Virtues and Vices of the Sephiroth: Netzach
Tom
Netzach is the first sephirah in which our principle focus reaches beyond
self-concern. In Hod we discovered the ability to communicate with others
but our focus was still largely internal, concerned with the transformation
of the feelings/sensations of Malkuth and Yesod into abstracted symbols. In
Netzach, our focus goes beyond self and into the feelings evoked by our
interrelationship with others. In Netzach arise relational feelings like
comaraderie, affection, antipathy, and regard.
In Netzach, our image of ourselves is in a context in which we are not the
center of the universe but are, instead, a part of a much greater whole.
That whole becomes the center of the universe, rather than the self. Most
immediately, this manifests as our attachment to a group, whose integrity is
vital to our survival. We become members of a team. We identify with our
family, our friends, our tribe.
There is a new aspect to our perception of reality that manifests in
Netzach. It is the communal reality of shared experience. An event is not
"real" unless it affects others as well as oneself. "Did you see what I
saw?" becomes a major reality-testing strategy. If others do not perceive
what you perceive, it will generate doubts as to whether or not one's
private experience (or at least one's interpretation of that experience) is
"real". As a result, cultural differences in perceived reality vary from
one another and, so convincing is our feeling of communal reality, we
honestly feel that *our* culture expresses a fundamental truth about reality
and any disagreement from that is folly. The power of the church
congregation to define reality for its members is an operation of Netzach,
for example. Another important manifestation of Netzach is the bonding that
comes of shared emotional experience. The more emotionally powerful that
experience is, the deeper is the bond that develops from it. Friendships
formed in foxholes are among the most enduring and profound of all.
The community matrix of Netzach is the basis for this sephirah's virtue and
vice. Again, here on the Pillar of Mercy, existing in dynamic balance with
its opposite on the Pillar of Severity, we see that the virtue and vice are
expressed as clear opposites. The virtue of Netzach is unselfishness. Its
vice is selfishness.
It's easy to see how unselfishness fits here. As a member of the community,
one's obligation goes beyond immediate gratification of one's desires.
Impulsive desire is trumped by responsibility to the group. One's
willingness to delay personal gratification out of regard for one's loved
ones and fellows is the basis of all politeness and kindness. It is the
first manifestation of nurturance and civility.
The vice is less easily understood because it's not personal. Of course,
personal selfishness leads to unkindness within the group, but that is
powerfully counteracted by the emotional dynamic of the group and is not the
greatest danger here. The most destructive aspect of the vice of Netzach is
the insularity of the in-group. It is xenophobia, intolerance of strangers,
the rejection of other groups by defining them as "bad" as opposed to the
in-group's "good". Racial and religious intolerance are manifestations of
the vice of Netzach. So also is the cult mentality, wherein all worth and
value comes from within the cult and all outside it are the cult's enemies
and are demonized and dehumanized. Those within are "sacred". Those
without are "profane".
The virtue of Netzach must transcend the individual and the local group. It
must be inclusive, not exclusive. Elitism in all forms is an expression of
the vice of Netzach and a clue to the lack of connection of such groups to
the higher levels of consciousness expressed in Tiphareth and beyond.
Again, we see that the key to overcoming the vice of Netzach comes from
applying the virtues of the lower sephiroth, the cutting rationality of Hod,
the independence of mind in Yesod, and the capacity in Malkuth to
discriminate what physically *is* from what *should be*. For example, when
confronted with the assertion that the brains of Africans are smaller than
the brains of European, we physically measure them, employing a rational
method, and discover that this social fiction is untrue. It is important to
acknowledge the social-emotional reality of shared experience but it is
inadvisable to try to use that as one's sole criterion to decide what is
real in other ways. We must be willing and able at all times to challenge
the intolerance of the in-group / out-group polarity. Only be so doing do
we come to truly understand the social reality of Netzach and access its
power in a way that lets us transcend it.
Absorbed
Let's say I feel tempted to have a cigarette while socialising and
submit to it, and that smoking is a negative action or something.
Would that be an example of selfishness?
It seems like a hellish task to align Netzach with the Actual Triad
with just Hodical honesty. I presume one can make that alignment much
easier if one masters the lower sephiroth.
Tom
"Absorbed" <purestd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171028027.4...@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Let's say I feel tempted to have a cigarette while socialising and
> submit to it, and that smoking is a negative action or something.
> Would that be an example of selfishness?
It would be if you didn't bother to think about how others would feel when
you took your action.
> It seems like a hellish task to align Netzach with the Actual Triad
> with just Hodical honesty. I presume one can make that alignment much
> easier if one masters the lower sephiroth.
You simply cannot master higher sephiroth without mastering the lower ones.
One builds the temple from the ground up.
Absorbed
> "Absorbed" <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Let's say I feel tempted to have a cigarette while socialising and
> > submit to it, and that smoking is a negative action or something.
> > Would that be an example of selfishness?
>
> It would be if you didn't bother to think about how others would feel when
> you took your action.
You mean one must consider the consequences of their actions? What do
you refer to with "others"?
My guess before you made your post was that the unselfishness of
Netzach would mean one should become a servant to God, if you will.
One's expectation of the taste of a particular food doesn't change the
actual taste. If I ate loads of chocolate I would damage my health, so
therefore I know I don't really want it because the the Netzachical
desire for only chocolate is illusionary. It is an experienced
pleasure, but not one rooted in reality. I would be selfish to cling
on to this desire for loads of chocolate.
Meltdarok
> On 9 Feb, 15:37, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Absorbed" <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Let's say I feel tempted to have a cigarette while socialising and
>>> submit to it, and that smoking is a negative action or something.
>>> Would that be an example of selfishness?
>> It would be if you didn't bother to think about how others would feel when
>> you took your action.
>
> You mean one must consider the consequences of their actions? What do
> you refer to with "others"?
>
> My guess before you made your post was that the unselfishness of
> Netzach would mean one should become a servant to God, if you will.
Perhaps in conceptualizing God in today's non-geocentric Cosmos,
one would be more apt to think that one should become the instrument
of Prime Infinity (God) rather than the servant. That is, becoming a
more effective caretaker of both Yourself as center, and Yourself as
the environment in which you exist.
> One's expectation of the taste of a particular food doesn't change the
> actual taste. If I ate loads of chocolate I would damage my health, so
> therefore I know I don't really want it because the the Netzachical
> desire for only chocolate is illusionary. It is an experienced
> pleasure, but not one rooted in reality. I would be selfish to cling
> on to this desire for loads of chocolate.
>
--
meltdarok
http://hometown.aol.com/meltdarok/
Tom
> On 9 Feb, 15:37, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Absorbed" <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> > Let's say I feel tempted to have a cigarette while socialising and
>> > submit to it, and that smoking is a negative action or something.
>> > Would that be an example of selfishness?
>>
>> It would be if you didn't bother to think about how others would feel
>> when
>> you took your action.
>
> You mean one must consider the consequences of their actions?
Earthshaking concept, eh?
> What do
> you refer to with "others"?
In Netzach, one sees oneself as embedded in a social matrix. People are
affected by what you do. You must take that into account because, in
Netzach, the social group is the center of the universe. Your personal
desires take a secondary position to the needs of the group.
> My guess before you made your post was that the unselfishness of
> Netzach would mean one should become a servant to God, if you will.
This comes into even greater focus as we ascend to Tiphareth. Religion in
Netzach is a social function, not a particularly mystical one. One's
relationship with God is no more than a reflection of one's relationship
with any social authority, such as one's parents or one's political leaders.
The virtue of Netzach is the facilitation of the growth and well-being of
all people in one's group. The positive growth of the group depends on its
openness to accepting new members. Social boundaries must exist, but they
must also be permeable. This permeability is a result of unselfishness.
> One's expectation of the taste of a particular food doesn't change the
> actual taste. If I ate loads of chocolate I would damage my health, so
> therefore I know I don't really want it because the the Netzachical
> desire for only chocolate is illusionary. It is an experienced
> pleasure, but not one rooted in reality. I would be selfish to cling
> on to this desire for loads of chocolate.
The health of your body is a concern of Malkuth. The desire for the taste
of chocolate is a representation of the sense perception of tasting
chocolate. Rrepresentation is a function of Yesod. Logically, you know
that indulging the desire for chocolate may exceed the amount which is good
for the body and so you limit your intake accordingly. When offered
chocolate by a host at a party, you indulge a little in order to please your
host, who takes pleasure in inducing pleasure in you. If he offers too
much, you compliment his generosity and decline with thanks. That's the
Netzach connection.
Absorbed
> In Netzach, one sees oneself as embedded in a social matrix. People are
> affected by what you do. You must take that into account because, in
> Netzach, the social group is the center of the universe. Your personal
> desires take a secondary position to the needs of the group.
I presume this is a statement about human nature. Mankind works in
groups, and the needs of the group are the individual's needs?
> > One's expectation of the taste of a particular food doesn't change the
> > actual taste. If I ate loads of chocolate I would damage my health, so
> > therefore I know I don't really want it because the the Netzachical
> > desire for only chocolate is illusionary. It is an experienced
> > pleasure, but not one rooted in reality. I would be selfish to cling
> > on to this desire for loads of chocolate.
>
> The health of your body is a concern of Malkuth. The desire for the taste
> of chocolate is a representation of the sense perception of tasting
> chocolate. Rrepresentation is a function of Yesod.
And a desire is attributed to Netzach? Or is it attributed to Yesod?
> Logically, you know
> that indulging the desire for chocolate may exceed the amount which is good
> for the body and so you limit your intake accordingly. When offered
> chocolate by a host at a party, you indulge a little in order to please your
> host, who takes pleasure in inducing pleasure in you. If he offers too
> much, you compliment his generosity and decline with thanks. That's the
> Netzach connection.
Unless I am mistaken about Netzach, I think my explanation of
unselfishness as a virtue is equivalent to yours. One must sacrifice
one's desires for a group exactly as one would sacrifice one's desire
for chocolate for one's health. If one is the Omega Man, is the virtue
still unselfishness?
Tom
> On 9 Feb, 18:24, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In Netzach, one sees oneself as embedded in a social matrix. People are
>> affected by what you do. You must take that into account because, in
>> Netzach, the social group is the center of the universe. Your personal
>> desires take a secondary position to the needs of the group.
>
> I presume this is a statement about human nature.
Certainly. The view of the virtues and vices of the sephiroth I am
expounding is a view of human consciousness and its progressive evolution.
> Mankind works in
> groups, and the needs of the group are the individual's needs?
Not always. One must decide when the needs of the group outweigh one's
individual needs or vice versa. There is considerable stress involved when
these two sets of needs conflict.
>> The health of your body is a concern of Malkuth. The desire for the
>> taste
>> of chocolate is a representation of the sense perception of tasting
>> chocolate. Rrepresentation is a function of Yesod.
>
> And a desire is attributed to Netzach? Or is it attributed to Yesod?
Desire is mostly Yesod, an anticipation of physical sensation. Love is
attributed to Netzach, not desire.
>> Logically, you know
>> that indulging the desire for chocolate may exceed the amount which is
>> good
>> for the body and so you limit your intake accordingly. When offered
>> chocolate by a host at a party, you indulge a little in order to please
>> your
>> host, who takes pleasure in inducing pleasure in you. If he offers too
>> much, you compliment his generosity and decline with thanks. That's the
>> Netzach connection.
>
> Unless I am mistaken about Netzach, I think my explanation of
> unselfishness as a virtue is equivalent to yours. One must sacrifice
> one's desires for a group exactly as one would sacrifice one's desire
> for chocolate for one's health. If one is the Omega Man, is the virtue
> still unselfishness?
If one has no social group, there is no Netzach process in operation. And
yet, you could still want too much chocolate.
Bassos
"Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7MGdnY799ObcIVHY...@comcast.com...
>
> "Absorbed" <purestd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1171041575....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> On 9 Feb, 15:37, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> My guess before you made your post was that the unselfishness of
>> Netzach would mean one should become a servant to God, if you will.
>
> This comes into even greater focus as we ascend to Tiphareth. Religion in
> Netzach is a social function, not a particularly mystical one.
"the church'.
> One's relationship with God is no more than a reflection of one's
> relationship with any social authority, such as one's parents or one's
> political leaders.
Isn't it also a bit deeper, the feelings themselves ?
> The virtue of Netzach is the facilitation of the growth and well-being of
> all people in one's group.
It seems almost with this, that you focus a whole lot on that social stuff.
Isn't there also a personal take on what netzach means ?
Your series (prolly publishable) are good.
They, however, do not seem to be very strict.
More something akin to :'stuff people could do to become more actualized'.
Far less about the otz chiim itself.
(which ofcourse can be seen as a hod approach to the tree, but hey, this
being a medium about words and all)
So my actual question is about your purpose of presenting these highly
interesting bits about the tree.
(perhaps that would defeat your purpose, if so, feel free to ignore it,
which ofcourse you would feel anyway :P {free})
> The positive growth of the group depends on its openness to accepting new
> members. Social boundaries must exist, but they must also be permeable.
> This permeability is a result of unselfishness.
This is a nice example of not being strict.
Someone who likes pointing out logical flaws in presentations could point to
the inherent struggle that comes from the above presented mode d'emploi.
The positive growth vs there must exist social boundaries.
>> One's expectation of the taste of a particular food doesn't change the
>> actual taste. If I ate loads of chocolate I would damage my health, so
>> therefore I know I don't really want it because the the Netzachical
>> desire for only chocolate is illusionary. It is an experienced
>> pleasure, but not one rooted in reality. I would be selfish to cling
>> on to this desire for loads of chocolate.
>
> The health of your body is a concern of Malkuth.
Again not very strict.
Concern is not a bodily thing, but a mental thing.
> The desire for the taste of chocolate is a representation of the sense
> perception of tasting chocolate.
Isn't desire more to do with expectations ?
> Representation is a function of Yesod.
This, however, is pretty strict, and imo pretty accurate aswell.
> Logically, you know that indulging the desire for chocolate may exceed the
> amount which is good for the body and so you limit your intake
> accordingly. When offered chocolate by a host at a party, you indulge a
> little in order to please your host, who takes pleasure in inducing
> pleasure in you. If he offers too much, you compliment his generosity and
> decline with thanks. That's the Netzach connection.
Assumption upon assumption :(
A host that offers stuff that is 'bad' for you is perhaps not being
unselfish at all.
At least your presentation opens up the whole pit of despair of reasons.
Tom
"Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:45cd30ef$0$327$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> in Netzach is a social function, not a particularly mystical one.
>
> "the church'.
Yep.
>> One's relationship with God is no more than a reflection of one's
>> relationship with any social authority, such as one's parents or one's
>> political leaders.
>
> Isn't it also a bit deeper, the feelings themselves ?
Human feelings extend beyond any those of individual sephirah.
>> The virtue of Netzach is the facilitation of the growth and well-being of
>> all people in one's group.
>
> It seems almost with this, that you focus a whole lot on that social
> stuff.
> Isn't there also a personal take on what netzach means ?
There are lots of different takes on what Netzach means. I'm examining the
virtues and vices as they relate to the progressive development of human
consciousness, especially to the development of the consciousness of the
magician.
> Your series (prolly publishable) are good.
> They, however, do not seem to be very strict.
They are very strict, from a practical point of view. They are not very
rigid from a doctrinal point of view.
> More something akin to :'stuff people could do to become more actualized'.
That is especially true of the virtues and vices from Tiphareth downwards.
Above Tiphareth, they take on aspects that go beyond the individual
completely and are only obliquely reflected in the personality.
> So my actual question is about your purpose of presenting these highly
> interesting bits about the tree.
> (perhaps that would defeat your purpose, if so, feel free to ignore it,
> which ofcourse you would feel anyway :P {free})
The point of posting them is to introduce a little substance into a sea of
gibberish. The point of meditating on them is to get a better understanding
of the process of becoming more adept at magick.
>> The positive growth of the group depends on its openness to accepting new
>> members. Social boundaries must exist, but they must also be permeable.
>> This permeability is a result of unselfishness.
>
> This is a nice example of not being strict.
> Someone who likes pointing out logical flaws in presentations could point
> to the inherent struggle that comes from the above presented mode
> d'emploi.
>
> The positive growth vs there must exist social boundaries.
It is a dynamic tension, of course. Surface tension, if you like.
Inclusiveness is a quality of healthy, growing social groups. Insularity is
an unhealthy barrier to growth. The group must have boundaries if it is to
have an identity, but those boundaries must not become so rigid that the
existence of other groups in the neighborhood, even overlapping groups in
some cases, cannot be tolerated.
>> The health of your body is a concern of Malkuth.
>
> Again not very strict.
> Concern is not a bodily thing, but a mental thing.
Not always. The maintenance of organic homeostasis is not an intellectual
matter, for the most part.
>> The desire for the taste of chocolate is a representation of the sense
>> perception of tasting chocolate.
>
> Isn't desire more to do with expectations ?
Again, not always. The desires of the body itself have no expectations.
They are unarticulated feelings. It is in our representation of those
desires that the expectations set in.
>> Logically, you know that indulging the desire for chocolate may exceed
>> the amount which is good for the body and so you limit your intake
>> accordingly. When offered chocolate by a host at a party, you indulge a
>> little in order to please your host, who takes pleasure in inducing
>> pleasure in you. If he offers too much, you compliment his generosity
>> and decline with thanks. That's the Netzach connection.
>
> Assumption upon assumption :(
Presumption, not assumption. I'm presenting a hypothetical example. To do
so, one presumes certain things.
> A host that offers stuff that is 'bad' for you is perhaps not being
> unselfish at all.
Conceivably not. I presume otherwise for this example, though.
Absorbed
> > And a desire is attributed to Netzach? Or is it attributed to Yesod?
>
> Desire is mostly Yesod, an anticipation of physical sensation. Love is
> attributed to Netzach, not desire.
So the imagination and expectation of the taste is attributed to
Yesod, but any force behind such a desire is attributed to Netzach?
Perhaps my initial analysis of the attributions of the desire wasn't
detailed enough. Could you give an example of this distinction between
desire and love?
> > Unless I am mistaken about Netzach, I think my explanation of
> > unselfishness as a virtue is equivalent to yours. One must sacrifice
> > one's desires for a group exactly as one would sacrifice one's desire
> > for chocolate for one's health. If one is the Omega Man, is the virtue
> > still unselfishness?
>
> If one has no social group, there is no Netzach process in operation. And
> yet, you could still want too much chocolate.
So one cannot feel love in the Netzachical sense towards an object,
only a social group? Maybe this is the Qabalistic expression of the
fact that it's human nature to work in groups, and that we are
dependent upon groups for survival.
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:45cd30ef$0$327$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom" <dantoPAYAT...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:7MGdnY799ObcIVHY...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> This comes into even greater focus as we ascend to Tiphareth. Religion
>>> in Netzach is a social function, not a particularly mystical one.
>>
>> "the church'.
>
> Yep.
I have grown up going to church.
(a pretty freeish church, "the westerkerk", dunno if it means anything to
ya, but :"het verhaal gaat" from the minister Nico ter Linden, a pretty cool
dude)
>>> One's relationship with God is no more than a reflection of one's
>>> relationship with any social authority, such as one's parents or one's
>>> political leaders.
>>
>> Isn't it also a bit deeper, the feelings themselves ?
>
> Human feelings extend beyond any those of individual sephirah.
Yes, they do.
>>> The virtue of Netzach is the facilitation of the growth and well-being
>>> of all people in one's group.
>>
>> It seems almost with this, that you focus a whole lot on that social
>> stuff.
>> Isn't there also a personal take on what netzach means ?
>
> There are lots of different takes on what Netzach means. I'm examining
> the virtues and vices as they relate to the progressive development of
> human consciousness, especially to the development of the consciousness of
> the magician.
That is what i thought.
And imo you are presenting a fine series.
Are you thinking about publishing it ?
(perhaps only online, as an addendum to the hermetic.com site, seems about
time something you wrote is preserved for posterity, granted you are not
*that* old, but still, why not do it ?)
>> Your series (prolly publishable) are good.
>> They, however, do not seem to be very strict.
>
> They are very strict, from a practical point of view. They are not very
> rigid from a doctrinal point of view.
Damn mate, this will not turn into any sort of debate this way.
>> More something akin to :'stuff people could do to become more
>> actualized'.
>
> That is especially true of the virtues and vices from Tiphareth downwards.
Which are the parts you have been expounding on :)
> Above Tiphareth, they take on aspects that go beyond the individual
> completely and are only obliquely reflected in the personality.
Looking forward to those parts.
(if you decide to post anything about them)
>> So my actual question is about your purpose of presenting these highly
>> interesting bits about the tree.
>> (perhaps that would defeat your purpose, if so, feel free to ignore it,
>> which ofcourse you would feel anyway :P {free})
>
> The point of posting them is to introduce a little substance into a sea of
> gibberish.
Presenting something that excites actual discussion.
A lofty goal.
> The point of meditating on them is to get a better understanding of the
> process of becoming more adept at magick.
I disagreed quite a lot on your malkuth take, your yesod was pretty much on
the ball, hod and netzach where quite alright.
Methinks some purposeful non-inclusive parts would incite more discussion,
no ?
>>> The positive growth of the group depends on its openness to accepting
>>> new members. Social boundaries must exist, but they must also be
>>> permeable. This permeability is a result of unselfishness.
>>
>> This is a nice example of not being strict.
>> Someone who likes pointing out logical flaws in presentations could point
>> to the inherent struggle that comes from the above presented mode
>> d'emploi.
>>
>> The positive growth vs there must exist social boundaries.
>
> It is a dynamic tension, of course. Surface tension, if you like.
Yeah, ofcourse you already included that tension, just thought highlighting
it could be interesting.
> Inclusiveness is a quality of healthy, growing social groups. Insularity
> is an unhealthy barrier to growth. The group must have boundaries if it
> is to have an identity, but those boundaries must not become so rigid that
> the existence of other groups in the neighborhood, even overlapping groups
> in some cases, cannot be tolerated.
The dynamics of groups is certainly interesting.
A full discussion of said tensions would tend to include all sephiroth.
It is like you wrote, lo those many moons ago :
(paraphrased)
We live in all the sephiroth all the time.
>>> The health of your body is a concern of Malkuth.
>>
>> Again not very strict.
>> Concern is not a bodily thing, but a mental thing.
>
> Not always.
Yes always.
Concern. the concept. It is about thinking about stuff and concluding stuff.
Perhaps you use a different take on the concept here.
> The maintenance of organic homeostasis is not an intellectual matter, for
> the most part.
Indeed it is not.
Concern about what the body reports is mental though.
(those maps in the brain about the state of the body are mere
representations. (yesod) concern about what those maps represent
(hod/netzach) do not seem to be merely bodily)
>>> The desire for the taste of chocolate is a representation of the sense
>>> perception of tasting chocolate.
>>
>> Isn't desire more to do with expectations ?
>
> Again, not always. The desires of the body itself have no expectations.
It could be thus, if you define desire in a specific way.
I reckon usually people define desire more in a way that leads to it being a
mental thingy.
The body presents its current state.
In that current state there could be too few of some nutrients, and too much
of other nutrients.
Calling those (re)presentations desires, seems to me to be stretching the
concept a bit.
> They are unarticulated feelings. It is in our representation of those
> desires that the expectations set in.
You call it representation of desire.
I call it representation of facts.
In my vocabulary desire arises from conclusions based on those
representations.
That definition has the added bonus of being compatible with the "kill
desire" thingy.
<me ok with your explanation of presumption>
Bassos
>
> Could you give an example of this distinction between
> desire and love?
Desire is for you.
Love is for all.
Exclusive vs inclusive.
Tom
> On 10 Feb, 02:27, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > And a desire is attributed to Netzach? Or is it attributed to Yesod?
>>
>> Desire is mostly Yesod, an anticipation of physical sensation. Love is
>> attributed to Netzach, not desire.
>
> So the imagination and expectation of the taste is attributed to
> Yesod, but any force behind such a desire is attributed to Netzach?
Not in the way I'm explaining the relationship between human consciousness
and the virtues and vices of the sephiroth at the moment. Some people
attribute the force behind emotions to Netzach, and there is validity in
this from certain viewpoints, but I'm not making that attribution in this
context.
> Perhaps my initial analysis of the attributions of the desire wasn't
> detailed enough. Could you give an example of this distinction between
> desire and love?
Desire is representation of oneself experiencing certain feelings. It's
what we want, irrespective of consequences. Love is concern for others such
that one's own desires become secondary to their well-being. An
acknowledgement of the consequences of our actions is essential to love.
Hod and Netzach temper the desires which arise in Yesod and Malkuth. Hod
tempers them by recognizing cause and effect relationships which affect the
advisability of indulging desires at any given point in time. Netzach
tempers them by recognizing social relationships which affect the
advisability of indulging desires in any given social context.
>> If one has no social group, there is no Netzach process in operation.
>> And
>> yet, you could still want too much chocolate.
>
> So one cannot feel love in the Netzachical sense towards an object,
> only a social group?
It is possible to perceive objects other than human beings as part of one's
social group through the ability of Yesod to imagine things as they should
be rather than as they are. However, this is an operation of Yesod, not
Netzach, so what is perceived as a Netzach operation is in fact a Yesod
representation of a Netzach operation.
> Maybe this is the Qabalistic expression of the
> fact that it's human nature to work in groups, and that we are
> dependent upon groups for survival.
Yes, that's one of the things I was getting at.
Tom
>> the virtues and vices as they relate to the progressive development of
>> human consciousness, especially to the development of the consciousness
>> of the magician.
>
> That is what i thought.
> And imo you are presenting a fine series.
Thanks. More to come.
> Are you thinking about publishing it ?
No, I'm just posting it. If you'd like to keep it, you can just copy to
posts.
> (perhaps only online, as an addendum to the hermetic.com site, seems about
> time something you wrote is preserved for posterity, granted you are not
> *that* old, but still, why not do it ?)
I'm not asserting copyright on these. Anyone can reproduce them if they so
choose.
>>> More something akin to :'stuff people could do to become more
>>> actualized'.
>>
>> That is especially true of the virtues and vices from Tiphareth
>> downwards.
>
> Which are the parts you have been expounding on :)
So far. The next bit will be Tiphareth.
> I disagreed quite a lot on your malkuth take, your yesod was pretty much
> on the ball, hod and netzach where quite alright.
> Methinks some purposeful non-inclusive parts would incite more discussion,
> no ?
Feel free to add some.
>>> Again not very strict.
>>> Concern is not a bodily thing, but a mental thing.
>>
>> Not always.
>
> Yes always.
> Concern. the concept.
Concern as a concept is certainly a mental thing. Concern as response to
stimulus is not.
>> They are unarticulated feelings. It is in our representation of those
>> desires that the expectations set in.
>
> You call it representation of desire.
> I call it representation of facts.
But representations give rise to expectations. Desires arising from Yesod's
representations have expectations connected to them, but body desires are
not necessarily represented and have no expectations attached to them. They
are phenomena of the now and do not anticipate the future at all.
> In my vocabulary desire arises from conclusions based on those
> representations.
I am not limiting my definition of desire in that way.
> That definition has the added bonus of being compatible with the "kill
> desire" thingy.
I think it is a mistake to think that one could, or should, "kill desire".
One can and should transcend them, though.
Absorbed
On 10 Feb, 21:44, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Absorbed" <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171100834.6...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 10 Feb, 02:27, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> > And a desire is attributed to Netzach? Or is it attributed to Yesod?
>
> >> Desire is mostly Yesod, an anticipation of physical sensation. Love is
> >> attributed to Netzach, not desire.
>
> > So the imagination and expectation of the taste is attributed to
> > Yesod, but any force behind such a desire is attributed to Netzach?
>
> Not in the way I'm explaining the relationship between human consciousness
> and the virtues and vices of the sephiroth at the moment. Some people
> attribute the force behind emotions to Netzach, and there is validity in
> this from certain viewpoints, but I'm not making that attribution in this
> context.
I think I understand. I guess that context is the reason why
discussing attributions ultimately becomes futile. But still, I am
finding it useful.
I think I've got a handle on Netzach, so I'd like to clarify Yesod. I
believe the vice and virtue of Yesod are concerned with one's ability
to remain rooted in reality while plotting a future course of action.
For this reason I find it slightly perplexing why they've called the
virtue independence. Does it mean independence from Malkuth while
remaining rooted there? i.e. an emphasis on creativity rather than
blind reactionism. That's what I gathered from your post.
My initial thought was that the imagery should arise from Malkuth, not
from elsewhere, because if one doesn't stay independent to other
influences, one will likely lose their rooting in reality. I am not
entirely sure what these other influences would be.
Tom
>
> On 10 Feb, 21:44, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Absorbed" <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> > Yesod, but any force behind such a desire is attributed to Netzach?
>>
>> Not in the way I'm explaining the relationship between human
>> consciousness
>> and the virtues and vices of the sephiroth at the moment. Some people
>> attribute the force behind emotions to Netzach, and there is validity in
>> this from certain viewpoints, but I'm not making that attribution in this
>> context.
>
> I think I understand. I guess that context is the reason why
> discussing attributions ultimately becomes futile. But still, I am
> finding it useful.
Well, if it's utile, it's not futile.
> I think I've got a handle on Netzach, so I'd like to clarify Yesod. I
> believe the vice and virtue of Yesod are concerned with one's ability
> to remain rooted in reality while plotting a future course of action.
> For this reason I find it slightly perplexing why they've called the
> virtue independence. Does it mean independence from Malkuth while
> remaining rooted there? i.e. an emphasis on creativity rather than
> blind reactionism. That's what I gathered from your post.
We become independent of the deteministic Malkuthian world by discovering
the Yesodic world as it could be. Yes, creativity is part of that.
> My initial thought was that the imagery should arise from Malkuth, not
> from elsewhere, because if one doesn't stay independent to other
> influences, one will likely lose their rooting in reality. I am not
> entirely sure what these other influences would be.
All the material that is used in Yesod comes ultimately from Malkuth
sense-data. The countless ways we can put it together generates the
independence.
Bassos
>> on the ball, hod and netzach where quite alright.
>> Methinks some purposeful non-inclusive parts would incite more
>> discussion, no ?
>
> Feel free to add some.
Too busy :(
Responses are limited to stuff i think up by reading.
No planned stuff at all.
Absorbed
So, just to make things absolutely clear to myself: Is rooting one's
Yesodic representation in reality an attainment one would associate
with Malkuth? For example, if a perfectly harmless spider scares me, I
need to discriminate Malkuth from the Individual Triad to the point
when I realise that the cause of my fear is not rooted in reality and,
in fact, doesn't exist in reality.
On a side note, does such a revealing annihilate the fear, or does
only direct confrontation annihilate it? I've probably been told this
before on here as well.
Tom
> On 11 Feb, 15:13, "Tom" <dantoPAYATTENTION...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Absorbed" <purestdeform...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> sense-data. The countless ways we can put it together generates the
>> independence.
>
> So, just to make things absolutely clear to myself: Is rooting one's
> Yesodic representation in reality an attainment one would associate
> with Malkuth? For example, if a perfectly harmless spider scares me, I
> need to discriminate Malkuth from the Individual Triad to the point
> when I realise that the cause of my fear is not rooted in reality and,
> in fact, doesn't exist in reality.
The representations of Yesod are influenced by the four other sephirah that
connect to it. It is a central point in which all the sephiroth associated
with the personality directly connect. In the case of your spider fear,
there is the altogether rational caution that comes from the fact that many
spiders are capable of inflicting a painful bite and a few of them are
capable of injecting a kind of venom that could kill you. So the knowledge
of categories, a function of Hod, influences one's image of a spider in
Yesod as well as the Malkuth sense-data of a many-legged critter. Also, we
get some Netzachian recognition that spiders are very different from
oneself. They have little in common with our shape or motivations. They
feel no affection and no reluctance to attack even in the near-certainty of
their own death as a result. They cannot be reasoned with or tamed. They
are and always will be *alien*.
Balancing those fears comes the Hod-knowledge that not all spiders are
dangerous to us, the Netzachian realization that they form a vital part of
the eco-system and have a beneficial function that we should cherish, and
the Malkuth sense-data that they are very small and cannot hope to survive
an out-and-out conflict with us. And from Tiphareth comes an influence that
creates a mythos using all thease characteristcs, a god-form for the spider,
Anansi, the little African trickster.
So the shape, texture, and other features of the representations of Yesod
are influenced by all the aspects of the sephiroth around it, not just
Malkuth, although the building blocks of those representations all
sense-data gathered in Malkuth.
> On a side note, does such a revealing annihilate the fear, or does
> only direct confrontation annihilate it? I've probably been told this
> before on here as well.
There is more to overcoming fear than a mere recognition that it's there.
The courage to act despite the fear must be present. Next will come
actually facing the fear repeatedly and training the nervous system to a set
of new habits for such confrontations. Again, to make a change in Malkuth,
you must be both persistent and patient as well as knowledgeable.
mika
difficulty applying this one to my own work.
In particular, how does the following fit in - it seems that in order
to have long, healthy, sustainable relationships (with others and with
one's community), one must have a "high enough" level of selfishness.
In short, you have to take care of your own needs to be able to take
care of others.
On the other hand, perhaps it is only a criteria of my own community
that one must have a certain level of selfishness in order to be a
healthy part of this community, so in my particular context, it's a
virtue rather than a vice. Along the same lines, selflessness without
sufficient selfishness to back it up is a reflection of a vice. As I
see it, selfishness leads to the ability to express selflessness. For
example, if you and I have a date (romantic or platonic, either way)
but you are distracted with something that has nothing to do with me,
the "right thing to do" would be to be "selfish" and break our date,
because it would be better for you to deal with what's on your mind
than spend time with me without being fully present. People in other
communities may say the "right thing to do" is to be "selfless" and
set aside what's on your mind (more likely, pretend to) and go ahead
with the date as planned. To me, that is completely rediculous, I am
intolerant of that behavior in my community because it leads to
problems in the future. Is this intolerance a vice?
Bassos
"mika" <mik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172000948.1...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<snip all>
FFS
FORMULA !!!
how hard can it be, tom spelled it all out.
The thiing, the road and the means.
Tom
> difficulty applying this one to my own work.
>
> In particular, how does the following fit in - it seems that in order
> to have long, healthy, sustainable relationships (with others and with
> one's community), one must have a "high enough" level of selfishness.
> In short, you have to take care of your own needs to be able to take
> care of others.
Again, the key to the attainment of Netzach is the mastery of the virtues of
the lower sephiroth. One must be strong enough in and of oneself before one
can let go of the fear that insists on maintaining control at all times.
Otherwise, you're sure it's going to kill you. A healthy body, a worldview
congruent with sense data, and the ability to reason dispassionately are all
necessary before one can feel secure enough to work with the group
unselfishly. Now, one can relate to the group in an infantile way, but
that's the dependence of childhood, not the fully functional group
membership of an adult. Dependence only works properly when your little and
cute. Once you become big and homely, the group stops wanting to treat you
as if you were still little and cute.
> On the other hand, perhaps it is only a criteria of my own community
> that one must have a certain level of selfishness in order to be a
> healthy part of this community, so in my particular context, it's a
> virtue rather than a vice.
I think I mentioned in the post on Tiphareth that the unselfishness of
Netzach is actually an enlightened self-interest. It's only in Tiphareth
and above that the self stops being a priority.
> Along the same lines, selflessness without
> sufficient selfishness to back it up is a reflection of a vice. As I
> see it, selfishness leads to the ability to express selflessness.
Netzach is not about selflessness, but about delaying (or even denying)
gratification of impulsive desire for the good of the group.
> For
> example, if you and I have a date (romantic or platonic, either way)
> but you are distracted with something that has nothing to do with me,
> the "right thing to do" would be to be "selfish" and break our date,
> because it would be better for you to deal with what's on your mind
> than spend time with me without being fully present.
Yes, while socializing one's attention should be on one's companion(s). In
this case, I should either delay my desire to deal with my personal issue
or, if that cannot be done, politely excuse myself from company until I'm
fit for it.
> People in other
> communities may say the "right thing to do" is to be "selfless" and
> set aside what's on your mind (more likely, pretend to) and go ahead
> with the date as planned. To me, that is completely rediculous, I am
> intolerant of that behavior in my community because it leads to
> problems in the future. Is this intolerance a vice?
Probably not. It's most likely a value of the community to which you
belong. If I wish to belong to that community, some emotional pressure may
need to be applied in order to communicate to me the group expectations.
This will probably not be immediate expulsion from the group, which might be
too intolerant, but it may involve some sanctions. Of course, the
well-socialized individual, when encountering a preoccupied person who still
signals a desire to be included, will offer that person a chance to share
their burden and enlist group support in a solution. If that doesn't work,
they will indicate that the opportunity for inclusion will be extended again
once the problem is no longer overly inhibiting.
mika
> "mika"wrote
>
> > On the other hand, perhaps it is only a criteria of my own community
> > that one must have a certain level of selfishness in order to be a
> > healthy part of this community, so in my particular context, it's a
> > virtue rather than a vice.
>
> I think I mentioned in the post on Tiphareth that the unselfishness of
> Netzach is actually an enlightened self-interest.
ahhh, that helps a lot. "Enlightened self-interest" is a much better
way to describe what I was thinking about than "selfishness".
> > Along the same lines, selflessness without
> > sufficient selfishness to back it up is a reflection of a vice. As I
> > see it, selfishness leads to the ability to express selflessness.
>
> Netzach is not about selflessness, but about delaying (or even denying)
> gratification of impulsive desire for the good of the group.
Sure. I suppose I confused "selflessness" with "unselfishness" when
reading your post.
> > People in other
> > communities may say the "right thing to do" is to be "selfless" and
> > set aside what's on your mind (more likely, pretend to) and go ahead
> > with the date as planned. To me, that is completely rediculous, I am
> > intolerant of that behavior in my community because it leads to
> > problems in the future. Is this intolerance a vice?
>
> Probably not. It's most likely a value of the community to which you
> belong. If I wish to belong to that community, some emotional pressure may
> need to be applied in order to communicate to me the group expectations.
> This will probably not be immediate expulsion from the group, which might be
> too intolerant, but it may involve some sanctions.
Well, there seems to be a natural attrition. Like many communities,
newcomers are either compatible and stay, or their expectations of us
are not met so they leave. There's not some kind of committee
decision with official expulsions. For example, some people who
expect a non-emergency phone call to be returned the same day get
frustrated and stop calling altogether when they don't get the
response they desire. Others adjust with no stress.
> Of course, the
> well-socialized individual, when encountering a preoccupied person who still
> signals a desire to be included, will offer that person a chance to share
> their burden and enlist group support in a solution.
Naturally. After all, we are a community, help is always available.
But, it has to be asked for. We don't play guessing games about
others' needs, and tend to err on the side of respectful distance.
It's the unusual dynamics of a community that consists primarily of
solitary hermits and loners. That's where my example came from - we
tend to prefer to be alone when preoccupied (so we could deal with
whatever it is that's distracting us) - and for many people,
cancelling plans to work on a personal project is considered bad/rude
and "selfish". Anyway, it's interesting to apply your description of
Netzach to such an atypical community.
Bassos
>, "Tom" wrote:
>> "mika"wrote
>>
>> > On the other hand, perhaps it is only a criteria of my own community
>> > that one must have a certain level of selfishness in order to be a
>> > healthy part of this community, so in my particular context, it's a
>> > virtue rather than a vice.
>>
>> I think I mentioned in the post on Tiphareth that the unselfishness of
>> Netzach is actually an enlightened self-interest.
>
> ahhh, that helps a lot. "Enlightened self-interest" is a much better
> way to describe what I was thinking about than "selfishness".
This is because you are still thinking about "i".
Transcend that.
It is all us.
(according to qbl)
>> > Along the same lines, selflessness without
>> > sufficient selfishness to back it up is a reflection of a vice. As I
>> > see it, selfishness leads to the ability to express selflessness.
>>
>> Netzach is not about selflessness, but about delaying (or even denying)
>> gratification of impulsive desire for the good of the group.
>
> Sure. I suppose I confused "selflessness" with "unselfishness" when
> reading your post.
Quote the dalai lama :
"i am selfish, therefore i am unselfish"
There is no I.
>> > People in other
>> > communities may say the "right thing to do" is to be "selfless" and
>> > set aside what's on your mind (more likely, pretend to) and go ahead
>> > with the date as planned. To me, that is completely rediculous, I am
>> > intolerant of that behavior in my community because it leads to
>> > problems in the future. Is this intolerance a vice?
>>
>> Probably not. It's most likely a value of the community to which you
>> belong. If I wish to belong to that community, some emotional pressure
>> may
>> need to be applied in order to communicate to me the group expectations.
>> This will probably not be immediate expulsion from the group, which might
>> be
>> too intolerant, but it may involve some sanctions.
>
> Well, there seems to be a natural attrition.
Seem being the operative word here.
> Like many communities, newcomers are either compatible and stay, or their
> expectations of us
> are not met so they leave.
Lousy group.
Far too tribal.
> There's not some kind of committee decision with official expulsions.
Does it matter how official an expulsion is ?
> For example, some people who expect a non-emergency phone call to be
> returned the same day get
> frustrated and stop calling altogether when they don't get the
> response they desire.
Straw man.
> Others adjust with no stress.
Heh.
Honk your own horn.
Beginner.
>> Of course, the
>> well-socialized individual, when encountering a preoccupied person who
>> still
>> signals a desire to be included, will offer that person a chance to share
>> their burden and enlist group support in a solution.
>
> Naturally. After all, we are a community,
Whois we ?
Tribal much ?
> help is always available.
Not for those who are not we.
> But, it has to be asked for.
Not in alt.magick.
You get help, if you ask for it or not.
The help you get is not at all likely to be of the kind you wanted.
> We don't play guessing games about others' needs,
Yes we do.
> and tend to err on the side of respectful distance.
No we do not.
(feel free to keep this particular lie alive, i can explain why this is not
so, but you are far too scared to ask)
> It's the unusual dynamics of a community that consists primarily of
> solitary hermits and loners.
Contradictory much ?
Feelgood arguments get squashed in alt.magick if i read them.
> That's where my example came from
Liar.
(not intentionally, you just do not know better)
>- we tend to prefer to be alone when preoccupied (so we could deal with
> whatever it is that's distracting us)
Liar.
> - and for many people,
You know squat about what 'many people' do.
> cancelling plans to work on a personal project is considered bad/rude
> and "selfish".
Just face up to it.
This is what *you* think.
Hiding sucks.
> Anyway, it's interesting to apply your description of
> Netzach to such an atypical community.
Yes that it surely is.
Tom
>
> "mika" <mik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172076865.6...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>, "Tom" wrote:
>>> "mika"wrote
>>>
>>> > On the other hand, perhaps it is only a criteria of my own community
>>> > that one must have a certain level of selfishness in order to be a
>>> > healthy part of this community, so in my particular context, it's a
>>> > virtue rather than a vice.
>>>
>>> I think I mentioned in the post on Tiphareth that the unselfishness of
>>> Netzach is actually an enlightened self-interest.
>>
>> ahhh, that helps a lot. "Enlightened self-interest" is a much better
>> way to describe what I was thinking about than "selfishness".
>
> This is because you are still thinking about "i".
> Transcend that.
> It is all us.
> (according to qbl)
Not yet. Not in Netzach. The four lowest sephiroth comprise the individual
personality, where the "I" is still very much central. Netzach is the
highest of these four and we begin to see the primacy of the self come into
question. Yet, it is still central. Once we get to Tiphareth, the
individual self is trancended.
Bassos
>
> "Bassos" <zebaz...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news:45dfef1c$0$328$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "mika" <mik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1172076865.6...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>>>, "Tom" wrote:
>>>> "mika"wrote
>>>>
>>>> > On the other hand, perhaps it is only a criteria of my own community
>>>> > that one must have a certain level of selfishness in order to be a
>>>> > healthy part of this community, so in my particular context, it's a
>>>> > virtue rather than a vice.
>>>>
>>>> I think I mentioned in the post on Tiphareth that the unselfishness of
>>>> Netzach is actually an enlightened self-interest.
>>>
>>> ahhh, that helps a lot. "Enlightened self-interest" is a much better
>>> way to describe what I was thinking about than "selfishness".
>>
>> This is because you are still thinking about "i".
>> Transcend that.
>> It is all us.
>> (according to qbl)
>
> Not yet. Not in Netzach.
Therefore some prodding.