Shared publicly  - 
 
THE SEVEN HERMETIC PRINCIPLES - The Kybalion The Principles of Truth are Seven; he who knows these, understandingly, possesses the Magic Key before whose touch all the Doors of the Temple fly open.

1. The Principle of Mentalism
THE ALL IS MIND; The Universe is Mental.

2. The Principle of Correspondence
As above, so below; as below, so above.

3. The Principle of Vibration
Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.

4. The Principle of Polarity
Everything is Dual; everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.

5. The Principle of Rhythm
Everything flows, out and in; everything has its tides; all things rise and fall; the pendulum-swing manifests in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.

6. The Principle of Cause and Effect
Every Cause has its Effect; every Effect has its Cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is but a name for Law not recognized; there are many planes of causation, but nothing escapes the Law.

7. The Principle of Gender
Gender is in everything; everything has its Masculine and Feminine Principles; Gender manifests on all planes.
1
Wayne Bloss's profile photoChris Eargle's profile photo
37 comments
 
Can you demonstrate a mind that exists without a brain?
 
Great question! I'm sorry, I cannot. Can you demonstrate a universe that exists without a mind?
 
Actually, I asked you the wrong question. Please disregard that.

I think you're questioning principle number 1. I do to.
 
It is interesting though, how intelligent logic seems to permeate life/this universe as far as I can see.
 
Since logic is a system of correct reasoning and valid inference, it is necessitated by the existence of a mind. I think what you're getting at is that it's interesting this universe gave rise to intelligence. It's worth studying, but really, we've existed for such a small period of time in the universe on a rock in a barely visible star system.
 
I guess it boils down to the old question - Can you really know that this physical reality is not just an illusion?

You certainly can't answer that question with any kind of physical evidence.
 
Here's a possible way of considering the principle of Mentalism: You perceive this universe through your mind. You are indeed part of the universe. Therefore, the universe perceives itself via the mind. Without a perceiver, there is no perception and the universe might as well not exist for all we care. Who would be there to care about it?

So maybe what they're saying is that the mind and our perception of the universe is all that really matters.
 
Carl Sagan said this - "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

I'm not saying it proves anything. I don't know a damned thing! I just love the mystery of life and of consciousness, so I experiment with different philosophies of living and understanding. It's amazing what some of the ancients came up with. There are even ancient cultures that appear to have had advanced knowledge of the stars, things they couldn't possibly know without a powerful telescope.

(The really amazing stuff happens though when I stop trying to figure out the mystery and I simply apply what I've learned! The Eastern religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism) have majorly influenced many positive changes in my life.)

Many ancient religions declared that physical reality is an illusion. There have even been serious scientific experiments to try and prove or disprove this. (google: holographic universe experiment) Quantum Physicists are discovering evidence for things like alternate dimensions, a multi-verse and determinism, things that parallel what the ancients talked about. There's enough mystery for me to know that nobody can truly claim that they have all the answers.
 
That is a composition fallacy. The sarcastic response is: "your colon is full of shit, your colon is part of you, therefore you are full of shit."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

The universe doesn't have perception due to the fact that some of its components (us) have perception.

It is true that without an observer, the universe would not be observed. However, there are observers, and we observe very interesting things =). Oddly enough, the act of observing can change the state of some things (see Schrödinger's cat). I suppose the unobserved universe is kind of like Schrödinger's cat in that sense.
 
"The universe doesn't have perception due to the fact that some of its components (us) have perception."

OK, then prove it :)
 
Also, I said that "the universe perceives itself via the mind" I didn't say that "the universe is full of perception". My colon shits, therefore I shit. I perceive, therefore the universe perceives. Simple as that.
 
I guess the other thing to say about that is....are you separate than the universe? You are a component of the universe, but isn't the universe is a component of you as well? What would you be without all of that H2O that makes up your cells? The universe formed you from itself. You are one with the universe, there is absolutely no separateness here. Separateness is an illusion.

The universe formed your mind from bits of itself. The universe and your mind are not separate, but one and the same.
 
Let me make sure I am formalizing your argument correctly: "A) I am part of the universe. B) I perceive the universe. c) Therefore, the universe perceives itself."

If so, what kind of information is gained from this statement? That's like saying the following:

"A) The process is part of the program. B) The process perceives the program. C) Therefore, the program perceives itself."
 
No, I would formalize it as: A) My mind is one with the universe. B) My mind perceives. C) Therefore the universe perceives.

The information that I gleaned from this statement is that my identity is broadened. I used to think of "me" as just this body that my consciousness seems to inhabit. Now I tend to think of "me" as the entire universe and everything in it, which I am essentially one with. It's liberating. It makes me more accepting.
 
Correction: I didn't get that information from this statement, I already had this information from reading all of the major religious texts. The idea that "we are all one" is very, very old.
 
Your mind is one with the universe? How many planets are there in the Alpha Centauri system?
 
Does your colon know how many hairs are your head? Because my colon is one with me does not mean that it isn't limited in it's capacity.
 
Okay, then please explain how your mind being one with the universe is different than the billions of other minds we know about?
 
It's not very different than the billions of other minds. It's quite similar I assume.
 
Then how is being "one with the universe" different than being "part of the universe?"
 
I didn't say it was different. I said it's the same. Being part of the universe is the same as being one with the universe because we're all made up of bits of the universe.
 
I guess here's the difference if you're looking for one: Phraseology. Saying 'this' is part of 'that' sort of implies that 'this' is (or could be) separate from 'that'. Saying that 'this' is one with 'that' is more direct in my opinion.
 
+Wayne Bloss Let's get a little hypothetical. M-theory and the multiuniverse conjecture are confirmed. A method of travel to the another universe is discovered. You are contracted to jump through the portal to another universe. Do you think you can exist in that other universe?
 
In reality, I don't know. Hypothetically? Yes, No, Maybe. (In other words, I don't know! :) What is the point of this exercise?
 
Say you made it into that universe, safe and sound onto a planet with the right mix of atmosphere for you to live. Are you still "one with the universe?" Most of your atoms are still from a different universe. Does Universe B perceive through you now, or does Universe A?
 
You sound like a very scientific minded guy, so I don't expect you to really have a lot of respect any of this religious mumbo-jumbo. I get the feeling that you have your mind made up about who you are and what the universe is; that there is nothing more to the universe than what science tells us. I could be wrong and I hope that I haven't offended you by saying that. I don't mind explaining my point of view though. I am grounded in the idea that nobody really knows the true nature of reality and that nothing can be proven about it. So, chip away :)
 
You say "_atoms_ are from a different universe", but the atom isn't indivisible according to modern science, is it? Doesn't M-theory say that matter is ultimately multi-dimensional?
 
I am not easily offended ;). I agree with you that nobody truly knows the true nature of reality. I believe the goal of humanity should be to understand it as thoroughly as possible. Let me see if I can explain this:

There is reality. There are models for understanding reality. Some models work best in some context (Newtonian physics) while others describe it better in another context (quantum mechanics).

Scientific inquiry has produced verifiable results. The tools of scientific inquiry, such as logic, can be used to pick apart many claims. That's what I'm trying to do. If the Hermetic principles provides useful information, then I want to know about them. I try to destroy any argument I come across. If it holds up, then I may adopt it.
 
+Wayne Bloss the "atom from a different universe" was part of my hypothetical situation where you journey to a different universe. Your atoms would then be in a universe they did not originate.

"atom isn't indivisible according to modern science"

We've been splitting atoms for quite some time. Democritus was wrong.


"Doesn't M-theory say that matter is ultimately multi-dimensional?"

Yes. I don't claim to completely understand M-theory. The dimensions have different attributes than the standard 3 spatial dimension to which we're accustomed.
 
I see where you're coming from! I am not an expert in Hermeticism or any other school of philosophical or religious thought. I use any information that I get from reading these types of things in a experiential, practical and yet wholly undisciplined manner (pun not intended).

It's a very personal thing and I only care about it in as much as it affects my experience in this life. I take something that I read and I try it on like a pair of glasses. I try to see everything through the lense of that philosophy. If it does something for me, I keep it around. For instance, the idea of "oneness" - that physical reality is an illusion and that we are all one, has really changed the way that I personally react to any given situation. I'm certainly gentler, kinder and less closed off for it. All that really matters to me is what I can experience. I don't care to know anything beyond that really.
 
I diverged too much from the original argument. Let me try to get back on track. Let me rephrase your argument with another entity in the universe. "A) The sun is one with the universe. B) The sun is a luminous sphere of plasma held together by gravity. C) Therefore, the universe is a luminous sphere of plasma held together by gravity."
 
I suppose I'm different in that I only care about what is true. In interactions with others, I am a secular humanist. If your particular view helps guide your moral compass in a positive way and isn't causing harm, then I don't see much wrong with it. I do get peeved at those that would hinder scientific progress in that name of religion/spirituality (I don't see that from you).
 
The use of the word "is" kind of changes the formula I think. Perceiving is an action, a verb, not a noun. Saying that the sun burns is different than saying what the sun "is". So, B) The sun burns. C) The universe burns. (NOTE: I didn't say that the entire universe burns. If a branch on a tree is burning, I might say "the tree is burning!" but that doesn't imply that every branch of the tree is on fire.)

This is all just semantics though. I think you got the actual idea that I was trying to convey.
 
"I do get peeved at those that would hinder scientific progress in that name of religion/spirituality" - You're talking about Christians mainly I believe. I don't think you'll find much of that in the Eastern religions. Western religion (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) has been supremely corrupted by politics. Eastern religions are about experience. They basically say "try this Yoga lifestyle (diet, exercise, meditation...devaluing 'I, me, mine' thoughts) and see for yourself. Don't just take my word for it." I don't see the point in anything else. If someone told me that aliens seeded our planet with their genetic material and then left us to fend for ourselves, it wouldn't change a thing for me because I already know what I need to know in order to have the experiences that I desire.
 
+Wayne Bloss Eastern religions can be just as oppressive as their Western counterparts. For example, look at the way Hindus treat people of different castes in India and look at the way the Lamas treated the people of Tibet.
 
I guess I was talking about the texts themselves. Western religious texts seem to be more war-like and closed-off and I think it's due to politics. I'm not going to get into specifics though because I don't want to offend anyone who might be reading this.
 
People can certainly twist almost any information though.
Add a comment...