then Julian wrote

Hi Folks

Some interesting points Duncan (there is, I assume, a self know as Duncan? ;-) after reading your response I went back and re-read this essay in Magick Works and I stand by it (at the moment). Remember it's an essay, in the sense of 'an attempt'. I don't claim to know The Answer but rather am interested in exploration.

Although as rightly pointed out my argument does not rest on Zohars work I think, in her defence, and for those who are unfamiliar with her writing, I should point out that she studied Physics and Philosophy at MIT, did her postgraduate work in Philosophy, Religion & Psychology at Harvard University, and may even know a thing or two.

Sure when you look at something closely (like 'the self') it disappears but this isn't surprising. Solidity as a quality of matter disappears when looked at closely or over long periods of time. The unitary nature of our bodies looks very iffy when we consider that we can be imagined just as easily as colony organisms. However my point is, at the human scale of day-to-day interactions, we have a 'self'; exploring what that is (rather than simply declaring it to be ignorance/illusion) is what interests me.

As to the matter of the relationship of ecstasy and the self perhaps it the old subject/object process? That relationship seems imbedded in all spoken language and therefore the underlying structure of thought (see for example Steven Pinkers work). Maybe the self is one of the poles that permits ecstatic states to arise? We become ourselves and transcend ourselves. It is the flexibility of self that some cultures fear. Self, my essay in Magick Works explains, is something fluid and it is that fluidity that often causes problems (especially where that fluidity conflicts with social taboos and norms).

I'm quite happy not to abandon such an interesting experience as 'the self' (at least not until I die, and maybe even not then). Instead I'd rather discover what relationship this construct has to other bits of reality both inner and outer. As someone who is perhaps closer to a Thelemic rather than Buddhist perspective I'm keen to rejoice in, explore and experiment with the cognitive structures I appear to have rather than lopping them off. Of course it’s also fun to experience things that might be considered void or no-self states (Magick Works has an account of the tantric use of ketamine which is very much about those states). I’d respectfully suggest having a look at my book Pharmakon; Drugs and the Imagination for more about the self/no-self interactions. In that work I explore the ‘shamanic return’ – ie what happens when we ‘come down’ from the timeless ineffable realm, back into the apparent work, and how this is linked to learning and the process of the self.

Perhaps the most interesting models these days come from the multiple selves standpoint which admit there is not an adamantine unity to our mental processes but equally doesn’t deny there is a selfhood to which we all tacitly lay claim. Personally I’d rather get my hints on how the mind works from fMRI explorations etc. Siddh.rtha, may also have known a thing or two, but was working only with introspection and was just as likely to be led astray by his own illusions.

I hope you enjoyed the other essays as well. Keep up the Great Work J

Jx

And then Laboratorian wrote

Julian, the Theraveda Buddhist model is not particularly good with the intermediary between the absolute and the relative, and I believe the 'self' you describe is somewhere in between. There are at least two discrete states--the 'natural state of mind', and the 'storehouse of consciousness', both of which I have little if any direct experience, but being that the texts have been right about many other things, i'll trust them on those--that suggest something about the self and have been the subject of debate for a long, long time.

no-self is simply 'experience' that when taking any object, and seeing it as empty, and coming back around the track to the subject, it becomes clear the subject has the same absolute properties as the object. the self can't be a fixed thing since there is no fixed thing.

it is like doing ritual and experiencing some progress of wisdom while doing a ritual for a relative, stated or planned purpose. No-self and emptiness (or impermanance or suffering) don't wipe out what the self was doing or even what happens with the relative observer--though they do function as something of a background that is useful to be able to tune into. It is like tuning a radio while being aware of your feet.

and a final comment, if you 'come down from a timeless, ineffable realm' then it by definition isn't timeless or even ineffable. Rarefied, maybe, but timeless, no. Still relative, and that confusion can lead to confusing the powers, the states and the realms with wisdom.

PS - That shouldn't be 'natural state of mind' but 'being-bliss', i.e., taking subject as object.

Julain wrote

There is, I assume, a self know as Duncan? ;-)

Julian wrote

at the human scale of day-to-day interactions, we have a 'self'; exploring what that is (rather than simply declaring it to be ignorance/illusion) is what interests me.

Julian wrote

As someone who is perhaps closer to a Thelemic rather than Buddhist perspective I'm keen to rejoice in, explore and experiment with the cognitive structures I appear to have rather than lopping them off.

Julian wrote

Personally I’d rather get my hints on how the mind works from fMRI explorations etc. Siddhartha, may also have known a thing or two, but was working only with introspection and was just as likely to be led astray by his own illusions.

Julian wrote

Keep up the Great Work!

Peter Carroll wrote

...without the flesh, Kia has no mirror for itself, and there is no awareness, no ecstacy, nothing... It is either this nothing or the flesh, and the condition of the flesh is dual. Eternal warfare is the price, purpose, and reward of existence... Our dual nature is all morality; it is foolish to be other than we are... Great men are greatly dual...

Kalu Rinpoche wrote

We live in illusion
And the appearance of things.
There is a reality:
We are that reality.
When you understand this,
You will see that you are nothing.
And, being nothing,
You are everything.
That is all.

Quote

Sounds just like a description of Naive enlightenment to me,

Quote

It sounds to me, then, as if in the poem Carroll is not pointing to non-duality ... but celebrating duality

Kite wrote

One can interpret it as presenting two sides but making no effort to harmonise or alternate the two, which reminds me a bit of the physicists' description of a complementary pairing: two concepts which contradict, but without both of which a complete explanation cannot follow.

Kite wrote

I don't want you inflating and floating off