Re: [BardonPraxis] Real vs. imagined communication

["Simon Proteus" <SimonProteus@...>]

Hello,
Although this thread seems to be coming to a close I wanted to clarify my 
statements.

First: I am in no way saying "objectivity verses subjectivity does not 
matter", what I am saying is that the question itself doesn't matter. Only 
experience matters. Many scholars have pointed out that Hermetics is based 
almost entirely upon gnostic principles. One resource I found actually 
referred to it as a form of gnosticism. One should draw their own 
conclusions. To sit and ponder and then pontificate is not the point.

Second: Rawn. I agree completely that the degree to which an individual 
expresses divinity either in magickal work or in daily life is directly 
correlated to their own level of spiritual awareness. If I implied 
otherwise then shame on me. For instance, I am in no way saying that 
because I can concieve of a talking, pink bunny in the corner, that one is 
in fact in said corner. I AM saying that the awakened imagination is a far 
more "real" and profound tool that most people, including those who study 
the occult in general, and Hermetics specifically give it credit for.

Third: I do believe it is entirely possible that objective otherworldly 
beings exist. M-theory and quantum mechanics state explicitly that the 
existence of other dimensions is not only possible, but probable. Science 
has again and again lent credibility to occult theory. I find it to be 
incredibly plausible that communications with beings existing in these 
dimensions is possible. Some people may feel a degree of impatience with my 
connecting science and the occult, but I consider this relationship to be 
ultimately unavoidable. In the end I simply feel no compulsion to discuss 
whether I, you, or the guy working at the Quickie-Mart have had a discussion 
with spiritual beings, not because I feel they do not exist, but because 
such communications will be interpreted through our own unique set of 
lenses.

To conclude: My point to Daniel was not that objectivity vs. subjectivity 
is meaningless. In my daily job I work directly and intimately with hard 
science on a daily basis and am very much a proponent of careful and 
accurate thinking (for application in the work-a-day world, as well as the 
spiritual). What I did mean to communicate is that there will be no 
"objective" evidence that one can share to communicate the objective reality 
of spiritual beings. For those who have ever seen or participated in an 
evocation there are no angels hanging around for tea afterwards waiting to 
hang out with your friends to verify their existence, elementals buffing 
your floor and offering to do the same for the particle physicist down the 
street or faeries perfecting the curves of your body all on their onesies. 
There is no evidence, and that is unequivically what the determination of 
objectivity must be based upon. When a hermetic says "objective", they do 
not mean "I have objective evidence that such and so exists outside of 
me"--it is therefore not objective by any measure, what they mean is "I have 
knowledge that such and so exists outside of me"--having knowledge of 
something is not a determination of objectivity.

Although these beings cannot be determined by another to be an objective 
being, does not mean that it does not contain the quality of objectivity, it 
simply means that it must be described in subjective terms. Confusing? Of 
course it is, and THAT was my point to Daniel, as badly worded as it clearly 
was.

Warm Regards,
Simon

_________________________________________________________________
Fast. Reliable. Get MSN 9 Dial-up - 3 months for the price of 1! 
(Limited-time Offer) http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/