This is a test. In the Lima. It's taught. That God is concealed. In many. Ways. I don't exactly know how to phrase this. God inherently is unknowable. It is a substance, something that is beyond all. The experience. In a sense, it can be described as pure experience. The most experienced, experienced thing that can possibly happen. That doesn't make sense. In fact, most of the ways that the limit describes God don't really make sense. And there's a reason for this. Words and language do not have the. Ability or the power to describe some of these things. They get broken thanks to that. Well, the descriptions get broken thanks to the. What does it even mean for something to be the most experienced experienced thing or something like that? And really, it's just a hint to the nature of what it is Crowley or other limits are talking about. It's a type of experience that goes beyond what anybody alive today would call experience, and it's not something that we could describe because language is founded on the experiences that we have. If the experiences we have are not enough to be classified as an experienced beyond experience, why would language also be able to explain it? We'd need a language. Based on these transcendental experience. Notice the word transcendental in this context. It implies something that exists beyond what typically is accessible. This is a comment theme and Dalima and occultism general, that you're dealing with things that are transcendental, things that are beyond what the typical human being is able to experience. Most people, when they read things described in this fashion, start to think that people are talking spiritual ideas or or of some other real substance, or of some other worldly force or power or dimension or any other thousand things that imply that there is something. I don't know almost magical about the situation or the description. But that's just not true in my opinion. It talks about moving in a direction. Mentally that most people don't even realize as possible. Psychology studies are starting to realize that vivid imagination or not imagination, but just. What is it? Visualization techniques are really good for relaxation and even for. Other things and and therapy and stuff like that. But being able to explicitly visualize something in your mind goes beyond the type of. Process that gives rise to language and analytical thought and stuff like that. Visualization techniques are useful for relaxation and healing and and stuff like that because of the fact that when you're able to bypass the abstracts, tenuous dimensions of thinking that most people are stuck in. You get to create pathways or take advantage of pathways in novel and unique ways that the brain is never had to experience or ever in physical reality. That might not sound like it makes any sense, but I can give a concrete example of what I'm talking about. Most people, when they're out of nature, have this sense of relaxation or beauty or something when they stop to really take in their surroundings. If I were to really focus on that sensation, the experience of it, everything that goes into that experience, the sounds of the trees rustling, the way that the sun shines on the grass, the way that you know, the trees are moving back and forth with the wind, every single thing that I can hold in my mind. When I remember this pleasant sensation. If I then take this and think about it, when I'm sitting in the bathtub and I imagine that that sensation exists, quote UN quote, in a part of my body, maybe a muscle that I know is extremely tense or has been hurting for a couple days. I start. To have my brain, just how do I put this? The same pathways that got activated that inevitably led to that relaxing, beautiful connection and feeling with nature are going to get activated when I'm thinking about this muscle group. All of the neural machinery that goes into having both of these things activate at the same time, by the way that the brain actually works. Meaning that this technique isn't, you know, bogus Like, I'm just taking advantage of how the brain is designed to work and wire itself. It's something called Heaven's law. There's this idea though, and this is where it comes from, a cultism that with repeated practice and with direct, intense visualization of the quote UN quote experience, or feeling behind that experience, the more powerful these kinds of techniques become. If you're able to, in your mind, really fundamentally feel and focus on the sensation that your muscle has, even if it's painful, but then simultaneously call this entire relaxing excuse me? But that simultaneously call this really profound, relaxing experience. Almost both of them existing at the same time in your brain. Your brain has to struggle with choosing between either feeling relaxed or feeling this muscle problem. It's going to pick one of the two and you get to decide which of the two that it picks. But because of the fact that you forced your brain to have both of these concepts or experiences exist. And that your brain also had no choice but to encode the fact that you are picking one over the other. You are intentionally wiring it hard, wiring this into your brain that when you think about this pain, you're also going to think about this relaxation. And that's why visualization is so powerful. Whenever a cultists in the Lima talk about these transcendental kinds of experiences, this is the class of things that they are talking about. They are not thinking at a level that is tenuous or I don't want to say abstract. Maybe abstract's not the right word, but they're not thinking in terms of. I, I don't even know, like that's the hard part. So I guess I should start over and describe something else. The reason it's hard for me to say abstract in this sense because some people develop abstractions like language and they never go beyond them. Some abstractions. Are more useful than others. Inherently, the process of having both of these things in your mind, the pain of your muscle and this relaxing outside experience combined together creates a type of abstraction in the brain. They have nothing in common, but you're tricking your brain into believing that they do by forcing them both to exist at the same time over and over again through the visualization technique. And once your brain believes that it is the same fundamental thing, it's the definition of an abstraction, something that contains the properties of both, or describes the properties or something like that. The important thing is, this abstraction is all that I need to activate anymore once it exists. If all I do is find a way to tell my brain to activate this abstraction, I get all of the benefits of the visualization technique without having to do the visualization technique. That's just the way that the brain works. So a cultist described these transcendental types of experiences and these transcendental describes it. Types of experiences are quote UN quote more abstract than what most people experience. So this is where the confusion comes in. Language is more abstract than most experiences that people have, and I'm trying to say that these transcendental types of experiences are more abstract than language. But that to get to these transcendental types of experiences, you have to have a very direct focus, fundamental visualization of experience itself, raw experience. There's a contradiction in what I'm saying. To resolve this contradiction, you have to think about the fact that I am creating an abstraction. I am creating an abstraction that is not based on anything other than what I am choosing it to be based on. Language has rules and restrictions and all kinds of things applied to it, and that's why it's useful. But these don't make it as abstract as what it might seem. These make it concrete. They make it more real in the sense that they have to be based on something, and they're based on the reality around this. That's why. Language feels so real. It's based in reality. So whenever we say transcendental types of experiences, we means the one. We mean the ones that are created that go beyond the abstraction level that language exists at, stuff that isn't based on physical reality in any shape or form. The reason why our visualization techniques fall into this category of transcendental experience is because there was nothing physically real that will ever cause me to have an outside. How do I put this this There's nothing physically real will ever create that in my brain, this pain. In my shoulder and this experience, like those two concepts of relaxation and pain don't just happen together. It's possible for it too. And this is where language is already starting to breakdown. Because I'm not talking about the act of experiencing both at the same time. I'm talking about the fact that you specifically chose which one of these two experiences in your own mind are more important and created that abstraction of your own volition. You didn't create it just by association, you did it with an act of will, and that's why it becomes transcendental. Raw experience gives rise to the ego and thought and language. You are using thought and language, maybe not language but thought and ego to intentionally create an abstraction and by this nature it becomes higher in the quote UN quote hierarchy. It's beyond languages ability to describe because it's already tied to things that are necessary to have an ego to begin with. Or well, I don't know. I I'm really struggling to phrase this or to pin this down. The difficulty I'm experiencing is the reason why a cultist describe it the way that they do, as it being transcendental, as it being inherently unknowable. It's why they describe God as being concealed. That God exists on a fundamental level, and that level is inherently unknowable. But that he exposes, or he or she exposes themselves through multiple veils, or he contracts himself or. All kinds of things that imply this idea of being covered, covered by something else. Just like language, language covers the experiences that motivated. That language, or the thing that motivated the artist to pin down the poem, is not adequately expressed by the language itself. And in that sense it's a covering, it's a veil. It it doesn't fully transmit the intention. And in this same way, all things contain God. They just conceal Him. They're all manifestations of God, but they all conceal Him. At this point it starts to maybe become obvious that. What God may actually be, fundamentally, is the hierarchy of abstraction. That God is omnipotent and Omni powerful and all of these things. Because God is the most general thing that can exist. He is generality. There is nothing more general than what God may or may not be. Meaning as you continue to make abstractions and you abstract continuously, which can be thought of as a way of generalizing, you come closer and closer to God. Some abstractions are more useful than others. And this is where the idea of multiple layers of God's creation or multiple worlds that Philly mights may or may not believe in. As you traverse the Middle Pillar and travel up the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, you're said to pass through a series of worlds where things become more quote UN quote archetypal. Art types are abstractions, but they are abstractions that are given a special name just because they're fundamental to the human experience. The language that is used and the metaphorical descriptions of traveling through the tree and interacting with the quote UN quote beings that exist in these worlds are intentional. They're intentionally religious because we're trying to transmit this idea that. It's something beyond the mortal realm of experience. It is transcendental. And it just so happens that the human mind has a inherent appreciation for God as being transcendental. Everything that has come about to try and describe God has only acted to conceal him more in a very roundabout way. And that's because it's very hard to understand what people meant when they use these terms and languages and stuff like that. Phil Limites fundamentally believe that you have to experience God. It's not something you can describe, it's only knowable through direct, personal experience. And I think I believe in this. I, I think all of the verbal descriptions or metaphors or allegories that have been used to describe what God is or what God does. Our only so that people can start to begin on the path to having that personal experience. However. I think that because language is tied to physical reality and it's so embedded in everything that we do, people have this idea that language is all that is necessary to know something. When a cultists used terms like archetypal reality as you go quote UN quote higher into the world's of God or into the mystery of God. They're trying to hint to the people reading that it's something you do. Immensely in an abstraction. Overtime, the word God, the word religion, the word Angel, Archangel, all of these things have come to mean something physically real. And that's because people don't have the capacity always to do what is being described or to see what is being described. In this is well known. Actually, in occultism, it's pretty well known that it takes a long time for a lot of this stuff to even really make sense to you. It's known that you're going to have multiple. Quote UN quote rebirths and deaths in the process where you realize everything you thought you knew is not how it really was. And this has never hidden in the way that God is described either in a lot of occultic or at least as far as talima goes. Like I said, God is unknowable, God is concealed. Every time you uncover a new layer, you've realized that what you said before was nothing more than just a. Ill fitted description. Some people, however, note, never go past the original conceptions that they have. And This is why a cultist to describe the general population as the profane. That's why they say that they have to keep the truth secret so that the general population can't profane them. Think about this. Is that once? A sublime way or a very general slash abstract way of describing some of the stuff occultism or occultists are doing comes about and it's even somewhat powerful or somewhat efficient in what it's trying to do, which is just describe the experience and and. Help other people do the same thing. Once this type of thing enters into the world, there are people that are going to take it and start to do the opposite. Instead of using it to go higher and and to make more abstract things, they start using it to go the opposite direction and start come up with concrete theories as to what this may or may not mean. To them in their life. Once you start to theorize about the general, or you start to use the general abstract facts. To go down, it becomes a lot harder and harder for other people to take it seriously, to make their way back to what was once abstract. Because all you're teaching people to do at that point is to continue in the wrong direction, to head in the direction of materialism. And this is where we start to get to the most interesting part of this entire conversation. It's always been associated in religion that materialism is bad and that the opposite is good. Spiritualism, I guess, in this sense. But these terms have come to take inherently materialistic interpretations over the years. We believe the spiritual realm is another dimension where similar things happen that we do in our physical lives, that spirits take on shapes and forms and. We model these things on the things that already exist physically. We have convinced ourselves. That all of these terms described or that are used in like the Bible and stuff. Are still inherently based on a materialistic worldview or philosophy or that you know what I mean? Like I I'm struggling to put this into words but. And there's no reason to think that what people meant when they said spirit even had this idea of a form or a shape it there. There's no reason for that. We've just done it. We've created it that way. And that's why we've made it profane. That's why it's become a bad thing. Materialism originally meant in this sense. OR was originally intended to be used as a way of saying quit trying to make things more concrete, quit trying to go down towards the raw experience that we have. It's not going to work, and it's not really what the point is. It's also a metaphor for describing the fact that it just so happens that abstractions are not material, and they never will be. The physical universe is raw experience, at least as far as or the closest thing to it that we can get to. Now I know this sounds confusing because I implied that the word experienced experience is something that's not something I should have said. I'm sorry. What I really mean is that once you experience something, it immediately becomes abstract when it enters into the brain. There is no way to prevent this from happening. It is a symbol the moment you are conscious of it. And even before then, it is symbolic in your unconscious brain. There is no such thing as raw experience and I don't think people will ever be able to have it. The closest you can get is whatever your brain turned it into. And this is where the power of everything occultists believing comes at. You cannot get to the raw experience itself, you could only get to what it is the moment it enters into your brain. But if you can manipulate what it is that your brain is doing when that experience enters it, you can turn it into whatever you want to. You can reinterpret anything to mean whatever you want it to. This is why abstraction and generalization is useful. If you start to head away from this idea of raw experience, which raw experiences grounded in the physical universe, you head in a direction that allows you to redefine what raw experience means to you. It does not really physically mean anything for me to have. Pain in my neck and birds chirping associated together. There's no reason, or really good reason really for that to happen other than just I wanted it to. I'm taking advantage of something that my brain and Physiology do when I imagine brains are birds chirping to help get rid of the pain in my neck, to help let my neck muscles relax. But if I started to physically believe that birds chirping had something to do with my neck muscle relaxing, I would slowly convince myself that there is some force or some. Invisible thing that transferred energy from the birds. Or maybe the the birds have some kind of vibration that make my neck vibrator. You see the danger in it. I start to believe in things, I start to attribute a materialistic viewpoint to it, I start to base it on my raw physical experience and I start to be misled. There shouldn't be a reason for it other than doing that. Having those two things be abstracted in my brain allows me to take advantage of something I physiologically do. It's natural for being outside and hearing birds in nature to calm you down. So if I have that abstraction and I use that abstraction, I take advantage of the fact that that natural thing, that natural machinery in my brain for relaxation. Is associated with my neck pain and I don't have to think about it anymore. I take the visualization and I make it unconscious, and that's the true power of abstraction. We're talking about very. Hard to say things. And they would say that these are sublime topics, transcendental topics, because it's really hard for two people to, to, to come to a good agreement as to what it is we're talking about. There are a class of abstractions that you can experience that you can actually manipulate, but not ones that you will ever be able to describe with words. You could come to appreciate them. You can come to have a knowledge of them, but you will never come to tell another person about them. And that's because they exist at levels beyond language. I keep saying that there are levels of abstraction, and it's the same thing that occultists are talking about when they say that there are different worlds, that there's archetypal beings, that there are transcendental feelings. That's what I mean by levels of extraction. Which brings us to the central tenets of Falima. Do what thou wilt. Crowley spent a lot of time trying to define concepts that magic and the will, and ultimately he defined magic as the art and science of causing change to occur in conformity with the will. Would you read that you immediately think like the first thing that pops up into your head is some physical change? But Crowley has spent a lot of time throughout his entire writings and teachings and everything that he did. Really hammering down that he wants to talk about the spiritual will, that he is not talking about a physical thing, he is talking about a spiritual thing. He is talking about spiritual change, transcendental change. Magic is causing a spiritual change to occur in conformity with the will. And when we say spiritual, we have to go back to this really hard to describe thing. I'm mentioning with with this, it's not something you base on any raw experience. It's that you can't, you will just misunderstand it entirely. You can only base it on other things, higher experiences. Things that you can't explain whatsoever. And that you shouldn't try to have a physical way of explaining either you you're you're understanding out of. It shouldn't be based on anything physical whatsoever because it's not a physical thing. In my case, it's causing change to occur by forcing two things in my mind to coexist that naturally would never have coexisted, and to create an abstraction based on that. That's a spiritual working. I am changing myself spiritually. Yes, I'm basing it on physical phenomenon, but I don't believe I or I'm not trying to cause a physical change, I'm trying to. Force my brain to inherently associate the two things so that whenever I realize my neck is hurting, I immediately think about stress relief, Right? Like that's what I'm doing, it's nothing physical. It just so happens that there's a physical process that occurs in the brain because we're based on neurology, but that's not even what I'm thinking of when I do it. It is physically meaningless to say that if. There are birds chirping every time I think about my neck muscle hurting, that there are birds that exist in my muscle or something like that. And trying to describe it in that way is the same, is the same thing as trying to describe materialism is being bad and spiritualism is being good. It doesn't really do anything for what I'm trying to say. It doesn't really. Give the meaning whatsoever that. That it's a. It's a visualization technique. Just like how saying God is in all things is a way of getting at what we're describing. It's a way of saying that the potential of God or or the fact that God is so general implies that if you start with any concrete experience and work your way up, you'd reach the idea or the essence of God. It the saying God isn't all things does not communicate. That properly because it makes it too easy for somebody to hear that and think that God is a little being that exists inside of an object or that God. Is it could, you know, when I was a kid, I would interpret that as meaning that, you know, anything on the planet would just randomly transform into God one day. And that's what that meant like, or I thought about it in the sense of like I said, God's so small that he's at the center of an object. We'll just never see it with a microscope and. I'm basing it on something physically real, no matter how you interpret it. I'm trying to fit it into the terminology of physically existing phenomenon. The definition that Crowley put forth from magic cannot have this. It cannot. Be conceptualized in such a physical way. Crowley also talked a lot about astral travel and the body of light. He said it was probably the most important thing that any the limite or occultist would ever do in their practice. And he describes it at first as a type of double that you create in your mind. And that it looks just like you. And that you. Physically transfer your conscious to it and you stare at yourself and all of these things. But. He never tries to argue about what it is or what it means. In fact, Crowley went at length and I believe it was either liver ABA or liver O about the fact that you shouldn't try to believe it. You shouldn't even try to argue or defend it or justify it. You just need to do it. And it's because of everything I've said so far, he was very cautious against assigning, quote UN quote physical validity to any of the things that he described. And that's exactly what I'm trying to say here. Crowley just didn't go as in depth into it. He tried to keep it very short and simple. But he picked that up in my theory of all of this, that he picked it up in the Golden Dawn. I think the Golden Dawn did the same thing where they evaluated people learning their quote UN quote, curriculum based on whether they were able to figure that part out, whether they were able to figure out that none of this is. Based on any physically existing thing. That's a bit of an ace side, but it's important because it it, it does it elucidate what I'm trying to get at, which is it's. It's it's known in in a cultism, it's known that anytime you try to describe it to another person, you have to use language. And language is rooted in physical interpretations of reality. You cannot adequately describe it without tinging it in the very thing that you're trying to get away from. Right. If language is based on physical reality, and you're describing a process that is intentionally moving in the opposite direction of that, but you have to use language to describe it. No matter what you do, it's going to come across as a physical thing and it's very easy for people to see it as a physical thing. That's why it's often said in occultism that it takes a very intelligent person to really understand what is being said. That's because an intelligent person may have the capacity, or just out of sheer luck, have the brainpower to figure out that there are contradictions in it, and that the contradictions are the most important part of the teachings. Where there are contradictions, there are opportunities to realize that the contradictions are a limitation of the. I guess vehicle of describing the experiences right they the contradictions help to point out where the concealed information is. Is is too great to be contained within language. And also it requires a lot of referential study between multiple different, seemingly unrelated ideas to come to a lot of these conclusions. It's really hard to spend a lot of your time. In my case, I spent probably almost seven years studying Thelema and Kabbalah just to realize none of it is what you thought it was. I I had to go and learn all kinds of **** and AI before I really found out that Kabala wasn't spiritual or. That I really understood what physical or you know, what it meant for something to be material before all of these things really made sense to me. AI ended up helping just because it's a really, really direct way of understanding what an abstraction is, the way that these models work. And once you understand what an abstraction means to a neural network, it doesn't mean anything different for her. Rains. So it must imply that a lot of these things are not physical. I had my entire spirituality broken down whenever I had this interpretation of abstractions, and it just became so easy at that point to realize there needs to be no physical objective validity to anything talked about in occultism for it to be useful, as long as it's something that you can abstract and hold. Within your mind, it could have a use to you. That's why occultism is spiritual. It explores things that really don't matter, whether they are physically necessary or useful at all. And to that extent, it's entirely ********. And it's important that people understand this. It's important that in cultism does not need to make sense and it does not need to even be intelligent or rationally sound like it doesn't need to have all of these qualities. All that needs to happen is that someone is able to internalize one of the abstractions that are being described with the limited tools that we have to describe them and explore whether that's useful or not. That's all that's necessary. Psychology is realizing that the visualization aspect of occultism is very useful, but they're not exactly sure why, because we don't have an appreciation for what's an abstraction is or these, these. Like I said, the language that we use is so embedded in physical validity and materialism that. It's really hard for us as a species to communicate and understand why or vision or imagination is so powerful, or why visualization is so powerful. It's because they're rooted in the opposite direction. There are things that only become powerful when you let go of the physical validity of what it is you're imagining. I started to talk about the body of light, and that was important. Maybe I didn't fully explore that. The reason why Crowley thought it was one of the most important things you can do is because it's the first time people really are introduced to the idea that you don't need to be, you don't need to have. The rocks experience of something. To obtain the necessary neural wiring for it. It also allows people to put themselves in the kind of visualization place that I, I just described with my neck and you know, my relaxation outside experience. They start to intuitively do stuff like this if they have the body of light. Crowley introduces it in terms of materialism. It's a form that you take. It's it's a thing that looks like you and that holds your consciousness and that you can use it to look at yourself and travel anywhere you want to. That's how he describes it, because it's extremely hard to describe it any better for most people. And Crowley wanted to to introduce a lot of these techniques to the general public. I am spending almost 30 minutes to an hour just trying to describe what he meant, and really I'm only talking about maybe five or six paragraphs out of all of the books that he's written. Like my entire 7-8 something paragraph. Conversation here is really just to follow up on four or five things or, or, you know, sentences that he said that he just had to say that way he had to put them in the terms of materialism because it's not possible for most people to get outside of that. It was his opinion that introducing it this way would allow people to eventually come to the conclusions that he had or eventually realized that the the power in it is the fact that there's no physical validity behind it. Eventually you come up with concepts if you start to take this practice seriously, and you start to try to do the visualization techniques that embody so much you cannot describe it. I've been saying this a lot, but it's it's just something you'll have to take my word for it. I I can't describe it. Crowley tried to represent these concepts with gods. He used Egyptian gods a lot of the time in his system. He would use the names of God to describe the things that he was trying to get at because he couldn't use language. At all to do it, and instead it was in his opinion better to just allow other people to use whatever they understand those gods to be at that point. Yet. Not through language. He implies severely that you need to have a direct experience for what that God is. It's not something you know, it's something you you have a direct experience with. And that's why it's easy for a lot of people to to think he's talking about physically real things. You will never physically experience a God, therefore, therefore the only experience you can have with it must be at a level that's beyond physical. And unless you're able to do that, or you've ever been able to experience it, you won't understand most of what he's talking about after the 1st and 2nd introductory books. Or, you know, Libra and Liber O, you won't even understand most of what a Liber Al Vel ledges to talking about, even though it's what he wanted the whole world to read it. Was basically his equivalent of the Bible. Which is a mistake that he made. And I don't understand why he thought, you know, it was so easy for people to read it and understand, but whatever. And this is nothing new. Crowley's not the first person to think about this. In fact, I believe the Jewish people were the first to really start to hammer down this idea. All of these concepts are deeply rooted in Jewish Kabbalah, this idea of God, this idea of multiple layers of concealment that God has veiled, that God is. You know, inherently unknowable, like it's all rooted in Jewish mythology or not mythology, but theology. And in my opinion, I'm not a theologist, I'm not a psychologist, but I believe that a lot of it was rooted in a lot of the Egyptian theology as well at the time that this was. Stopping the Egyptians kind of believed as well and. They just kind of intermingled throughout the years, especially in the time of like Moses and stuff like that. I wish I could go and explain it better, but. Religion is used when describing this. Because people for some reason have this inherent. Personification of of reality people personify forces as as things and that's because we. I, I've talked about this before. I, I wish I could go more into it. I'll have to there's another book or or or post or whatever that I talk about this in, but. The central idea is that something that happens to you more than likely occurred because another person did it to you. That's how we grow as social beings. We've developed this social machinery to have that understanding. It's not that farfetched have been believed that since having that knowledge is so crucial to our survival and is what accelerators, accelerators to the top of the food chain, it stands to reason. That it's far more important to your brain that if anything were to happen to you, you'd probably be more inclined to interpret it as a person doing it to you. And therefore it's extremely easy to personify things like death and, and the God of reign and the God of, you know what I mean? Like it's extremely easy to personify these things because there are things that are happening. To you and we have such a crazy ability to think about when other people are interacting with this. Meaning that there is an inherent bias in the human brain to create people whenever we think about experiences. It's not always there, but it does exist, and I think a lot of religion takes advantage of that to describe some really complicated stuff with this bias. And that's why we have this idea of God and multiple gods. But I also think that because it's so fundamental to the human experience and because we're creatures, social creatures. That it's just as useful to describe some of the more abstract and transcendental things that I'm talking about. Obviously it's been used to describe something that is not of this material world god is just a word that at in the past meant potential. They talk a lot about how children have in are the closest to God and that cleanliness is next to, well, not not cleaning my bed. I don't know why I said that., which makes sense. It's been used to imply that there is a separation between what? We are. It implies that it's not something you will experience mortally, and once you have a profound and true appreciation for what it means for something to be physical or material like I've been trying to describe, you'll start to understand that you cannot use your physical intuitions to describe it, even if a lot of people have. And that's what's caused us to have such a interesting outlook on religion. And that I think the early Hebrews or the early Kabbalist, they, they realize this, they started realizing this and they started using all of these ideas of God to explain this and, and to, to get there. It's also not crazy for them to have this idea or this definition of God that basically is the same thing as saying unlimited potential or infinite potential. Having that definition of God fits in very well if you understand what it means to have infinite potential. It also makes sense from the perspective of them saying or this universal idea that children are close to God. But that's because we inherently also believe in children's having a lot of potential and infinite potential. We say that children have a future just just until they reach a certain age and stuff like that, like. There is this bias in our brains that exists fundamentally just by existing as mammals, by existing as humans, that lead us to these conclusions. And whether that's a definition that people have of God today and whether it was a real one, it's a damn good one if you're trying to think about all of this occultism stuff. It's one of the most useful definitions of God I've ever had for really wrapping my head around all of this stuff I've been talking about so far. And it ties in with this idea of abstraction. I've mentioned that once, you go away from creating more abstract things. You start going into this idea of concrete or specific things that occur, and being specific means you're not general. The most general thing is something that could describe everything. Think about a theory of everything in physics. It would explain everything. You don't need to use any other formula. I don't need to know the specific equation of Newton's laws of gravity. If I had a theory of everything, I could. Use the theory of everything. It wouldn't be easy, but I could use it. I don't need anything else. And that means it's general. But that also means that the potential for everything that exists in the universe is contained within that formula, and that's a hard thing for some people to understand. Because they are basing it on their physical intuition. Still, I'm not saying that the universe is inside of this formula. Again, were thinking about things in terms of size and shape and it's the same thing as saying God is in all things. It's not some little guy in the center of like your textbook or something, no. Like. But it does. At the same time it it makes sense when I say that people will still get some kind of understanding when I say that it's just based on their physical experience. And that's the problem. The potential of the universe exists inside of a theory of everything as a single mathematical structure. But that doesn't have any physical meaning. And that's what I mean. That's that's what I'm getting at whenever I say a true appreciation of the word potential. And God as infinite potential makes sense that all things or all things are in God, and God is in all things. Here's another way to think about what I'm saying. I want you to imagine for a second that you're a mathematician. Your Isaac Newton when you saw the apple fall from the tree. The first question you might ask yourself is why did it fall? I meant that's a basic thing to ask if you're really paying attention to it. What reason does it have to go down instead of go up? And there's no real answer to that. He didn't have an answer to that. But he based on, I guess based on thinking about it, he eventually realized that it doesn't matter if there's an answer to that question. If I just say that there's a reason it goes down and that there's a quantity behind that, I can do calculations and he derived a formula. What's really interesting, and not a lot of people think about this, is. The formula does not say anything whatsoever about the experience that Newton had seeing the apple fall to the ground. You don't even think about that most of the time. When you see the the formula of universal gravitation, it it kind of does for some people. Just because it's so taught in school, but you don't immediately just always think of shift falling when you see the formula. You think of some weird idea of of a pull or a force and most of the time. And This is why it's an abstraction. It's an abstraction over Isaac Newton's very specific experience, and there is reason in thinking that all of the experience, every single photon that went to his eyeballs, every single sound that he heard when that thing was happening, every single feeling. The wind, all of it in a sense, is contained within this formula. That is hard for some people to understand, again, because they're they're trying to think about that physically when there isn't a physical way to appreciate it. But if we keep going. There are other things that you could do. He can use this formula now to start answering specific questions about specific things. How fast does it take for or how long does it take for an apple to go from some height to another? And that's a specific situation he can use the formula to calculate but. Just looking at the formula gives a lot of people this intuition, this idea of how other things will behave and I. I don't know how to describe that kind of intuition, but it's the same intuition that Crowley's talking about, by the way. It is the same thing. That's why he said it takes a very intelligent person and a well trained mind usually to figure out what he's talking about. It's not because you have to be smart to do it. It's because for some reason there's a class of intelligence where this kind of intuition. Comes easier to some people, and that's entirely by luck. That's just unfair that some people have that. But he's not suggesting that it's impossible for everybody to figure it out. There are other examples of of mathematical formula coming from direct experience. And what I'm trying to point out is that these formula are based on that experience. Meaning that they're based on physical things, that they are materialistic inherently. And they are expected to eventually come to a most abstract general form, a grand unified field theory or a unified or a theory of everything or whatever you want to call it, that eventually they come to this point where they don't progress any further. Because there's nothing else for it to explain. Gravity is but one of the many things that people can experience, so it stands to reason that it's just going to be one of the many formulas you could use to explain what's happening around you. But there is. A good reason to believe you can combine all of these formulas into a single one that describes everything, and that that's what we mean by an abstraction over of physical abstraction or or whatever. OK, so we have this idea of an abstraction about physical reality. What if we have an abstraction based on things that aren't physically real and we take them all the way up to their quote UN quote endpoints? We take them as far as we can take them. What are they going to look like? What are they do for us? And the truth is there's this idea that. Once you start to include stuff in your abstraction, or you include stuff in the domain of whatever it is, you're going to start extracting scientists and include the domain of physical experience into their abstractions. Occultists include the domain of things that aren't even physically real, and they try to create abstractions based on that. This is what we mean by getting closer to God. I mean, it's not what we mean by it, but it's why a cultist believe that they will go closer to God than scientists will. Because they are using more material to create abstractions with deeper abstractions, abstractions that aren't limited by physical validity, and based on that, they'll go much higher in the levels of abstraction. And this also implies this idea that God is what happens if you take all of the experience that's possible to have. All of the experience that could ever, ever exist, whether it's physically real or not, and you try to abstract it to its ultimate point, its most general form, and that's God. But that to do this you need to have an infinite amount of things. And does that make sense, right? Like for God to be infinite in potential? It has to have an infinite amount of things to create that kind of abstraction way up there in the tree. Or I say tree. But again, tree of life, I'm, I'm describing this in a in a sense of a computer science tree. Go look up a picture of what a tree looks like in computer science. That's the way that I'm envisioning it right now. But it's just as valid to talk about the tree of life in this sense. It's describing this same thing. You're going up to a more and more abstract state. I should also point out. That. You remove the materialism from an abstraction. The more that you take it higher up in the tree, it inherently gets removed because the stuff that we experience physically is. Almost random. It's it's got a lot of noise. It has a lot of stuff in it that isn't truly necessary to some of the concepts we're trying to come up with. Here's an example of this. I don't need to listen to every single frequency or every single harmonic or, or however you want to interpret it. The basic quantum or focusable elements of a, of an experience of sound. I don't need all of it if I'm just trying to hear what you're trying to tell me, I can focus on just the things that you're telling me and I. Ignore everything else. But the act of ignoring something is only possible because we do this type of abstract filtering or abstractions. Inherently, going up the tree removes the materialistic. Random fluctuations, or however you want to describe it at that point that contributed to the original derivation of that concept. It's almost like they cancel each other out. There's this. There's a way of describing how do I put this? It's the same idea as the intuition behind taking an average of a data set. You want to find a straight line that describes a general movement and that is more predictive than if you tried to do some other stuff. It's the same thing with your brain. It's creating these averages of the raw experiences, and the abstractions are basically just those averages. And mathematically, this is very true. This is exactly why I brought up AI earlier. The mathematics of neural networks kind of implied this kind of. Intuition of abstraction. You remove the random fluctuations that occur whenever you have raw experience because they cancel each other out. I can see a cat's in such a wide variety of places and if you consider the fact that each pixel. In your eyeball, there's over 8,000,000 something quote UN quote pixels that. Want to to think about this as a a kind of a technological perspective and each of those pixels. They're not always correct, they're not always in the right state. They aren't 100% correct. There's a probability that they're going to be wrong from time to time. Meaning that you can see the same cat in the same exact spot at the same exact time and just one of them be wrong and because of that you have a. A statistical difference in your data set, and that creates the average and the abstractions not going to have the difference, it's just going to have what was the same, right? Likewise, I can see the same cats, but in multiple different places. Maybe it's my cat and I take it with me and your brain cancels out all of the quote UN quote randomness associated with it. It doesn't matter that I saw the cat in a different place, what matters is that that's my cat. And that's the abstraction that is created. It's not associated with the material aspect of it, the raw experience. But a cat in and of itself is a material construct. What I mean by that is that a cat is only created from a physical set of rules that are more or less arbitrary. There's no reason for them to be the way that they are at that's how physicists are starting to understand the universe. There's just 12 fundamental constants of reality that just so happened to be what they are. For your cat to exist. And you just so happen to have these things called eyeballs that let you see this cat. But. The abstraction of what a cat is goes beyond just the eyeballs. It includes sound. It includes touch. It includes sometimes, you know, smelling a cat too, right? Like it includes all of these things because they more or less can exist every time you see the cat at the same time. But the cat itself is a physical construct because it's based on the same rules that all physical things are, and that also is inherent in the abstractions that you create. Those aren't random. The same way that your eyes are like. I say random for your eyeballs because there's no guarantee you'll ever see your cat in the same exact configuration, the same exact time every time you see your cat. It's not going to happen, but you will have the same exact fundamental constants with every single class of experience, raw experience that you have. Because that's just the the, the, the, the hand that we've been dealt. That's just what happened. That's the universe we live in. There's no reason for it, but that's just what it is. And everything has to follow those rules. Meaning every abstraction that you have fundamentally is attached to this until you start to understand you can create abstractions of your own. And still you start to follow some of the practices set out in a cultism. And then you get to talk about things like, uh. What is it? Somebody Darna and somebody in? Meditative Practices. And Crowley talked about these as well. He tried to describe Darna as a kind of sensation where you are focusing on a thing. In and of itself, right? The thing itself, without any. I don't know any external. Resources. It's a really hard thing to describe, but. You have fundamentally removed it from the raw experience completely when you think about it in this sense. And then there's a step beyond that where you even remove the conceptual difference of it being something outside of your own, you know what I mean? Like that's another barrier that's gone at the same time. And it's. Just an abstraction. I'm just gonna go. I hate saying this word at this point, but let's go back to it. It's the same thing as what I started this conversation with. You imagine something. You visualize an object through meditation to the point that when you think about it, it doesn't mean anything anymore. There is no physical anything and that's kind of what Darna is. That's what Crowley is trying to explain when he says that you, you just, it's, it's the object itself and that's it. There's nothing else. You understand it for what it is of its own. Peculiar properties and that's it. It's an abstraction of itself, detached from any of the other physical things that you try to use to describe it. And it's a type of experience that you will probably never be able to describe. Crowley couldn't describe it. They we've had thousands of authors and meditation try to describe it. They can't describe it. Like I said, language is based on this physical, physical construct of reality, and you have this experience that removes that physical construct. Of course you can't buck and describe it with language. But whatever. There is only one other abstraction left to overcome at that point, and that's the abstraction of yourself. The only thing that you cannot remove through Darna is the perception that you yourself are experiencing these things. But if you start to have both of them, and those are the only two things at that point that are left, you're awareness of yourself and your awareness of this object or this abstract thing detached from all physical reality. Then you can create the same thing as the visualization technique in the in the beginning did you through the use of your willpower. Associate the two things and they become quote UN quote generalized, even though they really have ******* nothing to do with each other but because you've made them generalized. You experience something that is beyond either of them. You experience something that is a combination of the two, and Crowley could not describe this adequately enough. The only thing he could say is that the the, the object and the. The object and subject unite. It's the only thing he could really say for Darna. It's maybe it's maybe I have this out of order. Maybe. Maybe I'm missing a step, and I really apologize if I'm using the wrong terminology, but that's generally the idea. Crowley describes some very interesting things that you can do once you've developed these kinds of abstractions. Then he's not the only one to to make it sound like it's. Some kind of extremely powerful thing. Our. The writings of the past have commonly described the thing that happens to you once you've had this type of experience as you gain power over whatever it was you were meditating on. Uh, for exam. If you sit and meditate on an elephant, you'll you'll gain the ability to, I don't know, like in some, some cases they talked about not being moved or to to have as much firm or whatever. Like you get the point like. And I don't quite understand why that's how they described it. But if you reinterpret what they're saying in the sense that I have tried to outline here with this definition of all of this terminology in the way I'm providing it. You can kind of get what they're trying to describe a little bit. You gain the power of that object not because you it's some physical power that's the problem. These are not physical things. You cannot use physical validity to describe it. Rather, you gain power of that thing because it has become a fundamental. Associative constant with your perception, Your the the thing that you perceive yourself to be. You've created an abstraction that combines. You as something that is aware of what's happening to you and this thing without any physical anything associated with it. And yeah, maybe something physical could be associated with it, whatever, it doesn't matter. But the point is that you've combined these two things. You have an appreciation of it, a direct experience of it that nobody else has, and there is something very useful about that. The other benefit to it is once you come out of the trance and you reuse re embed all of the the. But whatever you come out of the trance and you start to reassociate the thing that you're meditating on with the physical intuitions behind it, you have a direct. Connection like it's a direct, almost as if you yourself are the are are the forces mediating it because you have made that kind of unification at that highest level. And that's why it's called a spiritual thing. That's why it's powerful and it conveys powers and stuff like that.