“If you’re not including the immaterial in your view of the world then you’re missing something very important.”
buff.ly/34fpAHt buff.ly/34fpeR9
Conversation
What exactly are we talking about with the term “immaterial?” I see a big window to introduce concepts that are going to end up as distractions rather than adequate pointers.
1
2
Just started listening to the conversation, so I can't yet clarify. I don't get the sense that he's referring to your valid concern about the use of the term--which I share. I'm taking it as a provocative invitation into the perspective of an intriguing writer who is new to me.
1
1
Clue (1): "I much prefer the approach of Alan Moore and Steve Moore in which magic is understood as something that takes place in the immaterial mental world, and which is a tool with which you can produce worthwhile things, in particular, creative works." bit.ly/30LUAgr
2
1
I’d read that as referring to the personal subconscious & the power of intention. The association of self-realization w/“magic” is ubiquitous, and probably helpful if you’re marketing yourself as a teacher, but I see little direct connection between “magic” and attentional skill.
1
Whaaaaat?
What the fuck kind of magic doesn't rely on deliberate concentration and control of attention?
(P.S. I don't actually consider magic by itself anything to do with realization - more an orthogonal use of the same skillset.)
I think you can work to make them converge, but based off the track record of whacky Westerners and Vajrayana, I'd say better not mix and match.
1
True, everything requires attention, but attention is more or less taken on a ride by imagination, while meditation requires both attending to attending as well as attending to not attending.
1
Dumb question Jody, and I have struggled with this a bit. Every successful person has achieved something because of imagination, right? So limited imagination = limited success?
3
1
Show replies