Spiritual knowledge versus Empirical knowledge

[paigetheoracle]

Spiritual knowledge cannot be described because it is on the fringes of reality, unknown and unknowable. Science is more grounded (down to Earth) - hence it is predictable and its results reproducible. The formers effects can be measured but the cause never captured - like a dream figure that you can never catch up to or a magnet whose opposing poles will never come together voluntarily without force: The extraordinary is made ordinary through exploration, changing its very nature as the bright elusive butterfly of love is crushed to death by the clumsy fingers of fate, trying to discover the mystery of life and killing it instead. What I'm saying in essence is that dead matter and living energy are opposite states and that like matter and anti-matter, can never come together in the same place.

In the same vein thought and action are opposites. By this I mean that conscience/ consciousness is the brake on activity, that ensures we see what we are doing and its effects upon others, and unconsciousness is the release of energy that wipes our mind clean by turning our thoughts into action. In essence we cannot be in two places at once - either we are out there acting or in here thinking (Thought stops action - action stops thought).

Science can discredit various events because they are one-offs or transient but it doesn't mean they aren't real, just not capable of being captured by material means. Physical science works on the monotony of predictable results (It rained yesterday, so it could rain again today as we know from experience what 'days' are and that rain occurs during the day). It tells us that sulphuric acid will burn holes in certain materials every time we apply it and not in others. The supernatural is beyond classification and the description of it cannot help but be vague or limited to the mind of a few or even single witnesses, while others appearing after the event may find nothing or try to downplay it as being something else, more common. The truth is though that theory is always disproved by fact (experience destroys beliefs). Science cannot but be prejudicial because it is based upon the past as the paranormal isn't as its scope is way beyond the physical limit of here and now: It is the mercurial there and then, that may never 'materialize' or never be provable (The future that changes course/ the past that is so dim and distant, that we cannot be sure it existed or if it did, we have no material proof of it). There is no name for the unknown - it has no borders we recognize or can recognize, only experience as a life changing fact. The known is like the cone of a volcano - multi-layered history, we can tap into and examine but the boiling lava beneath, that is the living being of the planet is only potential that slides through the fingers like dry sand and cannot be known in the same way (subjective possibility, not solid fact).

There is no point trying to find evidence of a reality, whose only proof is etched inside as experience or that cannot be followed back as a chain of material effects, unless you are willing to accept an immaterial cause. Only Quantum Mechanics gets close to understanding this but Newtonian Physics can't and that is its tragedy as once it was its strengt

[SM Kovalinsky]

Well, there have certainly been manifold attempts made to classify and find empirical proof for the paranormal and the supernatural, but it is true that researchers such as Colin Wilson and Scott Rogo and even Muldoon and Carrington found themselves in circular arguments. I believe it was Rogo who finally became disgusted and said, "the paranormal has nothing to add to the sum of human experience, even when it can be proven". This is my feeling as well, and my interest in Tony's dyad and his entire cheating the ferryman thesis is empirical and philosophical.

[bicparker]

I tend to agree with that empirical knowledge and rational thought can only take us so far in the search for meaning, and that quantum physics has taken us almost to that point. Our minds are conditioned from birth to understand reality in Newtonian terms, but as children we often manage to transcend that strong conditioning, despite the increasing tendancy to treat children's minds as blank slates and their consequent premature intellectualisation. We have at that point not yet been totally reduced by reductionism.

As an eight year old boy I believed I saw my grandmother's ghost. I was ridiculed by my already highly empirical mates in the playground; indeed that is where I first discovered the skeptic's most powerful tool is not reason but ridicule. What attracts me to Tony's theories is not only the fact that he attempts to back them up with scientific argument but that he is genuinely open-minded about the existence of strange or "paranormal" phenomena. He has taken the advice of another bloke who saw a ghost: "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy". Maybe Tony is right, maybe he is wrong, most likely he is a little bit of both ... but I suspect that Hamlet's observation will continue to be true for most of us for some time to come. We love certainty, and we will rush to sign grand theories of everything on the dotted line, but the great mystery will remain inaccessible to thought alone.

[A Dark Philosopher]

Personally I tend to agree with the Crowley, Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, Wilson esoteric philosophy relating to the transcendentalism between Science and Spirituality.

Our subjective consciousness is finite and thus limited in its scope of thought and language. We are as grains of sand on a beach attempting to comprehend the nature of the sea.

[bicparker]

Yea, verily. And it would be a mistake to ignore the paranormal for that reason among others. My experience is that the "skeptic's" determination to eschew the paranormal in favour of conventional science is pathological. If only one example were sufficient it would be the case of the so-called "surgeon of the rusty knife." As documented in the book Arigo, Surgeon of The Rusty Knife, and in numerous Brazilian newspapers over a number of decades, Arigo was an incredibly successful spiritual healer who "treated' about 300 people a day for that period. In a trance-like state, claiming to be directed by the spirit of a deceased German war surgeon. Arigo regularly cut people open with his pocket knife, occasionally plunging it into eye sockets if deemed appropriate. He was famous in Brazil, though imprisoned twice because of the lobby of the Catholic Church and the medical establishment. There are no recorded cases of infection or ill-effects arising from the treatments, and countless accounts of apparent cures. The evidence, written and filmed, of what Arigo achieved is compelling, and yet he is barely known of in most countries. I believe this is because the status quo cannot tolerate such phenomena. The skeptical response to Arigo has been laughable ... just check out what James Randi has to say on the web.

Why is it important to consider the paranormal? In the case of Arigo, we have a fascinating phenomenon that was widely accepted in Brazil (including its president) but dismissed by western cultures. The difference between the two countries is in their consensus of what constitutes reality. Brazilians of all societal levels have a strong belief in spiritism, whereas in the west it is considered "fringe" because it is outside the realm of empircial science. Perhaps Arigo and his like can only exist in societies where he is actively supported by the collective unconscious of the nation , its daemon if you like. The west, I suspect, pays more attention to its "collective conscious", which gangs up on Arigo-types so that they are more likely to appear as "crazies" or "new agers" at best.

the whole question of consensus and its effect on our perception of reality needs to be given attention.

[A Dark Philosopher]

Bicparker: Yes, I know of Arigo from much reading, plus I remember watching a documentary a few years ago that discussed his 'techniques'. I agree with you regarding James Randi BUT I also must look at Arigo in light of what I know that performers such as Penn & Teller, and Derren Brown *waves at Derren* can do using highly skilled misdirection and psychological suggestion. Having said that, I agree that the sheer numbers of patients of Arigo would tend to negate the comments of Puharich, Randi et al.

One interesting quote regarding Arigo comes from an article written by Brian Houghton regarding Mystics and Psychics:
" On one occasion, when Arigó was shown a film of himself operating, he fainted. When asked for his own explanation of this incredible ability his reply was disarmingly straight forward - 'I simply listen to a voice in my right ear and repeat whatever it says. It is always right.' "

Could this 'voice' have been Arigo's Daemon?

[bicparker]

Karl: I am a relative newcomer to Itladian theory ( still waiting for the book itself from amazon ... it's not available in Australia), so excuse me if I tromp over well-trodden areas. Maybe Arigo was hearing his daemon, but if his daemon has only been a spectator of life through Arigo's eyes and other senses, through however many repeats of his life, how could it have amassed the particular kind of specialised knowledge that it shared with Arigo - not just where to cut etc, but also what to prescribe in the thousands of prescriptions he gave out? To me this suggests telepathy at least. Perhaps the daemon has access via quantum entanglement to other consciousness/memories, possibly from other times. This might also be a way of accounting for some "past life" memories ... obviously a distinctly different phenomenon from deja vu.

[A Dark Philosopher]

Bicparker: Welcome indeed, and I am sure you will answer many of your own questions regarding the theory once you receive and begin the book.
If we take pure ITLAD theory into the extended areas that Tony and I wish to take it (such as the Super-Deamon and Collapsing the Consciousness wave (CtCw)) then it becomes quite conceivable that the Daemon (as in Arigo's case) could access the objective consciousness wave of probability and thus have pre-awareness of not just its subjective consciousness but also that all countless other MWI/MMI parallel/contemporaneous outcomes.

[David Campbell]

I ran across the following at Jordan Stratford's website in the course of looking up the answer to a poster's question at Graham Hancock's phorum. Jordan Stratford profiles himself as "priest, poet and author" on his blog and I take it he is some kind of Neo-Gnostic writer. He came to my attention last night as I was reading Michael S. Heiser's website, sitchiniswrong.com, and some comments there, one of which was from Stratford condemning John Lamb Lash, author of "Not in his Image". Stratford apparently felt Lash to be a pernicious influence among Neo-Gnostics. Heiser has another website devoted to UFO religions, http://michaelsheiser.com/UFOReligions/ a topic that came up when Tony was AOM at GHMB. I have not had a chance to browse through it but it looks interesting in light of Heiser's expertise in Ancient Near Eastern languages, biblical studies as well as his ongoing challenge to Zechariah Sitchin to debate him on public radio, Coast to Coast, where both have been guests. I can see where we could have numerous tangential threads relating to these individuals in relation to ITLAD theory but let's start off with this one. I'm certain that members here are much better versed than I am on current Gnostic factions and which best relate to ITLAD.

The central principle of Gnosticism – "Know Thyself" – resides at the core of any Seeker's journey: "Who am I? Why am I here?"

Gnosticism answers that who you are is a fragment of God, and co-existent with eternity. You were not created with your body, but you have always existed as part of the Fullness. The "why" of things is described as theosis, or becoming God, which is really just a kind of remembering that, together, we are already God. That's the "why"; to re-member, to forget our forgetting and re-unite with the Fullness: what Gnostic Gospel of Philip refers to as the Mystery of the Bridal Chamber.

This knowing is not secret or esoteric knowledge, like a magic word, but it is deeply personal. I can't tell you the answer to your own "know thyself" equation any more than you can tell me mine. We're not used to seeing spiritual information in this way; personal as opposed to universal. The purpose of Gnostic myth is not to declare "this is what happened and it's true for everybody". It invites, suggests, asks, wonders.

We get signals constantly from the Mystery which is right in front of us, but there's also a very specific set of forces intent – willfully intent – on jamming those signals. Therefore a kind of negotiation emerges whereby the signals are encoded, and it time decoded by those committed to listening, to receiving. Being a Gnostic is like being a secret agent for God: imagine members of the Resistance listening to a crystal radio in the cellar, deciphering transmissions; "The woodpecker flies at midnight." The signals are very specific, very personal, but their interpretation and incorporation is vital. This is the work of the Gnostic.

We have these signals before us; psychology, scripture, history, experience. And we have tools with which to decipher the signal; our creativity, our intellect, our compassion, wit and intuition. It's not surprising then that our understanding of that signal evolves over time, that we're changing the landscape by walking through it. This is why I feel it's important for us not to try to be thirteenth century Cathars or second century BCE Alexandrians, but citizens of the 21st century, using the gifts of unique perspective and our courage to negotiate with the forces shaping the world today. The burden of such personal responsibility, and the sense of "the long defeat" are tempered by the sheer, blinding beauty of it; the intimate and undeniable knowledge of who are, of where we come from.

[Anthony Peake]

You will recall that in ITLAD I spend a whole chapter discussing the itladian implications of Gnosticism.

When I embarked upon my journey/adventure/voyage of discovery that culminated in "Cheating The Ferryman" I took many side roads but the most surprising was the one that led me to Gnosticism. As a person fascinated by the history and philosophy of religions (I did a course at university on "the sociology of religion") I have always found Gnosticism to be of particular interest, but only as an adjunct to the main theme. It was quite by chance that my Mother-in-Law bought me the Tim Freke and Peter Gandy book The Jesus Mystery but the timing was perfect. ITLAD/CTF was developing itself but it needed something more, something to give it historical, mystical and theological support. My "re-discovery" of Gnostic thought via this book was exactly what was wanted. The Gnostic concept of the Daemon-Eidolon duality was exactly the framework I needed to hang the psychology and neurology that I had been reading about. This gave my developing theory a basis in folklore and ancient beliefs.

Once my interest had been stimulated I started to read more about this mystery religion. I read the books of Elaine Pagels and Tobias Churton and from there to the books on The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts (ironically enough I used to work with the nephew of one of the team that first translated the Scrolls for the Vatican, Father Josef Milik - Stefan- the nephew - gave me some fascinating insights into the politics and in-fighting that took place around these precious documents).

What stunned me was just how closely the religious 'myths' mirrored my developing neurologically-based theory. I was particularly fascinated by the idea that we all have a "fragment of God that is co-existent with eternity" and that this fragment is aware of its potential divinity. This "fragment" is the Daemon. The Daemon is part of the "Fullness" (known as the Plerama - not "Pleorama" as it is spelt in ITLAD).

Secret or esoteric knowledge is to be aware of this "god within you" and many mystical processes have existed to develop self-awareness of this being. This is why I decided to use the Gnostic-related terms of Daemon and Eidolon in my theory. I could have used less sensitive terms (the use of the word "Daemon" has, as you can imagine, caused my difficulties in certain quarters) but I really wanted to underline the Gnostic supports of my theory.

I have been surprised that Gnostic organisations have yet to pick up on my theory. I know that this is only a matter of time, and when they do I am looking forward to their involvement in helping develop ITLAD/CTF in yet another direction.