the tarot deck that i had for years was adopted by my ex. i asked her to be pure in her intentions in her spreads but i guess the obsessive nature of her inquiries got stuck in there somehow and i find the deck unuseable now.

i will get another deck but the i ching does seem to have a more expansive feel to it. more entrepreneurial possibly, less dogmatic, though i found both to be accurate.

the i ching did tell me to stop asking the same question expecting a different answer one time.

i find that amusing now……………

i have a small crystal ball too, as well as a number of crystal wands that are live with energy. sometimes i just have to touch the ball and i am struck with images, words and concepts. answers……….streaming.

It is very poetic , but it also is rather hard core in a sense. It does not molly coddle , or lead one off into more occultish things, like angels and devils, but offers up an array of real world type scenarios.

In about the 12th century the verses were boiled to 32 verses , and made to use five coins . These thirty two verses, are still used as simplified symbolic representations of the principles contained in the I ching, translating its wisdom to reflect on different aspects of the human condition in response to specific questions.

I could suggest , Secrets of Chinese Astrology by , Kwan Lau. It should be dirt cheap as a used paperback, and there are a million copies around.

Use whatever coins of the same denomination . I use quarters. Concentrate on one question only. Move the coins around slowly in both hands together, then set them down in a row, and look up the pattern in the coin layout in the book. Very simple.

I do not consider myself a superstitious person , and I do not do this very often. The times I have done it I have been very amazed at the results. If everything is connected, which it is , then this fits in somehow to the big picture.

The oracle idea is cool because , you have to interpret the message. Kind of like reading a book. Oracles are subject to interpretation. It is a thought provoking way to look at a subject or problem differently.

So, Used book, a few coins, and your in business.

http://deoxy.org/iching/random

i have found some comfort in this recently…………..i was doing tarot but found it too negative. it was insistant on focusing on my recent seperation, whereas the i ching allowed insight into more current and pleasant interests.

I wish I could make sense of what he did do , but I can`t. The only way it makes sense is if the whole thing was really true. I don`t believe it though.

Well, I think that’s the purpose of the story of Jesus - is that it’s challenging. There is an early Church father quotation that goes something like “I believe it because it is absurd,” which could be read as accepting something as a belief simply because you can’t make sense of it and you want to. I find personally that trying on a belief for a while and seeing what it feels like from the inside out makes it “true” in a certain sense and gives you new insights to the whole thing and to people affected by. And who knows, it may even just change you imperceptibly. After all, you can always change yourself back!

I know that it does not make logical sense to do this.

Never the less I have found that it has made sense, and been a good indicator to me.

Beliefs and opinions should be viewed as something that is not so important. Freedom of belief and opinion is important.

Facts should be the criteria for decision making in a good society.

Beliefs and opinions are rather comical. There is no accounting for them, and there shouldn’t`t be. Free speech is the greatest thing to get at any truth.

The person that many hold up as perfect , in a way, is kind of like those people that cut themselves on purpose, or starve themselves. Or maybe like the people that commit suicide , by having the cops shoot them.

No doubt Christ would be put on antipsychotics these days. Maybe go to a self help group for people that think they are the messiah.

The joke about Christ is that he was young and stupid , and got in over his head.

Maybe this neutral position that Christ took, was made to pull everyone in in a strange way. He could have fought, he could have run, I wish I could make sense of what he did do , but I can`t. The only way it makes sense is if the whole thing was really true. I don`t believe it though.

then again,

you think about it, christ kind of breaks the fight or flight paradigm, “get crucified” is the other option…

But now you can pick a fellowship based on political mores etc., ah man it’s all fucked up…

what are you going to do

“everybody has their own opinion
holdin it back it hurts so bad”
-janes addiction

by “fact” some people mean the linguistic package that encodes some natural phenomenon; as such, the “fact” is a mental construct, and therefore illusory. But if by “fact” you mean the underlying natural phenomenon,

Yes, this underlying natural phenomenon is what I am referring to as “thing” or the “referent.” What I see as “facts” are linguistic/conceptual constructs built on top of these underlying referents.

Now, to shift my perspective on the matter completely, it may be that these constructs are in some sense just as “real” as the actual thing. That is, if we fudge the definition of “real” to be something more usable and mutable like “anything you experience”. In this case, our concepts about something as just as “real” as the actual thing. We may not be able to hold them in our hands and appreciate them with our tactile sense, but we can certainly hold them in our minds and feel them with another kind of sense.

I’ve never thought about it like this before: that our notion of what reality is rests on a prejudice against certain types of sense-perceptions available to the human animal. Why is something we can touch more “real” than something we can think about, but at the same time, something we can hear is not fundamentally better or more real than something we can only hear or smell?

I know this seems to be veering wildly off the topic of evil, but I see several points of connection back to my original post.

On “facts”: I think by “fact” some people mean the linguistic package that encodes some natural phenomenon; as such, the “fact” is a mental construct, and therefore illusory. But if by “fact” you mean the underlying natural phenomenon, then it is as real as anything is, which may be less than you imagine. (I got burned early in life believing too strongly in the solidity of natural phenomena, and then I got burned again trying to work with the fluidity. Let’s just say I have a healthy respect now for both perspectives.)

On “science”: the scientific method can only study that which is of a low enough order to be controlled by human agency: electrons, cells, rats, and humans under sedation or otherwise less powerful than you can be studied by science. Free humans, their emotions, and human societies are a mixed bag, sometimes they admit study, other times they do not. You can completely forget about gods, angels, nature spirits, and the like: they’re usually smarter than you and will escape any bottle you try to put them in. That doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. It just means that they can’t be studied by our favorite method. Love/eros, as a lower emotion (meaning based primarily in biology) can probably be studied up to a point; love/agape, as a higher emotion, referring to a complex form of consciousness at the boundary between two entities, that probably cannot be studied.

You would not be able to hop on a bus , or turn on your computer if facts were not real.

I’m not saying that buses or computers are not real. I am saying that “facts” are not real. Facts are not tangible things. They are mental abstractions based on tangible things

The truth has a lively changing face.

You would not be able to hop on a bus , or turn on your computer if facts were not real.

All theory, philosophy, law, or hypothesis are man-made and thus subject to change at mankind`s whims. All facts, found or future, have always existed. Fact is nature`s foundation ; facts are never repudiated by facts. Opinions are never facts.

You know guttural throat sounds can be pleasant at times also.

The Greeks used the science of math not so much for mechanical contrivance, although they did a lot of that , but also because they viewed it in an almost religious sense, as to the beauty of itself in its conformity. They viewed the data of this as proving in a way, that things make sense, in a big way , even though we sometimes can not understand how it can, in small ways.

Of course math doesn`t work as a way to reconcile being a human , and wanting to understand all the things we don`t really know.

Belief is like hope, or prayer, or longing for understanding. Even though not true , we wish it was. It provides some peace.
Not real perhaps , but comfort seems real. Children are comforted. Older people think perhaps they will go to heaven. All lies of course, but there are many methods , and many reasons , and many traditions at play.
Whats the reality of it.? Wouldn`t we all like to know. We make do with lame explanations sometimes.

What is real.? The scientific method can be applied to things that don`t always make sense.
Love seems real, yet it has never been measured.
It is possible to use data from questions asked about love to come up with some interesting analysis of love. Science can be used to postulate concepts on things that do not make sense, such as a better human society, or a program of learning to understand human behaviour , as it relate to love and understanding.

Science is pretty flexible . It will study anything, and the results of the data can be eye opening.
Again in my mind all attempts to find meaning, purpose, beauty.

I will concede that it is important to develop structure around which to make decisions about ones life, and my position is basically that, once you reach a certain point developmentally you need to think about your own personal Duty in the world and not worry about what is absolute Good and Evil. As Zac has suggested in a comment on my recent blog post, (which merely organizes the comments I’ve already made here), Duty is in part defined by attention to the global system, and in that sense should be oriented towards something that could be thought of as Good and Evil. But I guess what I’m saying is that Good and Evil imply a directionality or axis that doesn’t exist at the global, absolute level. At that level, there are indeed Concerns, but I challenge you to try to orient them directionally.

And so, yes, we are left with concepts, but we should have at our disposal some tools (linguistic or otherwise) to orient ourselves in some sensible way to the Concers of the universe. These tools are likely more complex than a ham-handed axis of Good and Evil.

People fall prey to thinking that abstract beliefs are real. Beliefs or opinions are never real. Facts are real.

What is a fact though? Show me what a hard fact is and I will show you that it is not real either. A “fact” is merely an abstraction made out of language which attempts to describe - using guttural throat sounds - the essential nature of a thing, a referent. Facts don’t actually exist.

A man may commit murder, and from a narrow perspective it may seem like the “right” thing to do. From a very narrow red-meme perspective, the victim always “deserves” it. But perhaps his victim was a royal asshole, hated by everybody, in which case the community may even feel that way. There were certainly people who believed it about Matthew Shepard, i.e. that by being gay one automatically deserves death. But when one considers a more global system and asks the question, “what would happen if everybody were allowed to kill whenever they felt it was justified?”, then you get into issues of social stability. As it stands now, we generally agree that only the State has a right to take human life, otherwise society breaks down. Even that position is frought with peril, given the indiscriminate use of power that our current government now seems willing to employ.

I want to clarify that my position is articulated in the context of a specific audience, i.e. one whose consciousness center-of-mass is at least at the blue-meme level or maybe even green (and, yes, here I’ll just make use of KW even though I don’t buy completely into his system). Obviously, if you’re talking to a red-meme person you’re going to invite problems if you try to make these distinctions. With red-meme people, you’re better off just saying there is Good and Evil and saying nothing more; which I suppose is the point of the blue-meme, as a reaction to red.

Beliefs or opinions are never real. Facts are real.

The old saying , wish in one hand and shit in the other , and see which one you have the most of.

All our attempts, whether scientific, spiritual, religious, using the scientific method, studying enlightened types, or believing in abstract notions, are trying to do the same thing. Find meaning.

We are all trying to come to grips with being thrown into a marvelous , strange place, the world.
We attempt with our fragile ego`s to make a life for ourselves in this world and to look for meaning, purpose , and beauty. All these things are the begging hand of the ego. We are beggars for meaning. Science, religion, occult, all do this. Prayer, Experiment, Trying to rouse or appease spirits , all do this.
In that they are similiar, though on the surface they are complety different.

it seems better to cut the whole thing down with Occam’s razor and admit that there is no absolute moral law.

Well the problem with Occam’s Razor is that it is tailor-made to satisfy our need for simple answers, and it only operates within the story-system of scientific thinking. In the “real” world, just because we can come up with a simpler explanation for an act doesn’t mean it is the right one.

For example, say a man commits murder. The simplest explanation is that he is “evil”. But a more thorough answer would require us to look at the circumstances of both the life of the murderer and the victim, and the history of interactions between the two, as well as possibly their families, friends, upbringing, money, etc. It would require - as you’ve said - a flowchart to understand it all.

You’re talking about simplifying things by removing moral absolutes, but it is ultimately just that which forces us into complexity, since we can’t just say someone is “evil” and be done with it.

Admit that we are chauvanists of one stripe or another, and work outwards from there.

This I agree with, and that’s what I’m hoping we can do here - admit what kind of chauvinits we are. What kind are we? Many threads to unravel

Perhaps then that is the question we should be chasing: why do some people’s hearts register the presence of an absolute good and evil, and some do not? Are some hearts more sensitive? Are some hearts more flawed?

Can we establish a basis for living and morality based on this direct intuition of the heart, when our experiences of it don’t necessarily match up with one another? Whether or not absolute good and evil exists, can we really say that absolute knowledge of good and evil exists and that we need or should value that - whether it is positive or negative?

For me, the relativistic angle becomes apparent when one acknowledges the sentience of all creatures, not just human. Say you try to define absolute “Good” as that which benefits all individual human life. Okay, sounds plausible, and you can go a long way with that definition. But if you consider life from the perspective of a cow or pig or chicken, it’s hard to see how this definition applies, because humans are pretty indiscriminate about eating animals. Even if you could convince all human beings to become vegetarians, there is still the problem of plant sentience. In practice, we’re still defining “Good” in terms of nationalist or racial boundaries, with all the abominations that result from such small-mindedness.

One is left with a few choices. It is possible to just define “Good” as an arbitrary set of rules, such as those that might be found in the Christian Bible or the Koran. This approach seems unpalatable in this corner of the internet (and I certainly don’t like it). Another is to build up a complex liberal moral philosophy that looks like a very complicated flow chart (e.g., if human then …, else if mammal then …, etc.) In the latter case, it seems better to cut the whole thing down with Occam’s razor and admit that there is no absolute moral law. Admit that we are chauvanists of one stripe or another, and work outwards from there.

Tim, if you are claiming that your own belief in the reality of good and evil is less dogmatic than Skip’s denial of same, please tell.

No, I’m not claiming that. I am saying that to claim that “there is no good and evil” is just as much a statement of belief as to claim “there is absolute good and evil”. Neither are provable or supportable by anything beyond simple personal experience and direct intuition of the heart.

Perhaps then that is the question we should be chasing: why do some people’s hearts register the presence of an absolute good and evil, and some do not? Are some hearts more sensitive? Are some hearts more flawed?

Can we establish a basis for living and morality based on this direct intuition of the heart, when our experiences of it don’t necessarily match up with one another? Whether or not absolute good and evil exists, can we really say that absolute knowledge of good and evil exists and that we need or should value that - whether it is positive or negative?

I, for fun, refer to this as the Aquarian Conspiracy. It is a kind of hucksterism , or marketing , that works well on vulnerable humans. Brainwashing could be another term for it. Taking advantage of gullibility, usually for power/control/money reasons, sometimes for blind, unthinking , mechanical reasons. People as machines, or brainwashed automatons. Soldiers for a larger fight they don`t understand anything about, sometimes.

I think the bible qualifies as an occult document. Every fairy story comes from the depths of blood and fear. In this all fairy stories are alike. Only the surface differs.

There is a long line of substitute religions, each one a particular form of illusion and superstition.

Deceivers always try to solve difficult problems on the cheap.

A lie is often an expression of the fear that one may be crushed by the truth.

Hollywood movies have helped export this simplistic analysis of human nature to all parts of the globe. Tim, if you are claiming that your own belief in the reality of good and evil is less dogmatic than Skip’s denial of same, please tell. It’s an important topic, worthy of direct discussion: in fact vital for international understanding.

Good and Evil are in the mind of man.

No, they are not. This is a dogmatic statement of belief!

Religion relies on them to frighten and humble people.

A good society is not tormented with good and evil.

Good and Evil work so well to control people in a negative way, that it would be hard to get rid of them. We might be better of without these contradicting , bigoted, and hate mongering concepts though.

All religion competes with different values of guilt. It is impossible to defend yourself against an unfair accusation of Evil, since it has no basis in reality.

I like the John Lennon quote, : god is a concept, by which we measure our pain.

I may be repeating myself here, but I try to avoid thinking about Good and Evil, preferring instead the concept of Duty. With respect to the “local” moral coordinate system within which you find yourself, you have a Duty to respond along the “good” axis and against the “evil” axis. This is not moral relativism.

Nevertheless, the universe itself respects no absolute axis of Good and Evil. If you recognize and accept this fact, it becomes easier to do your own Duty, and allow others to do theirs even if it may conflict with your own.

If you use “tolerate” to mean “allow to exist and not challenge it even though you think it is wrong,” out of some idea that “toleration” of evil is preferable to calling it out and trying to defeat it, that is one thing.

I think this is the way that I meant it, rather than the idea that people should be allowed to simply eradicate what they think is evil.

I guess part of what I am reacting to is “liberals” who get angry when Christians are intolerant of their lifestyles, insofar as they seem to violate Christian value systems. But I think they aren’t realizing that Christians are operating from a standpoint probably more like what you describe above where most of them (hopefully) don’t necessarily believe that liberal lifestyles need to eradicated, so much as they believe that not speaking out against them would be morally criminal.

Maybe it boils down to something like: I am willing to grant you the right to call me evil, but I should have the further right to try and convince you that I am not. In other words, maybe we should view evil as an opportunity for communication rather than as an opportunity for eradication!

Seems to be kind of a novel viewpoint!

One of the only ways out of this apparent though trap seems to be to recognize the inherent right of people everywhere not to tolerate what they think of as being bad or evil. If you think this church is evil, and if this church thinks somebody else is evil, then - hey - that’s okay. No one is really discredited in the process. We’re just recognizing that groups and individuals have likes and dislikes. Why should we force people to tolerate evil?

Hey Tim,

Not sure if this has been discussed, sorry if it was and I missed it, but I think the problem is in the definition of “tolerate.”

If you use “tolerate” to mean “allow to exist and not challenge it even though you think it is wrong,” out of some idea that “toleration” of evil is preferable to calling it out and trying to defeat it, that is one thing.

But if people have an inherent right not to “tolerate” evil as they define it, then isn’t “toleration” something different? In other words, if toleration means “allow to exist only if I don’t think it’s evil,” I think that is something different.

I phrased the latter rather harshly, in part because I believe people have the inherent right to oppose what they think is evil. Non-muslims publish cartoons of the Islamic profit. Muslims protest by killing people. Where exactly do all of these people stand on the tolerance-o-meter? What is the Muslim idea of “tolerance?”

Probably not a popular view around here, and I don’t mean to offend anyone, but there it is. The only alternative is to, as Tim suggested early in his post, tolerate “evil.” Moral relativisim of the worst kind IMHO.

Just my $.02, offered for discussion and not to inflame!

Paul

You are free to do whatever you like ; you need only face the consequences. Your freedom stops at the end of your fist, if it makes contact with another.

No violation of natural law is possible . The consequences of all human activities are natural. Nature is not ambiguous, nature is not arbitrary.

and a policeman i used to hang out with told me of a recurring dream where the bullet in his gun only slid out of the barrel and fell to the floor when he fired his weapon. possibly some deeper meaning there also. funny if it wasn`t sad.

I look at it like this. If you kill someone or injure someone , another person may want to do the same to you. Therefore it is practical , and makes sense not to kill. Obviously it is completely natural to kill , other wise we could not do it.

This is related to a very critical issue in our national discourse. Assuming the conventional narrative of our current international situation is correct, reasonable people might argue that it is sensible to use torture as a legitimate tool for engaging the Enemy. However, as has been pointed out by many experts who are more knowledgeable than I about such matters, reserving our own right to torture makes it universally legitimate, since the Enemy can always claim we started it. That makes it more probable that our own soldiers will be tortured. (Add to it that torture does not usually produce reliable information, though it does reliably produce confessions.)

Now, you might be a so-called Elite who issues torture-related policies and presumes that he himself will never be subject to torture, regardless of the fate of our soldiers here or there. But by promoting a hellish existence around you, you increase the necessary height of the walls that make up your own fortress (and therefore your own prison). Even the wealthy are subject to karma, though it may take a different form than that visited upon the poor.

I think the chaos magick people already have this idea covered. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, they don’t talk much about karma. If you’re going to work the chaos theory angle, it’s foolish to ignore the most salient feature of nonlinear dynamics, which is the feedback loop.

A common misperception (at least here in the West) is to view karma as an equivalent to JHVH’s divine retribution, and therefore to ignore it entirely (since pretty much nobody outside the megachurch crowd pays attention to JHVH anymore.) I think it is more a feature of the mundane universe, and nonlinear dynamics, if viewed from the right perspective, gives a plausible model for how it works.

Bottom line: don’t shit in your own well.

If killing could be called evil , then it is not a good idea to do that kind of evil. Revenge is something that also seems natural. Maybe it is better not to open yourself up to revenge. Killing someone is not a practical thing to do. It is natural though. So many people have been killed. Much revenge is then taken.

A better society would not tolerate killing people. Maybe another word for evil , might be impractical.? To many , and I will use the word bad, consequences.

Good and Evil. Black and White. People have been lied to about these. Maybe just saying that something creates all kinds of horror and trouble is enough, without the belief part.

People learn by making mistakes. I hope. The problem comes when believe doctrine of right and wrong and good and evil. As poetic ideas they work fine.

And that way is…

I think I just answered that, very briefly.

I’m not pretending that mathematical analogies are for everybody, and certainly are not Reality, but they help me. I actually do believe in a “metaphysical” portion of the universe, i.e. one not directly measurable via the senses or equipment calibrated to “ordinary” matter. But even within the so-called physical universe there are time scales and complexity scales beyond the ability of the human mind to contemplate, and these too also take on the flavor of metaphysics. Somewhere in the juncture of the nonordinary material, geological timescales, and planetary complexities, lies the consequences of feedback from our own present actions — that is to say, any reasonable 21st century translation of the concept of karma.

Thats my favorite version anyway.

I like the idea of substituting or using the word opinion , for belief. It does change the flavor a lot. It puts a better frame of reference on things. Not pseudo-religious, but in our own time period.
Most everyone respects the idea of differing opinions.
Even the people who are crazy obsessed with belief systems , generally will allow for freedom of opinion. They also usually have to admit that any ones opinion , is as good as anyone else’s. Belief is the culprit. As Slomo says , the big lie to control people with Good/Evil Right/Wrong. Better to think of those as opinion.?

It seems like a practical matter to get along in a good society. Where opinions differ, and society is not run on opinions, but in a broadly practical, sensible way.

This is exactly what I was getting at by my question about the role of “ecology” in magick

Well, if you want to think about ecology, it is fruitful to consider its mathematical cousin, nonlinear dynamics. The arc of a feedback loop (an essential feature of an ecology) is the physical manifestation of karma. You need not believe anything metaphysical; in very real terms, what you do comes back to you (or your children).

There is a way in which nonlinear dynamics, morality, and karma are all related.

And that way is…

Example: it is clearly in the economic interests of Community X to clear-cut the nearby forest, because doing so will provide resources and jobs the people of X obviously need. It’s to everybody’s benefit, except of course the owls, but who cares about them? [Unfortunately, cutting down the forest externalizes various costs to the future and ultimately destroys the physical environment upon which the Community X depends.]

So, as Prunes suggests, the moral manifold of the universe really is something more like a Moebius strip, that is to say, non-orientable. Karma is a bitch because actions have a way of coming back to you from some direction you could not have forseen.

There is a way in which nonlinear dynamics, morality, and karma are all related.

The problem is when you try to patch together these local moral atlases into some absolute moral system: you just can’t, because different entities will always have different concerns, even competing ones.

This is exactly what I was getting at by my question about the role of “ecology” in magick

http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/10/04/why-magic/

I think we need to find more and more ways to explore this issue

That doesn’t mean that for a given individual or group, there is a “local moral coordinate system” (to borrow a little bit from manifold theory) within which a moral compass can operate and point north. It is often clear from a given context which actions are “good” or “bad”, without intellectualizing and ultimately getting twisted into a logical pretzel. The problem is when you try to patch together these local moral atlases into some absolute moral system: you just can’t, because different entities will always have different concerns, even competing ones.

There is a viewpoint from which feminism is truly “bad”; there is another viewpoint from which it is truly “good”. What it looks like to you personally depends on your own personal context and values.

I’m a fan of tolerance and compassion, except when I’m not.

but there are those so over-bought in intellectualising such things that he might get crucified (read; not sell any more books.)

i think most people understand that people are different and that egalitarianism falls down on that simple point………..and that meritocracy is divisive, especially toward those who aren`t as capable of things valuable in that environment.

opinion………..

Religion depends on belief.

I don’t necessarily agree with that. But I like “prunes” explanation above as to religion being necessary for people to pass their experience of spirituality from one to the other

For some reason Ken Wilber bores me to tears. I found his stuff to be hollow.

I do, however, agree with that. But the person who got me interested in the Spiral Dynamics model (which wasn’t actually created by Wilber at all) was this guy’s podcast on conspiracy theory. Very well done.

http://uroboros.wordpress.com/2006/08/...effect-20-a-developmental-conspiracy/

The fundie side is implicit in this too. It all has to happen. There is only one side of the moebius strip.

(I don’t think much of Wilber, either)

a religion that doesn’t preach tolerance for all is evil and immoral themselves…

There is not a single traditional religion that preached ‘tolerance’ in sense he seems to mean, not Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity… actually, maybe Jain.

Religion and bigotry are bosom buddies. You really can`t have one without the other. Religion depends on belief. Belief then is defended. Belief is then contested with another belief system or religion. Then people die. Crazy people.

For some reason Ken Wilber bores me to tears. I found his stuff to be hollow. No meat and potatos or tofu and vegetables.

Religion breeds contempt for our fellow humans. Spirituality is different. Better.