Re: Sv: Sv: Hello..or goodbye
Date: Fri, Sep 4, 2020 7:29 am
Bennett is saying that, not me. I think he is right but keep in mind the confusion over the term ‘Being’. It has also entered philosophy and has now a huge
and complex literature from Heidegger to Tillich (but Plato was the first). The simplicity of the term can get lost. You use (as an English speaker) the term over and over all day long,
but if someone asks you to explain it, you become confused, like the tale of the centipede.
Let me suggest this:
If you meditate you often feel a sense of ‘being’ (in part because you are motionless, just ‘being’), or increased being. But that is really a change or increase of consciousness.
We see a connection there. That a rock has being is so obvious it is confusing. Is this same usage of the term.
I think finally it is. But rocks are not conscious, so strictly speaking the usage is inconsistent, as you immediately sense. The issue is really correct in a larger sense: it makes no sense to
divide ‘consciousness’ from material questions. Scientists are right to consider a unity of explanation, but then get reductionist which drives people to distinguish ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’. But the question of a unity is probably right. Finally the term ‘consciousness’ has entered the realm of quantum
mechanics. The amount of new age nonsense there is alarming, but the issue of consciousness in physics is now a fact of life, as physicists wring their hands.
Keep in mind in reading Bennett (or any book on spiritual subjects with special terminology) that he often confuses people. Writers often have insights
and make complex statements that readers don’t understand. Bennett creates terminology that can be confusing. ‘Being function, will’ are perhaps like that.
The way Bennett defines his terms seems strange because ‘matter’ disappears
In the end, I think Bennett is right: He opens DU with a discussion of the basic substance of experience: material and being question are connected with consciousness.
To replace matter with ‘being and function’ isn’t any big metaphysical mystery. It is just a different way to slice the pie.
The term ‘will’ in Bennett is obviously confusing, but the term enters from Gurdjieff and also from philosophy.
Your will is confusing, is it free will? That’s a long debate. But will exists whether ‘free’ or not. Will is like the title
deed to a property. In part it exists but does nothing. ??? It seems to be ‘ego’ and then not so. Here Schopenhauer
can be helpful and I suspect Bennett read him. The ‘will’ is the ‘thing in itsefl’ like Kant’s ‘noumenon’. The will is ‘free’ because
it is in a different ‘dimension’ or spaceless nothing: it can be free because it is not a part of physics. That the will is not the ego
is confusing, but on reflection, the right approach.
Bennett invokes will
but it is apparently a part of ordinary physics.It needs some kind of definition then. But Bennett is probably following
Gurdjieff who knew a lot about will, and about magical will, a sufi trait: look at that sufi ‘jesus’. His miracles are myths now
but the real history of such a sufi manifested the ‘will’ somehow, so it is rumored as rumor turns to myth.
Every man alive has activated his will and performed a miracle at least once in his life, but never realized it.
So Jesus has no monopoly here.
It would seem the ‘magical will’ is really the same as ‘enlightenment’. But now in the age of Crowley people
perform rituals to invoke their magical will, disaster in the making, pure Faustian idiocy, with Mephisto not fa behind.
Seek ye first the void of ‘real enlightenment’ and the magical will may well follow.
But it is true the buddhist/yogic ways speak little of the ‘will’, perhaps the source of their success.
Success of the yogi, maybe not the disciple. You should quietly invoke your ‘will’ in the minimum
sense of following your own path, and keep the will quietly in background as you sit quietly doing nothing.
Be very wary here.for most the magical will is the path to demonhood, as with Gurdjieff.
They are psycopaths of the path: they think there is no karmic process.
The form factor in the eonic model is a desperate effort to try to find some metaphor or explanation for
a phenomenon we don’t understand. The example of the ‘novel’ is however, I think, more or less right.
But the overall process is more complex. The point is that ‘system action’ and ‘free agency’ are related
in the creation of civilization by men, but men who are infused with creative energy, a term however
that isn’t scientific.
I recommend a book or two, three, on archaic Greece. You will see at once what is meant.
enough for the moment….
John Landon…I will put his online at the blog, again…
Keep going with WHEE, you are right, it is not as hard as it looks.
The model and its terminology are simple metaphors, not metaphysics
and easy to use, e.g. ‘stream and sequence’, etc…
From: A. C.
Sent: Thu, Sep 3, 2020 3:59 pm
Subject: Sv: Sv: Hello..or goodbye
Are you saying “Being” is a unity of the material and consciousness? I don’t think I ever quite grasped what “Being” and “Function” were referring to. Not “Will” either.
The idea that civilization also “evolves” in jumps is more new to me and I guess I remain to be convinced by your argument in the book. I have struggled to find a solid interpretation of history that can be used to assess exactly what’s going on at the present and what to expect of the future. Is attempts to change history even possible? Does human will even play a role?
When you say a “form factor” for civilization, are you talking about some kind of pre-established design that human civilization adapts to across history?