Thelema and Skepticism

[amadan-De]

Indeed we are humbled by your magnificence oh great one......

"Mark well my words!" etc., is from Blake's Milton. It was something of an inside joke to people in the know.

We know.....
(and Urizen owes as much to Uranus as to the punning 'your Reason', and Blake was well aware what happened to him and why...).

It suddenly struck me how close the mechanics being espoused are to those laid out here: http://www.catholiccharismatic.us/ccc/articles/Mascarenhas/Mascarenhas_001.html
read as Divine Spirit = Fact, Diabolical Spirit = Fantasy, Human Spirit = learned/acquired 'bullshit' of greater or lesser Fact or Fantasy, and so forth - surprisingly little of the language has to be altered to show the commonality.  Of course I am simply being deluded by my fantastical bullshit but hey what else would one expect.

For the record I am in no way Catholic, Charismatic or otherwise - though I do have some sympathies with the Jesuitical approach to argument (shared with some Buddhists) requiring one to be able to propose either side with equal force.

Also this perhaps apposite quote might give something to chew on:

"For us, the falsity of a judgment is no objection to that judgment—that’s where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange. The question is the extent to which it makes demands on life, sustains life, maintains the species—perhaps even creates species. And we are even ready to assert that the falsest judgments (to which a priori synthetic judgments belong) are the most indispensable to us, that without our allowing logical fictions to count, without a way of measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world through numbers, human beings could not live—that if we managed to give up false judgments, it would amount to a renunciation of life, a denial of life."
--Nietszsche, Beyond Good And Evil

[Los]

(and Urizen owes as much to Uranus as to the punning 'your Reason', and Blake was well aware what happened to him and why...).

Yep. Also there's a hint of the word "horizon" (I think the Greek root is similar to Urizen), as if reason is the horizon of what man can see.

It suddenly struck me how close the mechanics being espoused are to those laid out here

You could take most spiritual systems and interpret them in ways that are in line with what I've been talking about. And it isn't surprising that most religions and cultures have their own terminology for dealing with the stuff I'm talking about, given the commonality of human experience.

Also this perhaps apposite quote might give something to chew on:

"For us, the falsity of a judgment is no objection to that judgment—that’s where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange. The question is the extent to which it makes demands on life, sustains life, maintains the species—perhaps even creates species. And we are even ready to assert that the falsest judgments (to which a priori synthetic judgments belong) are the most indispensable to us, that without our allowing logical fictions to count, without a way of measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world through numbers, human beings could not live—that if we managed to give up false judgments, it would amount to a renunciation of life, a denial of life."
--Nietszsche, Beyond Good And Evil

The problem is that Nietzsche is here talking about "fictions" in the sense that our ideas about reality don't perfectly encapsulate it -- he's not talking about believing in demons.

And even if he were, he'd be wrong.

[amadan-De]

Not only do our ideas about reality fail to perfectly encapsulate it (yours as well as mine) but our perception of reality* is also only partial and largely comprised of short-cuts and 'filling in' by the brain in real-time.

This is why visual illusions and sleight-of-hand magic work and why the view of a mountain 'in the flesh' is always more impressive than in a photo taken from the same place - we don't 'see' like a camera because the brain is quite prepared to play with the way that optical physics works.  This makes all these statements about reasoning and comparing based on observation somewhat more shaky at the foundation (and that is just considering the visual sphere).

*used as short-hand for 'that thing that we think we are in in an absolute way because it is where we seem to be based on a set of what we consider to be objective and absolute data because that is what they seem to be when judged by the criteria that we currently deem to demonstrate this...' etc. etc. etc.

Wiki say - The word horizon derives from the Greek "ὁρίζων κύκλος" (horizōn kyklos), "separating circle",[2] from the verb "ὁρίζω" (horizō), "to divide, to separate",[3] and that from "ὅρος" (oros), "boundary, landmark".  So the Urizen sound-alike actually means "to divide, seperate" which I think might echo something Azidonis said earlier...

[amadan-De]

I'm intrigued as to the correct skeptical approach as laid out here to the claim "I have a True Will".  Many 'rationalists' (a majority?) would consider this to be just as suspect as "I just met a real demon" or  "Reincarnation is real".

It's funny you should say that. I'm planning a post on that after I post up the next one that I finished typing earlier.

The short answer is that "True Will" is part of a model that we use to conceptualize the self for the purpose of reducing internal conflict. The true will is not a metaphysical "thing" or "force." It "exists" in the same way that we can say that Freud's idea of the ego or superego exists -- as part of a model of the self that we adopt for convenience.

The True Will is, basically, the course of action that comes "naturally" to you when you stop your mind (the part of you that says, "You should do X" or "You shouldn't do Y") from getting in the way. You can prove to yourself right now that there is such a thing by performing a meditation in which you shut down the action of your thinking mind and simply pay attention to your desires in the moment.

Thelema is aided by moral skepticism -- along with other forms of skepticism -- in exactly the way that I explained in the introductory post, which you should read.

Surely everything that you seem happy to consider 'reality' is based on your experience of several perceptual processes* - all of which may not be what they seem to you.

But not just isolated experiences -- my idea of reality is based upon regular experience of a consistent reality since the time of my birth.
 
And it's not just my experience. My idea of reality is bolstered by others' accounts of regular experience of that consistent reality that operates according to regular rules.

And not just their experience. My idea of reality is bolstered by evidence that others have gathered that consistently reveals an entirely natural world that operates according to blind laws and in which there is not a trace of anything even remotely supernatural.

Over time, we build up an idea of the kinds of things that are real and the kinds of things that are not, and we continually test the models we use. It's not a matter of "consensus reality" -- which is a bullshit phrase when we're talking about the wacked-out claims under discussion here.

As I say, if this "magick" stuff actually worked in the ways that were claimed, you could demonstrate it very easily, under controlled conditions.

The fact is that you can't demonstrate it because it doesn't work.

Or is this skepticism resting on a set of assumptions about what 'reality' 'is'; a consensus 'rational' reality that may be as deeply flawed in its structure as it accuses any fancy of faery, demonology or akashic record of being?

No, skepticism rests upon the position that claims need to be supported by evidence before they can be accepted. We adopt this position because we desire to believe as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.

It's all in the introductory post, which I encourage you to read.

Now sure, you can say, "Oh, well what if we live in the Matrix, and it's all just an illusion?!" but that's more bullshit cop-out. Regardless of whether or not the world we experience is the Matrix, we *do* experience a reality that operates according to regular rules, and that's the reality I'm talking about...regardless of whether it is the "ultimately real world" or not.

You say that a fish can't see outside of its fishbowl, but what is the evidence that makes you think that we live in a "fishbowl" to begin with? What evidence convinces you that there is something more than the natural world?

Either you have compelling evidence, in which case we can examine it, or you just want to believe that there's more than the natural world, probably because it flatters the vanity of your Khu.

I failed to see that you had made an extended answer to this - the joy of edit..
Not going to deal with it now - hungry but...
model?  so we are not dealing with Fact but Theory?  Very different kettle of different fish.
If you don't get the 'fishbowl' image I can't really help - I don't suppose talking about pictures/frames would help much?
This Khu you claim I am flattering - where do I keep it exactly? or is it another 'model'?
I usually leave this area to my brother who is an alarmingly hard-line rational skeptic - I can just hear him go to work on; Khu, True Will, Thelema, "quasi-mystical cod-philosophy derived from the ramblings of a late-Victorian egotist and drug-addled fantasist", etc.  It would not be pretty (not saying it would be right either but you know the territory - you took us there  :wink: )

[Los]

Not only do our ideas about reality fail to perfectly encapsulate it (yours as well as mine) but our perception of reality* is also only partial and largely comprised of short-cuts and 'filling in' by the brain in real-time.

This is all true. Our perceptive faculties make all kinds of mistakes, which is why we have developed tools and techniques for correcting the errors of our senses.

But the fact that our senses aren't perfect in no way prevents us from evaluating claims, in exactly the manner I've been specifying, to the best of our ability.

Once again, the position I'm advocating has nothing to do with absolute certainty or perfect perception. We evaluate claims by determining to likelihood of their being true, to the best of our ability, based on the best evidence we have at the time, always subject to revision when new evidence arises.

If you think that this is beyond the capability of the average person, then I think you have some serious work to do.

[And just as a quick note, I often use "you" as a general pronoun, in the same way that I might use "one." In the sentence above, for example, I'm not talking specifically to "you" -- I'm saying that anyone who thinks that has serious work to do.

That I use the word "you" to create a conversational tone should not be interpreted by any parties as a personal attack of any kind, though I could see why people would get defensive when I am indeed attacking their cherished beliefs]

model? so we are not dealing with Fact but Theory? Very different kettle of different fish

You're going to just have to wait until the post is up, but the long and short of it is that True Will -- along with the elements of the Thelemic model of self, the Khabs and the Khu -- are labels that we put on parts of the self that we all routinely experience.

It probably seems hard to believe if you've always insisted on seeing True Will as something supernatural or "magical," but there's nothing remotely supernatural about any of the core concepts of Thelema. Similar ideas about the self can be found in other systems (someone -- I think it might have been you -- posted up an extract from a religion that he thought corresponded to what I've been saying), and I think it's reasonable to assume that lots of people have attained without ever hearing about any of this magick stuff.

[amadan-De]

OK.
Few points then I'm bailing.
Our perceptive faculties do not make mistakes - they operate fine in the way that they have evolved to operate in order to allow us (as a species) to interact with that which is not us and each other.  You are presuming an ideal, perfect system that you are measuring us against and finding us lacking.  We (as a species) have never been equiped with this 'perfect' perceptual system - look at what is there not what you think should be there.  What is there has worked for a long time and has allowed us considerable success as a species so it must have something going for it.

We evaluate claims by determining to likelihood of their being true, to the best of our ability, based on the best evidence we have at the time, always subject to revision when new evidence arises.

I'm a prehistoric archaeologist - this is precisely the methodology that we use if doing the job properly (please ignore all the certainty that TV programmes try to imply we have, that has more to do with the frankly stupidly low expectations that programme makers have of their audience).  The big difference between what we do and what you are saying is that, if smart, we do not propose only one model based on the (limited) evidence but as many 'stories' as possible including ones that involve the use of belief systems that we do not share or even find attractive.  To illustrate, a quote from A. Aveni (he's talking about archaeo-astronomy but the point is good across the board) “...these cultures built elegant systems for making the things they observed comprehensible -- not to us but to themselves.  Other peoples' motives for sky watching may tax our patience and require dredging up subjects that suit neither our tastes nor our prejudices.  But our failure to understand these motives will always be our loss.”

As for your response to my posting of the link to 'Discernment of Spirits';

You could take most spiritual systems and interpret them in ways that are in line with what I've been talking about. And it isn't surprising that most religions and cultures have their own terminology for dealing with the stuff I'm talking about, given the commonality of human experience.

 Interesting that you are so centred on your own idea that you fail to see that you have just said that it is part of a continuum of many possible ways of dealing with the same thing any of which might be more correct pending further evidence.  I'd suggest that you go re-read the piece, slowly, and trying not to import your prejudices (Yes, in a very similar way to meditating and removing the 'chatter' of your mind - where else do you think your pre-judgements live?)

Speaking of prejudices - it is getting very tired to have you consistently believe that everyone that disagrees with you must therefore be thinking that supernatural or magical explanations are correct.  I do not believe in either magic or the supernatural in the way you are using them, but that is not the same as ruling them out as possibilities.  At one point in your blog you make a parallel with what you are doing and the legal process - 'Innocent until proven guilty' etc.  Here again you are restricted by the limitations of your model.  I live in Scotland - by Scottish law a defendant can be found; 'Guilty'. 'Not Guilty' or 'Not Proven'.  This third option is for those circumstances where - at present - the weight of evidence is not sufficient to be conclusive for either other option.  This is precisely the position of many theories in my work - it simply means that 'we can't be sure' and are secure enough to admit it.

I've read all your blog posts and what I come away with is this.  It is no doubt very generous of you to be so concerned that some of your fellow men may be living in a stew of delusion that you set out to show them the error of their ways but I fail to see the point. I really doubt that their holding of these erroneous beliefs is negatively impacting on you in any measurable way other than annoying you when you think about them.  So, stop thinking about them.  You are obviously not stupid and have an interest in thinking about things and what they mean to you.  Why not carry out some original research into something (anything) and cast some light into dark corners.  Who knows you might find a way of demonstrating, conclusively, some of your points, or find out that your present position is not complete.  Who knows? (I certainly don't).  There is a great big 'reality' out there, bigger than any one of us can know so let's explore it rather than bitch about our neighbours annoying but harmless little habits.

Have fun.

[Los]

Our perceptive faculties do not make mistakes - they operate fine in the way that they have evolved to operate in order to allow us (as a species) to interact with that which is not us and each other.  You are presuming an ideal, perfect system that you are measuring us against and finding us lacking.  We (as a species) have never been equiped with this 'perfect' perceptual system - look at what is there not what you think should be there.  What is there has worked for a long time and has allowed us considerable success as a species so it must have something going for it.

I wasn't arguing that we should have "an ideal perfect system" of perception -- I was arguing that the fact that we don't have such a perfect system is no barrier to evaluating claims.

I think we're in agreement on this point, since you note that our system must have "something going for it" since it's given us such success.

I'm a prehistoric archaeologist - this is precisely the methodology that we use if doing the job properly (please ignore all the certainty that TV programmes try to imply we have, that has more to do with the frankly stupidly low expectations that programme makers have of their audience).  The big difference between what we do and what you are saying is that, if smart, we do not propose only one model based on the (limited) evidence but as many 'stories' as possible including ones that involve the use of belief systems that we do not share or even find attractive.  To illustrate, a quote from A. Aveni (he's talking about archaeo-astronomy but the point is good across the board) “...these cultures built elegant systems for making the things they observed comprehensible -- not to us but to themselves.  Other peoples' motives for sky watching may tax our patience and require dredging up subjects that suit neither our tastes nor our prejudices.  But our failure to understand these motives will always be our loss.”

Of course there's a big difference between our approaches -- you are involved in a profession that makes its best guesses about history and customs using limited evidence. And indeed, in such a circumstance, one may admit that the evidence suggests several possible "stories" that we're unable to judge between.

The case is entirely different when evaluating supernatural claims. Let's say that you acquire the "evidence" of observing yourself performing a magical working and then observing an apparent result following shortly thereafter.

There are a number of stories with which this evidence is consistent:
--Magick really does work in the way you think it does and the spirits have answered your prayers
--Magick actually works in a different way and it's really that we live in a giant Matrix and the ritual enables you to seize upon a glitch and bend the Matrix to your will.
--Magick doesn't work at all, and it was actually a passing group of aliens in a spacecraft observing you that decided to to make the result just because they like screwing with you.
--Magick doesn't work at all, and it was actually a passing leprechaun who decided to make the result happen just because he likes screwing with you.
--Magick actually works, but in a different way than you think, and it's really that an ancient tribal religion is correct, and your ritual prayer was answered by one of their dark gods.

Etc, etc., etc., etc.

We could go on and on and on and on inventing "stories" with which this evidence could conceivably be consistent.

The position of skepticism is that this evidence is insufficient to support any of these stories and -- as a result -- the "proper default position" is not to accept any of these claims as true.

There is, of course, another story we could propose: the evidence is nothing more than regular old confirmation bias, which we know happens all the time and which the observation of apparent magical results fits precisely.

I agree that we can't be "absolutely sure." We can't be absolutely sure about anything, so get rid of the idea of being absolutely sure. We're talking about likelihood here. Which of these stories is most likely, given everything that we currently know about the universe?

I'll give you a hint: it's the last one.

Speaking of prejudices - it is getting very tired to have you consistently believe that everyone that disagrees with you must therefore be thinking that supernatural or magical explanations are correct.  I do not believe in either magic or the supernatural in the way you are using them, but that is not the same as ruling them out as possibilities.

Again, I do not rule out magic or supernatural claims as theoretical possibilities. The fact is that I think there is insufficient evidence for anyone to accept them.

it simply means that 'we can't be sure' and are secure enough to admit it.

Again, I agree that it is impossible to have absolute certainty about most claims. My skepticism does not revolve around being "sure" that there is no magic. I merely do not think the evidence is sufficient for anyone to accept it.

I've read all your blog posts and what I come away with is this.  It is no doubt very generous of you to be so concerned that some of your fellow men may be living in a stew of delusion that you set out to show them the error of their ways but I fail to see the point. I really doubt that their holding of these erroneous beliefs is negatively impacting on you in any measurable way other than annoying you when you think about them.  So, stop thinking about them.  You are obviously not stupid and have an interest in thinking about things and what they mean to you.  Why not carry out some original research into something (anything) and cast some light into dark corners.  Who knows you might find a way of demonstrating, conclusively, some of your points, or find out that your present position is not complete.  Who knows? (I certainly don't).  There is a great big 'reality' out there, bigger than any one of us can know so let's explore it rather than bitch about our neighbours annoying but harmless little habits.

You misunderstand my efforts. You seem to think that I am seriously "concerned" that people believe stupid things and that I care about correcting their beliefs and that it "annoys" me that they believe such things.

The fact of the matter, however, is that I could care less what people believe, and I certainly don't think I'm about to change anyone's mind by writing a few sensible comments on a blog somewhere.

I write because I enjoy writing about the subjects under discussion, and I'm hoping that some readers find it enjoyable as well. I write because I want to show aspiring Thelemites that they don't have to turn off their critical thinking faculties to study the subject. And I write because it's fun.

That's really all there is to it. If believers want to respond to me, it gives me more fodder for future posts, but I don't expect them to respond -- mostly because they can't respond without falling back onto "Well, well, uh, we don't know everything do we? We can't be absolutely sure, right? I guess we just have to say we don't know...."

Anyway, it's been nice talking to you. If anyone else has any serious comments on the blog, I'll respond, but otherwise, happy reading.

[Azidonis]

I'm a prehistoric archaeologist

Of course there's a big difference between our approaches -- you are involved in a profession that makes its best guesses about history and customs using limited evidence. And indeed, in such a circumstance, one may admit that the evidence suggests several possible "stories" that we're unable to judge between. The case is entirely different when evaluating supernatural claims.

/facepalm

[amadan-De]

Thanks for that Azidonis.

I resisted.

[N.O.X]

--Magick actually works, but in a different way than you think, and it's really that an ancient tribal religion is correct, and your ritual prayer was answered by one of their dark gods.

Which of these stories is most likely, given everything that we currently know about the universe?

I'll give you a hint: it's the last one.

How is this most likely?  I'd never have thought I'd read such a statement coming from you...

[Camlion]

You know, some people just insist on accepting a very limited view of themselves and the Universe because it gives them the comfort of knowing that there are no further unanswered questions, that we can declare no further need to wonder or fret. Oddly enough, this worldview is that of the average Christian.

Others are on a journey of Self-discovery, exploring the Universe without a net.

[N.O.X]

I know Los meant this one as "the last one": "There is, of course, another story we could propose: the evidence is nothing more than regular old confirmation bias, which we know happens all the time and which the observation of apparent magical results fits precisely.

I was just being facetious  :wink:

[Los]

Well, you can "facepalm" all you want, but the fact of the matter remains that there is a vast difference between 1) speculating about possible customs practiced by ancient groups in th distant past and 2) deciding whether one is justified in believing supernatural claims that, if true, would produce demonstrable data for any impartial spectator.

[Patriarch156]

Well, you can "facepalm" all you want, but the fact of the matter remains that there is a vast difference between 1) speculating about possible customs practiced by ancient groups in th distant past and 2) deciding whether one is justified in believing supernatural claims that, if true, would produce demonstrable data for any impartial spectator.

Only to the extent that these things were capable of producing actual empirical claims that could be evaluated. It certainly would not be to the extent that you are arguing in this thread.

[Azidonis]

Los, I'd love to hear your take on "paranormal activity".