|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 4, 2016 12:21:38 GMT -6
Every person I have ever asked this one simple question, has answered it the same. “Do you have a sense of purpose?”, in every instance the response has been to the affirmative. From the Materialists who believe all things are deterministic, to the Creationists who claim divine Will, and every shade of thinking between each has the idea the we have a role. Rightly so, who can honestly deny that we impact the causal; with every breath we draw. From what I have also gathered, another commonality observed is our quest for this ‘calling‘.
This happens on many scales, with an almost eerie congruence; we see one behavior manifested on marginal levels of scaling. I remember being completely fascinated, when being informed that a piece of glass; was in fact not in a truly stationary state. Imagine, over just a few hundred years; what was once a completely level surfaced window, will be thicker toward the bottom and thinner at the top. I marvel even more at the molecule and the mechanical manifestation of material.
One morning swimming at a spring, I started thinking about the current I was walking against it. My mind drifted to maps of ocean currents moving, I thought about how it resembled the moving air streams above, everything seeming in motion. It then occurred to me that we use this type of analysis in second nature. I realize none of these are new ideas, it builds a sufficient platform for what I propose might place ‘calling‘ square in alignment.
I won’t suggest I have any undeniable truth or solution, but I have some hard-pressed questions to which could open the doors to real answers. If we feel hungry does our body not call to be nourished? If we need sleep do our heads not lean towards the pillow? Say we are addicted to a cigarette, do we not have driving cravings? What happens when your sex drive, cannot be satisfied; do you not boil with frustration? Is it not possible, a woman’s compulsion for chocolate; mirrors the flirtatiousness of Le Femme Fatale ( Our Lady Fate)?
Not to labor the point of reference unnecessarily, I have but two questions more and my closing.
If we should have purpose (which is subjected to the filling of physical and psychological needs) , yet be able to affect the casual to the point of holding responsibility; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? This of course demands an honest analysis of priorities, structure, philosophy, process, and ideals. None the less, no man is just born, they’ve all grown. Growing is difficult on some levels, but all must do so together. What then can we say is our true obstruction, and how can they be removed?
Freedom is progression without out obstruction. Without Will or Calling we collapse into happenstance; no different than the currents of the ocean or winds of the air. Though we surely will never be free of Influence, we can choose which currents, on what level; to ride.
Live deliberately!
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 4, 2016 17:32:21 GMT -6
"Rightly so, who can honestly deny that we impact the causal; with every breath we draw."
What does this mean? "impact the causal"
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 5, 2016 3:47:31 GMT -6
"Rightly so, who can honestly deny that we impact the causal; with every breath we draw." What does this mean? "impact the causal" I suppose that is an ambiguous term, causal. By causal, I mean that which has cause, the material world. It is a term I picked up reading Anton Long and other O9A authors. Not that I am using it in the exact same manner they are, but in a similar fashion.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 5, 2016 4:15:51 GMT -6
"Rightly so, who can honestly deny that we impact the causal; with every breath we draw." What does this mean? "impact the causal" I suppose that is an ambiguous term, causal. By causal, I mean that which has cause, the material world. It is a term I picked up reading Anton Long and other O9A authors. Not that I am using it in the exact same manner they are, but in a similar fashion. Would "cause change" have the same meaning? And now, trivia! If I remember from what little I've read they picked up the causal/acausal distinctions from Jung -- who himself appears to have used it to distinguish cause and effect from meaning. Which is interesting and a bit of an odd thing to do, as the structure of an entire belief is: cause <---> effect <---> meaning According to Jung, meaning detached from cause and effect is syncronisity. Somehow I get the idea that he didn't understand that meaning is assigned. "Oh here's X! That must mean Y!"
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 5, 2016 4:18:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 5, 2016 4:41:04 GMT -6
If we should have purpose (which is subjected to the filling of physical and psychological needs),yet be able to affect the casual to the point of holding responsibility; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Is the following equivalent? If we should have purpose driven by physical and psychological needs,yet remain in control of ourselves enough to be responsible; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Another: If we should have purpose driven by physical and psychological needs,yet be responsible for our actions ; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Another: If we should have purpose driven by physical and psychological needs,yet held accountable for our actions ; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential?
|
|
|
Post by Padowan on Jul 5, 2016 18:31:44 GMT -6
beastxeno: "If we should have purpose (which is subjected to the filling of physical and psychological needs) , yet be able to affect the casual to the point of holding responsibility; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? This of course demands an honest analysis of priorities, structure, philosophy, process, and ideals. None the less, no man is just born, they’ve all grown. Growing is difficult on some levels, but all must do so together. What then can we say is our true obstruction, and how can they be removed?" This sounds like 'Desire' rather than a 'calling' (which could essentially be the same.) Desire spurs the action to fill physical and psychological needs. And no doubt, acting on desire requires some analysis of priorities, structure, etc as you listed. "But all must do do together." Please clarify what you mean by this. "What then can we say is our true obstruction?" Depends on what is being obstructed, and by whom. Read more: cocthulhu.proboards.com/thread/5755/exploration-calling#ixzz4DaE7D37Q
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 5, 2016 19:01:47 GMT -6
beastxeno: "If we should have purpose (which is subjected to the filling of physical and psychological needs) , yet be able to affect the casual to the point of holding responsibility; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? This of course demands an honest analysis of priorities, structure, philosophy, process, and ideals. None the less, no man is just born, they’ve all grown. Growing is difficult on some levels, but all must do so together. What then can we say is our true obstruction, and how can they be removed?" This sounds like 'Desire' rather than a 'calling' (which could essentially be the same.) Desire spurs the action to fill physical and psychological needs. And no doubt, acting on desire requires some analysis of priorities, structure, etc as you listed. "But all must do do together." Please clarify what you mean by this. "What then can we say is our true obstruction?" Depends on what is being obstructed, and by whom. Padowan ^ This one's mine, folks. (Meaning I already own her, not that I'm going to own her in this thread.)
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 5, 2016 20:58:15 GMT -6
I suppose that is an ambiguous term, causal. By causal, I mean that which has cause, the material world. It is a term I picked up reading Anton Long and other O9A authors. Not that I am using it in the exact same manner they are, but in a similar fashion. Would "cause change" have the same meaning? And now, trivia! If I remember from what little I've read they picked up the causal/acausal distinctions from Jung -- who himself appears to have used it to distinguish cause and effect from meaning. Which is interesting and a bit of an odd thing to do, as the structure of an entire belief is: cause <---> effect <---> meaning According to Jung, meaning detached from cause and effect is syncronisity. Somehow I get the idea that he didn't understand that meaning is assigned. "Oh here's X! That must mean Y!" I suppose it could have that same meaning, yes. However when I chose the word, I was focused on the idea of having a purpose and what it could mean in relation to life and existence in a very literal sense. As I've come to understand the word, causal isn't isolated to simply the act of causing change. I can see where it's possible that the term was molded by or even lifted from Jung, simply based what what you've described above. My use of the term is maybe more similar to the phrase "All of Creation" except I'm not a big fan of any of the creation theories, I've come across to date. Perhaps leaving it at everything in existence, will keep us on point in this examination.
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 5, 2016 21:00:29 GMT -6
You'll be happy to know, I'm firmly sitting in the mid to high double digits. So I rarely wear my tinfoil hat any more
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 5, 2016 21:17:19 GMT -6
Just adding more material for thought. This was the very first thing I sent out as acting SHITHEAD.
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 5, 2016 21:23:21 GMT -6
If we should have purpose (which is subjected to the filling of physical and psychological needs),yet be able to affect the casual to the point of holding responsibility; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Is the following equivalent? If we should have purpose driven by physical and psychological needs,yet remain in control of ourselves enough to be responsible; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Another: If we should have purpose driven by physical and psychological needs,yet be responsible for our actions ; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Another: If we should have purpose driven by physical and psychological needs,yet held accountable for our actions ; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Let me try to reword this for you, so it will not aggravate the OCD any longer. If there is a function being served, by fulfilling our basic needs (minding our little "i's"); and that function creates/alters the old action->cause->action chain, doesn't it make sense that we should learn to control it (is that a run-on-sentence?). You see earlier in the post; I was reflecting on how currents form, rise, and collapse into to the next as it forms; contemplating the truth of our insignificance (but are we really?). My oh my, perhaps the inner poet muddles too much in my writing form. I promise you its not meant to mystify you with bullshit, rather to allow for creative output.
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 5, 2016 21:44:06 GMT -6
beastxeno: "If we should have purpose (which is subjected to the filling of physical and psychological needs) , yet be able to affect the casual to the point of holding responsibility; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? This of course demands an honest analysis of priorities, structure, philosophy, process, and ideals. None the less, no man is just born, they’ve all grown. Growing is difficult on some levels, but all must do so together. What then can we say is our true obstruction, and how can they be removed?" This sounds like 'Desire' rather than a 'calling' (which could essentially be the same.) Desire spurs the action to fill physical and psychological needs. And no doubt, acting on desire requires some analysis of priorities, structure, etc as you listed. "But all must do do together." Please clarify what you mean by this. "What then can we say is our true obstruction?" Depends on what is being obstructed, and by whom. Read more: cocthulhu.proboards.com/thread/5755/exploration-calling#ixzz4DaE7D37QWell see the first thing I would point out is that desire happens esoterically, where I was postulating that we have a role exoterically, a function like bees and pollen, sun and plants, or wind and water. It doesn't necessarily have to be happening on that level, it just happens to be the easiest to draw comparison to. Even more queer to me is the idea, that it might exist within multiple levels. Thinking back to when I wrote this, I had been obsessively re-analysing Gurdjieff's "Ray of Creation" and "Law of Octaves". "But all must do so together"... This is in reference to our growth, which happens on a multitude of levels, Like in some video games, where you might level up certain attributes of your character, and you choose to apply emphasis to a specific one or set of attributes, but regardless all of them gradually increase, by happenstance (or force to achieve your aim in focus). You know, the whole reason there is a 4th Way.
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 5, 2016 21:55:01 GMT -6
So eh.. Anyone want to tackle the question at hand?? Do we have a purpose? Are we simply eat/sleep/shit/fuck machines? If yes is it deterministic? Destiny? Calling? WILL? Could it be all? There are so many levels to consider this on, and the little blurb about it was to introduce the idea that our Will (internal) might meet WILL (external) and therefore empower us to reach beyond what we thought possible. Ergo meet our Calling. I'm really rethinking presentation at this point.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 5, 2016 21:55:59 GMT -6
Another:
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 5, 2016 22:12:06 GMT -6
I'm feeling the love already
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 5, 2016 22:20:39 GMT -6
Is the following equivalent? If we should have purpose driven by physical and psychological needs,yet remain in control of ourselves enough to be responsible; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Another: If we should have purpose driven by physical and psychological needs,yet be responsible for our actions ; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Another: If we should have purpose driven by physical and psychological needs,yet held accountable for our actions ; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? Let me try to reword this for you, so it will not aggravate the OCD any longer. Heh Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 5, 2016 22:25:33 GMT -6
You see earlier in the post; I was reflecting on how currents form, rise, and collapse into to the next as it forms; contemplating the truth of our insignificance (but are we really?). My oh my, perhaps the inner poet muddles too much in my writing form. I promise you its not meant to mystify you with bullshit, rather to allow for creative output. I'm not saying it's bullshit, but what if it's so creative I can't understand it?
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 5, 2016 22:37:35 GMT -6
So eh.. Anyone want to tackle the question at hand?? Do we have a purpose? Are we simply eat/sleep/shit/fuck machines? If yes is it deterministic? Destiny? Calling? WILL? Could it be all? There are so many levels to consider this on, and the little blurb about it was to introduce the idea that our Will (internal) might meet WILL (external) and therefore empower us to reach beyond what we thought possible. Ergo meet our Calling. I'm really rethinking presentation at this point. What kind of purpose are we talking about? I think this cuts the the heart of the Fourth Way. Are we talking about having purpose like a wrench has a purpose, or having purpose as in acting with conscientious intention? I think the calling is well described as a desire. If we're hungry, we find ourselves thinking about food, and no matter how we deny being hungry, we'll find ourselves somehow thinking or somehow directed towards what our true desire is -- even if it manifests itself as a hamburger. Like Billy Joel, we find ourselves sleepwalking, carried along by the undercurrent of the "river of dreams" towards something we don't understand, if for no other reason that humans are born without an tech manual detailing what we are as humans. I think I'm going to have to get on my keyboard to explain my thoughts beyond that. (Your presentation may have not been straightforward as I'd like, but it gave a staring point for the exploration if the idea to begin. So, it's fine. As the exploration has begun let's roll with it.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 6, 2016 0:50:57 GMT -6
Ok, I realized I don't know what you mean: Will (internal) and WILL (external) ?? Define your terms!
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 6, 2016 3:42:57 GMT -6
You see earlier in the post; I was reflecting on how currents form, rise, and collapse into to the next as it forms; contemplating the truth of our insignificance (but are we really?). My oh my, perhaps the inner poet muddles too much in my writing form. I promise you its not meant to mystify you with bullshit, rather to allow for creative output. I'm not saying it's bullshit, but what if it's so creative I can't understand it? It wouldn't be the first time in my life I've overshot my mark. It seems to be what I on a personal level strive to find balance in. I cannot wait until we begin discussing considering, I'll save that for a bit later though.
|
|
|
Post by Beast Xeno on Jul 6, 2016 3:54:24 GMT -6
Ok, I realized I don't know what you mean: Will (internal) and WILL (external) ?? Define your terms! Well the internal Will.. Is being used to describe that which we wish to impress upon the world beyond us (example: His Will to survive is strong). The external WILL is being used to describe what is being impressed upon us (example: It was the WILL of the people that our country went to war). It does seem to be a bit ambiguous at first, but I see it's sufficiently different enough to make a distinction.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 6, 2016 5:14:30 GMT -6
I think I get you.
So, it's difference between being the cause, and being the effect?
|
|
|
Post by Padowan on Jul 6, 2016 7:07:11 GMT -6
beastxeno: "If we should have purpose (which is subjected to the filling of physical and psychological needs) , yet be able to affect the casual to the point of holding responsibility; are we not then mandated by the health of our being to tap our potential? This of course demands an honest analysis of priorities, structure, philosophy, process, and ideals. None the less, no man is just born, they’ve all grown. Growing is difficult on some levels, but all must do so together. What then can we say is our true obstruction, and how can they be removed?" This sounds like 'Desire' rather than a 'calling' (which could essentially be the same.) Desire spurs the action to fill physical and psychological needs. And no doubt, acting on desire requires some analysis of priorities, structure, etc as you listed. "But all must do do together." Please clarify what you mean by this. "What then can we say is our true obstruction?" Depends on what is being obstructed, and by whom. Read more: cocthulhu.proboards.com/thread/5755/exploration-calling#ixzz4DaE7D37QWell see the first thing I would point out is that desire happens esoterically, where I was postulating that we have a role exoterically, a function like bees and pollen, sun and plants, or wind and water. It doesn't necessarily have to be happening on that level, it just happens to be the easiest to draw comparison to. Even more queer to me is the idea, that it might exist within multiple levels. Thinking back to when I wrote this, I had been obsessively re-analysing Gurdjieff's "Ray of Creation" and "Law of Octaves". "But all must do so together"... This is in reference to our growth, which happens on a multitude of levels, Like in some video games, where you might level up certain attributes of your character, and you choose to apply emphasis to a specific one or set of attributes, but regardless all of them gradually increase, by happenstance (or force to achieve your aim in focus). You know, the whole reason there is a 4th Way. How do you know if Desire does not fuel growth? How can you know if what you believe is an esoteric motivation (desire) is not also exoteric? A tool for growth. Is curiosity not fueled by a desire to understand? Is your self-reflection and postulation on a calling not felt as a desire to 'know?'
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 7, 2016 0:50:46 GMT -6
Ok, I realized I don't know what you mean: Will (internal) and WILL (external) ?? Define your terms! Well the internal Will.. Is being used to describe that which we wish to impress upon the world beyond us (example: His Will to survive is strong). The external WILL is being used to describe what is being impressed upon us (example: It was the WILL of the people that our country went to war). It does seem to be a bit ambiguous at first, but I see it's sufficiently different enough to make a distinction. I really don't understand what you're saying in terms of the Fourth Way. The primary distinction of the Fourth Way is conscious vs mechanical and that exists completely within us. It's true we can never be free from all influences, but this is a recognition that we'll never be 100% acting consciously. We can choose the influences that we are under, and that's at least a conscious choice about how to be influenced mechanically. It's not the individual will vs the group will, but it can be sort of. Choosing to live alone on a mountaintop vs alone in a desert is a choice about how we will be influenced. To delve into this the requires study of being mechanical in all the ways we can be. Check this out: "Research from Yale University and the University of Colorado suggests that physical warmth and emotional warmth are linked. In fact, the temperature of the drink you’re holding could influence your feelings of trust and tenderness toward toward the people around you." www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science-july-dec08-warmth_10-24/Of course there's conscious and unconscious influences , conscious quite literally meaning the conscious action of other people intentionally influencing you. This why you don't encounter a "C" influence until you meet a school.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 7, 2016 1:29:17 GMT -6
I remember being completely fascinated, when being informed and then head-knodding that a piece of glass; was in fact not in a truly stationary state. Imagine, over just a few hundred years; what was once a completely level surfaced window, will be thicker toward the bottom and thinner at the top. I marvel even more at the molecule and the mechanical manifestation of material. io9.gizmodo.com/the-glass-is-a-liquid-myth-has-finally-been-destroyed-496190894It's one of a few types. Actually TBH, this is more interesting to me than your actual point. I'm saying this in a positive sense, as I think it would be worth discussing on it's own.
|
|
|
Post by shawnhartnell on Jul 7, 2016 1:44:38 GMT -6
More material:
From The Psychology Section of Wikipedia's Wanderlust article:
|
|