Path: typhoon.sonic.net!not-for-mail Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.pagan.magick,alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic,alt.consciousness.mysticism,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Philosophy / Science of Magic (was Best Systems ...) References: From: nagasiva Reply-To: spam@yronwode.com User-Agent: nn/6.6.0 Lines: 110 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 19:03:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.201.242.18 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sonic.net X-Trace: typhoon.sonic.net 1023476599 208.201.242.18 (Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:03:19 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:03:19 PDT Xref: typhoon.sonic.net alt.magick.tyagi:32955 alt.magick:304706 alt.pagan.magick:33148 alt.paranormal.spells.hexes.magic:34163 alt.consciousness.mysticism:55751 talk.philosophy.misc:139305 50020607 VII! bloodofenoch@goddamnfruit.com (Andralphus): >>> ...Gematria: >>> a) is only one of several tools for interpreting the Torah >>> allegorically. nagasiva: >> or any other text for that matter. bloodofenoch@goddamnfruit.com (Andralphus): > You could use it for that. I was just pointing out what orthodox > Kabbalah uses it for. right, and gematria precedes usage in Kabbalah amongst Greeks and others. some who identify gematria with "qabalah" and let little more be their meaning ("an astral file cabinet") may not know that many of Kabbalah's pieces preceded it, and adopt gematria as some kind of Prime Method. I'm not saying you're doing this, just that stating its relation to Torah primarily in ITS description seems slightly unbalanced. I'd say firstly that requires an alphabet, which only a set of languages do. >>> b) isn't meant as some kind of idle intellectual exercise, some certainly use it for precisely this purpose, and I see no Instruction Manual which tells us how gematria "is meant". >>> but as a means of tapping into the hidden thoughts of God. >>> >>> God, Poke. Not the *Collective Unconscious* or any other >>> euphemism for divinity. God. nagasiva: >> for those what don't believe in no such Guy, perhaps a more >> psychological alternative will be satisfactory. bloodofenoch@goddamnfruit.com (Andralphus): > If the detail of whether God exists or not is very important to you, important vs unimportant is an different matter. > and you come down on the negative side of it, it could also be very important to me and I come down on the negative. there are many possibilities here. > I am sure that it would be more satisfactory. even more satisfactory if it is important to me which side I prefer and I (unsurprisingly) assert my preference is truth. >> or ask pointed >> questions and put forward their best ideology which removes >> the God and in its place puts something more scientific and >> less fantastic? > > Yes. Although I would ask, "why is fantastic bad?" to some, apparently. the more fantastic the more difficult to support in some literal way (rather than as poetics). > I will say, though, that if you seek a framework free of metaphysics, > Jung and his 'Collective Unconscious' are not IMHBCO the place to look. wonderfully put. I'm unsure to where one might turn except some mathematically-inclined or sacred geometrical folx who don't imply or specifically express their metaphysics as part of their mysticism (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sacredlandscapelist ). > Where is this Collective Unconscious? I want to put my hand in its > side and my fingers in the holes in its hands. Show it to me! its unconscious condition requires special procedures whereby you might apprehend a substantial experience and understanding of the Collective Unconscious. turn to Jungians for such procedures, perhaps Fourth Way, Transpersonal Psychologists, and occultists such as Rachel Pollack, or mystics like Fritjof Schuon, if memory serves. > I doubt you can, in anything like a scientific way. there is a substantial psychology of consciousness contingent to gainsay you here (the transp. psychs I mentioned above plus more besides). writers and editors like Ornstein, Durkheim, Naranjo, Dennett, Tart, White and Blewett are valuable references to follow out a more scientific assessment of this ostensible object. many mystical traditions develop scientific approaches to their material. one might easily describe mysticism as science taken interior, with variable personal and social results. > ...Jungiana has to be taken as metaphysics and not science. my impression is that it was never billed as science, but would be surprised if there weren't overlaps in any case (sciene tends to include some kind of metaphysics for its investigation -- one of its severe pitfalls as it is practiced). > But if you are going to stray down the garden path of metaphysics, that sounds like a misstep. don't we *want* metaphysics, along with ethics and aesthetics and whatever philosophy suits your fancy? isn't healthy science preceded by thorough philosophy? > aren't there much more honest and poetic ways to do it? how is it dishonest? you think the metaphysics masquerades as science? is this the hard-science-knockdown of 'soft competition'? nagasiva