thought, it’s not totally required.
My first very dramatic Goetia / Grimorium Verum evocation was in my early twenties when I was still very secular and didn't believe in any of this.
Belief is not necessary. Suspension of disbelief is.
I used a self-hypnosis routine to induce suggestibility. These models, I feel, work the same way on the intellectual side, to shut up your left hemisphere with an intellectually plausible-sounding hypnotic script and induce suggestibility.
“It would not be necessary to make an affirmation more than once if one had perfect faith.”
- Florence Scovel Shinn
'Faith' is a bad word these days, I know. But belief is also not needed. I hesitate to put an RPG counter above our heads, but your 'Faith' points go up through mind- and body-based practices as you unknot negative feelings rooted in lack - mostly from trauma and maybe your parents not giving you all the things you needed to thrive as a child.
A lot of modern religious movements are trying to find a way to increase their Faith / Belief stats by getting far far away from the nasty mainstream religion they grew up with, by adding another faith. That is just smart. But so are the philosophical-intellectual ones an effort to get away from materialism of the monoculture. Also smart.
- OR - everyone just take up a self-hypnosis routine, because basically, you already are.
We need a sort of Minimum Viable Cosmology for a practice if only throw a bone to our left hemisphere to get it to shut up, and get out of our way. Add complexity only as required. Modern esotericism starts with maximum theoretical complexity that has to be stripped away later.
I tend to recommend both Chaos Magic and Neville Goddard’s New Thought here. As a teen, I spent years learning Golden Dawn and late Hermetic thinking, and then spent twice as long having to purge it out of my internalized feelings. Once you pick up a metaphor of symbolic exchange, the cosmos (or God) will communicate with you in those forms. So make sure it’s something that doesn’t range-limit you for where you want to go.
Let's not forget that we are made of matter as well, not just of mind. We have a material body but ever since Antiquity, many philosophers seem to be embarrassed by this fact or even deplore it. What's more, there's the tendency to emphasise the mind's reason cogitating ability and denigrate the emotions as irrational and thus irrelevant when compared to rational thinking. To make sense of the human experience as a whole, we'd either have to go for a tripartite division, e.g. body-mind-soul, include the emotions in the mind concept, or scrap this duality altogether and opt for the holistic bodymind principle instead. You can't just leave the body and the emotions out of the equation. There's no such thing as 'pure thought' except in extremely abstract models that overemphasise the relative importance of discursive thought. The body and the emotions colour our every thought, in my opinion, and help us navigate the physical world.
Right! And we not only have a body, but it is absolutely basic and essential to any experience of existence or of the world. Our reality is permeated by consciousness and meaning, but this consciousness and meaning cannot be abstracted from its bodily being.
There's a new thread where a member complains about too many posts focused on philosophising and theories instead on practical magic. I think he's right, which is why I'm writing this reply as a reminder that other members would like to hear about the practical implications of various metaphysical models too. If physical objects are in fact thoughts, does that e.g. mean that telekinesis is possible at least in principle? How can I myself profit from such theoretical models?
I think it is important to keep both philosophy and practicalities in mind at the same time. If we don't have our philosophy straight, we are like chickens with our heads cut off - although perhaps very effective ones. Without philosophy we can't pick or design our practices well. We're either taking drugs that someone handed us at a party without even knowing what it is we're taking, or we're just acting out our unconscious and unreflective assumptions. On the other hand, philosophy that is disconnected from practice does tend to lead to conversations like much of this thread: vistas of wonder that have become unmoored from our actual life and experience and are impossible to operationalize.
The core of my philosophy is life: I seek to align myself with the ways of life, to follow and inhabit those ways with power and precision, descending into the unfathomable teeming depths which are our abiding root and then ascending with creative vigor to accomplish my heart's aims, recognizing and honoring the ways I am constituted by innumerable dynamic relationships, broadening my circle of care and my network of alliances (both horizontal and vertical), while acting with decision when necessary. Doing this requires attending carefully to how life actually is in all its phases, giving accurate, non-speculative descriptions of life's various dimensions and activities, and developing practices which lead us into greater embodiment of those ways.
One other thing I would like to say: there is something very strange about spirits. Their relationship to embodiment and their environment is very different than ours, and encountering them almost necessarily leads one to try to understand what that other relationship is and what that says about our reality. I think this pondering is very healthy. It is part of our relationship with the spirits. (Imagine if your relationship partner never tried to understand your perspective!) I just caution against explanation as an replacement for understanding. Don't jump to a theory which can explain what the spirits are, but rather continue to enter into their perspective and let a theory emerge as an articulation of what that perspective actually is.
I feel like this is huge, and over the years no matter how many times I point to it people often overlook it. I usually try to avoid going too far into philosophical discussions like these, and focus mostly on practical discussion. And this right here is, imo, the only thing someone needs to know to get their practice to work.
Let's not forget that we are made of matter as well, not just of mind. We have a material body but ever since Antiquity, many philosophers seem to be embarrassed by this fact or even deplore it. What's more, there's the tendency to emphasise the mind's reason cogitating ability and denigrate the emotions as irrational and thus irrelevant when compared to rational thinking. To make sense of the human experience as a whole, we'd either have to go for a tripartite division, e.g. body-mind-soul, include the emotions in the mind concept, or scrap this duality altogether and opt for the holistic bodymind principle instead. You can't just leave the body and the emotions out of the equation. There's no such thing as 'pure thought' except in extremely abstract models that overemphasise the relative importance of discursive thought. The body and the emotions colour our every thought, in my opinion, and help us navigate the physical world.
Thought alone is helpless and can't do anything without the body - you can think yourself to the end of the universe but can't get there in person. It's commonly seen as proof that the mind is vastly superior to the body. Another reason for this view is that we're secretly longing for omnipotence where overcoming 'gross matter' would be a mere matter of mental decisions. This yearning for omnipotence is also a major motive for engaging in magic. The human mind doesn't like limitations. Regarding objects as thoughts lowers the bar a bit and suggests that the mental and physical worlds aren't so different after all.
There's a new thread where a member complains about too many posts focused on philosophising and theories instead on practical magic. I think he's right, which is why I'm writing this reply as a reminder that other members would like to hear about the practical implications of various metaphysical models too. If physical objects are in fact thoughts, does that e.g. mean that telekinesis is possible at least in principle? How can I myself profit from such theoretical models?
Another way of bringing such discussions more down to earth would be to deal with such topics from a human perspective. Are all these objects my own thoughts or somebody else's? Is there any way of changing their composition via my bodymind? Or let's turn the question around: can my thoughts be said to be objects? Which is not so crazy as it sounds if you understand 'object' in the grammatical sense, as in "My mind is thinking thoughts". What is the body's reaction to incoming information packages arriving through the senses? To what degree do emotions distort my perception?
I guess I'm arguing for less philosophy and more psychology because that's where my own interests lie, specifically how it pertains to spirituality and magic in a general utilitarians sense. It's just that theory for theory's sake isn't my thing.
I like to think that thoughts are intentions. Guard your thoughts wisely.. you are cultivating a garden.. fill it with that which you want and not what you don't want.
Whats the difference in your world between thought and thoughts? That might help get us on the same pagfe so you at least can begin to understand what I am suggesting as it seems you dont as you keep swapping out these words as if it makes no difference, when it really does.
