Consciousness and Magic

[Tyger]

There are actually 'laws' of manifestation. Thinking has intensities of magnitude.

We find it hard to 'believe' that we are altering reality every instant - [...] 'contradictions' [...] are being worked out all the time - simply not at the conscious level. To arrive at the level of conscious manifestation does not then mean an added or new 'contradiction' - merely that we are now consciously doing what we did unconsciously before.

I know, I am quoting myself.

Materialist thinking views itself as 'superior' and that there is a dialectic that it is destined to win. That dialog can be tedious for those proceeding in a non-materialist vein. Materialism tends to be a drag on thinking.

The most magical aspect of our being is our thinking. There is power there. Why do people ignore the evidence of their experience, I wonder. It is obvious that thinking has the power to impact the world fundamentally. We are doing it every instant.

 

[Tyger]

For those who have a practice around the natural rhythms of sky and earth, the summer of 2014 will be bathed in moonlight as three perigee “supermoons” occur in consecutive months: July 12, August 10, and September 9. Find a beautiful spot - and - Enjoy!

 

[Michael Allen]

I know, I am quoting myself.

Materialist thinking views itself as 'superior' and that there is a dialectic that it is destined to win. That dialog can be tedious for those proceeding in a non-materialist vein. Materialism tends to be a drag on thinking.

The most magical aspect of our being is our thinking. There is power there. Why do people ignore the evidence of their experience, I wonder. It is obvious that thinking has the power to impact the world fundamentally. We are doing it every instant.

This always sparks something ...something which makes me think that I am about to channel Captain Obvious....

Magical is a term we attach to things that are not comprehensible or evade our understanding. It is interesting that something that we ourselves are should label the very discerning mechanism (if you could call it such) that joins world and reality to our understanding as something beyond understanding. Strange that when we understand something we don't bother to ask or discern the basis of our own feeling that we understand (although science tries, but there's always a deeper level or another recursion into doubt). Is it really magical? How can the closest thing to us be so far from our comprehension (the fact that we think)?

 

[Randall]

If someone undertakes the inner work there comes a point when the lag-time between thought and thing noticeably decreases.

I've had this experience recently - of things happening with extreme rapidity. And I think it's related to how much attention I am paying it and how enmeshed in that world I am - there is a kind of way of focusing beside something, of not looking straight at it but still concentrating on it. The way that peripheral vision is better to see some kinds of things.

I suspect that in reality the "lag-time between thought and thing" is actually decreased more by going out and getting the job done than by your "inner work". In fact I'd go so far as to say that you could sit around all day doing your "inner work" and get no closer at all to getting the things you want.

 

[Michael Allen]

I suspect that in reality the "lag-time between thought and thing" is actually decreased more by going out and getting the job done than by your "inner work". In fact I'd go so far as to say that you could sit around all day doing your "inner work" and get no closer at all to getting the things you want.

But thought and thing are really the same are they not? When we say thing we mean something that is concrete and independent from a sufficient amount of other "things" to be distinguished and remembered (a thing does the remembering somehow...) in "thought" -- but we cannot communicate either notion without the other...so even the very subsystems of our "figuring out" sits as a basis for any further stance of "figuring out" or "understanding" (what we look back on and call a "thought" or a "thing"). I cannot even express the problem of communicating the problem without getting tied up in knots and endless petitio principi

giving up

 

[Randall]

But thought and thing are really the same are they not?

I don't think so. It was coming across to me as more nonsense of the type where some guru or another promotes the idea that some purely mental exercise prescribed by their wacky belief system can magically manifest a person's material wants.

 

[Tyger]

I don't think so. It was coming across to me as more nonsense of the type where some guru or another promotes the idea that some purely mental exercise prescribed by their wacky belief system can magically manifest a person's material wants.

Here is the problem with your participating in conversations like this, Ufology - your intolerance of ideas in a certain vein. You become hectoring and abusive. Using words like 'nonsense' and 'wacky belief system' - as well as 'guru' in the way you use it - is typical verbiage from you - it's as though you are desperate to rid the world of that nasty God/gods/spiritual infection. We've been 'round this mulberry bush so many times that it doesn't seem worthwhile to recite all the usual rejoinders to you.

However, the above said, I was having a conversation with a pal and was commenting on the vehemence of some atheists/agnostics - not all, but some - especially materialists of a certain stripe, wondering about their intensity. It's like a religion - there cannot be, must not be, a spiritual world. Wherever there is mention - or discussion - of the spiritual - it must be stamped out vigorously, if not with reason than with ridicule and derision. People with such beliefs must be driven into silence - if not 'converted' and shown 'the errors of their ways'.

My friend made - I think - a very insightful comment: "I think some atheists are fundamentalists and evangelical. So I think a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist no matter their actual views - they are authoritarian and deeply conservative and insecure - that's where the drive to convert others comes in and masquerades as confidence."

Excellent insight imo.

Hard science - material rationales - so much more comforting than the ambiguities and uncertainties of the spiritual pursuit where one can be so easily gulled, deceived and led astray. But not if one posits a hard reality - a firm and non-negotiable external authority of laws and rules. It's the old 'god in the machine' - the materialist is actually dealing with the left-over effects of the theological model of reality.

The materialist has a God and delivers over his independant thought to the notion of a material universe that is limited and that can be known without ambiguity.

 

[Tyger]

I suspect that in reality the "lag-time between thought and thing" is actually decreased more by going out and getting the job done than by your "inner work". In fact I'd go so far as to say that you could sit around all day doing your "inner work" and get no closer at all to getting the things you want.

The most compelling rationale for not accepting at face value the idea of 'manifestation'. I cannot sit here and 'think' anything into manifestation a la Harry Potter/Hogwarts' abracadabra-shazzam! But is that what is meant by 'manifestation' ? Do you know what is meant? Have you sought to understand what is meant? Somehow, I doubt it. You go with the easiest superficial understanding and hammer away.

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

I fear - because I know the conceit - that it is your ignorance that you feel bests anyone else's knowledge in this matter.

 

[Tyger]

@ufology I am aware that you have posted to this thread in order to get the e-mail notices on the conversation. I am also aware that we - you and I - have been asked by the admin not to 'follow each other around' on the site. While I think that still applies in terms of badgering and hectoring posts - I do want to make it clear that I do not have a problem engaging you in reasonable, respectful debate. If you can maintain a higher tone than is your wont around these topics, I see no reason for there not to be a happy dialog. I will mind my manners if you will, is what I am saying.

P.S. That badgering and hectoring goes for other posters on this thread, as well btw. I would not want posters on this thread to feel they are fair game for insults because of their views (pro-spiritual - or just being willing to debate the issues). Thank you for understanding.

 

[Tyger]

But thought and thing are really the same are they not? When we say thing we mean something that is concrete and independent from a sufficient amount of other "things" to be distinguished and remembered (a thing does the remembering somehow...) in "thought" -- but we cannot communicate either notion without the other...so even the very subsystems of our "figuring out" sits as a basis for any further stance of "figuring out" or "understanding" (what we look back on and call a "thought" or a "thing"). I cannot even express the problem of communicating the problem without getting tied up in knots and endless petitio principi

giving up

@Michael Allen You've confused me - but what I think you were saying was: Thought and thing are the same. When we say 'thing' we are referring to something concrete and differentiated from other 'things'. The 'thing' remembers the differentiation. We ourselves cannot communicate the 'thing' without the thought - and the thought cannot be without the 'thing'. Thought/Thing are intimately entwined to the point that it is impossible to reference one without the other. Have I summed it up correctly?

BTW - I am keen that this proceed very much as a conversation. While links are always good, it would be handy if they are presented only in the spirit of back-up citing rather than a necessary component to the flow of the conversation. In other words, a brief summary of the link as it pertains to one's point would be invaluable as it would mean links can be clicked but do not have to be clicked. I have not followed this protocol up to now but will from this point on - on this thread - and hope everyone agrees to this. I think it will help the conversation flow more readily. It's also a matter of time - not much of us have time to do 'outside reading'. I think most people are in that bind. Many thanks.

 

[Michael Allen]

I don't think so. It was coming across to me as more nonsense of the type where some guru or another promotes the idea that some purely mental exercise prescribed by their wacky belief system can magically manifest a person's material wants.

Well I am not saying that we can just "think" something into existence. I tried to avoid exaggerating and failed. It is true that you cannot resolve a thing without thinking and you can't have thinking in a void (even Helen Keller had something by which to grasp and organize with thought).

 

[Michael Allen]

@Michael Allen You've confused me - but what I think you were saying was: Thought and thing are the same. When we say 'thing' we are referring to something concrete and differentiated from other 'things'. The 'thing' remembers the differentiation. We ourselves cannot communicate the 'thing' without the thought - and the thought cannot be without the 'thing'. Thought/Thing are intimately entwined to the point that it is impossible to reference one without the other. Have I summed it up correctly?

BTW - I am keen that this proceed very much as a conversation. While links are always good, it would be handy if they are presented only in the spirit of back-up citing rather than a necessary component to the flow of the conversation. In other words, a brief summary of the link as it pertains to one's point would be invaluable as it would mean links can be clicked but do not have to be clicked. I have not followed this protocol up to now but will from this point on - on this thread - and hope everyone agrees to this. I think it will help the conversation flow more readily. It's also a matter of time - not much of us have time to do 'outside reading'. I think most people are in that bind. Many thanks.

More or less--as long as we avoid the kind of exaggerated "thinking makes reality" result.

 

[Randall]

More or less--as long as we avoid the kind of exaggerated "thinking makes reality" result.

I will however grant that without consciousness we cannot enjoy the magic

Someone with real talent ​

 

[Tyger]

More or less--as long as we avoid the kind of exaggerated "thinking makes reality" result.

You set the conclusion before you start the conversation?

 

[smcder]

This always sparks something ...something which makes me think that I am about to channel Captain Obvious....

Magical is a term we attach to things that are not comprehensible or evade our understanding. It is interesting that something that we ourselves are should label the very discerning mechanism (if you could call it such) that joins world and reality to our understanding as something beyond understanding. Strange that when we understand something we don't bother to ask or discern the basis of our own feeling that we understand (although science tries, but there's always a deeper level or another recursion into doubt). Is it really magical? How can the closest thing to us be so far from our comprehension (the fact that we think)?

An article from John Michael Greer is helpful to me in terms of defining magic. I've posted it before.

"magic—the old art and science of causing change in consciousness in accordance with will"

The Archdruid Report: Clarke's Fallacy


"To understand what it is that magic does do, it’s crucial to look at the specific purposes for which magic is used in practice. Since every human culture known to history has practiced magic, this isn’t exactly hard, and the purposes of magic have varied remarkably little over the centuries. Why do people turn to magic? To tilt the odds their way in hunting, gambling, war, and any other activity that combines high uncertainty with high stakes; to establish, improve, and shape the whole range of human relationships; to heal illnesses of body and mind; to integrate the personality and bring it into harmony with the structures of the cosmos, however those are understood; and, not least, to deal with the fact that other people are using magic for these same purposes, and not always with your best interests in mind.

What do these things all have in common? They all deal with mental phenomena, individual or collective. Grasp that, and you start to grasp what magic is all about.

Philosophers and psychologists down the centuries have tried to bring our attention to two important but generally neglected facts:

we know more than we realize,

and we affect more than we realize.

Look at the human organism from an evolutionary standpoint and this isn’t hard to understand. Our rational, conscious, symbol-using minds are recent and rather rickety structures built over the top of a superbly adapted mammalian nervous system. The tangled relationship between the two shows up, for example, in the way that athletes have to learn to get their thinking minds out of the way in order to reach peak performance. It’s a dirty trick well known among tennis players to ask your opponent just how he holds his thumb when hitting backhand, knowing that the unwanted awareness will mess up his coordination and quite possibly cost him the game."

(does this follow protocol Tyger?)

 

[Tyger]

(does this follow protocol Tyger?)

Not to be a Nazi about such things but it would be nice for it to be in your own words - the nub of it - along with the link for those inclined to go for the long read. Copy-and-paste is too much of a temptation - even for me, and I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, just maybe judiciously. In-your-own-words ensures - one hopes - brevity but the intent one is trying to convey in a succinct way.

Life is about time, not so? Time is of the essence - who said that? Anyway, it's almost like having a conversation on-the-go. Long reads are prohibitive to the quick dip-in-dip-out.

All that being said - it's a great quote - with tons of terrific seeds for comment.

I get his points - they are well-made. It's our heritage - everything modern has as it's lineage in magic, be it simply the mental-emotional aspect, or the natural scientific studies. It all began with magic, root and stem - the earliest science. But the 'mother tree' - magic - has many legitimate off-shoots, not just the 'modern' ones of psychology and material science. IMO.

 

[smcder]

"A fish trap is there for the fish. When you have got hold of the fish, you forget the trap. A snare is there for the rabbits. When you have got hold of the rabbits, you forget the snare. Words are there for the intent. When you have got hold of the intent, you forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words, so I can have a few words with him?”

- Zhuang Zi

 

[smcder]

Not to be a Nazi about such things but it would be nice for it to be in your own words - the nub of it - along with the link for those inclined to go for the long read. Copy-and-paste is too much of a temptation - even for me, and I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, just maybe judiciously. In-your-own-words ensures - one hopes - brevity but the intent one is trying to convey in a succinct way.

Life is about time, not so? Time is of the essence - who said that? Anyway, it's almost like having a conversation on-the-go. Long reads are prohibitive to the quick dip-in-dip-out.

All that being said - it's a great quote - with tons of terrific seeds for comment.

I get his points - they are well-made. It's our heritage - everything modern has as it's lineage in magic, be it simply the mental-emotional aspect, or the natural scientific studies. It all began with magic, root and stem - the earliest science. But the 'mother tree' - magic - has many legitimate off-shoots, not just the 'modern' ones of psychology and material science. IMO.

I agree as would I think JMG.

The brief way to put this aspect of magic is that it's the art of getting out of your own way.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

Very happy to revisit this thread to remind myself about looking at things sideways, to re-engage myself on how I feel about valuing sadness, why it's exciting to stop thinking, or at least get thought and words out of the way to be impelled more directly by being, experience & sensation. Sometimes, it's just better to not think at all. It certainly makes for a good antidote to sadness, or getting out of your own way.

But as I'm a real sucker for independent video and video artsts it's the Don Cruse character from The Mysteries of Kinematic Inversion: The Old Man and the Oloid that really sparked me. I tried to find the director's contact but he's too busy hiding. But Don Cruse, in 2002, did put out a book called Evolution and the New Gnosis which some might be interested in. There is a lengthy preview on amazon, and this commentator summed it up best with, "I call the ideas in this book "religion without a lobotomy" - it has room for both the divine and for the complete range of human possibility, trying to be as free of mental taboo as possible."

Evolution and the New Gnosis: Anti-establishment Essays on KnowledgeScience, Religion and Causal Logic: Don Cruse: 9780595224456: Amazon.com: Books

There is an essay on Isaac Newton & Harry Potter there for you Tyger.

 

[smcder]

Not to be a Nazi about such things but it would be nice for it to be in your own words - the nub of it - along with the link for those inclined to go for the long read. Copy-and-paste is too much of a temptation - even for me, and I'm not saying it shouldn't happen, just maybe judiciously. In-your-own-words ensures - one hopes - brevity but the intent one is trying to convey in a succinct way.

Life is about time, not so? Time is of the essence - who said that? Anyway, it's almost like having a conversation on-the-go. Long reads are prohibitive to the quick dip-in-dip-out.

All that being said - it's a great quote - with tons of terrific seeds for comment.

I get his points - they are well-made. It's our heritage - everything modern has as it's lineage in magic, be it simply the mental-emotional aspect, or the natural scientific studies. It all began with magic, root and stem - the earliest science. But the 'mother tree' - magic - has many legitimate off-shoots, not just the 'modern' ones of psychology and material science. IMO.

@Tyger could you say more about this?

But the 'mother tree' - magic - has many legitimate off-shoots, not just the 'modern' ones of psychology and material science. IMO