[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Main Index][Thread Index]

# Re: Re:Essential meaning

#### Message 00822 of 3835

- To: <BardonPraxis@yahoogroups.com>
- Subject: Re: [BardonPraxis] Re:Essential meaning
- From: "Rawn Clark" <rawnclark@...>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 13:02:19 -0700
- References: <baoetu+ia3l@eGroups.com>

    Dear Peter,

    >> I agree. To use a rather bad pun that is rather appropriate at this
    moment, "We're both two voices trying to explain the totality of
    essential meaning." Being that essential meaning is something that can
    not be explained in words, due to the intrinsic nature that essential
    meaning is something that has to be percieved and experienced, we're
    both just lending our own interpritation, our own voice of essential
    meaning to try to explain it. <<

    ;-) Yes. My focus, primarily, is in describing *how* to reach a direct
    perception of essential meaning, as opposed to trying to describe the
    indescribable itself. Alas, being that we're so "left-brain oriented",
    it's nearly impossible for me to say "just do this" without the
    necessity of attempting to describe what it is that "doing this" results
    in. I think this tends to complicate the process of learning *how* to
    directly perceive essential meaning, which, in and of itself, is the
    essence of simplicity.

    >> Your coming from a pure Hermetic perspective, whereas I come from a
    perspective that mixes the modern understanding of psychology and
    neurophysiology with Hermetics and meditation. While you did previously
    state that using the split brain theory will only get me so far, I do
    believe that it is a good starting point for further progress along the
    path. <<

    Since I have so immersed myself in Hermetic thought, I find no need to
    reference other systems in order to understand Hermetic principles. The
    same with kabbalah. This is how I learn something new -- immersion. I
    immerse myself in the mind-set of what I'm learning instead of splitting
    myself between two different mind-sets. But I recognize that not
    everyone studies and learns in this same way and, in fact, most folks
    learn better by relating a new study to a past study and by trying to
    understand the new through the lens of the familiar. The essential
    problem with this is that one can easily miss out on the depth of the
    new study by not capturing its entire mind-set. At some point one must
    think solely in terms of the new study and forego the internal
    translation between old and new. It's sort of like learning a new
    language. At first each word is translated internally, but eventually,
    one begins to think directly in the new language without the internal
    translation.

    When I said that the split brain theory will only take you so far, this
    is what I meant. There are also Hermetic precepts which clearly explain
    the same apparent split but they do so in an Hermetic manner, with an
    Hermetic mind-set, and IMO much more fully and concisely (not to
    mention, practically) than the split brain theory. The split brain
    theory comprehends only a part of the total human being; whereas,
    Hermetic theory considers the whole, multi-dimensional being in its
    understanding. It's the relationship between the apparent split and the
    whole, multi-dimensional being, that serves up the truly practical uses
    of this knowledge; whereas to my mind, the split brain theory alone is
    not very applicable in so far as practicing magic goes.

    One problem that I, as an Hermeticist, see with the split brain theory
    is that it infers a true split between two discrete types of mental
    function. From the Hermetic perspective however, there is not a true
    split. Instead it's a hierarchy of function. For example, the
    intuitive "left-brain" is *always* active and is a precursor to the
    rational "right-brain" function. In other words, we're *always*
    perceiving essential meaning but we're not always using our rational
    logic. Furthermore, these two aspects of Mind function *together*, like
    hand-in-glove, in our mundane, day-to-day awareness.

    >> I have this extra set of knowledge that science has provided, so I
    might as well use it. <<

    Good! :) Even though I suffer a severe case of Hermeticitus,
    compounded by Kabbalitus [ ;-) ], I do respect and appreciate the
    ability of others, such as yourself, to translate between Hermetic
    thought and other disciplines! :)

    My best to you,
    :) Rawn Clark
    24 May 2003
    rawnclark@...
    rawn@...
    http://www.ABardonCompanion.com
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BardonPraxis
    http://E.webring.com/hub?ring=arionthebardonwe

- Follow-Ups:
  - Re:Essential meaning
    - From: "peter_reist" <peter_reist@...>
  - Re:Essential meaning
    - From: Scott Andersen <sga_email@...>

- References:
  - Re:Essential meaning
    - From: "peter_reist" <peter_reist@...>

- Prev by Date: Re:Essential meaning
- Next by Date: Re:Essential meaning
- Previous by thread: Re:Essential meaning
- Next by thread: Re:Essential meaning
- Indexes:
  - Main
  - Thread

Main Index | Thread Index