Spot The Difference

Rosa Lichtenstein · #1 25th June 2006, 04:48

See if you can tell which of these is the greater mystic:

Quote:

CHAPTER X 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." -The Kybalion.

The great Fourth Hermetic Principle-the Principle of Polarity-embodies the truth that all manifested things have 'two sides'; 'two aspects'; 'two poles'; a 'pair of opposites,' with manifold degrees between the two extremes. The old paradoxes, which have ever perplexed the mind of men, are explained by an understanding of this Principle. Man has always recognized something akin to this Principle, and has endeavoured to express it by such sayings, maxims and aphorisms as the following: 'Everything is and isn't, at the same time'; 'all truths are but half-truths'; 'every truth is half-false'; 'there are two sides to everything'; 'there is a reverse side to every shield,' etc., etc. The Hermetic Teachings are to the effect that the difference between things seemingly diametrically opposed to each is merely a matter of degree. It teaches that 'the pairs of opposites may be reconciled,' and that 'thesis and antithesis are identical in nature, but different in degree''; and that the ''universal reconciliation of opposites' is effected by a recognition of this Principle of Polarity. The teachers claim that illustrations of this Principle may be had on every hand, and from an examination into the real nature of anything....

Light and Darkness are poles of the same thing, with many degrees between them. The musical scale is the same-starting with 'C' you moved upward until you reach another 'C,' and so on, the differences between the two ends of the board being the same, with many degrees between the two extremes. The scale of color is the same-higher and lower vibrations being the only difference between high violet and low red. Large and Small are relative. So are Noise and Quiet; Hard and Soft follow the rule. Likewise Sharp and Dull. Positive and Negative are two poles of the same thing, with countless degrees between them....

CHAPTER IX VIBRATION "Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates." - The Kybalion.

The great Third Hermetic Principle-the Principle of Vibration-embodies the truth that Motion is manifest in everything in the Universe-that nothing is at rest-that everything moves, vibrates, and circles. This Hermetic Principle was recognized by some of the early Greek philosophers who embodied it in their systems. But, then, for centuries it was lost sight of by the thinkers outside of the Hermetic ranks. But in the Nineteenth Century physical science re-discovered the truth and the Twentieth Century scientific discoveries have added additional proof of the correctness and truth of this centuries-old Hermetic doctrine.

The Hermetic Teachings are that not only is everything in constant movement and vibration, but that the 'differences' between the various manifestations of the universal power are due entirely to the varying rate and mode of vibrations. Not only this, but that even THE ALL, in itself, manifests a constant vibration of such an infinite degree of intensity and rapid motion that it may be practically considered as at rest, the teachers directing the attention of the students to the fact that even on the physical plane a rapidly moving object (such as a revolving wheel) seems to be at rest. The Teachings are to the effect that Spirit is at one end of the Pole of Vibration, the other Pole being certain extremely gross forms of Matter. Between these two poles are millions upon millions of different rates and modes of vibration.

Modern Science has proven that all that we call Matter and Energy are but 'modes of vibratory motion,' and some of the more advanced scientists are rapidly moving toward the positions of the occultists who hold that the phenomena of Mind are likewise modes of vibration or motion. Let us see what science has to say regarding the question of vibrations in matter and energy.

In the first place, science teaches that all matter manifests, in some degree, the vibrations arising from temperature or heat. Be an object cold or hot-both being but degrees of the same things-it manifests certain heat vibrations, and in that sense is in motion and vibration. Then all particles of Matter are in circular movement, from corpuscle to suns. The planets revolve around suns, and many of them turn on their axes. The suns move around greater central points, and these are believed to move around still greater, and so on, ad infinitum. The molecules of which the particular kinds of Matter are composed are in a state of constant vibration and movement around each other and against each other. The molecules are composed of Atoms, which, likewise, are in a state of constant movement and vibration. The atoms are composed of Corpuscles, sometimes called 'electrons,' 'ions,' etc., which also are in a state of rapid motion, revolving around each other, and which manifest a very rapid state and mode of vibration. And, so we see that all forms of Matter manifest Vibration, in accordance with the Hermetic Principle of Vibration.

Compare that with this:

Quote:

The Unity and Interpenetration of Opposites

Everywhere we look in nature, we see the dynamic co-existence of opposing tendencies. This creative tension is what gives life and motion. That was already understood by Heraclitus (c. 500 B.C.) two and a half thousand years ago. It is even present in embryo in certain Oriental religions, as in the idea of the ying and yang in China, and in Buddhism. Dialectics appears here in a mystified form, which nonetheless reflects an intuition of the workings of nature. The Hindu religion contains the germ of a dialectical idea, when it poses the three phases of creation (Brahma), maintenance or order (Vishnu) and destruction or disorder (Shiva). In his interesting book on the mathematics of chaos, Ian Stewart points out that the difference between the gods Shiva, 'the Untamed,' and Vishnu is not the antagonism between good and evil, but that the two principles of harmony and discord together underlie the whole of existence....

In Heraclitus, all this was in the nature of an inspired guess. Now this hypothesis has been confirmed by a huge amount of examples. The unity of opposites lies at the heart of the atom, and the entire universe is made up of molecules, atoms, and subatomic particles. The matter was very well put by R. P. Feynman: 'All things, even ourselves, are made of fine-grained, enormously strongly interacting plus and minus parts, all neatly balanced out....'

The question is: how does it happen that a plus and a minus are 'neatly balanced out?' This is a contradictory idea! In elementary mathematics, a plus and a minus do not 'balance out.' They negate each other. Modern physics has uncovered the tremendous forces which lie at the heart of the atom. Why do the contradictory forces of electrons and protons not cancel each other out? Why do atoms not merely fly apart? The current explanation refers to the 'strong force' which holds the atom together. But the fact remains that the unity of opposites lies at the basis of all reality.

Within the nucleus of an atom, there are two opposing forces, attraction and repulsion. On the one hand, there are electrical repulsions which, if unrestrained, would violently tear the nucleus apart. On the other hand, there are powerful forces of attraction which bind the nuclear particles to each other. This force of attraction, however, has its limits, beyond which it is unable to hold things together. The forces of attraction, unlike repulsion, have a very short reach. In a small nucleus they can keep the forces of disruption in check. But in a large nucleus, the forces of repulsion cannot be easily dominated....

Nature seems to work in pairs. We have the 'strong' and the 'weak' forces at the subatomic level; attraction and repulsion; north and south in magnetism; positive and negative in electricity; matter and anti-matter; male and female in biology; odd and even in mathematics; even the concept of 'left and right handedness' in relation to the spin of subatomic particles. There is a certain symmetry, in which contradictory tendencies, to quote Feynman, 'balance themselves out,' or, to use the more poetical expression of Heraclitus, 'agree with each other by differing like the opposing tensions of the strings and bow of a musical instrument.' There are two kinds of matter, which can be called positive and negative. Like kinds repel and unlike attract....

Moreover, everything is in a permanent relation with other things. Even over vast distances, we are affected by light, radiation, gravity. Undetected by our senses, there is a process of interaction, which causes a continual series of changes. Ultra-violet light is able to 'evaporate' electrons from metal surfaces in much the same way as the sun’s rays evaporate water from the ocean. Banesh Hoffmann states: 'It is still a strange and awe-inspiring thought, that you and I are thus rhythmically exchanging particles with one another, and with the earth and the beasts of the earth, and the sun and the moon and the stars, to the uttermost galaxy....'

The phenomenon of oppositeness exists in physics, where, for example, every particle has its anti-particle (electron and positron, proton and anti-proton, etc.). These are not merely different, but opposites in the most literal sense of the word, being identical in every respect, except one: they have opposite electrical charges—positive and negative. Incidentally, it is a matter of indifference which one is characterised as negative and which positive. The important thing is the relationship between them....

This universal phenomenon of the unity of opposites is, in reality, the motor-force of all motion and development in nature. It is the reason why it is not necessary to introduce the concept of external impulse to explain movement and change—the fundamental weakness of all mechanistic theories. Movement, which itself involves a contradiction, is only possible as a result of the conflicting tendencies and inner tensions which lie at the heart of all forms of matter.

The opposing tendencies can exist in a state of uneasy equilibrium for long periods of time, until some change, even a small quantitative change, destroys the equilibrium and gives rise to a critical state which can produce a qualitative transformation. In 1936, Bohr compared the structure of the nucleus to a drop of liquid, for example, a raindrop hanging from a leaf. Here the force of gravity struggles with that of surface tension striving to keep the water molecules together. The addition of just a few more molecules to the liquid renders it unstable. The enlarged droplet begins to shudder, the surface tension is no longer able to hold the mass to the leaf and the whole thing falls.

'Everything Flows'

Everything is in a constant state of motion, from neutrinos to super-clusters. The earth itself is constantly moving, rotating around the sun once a year, and rotating on its own axis once a day. The sun, in turn, revolves on its axis once in 26 days and, together with all the other stars in our galaxy, travels once around the galaxy in 230 million years. It is probable that still larger structures (clusters of galaxies) also have some kind of overall rotational motion. This seems to be a characteristic of matter right down to the atomic level, where the atoms which make up molecules rotate about each other at varying rates. Inside the atom, electrons rotate around the nucleus at enormous speeds....

The essential point of dialectical thought is not that it is based on the idea of change and motion but that it views motion and change as phenomena based upon contradiction. Whereas traditional formal logic seeks to banish contradiction, dialectical thought embraces it. Contradiction is an essential feature of all being. It lies at the heart of matter itself. It is the source of all motion, change, life and development. The dialectical law which expresses this idea is the law of the unity and interpenetration of opposites.... [Woods and Grant Reason in Revolt (1995), pp.64-68; pp.45-47.]

The first can be found here:

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion10.htm

http://www.gnostic.org/kybalionhtm/kybalion9.htm

The second here:

http://www.marxist.com/rircontents.htm

Or, did I get these the wrong way round?

[More details here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-7-14.htm#Essay Fourteen]

*Bob The Builder* · #2 25th June 2006, 15:53

So they're both either true or untrue? I don't get what point you're making.

Dyst · #3 25th June 2006, 15:58

I think Rosa thinks they are both gibberish.

She tries to redicule dialectics by showing how equal it is to hermeticism.

Monty Cantsin · #4 25th June 2006, 16:03

What did you think about all thoses physicists who compare modern theories of the universe to eastern mysticisms like taoism with it's dialectical monism?

Rosa Lichtenstein · #5 25th June 2006, 18:08

Z:

Quote:

So they're both either true or untrue? I don't get what point you're making.

They are both mystics.

[They are both far too confused even to be described as false.]

Quote:

What did you think about all those physicists who compare modern theories of the universe to eastern mysticisms like taoism with it's dialectical monism?

Not a lot.

It's all part of the ruling ideas that always rule, and have done of thousands of years, in all modes of production (expressed in different idioms in each), and across the planet.

The fact that some scientists go in for it merely shows how widespread this genre is.

In Quantum Mechanics this is not surprising, since, as even Lenin noted, modern Physics has largely capitulated to Idealism.

hoopla · #6 26th June 2006, 18:20

Rosa: I find it strange that you have no problem with, linguistic analysis.

It can be said, that linguistic analysis does not allow for critique, as there is no recognition of the larger context speech acts occur in, much like most current "rationality".

Linguistic analysis can only lead to academic controversy.

Its also a bit authoritarian to e.g. state that philosophy musy not intefere with the use of words. Or, in your particular case, that so much of philosophy is idealism and as such false.

So, its just "one-dimensional" philosophy.

It can also be said that its not the mystical which mystifies now, but rationality, or more precisely incomplete rationality - rationality isolated from context.

BurnTheOliveTree · #7 26th June 2006, 19:53

Well, they both fried my brain on sight. Still, I have to agree that it shouldn't matter how they are worded. Although you could make the point that this makes them so confused they aren't worth bothering with... Oh, I don't know. I'll be an un-decided.

-Alex

**NoXion** · #8 26th June 2006, 20:34

The difference between them is that mystical hermiticism uses less grandiose and puffed-up language in order to cover up it's philosophical vacuity.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #9 26th June 2006, 23:24

Noxion; as usual you manage to say, in about 1% of the space I usually take, all that needs saying!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Burn: they are both valueless (at least to us materialists).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hoopla:

Quote:

Rosa: I find it strange that you have no problem with, linguistic analysis.

Where did you get that strange idea from?

It depends on the analysis.

Quote:

It can be said, that linguistic analysis does not allow for critique, as there is no recognition of the larger context speech acts occur in, much like most current "rationality".

Well, I think you are trying to say. in your own sweet way (forgive me if I adopt your strategy for a minute and try to impose on you what I think you are saying!), that we should analyse language historically.

I whole-heartedly agree with this Marxist approach.

The more the better (that is partly why I rejected 'determinism').

Quote:

Linguistic analysis can only lead to academic controversy

Says who?

[It can lead to clarity.]

Quote:

It's also a bit authoritarian to e.g. state that philosophy must not interfere with the use of words.

Those are not my thoughts, so you should not direct them at me.

[They are of course a paraphrase of Wittgenstein -- and he put things slightly differently.]

[In fact, even if they were my words, they would be eminently anti-authoritarian -- it is a view that is opposed to philosophers telling us what our words 'really' mean.]

Quote:

So, its just "one-dimensional" philosophy.

Well, I do not know what the 'it' here is, but the sort of analysis I go in for spells the death of the subject; so if anything, it is zero-dimensional.

[And good riddance.]

Quote:

It can also be said that its not the mystical which mystifies now, but rationality, or more precisely incomplete rationality - rationality isolated from context.

True -- but only by someone who has drunk too much beer.

*Bob The Builder* · #10 27th June 2006, 00:27

Posted by Rosa:

Quote:

Well, I do not know what the 'it' here is, but the sort of analysis I go in for spells the death of the subject

What does that mean, exactly; could you elaborate?

Rosa Lichtenstein · #11 27th June 2006, 00:49

Well, it depends on what Hoopla meant by 'it'.

But the sort of 'philosophy' I go in for is aimed at killing-off this parasitic 'discipline'.

My analysis sees all Philosophy as a ruling-class form of thought, and based on an attempt to derive a priori truths from the alleged meaning of a few carefully-selected words.

Check out the determinism thread where I elaborate some more.

[It is based on things Marx said in the German Ideology, but more particularly on Wittgenstein's work.]

BurnTheOliveTree · #12 28th June 2006, 19:05

QUOTE
It can also be said that its not the mystical which mystifies now, but rationality, or more precisely incomplete rationality - rationality isolated from context.

True -- but only by someone who has drunk too much beer.

Oh, my.

That is precious.

-Alex

hoopla · #13 6th July 2006, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein@Jun 26 2006, 10:50 PM
an attempt to derive a priori truths from the alleged meaning of a few carefully-selected words.

What about attempting to derive a priori truths from phenomena as they are given 8)

Quote:

See if you can tell which of these is the greater mystic

I am finding, having read a few pages of hermeneutics, a similarity between interpreting texts and the dialectic!

Could it just be because dialectics is, also, a method of interpretation, or at least the related (?) concept of explanation. Could it even be because hermeneutics involves change, esp change from psychical acts

What exactly is the issue with mysticism, why are these tools mystical? Because they don't measure things, they rely on a certain amount of intuition? Isn't this just scientism - everything must be understood with the methods of natural science?

What exactly do you mean by "mystical" when the rhetoric has been taken away.

Rosa Lichtenstein · #14 6th July 2006, 03:29

Hoop:

Quote:

What about attempting to derive a priori truths from phenomena as they are given 8)

Well, if these alleged 'phenomena' were propositional, and true, to boot, you might be able to do that (but I would classify such 'truths' as nonsensical).

Otherwise not.

But, who wants to stare at 'true', token indicative sentences? Speaking for myself, I'd rather watch my toenails grow.

Quote:

I am finding, having read a few pages of hermeneutics, a similarity between interpreting texts and the dialectic!
Could it just be because dialectics is, also, a method of interpretation, or at least the related (?) concept of explanation. Could it even be because hermeneutics involves change, esp change from psychical acts

Hermeneutics and hermeticism are not the same.

So I think you have got this muddled up.

Quote:

What exactly is the issue with mysticism, why are these tools mystical? Because they don't measure things, they rely on a certain amount of intuition? Isn't this just scientism - everything must be understood with the methods of natural science?

What exactly do you mean by "mystical" when the rhetoric has been taken away.

No rhetoric, I am merely following Marx when he said there was rational core to Hegel, once you have stripped away the mystical shell.

Except, I claim it is mystical all the way down.

[In fact, I go further, and claim (with I think no little evidence to back me up -- see my site) that all traditional philosophy is mystical, since it attempts to derive a priori truths from a few words -- as you saw above -- implying that reality is linguistic, hence mind, and that the human mind can link up with this 'cosmic' mind by thought alone.]

hoopla · #15 6th July 2006, 03:35

Sorry, I didn't even read the piece.

I did wonder why evryone was mis-spelling hermeneutics (sp?) so badly, but did not expect a discussion on heremticism iyswim.

I had to study hermes. Didn't it help push along science a bit?

Quote:

But, who wants to stare at 'true', token indicative sentences? Speaking for myself, I'd rather watch my toenails grow.

Tbh I find it more interesting than listening to people insult each other

(Seems to pass for philosophy here)

Quote:

implying that reality is linguistic, hence mind, and that the human mind can link up with this 'cosmic' mind by thought alone

So how do we link up to reality?

hoopla · #16 6th July 2006, 03:40

Quote:

since it attempts to derive a priori truths from a few words -- as you saw above

Why does this imply reality is linguistic? Which essay is this, all of them?

Rosa Lichtenstein · #17 6th July 2006, 03:54

Hoop:

Quote:

Why does this imply reality is linguistic? Which essay is this, all of them?

This was actually the one idea I found the hardest to work out myself (I sort of felt it was correct, but could not account for it -- I think I can now), and this is not surprising since, until Wittgenstein's work, our ability to spot this age-old error was nigh on impossible.

It is not easy to explain in a single thread, but it is now very late; I will try to say something tomorrow.

OK?

I outline the argument in several places at my site, but the best places to look are here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2...-3-10.htm#Essay Two

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

Especially the second of these.

hoopla · #18 6th July 2006, 03:54

Quote:

I am merely following Marx when he said there was rational core to Hegel

In what way was Hegel mystical?

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor · #19 6th July 2006, 04:34

Rosa, I can see why you criticize dialectical materialism, but I am curious as the the context of your criticism. You say dialectical materialism is mystic? I might be inclined to believe dialectical materialism has flaws, along with a limited applicability to modern day situations. Where you accuse it of mysticism is beyond me. During the time it was invented, philosophy was about finding universal methods of analyze things that explain everything. If we compare mysticism and the philosophical circles of the time we can say:

A. Both religions and secular philosophies attempted to explain things in all encompassing manners. They sought to create single, unifying theories.
B. Religion based its unified theories on faith while secular philosophies attempted to use reason.
C. The similarities of religion and secular philosophies of Marx's time we similiar in A - not B. However, B is the root of what most people would consider mysticism.

Finally, modern philosophy is skeptical of theories that are unified or applicable to all circumstances. Therefore, criticisms of religion are popular in modern philosophy while criticisms of universal theories are becoming more prevalent - rather than just criticisms of faith.

The philosophy of our time has moved forward, but I hardly think dialectical materialism deserves to be considered mysticism. If you are using the word more liberally than I am, I would certainly appreciate it if you could elaborate the context by which you use it.

Shredder · #20 6th July 2006, 09:57

Spot the difference? I'll play.

The first discusses esoterical meaningless concepts like 'vibrations' and 'energy' in a non-scientific context. These concepts are not abstracted from from observations in reality, but are asserted from the outset and it is prophecied that one day people will realize the truth about it.

The second one discusses certain classifications of phenomena found in reality, such as phase transitions.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
G-Spot	Entrails Konfetti	Sciences and Environment	26	7th April 2007 16:16
Tight spot	RevMARKSman	Theory	7	10th June 2006 23:15
Spot on Head	RedAnarchist	Trashcan	13	29th March 2005 23:26
The Spot	Comrade Marcel	Politics	1	4th November 2003 05:10
Spot Update	Comrade Marcel	Practice & Propaganda	0	19th October 2003 16:18