Public Service is my Motto.
- Nov 2, 2017
- Reaction score
No apology necessary, but I appreciate the courtesy! AP and I wouldn't be having this discussion on a public forum if we weren't interested in others jumping in on it. Interesting stuff about the science behind literal alchemy and its economic implications--although I wouldn't have much at all to add to it myself.
I totally agree and concur. That goes for anyone else who wants to chime in. The more the merrier imo.
Well damn, preach it, homie! :thrash: I've intuited this approximately in my studies, but I genuinely appreciate you taking the time to make this distinction, I've never really heard it articulated as such and it makes perfect sense. I could always tell comparing symbols without a control-method of somekind (i.e. evolutionary psychology in this case) was dangerous and pseudo-intellectual, and that this is the ultimate downfall of the New Age--but like I said, you made the whole concept very scholastic, no intuition necessary. Great stuff
LOL, and here I was worried that it was all as clear as mud.
In my chapter on the Divination Arts i said this"...unless someone is looking for a traditional deck with widespread use for easier comprehension (such as the Rider-Waite Tarot deck, which is considered a classic), it is beneficial for an individual to acquire a tarot deck that is based on symbolism that they feel naturally inclined to. Tarot symbolism can be recognized in all occult philosophy whether history shows the literal cards in the culture or not, and as a result, tarot has been developed for essentially all surviving schools of genuine occult philosophy, whether they be Egyptian, Norse, or Tibetan, et cetera. The only thing needed for a logical creation of a new tarot deck that represents the classical methods would be: equivalencies between the new symbolism and the classical symbolism. Beyond this, nothing is theoretically stopping a tarot deck from being 'compatible'. "
I understand what you are suggesting here. If someone really likes a certain series of symbols then they might want to make a Tarot deck out of them using the principles of correspondence. On the other hand, I personally would always opt for the most true-to-tradition model available. For example, if I cast the I-ching, I would use yarrow stalks, not coin flips by preference. Then again I have a history/anthro/psych background, so historico-cultural authenticity is probably my preferred symbol set.
From an intuitive perspective, I could see how this could be possible when I wrote it. But after your words, I see now that this could be done accurately--theoretically--but room for error in such a detailed analysis is far too great and can become intellectually dangerous. Thankfully, I can say that I have been diligent about this differentiation throughout my research, but in the case of that quote, I think I'll be taking it out of the final printing. Many thank yous!
Glad to be of service. I have certainly found your insights worth learning from so I'm happy it is mutual.
Whoa hold on. Care to elaborate a bit more? This is a part of history that remains yet unexplored to me! I know of the psychoanalytic fascination with the I Ching but nothing about its relationship to binary number theory.
Okay, so the primary protagonist in the story is Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz, who is an extrordinary intellect. Liebniz and Newton are famous rivals for having invented the Calculus (though it was actually Archimedes who did it first, but his work was subsequently lost and only showed up recently in the palimpset of a prayer book). Anyhow, Liebniz is, like many people, very interested in the Far East, but unlike most, as one of the foremost scholars of his day, he is taken seriously. He is receiving letters from Jesuit Missionaries in China. As a result, he gets a copy of the Book of Changes (I-ching) and does an early translation into German.
Of course this leads to a certain fascination in how an open or broken line, representing zero or one, can potentially be turned into longer and longer digits and numbers, and how any number can potentially be represented by a series of zeroes and ones. That is how binary numbers come to the Western World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_number.
This in turn translates to machine logic, as when zero becomes "off" and one becomes "on" suddenly you can create very complex mathematically controlled sequences of machine processes. From this we create "programmes" for weaving looms where patterns can be embroidered onto cloth by switching threads on and off in controlled sequences. The same becomes true of automata with their use of cams (as distinct to cogs, incidentally, cams have an amusing history too). Computer memory thus starts as punched wooden slats, then turns into waxed paper reels, then punched cards, then becomes electronic as waves in mercury tubes, and then to magnetic tape and so on, until we have our present incarnation of multi terrabyte memory storages. Each one is essentially a way of storing ones and zeroes in complex sequences known as algorithms.
Now some people have said that the I-Ching was the source of the Binary number system and that it prefigured modern computing. This is wrong. The I-Ching was a system of divination that happened to use a system of binary numbers, but it didn't understand any of the implications of the binary number system. It was Liebniz who first understood what binary numbers could do, but he nearly took the whole thing down a fresh rabbit hole of irrelevance when he linked the numbers to theism (lol, number of gods... Theism=1, Atheism=0?) that would have confused the issue. In any case, the fact is that the use of binary numbers is certainly important to our present technology.
Well I guess this post is just gonna be a bunch of praise for you because your droppin gems on me right now. I hadn't yet thought of the self-fulfilling prophecy of the gods and gambling, but again it only makes sense. that is very Jungian of you.
I declare these truthes to be self evident, lol...
We certainly agree overall about Peterson. On climate change, I have been keeping an eye out for someone whose brain I can pick on this subject. Firstly, I am fairly uneducated on climate science. The extent of my knowledge comes ancient astronomy, the Procession of the Equinoxes, etc. Yuga cycles included. So it makes sense to me that the earth goes through natural climate fluctuations as its tilt towards the sun changes over time. This makes sense to me as an explanation for climate change, but I am uneducated beyond this. I would also agree that all the pollution across the board is disastrous to the ecosystem. From smog to Trash Island to Fukushima, shit is fucked up. But is the green-house-effect really causing the earth to get warmer? I would appreciate your insight after your lengthy research. I understand you probably can't lay it all out here, but an encapsulation perhaps
The argument is really complicated and I won't be able to do it justice in summary, as I have 2 huge folders of notes on the matter that may soon turn into 3 folders (they're bulging). You probably remember back in 1997 there was a huge meeting in the world to discuss the destructive effects of chloroflurocarbons and hydroflurocarbons on the ozone layer? It was ultimately a success story, as everyone could see the potentially disasterous effects, and so there have been an increasing number of treaties including the Montreal Protocol (1987), the Kyoto Protocol (1992), and in 2007 every nation committed to getting rid of the chemicals from use, and replaced them with better alternatives. It was a success story of global cooperation. Unsarcastic yay!
The problem is that the same meteorologists who discovered the depletion of the Ozone layer also discovered that the increases of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere from various sources such as transport and industry and other human and even non-human sources (some CO2 seeps out from pockets underground, but not much in the scheme of things).
The double threat we faced with ozone depletion and CO2 increase was that the Ozone layers are weakest over the North and South poles, and that is exactly where the highest concentration of the microscopic plankton that turns CO2 into oxygen was, and they were being killed by the increased intensity of UV rays due to ozone depletion. The lungs of the world were effectively being burned. We stopped ozone depletion to a fair degree, and the ozone layer is slowly recuperating. What we haven't stopped is the CO2 production.
The great problem with CO2 is that it is very effective at trapping heat in our atmosphere, and that heat is just straight up energy looking for a release. That means that the heat generates high winds that become cyclones. Those cyclones also lash our landmasses increasing the rate of erosion (plus the billions of dollars worth of property damage).
The next thing to point out is that mostly the temperature differences are apparent at night. Nightime temperatures around the world are getting higher due to the effect of CO2. It is also worth pointing out that our cities generate walls of heat that affect the overall weather patterns in unusual ways, quite apart from CO2, i.e. just from being bare concrete reflecting sunlight... but the CO2 emissions help. All of this is leaving energy in the atmosphere. I could get into the effect on the poles, and how if they melt there will be a knock-on disaster with the patterns of the ocean, but that is increasingly speculative.
What we can say without doubt is that there is enough plastic in the ocean to cover the state of Texas to a depth of 1 foot, and that was all made by people, and it all generated CO2. Concrete is worse. Now the Earth does have the means of radiating heat into space, or storing it in the earth and oceans and controlling its temperature at a comparatively stable level, but increases of CO2 production sabotage that, as they reduce its efficiency of energy transfer. There is some hope in that as CO2 increases, plants will grow faster and larger, and plants store carbon, but we are chopping plants down faster than they can grow and using fossil fuels to do it.
Now don't take this as total gospel, for this is largely rattled off the top of my head from memory, and while I am not trying to be misleading, some information may be superceded by now. I have actually had a bit of a lesson on the issue by a ninety year old meteorologist who maintains that the issue has been common knowledge in his field since the 1950s, but swept under the rug, or ignored by business owners and politicians who wanted to maintain a status quo that was all about status and ultimately not about quo. Since then I have also done an intensive research period on the issue, as I often do on subjects that interest me or I feel I need to understand better.