Page 2 of 2

Re: Research and Intuition

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:26 pm
by Kenazis
RaktaZoci wrote: I was thinking about this during the day and I realised the point of view changes depending on what is seen as science. There is a huge amount of different types of knowledge that are categorized under sciences compartment. I see science as work that is done by 'the scientist' (I realize this can and will also have numerous possibilities of being (mis)understood), who works in a clinical laboratory enviroment which is very ascetic and cold. Being a part, just a wheel, in the huge machinery.

Maybe this can explain my view a bit?
Yeah, it clarifies your view (to me at least). My interest to science is greater on the fields where the thinking and mental-processes are in big role, than on the fields of study where you must use clinical laboratory environment and the different scientific equipments are the main thing.

Re: Research and Intuition

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:29 pm
by Kenazis
Thinking what I just wrote, maybe my interest is much more on the theoretical side of science than empirical and practical?

Re: Research and Intuition

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:27 am
by Jiva
Nefastos wrote:When I was beginning my occult studies, I had an intense longing for the occult research in a tedious, almost academical manner, & had I found Qabbalah - or some other deep plus exact tradition of occultism - by then, it would have made be extremely happy. For some mystical reason I didn't, but spent those years in study of (mostly) theosophy, reading the classics like Blavatsky & Ervast over & over again, spending my life thinking about every possible detail, cloistering at home with just a few social contacts, &c. (I said mystical & I mean it, for this created a foundation for my work that couldn't have been done in other ways without affecting the later course intensely.)

That partial isolation & extreme focusing of thought lead me eventually to a point where every thing became in my experience a part of a huge intellectual patter. That was when I lived the manasic period (years 14-21) so the process was unhindered by realized intuition that came later. But I went through it so fanatically & at the end confronted the world as a completely intellectual model that it was being living in that Asura hell the Tibetan Book of the Dead so aptly describes: every breath, every move became something that was perceived intellectually, that is, registered & analyzed - & a human mind can't (nor should) live like that. There are things that fall under the threshold of waking mind into the subconscious for a reason. The experience collapsed eventually & formed the basis of the intuitional thinking I'm using today, but it left after it a strong disdain for all kind of formal, non-intuitive rationality. Undergoing that change (from kâma-manasic to buddhi-manasic focus) also destroyed much of how my memory works; I practically learned to unlearn, & as a side effect, things that I don't really care about just don't stick anymore. In part I'm grateful for that, but for the academic study I have to do a little bit nowadays that's not helping.
You mentioned this to me when I was in Finland but without the context. It sounds like it was quite a dramatic change. I think I had something similar – although maybe not as drastic – when I was obsessed with Nietzsche, which wasn't alleviated until I finally discovered Jung. It was only after this that all the stuff that I'd read regarding philosophy and mythology began to fit together, although this was itself the start of my occult studies.
Nefastos wrote:So, one percent of perspiration (research) & ninety nine of inspiration (intuition) would be what I'd choose, had I that luxury. For the data bank for that intuition to work has been collected already - a part that can't be neglected.

I suppose I view the ideal balance as a simple 50/50 split. Making time for stuff outside of academic research is sometimes a challenge as I find it much harder; after all, I've had 10+ years of learning how to do academic research. It's always tempting to say: “well, even if I'm not attempting something artistic or whatever, I'm at least doing something, that makes it better, right?”
Nefastos wrote:Pure intuition without anything tangible to work with can't do anything in this world of shapes & events.
Indeed, I think some is necessary too. Otherwise I think one might end up like some of the schizophrenics Jung describes. Capable of great perception but with nothing to ground it on.

Re: Research and Intuition

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:23 pm
by Heith
RaktaZoci wrote:I see science as cold and uncompassionate.
I view it completely differently. I understand what you mean though- some scientific things can be boring to me, if I don't understand them or if they are subjects that don't interest me. Others, extremely fascinating. Still, I wouldn't describe them as cold. Just a language I do not necessarily understand.

I think scientists are actually very passionate people. I would think they have to be given the nature of their work. They must have a passion for their subject of study, because the work is so demanding who the hell could put themselves through that if it didn't fill their lives with meaning. I remember once watching a documentary of biologists who went to Madagascar (?) because they were convinced there must be a certain kind of moth that would be able to pollinate a very deep orchid flower that only grows there. No one had ever seen this moth, and I think it was Darwin's idea that it must exist because this flower exists (people laughed at him for this). So they went there to find proof, and sat in the midst of mosquitos and mud for weeks, filming this flower every night. Then finally the moth came, and the men started to cry and hug each other, whooping and laughing hysterically- it was so endearing, and pretty far from cold :)

I often find myself reading academic papers that side the esoteric subjects that interest me. Simply because I crave for that information. For example, Runes or Norse Mythology. I've had hours of fun (and equally, hours of despair when the text is difficult to comprehend) reading some academic papers on the Norse subjects, for example. In this kind of things I often find the intuitive stuff written by others almost always unsatisfactory. I also think scientific research is really exciting (well not all of it, for example math I have no interest towards). Sometimes when I read my little books I sit there and think if possibly out there somewhere is an old text that changes my understanding of a mythological principle is just waiting to be found and the thought fills me with happiness. And every time archaeologists uncover a new heathen site, or other interesting thing my heart beats a little bit faster. Perhaps there the key will be found that unlocks another level of understanding.

I can't say that my approach would qualify as scientific, because I am not a scientist nor do I have academic background. But if a subject interests me, I will turn all stones to learn more about it. In these situations, science often gives the most well-documented options. This I think is also because there are certain rules as to how academic papers are to be written, so the format is always more or less similar. It's also fascinating to read studies from different eras and see what kind of thinking or expressing is "acceptable" or in fashion at the time. So from this one can weave an overview of the subject.

But certainly my way of doing is more intuitive than scientific. I have great respect for academics, because it seems like a lot of hard work. Also, most of my favorite writers on the subject of shamanism / nordic things are academics.

Re: Research and Intuition

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:16 pm
by Wyrmfang
I think the relation between scientific and occult research should be approached a bit differently. Occultism is basically precisely that which is not within the range of scientific research; it concerns subjective experiences and highly intuitive ways of thought that cannot be shared as such in an open discursive way. What is common to all various sciences is instead the requirement to share socially the data, methods and results in a study. Everyone has to be able to conceive it approximately the same way, given that one has ordinary intellectual capacities and the required knowledge of the field in question. Reading scientific articles or doing systematic study in occultism is not scientific. Or of course one can also make scientific study of occultism, but then it´s not occultism as such. Occultism is a religious/existential worldview, science (ideally) instead is neutral concerning one´s worldview.

It is a grave mistake to confuse subjective certitude of religion/occultism/morality/aesthetics and the objective certainty of sciences. In our present culture there is a tendency to conceive the latter as somehow higher than the former, and this concerns also religious people. It´s not rare that those who generally disregard science use scientific studies to justify their views. And this is often highly illegitimate, since one study, even a well-conducted study, is usually not yet worth much. It is the democratic social practice of science as a whole which in long timelines approaches truth (unless one is an extreme epistemic relativist). One should not think that science can proof/disproof things that are categorically outside science, and if one seeks indirect justification for his/her views from science, the subjective background assumptions should be explicitly addressed.

I think the original question was more about the relation of systematicity and intuition in occult study. I strongly favor intuition, although it´s hard to distinguish between the two as intuition always sets to some solid framework.

Re: Research and Intuition

Posted: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:07 am
by Nokkonen
In my own life, research and intuition go hand-in-hand and always have. I've never been a purely intellectual person, perhaps because a lot of my thinking happens in flashes of images that don't easily lend themselves to words, writing being the academic way of conveying ideas. Nevertheless, I did my time in the academia and are familiar with that quite formal way of thinking. Also, I'm still very much interested in following some chosen, mostly qualitative fields, like cognitive study of religion, anthropology (to lesser degree nowadays), and the like, and they also inform my worldview to a great extent.
Jiva wrote: As people might have noticed, I predominantly tend to take an academic approach and actively research things, which accordingly influences whatever I practice. The major exception to this is tarot, which I have steadfastly refused to research in an academic fashion.
I love this! Do you think, Jiva, that it has been beneficial for you to go against your basic tendencies in this way?

In regard to my occult studies, I very much try to strike a balance between study and experimental and intuitive approach because, in my view, it doesn't really help to study a great deal if there's no experimental experience that often comes through intuition. I mean, it doesn't matter if you can recite the LBR in its full if you can't feel the energy at your fingertips. Then there's also the question of whether you ever will, because perhaps the ritual doesn't really work? That has to be an option too.

Then again, reading and study are very important because that's how one finds ideas that compel and ring true. I guess that due to my personal psychological makeup, intuition an non-linear+vague thinking have always been a major influence in my life. Perhaps I would benefit from doing counter-Jivas and start rigorously studying some aspect of the occult without really perhaps even attempt to put it into practice? :)

Re: Research and Intuition

Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2015 10:11 pm
by Jiva
Nokkonen wrote:
Jiva wrote: As people might have noticed, I predominantly tend to take an academic approach and actively research things, which accordingly influences whatever I practice. The major exception to this is tarot, which I have steadfastly refused to research in an academic fashion.
I love this! Do you think, Jiva, that it has been beneficial for you to go against your basic tendencies in this way?
Yeah, from my perspective I think it’s basically essential to break out of my comfort zone otherwise I’d simply end up doing whatever I enjoy most or whatever came naturally, which I don’t think is necessarily the most productive idea. “Satan”, after all, means “the accuser” or “the opposer” so, in my interpretation at least, I think challenge is healthy and productive.

In this case, the end result is that I almost certainly have a bizarre interpretation of tarot, but I’m not really so bothered by that, and perhaps this is the point anyway. Actually, things tend to work in very coincidental ways. For example, the last couple of weeks I’ve started properly working on editing The Adept where Johannes refers to The Magician as The Juggler. A few days after reading this I decided to start reading The Golem by Gustav Meyrink. Without any spoilers (although I haven’t finished the book yet), The Juggler is the card the protagonist identifies with and is something that is mentioned in some of the more dramatic scenes. The Hanged Man is also mentioned quite a lot, a card I’ve come to associate with Azazel in a vague way. As Meyrink was a Theosophist things are tied together quite well, so it’s far from nonsense, although I’m obviously not accepting everything as absolute truth, especially as he uses the golem itself as a literary device rather than as they are traditionally thought of.

Aside from actually reciting the seven daily hymns – which has a somewhat different emphasis – it’s only just occurred to me that my approach towards them is quite similar. There are numerous names mentioned and I’ve never specifically researched any of them. Some I knew already, some I’ve since happened to chance upon while reading, but others are still a mystery although I'm sure they'll unravel eventually.