In a sense, anything that can be talked about or imagines is empirical, as it is part of your experience-perception. Something that is not talked or not imagined is then truly transcendental.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Crowley had a witty quote about the absurdity of supernatural/natural causes. He even states 4 different ways to interpret magickal experiences throughout his works (something about what angels or demons could be), kind of pointing to the conclusion that it doesn’t really matter how you describe things once you, most importantly, experience them.
Misha also frequently quotes RAW about some propositions being valid, wrong, meaningless depending on contest.
Really simple stuff if you think about.
I think that where all that jazz about spiritual enlightenment being a very simple, perhaps to simple revelation come from, like kids or old dudes gardening their roses understand life much better than adults.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Crowley and RAW were top-tier players.

So, even-though they are not scientists or philosophers in an academic way, it is always interesting to read them.

I bet Crowley and RAW discussed this problem on multiple occasions, but I'm not sure exactly where.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Yes, this is an interesting philosophical problem.

Indeed, almost everything we can talk about
has some empirical representation.
For example, numbers can be represented as digital
sequences or as heaps of pebbles.

But there is still some nuance here. For example,
the ideas of numbers are not justified solely by
observations of heaps of pebbles. But the idea of orgon
is largely justified by particular observations of Reich.

The same happens with modern physics, which kind of drifted
from largely observational science to something very rational
and formula-based.

(Reply to this) (Parent)