Newsgroups: alt.magick
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: Belief Systems
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 10:31:20 +0000

oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes..

[...massive amounts deleted..]

>..Another part, that is not a really a part yet, but might be
>eventually - is experiencing experience and *not* rationalizing it.
>(This is something Leo and someone else (who may not wish to be
>mentioned) talk about. I find it interesting, but don't really
>understand the point of it yet.)

Oh: I thought it was obvious. If you have a set of belief-tools -
macros you called them - and you want to develop better ones, you
have to deliberately NOT USE the ones you have. (See Carlos' tongue
in cheek stuff on Not-Doing etc.) By NOT reifying the experience
(which I would rather use than rationalising) you have a chance to
let your innate pattern matching skills come up with new 'objects' in
your worldview.

Simple example I alwyas use: A flock of birds. Stop looking at the
'birds' and look at the 'flock' - you will see a pattern in the
behaviour of the 'flock' that is quite different to the behaviour of
each bird. The 'flock' has a sort of mind and existence of its own.
Reification turns the dots on your retina into either 'birds' or 'a
flock' . Perhaps one day those dots will form a new pattern like
'birdbrain for president' but nobody will see it because we just see
either birds, or a flock of birds. No one expects them to be doing
skywriting....:-)


>Oh yeah, I used to have some beliefs that I kept around because they
>were cozy and comfortable, and kept things orderly, and I was used to
>them, but Joshua trashed those quite some time ago.

Yeah: Josh and the OTO and the Sentinel at the Gate.

[..]

>It would be interesting to hear where other people are coming from.

The interesting thing is to arrive at a meta reality where we can
actually discuss our beliefs in the knowledge that they are imperfect
and temporary 'macros' - and more to the point - that THEY ALWAYS
WILL BE. This is where the Believers get really stuck. They can maybe
accept that their Beliefs may be wrong, but they _cannot deal_ with
the concept that they may never have the security of knowing what is
real, and what is not. One of the most dramatic transformations in my
life has been (as Carlos Castaneda completely sums up in 'Journey to
Ixtlan') the transition from the safe certainties of childhood, into
the terrifying realization that nobody really knows what the **** is
going on, that nobody is really in control, and that ones only hope
of personal salvation is to take resposnibility and control over what
one can: And initially at least that is ones own belief systems.

Many religions are there for those who cannot face that view: Indeed
I would say that the 'warrior path' of shamanism is one of the very
few disciplines that actually emphasise the ability to acquire new
knowledge, and not to work within the confines of a predefined belief
system.

I utterly respect that: I was educated to think, and above all else,
to think for myself. Shamanism (as I define it) for me is the utmost
in 'learning how to learn'.

Religion is for those who want easy answers.

Magick is for those who desire power, and yet may still learn that
the fool who persists in his folly may become wise.

Warriors are on the path towards knowledge: New knowledge and the
ability to tap into direct experience of whatever interests them, and
the forbearance not to be prejudicial in their judgements of that
experience. This is no different from the discipline of a dedicated
scientist, except that it extends the search for knowledge way beyond
the traditional boundaries and the traditional worldview that
underpins science-as-she-is-practised-today.

>- Peggy -

Leo




Newsgroups: alt.magick