Cosmology and Mystical Models
boboroshi of TOKUS
>>then the issue becomes where "life" begins and ends.
dh?
>>>>like i said, the whole material world is alive to me...
bobo:
>>please explain why things that don't seem to move seem
>>alive to you. I am aware of "shamanic consciousness"
>>and a variety of other perspectives whereby this is
>>true for the perceiver. I'm curious about your answers.
jesuc...@netscape.net (marques de sade):
>i'm thinking from a 'tree of life/qabalah' perspective...
>you have the whole tree, right?
I happen to have constructed such a tree (there's not just
one, though Hermetic dogmatists sometimes purport that
their Lurianic or other model is superior, why we're not
really sure yet).
check it out:
Tarotreektys
http://www.luckymojo.com/avidyana/graphics/tarotreektys.gif
it derives from meditations and visions and dedications.
comments and discussion on it are welcomed in proper forums.
>starting at zero, all the way down to 10,
my Tree of Life goes up like conventional trees. I conceive
the cosmos as an emanation from the material, rather than
some kind of pie-in-the-sky emanation from an invisible god
we no longer perceive. I considered starting at 0 and then
resisted this and started at 1 instead, leaving 0 for
some absence. the whole 0-9 thing has merit, however.
I quite compared it with something Yijing-like, insofar
as the 0-7 sequence of the bagua does likewise and can
proceed from that 0 in a most satisfactory way (with 1
being Yang and 2 being Yin).
>which is when the idea finally materializes, so the idea has
>become alive... if the idea didn't materialize, then it would
>remain in the realm of imagination, and dead as it were...
that's how i conceive of the idea: if the matter hadn't been
there, then life, and consciousness, and ideas that arise in
consciousness, couldn't ever have arisen. most theologians
and occultists have it inverted, as it helps them free their
minds to do what they may regard as extraordinary things.
some good number of them also believe in this inverted
hierarchy as actual, quite without supportable evidence.
>so the mountains and rivers and skies and what not must have not
>existed at some point,
a castle in the clouds, ok. you have no actual basis for your
supposition of this relation, other than your conceptual model.
>but something caused them to come about,
why do you believe this otehr than your model's content?
that is, why do you have faith your model is accurate?
>blind chance perhaps;
what's that? can you point some out?
>therefore, anything that i can touch and feel is alive
>in my view (or view in photos, etc. eg: i don't need
>to go to China to know it exists)...
I don't follow the logic exactly of this conclusion.
bobo
alt.magick.moderated is a MODERATED newsgroup.
Consult http://www.alt-magick-moderated.org/ where you
may locate the newest Posting Guidelines and Charter
for the newsgroup before your first post. Contact the
Moderation Team at moder...@alt-magick-moderated.org
Janine Starscream
to the Holy Dinosaur brain, to the jacobson's organ, to the glands...
the demon/memes are useless for purposes of evolution, even as I type
it distracts me (but it's a fun distraction)... Only forbidden science
taken to it's ultimate extremes will serve to make one master of
everything, trashing all the crap that poses as mainstream belief
including atheism and satanism...
Something unutterably unearthly, practically acausal, ahuman...
Something like Nephilim, but better, over, Overman...
Kudos though I like you CoE fellas, keep the population down (i prefer
encouraging transalpanian perturbations but i like it dramatic)