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.

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.

> 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.

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", 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.

> 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.
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. 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.

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. 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.
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.

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.

Erwin Hessle, 8=3