provenant wrote:dwellersinthemirage wrote:<snip>
And I trust that the exercise provided something of value for those souls who are not straightjacked by the tyranny of linear thinking. Personally, I regard my "djinn tack" as insightful, provocative, timely and cautionary.
Without something more linking your conclusion, I remain quite unconvinced regarding the Djinn. I know from your previous posts on the thread, you have done some studying of the western traditions, but really there's not too much of any real authority on Djinn in the western corpus. I don't see too much similarity between Djinn and the NAP spirits/ angels. Djinn, outside of Disney, aren't traditionally eager to pop in and help humans. Most of the literature on Djinn treat them as quite tricky, and while some are amenable to helping a human, most are not. If there were an equivalency between Djinn and anything in the Western tradition, I'd say they're more like the goetia than they are NAP angels.
dwellersinthemirage wrote:Regarding "Who goes there?", I do suspect that all of the myriad spirit "beings" are rays or permutations emanateing from a central locus. For the sake of brevity, let's name IT GOD (Geometry Of Divinity), whose PERSONA fragments into countless SUB-PERSONALITIES characterized as both the Infernal & Celestial hierarchies. And humanity itself is a mirror counterpart in that it's a fractal of GOD with each human shard expressing their respective individual sub-personalities, whom constantly express themselves in you and I as "moods." <snip>
Which is not necessarily a new idea, see Hebrew Kaballah and the succeeding emanations from Ein Soph, where creation successively divides and descends ultimately to material reality. The act of God knowing himself. And where a human is a microcosm of the macrocosm "all". As above so below. Where science (some disciplines anyway) and Kaballah seem to agree is that reality is likely holographic ... ie each "shard" contains all of reality. Again, the microcosm is a mirror of the macrocosm.
dwellersinthemirage wrote:As for "Is there a question or a statement here to discuss, or are you trying to teach school?" Only you can answer that. Please recall the addage: "When the student is ready, the master appears." And conversly, "The master shall know his own by the manner in which he is received." Perhaps the ball is now in your court? Seeing as how I have attempted to illustrate a logical tie-in between NAP & Djinn & Ouija, and if that is meaningless to you, why then you are certainly entitled to your own evaluation. But maybe others less enlightened than your person will benefit from some of the hors d'oeuvres rejected by their fastidious peers?
- dweller
So, are you the student and we have appeared, or are you the master awaiting reception?
Honestly dweller, I think the basic question could be interesting, ie, the nature of the NAP entities. However, here I find that your logic is quite jumpy. Without some more basis, I really don't see any likeness between the classic discussions of Djinn and the NAP entities. Not closing the door, but from the basis here, we could just as easily say Raum215 is the force behind the NAP entities: I can't see him, sometimes he comes when called, and often if he shows he imparts wisdom, plus he's definitely a shard of the larger whole. (Although he's never sent me cash or gotten me laid, so there's those issues.)
As far as equating NAP and talking boards, to me that's like equating a steak with the fork I use to eat it with. The board is the instrument of contact, and whether it's some random astral lowlife or a NAP angel one contacts through the board, the entity is not the instrument. The steak ain't the fork. And the map ain't the territory.
As far as the "enlightened" thing, well I feel you'd be hard-pressed to find a less enlightened member of this forum than me, and my wife would definitely protest against any claim of mine to fastidiousness ... But, unfortunately, so far the appetizers aren't making me that hungry.
But keep cooking ...
Hi there provenant!
"Without something more linking your conclusion, I remain quite unconvinced regarding the Djinn. I know from your previous posts on the thread, you have done some studying of the western traditions, but really there's not too much of any real authority on Djinn in the western corpus. I don't see too much similarity between Djinn and the NAP spirits/ angels. Djinn, outside of Disney, aren't traditionally eager to pop in and help humans. Most of the literature on Djinn treat them as quite tricky, and while some are amenable to helping a human, most are not. If there were an equivalency between Djinn and anything in the Western tradition, I'd say they're more like the goetia than they are NAP angels."
I respond: (I consider the above paragraph indicative of the proclivity of a scholar to be obstructed in the interpretation of facts by philosophical prejudices.) You seem to be looking for apparent differences, not similarities. Why do you consider the NAPs and the Djinn to be mutually exclusive? (mutually exclusive is defined as: "of or pertaining to a situation involving two or more events, possibilities, etc., in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other.") Can't you see where concepts NAP & Djinn ideas overlap - where they express a basic commonality despite their seemingly "different" outer appearance?
"Honestly dweller, I think the basic question could be interesting, ie, the nature of the NAP entities. However, here I find that your logic is quite jumpy. Without some more basis, I really don't see any likeness between the classic discussions of Djinn and the NAP entities. Not closing the door, but from the basis here, we could just as easily say Raum215 is the force behind the NAP entities: I can't see him, sometimes he comes when called, and often if he shows he imparts wisdom, plus he's definitely a shard of the larger whole. (Although he's never sent me cash or gotten me laid, so there's those issues.)"
I respond: Your proposal that there is no difference between something that exists but is not observable (Raum215) and something that doesn't exist at all (Djinn/NAP unity), is equivalent to stating that molecules are metaphysical because they are too small to detect directly. Or like laboring under the 'basis" of the fallacy of naturalistic thinking wherein "the earth appears flat, so it must be flat." A lack of perspective?
"As far as equating NAP and talking boards, to me that's like equating a steak with the fork I use to eat it with. The board is the instrument of contact, and whether it's some random astral lowlife or a NAP angel one contacts through the board, the entity is not the instrument. The steak ain't the fork. And the map ain't the territory."
I respond: ??? There you go again with your rhetorical exercise that begs any satisfactory explanation. You did ok with the first step of analysis, but what about the second step of synthesis, or determining what all that raw analytical datum actually boils down to? Only by carrying the second step of synthesis to a full-term logical conclusion, can you finally determine if NAP and Ouija actually do share any meaningful similarity. Your questionable attempt to illustrate a disparity between NAP and Ouija falls apart once it is recognized that what they have in common is that they are both DEVICES for spirit contact, plain and simple. Simplify, simplify as Thoreau said.
Provenant, could you ever quantify enough Djinn/NAP “provenance” so that you could arrive at an qualified decision?
"But, unfortunately, so far the appetizers aren't making me that hungry.
But keep cooking ..."
I respond: It is said that the best remedy for a hungry man is a good meal. Is your lack of appetite because you are already satiated by your opinions?
Occam's Razor: The Occam's Razor principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily."
Sir Isaac Newton stated the rule: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
Ernst Mach advocated what he called the Principle of Economy, stating that "Scientists must use the simplest means of arriving at their results and exclude everything not perceived by the senses."
Quotes:
He said "hard to say, hard to say"; and I replied "It's not so hard to say - just look at BOTH sides then say yea or nay!"
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities. – Aristotle
Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.
- Francis Bacon
People wish to be settled: only as far as they are unsettled is there any hope for them.
- Emerson
From "Final Events": The Collins Elite (a secret US government group) believes that our purported alien visitors are, in reality, deceptive demons and fallen angels. They are the minions of Satan, who are reaping and enslaving our very souls.
