|
Post by apologist1 on Feb 23, 2009 2:20:31 GMT -6
If I had to name the one human disaster, this is it: not wanting to engage with reality.
You can do it any number of ways. You can create a false world called heaven; you can retreat to your apartment and music and internet; you can undertake surrogate activities; you can preach "it shouldn't be this way" and smile grimly; you can insist on "real world activism" that doesn't address the problem.
I find that elites run off to gated communities and then participate in Peace, Love, Rainbow Nation Happiness and Justice for All type activities -- these are surrogate activities.
I find that occultists bitch a storm about the world, go home and smoke a doobie, then trade paganspace links and claim it gives their lives meaning.
It's all evasion.
Contemplation, or with a clear disciplined mind analyzing the situation according to the principles of the Scientific Method (hypothesize; test; modify; repeat) and then forming logical abstractions, can save us from the opposite -- which is not unstudied action, but backward logic which uses abstractions to justify not engaging with the world.
I don't think it gets clearer than that.
|
|
|
Post by jmsn72 on Feb 23, 2009 12:57:01 GMT -6
Most of occultists are here to,refine,expand the quality of consciousness while still enjoying earthly delights.The occultist in most cases wont ignore reality.In fact knowledge of such is necessary in order to shape this malleable substance called reality.One has to know the rules in order to break them right?
The level of escapism you speak of could be found in right hand and left hand extremes which can be dangerously delusional as can any extreme.Those are people who took things too far and are way far gone.Once an individual hits that point,it is no longer occultism,its a religious mania.Some unfortunate individuals who lack balance have a risk of falling to such extremes and in most cases do to the point where they'll stop working,stop doing everything just to communicate with choronzom or some other thing for example.Its not common though.
And there are also armchair magicians-Dudes who talk occult but don't do a thing-equally as useless as common folks.
I assure there are many occultist who are active participants in trying participating in the world around them.Most of us know changing the world does not only end in the ritual space,it's something that has to be worked on in all forms.The key however is not to be so consumed by the world that you get lost in it like so many common folk and to not be so consumed by the occult that you lose yourself to religious mania. Balance always.And any occultist who does not interact with reality is no occultist but an armchair!
|
|
|
Post by egodiabolus on Feb 23, 2009 19:37:31 GMT -6
I don't think those of us here who are discussing "reality" engineering or self-defined "reality" are looking for a means to escape the "reality" you are describing; the one which can be tested via the principles of the scientific method. I believe that you would find that even the most vocal supporters of the work are aware of the basics of physics as laws that define our universe. I believe that what we are trying to escape from is "reality" as defined by society in opposition to those principles, or at least without their consideration. "Reality" is more than the physical laws which govern it; it is the means and measures our society uses to attempt to limit and define the perspectives of others. There is a "right" way to live, a "moral" purpose behind some law, "values" must be protected...this is the "reality" we are trying to escape, one defined by the trained and general perspective of the masses. We are looking for means to develop our own direct interaction with "reality" rather than having it programmed into us by others. You mention the scientific method. What is meant by our efforts here is not to deny what has been proven repeatedly by those methods, but that each of us awake from simply accepting what we have been told are the results of the tests of others and instead testing those things for ourselves. An apple falls from a tree and hits Newton on the head, and he theorizes gravity (I know...a myth that over-simplifies the discovery). Anyone of us can see this proposition at work for ourselves; we can test it and will probably decide "yes-gravity". It is so simple, so common to our everyday experience that many of us probably wonder why Newton even bothered. This is not the "reality" we are challenging. Now, take the principle that it is in the best interest of our society that a romantic relationship should involve only two parties...indeed that such a relationship should preferablely be between one man and one woman, and ideally for the life of both persons involved. On matters of human behavior the principles of physics often do not apply, or apply in a manner that largely do not come into play. The scientific method in regards to this subject suggests that a romantic relationship is not limited to two parties, or to a man-and-woman, and is definitely not for life in human beings. The scientific method would posit that in regards to species evolution and even efficient social interaction that human beings are probably meant to have multiple partners during their lifespan in order to produce as many variation in the genome as possible. The social "reality" however, it otherwise. People are told that a man-woman-for-life romantic relationship is best, is most acceptable, and is what is required for an efficient society...the data be damned! Worse, most people accept this paradigm merely on the authority of others, often an authority who is unproven and merely seen as an authority because of their social station. A member of the clergy in a major religion is typically not a sociologist, rarely an anthorpologist, and in our major religions definitely not a sex-therapist, yet their word is often accepted as THE "reality" regarding proper romantic human relations. I agree, it is escapist to hole-up behind your walls; physical or philosophical, and not engage in the "reality" around you. It is also escapist to simply accept the majority opinion of "the way things should be" and not test those things for yourself. Self-defined reality may not allow an individual to walk on water (although so many of the people who will tell you the act is impossible will also believe that one person has done so), but it will allow a person to make social, behavioral, and philisophical choices that are truly choices, and not programmed beliefs, that best suit their needs and their route to contentment.
|
|