Wissen und Werden:
Scharfe Krallen und ziellose Gefallen
(Knowing and Becoming:
Sharp claws and purposeless pleasure)

July 27-31, August 3; Two-thousand-and-eight years after our most famous human sacrifice


This work is a paradox and and contains its quantum of hypocrisy. It relies on the relation of words and signs, an unfortunately confused but necessary method of communication. This treatise is an impetus to drive one to pasture with a blow.

Let us, for the moment, be practical and allow for the common way of speaking of things. That is, let us pass over the inadequacies of language, with its implicit yet nefarious subject and object, and understand what this is about. It is about the futility of knowing and the joy of becoming.

I. Anti-philosophy
Knowing and becoming: one might believe from such a title that this would be, at least partially, a work of epistemology... But then one would be (unfortunately) disappointed. What can we know? What do we know we know? Such mental circles leave us tired and unsatisfied. We might as well beat our heads into a wall repeatedly; at least that would leave us satiated - that is, unconscious. I would rather have a prod than a priori.

One might also be deluded into thinking this is a work on philosophy - it is, rather, anti-philosophy. Instead of fighting fire with fire, why not try water? Metaphysics consist of misinterpreted metaphors from those unfortunate enough to try to communicate their experiences; teleology arises from the confusions known as 'God' and 'self'; ethics are the pronouncements of the power-hungry controllers (another paradox: the highest value is valueless-ness); eschatologies are the pronouncements of the vindictive & fearful. My metaphysic: no categories, no labels; my ethic: no values; my eschatology: each moment is an end in itself, especially for your precious 'self.' Purpose, self, agency, virtue, right & wrong - these are the delusions of a typical human thought-system.

II. Ravenous action
This treatise is, in a sense, a call to action but not to political action, let alone moral or spiritual action, whatever those mean. Don't think, don't speak, don't calculate, don't contemplate, don't justify, don't criticize, don't explain - act. These are all reactions - if one is to re-anything one should simply rejoice. We are no different from a a virus, a plant, or a wolf - so let us sharpen our claws and go whatever way without delusions.

Satiation, comfort, unchangeability - these are the marks of a human philosophy, but are they practical? Are they realistic? But what is 'reality,' or rather, who cares? Utility is more useful than debates about reality, but even utility presupposes some kind of end, some kind of target, some kind of purpose. Yet life itself is no more important than death - in fact, it is meaningless without it. The play of power requires no purpose, let alone a guiding principle or an agent.

III. Thought and its child, the philosopher
The most egregious error of the earth was the emergence of those called 'philosophers.' They do nothing but reveal their own implicit beliefs, their own prejudices. "Cogito ergo sum?" Thought is not evidence of being or a self - it is evidence of thought, but tautologies are boring (nor do they sell books well). "The unexamined life is not worth living?" That surely sounds like the chastisement of one who has wasted much time in examining (psychologists might call it 'effort justification'!). "Beauty is truth, truth beauty?" But what if our truths are terrible & ugly? "Libertie, egalitie, fraternitie?" True liberty - each constellation of action expressing its full potential - is at odds with that leveling force of the poor & wretched known as equality. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that is should be a universal law?" („Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde.“) What... Act as if one was a tyrant of conduct at all moments? And what if one's maxim is that maxims are prison cages of the free & spontaneous spirit?

Which thinker is bold enough to recognize that thought is a useless circle? There is no specific thought or set of thoughts (nor is there a specific action) that is worth anything, that justifies anything, that satiates anything. And so we should lay these things to rest in their rightful place - the garbage heap of history.

IV. Freedom in flux
What is it to Know thyself? To Be thyself? Is there a true and steady essence to portray? There is nothing but a flux of relations, a becoming and by-going, although constrained by certain unavoidable necessities (e.g. one's human body). But, subjectively, one can do nothing but cast away the cloaks that conceal and conflate - social roles, repetitive relationships, philosophical dispositions... that is, any attachment to anything. One's true being, that nebulous concatenation which is the self-and-environment interaction, can only spring forward spontaneously without thought, without consideration, without adherence to idea, without 'philosophy.' No masks are necessary for this performance - one is known through acting and each quantum of self-knowledge is out-dated the instant it forms. Ego, ergo, is a fancy fraud in the face of the power-play of things.

Becoming trumps being; action trumps thinking; flux trumps stagnation - but these are less helpful aphorisms than revelations of reality, things as they are if one would look beyond convention. There are no laws beyond human mind-excretions: The ought's are infinitely more mendacious than the are's, and even those are misleading (and eventually outdated). Only when one has given up everything does one gain everything - that is, there is no thought of gain or loss.

V. Sinister signs
Now let us return to language, although we have been steeped in it all this while (hence this work's hypocrisy). Language is to be left to logicians and traders of goods: Experience cannot be bought or traded and it is exactly because of this that experience cannot be spoken of (without stepping over it & on it). It is precisely when we communicate ourselves that we forget ourselves, that we falsify ourselves. Language is to be left to critics and excuse-makers: but we need no excuse for our art - that is, our life. Words incorrectly assume a steadiness of meaning & project a false sense of stability onto this flux of relations known as 'self.' We contain multitudes, are multitudes, and so the play of paradox & the cacophonous euphony of contradiction are then language's cure for itself.

VI. The aesthetic sense
Anyone with an aesthetic sense knows it applies to more than just art, for the world is a work itself (though I don't posit a doer behind this deed nor beauty beyond our interpretations - that is, 'in itself'). One reacts to art in the same way to people: with vanity. They reflect facets of ourselves and so 'ugly' people (in action & in form) and 'ugly' art are reminders of our own potential for idiocy, for weakness. Beauty is that which reveals ourselves to ourselves in the most triumphant way - hence the beauty of strength in cruelty & destruction, the beauty of far-reaching thoughts in boundlessness, the beauty of over-fullness in extravagance, the beauty of simplicity in poverty.

Ugliness is the natural interpretation of & reaction to those things we wish to trample, and yet we are told to love all equally, even our enemies... Only if this is the love of a gardener in tearing out the weeds to help the flowers - but the weeds cry 'savagery!' and 'injustice!' Only if this is the love of benevolence and mercilessness being coterminous, being contained in one action. And so what is beauty to me is often cruelty to you.

VII. Cautiousness in the face of causality
"I have willed it!" or in more scientific terms "I have caused it!" Such are the fables of modern interpretations of things - the 'I' that caused but especially causation itself. Causality can only exist in artificial circumstances - that is, in your mind's contrivances. No one thing can cause another thing: what caused the first thing to cause? Shall we negate or ignore the setting which allowed this to happen? Only in an isolated vacuum could one somewhat rightfully speak of a cause, but there are no vacuums in the universe, there is no isolation: all things are in a continuum - conditioned by each other, or rather by itself. Only when we do violence to the world - that is, when we slice one facet from another & pretend things to be alone with each other - does the idea of causation arise. The thought or feeling of willing is no evidence of agency, but rather evidence of a misunderstanding - our "internal facts" are falsities. A useful explanation need not be based in reality - more often it is based in convenience. Some may argue that this strips man of his dignity, of his virtue, of his responsibility... yet one cannot take away something which was never there to begin with.

VIII. Errors of essence
The soul is the essence of one's being, so people have said - now that word is often replaced with 'consciousness' as if this is more convincing. This modern-day 'soul' is not one's essence, it is the reflection on the surface of the water with infinite & unfathomable depths - it is more of a petal than a seed. Consciousness is an evolutionary appendage, adeptly able at confusing itself with 'explanations.' There is nothing immovable, stable, or essential about consciousness, let alone 'eternal.' But why can we not be satisfied in being a ripple? The eternal self can only be an identification with all things - but then there is no self left over as one thinks of it.

* Bad habits - Just as over-eating and drug addiction are looked down upon as negative physical habits, so too a priori & "objective" moral notions, free will (self as a causally-undetermined agent), duality (self as separate and distinct from not-self/environment), one-sidededness, and jumping to conclusions should be understood as detrimental mental habits alongside the discarded beliefs in geocentrism, the ether, intelligent design, spirits, etc. {6.4.08}

* To know one's Will is to do one's Will. {6.6.08}

* Morality as misgivings - Our sense of morality grows in proportion to our weakness before the realities of Nature. {6.7.08}

* Heraclitean parable - The Universe is a Child playing with Space and Time; thus the Kingly Power belongs to the Children. {6.8.08}

* Murderous multiplicity & sorrowful separation - Attachment to, ownership of, or identification with any partial facet of one's awareness, of the world, will inherently bring sorrow. {7.22.08}

Diatribes of Daylight

"Qui plume a, guerre a. Ce monde est un vaste temple dédié à la discorde"
-Voltaire



Part II: The Will is Supra-rational

"Our own Silent Self, helpless and witless, hidden within us, will spring forth, if we have craft to loose him to the Light, spring lustily forward with his cry of Battle, the Word of our True Wills."
-Aleister Crowley, The Law is for All, commentary to I:7

The first question one might ask when embarking upon the quest to understand the philosophy of Thelema is "What is my Will?" or "How do I know what my Will is?" The answer to this questions might initially be presumed to be answerable in the form of a sentence such as "my Will is to be a doctor" or "my Will is to eat this sandwich," but this is not so, for this is to restrict the Will to the trappings of language and reason. The Will is the innermost Motion of one's being, an individual expression of the Eternal Energy of the cosmos.

"The Way that can be named is not the Eternal Way." [1]

To confine the Will to logical expression is to inherently assert a limit. Further, it assumes that one must have a logical reason for acting such-and-such way, but to do so would make one "fall down into the pit called Because" to "perish with the dogs of Reason." [2] As the Beast remarked, "It is ridiculous to ask a dog why it barks," [3] for this is simply an expression of its nature, not determined by any kind of rational process. "One must fulfil one's true Nature, one must do one's Will. To question this is to destroy confidence, and so to create an inhibition... There is no 'reason' why a Star should continue in its orbit. Let her rip! Every time the conscious acts, it interferes with the Subconscious, which is Hadit. It is the voice of Man, and not of a God. Any man who 'listens to reason' ceases to be a revolutionary." [4]

Again, to express one's Will in terms of reason is to assert a limit. This is because of the inherently dualistic nature of not only logic & reason but language & thought themselves. To do this would be to drive a cleft into one's being, fracturing it into multiplicity.

"Thoughts are false." [5]

To experience and manifest one's pure Will, one must not act out of notions of purpose nor out of desire for some pre-formed result or outcome. [6] Both of these things are manifestations of the dualistic mind and restrict one unnecessarily to the trappings of logic. The Will can only be the genuine and spontaneous manifestation of one's inmost nature, the united whole of one's being.

Since "the word of Sin is Restriction," [7] the Will is certainly not deduced from the workings of the mind which, by its very nature, asserts division & separation and therefore restriction. When we clear away the morass of morality and the over-contemplated categories of metaphysics, the Will may more easily spring forward uninhibited.

"In logic there is a trace of effort and pain; logic is self-conscious. So is ethics, which is the application of logic to the facts of life... Life is an art, and like perfect art it should be self-forgetting; there ought not to be any trace of effort or painful feeling. Life... ought to be lived as a bird flies through the air or as a fish swims in the water. As soon as there are signs of elaboration, a man is doomed, he is no more a free being. You are not living as you ought to live, you are suffering under the tyranny of circumstances; you are feeling a constract of some sort, and you lose your independence... Not to be bound by rules, but to be creating one's own rules..." [8]

And this last point is important because Thelema is not illogical in that it wishes reason to be entirely abolished, but rather it wishes that it be put in its rightful place, under the governance of the Will. The mind is a harsh master and a good mistress, for once one realizes that one's Will is not amenable to the dualisms of thought, once freed from one's earlier bonds of logic, one may again employ reason to one's benefit in those circumstances that call for it.

"It is not the object... to look illogical for its own sake, but to make people know that logical consistency is not final, and that there is a certain transcendental statement that cannot be attained by mere intellectual cleverness... When we say 'yes,' we assert, and by asserting we limit ourselves. When we say 'no,' we deny, and to deny is exclusion. Exclusion and limitation, which after all are the same thing, murder the soul; for is it not the life of the soul that lives in perfect freedom and in perfect unity? There is no freedom or unity... in exclusion or in limitation." [9]

Here - outside logical dualisms, outside notions of ethics, purpose, and metaphysics - the Will can be known. This knowledge is not that of the mind which asserts duality - a knower and a thing known - but the experiential knowledge, the gnosis, of immersion in the flow of the world. Here the Eternal Will runs through oneself, is oneself, for "...mind, never at ease, creaketh "I". / This I persisteth not, posteth not through generations, changeth momently, finally is dead. / Therefore is man only himself when lost to himself in The Charioting." [10] Therefore, one 'knows' one's Will in doing one's Will. The Will that is not restricted by mental formulations springs freely from one's innermost Self, crowned & conquering.

"Life is fact and no explanation is necessary or pertinent. To explain is to apologize, and why should we apologize for living? To live - is that not enough? Let us then live!" [11]


References

[1] Lao Tsu, Tao Teh Ching, ch.1
[2] Liber AL vel Legis, II:27
[3] Aleister Crowley, The Law is For All, commentary to II:31
[4] Aleister Crowley, The Law is For All, commentary to II:30-31
[5] Aleister Crowley, The Book of Lies, ch.5
[6] A reference to Liber AL vel Legis, I:44, "For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect."
[7] Liber AL vel Legis, I:41
[8] D.T. Suzuki, Intro to Zen Buddhism, p.34
[9] D.T. Suzuki, Intro to Zen Buddhism, p.37
[10] Aleister Crowley, The Book of Lies, ch.8
[11] D.T. Suzuki, Intro to Zen Buddhism, p.41

Diatribes of Daylight

"Qui plume a, guerre a. Ce monde est un vaste temple dédié à la discorde"
-Voltaire



Preface

Having proved & manifested myself in the creative & synthetic sphere of Thelema - primarily with my essays "Thelema & Buddhism," "Active Thelema," "Thelemic Values: A New View of Morality," and "Psychological Commentary on Liber AL vel Legis" - I turn my energies now toward destruction.

These critical essays, called "Diatribes of Daylight," don't represent the malicious and sloppy sort of destruction but rather that of the impersonal eye of the surgeon who makes incisions where necessary or the gardener who pulls out the weeds without a second thought. For both of these have the greater whole's health & growth in mind.

And so I have one simple request before we begin.... Scalpel!


Part I: Thelema, Ceremonial Magick, and Freedom

If Thelema is about freedom - which it most certainly is, being enshrined in the words 'There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt' - then this must surely include freedom from intellectual cages & baggage.

This includes, most pertinently to one not exposed to this type of thought (Thelemic, that is), freedom from morality. One's will is the self-creating, self-destroying, self-transforming source of 'ethics.' Ethics is, in fact, merely an afterthought of one's motion, which can never be captured quite adequately with words (a subject of an upcoming "Diatribe"), let alone moral proscriptions.

More importantly - since the absurdity of Western Judeo-Christian morals can easily be seen by anyone with a minor taste for honesty & courage - Thelema means freedom from metaphysical trappings, especially all occult schemes. This includes the Qabalistic Tree of Life, the 'Rays' of Bailey, the Theosophical planes of Blavatsky, the elements, the astrological zodiac, etc. etc.

The practical utility of the Tree of Life as a map for symbolic categorization often overshadows the fact that it is, after all, a map. Aside from the absurdities of various Thelemites arguing over what attribution goes where on the Tree, one can also see how this scheme is intimately tied up witwh occultism, especially ceremonial magick. But this is all one particular form, one that the Beast certainly had fondness for, but let us be seriously honest:

How many people have been led astray by these ceremonial trappings? How many literally go insane, have their ego inflated to planetary proportions, have their bookcases lined but create nothing from themselves? How many get lost in the obscurities of gematria and math-mongering? How many have sickly, obese bodies and cluttered, lop-sided intellects? How many can cause enough change in accordance with their wills to get a job, start a business, or maintain a lodge, let alone create new writings & art, start a profess-house, a podcast, or a journal? How much more joy, beauty, and freedom could we manifest if we put down the Qabalah books & our 'magical wands' and picked up a shovel & a pen?

How have these studies and these theatrics made you more free? Have they not bogged you down in an insufferable stupor of word-equating and dagger-waving? Our ceremonial magick rooms are like the Sunday Church halls - we remember our practice for an hour and then go out to be unnecessarily malicious to others, chain-smoke cigarettes to feed our addictions, and be utterly weak & helpless in the face of daily necessities like work & social interactions.

And isn't Thelema supposed to be about freedom?...

• Metaphysics consists of misinterpreted metaphors. {5.12.08}

• Our notion of the world is a useful fiction. {5.16.08}

• The world is in one sense ultimately meaningless but it is conversely also infinitely meaningful in the sense that there are infinite interpretations for every one of the infinite events by an infinite amount of potential centers of force. {5.20.08}

• Ineffability - It is said that 'those who know do not say, those who say do not know,' but it is rather that they can not say. Those who have Knowledge in the sense of Gnosis (of the non-dual nature of reality) cannot adequately express it in terms of language - hence both the kataphatic and the apophatic mystical literature. (Its not possible to give that which is holy to the dogs for only with those with ears to hear & eyes to see can recognize pearls for what they are). It is then, at this point, the job of the philosopher to complain and the job of the artist to create & re-arrange. {5.24.08}

• Theodicy is Theoidiocy - There is no such thing as an Absolute Moral Law and therefore there is no such thing as an absolute sort of 'Evil' (nor an absolute sort of 'Good'!) Things can be construed relatively as good and bad for oneself but to question why some sort of Deity would bring Conflict, Death, War, Hunger, Suffering, and 'Evil' is to misunderstand both the necessary contrast & the relativity of complementary dualities. {5.24.08}

• “This too shall pass” – What ever can be bounded by ‘this’ is implicitly separate from ‘that’ and therefore conditioned… and therefore impermanent. {3.28.08}

• The many change and pass, the One remains – Transitive verbs are misleading; all things are the various modifications of a unified Subject in itself, and therefore as a whole it is never modified. Only when this unified Subject is divided, when ‘things’ and ‘categories’ arise and their bounds are felt as reality, do ‘modificatoins’ and ‘change’ seem to be apparent. All ‘objects’ are part of the unified Subject; the deed, the doer of the deed, and the situation which makes the deed possible are all parts of the unified Subject. {3.29.08}

• One knows harmony & satiation to the degree one has experienced dissonance & hunger. {3.30.08}

• The faithful person criticizing the rational does not realize the amount of reason in their arguments. The rational person criticizing the faithful does not realize the amount of faith in their beliefs. {4.21.08}

• "No more discord!," cry the weak and weary. A musician would never make the mistake of wishing there to be no discord in the world. {4.21.08}

• The tension of dissonance is necessary for the resolution into harmony. {4.21.08}

• Our mind attends to things to the degree that they are novel. Unconsciousness accompanies repeated rhythms. {4.21.08}

• Peace is unrestricted movement. {4.27.08}

• Identity – a calamitous cage for the ignorant, and a persona-play for the wise. {4.29.08}

• Because of the development of advanced forms of communication between human organisms, syntax in language was developed: a pre-supposed subject was assumed to enact verbs related to that organism's body & mind. {1.20.08}

• Our perceptual framework is overlaid by a syntax reinforced by language: there exists a subject (noun) separate from some object/non-subject performing some action/verb. Is the syntax "true" or simply economical for the body? {1.21.08}

• You enjoy yourself most when your self is lost in the enjoying. {3.21.08}

• What do we human being truly enjoy most? Let us be honest with ourselves (for once). Our highest desirderatum is proportional to our highest unconsciousness: sleep for the tired, conversation for the talkative, drugs of various degrees and sorts for all ages and temperaments, ascetic methods for the spiritual aspirant, "losing yourself" in any activity from sports to shopping to sex. {3.21.08}

• Parable of conversation as theater-stage - Perhaps the real reason behind an aversion to most talk are all of the incessant "I"s; and to force 'all this' into one "I" also is, for 'my remark,' just too tiresome for some stars... {3.21.08}

• Modern man as a benign tumor: man as separate from nature; "self" as separate from "surroundings." Let us overreach our "boundaries" (consequently finding them to be convenient fictions) and truly be ourselves: malignant tumors; that is, constantly intertwining, outstretching, receiving, integrating, and being integrated. "Malignance" is merely an annoyed judgment by the thing assimilated. {3.21.08}

Towards a naturalistic account of occultism

Table of Contents
* part 1: body image & the astral body
* part 2: the biological processes behind "astral projection"

Most methods of projecting the 'astral body' or 'body image' consist in the dual method of physical relaxation and mental concentration on an imagined extrapersonal visuo-spatial perspective. Now with the advent of many modern scientific tools like MRIs, EEGs, and PETs and with blossoming of the field of neuroscience, we may better understand the natural processes behind the phenomenon of "astral projection," or volitional out-of-body experiences.

Physical relaxation essentially equates with reducing the amount of external stimuli received by the body. This allows for the brain to trick itself into thinking one's perspective is outside one's own body - an out-of-body experience or 'astral projection.'

When the body is in a relaxed stated, the method of astral projection often relies on imagining oneself in a visual & spatial perspective outside of one's own body. It was noted in the previous installment of "Naturalistic Occultism" how this would be biologically feasible. To repeat: it is thought that changes in visual attention could potentially create out-of-body experiences[1]; in addition to this, imagined visual stimuli are treated as similar to actual stimuli by the brain. [2][3] Therefore it may be possible for enough volitional attention to be directed towards imagining certain visual stimuli to potentially induce an out-of-body experience.

This imagination is not necessarily visual. For example, Robert Bruce's "rope technique" utilizes only imaginary tactile sensations of feeling a rope to the exclusion of imaginary visual stimuli. Some argue that visual imagination demands more "mental energy" than tactile imaginations: a hypothesis which may potentially be empirically tested.

Often, various feelings, sights, and noises are experienced while attempting to imagine a perspective outside of one's own body. Vestibular sensations accompanied Olaf Blanke's studies of out-of-body experiences.[1] The onset of vestibular (feelings of the body in space and one's own balance) and somatosensory illusions are most likely a sign of the beginning of a successful "astral projection;" that is, a successful conscious "separation" of the body image or "astral body" from the physical body.

Let us at the outset discard the various notions that these perceptions of "vibrations," "light," and bodily distortions at the onset of volitional projections are some kind of divine energy, magical force, or "astral current." Not only are these assertions unempirical (and largely unfalsifiable), but they add nothing to our understanding by instead relegating the causal mechanism that gives rise to these initial illusions to some abstract and ill-defined concept. These sensations of vibration, light, and bodily distortions are rooted in the physiology of the human nervous system, specifically its integration of visual, tactile, auditory, and vestibular information in the parietal cortex (and especially the temporo-parietal junction as implicated by Blanke et al.)[1]. Even after a powerful experience he dubbed the "Star-Sponge Vision," Crowley explains, "I want you to note in particular the astonishing final identification of this cosmic experience with the nervous system as described by the anatomist."[4] This is confirmed in his essay "Ethyl Oxide" where he remarks, "Having perceived "the Universe as Nothingness with twinkles" etc... [it was] subsequently understood that this form is determined by the structure of the nervous system & thus really a phantasm of it..."[5]

Though these vestibular and somatosensory illusions may be signs of success, many counsel to ignore these sensations because they may ruin chances for astral projection. This is most likely because the initial appearance of vestibular illusions pertains merely to the onset of a volitional projection. Further concentration on an imagined extrapersonal perspective is needed for a complete "split" between one's awareness within one's physical body and the body image/"astral body."

Summary

*The essential method of volitional out-of-body experiences is physical relaxation and mental concentration on an imagined extrapersonal visuo-spatial perspective.
*Physical relaxation essentially equates with reducing the amount of external stimuli received by the body.
*Because changes in visual attention could potentially create out-of-body experiences and imagined visual stimuli are treated as similar to actual stimuli by the brain, it is possible for enough volitional attention to be directed towards imagining certain visual stimuli to potentially induce an out-of-body experience or "astral projection."
*The onset of vestibular and somatosensory illusions are most likely a sign of the beginning of a successful "astral projection.
*These sensations of vibration, light, and bodily distortions are rooted in the physiology of the human nervous system, specifically its integration of visual, tactile, auditory, and vestibular information in the parietal cortex, especially the temporo-parietal junction.

References

1) Blanke, O., Ortigue, S., Landis, T., & Seeck, M. (2002). "Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions." Nature, Vol.419, p.269-270; http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/psych113/OutofBody.pdf

2) Le Bihan, D., Turner, R., Zeffiro, T., Cuenod, C., Jezzard, P., & Bonnerot, V. (1993). "Activation of Human Primary Visual Cortex During Visual Recall: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol.90 No.24, p.11802-11805; http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=48072

3) Marzi, C., Mancini, F., Metitieri, T., & Savazzi, S. (2006). "Retinal eccentricity effects on reaction time to imagined stimuli." Neuropsychologia, Vol.44 No.8, p.1489-1495; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16360710

4) Crowley, Aleister. Eight Lectures on Yoga; http://hermetic.com/crowley/yoga/8yoga6.html

5) Crowley, Aleister. "Ethyl Oxide;" http://www.beyondweird.com/occult/ethyl-ac.html

Towards a naturalistic account of occultism

In chapter XVIII of Magick in Theory & Practice, Aleister Crowley writes of the astral body, "which is called by various authors the Astral double, body of Light, body of fire, body of desire, fine body, scin-laeca and numberless other names."[1] If we are to adopt the motto of Scientific Illuminism - "the method of science, the aim of religion" - we must certainly adapt to modern methods of science.

Consequently, the astral body, body of light, etc. may now be understood in physiological, or biological terms, largely because of recent developments in the understanding of the human nervous system. It is known that there exists a representation of the body created by the brain called the "body image." Recent research has implicated the parietal cortex as the area of the brain largely responsible for generating one's own view of one's body.[2] Many experiments revolve around the fact that the body image is highly malleable and changeable. The first hypothesis put forward is that the astral body is actually the brain's self-representation of the body.

Further, much research has also been done on out-of-body experiences by Olaf Blanke and Henrik Ehrsson, among others. The assumption that self is the body by most people is challenged by the fact that people experience themselves in "extrapersonal space" (the space outside of one's body).[3] The fact is that one's "visuo-spatial perspective" is not necessarily confined to being within one's physical body. Blanke writes, "[Out-of-body experiences] are culturally invariant brain phenomena that can be investigated using neuroscience." Biologically it is dependent on "an interaction between lower-level vestibular and multisensory processing and higher-level self-processing such as egocentric visuo-spatial perspective taking, agency, and self-location."[3] The astral plane with all of its "astral phantoms" is actually the "extrapersonal space" experienced in out-of-body experiences.

Concerning the "astral body" Crowley writes, "Now this interior body of the Magician, of which we spoke at the beginning of this chapter, does exist, and can exert certain powers which his natural body cannot do. It can, for example, pass through "matter", and it can move freely in every direction through space. But this is because "matter", in the sense in which we commonly use the word, is on another plane." The difference is most likely that "matter" is external stimuli interpreted by the senses and the brain, while "astral phantoms" in the "astral plane" - or "extrapersonal space" - are internal stimuli (specifically the self-representations that constitute the brain-generated "body image") being re-interpreted by the brain. Therefore, "matter" (physical plane) is sensory stimuli from the environment interpreted by the brain, and the various "objects" and "phantoms" of "extrapersonal space" (astral plane) are reactions among the body's own self-representations.

As for the method of "astral projection" or volition (intentional) out-of-body experiences... a past article detailed the basic theory & practice of this method. It is thought that changes in visual attention could potentially create out-of-body experiences. [4] In addition to this, imagined visual stimuli are treated as similar to actual stimuli by the brain. [5][6] Therefore it may be possible for enough volitional attention to be directed towards imagining certain visual stimuli to potentially induce an out-of-body experience. It is of note that the method for volitional out-of-body experiences, or “projection,” used by the infamous occultist Aleister Crowley involves, “transfer[ing] the seat of his consciousness to [an] imagined figure; so that it may seem to him that he is seeing with its eyes, and hearing with its ears.”[7] This method may potentially work because one is supplying oneself with imaginary visual, tactile, and auditory signals - specifically the sight of oneself from an extrapersonal perspective - which are treated as real afferent signals by the brain.[5][6] This conflicting information supplied by the body’s own imagination would essentially mimic the effects of supplying the brain with actual manipulated visual signals, like from video headsets, which generated out-of-body experiences for Blanke and Ehrsson.[8][9]

Summary

*The astral body is actually the brain's self-representation of the body, or the "body image."
*The astral plane with all of its "astral phantoms" is actually the "extrapersonal space" experienced in out-of-body experiences.
*"Matter" (physical plane) is sensory stimuli from the environment interpreted by the brain, and the various "objects" and "phantoms" of "extrapersonal space" (astral plane) are reactions among the body's own self-representations.
*Astral projection is possible because changes in visual attention could potentially create out-of-body experiences and imagined visual stimuli are treated similarly to actual stimuli by the brain.
*Astral projection may therefore be understood naturalistically as volitional attention being directed towards imagining certain visual stimuli to potentially induce an out-of-body experience.

References

1) Crowley, Aleister. Magick in Theory & Practice; http://hermetic.com/crowley/aba/chap18.html

2) Ravilious, Kate. "How the brain builds its image of the body," The Guardian (11/29/2005); http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/29/neuroscience.highereducation>

3) Blanke, Olaf & Arzy, Shahar. "The Out-of-Body Experience: Disturbed Self-Processing at the Temporo-Parietal Junction," (2005); http://www.mindmodulations.com/mindmods/images/PDF/16.blanke%20o,%20arzy%20s.%20(2005)%20out-of-body%20experience,%20self,%20and%20the%20temporoparietal%20junction.%20neuroscientist%2011%2016-24.pdf

4) Blanke, O., Ortigue, S., Landis, T., & Seeck, M. (2002). "Stimulating illusory own-body perceptions." Nature, Vol.419, p.269-270; http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu/courses/psych113/OutofBody.pdf

5) Le Bihan, D., Turner, R., Zeffiro, T., Cuenod, C., Jezzard, P., & Bonnerot, V. (1993). "Activation of Human Primary Visual Cortex During Visual Recall: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol.90 No.24, p.11802-11805; http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=48072

6) Marzi, C., Mancini, F., Metitieri, T., & Savazzi, S. (2006). "Retinal eccentricity effects on reaction time to imagined stimuli." Neuropsychologia, Vol.44 No.8, p.1489-1495; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16360710

7) Crowley, Aleister. (1909). "Liber O vel Manus et Sagittae." The Equinox Vol.I No.2, p.26; http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/libero.htm

8) Blanke, O., Lenggenhager, B., & Tadi, T. (2007). "Video Ergo Sum: Manipulating Bodily Self-Consciousness." Science, Vol.317, p.1096-1099; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5841/1096

9) Ehrsson, H. (2007). "The Experimental Induction of Out-of-Body Experiences." Science, Vol.317, p.1048; http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5841/1048 (see also http://www.slate.com/id/2172694/ )

Certainly, the Will of the individual is central in the Law of Thelema, which is "Do what thou wilt." This is "the whole of the Law" (Liber AL I:40) and "There is no law beyond" (Liber AL III:60) it. Since this concept of doing one's Will is absolutely fundamental to Thelema, it must be understood clearly. One way in which to better understand a concept is to approach it from different angles. In an earlier post it was proposed that one can view the Will from two "planes," which were named "theoretical/absolute" and "practical/relative." Here, a new dichotomy with which to view the Will will be concisely propounded. It consists in two viewpoints of the Will, both of which may be supported from various quotations in Thelemic 'Holy Books' and especially the words of Aleister Crowley.

The two approaches that are being asserted are (1) the "analog" and (2) the "digital." These terms are used because of their meanings in computing, neurology, and clocks. "Digital" implies that something can only be understood in terms of 0s and 1s, yes and no, true and false. "Analog" implies that something can be understood as shades of grey in between 0 and 1. Essentially, "digital" is considering things as black and white (0 or 1); "analog" is considering things as many shades of grey (0 to 1).

We may see now that the Thelemic concept of Will may be understood either digitally as black or white, or it may be understood in an analog fashion as many shades of grey. The truth of one approach over the other is not being asserted, but we may instead investigate the advantages and disadvantages of adhering to each view.


Digital (0 or 1) approach to the Will

"The sole test of one's lordship is to know what one's true Will is, and to do it."
-New Comment to AL II:18

"Thou must (1) Find out what is thy Will. (2) Do that Will..."
-Liber II: Message of the Master Therion

Both of these quotations imply that the Will is something which can be "known" and "found out." You either know your Will (1) or you do not know your Will (0); since 1 or 0 are the only choices in this view, it is called 'digital.' "Known" and "found out" can mean a plethora of things (for example, 'known' is used in a mystical sense in the phrase 'Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel') but to most they seem to imply an intelligible form of the Will, capable of being put into words. In this sense one could easily say whether an action/idea was one's Will or not simply because we have a succinct statement claiming what the Will "is." For example, if we suddenly think that "My Will is to create an ark capable of sustaining three thousand giraffes," any attempt to create a bench, a table, or a chair is against this "Will" and all motives aimed at creating this (admittedly absurd) giraffe-carrying ark will be seen as in line with one's "Will."

Now we must ask ourselves first of all: Is it even possible to make a statement in intelligible words about someone's Will? Liber AL has a very prominent curse against Reason and Because, and I emphasized in a chapter of the Psychological Commentary on Liber AL vel Legis that the Will cannot be fully understood rationally because of the "factor infinite & unknown:" all aspects of the Will which are subconscious (below the threshold of consciousness). In this sense it is simply not possible to formulate the Will in terms of intelligible words for the simple fact that words abide by the rules of reason and language which "are skew-wise" because of the multitude of subconscious factors that influence the Will. In "The Stone of the Philosophers" from Konx Om Pax, Crowley summarizes this point saying, "The thinkable is false. All our attempts to crystallize Truth in words are just as futile as the trickery by which the artist gets his sunlight effects with some dull ochre. The impresson's good enough, maybe, at a distance, as an impression. Examine it close: it goes. God sees the clever composition; man sees the untidy brushwork. So logic destroys our religions, despite their truth." They destroy our Will too by Restriction, "the word of Sin" (Liber AL I:41).

One way to "get around this" fact is to acknowledge a different meaning for the words "known" and "found out." If we take "known" and "found out" to mean more of an experiential knowing, not necessarily the type of "knowing" which requires a knower who interprets knowledge based on linguistic rules. We may then see Crowley's comment that "the sole test of one's lordship is to know what one's true Will is, and to do it" means that the sole test is to not simply know one's Will in terms of words - to formulate it on the plane of reason - but to "know" it will your whole being. The fact that we do not differentiate between the word "knowledge" when it speaks of ideas and the experiential "knowledge" (for which many have adopted the term "gnosis") shows how the confusion between these subtly different usages of the term "knowledge" may arise.



Now we should ask: What are the advantages and disadvantages of adopting this view? Notice that this question has nothing to do with whether this digital approach is "true" or not, but it deals simply with what benefits and detriments come with this view. The chief advantage of this view is that it is simple and easily understandable. It is much easier to think about things in terms of black and white instead of potentially infinite shades of grey in between; similarly it is easier for people to conceive of the Will in terms of "I am doing my Will" or "I am not doing Will" rather than the analog approach discussed below. This view also allows for a more definite approach to Will: one may say whether person X is doing their Will or they are not doing their Will. Many people find this sureness and definiteness to be an advantage.

What exactly are the disadvantages then? The essential disadvantages are that (a) this view lends itself to viewing one's Will as static and stagnant, and (b) it creates divisions for social "othering" and ostracization. Firstly, when we conceive of the Will digitally, we can conceive of only two ways of viewing this Will: either you are doing your Will or you are not. In this sense, if one is doing one's Will there is really nothing left to accomplish or improve. The only other option is simply not doing one's Will. With this view in mind, any kind of improvement, change' or excelling is completely unnecessary. If the Formula of the Crowned & Conquering Child is continual Growth, any theory which leads to stagnation must surely be purged in the dynamic fire of Will. We might also note again that this approach requires one to intelligibly assert one's Will in terms of language (and therefore reason), and therefore it implicitly violates the injunction that "Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise." By formulating one's Will into conscious language and reason one denies the "factor infinite & unknown" of the subconscious Will.


Analog (0 to 1) approach to the Will

"We are not to regard ourselves as base beings, without whose sphere is Light or 'God'. Our minds and bodies are veils of the Light within. The uninitiate is a 'Dark Star,' and the Great Work for him is to make his veils transparent by 'purifying' them. This 'purification' is really 'simplification'; it is not that the veil is dirty, but that the complexity of its folds makes it opaque. The Great Work therefore consists principally in the solution of complexes. Everything in itself is perfect, but when things are muddled, they become 'evil'."
-New Comment to Liber AL I:8

The essential idea of this quotation is that the Great Work is a continual process of "purification," of "solution of complexes." In this sense we are never "doing our Will" or "not doing our Will" but we are always doing our Will to a certain degree. At some points we are approximating the ideal of the Will (1) more, sometimes we are much farther away from the theoretical point of absolutely not doing one's Will (0). Essentially, one is always somewhere in between 0 (not doing one's Will) and 1 (doing one's Will) and the process of the Great Work is to attempt to move as close to "1" as possible.

In this sense, we could never say Person X is doing their Will and Person Y is not doing their Will. It would only make sense to say that "Person X is manifesting their Will to a certain degree" and "Person Y is manifesting their Will to a certain degree." It seems impossible to even compare Person X to Person Y because each scale of degrees is itself unique to the individual and not objectively comparable to each other like temperature would be on a thermostat. Just as the "method" in the digital approach may be expressed as going from 0 (not doing one's Will) to 1 (doing one's Will), the analog "method" may be expressed thus: each individual's Will as having has a certain amount of potential that can be actualized. In this sense, 0 represents the smallest amount of the Will's potential actualized and 1 represents the greatest amount of the Will's potential actualized. The "method" in the analog approach would therefore be to actualize as much potential of the Will as possible, approximating the ideal (1).

One initial consideration in this approach must be whether this "ideal" of Will, which represents the absolute greatest amount of the Will's potential actualized, is a static, dynamic, or infinite ideal. Conceiving of the ideal of the Will as "static" is most certainly going to lead one into stagnancy, thinking one's growth is complete when it never is (c.f. the Formula of the Crowned & Conquering Child being continual Growth). An ideal which is dynamic is of more practical use for it implies that we may "strive ever to more!" (Liber AL III:62) by setting our ideals higher and higher with every triumph. Consequently, we may simply just conceive of this ideal of Will as infinite for the fact that it may continually be set beyond and exceeded.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of adopted this "analog" approach to the Will? One disadvantage is the lack of definiteness and sureness that accompanies treating Will as many shades of grey instead of simply black or white. Many find comfort and security in a definite black or white scheme and see this as a disadvantage to viewing the Will in an analog fashion. Also, in this scheme it becomes immediately apparent that no two Wills are identical and so we may never criticize another as not doing his or her Will but simply that they are not actualizing the most possible potential of their Will (and even so, we are no judges of what a star feels is his or her most fulfilling path).

The advantages of this "analog" approach are (a) there is room for improvement, excelling, and adapting, (b) one is not led into divisive "othering" based on the dichotomy of 'I am doing my Will but X is not doing his/her Will,' (c) the appreciation that all stars are doing their Will, just to different degrees of potential being actualized.

Well, what do you think?

(Paul Cézanne’s “Orgy," 1880)

What is being asserted?

Axiom 1: Self-awareness & Sensory-awareness are segregated activities in the brain - "There is a complete segregation between self-related cortical regions, revealed through introspection-related activity, and sensorimotor cortex, revealed through rapid categorization-related activity."

Axiom 2: Self-awareness & Sensory-awareness are mutually antagonistic processes - "Rather than showing coactivation, self-related cortex was inhibited during the rapid categorization task below the rest condition, indicating that sensory processing and self-related representations are actually mutually antagonistic processes."

(based on findings from: I. Goldberg, M. Harel, R. Malach. "When the Brain Loses Its Self: Prefrontal Inactivation during Sensorimotor Processing." Neuron (2006), Volume 50, Issue 2, Pages 329-339)

* * * * * *

What is being contested here?

The common notion that a self-aware observer or 'subject' is needed for subjective awareness - "that subjective awareness involves a kind of interplay between sensory cortex and self-related prefrontal cortex" - is contested by showing that not only are self-awareness and sensory awareness separate, but they are mutually antagonistic processes.

This essentially calls into question the degree that self-representations are engaged and necessary during sensory perception (or "sensory awareness"). "These results argue that... self-representations are not a necessary element in the emergence of sensory perception. Indeed, it appears that self-related activity is actually shut off during highly demanding sensory tasks." (Ibid)

* * * * * *

What are the implications?

i) People are usually functioning with a balance of both self-related and sensory processing tasks.

ii) It is possible for people to lose their sense of self by intense (that is, most divergent from the original equilibrium) sensory processing activity

iii) The specific sensory processing activity conducive to loss of self-awareness may be classed as 'excitatory sensory processes,' which includesall activities that increase sensory processing.

iv) Excitatory sensory processes may be classed further into
--a) Diffused - where all excitatory forms are encouraged (e.g. dance, "sensory overload")
--b) Concentrated - where all excitatory forms are discouraged/inhibited except for one specific form which is focused on most intensely (e.g. meditation, playing music, "losing yourself" in an activity)

v) There may be a correlation between diffused excitatory processes and passivity; also between concentrated excitatory processes and activity (there is volition/will-power involved).

vi) The result of an intense excitatory is the disrupting of the functional balance between self-related and sensory processing tasks (c.f. line i), based on their mutually antagonistic relationship (c.f. Axiom 2)

vii) This disrupted balance consequently disrupts the self-related cortical activities and therefore one's self-representations - essentially, one's sense of self diminishes in direct relation with the intensity of one's level of sensory processing


NOTE: Meditation is classed under 'concentrated excitatory' sensory processes instead of being viewed as inhibitory because it aims at the maximum focused or concentrated excitatory processing on a particular object of meditation. This excitatory concentration is aided by inhibiting all other distracting influences and thoughts but the ultimate aim is absorption into a sensory object, external or imagined (the brain processes imaginary imagery as it does normal sensory stimuli or, "visual perception and imagination share a similar visuotopic organisation" [source 1] [source 2]).

2007 was a significant year in Thelema. John Crow was expelled from the OTO in March and announced that the Thelema Coast to Coast podcast was going off the air until further notice in December. The Strategic Plan of the OTO was finally publicly released, and the Education Committee was formed. In August, the "Beauty & Strength"-themed NOTOCON VI occurred in Salem, Massachusettes where Sabazius gave his controversial keynote address. The Journal of Thelemic Studies arose - the first non-partisan academic journal completely un-affiliated with the OTO to bring together the most modern thought in the Thelemic community - and released its first issue...

With these events behind us, I would like to review what I think are my top ten posts of 2007.

* * * * * *

10) Vivekananda's Universal Religion (April 2007)
Examines Thelema in light of comments made by Swami Vivekananda about what would be necessary for a new universal religion.

9) Thelemic Eightfold Path, pt.1 - Right View (March 2007)
A look at how Thelema deals with issues brought up in the Buddhist Eightfold Path including the Four Noble Truths, impermanence, karma, and rebirth.

8) The Will in Thelema (October 2007)
This short essay asserts that considering the Will in Thelema on two planes - (a) the theoretical/absolute and (b) the practical/relative - is most effective.

7) Psych. Commentary on Liber AL: The Modus Operandi of the Thelemite (October 2007)
This chapter of the Psychological Commentary on Liber AL vel Legis details how the "modus operandi" or method of the Thelemite is "love under will."

6) Attaining undifferentiated consciousness (samadhi, satori, etc.) (October 2007)
This short and extremely concise treatise explains the theory & practice of attaining what is proposed to be labeled as 'undifferentiated consciousness.'





5) Attaining out-of-body experiences (October 2007)
This short and extremely concise treatise explains the theory & practice of attaining what is known as 'out-of-body experiences.'

4) Psych. Commentary to Liber AL: Individuation & the true Will (October 2007)
This chapter of the Psychological Commentary on Liber AL vel Legis details how the Great Work, Knowledge & Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, Jungian individuation, and doing one's will are all one similar process.

3) The Writings of V. - or - the impetuous wanderings of a delusional mind (August 2007)
Mystical writings organized in five short "Outbursts," each treating various subjects in a style similar to William Blake, Aleister Crowley, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

2) φιλοσοφία (December 2007)
A concise treatise espousing a philosophical standpoint including cosmology, ontology, teleology, eschatology, ethics, epistemology, and aesthetics.

1) Thelemic Values: a new view of morality (November 2007)
An in-depth view about how Thelema treats ethics, morality, and values; Thelema's standpoint is correlated both with Nietzsche's three stages of one's metamorphosis as detailed in his "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and also Carl Roger's (the eminent psychologist) understanding of values to form a robust synthesis.

This is a collection of quotations that is not often seen about the Angel and its relation to Samadhi. All of these quotes are by Aleister Crowley. The view asserted may be certainly said to be not that the 'Angel' is an individual external to oneself, but is representative of the result known as 'Samadhi.' On Samadhi, Crowley writes in the introduction to Part 1 of Liber ABA: Book 4, "We assert that the critical phenomenon which determines success is an occurrence in the brain characterized essentially by the uniting of subject and object." -IAO131

~ ~ ~

" THE AUGOEIDES.
Lytton calls him Adonai in 'Zanoni,' and I often use this name in the note-books.
Abramelin calls him Holy Guardian Angel. I adopt this:

1. Because Abramelin's system is so simple and effective.
2. Because since all theories of the universe are absurd it is better to talk in the language of one which is patently absurd, so as to mortify the metaphysical man.
3. Because a child can understand it.

Theosophists call him the Higher Self, Silent Watcher, or Great Master.
The Golden Dawn calls him the Genius.
Gnostics say the Logos.
Zoroaster talks about uniting all these symbols into the form of a Lion (see Chaldean Oracles.)
Anna Kingsford calls him Adonai (Clothed with the Sun).
Buddhists call him Adi-Buddha - (says H. P. B.)
The Bhagavad-Gita calls him Vishnu (chapter xi.).
The Yi King calls him "The Great Person."
The Qabalah calls him Jechidah.

We also get metaphysical analysis of His nature, deeper and deeper according to the subtlety of the writer; for this vision - it is all one same phenomenon, variously coloured by our varying Ruachs [ Ruach: the third form, the Mind, the Reasoning Power, that which possesses the Knowledge of Good and Evil.] - is, I believe, the first and the last of all Spiritual Experience. For though He is attributed to Malkuth [ Malkuth: the tenth Sephira.], and the Door of the Path of His overshadowing, He is also in Kether (Kether is in Malkuth and Malkuth in Kether - "as above, so beneath"), and the End of the "Path of the Wise" is identity with Him.

So that while he is the Holy Guardian Angel, He is also Hua [The supreme and secret title of Kether.] and the Tao. [The great extreme of the Yi King.]

For since Intra Nobis Regnum deI [I.N.R.I.] all things are in Ourself, and all Spiritual Experience is a more of less complete Revelation of Him.

Yet it is only in the Middle Pillar is in any way perfect.

The Augoedes invocation is the whole thing. Only it is so difficult; one goes along through all the fifty gates of Binah [Binah: the third Sephira, the Understanding. She is the Supernal Mother, as distinguished from Malkuth, the Inferior Mother. (Nun) is attributed to the Understanding; its value is 50. ] at once, more or less illuminated, more or less deluded. But the First and the Last is this Augoeides Invocation."
-"The Temple of Solomon the King," Equinox I(01)

* * * * * *

"This Silence or Equilibrium is described in the 'Shiva Sanhita' as Samadhi: 'When the mind of the Yogi is absorbed in the Great God [ Atman, Pan, Harpocrates, whose sign is silence, etc., etc.], then the fulness of Samadhi is attained, then the Yogi gets steadfastness. [ The Vision of the Holy Guardian Angel - Adonai.]"
-"The Big Stick," Equinox I(04)

* * * * * *

"If we in any way shadow forth the Ineffable, it must be by a degradation. Every symbol is a blasphemy agains the Truth that it indicates. A painter to remind us of the sunset has no better material than dull ochre. So we need not be surprised if the Unity of Subject and Object in Consciousness which is Samadhi, the uniting of the Bride and the Lamb which is Heaven, the uniting of the Magus and the God which is Evocation, the uniting of the Man and his Holy Guardian Angel which is the seal upon the work of the Adeptus Minor, is symbolized by the geometrical unity of the circle and the square, the arithmetical unity of the 5 and the 6, and (for more universality of comprehension) the uniting of the Lingam and Yoni, the Cross and the Rose. For as in earth-life the sexual ecstasy is the loss of self in the Beloved, the creation of a third consciousness treanscending its parents, which is again reflected into matter as a child; so, immeasurably higher, upon the Plane of Spirit, Subject and Object join to disappear, leaving a transcendent unity. This third is ecstasy and death; as above, so below. " -Ibid

* * * * * *

"True, it is, of course, that the soul must not unite herself to every symbol, but only to the God which every symbol veils... The 'counterpart' is often impersonated, with the deadliest results. But if the Aspirant be wise and favoured, he will reject all but the true. And I really fail to see much difference between this doctrine and our own of attaining the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel, or the Hindu doctrine of becoming one with God." -Ibid

* * * * * *

*"The Great Work is the uniting of opposites. It may mean the uniting of the soul with God, of the microcosm with the macrocosm, of the female with the male, of the ego with the non-ego—or what not."
-Magick Without Tears, Letter C

* * * * * *

*"I must insert a short note on the word Samadhi, source of infinite misunderstanding. Etymologically it is composed of Sam (Greek sun), together with, and Adhi (Heb. Adonai), the Lord, especially the Personal Lord, or Holy Guardian Angel. The Hindus accordingly use it to name that state of mind in which subject and object, becoming One, have disappeared. Just as H combines with Cl, and HCl results, so the Yogi combines with the object of his meditation (perhaps his own heart) and these disappearing, Vishnu appears. It is not that the Yogi perceives Vishnu. The Yogi is gone, just as the Hydrogen is gone. It is not that the Heart has become Vishnu, or that Vishnu has filled the heart. The heart is gone, just as the Chlorine is gone. There is the tube, and it is full of HCl out of all relation to its elements, through the result of their union. (I purposely take the "elementary chemistry" view of the matter.) Samadhi is therefore with the Hindu a result, the result of results indeed. "
-The Psychology of Hashish, Equinox 1(02)

This is an excerpt which is not my own work from a larger work called "Introduction to the Scientific Method." It is pertinent because of its clarity and conciseness, and also because Thelema could very advantageously benefit from having the scientific method applied to many questions & claims. Since Thelema is essentially encapsulated in the maxim, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," and Magick is the "Science & Art of causing Change in conformity with Will" - the practical science & art of Thelema - they both are influenced and invigorated by this scientific method. -IAO131

* * * * * *

source: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Introduction to the Scientific Method

Introduction
I. The scientific method has four steps
II. Testing hypotheses
III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?
VI. Conclusion
VII. References

* * *

V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?

While the scientific method is necessary in developing scientific knowledge, it is also useful in everyday problem-solving. What do you do when your telephone doesn't work? Is the problem in the hand set, the cabling inside your house, the hookup outside, or in the workings of the phone company? The process you might go through to solve this problem could involve scientific thinking, and the results might contradict your initial expectations.

Like any good scientist, you may question the range of situations (outside of science) in which the scientific method may be applied. From what has been stated above, we determine that the scientific method works best in situations where one can isolate the phenomenon of interest, by eliminating or accounting for extraneous factors, and where one can repeatedly test the system under study after making limited, controlled changes in it.

There are, of course, circumstances when one cannot isolate the phenomena or when one cannot repeat the measurement over and over again. In such cases the results may depend in part on the history of a situation. This often occurs in social interactions between people. For example, when a lawyer makes arguments in front of a jury in court, she or he cannot try other approaches by repeating the trial over and over again in front of the same jury. In a new trial, the jury composition will be different. Even the same jury hearing a new set of arguments cannot be expected to forget what they heard before.

VI. Conclusion

The scientific method is intricately associated with science, the process of human inquiry that pervades the modern era on many levels. While the method appears simple and logical in description, there is perhaps no more complex question than that of knowing how we come to know things. In this introduction, we have emphasized that the scientific method distinguishes science from other forms of explanation because of its requirement of systematic experimentation. We have also tried to point out some of the criteria and practices developed by scientists to reduce the influence of individual or social bias on scientific findings. Further investigations of the scientific method and other aspects of scientific practice may be found in the references listed below.

VII. References

1. Wilson, E. Bright. An Introduction to Scientific Research (McGraw-Hill, 1952).

2. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962).

3. Barrow, John. Theories of Everything (Oxford Univ. Press, 1991).

This is an excerpt which is not my own work from a larger work called "Introduction to the Scientific Method." It is pertinent because of its clarity and conciseness, and also because Thelema could very advantageously benefit from having the scientific method applied to many questions & claims. Since Thelema is essentially encapsulated in the maxim, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," and Magick is the "Science & Art of causing Change in conformity with Will" - the practical science & art of Thelema - they both are influenced and invigorated by this scientific method. -IAO131

* * * * * *

source: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Introduction to the Scientific Method

Introduction
I. The scientific method has four steps
II. Testing hypotheses
III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?
VI. Conclusion
VII. References

* * *

III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the Greek philosophers to the present day.

Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimate quantitatively systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers."

In a field where there is active experimentation and open communication among members of the scientific community, the biases of individuals or groups may cancel out, because experimental tests are repeated by different scientists who may have different biases. In addition, different types of experimental setups have different sources of systematic errors. Over a period spanning a variety of experimental tests (usually at least several years), a consensus develops in the community as to which experimental results have stood the test of time.

IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws

In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.

An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. To take an example from daily life, suppose you discover that your car will not start. You may say, "My car does not start because the battery is low." This is your first hypothesis. You may then check whether the lights were left on, or if the engine makes a particular sound when you turn the ignition key. You might actually check the voltage across the terminals of the battery. If you discover that the battery is not low, you might attempt another hypothesis ("The starter is broken"; "This is really not my car.")

The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. A often-cited example of this is the Bohr model of the atom, in which, in an analogy to the solar system, the electrons are described has moving in circular orbits around the nucleus. This is not an accurate depiction of what an atom "looks like," but the model succeeds in mathematically representing the energies (but not the correct angular momenta) of the quantum states of the electron in the simplest case, the hydrogen atom. Another example is Hook's Law (which should be called Hook's principle, or Hook's model), which states that the force exerted by a mass attached to a spring is proportional to the amount the spring is stretched. We know that this principle is only valid for small amounts of stretching. The "law" fails when the spring is stretched beyond its elastic limit (it can break). This principle, however, leads to the prediction of simple harmonic motion, and, as a model of the behavior of a spring, has been versatile in an extremely broad range of applications.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Theories in physics are often formulated in terms of a few concepts and equations, which are identified with "laws of nature," suggesting their universal applicability. Accepted scientific theories and laws become part of our understanding of the universe and the basis for exploring less well-understood areas of knowledge. Theories are not easily discarded; new discoveries are first assumed to fit into the existing theoretical framework. It is only when, after repeated experimental tests, the new phenomenon cannot be accommodated that scientists seriously question the theory and attempt to modify it. The validity that we attach to scientific theories as representing realities of the physical world is to be contrasted with the facile invalidation implied by the expression, "It's only a theory." For example, it is unlikely that a person will step off a tall building on the assumption that they will not fall, because "Gravity is only a theory."

Changes in scientific thought and theories occur, of course, sometimes revolutionizing our view of the world (Kuhn, 1962). Again, the key force for change is the scientific method, and its emphasis on experiment.

This is an excerpt which is not my own work from a larger work called "Introduction to the Scientific Method." It is pertinent because of its clarity and conciseness, and also because Thelema could very advantageously benefit from having the scientific method applied to many questions & claims. Since Thelema is essentially encapsulated in the maxim, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law," and Magick is the "Science & Art of causing Change in conformity with Will" - the practical science & art of Thelema - they both are influenced and invigorated by this scientific method. -IAO131

* * * * * *

source: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

Introduction to the Scientific Method

Introduction
I. The scientific method has four steps
II. Testing hypotheses
III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method
IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws
V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable?
VI. Conclusion
VII. References

* * *

II. Testing hypotheses

As just stated, experimental tests may lead either to the confirmation of the hypothesis, or to the ruling out of the hypothesis. The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories.

If the predictions of a long-standing theory are found to be in disagreement with new experimental results, the theory may be discarded as a description of reality, but it may continue to be applicable within a limited range of measurable parameters. For example, the laws of classical mechanics (Newton's Laws) are valid only when the velocities of interest are much smaller than the speed of light (that is, in algebraic form, when v/c << 1). Since this is the domain of a large portion of human experience, the laws of classical mechanics are widely, usefully and correctly applied in a large range of technological and scientific problems. Yet in nature we observe a domain in which v/c is not small. The motions of objects in this domain, as well as motion in the "classical" domain, are accurately described through the equations of Einstein's theory of relativity. We believe, due to experimental tests, that relativistic theory provides a more general, and therefore more accurate, description of the principles governing our universe, than the earlier "classical" theory. Further, we find that the relativistic equations reduce to the classical equations in the limit v/c << 1. Similarly, classical physics is valid only at distances much larger than atomic scales (x >> 10-8 m). A description which is valid at all length scales is given by the equations of quantum mechanics.

We are all familiar with theories which had to be discarded in the face of experimental evidence. In the field of astronomy, the earth-centered description of the planetary orbits was overthrown by the Copernican system, in which the sun was placed at the center of a series of concentric, circular planetary orbits. Later, this theory was modified, as measurements of the planets motions were found to be compatible with elliptical, not circular, orbits, and still later planetary motion was found to be derivable from Newton's laws.

Error in experiments have several sources. First, there is error intrinsic to instruments of measurement. Because this type of error has equal probability of producing a measurement higher or lower numerically than the "true" value, it is called random error. Second, there is non-random or systematic error, due to factors which bias the result in one direction. No measurement, and therefore no experiment, can be perfectly precise. At the same time, in science we have standard ways of estimating and in some cases reducing errors. Thus it is important to determine the accuracy of a particular measurement and, when stating quantitative results, to quote the measurement error. A measurement without a quoted error is meaningless. The comparison between experiment and theory is made within the context of experimental errors. Scientists ask, how many standard deviations are the results from the theoretical prediction? Have all sources of systematic and random errors been properly estimated? This is discussed in more detail in the appendix on Error Analysis and in Statistics Lab 1.