GRIP OF REALITY
On 15/10 Tom wrote;
re: Dave/Grip of reality - do you think yours is stronger than his?
On 15/10 Lee wrote;
Leaving the best until last the Dave/Grip question is so fascinating I'm scared even to poke it in case it explodes in my beautiful face scarring me for life and ensuring that I can no longer coast on my good looks and will have to think to survive. Here's some preliminary probing.
1) The idea of a consensus reality is one of the main things that keeps me wondering. Understand that I do this out of interest and I realise that it sounds like I am saying that its vital to question the fabric of reality but that's not it at all. If Alan Moore hadn't been studying this area for the last five years I wouldn't have a passing interest so please don't think that I think its a noble pursuit. There is a lot that has been written about soft reality and I find it interesting.
2) One thing this sort of interest leads to is a preoccupation with not accepting anything as real. Different people will find different levels of enjoyment in this sort of thing, I for one find it vastly rewarding.
3) "Reality" has a grip on me and it is something I intended to shake free from using drugs, meditation and for want of a better word Magic!
4) Having said all that I do know what you mean and if I hadn't made an (unsuccessful) attempt to lose touch with "reality" I would probably say that my grip on reality was less loose than Dave's. In other words when I said "I don't like your implication that your blah blah blah than Dave's" I was just carping on about perceptual distortions, "Reality", magic and a load of other old hen's teeth so you were right to balk. If I accept the assumption implied in the statement (which is, of course, neccessary in any exchange and by no means implies that you unfairly assume things) then I would have known exactly what you meant and agreed but I still don't think that my grip on reality is firmer than Dave's even though I can see why an outsider might think so!
Yours cowering in fear at the thought of our next six emails!
Grand Archwizard Feelbad.
On 15/10 Tom Wrote;
PLATO
I did take a little time out yesterday to investigate how I REALLY felt re: Dave/Reality grip. The question is not as important in itself as the issues it has raised: Reality is a very shaky subjective kind of thing. Personally, I subscribe to the Platonic theories of different levels of reality (Chapter 10 , Plato's Republic) where he says that what we perceive with our eyes is a merely a shadow of some greater, hidden reality. (I believe he terms our shadow world Ekfrasis). This "greater" reality can perhaps be likened to the Jungian unconscious, with it's array of universal symbols that all humans recognise. Plato describes this using his "chair" metaphor: There are many chairs in the world, all made by different craftsman. No two chairs made by different craftsmen will be identical; They may have a different number of legs, a different shaped back, etc. etc. but they all share some undefinable quality of "chairness", even though they look different. Therefore, their must be an ideal of a "chair" in the realm of "greater reality", and we have an idea of this ideal chair, and the different craftsmen have slightly different ideas of what looks like, hence the different chairs. This concept is linked to shamanism (as I understand it) - The Shaman is the intercessor between the world of shadows (our physically perceived realm) and the world of ideal, "greater" reality. The world of "greater reality" contains the essences, ideals, or if you prefer spirits of the physical forms we perceive in our world (e.g. Horses - there is the "horse spirit" in the world of "greater reality" and many different coloured/shaped horses in the world we perceive).
LITTLE YELLOW HORSES - FRANZ MARC
You should seek out "Die Blaureiter" which was an art magazine produced ny Kandinsky and (I think) Bracht in the 1920s - "Blaureiter" means "Blue rider" and refers to the spiritual horse which transported the Shaman between the different worlds in Russian shamanic lore. (Incidentally, the horse was summoned by the beating of a drum, as in "Boss Drum" by the Shamen). Still, I'm sure you have more source material in this area than I have. Whether this is just a useful metaphor, or something truer, I don't know, but rest assured I am as fascinated as you are, particularly since all our lifestyle between 1988 and recently involved what would have been termed Shamanic behaviour had we happened to live in the Siberia or any of the shamanic cultures.
SIBERIA
There have been many times when I have thought that maybe I had a little glimpse at that which lay beneath that which we normally see.. it was generally accompanied by hideous paranoia and a feeling like I was about to die though.
BRAIN
The brain is the least understood organ in the body, long may it remain so...
Tom Waite
On 16/10 Lee wrote;
That's funny, I always thought you were fairly sceptical of shamanism. I never felt paranoid or about to die - maybe that helped shape my "I'll try anything on the menu with magic in it" attitude. There is the view that any view of reality is as valid as any other, this is the one I'm drawn to. Platonic ideals is interesting but still very scientific for my money. It is all part of the human perception of reality from which I find delight in falling away from. Always been very interested in Plato, can't stand that Aristotle bloke though, beauty o' nature and all that pah! Beauty of Nintendo more like. I haven't got Plato's republic - is it okay if I eat lunch at the pub in preparation instead?
On 16/10 Tom wrote;
yes, well - I think the importance of Plato in all this is in a metaphorical role. Similarly, I have no problem with "shamanism" as a metaphor for reality/symbols etc.
My scepticism comes in to play when encountering phenomena such as Sim's wife's web page etc which clearly subscribe to the physical existence of fairies , witches etc, and attribute human characteristics etc.
SHAMAN
"Shamen" are individuals who don't mind losing their grip on reality I suppose. Well, it's their job within the tribe. Shaman are also different because there is no disputing the existence of shaman, shamanic culture, shamanic tribes and hallucinogenic frugs... (I'm going to leave that spelling mistake, it's cool).
FRUGS
My area of interest at the moment ,lies in attempting to "understand" religion from the point of view of an atheist (or perhaps agnostic describes me better) - most religions (including shamanism) seem to exhibit some very similar characteristics:
MUSHY
No answers here, but a possible life's work
Tom Waite.
On 08/11 Lee wrote;
Firstly thanks for the question, the answer to which has started to mandala outwards in grand array to encompass my entire conscious mind over the last few hours. I've lost the question so the one that I am answering is "Which is more important - tangible physical reality or idea space?"
My "bloody Encarta" dictionary says that
important (“m-pôr"tnt) adj. means
1. Strongly affecting the course of events.
2. Having or suggesting an air of authority; authoritative.
[From Latin import³re, be significant.]
-- impor"tance n. -- impor"tantly adv.
My initial reaction is that they are so interrelated that one can't be said to be more important than the other since there is a course of events in tangible reality and a course of events in idea space. I'd say that tangible physical reality IS a course of events and idea space IS a (sometimes different) course of events. The dictionary "strongly affecting the course of events" definition most likely refers to physical tangible reality. I think that idea space affects tangible reality more than tangible reality does.
To me at the moment idea space has or suggests an air of authority greater than that suggested by tangible physical reality. That's not to suggest that I devote more time to exploring it than I do to interacting with the "real".
The fact is that idea space is where we actually live, when we walk down a street, we walk down the picture of that street that we hold in our mind; that's how we know a place. If you walk down a street that you haven't been down before you see thousands of things that reassure you and allow you to draw a new picture in your mind that becomes that street. Each shop front you recognise is a shop front in your mind, each lamp post. If you had no lamp post in your mind you wouldn't see a lamp post, you'd just see an image.
Physical reality and idea space are not separate things - there is no physical reality, not that we can meaningfully perceive. I think that we use the signals that we get from physical "reality" (which I believe to be a curdled sort of crust at one extreme of actual reality) to build a complex idea space in which we live.
There is another area of idea space that has nothing to do with physics, it just happens to be my favourite bit at the moment - that makes me a magician.
The reason that we can interact with others is because 1) we are capable of having fairly similar pictures in idea space and 2) there is compatibility across idea spaces even where there is variance. Point 2 above leads me to what Dave Sim named the self sealing puncture - the fact that any fact can be accommodated by the human mind. He speculated that if you take a belief and disprove it we are very good at changing our history to cushion the blow. We simply say we had previously thought something, now we know the truth. We start to come up with reasons why we should have seen we were wrong. Examples are the collapse of three Egyptian dynasties into one dynasty with two nicknames or the recent change of leg configuration in Tyrannosaurs from front-to-back (mammal style) to back-to-front (bird like).
I find it hard to talk about this stuff coherently! Please ask more specific questions.
We should and do devote more time to idea space than we do to actual objective reality. It's my view that subjective reality IS idea space. I presume that by idea space you were referring to developing a more dynamic relationship with your own consciousness, exploring the area of idea space that does not have a physical counterpoint, climbing the stairway beyond substance, or for want of a better word; Magic.
There are times when we need to be more concerned with "reality" or there will be a danger to those physical circumstances that give life to our idea space - we are like programs that have to maintain their own hardware, normally it takes an average of 23.5 hours a day. There are other times when we have a choice, these are the times I dread and hunger for.
We should spend more time (than we do) on developing a magical world view.
Can I have some more questions please (since I can't answer this one).
On 09/11 Tom wrote;
I disapprove of your use of the word magic. There is no such thing.
On 10/11 Lee wrote;
I dissaprove of your use of the phrase "no such thing". It implies rational certainties which can not be proven.
On 10/11 Tom wrote;
I think it was some character in an Irvine Welsh that said "there is no magic, only undiscovered science".
And something along the lines of; In idea space there is such thing as Tom Waite's sister, a light speed Vauxhall Astra and a tree climbing whale, but these things still do not exist.
On 11/11 Tom wrote;
Can you send me your Encarta definition of magic so that we can at least argue from a common platform?
On 11/11 Lee wrote;
I can but it varies from my own definition.
Magic (sorcery), art of attaining objectives, acquiring knowledge, or performing works of wonder through supernatural or nonrational means. Techniques used in magic typically include chants and spells, gestures or actions that often have a symbolic relation to the desired result (for example, acting out a successful hunt of the past to make a future hunt successful), and the use of substances believed to have a special relationship with the powers needed to accomplish the intended purpose.
On 11/11 Lee wrote;
Its nice of you to give more credence to some character from an Irvine Welsh novel than you do to 6000 years of occult knowledge. Magic is so much older and wiser than science that it is only natural that science has a certain amount of catching up to do. It is getting there as you probably realise because I know you read that weird science web page.
I'd say there is such a thing as a tree climbing whale, a light speed Vauxhall Astra and even Tom Waite's sister - to me the concepts are more real than the physical restrictions on building, buying or owning them. If it's possible its real, and anything is possible.
On 11/11 Tom wrote;
"6000 years of occult knowledge" ! = Magic.
There is no such thing as occult knowledge. There is only knowledge. I completely agree that we may well have forgotten loads of stuff, some of which was probably quite important. Most of it was probably toss, sacrificing people for a good harvest etc. None of it, however was "magic" there is no "supernature".
Arthur C Clarke (isn't he a paedophile?) once said that if any advanced civilisation were to contact us, their abilities would appear to be magical to us. Same as if you showed a 'primitive' (i.e. Non Technological) culture something like a camera, TV, telephone etc, they would think it was "magic".
I re-iterate, there is no such thing as magic, only "undiscovered science" - I didn't give this more credence because it was written by Irvine Welsh, I gave it credence because I agree with the statement.
6000 years of occult knowledge = 6000 years of arguable, tedious hippy noodling with the occasional good idea thrown in, plu obviously, 6000 years of the kind of wisdom that can only be brought about through experience (i.e. Don't stick you hand in a fire, don't eat the yellow snow) What we refer to as science is FAR FAR in advance of all that shit. How can I say that? consider the following:
Women have babies. They have been having babies for a long time. Sometimes the birth is not simple and either the baby, the mother or both die. Modern science recommend giving birth in a sterile environment, with some experts around. Death during childbirth is a lot less prevalent now than it was when some snaggle toothed hag jumped around chanting and waving witch hazel at people.
(This is not to say that "woodland remedies" are all bollocks, they're not, just that we have a better understanding now of WHY e.g. willow bark can be good for headaches, rather than just finding out by trial and error that it is)
"I'd say there is such a thing as a tree climbing whale, a light speed Vauxhall Astra and even Tom Waite's sister - to me the concepts are more real than the physical restrictions on building, buying or owning them. If it's possible its real, and anything is possible."
O.K. these things now exist in our shared "idea space" because we created them ourselves by attaching those crazy symbols called words to them. Magic certainly exists as a concept, because we have a word for the fucker. Nothing physical has ever happened that can be attributed to magic.
On 12/11 Lee wrote;
By the way, tree climbing whale is the best phrase I've ever heard and I have incorporated it into my rituals with some success.
On 12/11 Lee wrote
Dear doubting Thomas, my favourite disciple. After a while I couldn't resist rereading your message and since we all already won I thought it couldn't do any harm to think about how I would answer it - one thing kept coming back to me, the similarity of the concepts of occult knowledge and undiscovered science. So with no intention to achieve anything other than to have some fun here's what I would have said if I hadn't chosen the more correct response of "Forget it then."
>>""6000 years of occult knowledge" ! = Magic. There is no such thing as occult knowledge. There is only knowledge. I completely agree that we may well have forgotten loads of stuff, some of which was probably quite important. Most of it was probably toss, sacrificing people for a good harvest etc. None of it, however was "magic" there is no "supernature"."
There is actually such a thing as occult knowledge, it means hidden knowledge, there is a lot of knowledge pertaining to spirituality that has remained somewhat occluded from the view of the majority. Nobody hides it particularly, it just stays hidden - people aren't looking for it perhaps.
>>"Arthur C Clarke (isn't he a paedophile?) once said that if any advanced civilisation were to contact us, their abilities would appear to be magical to us. Same as if you showed a 'primitive' (i.e. Non Technological) culture something like a camera, TV, telephone etc, they would think it was "magic"."
I don't know if he's a paedophile or not - I think I heard something, he's certainly bright (not that there is a connection). I couldn't agree more with his statements about tellies, 'phones and cameras. They are all magical to me, as is everything. Magic is not about physical things that science can't explain - how could there be something physical that science can not explain? - science changes to fit that which has been observed. Magic is about how it all hangs together, where it all came from, why it looks like it does - that sort of thing. Magic is like a pair of rose tinted glasses to look at the world with - it covers up the gap where science fails to explain things by offering various different ways of thinking about a perceived experience. If you stop trying to attach the mantle "reality" to some perceived experiences you realise what a worthless load of effort it was. During meditation I have had a perceived experience where I flew around poking my nose in strange places and communicating with strange things - what's the point of saying it wasn't real. This morning I had a perceived experience where I got up felt shit, ate Weetabix and drove to work - what's the point of saying it was real? When 'phones were invented they moved from idea space into physics and became the concern of science which is the opposite of magic (not an alternative to it) when something is sacrificed the idea is that it moves from physics to idea space (sacrifice actually means to make holy) - it becomes an imaginary being like a god or an angel and normally will have much more power over the living than it had whilst real or alive. Magic concerns itself with those things that have not been brought here from idea space yet (been invented) or things that have crossed over (been sacrificed, forgotten or died) and finally with those things that are native to idea space such as angels, demons and deities.
>>"I re - iterate, there is no such thing as magic, only "undiscovered science" - I didn't give this more credence because it was written by Irvine Welsh, I gave it credence because I agree with the statement."
There is no such thing as magic, no such thing as magic, no such thing as magic, no such thing as magic, no such thing as magic, no such thing as magic, no such thing as magic.
This is one of my favourite chants - the more you say it the less true it becomes. Sorry to suggest that you were listening to Irvine Welsh for any silly reason - how rude of me. A more conciliatory approach would be to have said that undiscovered science and occult knowledge may be regarded as separate shadows cast by the same object illuminated by different lights! Those lights would probably be mind and spirit but don't quote me on that. In my opinion a monad or meme or piece of information or concept or spell or imaginary being or essence or ideal does not belong to science until it is discovered - until then it IS magic. That's what magic is and that view of magic CAN have beneficial effects, thousands agree with me. The public perception of magic is probably more like the Encarta definition that I sent you which is basically a scientific view of the most poorly practiced, most incorrectly informed and badly thought out way of interacting with idea space there is. (Yes I wish there was a better name for idea space).
>>"6000 years of occult knowledge = 6000 years of arguable, tedious hippy noodling with the occasional good idea thrown in, plu obviously, 6000 years of the kind of wisdom that can only be brought about through experience (i.e. Don't stick you hand in a fire, don't eat the yellow snow) What we refer to as science is FAR FAR in advance of all that shit. How can I say that? consider the following:"
Calm down, calm down, tedious hippy noodling is a very new thing, there was no tedious hippy noodling for Benjamin Franklin, John Dee, Adam Weisshaupt, Edward Kelley and other magicians who shaped civilisation. They would have been very confused by the hippy noodlings that involve renouncing spirituality altogether as they were by the vicarious spirituality of religion. Magic is always more concerned with what we do not know yet than with what we have forgotten - its a way of replacing what we know with what we don't yet know, its evolution. You go into idea space and look for new ideas, sometimes you come back with nothing, sometimes you invent the steam engine.
>>"Women have babies.
Examples are normally treacherous so I'll leave that for now unless you want to discuss it further - suffice to say that I do not disagree with you.
>>"O.K. these things now exist in our shared "idea space" because we created them ourselves by attaching those crazy symbols called words to them. Magic certainly exists as a concept, because we have a word for the fucker. Nothing physical has ever happened that can be attributed to magic."
That's not quite the point I was making, the populist view of magic exists only in idea space but the magic I'm interested in IS idea space, its a tree climbing whale in idea space, the reality of something which does not exist. A magical tree climbing whale exists in idea space as does a magical cure for cancer, when a real or "real" or Real cure for cancer is invented (de-sacrificed, made unholy) it will be because its magical counterpart had existed in idea space first just like a telly, 'phone or camera.
Over to you, and may I assure you of my intention to keep it friendly.
Lee Holden,
Graduate Imagineer,
ManMindInterface Development.
On 19/11 Tom wrote;
It all started back in 3500 BC, when the Celts were spreading out over western Europe. The most powerful Celts remaining are the Welsh, less than two million people, yet look at their impact on the world.
The first "Knights" were King Arthur and his Round Table, and who was telling them what to do? A Welsh Druid (Merlin). Ever since, the Welsh have been running the world. The most powerful and influential men in history were all Welsh: King Arthur, Merlin, Owain Glyndwr, King Henry VIII (and all the Tudor family), three Welshmen signed the Declaration of Independence, more than half of the men who stood at the Alamo were Welsh (Davy Crockett was Welsh), David Lloyd George, Nixon was of Welsh descent, Tom Jones, Anthony Hopkins, Dylan Thomas, Richard Burton...all Welsh. Princess Diana...Princess of WALES, the Welsh built Stonehenge...how can such a tiny country have such a huge influence on the world UNLESS THEY ARE THE REAL ILLUMINATI???!!!
Tom Waite
Software Engineer
MMI Development
01256 86***3
<mailto:thomas.waite@e**.e********.se>
On 19/11 Lee wrote;
All what started back in 3500 BC? Where's this lengthy tome on reality? Could you get me a Plato's Republic CH10.htm? Where's your response to my response to your rebuttal of my answer to your "which should we concern ourselves with more - idea space or subjective reality?" question? Can you find me information on Merlin? The Welsh have a rich occult tradition - they even have a dragon flag. What does being the real Illuminati involve? Do you know?
Lee.
Gradual imagineer,
MMI deployment.
On 19/11 Tom wrote;
Dear self - styled Shaman of Sharston,
There is NO SUCH THING as the Illuminati. That was my point. The Welsh have a long druidic history, well , we invented it, and all that round table stuff is basically set in Wales. Doesn't make it real though.
My rebuttal consists first of re-iterating the point THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OCCULT KNOWLEDGE. THere is knowledge. Some people have access to some bits of it, some people have access to other bits, but it is all knowledge.
There is no point finding you more information about Merlin. It would be like trying to extract historic truths about Jesus' life from the bible. I concern myself with the empirical universe. I can find you lots of info on Owain Glyndwr, he was a lot cooler.
I have deleted your message, so I can't refer to it and pick up on little areas of self - contradiction and grammatical errors, which weakens my arsenal. Suffice to say, I come down HARD on the "reality" side. My rationale? It hurts a lot more to be hit by a car, than it does to muse on the shared concept people have of being hit by a car in ideaspace.
CARS
Some of it reminded me of a conversation I had once with a science student when I was an art student. he asked me to name stuff that artists had done which improved the world. He obviously cited electricity, penicillin etc as very good examples of how science had improved our existence. I tried to argue that without a preceding/corresponding development in people's intellects/standpoints/concepts of what was and wasn't possible, these discoveries would never have happened. I tried to explain how the enlightenment caused a massive shift in people's perceptions of the world and their relationship to it. Being a scientist, he couldn't grasp the idea of ideas, he didn't believe that someone/a movement of people could change history/human perception 'merely' by writing and distributing a book. This conversation reminds me of that conversation (although, to an extent, I appear to have changed sides).
A bit of your mail has just popped back to me; you said when you were meditating (sneer, poo - poo) you had various subjective experiences etc. and what was the point of saying they were real/not real? - well, it's things like this I take issue with. That which is "real" is a consensus, you couldn't point out your meditational experiences to me (thus the are not real) , but I could point out the balding hippy on the floor making "ooohhm" noises to other people (real). You wouldn't say a hallucinogenic drug experience was real would you? If you would, you should NEVER take them. They are useful in a metaphorical sense, which is how a shaman would use them, but they are not real.
I'm glad you picked up on my "Doubting Thomas" handle, which is always being used by the born - again twats here when I get into discussions with them. If I had been in the position of Thomas the disciple , I WOULD have wanted to stick my hands in Christ's stigmata, wouldn't have believed it was him till I did. I have NO FAITH. Faith is absolute anathema to my intellectual processes. I refer you to a mail I sent a while back about poker, and how luck has nothing to do with it, that poker players get what they deserve, and there is no external intervention from any mystical lucky forces. Poker is life. Everything else is excuses.
I also remember a bit when you said that "idea space" and "concrete reality" were two shadows cast by the same source (or was it different sources? the point was, it was the same thing causing the shadows) - a) This is incredibly close to Plato's Cave Analogy (you have read it, haven't you?) 2) You need something concrete to cast a shadow. Things exist in two states: Their "concrete", "real" state, and their conceptual, idea space state. However, this implies that idea space contains the intellectual manifestations of objects that exist/will one day exist in the "physical" world (e.g. Fusion reactors, space travel to other solar systems, dogs, taxes. communism, football, yoghurt...). I imagine idea space as being full of loads of redundant junk from our earlier history (The feeding of the five thousand, dragons, tree - climbing whales..) that NEVER HAVE or NEVER WILL exist in physical - land. There is a point in saying whether things are real or not real. We used to think the "Giants Causeway" off southern Ireland (loads of big granite stacks, like Land's End but more impressive) really was caused by Giants throwing stones in the sea. A nice explanation, and sometimes I wish we could go back to those days of wonder and, dare I said it "magic" (which was just ignorance in disguise), instead of KNOWING that, IN REALITY, those stone formations were caused by the (to some prosaic) effects of geology. (Personally, I think the real "magic" lies in the way the world does all this shit, it's far more fascinating, surprising and "magical" than writing it all off as the work of supernatural agents).
GIANT'S CAUSEWAY
Nazism exists in ideaspace, it may even sound like a good idea there, it certainly did to a LOT of Germans in the mid thirties. When it came over into physical space, it caused more than a few problems and unpleasantnesses. Ideas can only be judged on their physical manifestations in the real world. Nuclear power was a FANTASTIC idea in its ideaspace manifestation, but in this post - Three Mile Island/Chernobyl world, we know that its physical manifestation is not so cool.
As a final thing for you to "meditate" on, consider the closing moments of the "Wizard of Oz".
Tom Waite
Software Engineer
MMI Development
01256 864***
On 1/12/98 Lee wrote;
In my opinion:
There is such a thing as the Illuminati, formed by Adam Weisshaupt, a mason in 1776 or thereabouts. More sensationalist nonsense has been written about them than any other secret society.
There is such a thing as occult knowledge, it is not fundamentally different from any other knowledge, fewer people have access to it and that's the only difference. Many societies and/or religions have a history of an occult tradition which usually involves personal spirituality separate from the spirituality of the group e.g. Jewish Cabbala - it stays hidden because it is a personal thing that usually fails to be conveyed by preaching and is normally passed on from one individual to another.
Merlin is a powerful myth perhaps based on a "real" physical person - I don't know, I'd be interested to read more about him. Your friend who says "not a problem" is a "real" physical person but I already know exactly as much as I want to know about him, as such I'd say there is no point trying to find out more about him. There is a difference between "no point trying to find out" and "difficult to agree on the truth about what we find out". You may notice that I never try to denigrate any of your views just because I disagree with them. If I took something you were interested in and said that there would be no point in trying to find out more about it I'd be completely wrong. It may be difficult to find facts about Merlin but facts are not what I asked for. Just as people who read the bible really aren't normally after historically accurate information about the life of Christ so those who want to know more about Merlin are not normally the types to care about whether he was actually physically real. By the way, who is Owain Glyndwr?
You deleted my message? how awful, no wonder you seem to miss my point. I wasn't saying idea space is more "real" than "reality" any more than I would say that "reality is more idea-spacey than idea space" or "lemons are more orangey than oranges".
ORANGES
All that I meant was that idea space and reality are not mutually exclusive, they are not even separate - they are two different ways of thinking about your relationship with your own consciousness. Physical reality is one mode of thought, idea space is another. No matter what you think you perceive and interact with and what you think you do not perceive or interact with you have no right to decide what is real and what isn't. A car hurts more but this doesn't mean it is more real. Depression hurts more than eating a candy floss, which one is real? There are things that can happen in idea space that "hurt" you more than being hit by a car. Of course being hit by a car hurts, that hurt is located in the mind, if it proved meritorious over time to ignore pain you might learn to not be bothered by it. If it proves meritorious over time to listen to the voices of my "imaginary friends" then that's exactly what I will be doing. Would you expect me to be distracted from an area that interests me because I can't point to it and have people say "Oh yes, how interesting, I perceive what I believe to be the same thing at the same time, we can discuss it."? As regards your changing sides since having a similar discussion with a science student - do you perceive your views on these subjects to have actually changed or is it just a case of being in-between the views expressed by him and me? It's not difficult at all for me to imagine meeting someone who was "too" into the occult and changing sides in a similar way.
My definition of "real" would probably be a relative one as in real ale, real coffee, real time, real money (relative to counterfeit), real problems, that sort of thing. I wouldn't use the word real to distinguish between physical and non physical, I just never have.
You say "that which is real is a consensus", this clears up the matter of our differing perceptions of reality. I can't find a dictionary that mentions consensus [notes1] - is your view deluded because it does not agree with my dictionaries (which presumably represent some sort of consensus) or is it okay for you to have your own definition of real? Perhaps I should have asked what is the point of attaching value to one experience and not the other rather than using the word real since we know that we disagree on the meaning of "real". One of the definitions of real in my dictionary is "Serious" - so by applying that definition which can be said to be more real; a revelation/vision (the mind revealing itself to itself in a mind altering/life changing way) during meditation or moustachioed warriors The Chuckle Brothers? A hallucinogenic drug experience is very real, very serious, of very grave consequence. As an aside I think that you are misinformed about shamans and their perception of other places (whether reached through drug use, chanting, meditation or another disruption of sensory input) as useful only in a metaphorical sense, it is very unusual for them to use hallucinogens but they do believe in the reality of the other side quite fervently, they believe it to be very real - sometimes more real than physical reality [notes2]. Again it can be argued back and forth all day because the shamans and I both think that the "serious / grave" definition of real is more useful than the "physical" definition whereas I think that you prefer the latter. Obviously nobody would argue that the other side is more physical than the physical - that would be crazy. For the record hallucinogens (or de-hallucinogens depending upon your perspective [notes3]) are no more dangerous if you believe that the experience is grave and serious although they may be slightly more dangerous than normal if you believe the visuals to be "actually" "physically" "real". How glad I am that I have found this distinction - it seems to shed some light on our disagreement. I'm sure that you don't really believe yourself to be in a position to decide who should or shouldn't take hallucinogens. Hallucinogens are useful in a very real and not necessarily metaphorical sense.
Doubting Thomas is my favourite apostle too. I also like the Gnostics who presented a major challenge to orthodox Christianity in the 2nd and 3rd century AD, as i understand it they also wanted to know, e.g. stick their hands in stuff to see if it was "real" that's why they advocated having your own spiritual experience instead of listening to a priest reading about Christ's spiritual experiences. I have no faith. I have no faith in physical reality - I do not have any more faith in it than other perceived experiences that I have. I didn't understand what you were getting at about Poker - there is luck in poker but luck is by definition not mystical, it is the application of randomness to a person's fortunes. For the record it is my opinion that faith and trust are too similar to distinguish - you have based a lot if not all of what you think you know on trusting others, you appear to use the word faith to describe trust in others where you don't agree with those acts of trust.
I have read about Plato's cave story but I haven't actually read it. After reading what you said about Nazism and nuclear power I'm worried that you're thinking I said that any idea that exists in idea space (or even that is good in idea space) is good in physical reality. I'm not, nor did I suggest that everything can be brought over - in fact I specifically mentioned a number of things that can't cross over. You say that there is a point to saying that something is real or not real but then you fail to say what that point is, well there is also a point to dropping that distinction, an understanding of which you allude to when you later say you wish we could go back to those times of magic. You say we used to think Giant's Causeway was caused by giants and now we know that it was caused by something else. I'd ask only that you change the "think" to "know" or vice versa - there really isn't anything more stable or permanent about our current view, no matter how much more sophisticated it is or seems to be - it still might change to a more sophisticated view in the future (it could even change to a less sophisticated view although this seems less likely). You said "I think the real "magic" lies in the way the world does all this shit, it's far more fascinating, surprising and "magical" than writing it all off as the work of supernatural agents". Well actually I couldn't agree more - I don't believe in supernatural agents in the sense that I think you mean (see next paragraph), I refer you to my earlier statement "Magic is about how it all hangs together, where it all came from, why it looks like it does - that sort of thing".
My view on "imaginary" beings may be closer to yours than you think - It's hard to explain but I would never use the word supernatural to describe them. They are closer to total delusions than actual independent entities but you can seek them out, converse with and learn from them. I think they "live" in the right brain. I think that there is an approximation of you in my right brain without which we could not have this exchange, without which when I looked at you I'd see a stranger. I believe that there is a demon called Asmodeus living in my right brain, just like there is a Tom Waite - the fact that he has no physical counterpart doesn't really bother me. I think that there is an Asmodeus in your right brain. I do think that there is a link between my Asmodeus and your Asmodeus. They are the same Asmodeus in the sense that the Superman in the Saturday tea time Superman is the same Superman as the Superman in the Christopher Reeve films - i.e. representing the same quasi platonic ideal of Superman or Asmodeus. Our versions of Asmodeus have the same essence as the Asmodeus in Tobit in the Apocrypha and the Asmodeus that granted an "Asmodeus Flight" to various occultists throughout the centuries. Totally fucking made up demon that just happens to share characteristics (for whatever reason) with demons that other people have made up and given the same name for thousands of years. Of course this can be explained scientifically - that's the beauty of it, it can't be attacked by science because, despite its appearance, magic does not stand in opposition to science. Magic has traditionally been explained in non scientific terms but in this sense it does not differ from anything else. Science is now used to explain things that used to be described in supernatural terms, amongst these things is magic. Magic is ANYTHING to do with "journeying" to other places or "communicating" with anything from a non physical place. Somewhere along the way "magic" became mixed up with "supernatural". I wonder what the popular definition of magic would be were it not for children's stories from which it picks up a lot of its associations and meanings. Shamanism is a word which other cultures use for magic - we have started to use it because we have sullied our own word with negative supernatural connotations. This reminds me of the word "comics" which in our culture has connotations of humour - we never bothered to keep a word separate for this type of illustrated narrative whereas the Japanese use the word "Manga" which as I understand it is in no way related to the japanese word for humour.
I believe that;
Magic - encompasses all "inner work" relating to the mind's relationship with itself or alternatively the mind's relationship with the soul.
The Supernatural - is an unverifiable pre scientific system of accordance and relationships that was (and in some cases still is) used to explain things.
Science - is capable of explaining the physical world and to an extent the workings of the mind including magic.
The occult - is simply that which is hidden but often refers to the secret tradition of personal spirituality that is sometimes hidden within a religious movement or organisation and is sometimes claimed by its practitioners to be the original essence of that religion's teaching.
Strange that you should mention The Wizard of Oz - did I mention that I'd bought it recently as I've become very interested in the representation of different aspects of magic in entertainment media? I have been doing a fair bit of meditating on the film as a whole (by the way meditate simply means to consider reflectively so there's really no need to use inverted commas when you mention it). As for the end I presume that you mean the very end where Dorothy is back at home (where she of course has "been" all the time) I'd guess that you perceive yourself to be in the position of Em, Professor Marvel, Hickory etc. and you imagine me to be in Dorothy's deluded position of thinking that Oz is physically real; of course I would disagree. I believe that you are in the position of Em and the others but I think that I have access to both sets of perceptions - I still have the earthy "real" perceptions of the adults is Kansas but recently I have learned to have access to a set of perceptions that are more similar to those of Dorothy whilst "in" Oz. I still have access to my original ones but I prefer to have a choice - my view is broader and I'm happier with it.
NOTES.
[1] Definitions of real.
The American Heritage Dictionary says :
1. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; not imaginary or ideal.
2. Genuine; not artificial. See synonyms at authentic.
3. Serious: in real trouble.
Oxford Dictionary says:
1. Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact.
2. Genuine, rightly so called, not artificial or merely apparent.
Chambers Dictionary says:
1. Actually existing, not counterfeit or assumed
2. True, genuine, sincere, authentic.
So there is no mention of consensus although it appears that your "actual" comes in ahead of my preferred "authentic"
[2] "The aborigines," she says, "have in a sense collapsed the upper and lower worlds into one alternate realm called The Dreamtime. It's a realm they consider to be 'reality.' They tend to give the perspective of non-ordinary reality priority over the perspective of ordinary reality." from an interview with Dr. Leslie Gray.
[3] You probably already heard about this but someone once fed spiders acid and they span geometrically perfect webs without the normal inconsistencies. Various Indian tribes have regarded Peyote and Datura as de-hallucinogens that strip away the hallucinatory social filters that they believe we put between perception and consciousness.
On 7/12 Tom wrote;
What I meant, re: Wizard of Oz, was the bit when the wizard steps out from behind the big steaming scary mask thing and is just a thin, rather tweedy and unremarkable individual, and everyone had just been scared/in awe of an illusion.
This is all great stuff, but I'm on a "communications course" today. (which, incidentally, according to some dodgy psyche profiling has identified my personality as being in complete opposition to the views I stated re: reality, blah blah blah in my e-mail which preceded (and presumably inspired) this one. Weird.
Then;
..furthermore, my psychological profile asserts that I am: "An "NT" - Intellectual Investigator: NT's concern themselves with theories and possibilities, with the 'big picture' rather than with detail, with strategic thinking and underlying principles.
The combination of conceptual thinking plus objective logic makes them clear sighted planners. They set high standards of competence for themselves and for others and can react negatively to failure in any area of achievement (especially intellectual achievement) which they consider important. This can make them appear aloof, critical or arrogant to others.
Their most evident strength is their ability to visualise possibilities and abstractions clearly and unimpeded by personal wish lists. Their most common shortcoming is to be (or at least appear) arrogant and unforgiving."
Bollocks.
I WILL get you to admit that there is no such thing as "Occult Knowledge" or if there is, all knowledge is to some extent occult. Computer knowledge is "occult" to the Un-computery. I really don't think we can get any further until we settle this point. It is important to me, I am, after all, an intellectual investigator, and both intellectuals and investigators would hate to think that there is some knowledge out there that will be forever hidden from them.
Owain Glyndwyr was the first "Prince Of Wales". He was a revolutionary/guerilla who fought against the English (and KICKED their arses) in , I believe , the 15th century. Half Robin Hood, half Che Guevera.
On 8/12 Lee wrote;
Well since you mention it The wizard himself admits to being a very bad wizard. He is a good representation of magic as wisdom. There is the theory that the word wizard is derived from "wise words" and that wizards come from an oracular rather than magical tradition. This would go some way to explain their benevolent and benign reputation and their position in apparent opposition to witches. Oz is wise and that proves to be the real magic. I.e. as I said in my last message there is no supernature, occult knowledge does not have anything to distinguish it from other knowledge apart from its occluded nature. Magic does not require any special skills - it is just like anything else, it can be sought out and learned - its just a certain type of wisdom. Often in magician's apprentice type stories the mage has to start with a basic re-education of his pupil implying that magic is not a different type of knowledge but the highest attainable knowledge/wisdom.
What do you have to be to be an NT?
I will freely admit that there is no such thing as that which you perceive me to be claiming to be occult knowledge. Computer knowledge is only very slightly occluded from the un-computery, there isn't really a barrier to them finding it. Occult information is normally that which falls outside of the main body of knowledge as defined by a society's entire metaphysics. The occult tradition, or the tradition of occult knowledge is that it relates principally to esoteric views on individual spirituality which are very closely linked to that which I and many others view as the real definition of the word magic.
Anyway I won't dwell here since you haven't really finished with my last message yet.
Then;
By the way.. ..there is no Owain Glyndwyr in Encarta '97 so he does not exist.
On 8/12 Tom wrote;
..Just fill out some soft-science questionnaire.
O.K. - we've got the "Occult Knowledge" thing satisfactorily resolved. I'm not sure the Jewish Cabbala is a good example, but you wrote some wise words about the treachery of metaphor a few mails back, which I heartily agree with.
Did I spell "consensus" wrong?
The word "Encarta" does not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary. I therefore have grave doubts as to its existence or the veracity of information therein. Do an internet search for "Owain Glyndwr" - he's out there.
I found a really good quote about solipsism (which is, I think, the doctrine that whatever you experience in your life is all in your own head, people, events, places, the lot) - and that if our lives are shit, boring or whatever, it's our own fault for not having the wit to imagine something better. I have now changed my standpoint to solipsism (for the week) which means all your arguments are actually mine, and you are just an "apparence" dreamt up by me to convey these opinions.
I'm sorry I denigrated your opinions.. that was wrong.
I am on another sodding course today (Presentation skills) so I haven't really got time to give this the full go.
On 8/12 Lee wrote;
I love this mail, its funny, its wise, its got mistakes, its got the word solipsism, its got a gross misunderstanding, an apology, apparent capitulation, a new direction and a complaint! Its got everything. I'd still like to hear your full and frank reply to my original pipe message which I am not ashamed to admit took a good few hours and a couple of rewrites to get right(ish) but I can't resist answering this one now.
Occult knowledge - I'm glad you think so, especially as I wondered if I'd explained my position clearly. I presume you think the Jewish Cabbala to be too well known or to central to Jewish tradition to be occult by my own definition - you may be right but I wonder if its not occluded from the view of more than a few Jews throughout the world. It's too esoteric to be part of the cut and thrust of a religious movement is it not? You say "treachery of metaphor", unless you mean "treachery of example" I cant remember my wise words.
[Did I spell "consensus" wrong?] - Fuck knows what you mean by this! You did not spell consensus wrong, I guess you are referring to my statement "I can not find a dictionary which mentions consensus"! I meant I couldn't find a dictionary that mentions consensus in its definition of "real". No doubt you can't find a dictionary that does not mention consensus in its definition of "real", hmmm....perhaps our dictionaries are actually constructs of our minds.
Solipsism is my new favourite word even though I haven't looked it up yet. What was this great quote then? Have you forgotten it?
You're forgiven for your denigration, I only mentioned it so it was clear that I actually wouldn't want to piss on your chips just because I prefer hash browns. I was worried it was slipping back to the level of our Peter Gabriel / Red Bull discussions.
They can't teach you anything about presentation that you can't learn talking to me - tell them you're busy and crack on with your next essay or I win the prize!
On 09/12 Lee wrote;
I had a poke around and found the following uses of the word solipsism.
1) Used as a term for gross, extreme egotism.
2) Used as a description for a delusion or mental illness where no-one else exists.
3) Used to describe a philosophy that suggests we are all part of the same mind. There is only one dreamer outside of our reality and we are just component parts of its mind - I like that one.
4) What's called "individual solipsism" - a philosophy where the individual (you) is the only real person and the entirety of existence is a trick he (you) played on himself (yourself) for fun in which he included various safeguards against him (you) finding out and spoiling the fun for himself (yourself).
There's a newsgroup called alt.solipsism - seems there's only a dozen or so people ever posted there - its sort of interesting but they don't seem to talk about solipsism much.
Lee.
solipsism (s¼l"'p-s'z".m, s½"l'p-) n. Philosophy. 1. The theory that the self is the only reality. [Latin s½lus, alone, ipse, self, -ism.]
-- sol"ipsist n. -- sol"ipsis"tic adj.
"The American Heritage Concise Dictionary," (c) 1994 Houghton Mifflin Company. (c) 1994 INSO Corporation. All rights reserved.
On 15/12 Tom wrote;
Listening to Mr. Rainford Hugh (Lee Scratch) Perry the other night, I noticed the following line:
"I am a musician, I am a magician, I love magic A magician should perform his magic and disappear"
Mind you, this is the same song where he claims to be a Word Processor.....
Which led to a discussion about Lee Perry during which Tom admitted that "It also fucks me off because, as I said much, much earlier, when stuff I like suddenly becomes trendy, it makes me sick. (Like in that comic you were on about)."
On 15/12 Lee wrote;
The bit that really rings true is when you say "It also fucks me off because, as I said much, much earlier, when stuff I like suddenly becomes trendy, it makes me sick. (Like in "The death of Too Much Coffee Man")."
On 15/12 Tom wrote;
This is, of course, the central issue. It is interesting that you say I still don't understand this position but I am a victim of it too.
We can't explain this position, but we know it "exists", "is real".
On 15/12 Lee wrote;
You also said;
We can't explain this position, but we know it "exists", "is real". Yes although it is not a physical thing, taking this back to meditation - if two people have a comparable experience during separate individual meditations is it real or two separate delusions?
I notice definite psychonautical leanings here - believing in things you can't see or touch just because I, a self confessed victim of delusions (or as I prefer, magician), also believe in it. You also picked out Lee Perry's lyrics because of the inclusion of terms magician and magic and you exhibit occult fetishism in wanting to keep those things you are interested in for yourself and your pals and away from the public eye ( to an extent ).
I have taken no care over this mail - we both know we are right and could easily agree with the other's point of view if necessary, nothing compares to the tree climbing whale dialogue ( or dual monologue ) - get on with it. Do you want a copy of my transcript?
On 15/12 Tom wrote;
We can't explain this position, but we know it "exists", "is real". Yes although it is not a physical thing, taking this back to meditation - if two people have a comparable experience during separate individual meditations is it real or two separate delusions?
CONSENSUS = REALITY=CONSENSUS = REALITY=CONSENSUS = REALITY=CONSENSUS = REALITY
Two delusions like this that two people could have : a man could say "I really like the feeling I get when white water shoots out me knob" - The FEELING is not physical, but if you asked another guy, "The feeling you get, when white water shoots out your knob, like it do you?" and the other man would probably answer "Yes" The reality is, men find orgasms pleasurable, even though we have no language for communicating the sensation, visualising it, or "realising" it (except in the form of aforementioned white water)
I don't know if this helps though.. (treachery of example, etc (I thought about it and realised metaphor was completely the wrong word))
On 16/12 Lee wrote;
So if I come into work and say last night during meditation I had a demonstration of four dimensional ice skating from Asmoday and a friend says "Oh yes, I've had that one." Is it real. What about if I dream the same dream as someone else?
Basically - how many do I need for a consensus to count?
On 16/12 Tom wrote;
How many Kellogg's employees believe they have a demon called "Asmoday" living in the left side of their brain? Maybe consensus works in a majority kind of a way. What most people experience most of the time and can mostly explain to another person mostly what it mostly meant and felt like and if the other person mostly empathised, then it can mostly be said to be mostly real.
On 16/12 Lee wrote;
I believe that everyone has demon called Asmoday in their right brain - I certainly have record of comparable experience but not from work colleagues.
It is an opinion that the word real has and will retain this meaning.
Nothing is actually real or everything is actually real - anything else is an extreme compromise.
On 16/12 Tom wrote;
I don't believe I or anyone has a demon called Asmoday anywhere in their brain. I imagine most people's right brains are physiologically similar. Perhaps I have what you have in my right brain, but I call it something other than a demon called Asmoday? I think that's the case.
On 17/12 Lee wrote;
Well yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. There is something in your unconscious similar to that which has been called Asmodeus or Asmoday by various others. Going all the way back to biblical times (and further no doubt) various people have "interacted" with this part of the unconscious that works in a very complex mathematical way and is linked to our perception of higher dimensions enabling us to visualise them "spatially" if we choose to. I think that it is possible to project "intelligent" characteristics on to this part of your own unconsciousness and then communicate with it and learn from it. This is basically what people do with any entity that they believe to be real, especially pets. We do it with humans too, projecting intelligent characteristics onto what is principally the impact of light waves on the retina and vibrations of frequencies between about 15 and 20,000 hertz reaching the inner ear.
EAR