02-19-2011, 12:02 AM
Hi Lex, my question was a general question to the participants in this thread...just wanted that to be clear. I have read this thread from time to time and have a general impression, overall, that the focus is more on the theory of whats in the books, discussing what was meant, than an actual embracing of it. Almost like people want to sort it out so they can put it to rest and move in another direction...just my sense. So I wanted to know what that other direction was.
The question didn't necessarily apply to you...I don't know if it does or not. Nu lang
(I know the question was not directed just to me). I think it important to understand what it is we are practicing or what we might be considering as an option but do not confuse my seeing with theory.
“The new seers seem to have been very abstract,” I commented. “They sound like modern-day philosophers.” (That’s how we appeared to CC at that time, sort of echoing your “theory” comment.)
“No. The new seers were terribly practical men,” he replied “They weren’t involved in concocting rational theories.”
He said the ancient seers were the ones who were the abstract thinkers. They built monumental edifices of abstractions proper to them and their time. And just like the modern day philosophers they were not at all in control of their concatenations. The new seers, on the other hand, imbued with practicality, were able to see a flux of emanations and to see how man and other living beings utilize them to construct their perceivable world. FFW
This to me this sheds more light on how to approach this. Instead of trying to figure out who’s the new seers and who’s the old seers let’s focus instead on what each do. I for one don’t mind hanging out with “old seers” or new.
These edifices are interesting. Abstract comments are made all the time in any of the spiritual circles and traditions not just the sorcery tradition. And as I frequently see in this forum the wildest and craziest comments that border on nonesence are bandied about with an almost absolute sense of authority that too few will even bat an eye at, that it just leaves me gob-smacked, my mouth open and dangling in the wind. To some such comments do not seem outrageous at all. If it is a thread I am involved with you will often see me pose a question challenging or inquiring into the foundation of the rational or narrative behind the words. I am more than willing to dialogue. More often than not that narrative starts to crumble as it has no foundation in any reality and because such people are “not at all in control of their concatenations.” So for DJ and others it is pretty clear there is edifice building, wild speculating about things people know nothing about (this includes mastering the speculation of others) and there is the clear seeing how living beings construct their perceivable world.
For myself I had to choose one day. I had to fiercely resist the temptation to exaggerate. I ask myself one very important question....What exactly is it you think you know lex? I came to the conclusion it boils down to just a few things, which is really a relief. I was very very good at that sort of speculating. I could speak endlessly about the edifices I had created and the edifices of others. I was drunk on it. Sobriety is key. And as DJ says, “Seers have to be methodical, rational beings, paragons of sobriety....”FFW
Those that think my seeing too rational or theoretical must also think that I don’t dream or don’t have tales of power to share, they would be mistaken. But I don’t really want to make this about me and there are plenty of tales of power and dreaming going on in this forum. My tactic is different.
The question didn't necessarily apply to you...I don't know if it does or not. Nu lang
(I know the question was not directed just to me). I think it important to understand what it is we are practicing or what we might be considering as an option but do not confuse my seeing with theory.
“The new seers seem to have been very abstract,” I commented. “They sound like modern-day philosophers.” (That’s how we appeared to CC at that time, sort of echoing your “theory” comment.)
“No. The new seers were terribly practical men,” he replied “They weren’t involved in concocting rational theories.”
He said the ancient seers were the ones who were the abstract thinkers. They built monumental edifices of abstractions proper to them and their time. And just like the modern day philosophers they were not at all in control of their concatenations. The new seers, on the other hand, imbued with practicality, were able to see a flux of emanations and to see how man and other living beings utilize them to construct their perceivable world. FFW
This to me this sheds more light on how to approach this. Instead of trying to figure out who’s the new seers and who’s the old seers let’s focus instead on what each do. I for one don’t mind hanging out with “old seers” or new.
These edifices are interesting. Abstract comments are made all the time in any of the spiritual circles and traditions not just the sorcery tradition. And as I frequently see in this forum the wildest and craziest comments that border on nonesence are bandied about with an almost absolute sense of authority that too few will even bat an eye at, that it just leaves me gob-smacked, my mouth open and dangling in the wind. To some such comments do not seem outrageous at all. If it is a thread I am involved with you will often see me pose a question challenging or inquiring into the foundation of the rational or narrative behind the words. I am more than willing to dialogue. More often than not that narrative starts to crumble as it has no foundation in any reality and because such people are “not at all in control of their concatenations.” So for DJ and others it is pretty clear there is edifice building, wild speculating about things people know nothing about (this includes mastering the speculation of others) and there is the clear seeing how living beings construct their perceivable world.
For myself I had to choose one day. I had to fiercely resist the temptation to exaggerate. I ask myself one very important question....What exactly is it you think you know lex? I came to the conclusion it boils down to just a few things, which is really a relief. I was very very good at that sort of speculating. I could speak endlessly about the edifices I had created and the edifices of others. I was drunk on it. Sobriety is key. And as DJ says, “Seers have to be methodical, rational beings, paragons of sobriety....”FFW
Those that think my seeing too rational or theoretical must also think that I don’t dream or don’t have tales of power to share, they would be mistaken. But I don’t really want to make this about me and there are plenty of tales of power and dreaming going on in this forum. My tactic is different.