 |
 |
Exactly who I had in mind Damien, and a good segue into the following excerpt from Part I of my Trilogy-in-progress, 'De Magia Naturali, On Natural Magic, Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples: Trilogy on Book II by Kathryn LaFevers Evans' I've forwarded Diane Yoder's kind specifications for citing this material published on listserv--so that listserv members are welcome to cite me in their own works, as it looks like scholars from many fields (interdisciplinary as you say Khem) might be interested. The excerpt also addresses the question of relationship between Magic (not hypnosis) and Raja Yoga. Excerpt from 'Part I: Preamble Beyond the Walls of Bibles', which is written as Creative Non-fiction: 'In case you were beginning to drift - again - into thinking, Oh, what poetic Theoretical metaphors, but there's nothing Practical here in these stories: You've got mail. Again. It's the second week of March now, and my husband slipped an article for you onto my desk this morning before he left for work. Does my family know they are collaborating on this Thesis? No, they are busy reading their own Book. So, you and your noisy mail are really beginning to get on my nerves. Here's your scientific proof - again - but this is the last time I'll forward your mail since I'm not inSpired by these scientific metaphors. Another "new" book on "how the universe is - tell me if you've heard this before - one very large quantum computer." And, as you know, this story goes that "the universe is made of bits. Not chunks of stuff, but chunks of information - ones and zeros." (Kelly, "Life, the Universe, and Everything", Wired 064) Let me make this comparison simple for you: the intuitive will call their "One" a "zero" in this language of bits, and the intuitive will call their "2" a "one" in bit-speak: which translates as "2 is the first number, One is the basis of number." Hmmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yes, in Johannes Reuchlin's De Arte Cabalistica, On the Art of Kabbalah: "Here is Pythagoras in a nutshell: two is the first number, one is the basis of number" (155). Remember, Lefèvre's De Magia naturali Book II is on Pythagorean Philosophy or number mysticism. In this comparison between intuitive and computer languages, it would be best to translate the terms of both languages as "Off" and "on," Dark and light. Using these English words to better describe the mathematical concepts, the numbers, it is easy to see that in neither of the language systems is there a way to envision Dark space through light until the "Off" switch is turned "on." That means that there is a space, or discernable difference, created between the two terms. You really can't conceptualize "Off" or "zero" or "One" until you perceive the SECOND term alongside it. Through the SECOND (2nd) term, the FIRST (1st) term is also experienced, hence: "2 is the first number, 1 is the basis of number." The object, One, really can't be experienced until there is a subject, 2, created to perceive it. The mysterious nothing of zero really can't be conceptualized until there is a one to measure it against. These both are the stories of Narcissus looking back upon himself, and seeing only a reflection, like the dance of light upon water. Anyway, Seth Lloyd, author of the new book Programming the Universe, cites a few 19th and 20th century scientists as the first postulators of this mathematical definition of a bit. Actually, well . . . Nihil novi sub sole, Nothing is new under the sun, Ecclesiastes. The eyes closed traditions have you beat by about 150,000 years. But, what is very interesting about this author interview article, is that he acknowledges that the language of Computer Science is just another metaphor, the scientist's current favorite: "Computers are our favorite metaphor at the moment, so maybe we see everything as computers. [. . .] Interviewer: "Would it be fair to say the universe is a mind?" "You could use that metaphor." [. . .] "You seem to be saying that the concept of the universe as one huge quantum computer is not just a metaphor - it's real." "Absolutely. [. . .] The universe is a quantum computer" (Kelly, "Life, the Universe, and Everything", Wired 064). Which translates in the language of intuitives as, "The universe is the mind of God." "When did you first start having these visions?" asked the Interviewer playfully. (Notice that with the Popular Politics of Science at their side, scientists are at no risk of being labeled crazy; whereas the implied pun is against intuitives, who of course really are crazy and should be kept in exile where they belong, particularly since they believe in myth not reality.) MIT Professor Lloyd answers, "It's not a new idea, or my idea." I concur with that also as far as my translation here of "quantum computer" to "mind of God." This is not news. But neither is what the author claims as the new message in his book Programming the Universe: "it's that the universe is a system where the very specific details and structures in it are created when quantum bits de-cohere - choose one path out of multiple possibilities - and that this process is identical to quantum computation" (Kelly, "Life, the Universe, and Everything", Wired 064). This process by any other name would smell like the I Ching. Remember scientific determinism? Remember the Kabbalist in Journal of the History of Ideas? Remember Robert and Gracia Fay Ellwood's talk at Krotona Institute of Theosophy, "Divining the Future with the I Ching: An Experiential Evening"? "The I Ching, or Book of Changes, said to be the oldest book in Chinese, is the manual for a complex but powerful system of divination, which C. G. Jung compared to his concept of synchronicity, or meaningful coincidences. This evening we will describe the philosophy behind the I Ching, explain how to work it, and demonstrate its use by casting I Ching answers to questions posed by the audience." (The Theosophical Society in the Ojai Valley September 27, 2005 - January 31, 2006) But, what is very interesting about this new book is that Seth Lloyd is telling us that Science is poised to begin casting the I Ching of quantum bits in order to program the universe. Are you afraid yet? What was it the Dalai Lama asked of the Scientific Community? To be more warm-hearted. And if they were to all concur, then the public might be reassured that the questions Science can Imagine to ask of the "quantum computer" would lead to answers that were beneficial to every culture, even that of the Elves. Would lead to unconditional loving-kindness and compassion. Don't you think that if you are going to begin using this powerful system you should consult people who've been using it a mite longer than you? If you are consulting them in private, don't you think that wisdom should be shared in public education, with today's multicultural students? Or is public education to be stuck in "real" world Physics, never Imagining beyond. Where in Academia is there parity for Western Esotericism? Programming the Universe: "it's that the universe is a system where the very specific details and structures in it are created when quantum bits de-cohere" (Kelly, "Life, the Universe, and Everything", Wired 064). "De-cohere": Lord of the Dance, dancing on his children; Shiva the destroyer, dancing on the dwarf; Lefèvre's "unbinding through friendship [. . .] hence with Pyramus they are taking away life [. . .] and the quaternaries with the quinary, celebrate by sacrifices due proportion and also salvation in things" (Book II 60 below, Body). A sacrifice is a sacrifice is a sacrifice. "[. . .] - choose one path out of multiple possibilities" (Kelly, "Life, the Universe, and Everything", Wired 064): the choice, free will at the atomic level, or is that God's Will? Either way, the Positive Theology, the action of choosing a path, always ends in the Negative Theology of sacrifice into the Dark. Basic foundation of our American government: checks and balances. On's and off's. One vote on this side of the scales, the 2nd vote on the opposite side of the scales. Aequalitas. Let the Elves stand up and speak in their own languages. Let us Imagine our own questions and share our own answers with you. The Dalai Llama seems to think we work best together. Science says they're looking at the object; Elves say we're looking at the subject. According to Quantum Mechanics and the laws of Physics . . . excuse me, according to Numerical Ascension and Pythagorean Philosophy: you need both stories of Narcissus to see any light, both sides of the Janus face to turn around in order to see its Whole body. Dark Matter. I, for one, am not afraid. The picture of Seth Lloyd above the article "Life, the Universe, and Everything" is one of yet another kind man who teaches at MIT. I trust you; please extend that trust to me. We agree that there is only One system of genesis (that we both can utilize for the good of humankind) when we deconstruct the laws of Physics, the mechanics of Creation: One system of genesis or re-Creation. Its skeleton is a binary system whose meaning, or living answers, can only be found through exercising the third element Created in the space between them: Spirit, completing the Trinity. One, 2, and 3 Created in the space between them. This is the Trinitarian system, which Lefèvre and all other Elves use: One-Imagine your Idea, your Object (formulate your question); 2-bind Idea with a chain of Reason (set up the conditions of the experiment); 3-then cast it with faith into the Divine Intellect/Intuition (trust the scientific method and watch the for the results, the answer to the riddle). I've been practicing this for some 150,000 years, so trust me and keep following the thread. During my undergraduate studies at Maharishi International University, MIU, we were taught a technique called the siddhis, supernormal powers or vibhuti. They're not "magic" in the usual supernormal meaning, since any person can perform the exercises, though you do have to set up the conditions of the experiment properly, and it does take practice to get answers. I practiced them for a decade or so with only some results, yet fulfilling their sole purpose of askesis. Also, under the guidance of the old Russian woman, I studied Patanjali's book itself in translation for a year, which implies that I practiced it, experienced it intuitively for that year. As described by Patanjali, asking the question about the sun results in intuitive knowledge of cosmic spaces, which include the seven lower worlds with the eighth this Earth (Woods tr. 254). As shown within the first two Chapters below, Lefèvre qualifies the eighth sphere as the celestial earth, which reiterates the interiority of this experience, the Self-reflective nature of perception. There are other parallels to Lefèvre's subjective representation of Creation in this sutra alone, but which are outside the scope of this Thesis except to mention that there are detailed counted layers of worlds and Beings. The specific answers received in all of the exercises about Creation are important to future research inspired by this Thesis, but for now suffice it to say, subjectively speaking, experientially speaking, that the songs are able to draw down the moon. The Yoga-System of Patanjali (Yoga-sutras, stitches of union - our ropes or chains) encapsulates the Trinitarian technique under one umbrella term called "constraint". Notice that the word constraint bears the connotation of a Positive Theology, and relates to our words "bind" and "weave". Though you'll see, like in Lefèvre's three-fold system of Theology and teaching methodology, that culmination of this constraint is a receiving, a sacrifice into Silence. That technique deconstructs to the Trinitarian exercise of: Imagination, Reason, and Intellect; One-Imagine your Idea, your Object, 2-bind Idea with a chain of Reason, 3-then cast it with faith beyond Divine Intellect to Intuition in Silence; Patanjali calls it "Fixed-attention, Contemplation, and Concentration": "BOOK THIRD-SUPERNORMAL POWERS First direct aid: vi. Fixed-attention iii. 1. The knower focuses the process of knowing upon the object to be known. iii. 1 Binding the mind-stuff to a place is fixed-attention. Second direct aid: vii. Contemplation iii. 2. A two-term relation between the process of knowing and the object to be known. iii. 2 Focusedness of the presented idea upon that [place] is contemplation. Third direct aid: viii. Concentration iii. 3. A fusion of the knower and the process of knowing with the object to be known. iii. 3 This same [contemplation], shining forth [in consciousness] as the intended object and nothing more, and, as it were, emptied of itself, is concentration. Transition to seedless concentration iii. 4-10. The direct aids in combination result in insight and restricted subliminal-impressions and the calm flow of the mind-stuff. iii. 4 The three in one are constraint. iii. 5 As a result of mastering this constraint, there follows the shining forth of insight. [. . .] Culmination of concentration iii. 53-55. The particular which is indiscernible in respect of class or term or point-in-space is intuitively discerned; the widest span of objectivity is also discerned. This is the attainment of Isolation." (Woods tr. xxxvii, xxxix) Isolation, the One mathematical point where all of the Virtues converge. We 've already seen how Lefèvre metaphorically describes arriving at that point, how he collapses the ternary, the Trinity into One. Now look how playfully, how inspiringly, Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples describes casting specific chains or Ideas into that Silence to arrive at specific answers or minds, noting how, through the guardianship of deities positioned along the chain, Ideas always culminate in the uttermost "furfure," the staff of life, the grain or grass, a received Grace, the Concord of Opposites in Blessedness: ' Kathryn Evans ----- Original Message ----- From: Damien <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2007 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] Was hypnosis and ritual, now scientists > Not to butt in, but this might be a useful one, for that line of > conversation: > > Lloyd, Seth: Programming the Universe : A Quantum Computer Scientist > Takes On the Cosmos, Knopf, March 14, 2006, 240 p., ISBN 1-4000-4092-2 > > -Damien > > --- Caroline Tully <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Hi Kathryn > > > > >>scientists are just beginning to catch on that they can program > > the universe for desired future outcomes<< > > > > Can you elaborate on this please? > > > > > > Thanks, > > ~Caroline. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ > The fish are biting. > Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing. > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php