On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:15:08 -0800 (PST), Erwin Hessle
 blethered:

>On Nov 25, 11:02 am, Halla  wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:31:39 -0800 (PST), Erwin Hessle
>>  blethered:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 22, 2:04 pm, "Tom"  wrote:
>> >> "Chade"  wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:3fa968a0-9d97-411c-a33c-bb39e60fe90a@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On 18 Nov, 00:23, Halla  wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >> >> "Khabs" seems to suggest that a person's true nature is their actions.
>> >> >> Would that be along the right lines? (If so, is inaction the negation
>> >> >> of the true nature?)
>>
>> >> > I'm not sure you can be total inactive, not while alive anyway.
>> >> > Breathing, for instance, is an action.
>>
>> >> To talk about one's "true nature" is to narrate some place for oneself in
>> >> the universe that is correct, some action that is purer or more appropriate
>> >> for one than some other action.  This is, I think, a mistake.
>>
>> >This is indeed a common way of looking at "true nature," but it's not
>> >the one I employ. I actually don't like the qualifier "true" very
>> >much, and prefer to just use "nature" (with the unspoken understanding
>> >that it is one's *real* nature rather than what one *imagines* one's
>> >nature to be that is being referred to).
>>
>> To have an unspoken understanding of that, though, surely it'd have to
>> be a local shorthand brought about by long usage - I said 'true' to
>> begin with not because of any belief that 'true' is better, but to
>> distinguish it in some way from the nature that may be clothed in
>> illusion (or imagination). To be short, if you had started off saying
>> the shorter 'nature' without any of the explanation, I would not have
>> the unspoken understanding you speak of. :-)
>
>"Unspoken" was possibly a poor choice of term. What I mean by that is
>I generally clarify the way in which I am using the word at the
>beginning of an article, and then never mention it again. It's
>unspoken when it's used, not completely hidden.
>

Of course that's a far more concise way to say what I was basically
getting at. Le sigh, I'll learn someday how to use words as if I
didn't get them in a bulk pack. ;-)

>"to distinguish it in some way from the nature that may be clothed in
>illusion (or imagination)" is broadly equivalent to the sense in which
>I employ the term also.

OK.

>
>> >The same goes for "true will"; "true will" is not some
>> >cosmologically laid down consecrated course that you've been destined
>> >to follow, but the tendency to action that you have when you are free
>> >from the imaginary phantasms that distract you down roads that are not
>> >conducive to your actual non-imaginary nature.
>>
>> What is conducive to the non-imaginary nature?
>
>The things that it is suited to. The problem with the imaginary nature
>is that it talks you into thinking that you want things that you
>don't, to simplify it greatly. Things that you don't want won't
>satisfy you even when you get them. Without an understanding of the
>"true" nature you don't have much to go on.

You talk as if the imaginary nature is a trickster. Does it never
suggest things that are wanted, or even needed? Is need the province
of the non-imaginary nature?

>
>> >"True", in this sense, doesn't signify "special" as much as it does
>> >"free from all the false crap." It's something of a negative
>> >definition, and in practical terms there's no a priori reason why any
>> >number of different acts couldn't be in accordance with true will at
>> >any given point in time. Theoretically there is arguably only one such
>> >act at any given time, but we can safely assume the inadequacy of our
>> >measuring equipment will forever prevent us from actually discovering
>> >what that is even if it does exist, so we can happily discard the idea
>> >for all practical purposes.
>>
>> I'm now pondering what sort of device could measure true nature and
>> how it could be read - presumably by someone not acting purely with
>> their true nature. Or else I have grasped the wrong bit of stick
>> again, because 'true nature' always seems to imply a lack of time and
>> complex language (and thought) which would make measuring anything
>> extremely impractical at the least.
>
>Well, there's no "device" for measuring it. 

Oh, I know, merely my imaginative nature going for a wander.

>The way to discover it,
>essentially, is to stop paying attention to the things that distract
>you from it. If you stop paying attention to those things, the will
>makes itself known without any effort required to dig it up.

I see what you mean. 

Unfortunately one may also find efforts to ignore distractions
thwarted by those around who have no interest in you finding your will
but instead want to exert theirs. ;-)


-- 
Caught a bolt of lightning
Cursed the day he let it go

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:28:18 -0800 (PST), Erwin Hessle
 blethered:

>On Nov 25, 5:28 pm, Halla  wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:15:08 -0800 (PST), Erwin Hessle
>>  blethered:
>> >> What is conducive to the non-imaginary nature?
>>
>> >The things that it is suited to. The problem with the imaginary nature
>> >is that it talks you into thinking that you want things that you
>> >don't, to simplify it greatly. Things that you don't want won't
>> >satisfy you even when you get them. Without an understanding of the
>> >"true" nature you don't have much to go on.
>>
>> You talk as if the imaginary nature is a trickster. Does it never
>> suggest things that are wanted, or even needed?
>
>Sure it can. In the case of hunger, or physical fear, the promptings
>from the will are strong enough to poke through its fantasies. The
>rest of the time, the imaginary nature at least has a basis in the
>true nature, so not absolutely everything it says is a complete and
>outrageous lie.
>

Fair enough. So far I am getting the impression that to embrace this
true nature we've been discussing, one has to surrender (temporarily
at least) the things that most people would describe as human
characteristics - hopes, wants, desires, that style of thing. 

>On the other hand, one of its nastiest tricks is to take a "true"
>prompting, and to disguise it as something else. This lends an air of
>legitimacy to the illusion which can be extremely hard to penetrate,
>since the conscious self can become convinced that it's right, and if
>it is so convinced, it's not going to have any inclination to look
>deeper.

Which sounds as if there should be some external judge of what is real
or not. I can't quite get my head round how one should spot something
from the real nature, given that our senses and thoughts are
accomplished liars.

>
>> Is need the province
>> of the non-imaginary nature?
>
>Depends how you define "need". In the sense that you "need" food
>*unless* you want to die, then yes, actual need is the province of the
>non-imaginary nature. Imaginary need, on the other hand, is constantly
>being invented by the imaginary nature. You might "need" to have your
>self-worth constantly validated by others to avoid death at your own
>hands. In this sense, it's an indistinguishable kind of need from the
>actual one in practical terms, even though there are clearly
>qualitative differences.

OK doke.

>
>In any case, in normal conversation, a lot of people use the word
>"need" when they know full well that they actually mean "really,
>really want", 

Well yes, bit like all those folk who get the 'flu' when they've
really got 'a bad cold'.

>so it's not always possible to simplify it that far.
>"Need" always has a spoken or unspoken qualifier - you don't even
>"need" food and shelter if you don't care about staying alive - so
>it's generally a question of context.

There is no need to stay alive, then. Philosophically I can see this,
but I had the idea that bodies and genes and whatnot are quite
insistent about their continued survival.

>
>> Unfortunately one may also find efforts to ignore distractions
>> thwarted by those around who have no interest in you finding your will
>> but instead want to exert theirs. ;-)
>
>One may indeed. Discovering the will is the "science" part of magick,
>and successfully imposing it on your environment is the "art" part.

Well, what is magical will then? I have imposed my will on my
surroundings - my house looks (mostly) as I'd like, I moved a patio
from the back to the front of my house, that sort of thing. Are those
not examples of my will changing my surroundings, and if not why not? 

>There are no guarantees that either part will be successful, although
>if you adopt a definition of "will" that is unaffected by external
>constraint then you improve your chances at succeeding in the art
>considerably. This may at first sound like cheating, but turns out to
>be no more so than restricting the will to those things that don't
>require, for instance, being able to breathe unaided underwater for
>several hours at a time, or being able to travel to Jupiter solely by
>the power of your own flatulence. 

May be possible. Would take one well-timed, well-directed and suitably
powerful fart just as a person left the atmosphere or was already
poised in space. And of course it would need a lot of time, and a
disregard for the status of the flatulent person - they'd get there,
eventually, they'd just be dead is all. Barring outside influences,
that is. ;-)

>There are plenty of external
>constraints out there that can not be overcome but only adjusted to,
>gravity being an obvious example. There's no a priori reason to treat
>the interference of other human beings as a separate category to
>these.

Oh, no, not at all. 

>
>Any given individual can be considered to have a "natural" course of
>action in any given situation, regardless of what the details of that
>situation are, including situations where some possibilities are being
>withheld from you by other human beings. 

Is this the same course of action for all individuals again?

>If you are in a room with
>only one exit, then without an ability to walk through walls you can
>be pretty sure that at some point in the near future your "true" will
>is going to be to leave that room through that single door. The walls
>are not "restricting" your will, in this case; they are *defining* it.

OK.

>The same can apply when people get in your way in a similar manner. We
>can draw an analogy with an electrical current; a resistor offers
>opposition to the flow of current, but if that current is not confined
>to a well-defined and closed circuit then there will be no flow at
>all, and no will. To a large extent, discovering the will can be
>considered to be a process of determining "defining constraints" from
>"restricting constraints". If there is a "natural" course of action,
>then it is natural because your nature demands it, and your nature is
>outside of your control.  You never get to choose what your "true"
>will is, you can only choose whether or not to conform to it.

So it's another exercise in seeking out a path and seeing where it
goes?

>
>But anyway, if this "natural" course of action is considered to be the
>will, then it is always available regardless of opposition, if one
>could only become aware of it. It's only when you're faced with a
>number of seemingly suitable and feasible options that a wider
>definition of will becomes useful.

Not in a pinch, I would imagine. Useful to have all this worked out in
advance. <g>


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."