That makes no sense to me. Human laziness is universal, so you are lazy, so you’re going to take the long way?
From the above I don’t think you did.
TL;DR You want to compare philosophies… it’s not rocket science. I didn’t say don’t do that.
All I said was, you’re making such a meal out of it you’re going to cut down your participants and maybe you should think about that.
I mean you have every right not to be interested in philosophy, I have every right to talk about it and you have every right to ignore it.
I see where this came from, but at no point did I say you shouldn’t talk about it.
If this is your way of asking me to ignore the rest of this thread I can do that, but this thread is not about philosophy, and I thought it was interesting.
You might be in an awkward spot if Brian Greene, Sir Roger Penrose, and all the other physics eggheads make a formal pronouncement tomorrow that Warhammer 40k is the fundamental structure of the universe. I wouldn’t fault you on it but I’d invite you, if that happened, not to be too hard on yourself.
That makes no sense to me. Human laziness is universal, so you are lazy, so you’re going to take the long way?
Translation: the short way exists for me, it has to because it exist for everyone, ergo I’m bubbling it over my private fetishes and eccentricities. My advice on that - eccentricities don’t just ‘happen’.
I see where this came from, but at no point did I say you shouldn’t talk about it.
If this is your way of asking me to ignore the rest of this thread I can do that, but this thread is not about philosophy, and I thought it was interesting.
Somewhere this drifted from normal conversation to derision and the change off, or anything I would have done to earn it, isn’t in front of me. I get that we’re perhaps talking about tense and highly personal topics, and I probably did say some things that were triggering somewhere along the line, but there’s no way to address that if we aren’t talking about it and if the last thing you’d want to do is talk about it then yeah - ignoring the rest of the thread might be for the better.
Here’s the bottom line. This is what you want right? …
Soooo, are you proposing a new category? Is that all this is about?
You don’t need a whole category. Make whatever posts you like.
Just post your question right here in the General category. You can a 'Philosophy tag if you like.
If there were tons of threads all about the philosophy of consciousness maybe the admins would want to think about a special category for it. I don’t forsee that happening myself, but never say never.
I’m inclined to agree with MagusofPlague, if any new category was needed one for succubi/incubi would see more use.
@MagickAndBreakz I can often be found posting “try-hard” writings on topics which include epistemology, phenomenology and pre-socratic philosophy, which intersects with Lovecraftian, Jungian and Heideggerian theory. If you see one feel free to engage.
Well… I’ll put it this way. I don’t believe in the ‘supernatural’, ie. things are either real or not real and if they’re real they’re in a state of nature to my mind regardless of what layer they’re on. Things can be physical and real, things can be philosophical and real, they can be fictional and real albeit in a more narrow sense - ie. Harry Potter is real as a book written by JK Rowling, as a series of books or movies it exists just that unless you’re at a theme park or out on Halloween it’s not real in the physical or literal sense.
For magic to be real in a physical sense it would mean that it deals in some way with the structure of reality.
For it to be real in a psychological sense and not a physical sense it would mean it’s a style of story telling, or software writing, that effects minds and nothing else (ie. claims to manifestation would be either BS, aphophenia, or whatever else).
I think both happen at the same time to different degrees.
I don’t get where any of that is in the wrong place.
It seems like any really interesting topic tends to be a magnet for those butthurt by it (much to our misery). Thinking of the church age we went though in the middle ages and renaissance we probably selected for a lot of that and it’s now running wild in everything from moral panics every few decades (like the satanic panic and now wokeness) to people just needing to be their brother’s keeper if they say anything that strikes an emotional nerve.
I think this means you think I’ve been mocking you? I’m completely serious; I usually am.
I did not intend for you to feel derided at any point,and I apologise for whatever I said that made you feel that way.
I probably did say some things that were triggering somewhere along the line
Nah you’re good. I’m pretty sure nothing in a post like this should be “triggering”, but I’m much too old to do the millennial “triggering” thing anyway. That is an overused and very misused word today. I certainly don’t have PTSD of any kind that gives me flashbacks due to real triggers, I’m happy to say.
I think this means you think I’ve been mocking you? I’m completely serious; I usually am.
I did not intend for you to feel derided at any point,and I apologise for whatever I said that made you feel that way.
The way I’d put it - I’m doing what I have to do. There might be a very good reason why I have to and other people don’t, that would be a fascinating thing to look at but it would take a lot to unpack I’m sure.
Magick can go beyond what those people you mention can currently say, so I don’t bother listening to them, I just keep practicing and discovering more things. Some people who follow guys like Kenneth Grant will tell you that everything is fake, so yes, quoting those people you mentioned doesn’t have any effect whatsoever. If you tie your magick to current science or to your phylosophical thinking, you won’t go very far
Here’s one for you to peruse. It’s nothing too complex, just an attempt at an alchemical text designed to re-orientate the reader’s perception of the acausal, causal and the connexion between them.
So something interesting on the above - for what little time I have spent on proper philosophy forums there seem to be a lot of people who have instincts that I don’t quite understand and you’re expressing them well above with how you’re describing the Kenneth Grant fans.
What’s real or unreal ultimately seems to be - at least for the past several hundred years - not of our making. In that sense, when people need to say that this is specifically Immanual Kant’s noumenal world we’re speaking of when we talk about things like this, that’s to say that so much of what we didn’t know in the renaissance and before went from noumenal to phenomenal or whatever the right terms might be with the advent of the Enlightenment and more aggressive use of the scientific method.
I think whatever people might call the noumenal doesn’t really care (or lacks means to care) what people believe in any given age, and it’s even more interesting when I’d run into die-hard reductive materialists who’d act as if the only possible reality, not even realities that flow with science but haven’t been discovered, could exist. When people think that the only possible knowledge is what humanity already knows for certain (and even there only in a sense - we know some solid relationships) it’s a weird thing to try and wrap my head around. It’s tantamount to them saying that what we know now could never have been realized or learned because when we didn’t know it it wasn’t real.
This is because of the shift from essentialism (pre-socratic thought) to existentialism (post-socratic thought) or the placing of existence prior to essence, within Western epistemology, which later infected phenomenology and the relationship between Being and beings, as previously understood as a whole or numinous unity. Heidegger covers this in Being and Time.
Here’s one for you to peruse. It’s nothing too complex, just an attempt at an alchemical text designed to re-orientate the reader’s perception of the acausal, causal and the connexion between them.
TY for that and on a quick browse:
I’ve heard a lot of people say that about Lovecraft in different ways (some said it was even cultural and racial) but I do get the sense that it’s true that fundamental reality may quite likely not care what we need to sustain hedonic balance, sanity, etc… For human culture lies and illusions, at least when they’re kept innocuous, are a bit like padding on a very hard and sharp surface, like a radiator in a car, or like the global ocean conveyor belt that keeps the planet thermally regulated enough to be as temperate as it is. I think one of these days we’ll have better words for this than lies or illusions, they’re just not clear enough on what’s happening or why it’s needed.
Time’s a really interesting topic and something that hit me 12 years ago that I put a lot of stock in, I hadn’t heard the term ‘Minkowski spacetime’ until relatively recently (thanks to Michael Silberstein for the most part) but it’s pretty much what I came to believe, ie. that if we have time in the way we experience it and causality is as fixed as it is it seems like reality should at least be functioning a bit like a 4D crystal and if there’s more complexity that would only change rather than destroy that interpretation. It could be completely wrong but for what evidence or arguments I can scrape together eternal block universe seems to fit the best.
