I tend to identify ‘Jesus’ with all creation… I didn’t really read it anywhere, it just occurred to me…
I’m not really defined when it comes to this thread… I agree with both sauwelios and jakob and I know they are representing opposite sides of an argument.
I agree with Sauwelios when it comes to the will to power, relativism and Nietzsche.
and I agree with Jakob about a lot of thing’s he’s said that ring true to my intuition.
I have one question for you Sauwelios…if ‘truth is indefinible’ sounds transcendental to you…what do you not like about a transcendental argument?
I thought you agreed on the notion that we can never know truth with certainty…
You got it pretty well. Really. But you are the sum of these impressions - this “world” -; not something behind it. That which is behind it is the imagining Being, which you might call your unconscious Self.
There is consciousness, and this consciousness demands a subject and a content. But these may be illusory. - But who or what is conscious? - Absurd question, as the essence itself is consciousness. There is no subject which is conscious; rather, the “subject” is itself part of consciousness, one with the “content” of consciousness.
Yes, but there are gradations of experience. Manifestation, creation of (my) good, imposing it on the world, is my deepest experience.
It reminded me of my lust for truth idea as I wrote it - and of course of Crowleys Little Essays. Put simply, truth is in the higest degree of experience. This is entirely subjective, and therefore impossible to rationalize, untouchable to the intellect. Only poetic art can represent it, because it invokes experience in the observer.
Human experience and creation can amount to God; the Olympian Gods,
Any God, actually, the Hebrew God is also a magnificent creation.
The only divinity that I experience as ‘immanent’ - as ‘allready there’, is the Goddess. I can’t explain that.
I can only see it as my own will. I can relate my will very well to the process described by the tree of life, which is the root of my use of the word God. The world becomes God when my will to power succeeds in bringing my imagination into manifestation. It is all subjective. I don’t have an opinion as to what God is outside of what I know.
Not really, the creator can be approached and seen, I can’t see or approach anything but the creator - and Jesus doesn’t play any part in the trinity as I understand it - well, a very small part - he is one of the trillions of creatures that live in the creation - and he is also part of ‘the’ creator and of the process of creation, which is what I called the holy spirit.
Understand this is simply the way I see the trinity as a concept put forth by other people - I don’t really have any use for it in my conception of the world.
Again, you have understood me well, and my answer to your question is as follows: it is not certain for me that there is a truth “out there”. So not only do I think that we can never know what the truth is with certainty, but I even think that we can never know whether there is a truth - whether a truth exists… This is what makes me more, or less, than a philosopher: a nihilist scientist.
It is kind of obvious that there is no ‘the Truth’ in the objective sense. Truth is always about something, and it is always subjective. I don’t think you have to be a nihilist or a scientist to get there. My sister knows this. My 12 year old cousin does. Don’t get all posh about this.
What makes you less than a philosopher is that (if that is the case) you can’t see your own truth.
This realization does not make a philosopher, though - This is what makes a man.
Yes, all religions would be vastly improved by a wedding of Diana and Jove, of the male and female principles. What we understand best is our relationships with other people and with things. Religions or philosophies that deny such relationships have historically caused culture wars. The paternal Abrahamic religions vs the maternal “witchcraft and occult” gave us the Inquisition. Kant’s trancendental nonsence has given us the excuse to look away from what we are.
What is truth? If it is not something beyond individual well-being, it is a lie, simply from its inability to incorporate the connectivity of life and matter necessary for our survival.
“One must realise that war is shared [i.e., that it creates a bond] and conflict is justice, and that all things come to pass in accordance with conflict.”
[Heraclitus.]
“The real community of man, in the midst of all the self-contradictory simulacra of community, is the community of those who seek the truth, of the potential knowers, that is, in principle, of all men to the extent that they desire to know. But in fact this includes only a few, true friends, as Plato was to Aristotle at the very moment they were disagreeing about the nature of the good. Their common concern for the good linked them; their disagreement about it proved that they needed one another to understand it. They were absolutely one soul as they looked at the problem. This, according to Plato, is the only real friendship, the only real common good. It is here that the contact people so desperately seek is to be found. The other kinds of relatedness are only imperfect reflections of this one trying to be self-subsisting, gaining their only justification from their ultimate relation to this one. This is the meaning of the riddle of the improbable philosopher-kings. They have a true community that is exemplary for all other communities.”
[Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, Conclusion.]
Yes. Now I think you understand the idea behind the phrase ‘lust for truth,’ wrong as it may be as a formulation. Lust for more of itself - desire for more imagining, for more truth.
I see reason as a way of thinking. To deconstruct that one needs another way of thinking. Reason is most effectively used by language. Hence, thought beyond language.
Reason, logic, starts at Hod. Netzach is irrational, or cannot be understood rationally. For me the tower, the path between Hod and Netzach, is the first path where logic is deconstructed; one sees how reason comes into being under certain conditions. (which I have attempted to describe in the listing of the sephirot) Understanding the construction of reason - understanding that it is a construct - is to deconstruct it.
Does this make any sense to you at all? Just curious.
Hi Jakob!
would you mind posting the link about the kaabalah again please?.
I don’t remember where it is, and I want to start learning the ‘real’ system …
not the stuff that comes up if you do a search in google (mostly new agey britney/madonna stuff).
I have 1 question though… not that I’m scared or anything…(well maybe a little )
I read somewhere once that you can only start learning the system when yo are 40 or older… huh?
Oh yeah, that’s probably true.
“The thing about wisdom is not becoming wise too soon”
Ad kabbalah is not even wise. It’s a plaything for old bored intellectuals. Leave it is for the weary…
"Unnatural asceticism (involvement in special-purpose exercises) is typically the consequence of plebeian profanation and wanting to run before one can walk. It is the mendacious misappropriation of those practices and customs which of necessity may belong only to a higher kind of man.
Take for example breathing exercises - today there seems to be ten thousand different widely published ways to practice them, but all of these are upon serious examination revealed to be misguided and harmful prescriptions, a patchwork of homeless shreds.
Natural Asceticism, understood as the strictly informed practice of things that belong to one’s station on the great “Ladder of Becoming”, can often be distinguished by its virginal character, it is “secretive”, plain-looking and does not advertise itself." -Weary Locomotive
haha…
