Camlion wrote: › Yathaniel, consider the general legal issues related to publishing in any case, not to mention the particular legal issues related to publishing books by AC, an author now deceased with a posthumous publishing history involving some contention. I'm sure that you will see the practicalities involved, and how they must take priority over the subtitles and finer points. Also see the introduction to the edition in question, which I assume is the centennial edition, which addresses these finer points quite clearly, as do most editions.

This, by the way, is my own observation, I do not represent the OTO in any way.

Yathaniel wrote: › Bibles are published regularly. They do not have an author listed upon them, divine in nature or otherwise.

Yathaniel wrote: › As far as the legal publishing issues go, I would imagine they are on much shakier ground if they are officially listing a man as the author who explicitly states he did not author the text, and the text itself makes it clear he lacked even the authority to edit it. Pretty shaking ground indeed... Who benefits?

Yathaniel wrote: › I understand what you are saying, but to me, the author is not so much a subtle point, but the very basis for the texts legitimacy

Los wrote: › Not to open up an entirely different can of worms, but I'd question that assumption. The text's "legitimacy" comes from the fact that it is true -- i.e. an unbiased investigation of nature would lead any individual to conclude that Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The Book just dresses up that truth in poetic language.

It's rather inconsequential whether there is "really" such a thing as a "praeterhuman intelligence." In fact, I would say that making the truth of Thelema contingent on the rather questionable existence of metaphysical entities -- that no one can demonstrate the existence of --limits its power.

lashtal wrote: ›
I appreciate that you're new here, but you might find it useful to refer to previous posts. The copyright issues surrounding the Holy Books have been discussed here several time. "Inspired texts" are, after all, hardly a new concept in publishing.

The speed at which you moved to this post from "I'm not suggesting the OTO deliberately placed Crowley's name on the cover to imply he is the author, and is somehow seeking to subvert Thelema thereby" leads me to suspect your motives, as indeed I did when I saw your first post on this thread.

But, whatever... Check previous posts here before launching into conspiracy theories, please, and address the question raised above: "Could you be more specific: which edition are you talking about? I have several editions published by / through OTO and none of them lists Crowley as the author of Liber AL."

Los wrote: › It's rather inconsequential whether there is "really" such a thing as a "praeterhuman intelligence." In fact, I would say that making the truth of Thelema contingent on the rather questionable existence of metaphysical entities -- that no one can demonstrate the existence of --limits its power.

Yathaniel wrote: › I'm really not sure how you reconcile a system of magick and dealing with such entities in a variety of capacities with the notion that such concepts elude sane and sensible people...

Yathaniel wrote: › Besides, it's content alone would likely preclude the acceptance of any "sane and sensible" people

Yathaniel wrote: › who would have rejected it solely on the basis of it's authorship by a being other than an incarnate man.

Yathaniel wrote: › I see what you're saying, but I think the method of it's revelation is important, and that is remains relevant and significant for us in our current practices.

Quote: ›
"Relevant and significant" how, precisely?

kidneyhawk wrote: › Despite this, Crowley not only would proclaim it to be the communication of an Intelligence operating distinctly and independently from his own but would attempt to provide "proof" for this. AC was certainly not a credulous thinker...and his shrewd skills of analysis he perpetually brought to bear on this text. So there is certainly more to his account than merely the assertion that the book was "inspired" or "dictated." He seems to have attempted, as much as possible, to apply "the method of science" to the "religious" phenomena of receiving this text.

kidneyhawk wrote: › And not only that, but he also reaches points where, weighing out the odds and looking at all the known factors involved in the book's creation, he feels very strongly that it HAS been "proven" to be of an origin beyond the human mind.

kidneyhawk wrote: › However, we are still left with Crowley's lifetime of continuing conviction, based on all his recorded facts and subsequently revealed information, that this was neither a leg-pull nor a sad instance of self-delusion.

kidneyhawk wrote: › In this light, I'd be very interested in what your thoughts are regarding some of the material where AC examines the nature of the book (such as passages in The Law Is For All, where he discusses the number of the Stele, his attempt to really press Rose's rambling through the meat grinder of sober assessment and tabulate the unlikelihood of her stunning accuracies etc).

kidneyhawk wrote: › It would seem that Crowley was tapping an unexplored area of Nature, one not commonly encountered by the conscious mind and opening to possibilities beyond average experience, while maintaining his sharp and critical nature all the way through. And such a discovery would be "relevant and significant" in broadening our understanding and engagement with what we are in the Universe.

Alesterion wrote: › And from direct experience I do believe this not out of faith but out of the certainly of actual knowledge.

666TSAEB wrote: › This procedure provides you with a monopoly on the Law of Thelema and its publications. It also prohibits any further editions from being published by no-copyright holders.

Erwin wrote: › Indeed. Religious cults formed off the back of supposed communications with gods, "praeterhuman intelligences", spacemen and other supernatural entities are ten-to-the-penny. To assert that this is where Thelema's "legitimacy" comes from is to assert that all the other crackpot scams based on the same type of claimed but undemonstrable source are equally "legitimate".

Yathaniel wrote: › it is a fair generalization that non-Thelemites believe Crowley's account to be complete b.s., and given that insult, I see the value in maintaining otherwise.

kidneyhawk wrote: › AC was certainly not a credulous thinker...and his shrewd skills of analysis he perpetually brought to bear on this text.

lashtal wrote: › So, what precisely is the edition that's being referred to, Yathaniel and 666TSAEB, and how does it connect with plans by the OTO to obtain "a monopoly on the Law of Thelema" (as if such a thing were even possible)?

kidneyhawk wrote: › It would seem that Crowley was tapping an unexplored area of Nature, one not commonly encountered by the conscious mind and opening to possibilities beyond average experience, while maintaining his sharp and critical nature all the way through. And such a discovery would be "relevant and significant" in broadening our understanding and engagement with what we are in the Universe.

Erwin wrote: ›
Apart from anything else, the things that were actually accomplished as a result of Crowley's claimed experiences with "praeternatural beings", whether internal or external, were almost comically trivial and insignificant, despite the twenty course meals that he liked to make of them.

Yathaniel wrote: › Secondly, can one really do their Will, to the degree a Thelemite aspires to without involving oneself in the type of ritual that it seems is looked down upon by some,

Yathaniel wrote: › Knowledge and Conversation with the Holy Guardian angel seems, to me at least, to be the only means of understanding one's Will,

Yathaniel wrote: › Crowley has much to say on the specific process for attaining such knowledge,

Yathaniel wrote: › If you take Aiwass out of the picture, and you rob the Thelemite of the ability to even determine Will fully by K&C, let alone seek to accomplish it per Liber AL Vel Legis.

Yathaniel wrote: › Unless there's a way to accomplish K&C without the mysticism that Crowley and others have believed is necessary.

Yathaniel wrote: › 93. Wow... I am sort of assuming you're making Liber AL an exception to this rather acid statement, but given previous posts, I'm not certain.

Yathaniel wrote: › Surely you do not discard Liber AL in such a manner or the Knowledge and Conversation in such ways? If not, I am interested in how you reconcile following the Law of Thelema without the ability to reach a full understanding of Will, if you believe such practices to be merely supernatural nonesense.

Poelzig wrote: › Erwin, why bother with "Thelema" and all it's baggage? Why not just cut to the chase?

Erwin wrote: ›

Well, I've been asked that before, and I don't have a great answer other than that I'm familiar with it and know a bit about it, and that there's a good amount of interesting and sometimes illuminating writing out there by Crowley on the subject. I think the ideas can - and in many places do - exist entirely separately from the aesthetic of Thelema itself, I'm not particularly attached to that aesthetic and I wouldn't particularly miss it if it went away, but for the moment there's a fair amount of terminology which it's relatively easy and convenient to adopt instead of uselessly inventing new words for everything. Any "baggage" only remains so for as long as people are unwilling to put it down.

Yathaniel wrote: › Secondly, can one really do their Will, to the degree a Thelemite aspires to without involving oneself in the type of ritual that it seems is looked down upon by some, for it's lack of "reason".

Quote: › If you take Aiwass out of the picture, and you rob the Thelemite of the ability to even determine Will fully by K&C, let alone seek to accomplish it per Liber AL Vel Legis. Unless there's a way to accomplish K&C without the mysticism that Crowley and others have believed is necessary. I don't think anyone here is suggesting such a thing, however...

Poelzig wrote: › The comment was not intended to be insulting or antagonistic, but I do think surprise or contempt is misplaced considering the amount of time and material Crowley devoted to ritual, mythology, and ideas that lend themselves to absurd assumptions to an absurd degree, not to mention the "image" of ritual robes, magic circles and uniforms dripping with masonic insignia that attracts the majority of interest in the first place.

Yathaniel wrote: › no previous edition of the Book of the Law published with the copyright, that I have ever seen bears the name of Crowley on the outside, except for this version, so clearly it is not necessary.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: ›
A few years ago I uploaded 60 or so different versions to the Galleries (not the Encyclopedia), you will find at least a dozen or so bearing Aleister Crowley on the title, most of them were not published by the OTO. Does that tell something about profit making?

Yathaniel wrote: › Unfortunately I can not access those galleries (perhaps new user restriction).

lashtal wrote: ›
You need to be registered to view the Galleries - which, of course, you are - and you need to be logged in at the main site.

Odd that you can't see the links...

From the main page, click on Galleries in the main menu, then click on the Books album. You'll see the images that the_real_simon_iff very kindly uploaded so long ago.

Yathaniel wrote: › Edwin, your mind is obviously very sharp, and your knowledge thorough.

Yathaniel wrote: › I do view these entities as being real in the same way that a particular incarnate man is real. As far as "realness" is concerned at least... Of course this is not based on my study of Crowleys writings, but based on the application of said writings. For me, at least, it is not all metaphor... Whether it is essentially internal and simply manifests in ways I am predisposed towards understanding, is debatable. This conviction (because this is what it is), I think, benefited me thus far, and ultimately that is the test,

Yathaniel wrote: › though it seem selfish and perhaps more pragmatic than philosophical. Pure intellectualism seems rather bereft of magick, to me, at least. Though, I suppose as you have argued quite eloquently, you can strip the magick out of Thelema and still have a working system. For you this may make it more efficient, for me it would deprive it of any interest beyond that of a libertarian club of atheists, and make the whole thing rather boring, killing much of my passion.

Yathaniel wrote: › The points about the HGA ring true, though frankly I do not rule out a quite literal-seeming experience, and personally lean towards it as far as the signifier one has genuinely attained. Crowley did not mean the term to be taken literally, as he says, I agree, but I've never taken this to mean the process is not one of actual literal communication with an entity seemingly possessing a nature and intelligence higher than oneself.

Yathaniel wrote: › I guess this again may be based on past experiences...

Yathaniel wrote: › Edwin,

Yathaniel wrote: › you referenced Alan Bennett A while back,

Yathaniel wrote: › and I am not so familiar with him, aside from him being a buddhist. It sounds like an interesting account. Where can I find this?

Yathaniel wrote: › Though, I suppose as you have argued quite eloquently, you can strip the magick out of Thelema and still have a working system.

Yathaniel wrote: › I can't truly believe Crowley would have been comfortable with such a thing either.

Yathaniel wrote: › some here have rather obvious biases seemingly out of their desire to "defend" against any critical thinking

Quote: ›
if I disbelieved in everything with your type of conviction that I had never seen, I suspect my world would be quite small.

Yathaniel wrote: › When I mentioned past experiences, I was referring to communication with entities seemingly independent from myself. I anticipate knowledge and conversation would manifest along those lines, at least for me.

Yathaniel wrote: › I'm not familiar with the material in question you referenced implying the HGA is simply the subconscious mind, but I find it at odds with my perspective, of course.

Yathaniel wrote: › I can not truly understand the type of intellectualism you are applying that sees anything outside the realm of ordinary day to day experience as superstitious nonsense.

Yathaniel wrote: › In much the same manner, I suspect, that someone who does not practice magick can comprehend the position of one who does, and has a conviction based upon that practical work.

Yathaniel wrote: › Perhaps I am wrong... Perhaps you are of the type who could see a demon literally materialize before you and smack you upside the head, and still be convinced it only a manifestation of your subconscious mind, and who am I to disagree with you?

Yathaniel wrote: › It seems though, that the majority of people I've spoken with in the past who hold positions similar to your own have never had the types of experiences that challenge one's conceptions

Yathaniel wrote: › or startle one to the type of faith, which aids in such operations.

Yathaniel wrote: › You disagree with the truth should be a matter of convenience statement, but I think it is so, though I probably should have attributed that to Crowley rather than myself... I believe he stated it before I, though, can not recall his exact words. I think it is in Magick In Theory And Practice. For the magician, truth is fluid... I see no real issue with this, so long as it is effective.

Yathaniel wrote: › If one is to pray successfully, for example, one must have faith and belief that one's God is hearing those prayers.

Yathaniel wrote: › It seems rather close-minded to actually state with complete certainty that "goblins" and "unicorns", etc do not exist as a fact.

Yathaniel wrote: › Ultimately, on a pragmatic level, if I have a conversation with a being I perceive as likely external, for the purpose of getting x, and shortly thereafter x is obtained, I am satisfied.

Yathaniel wrote: › This also applies to divination, which I continuously have positive results with... results that are statistically nearly impossibly to archive attributing such results to coincidence alone.

Yathaniel wrote: › On one level I want to say, I think if you applied the more incomprehensible mystical aspects of Crowley's work in some small way, you might yourself see through experience it's value...

kidneyhawk wrote: › This is not to pigeon-hole Erwin and disdainly declare that his world must be "quite small." I suspect that Erwin is quite happy with his world and its experiences.

kidneyhawk wrote: › HOWEVER...the compelling drive to push it further, explore more, reach out and learn and GROW I see back of Crowley's repeated discussion of discarnate Intelligences.

Erwin wrote: › If what you are claiming is actually true, and you have established its truth through observing reliable causes from specified effects,

Quote: ›
If one wants to grow they need to be looking away from the imagination, not into it.

kidneyhawk wrote: › May I deem Thee, "The Anti-Blake?"

Quote: › if I disbelieved in everything with your type of conviction that I had never seen, I suspect my world would be quite small.

Quote: › May I deem Thee, "The Anti-Blake?"

Erwin wrote: ›

On re-reading this, it occurs to me that I may have misinterpreted this aspect of your question. If the suggestion is that, the existence of "praeternatural entities" aside, either Crowley or Rose "tapped an unexplored area of Nature" that gave them seemingly "praeternatural" powers and that the "relevan[ce] and significan[ce]" of that is that other people can tap into such areas, then obviously I'd greatly dispute that. I treat suggestions of "praeternatural abilities" arising from some usually unencountered area of the mind or self with just as much skepticism as I treat suggestions of the existence of external "praeternatural entities". Apart from anything else, the things that were actually accomplished as a result of Crowley's claimed experiences with "praeternatural beings", whether internal or external, were almost comically trivial and insignificant, despite the twenty course meals that he liked to make of them. So, whatever their nature, these "beings" don't seem to have an awful lot to offer, casting further doubt on the "relevan[ce] and significan[ce]" of accounts of purported encounters with them.

Quote: ›
As someone who loves the work of William Blake (hell, look at my screen name!), let me just say that there's a place for the imagination and there's a place for the reality we share outside of it.

Los wrote: › Perhaps I should make something explicit: disbelief in claims is the default position. It is only upon acquiring evidence that we can accept claims. Until we have evidence, we are justified in continuing our disbelief of the claim and unjustified in believing the claim.

Los wrote: › let me just say that there's a place for the imagination and there's a place for the reality we share outside of it.

Camlion wrote: › As usual, Irwin ( ), you slip just a tiny bit of utter nonsense in between one redundant and overlong serving of rationalism and the next. What you are baselessly implying is that the fact that external demons may not exist proves that internal demons do not exist, or the fact that external revelatory communication may not exist proves that revelatory communication between different levels or areas of one's own internal makeup does not exist.

Camlion wrote: › Of course, you are clever enough not to completely disallow for extraordinary internal experience, but you dismiss it is "almost comically trivial and insignificant,"

Camlion wrote: › Personally, I find your participation in these forums, beyond being incredibly predictable and boring

kidneyhawk wrote: › My little comment was reactive to Erwin's flat out denunciation of the imagination.

Erwin wrote: › The imagination, in itself, is fine - we wouldn't have Beethoven's symphonies or tales of the exploits of Sherlock Holmes with it, for instance.

Erwin wrote: ›

This is a common bone of contention between religious adherents and skeptics in general, not just confined to occultists

Erwin wrote: › But the idea that sitting down and intensely trying to contact imaginary extraterrestrial spacemen with the power of your mind is going to reveal any actual facts about the universe is utterly farcical and contemptible. If you're interested in this type of activity then by all means knock yourself out, but the ridiculous notion that it constitutes anything remotely resembling "research" or "exploration" reveals a practically complete disdain for the very idea of "knowledge", and that's why you aren't going to "grow" by doing it.

Iskandar wrote: › By which I mean that a "true" sceptic would withhold a judgement vis-a-vis truth of any theory or statement about the nature of reality, in other words, a "true" skeptic would doubt everything.

Iskandar wrote: › Erwin, if we substitute the word 'religious adherents' with 'believers' - which I'm sure you'll agree are similar terms - then I would say that you yourself are not a skeptic but a believer.

Iskandar wrote: › By which I mean that a "true" sceptic would withhold a judgement vis-a-vis truth of any theory or statement about the nature of reality, in other words, a "true" skeptic would doubt everything.

Iskandar wrote: › You, however, seem to be very much certain what the truth is, and which things do exist and which not.

Iskandar wrote: › In addition, you seem to be rather literal in your reading of Crowley, so when he says that a certain 'Angel' does not exist in the same manner as one's butcher does, you conclude that this means that the Angel (or any other "supernatural" entity) does not exist at all.

Iskandar wrote: › Which really misses the point. Similarly, when Crowley tells to Frank Bennett that our unconscious mind is our Holy Guardian Angel, you seem again to be taking this literally.

Iskandar wrote: › Similarly, your interpretation of Thelema is your own, which is as it should be, but why do you almost always insist on telling others that theirs is a wrong one?

Erwin wrote: › I continue to be bemused at how an ever-increasing retreat into the further recesses of the imagination can possibly be regarded as anything other than the polar opposite of "exploration" and "growth".

Erwin wrote: › Retreating into a belief in the supernatural is what people who are unwilling or unable to engage with the actual world out there do.

Erwin wrote: › The imagination, in itself, is fine - we wouldn't have Beethoven's symphonies or tales of the exploits of Sherlock Holmes with it, for instance..

Los wrote: › The supposed contact with other "beings" doesn't really seem to have any results -- that, I think, was Erwin's point about Crowley's results being "trivial."

Erwin wrote: ›
As you suggest, there is more than one problem with this "one and only chance for mankind to advance as a whole is for individuals to make contact with such Beings" idea, beyond the sheer improbability of such "Beings" existing at all and the bizarre notion that getting some pimply social reject to sit down and concentrate really, really hard with his mind is the best way to get in contact with them. All - all - recorded purported communications with such "Beings" throughout history have led to nothing useful. So quite apart from the issue of their existence, where this idea of contact with them being the "one and only chance for mankind to advance as a whole" comes from I have no idea. There's no more reason to suspect this than there is to suspect that, if we ever did come into contact with such "Beings", their first inclination would be to eat us, or to make fashionable shoes out of our skin. As I've said before, if historic accounts are a good indication of what such "Beings" have to offer us, then as far as I'm concerned they can keep it. I'll take my chances on advancing without their "help", thank you very much.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I would say you simply lack the imagination to do so, or else you could easily recognize the possibilities of exploration and growth via these "unscientific" methods.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › But to claim that...

...is anything more than just your personal, private opinion born out out of your personal, private but widely known dislike for occultists, new-agers and the spirituality-scene (which I do share to some degree) is not very much "the scientific method". Is it?

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Nonetheless I am bemused by the fact that I seem to know of more "scientific facts" that have been discarded and proven wrong over the years than any scientific explanations of probably more than 50 per cent of all the riddles, mysteries and miracles that Charles Fort collected over the years.

spike418 wrote: › Or perhaps you have just not met right the demons/angels/spirits/gods yet

Iskandar wrote: › By and large, I agree with the above, Erwin, although not entirely, so let me explain my position. First of all, I would never claim that "all recorded communications ... led to nothing useful." For one thing, there's just so much stuff out there: Taoist canon, Koran, works of Ibn Arabi, shamanic experices throughout history in so many places, Tibetan Vajrayana texts often received through some sort of communication, etc etc etc.

Iskandar wrote: › But Crowley's statement of contacting these "Beings" does not need to be interpreted as if these Beings exist outside of our own mind (which he did make more difficult claiming them to be external - a didactic purpose may stood behind this).

Iskandar wrote: › So in a sense, that Crowley's statement might be interpreted to mean something like that, in Jungian parlance, one needs to get in contact with the archetypes of one's own Self in order to be completely integrated person. And if we as civilization become more integrated that is our only chance of surviving - otherwise we are going to continue to externalize both our angels and our demons (here I am talking like Dan Brown) and we will end up exterminating ourselves.

Erwin wrote: › Retreating into a belief in the supernatural is what people who are unwilling or unable to engage with the actual world out there do.
...
What that "opinion" is, "scientific" or not, is rational and evidence-based. It's "born out of" observation, not of dislike. The observation comes first, the dislike second..

Iskandar wrote: › If you are in fact saying that these notions of "Superior Beings" should not be taken literally, I totally agree. Where I think we do disagree is that it seems to me you are saying these "Beings" do not exist at all, while I am saying, their existence is esoteric. I agree with Jung that psychic reality is a real reality and that there is no essential difference (but only the difference in degree) between the material and the psychic.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › as so often it is not so much the contents of your posts I disagree, but the phrasing of them:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Even if it is born out of your observations, which is surely some kind of evidence and which is something you stated only after asking, why do you have to phrase it as a fact?

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Of course there are extreme exceptions, but so far I never heard of any hard evidence that people who believe in the supernatural are simply unable to handle the "real" world,

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I myself have heavy evidence based on accurate observations, that no hard-core rationalist and strictly "logical" thinker could have written it or anything else that would inspire not only me, but even people like you and thousands others.

Quote: ›
Apparently, sometimes these extreme expressions come from a single author with multiple screen names, for purposes of dramatic exposition

Camlion wrote: › Apparently, sometimes these extreme expressions come from a single author with multiple screen names, for purposes of dramatic exposition.

Iskandar wrote: › But Crowley's statement of contacting these "Beings" does not need to be interpreted as if these Beings exist outside of our own mind ...

Erwin wrote: ›

This isn't the first time you've leveled unfounded accusations - either directly or indirectly - at me of using "multiple screen names", presumably because you are unable to address the substance of my posts but find it impossible to just remain quiet.

So, out with it, tell us what other "screen names" you think I've used. Then we can compare them, and all have a good laugh at how inobservant you are. After all, you are man enough to stand behind your accusations, aren't you?

MichaelStaley wrote: ›
What is the evidence, Iskander, that anything whatever exists "outside our own mind", whether praeternatural or otherwise?

Best wishs,

Michael.

Camlion wrote: › Thou protesteth so much, Irwin. What makes you think I was referring to you in my last post?

Camlion wrote: › With another one of your screen-names, you will loudly concur with yourself

Erwin wrote: ›

Ah, good. Then perhaps you could regale us with all the detailed plans your gods have for advancing mankind as a whole?

No? What a shocker.

spike418 wrote: ›

Why do you assume they would have such plans? You make far too many assumptions

Erwin wrote: ›

Then you agree they have no plans to help "mankind advance as a whole"?

Good, you agree with my original statement. Well done.

spike418 wrote: ›

False extrapolation from my words, I agreed to no such thing.

Iskandar wrote: › Camlion, thanks for the kind words (I hope you were not being sarcastic )

MichaelStaley wrote: › Whilst I am inclined to accept as a working hypothesis that there may well be existence outside my imagination, I'm aware that I cannot prove this, much less pay a great deal of attention when what may well be figments of my imagination appear to bawl about how we cannot accept propositions without evidence.

MichaelStaley wrote: › Time for this particular figment to enter the sunken city for a few hours - not dead, but dreaming ... or am I?

Quote: ›
Everything I've ever observed tells me that *even if* the world is an illusion, it's a remarkably consistent illusion that obeys certain rules and about which I can learn much.

Quote: ›
actual knowledge yields results. Every practical benefit we get from using evidence is another reason to continue relying upon evidence

kidneyhawk wrote: › For example, in the Lam Statement, written by Kenneth Grant and published in Starfire, it is stated that a highly desirable condition for such investigation to occur is in isolated cells over a period of time where the results are unbeknownst amongst participants, thus allowing for an impartial assessment of the data gleaned.

Quote: › "Evidence," however, may be of a nature that defies attempts to neatly rationalize it by particular standards. As such it may be very true that certain things I find as compelling evidence to pursue a particular route of research are wholly unsatisfactory to rational thought.

kidneyhawk wrote: ›
I think there's a point where Reason and Imagination are no longer at uncomfortable odds and both rise and fall as a person does his or her "Will." There's no longer argument or tension but vital activity, shifting from one plane to another.

Yathaniel wrote: › <b>Let me propose a scenario for you. I give a "magic stone" to a child and tell them they can use it whenever they do not want to have nightmares by performing a ritual of simply placing it under their pillow (this sounds "new agey" enough, so I am sure you'll love it). That child believes, and by use of the stone (which inspires and gives direction to the belief), whenever they chose to, they can ensure they do not have nightmares. It works. That makes it successful, and that "proves" as good as is necessary that it is a magic stone. To them it is. That's a fact. It works. That's a fact.</b>

You come into the picture and with (hopefully) the best of intentions, tell that child the whole thing is bullshit, and that the stone doesn't work, because it is just a rock. Rather than attempting to focus on what makes the stone work, you focus on "proving" the stone is not magical and that the whole idea is simply ridiculous. That child is convinced by your apparent conviction that nothing you can not comprehend could possibly exist. You make a passionate (artistic license here... I know you'd prefer cold and logical), and articulate argument against using the stone, and how archaic and ridiculous the ritual is. As for the results, you declare that the child must still be having nightmares and forgetting them upon waking, and is thereby deceiving themselves.

kidneyhawk wrote: › Los, I agree with this-and I think its a basis for the magickal inquiry into phenonmena that some here would scoffingly dismiss. For example, in the Lam Statement, written by Kenneth Grant and published in Starfire, it is stated that a highly desirable condition for such investigation to occur is in isolated cells over a period of time where the results are unbeknownst amongst participants, thus allowing for an impartial assessment of the data gleaned.

kidneyhawk wrote: › If all we have is some "belief" in Aliens and Fairies and Angels and such, backed by nothing, we really ARE in sorry shape.

kidneyhawk wrote: › But Crowley, as an example, explored these areas and drew various conclusions based not on credulity and "belief" but on experiences he had which motivated the Quest. I doubt he would have repeatedly pursued the Amalantrah Workings if he didn't feel that something genuine was being contacted through them.

kidneyhawk wrote: › "Evidence," however, may be of a nature that defies attempts to neatly rationalize it by particular standards.

kidneyhawk wrote: › As such it may be very true that certain things I find as compelling evidence to pursue a particular route of research are wholly unsatisfactory to rational thought.

kidneyhawk wrote: › Yet I'm not limited by the confines of such thinking in working with such evidence towards results. That doesn't mean I've gone mad and have tossed rationality to the winds. Rather, I've found another zone in which to operate while dealing with particular phenomena.

kidneyhawk wrote: › A poet may process wholly "irrational" emotions via a medium of artistry and find it the great work of his life, which all of his rational thought processes help make happen by successfully maintaining his material life, the vehicle of the art.

kidneyhawk wrote: › I think there's a point where Reason and Imagination are no longer at uncomfortable odds and both rise and fall as a person does his or her "Will." There's no longer argument or tension but vital activity, shifting from one plane to another.

Erwin wrote: › Please tell me that your case consists of more than "well, Crowley wouldn't have tried to talk to spacemen if he hadn't scientifically proved they existed, so that's good enough for me."

MichaelStaley wrote: › This is a bowlderisation of what Kyle said, in order for you to set up a straw dummy that you can then knock down. Get's a cheap laugh, no doubt.

Yathaniel wrote: › I am not reducing magick to a placebo effect, only pointing out that since you want to discuss truth, it is always subjective and therefore should be a truth which works to one's benefit, and asking what the "benefit" of your truth really is. It seems to have very little.

Yathaniel wrote: › It is not about believing something because it makes me feel good. It is about recognizing there are forces at play that are not understood scientifically at this time, and if I derive practical benefit thereby, it is to my advantage.

Yathaniel wrote: › Do not make the error of deciding my example is based on magick being a placebo effect.

Yathaniel wrote: › You are making the error of projecting your reality upon everyone else,

Yathaniel wrote: › If you are so certain you can have no influence on the world around you through any but physical application of force, nothing I say will convince you otherwise, and I hasten to agree with you,

Yathaniel wrote: › but that is your reality, not mine.

Yathaniel wrote: › You are limiting yourself thereby,

Yathaniel wrote: › My belief is not faith-based...

Yathaniel wrote: › If I want to hang a picture on a wall, it is beneficial to me to believe that wall is solid,

Yathaniel wrote: › If I can believe that wall is not solid, but fluid, and therefore cross through it unhampered...

Yathaniel wrote: › You arguments are rather puerile, though they are masked by verbosity, and a well trained intellect, in that you are attempting to tell someone who crosses that which you believe is uncrossable that such a thing is impossible to do, and is the result of self-deception.

Yathaniel wrote: › Do you know by your own experience the world is round?

Yathaniel wrote: › I do not see you applying the same level of critique and analysis to your "reality" that you apply to other peoples.

Yathaniel wrote: › Many of your beliefs seem to be as much based on faith as any rational science, but you fail to grasp that...

Yathaniel wrote: › I wonder what conclusion you would draw if you were in a room with 4 other people, all of whom are convinced you are levitating, though it appears to yourself that your feet remain of the floor...

kidneyhawk wrote: › You have, in fact, missed my point, which is hardly: "Crowley said it, I believe it, that settles it." What Crowley thought on this matter I AM regarding as quite relevant to the topic at hand. And, as we both know, Crowley's critical mind was not one to go chaing after pipe dreams. I'm not saying he was never misled or mistaken. But I think its worthwhile to examine, from a variety of perspectives, what the man who devoted his life to examining and experimenting and promoting what you seem to embrace as the ultimate code of conduct saw of value in the affirmation of "discarnate Intelligences." Conclusions may vary but its worthwhile to inquire.

kidneyhawk wrote: › Now as to this "proof" for the "supernatural," I don't have as strong a dualistic sense of natural vs. supernatural that you do. When I began my spiritual voyage and occult quest or whatever we want to call it, I did have that sense of duality. There is this world of "matter" and then some "hidden" or "occult" world that we could look into. But along the way, I've found that such division is counter-productive. As much as invisible microwaves and such can be considered just as much a part of the "natural" universe as the table at which I sit, so we can see discarnate Intelligences ("should they exist") as being the same. Of a differing NATURE but part of the same totality of the Universe which, depending on the factors involved, we may experience.

kidneyhawk wrote: › You have such a bone to pick with "belief" but I also choose to let that word slide for the time being. Do I "believe" in LAM? The word doesn't really apply, Erwin...but I know you want so much for it to be one way or the other. I EXPERIENCE LAM. The experience may yield up consistencies which I find startling and which cause me to reconsider how I view what is really going in a vast Universe of which my knowledge is limited. But in the experience, I don't arrive at the final ultimate knowledge of what "it" is.

kidneyhawk wrote: › When I referred to how "evidence" may not fit nicely into rational thought, I was using Los' word but perhaps should have clarified that I was refering to experience of a type of phenomena which isn't of the same categorical nature as that which you seem to want to cram the entirety of EVERYONE's experience and knowledge into.

kidneyhawk wrote: › My "agenda" is not to convert you or anyone else with a rational argument on a computer screen but rather to look at where human experience can open beyond its present state.

Erwin wrote: › Everyone is subject to the same reality. That's what "reality" means. People don't have their own individual realities, despite what the chaos crowd and the new-agers might like you to believe.

Poelzig wrote: ›
The vast majority of people I've encountered involved with various species of "magic," "occultism" or "spirituality" were/are notably deficient in rationality and critical thinking skills.

Invariably they make pretenses of "transcending" rationality by way of their "spirituality."

Unfortunately for them, the basic truth they have missed or ignored is that you have to embrace and master something before you can "transcend" it.

Thus the intellectual ghetto conditions in which "magick" and "spirituality" continually subsist.

Erwin wrote: › There are no spacemen out there which you can contact via the power of your mind in a trance state ...

DNA wrote: › "So you're actually claiming you can walk through walls, now? OK, post a video to youtube of you doing that, let's all take a look at the power of your belief. This should be interesting"
Erwin, yet again, you are taking somebody's post out of context, and subjecting it to your usual infantile and foolish scrutiny. Detracts from quite an interesting thread, really.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › No, that's not what reality means uniquely, that's what it can mean. In fact, reality has a lot of different meanings....Why not check out all the different meanings of "reality" a simple dictionary gives

MichaelStaley wrote: ›
I don't recall Kyle referring to spacemen. This is no doubt a lapse in my recall, so I'd be happy for you to refresh my memory.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › No, that's not what reality means uniquely, that's what it can mean. In fact, reality has a lot of different meanings. What you are talking about is realism, i.e. The view that there is a reality independent of any beliefs, perceptions, etc. Just because you dislike some groups doesn't make your view of reality more "true". Why not check out all the different meanings of "reality" a simple dictionary gives, and then go even further and think about Phenomenological Reality or the definition(s) of reality in Quantum Mechanics or in different schools of philosophy. Your view of reality is of course okay and compatible with Thelema, but other views are also.

Erwin wrote: ›
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs
6. something that is real.
7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
—Idiom
8. in reality, in fact or truth; actually

Erwin wrote: › 5. Philosophy.
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I think the following 7 definitions are quite useless in our case, unless of course you are absolutely sure what reality is in the first place, like you are.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › They merely show that "reality" is the noun form of "real". Just ask "what is beauty?" and put in "beautiful" for "real" (and "quite nice" for "apparent") and I hope you see what I mean.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › In the Philosophy dictionary I find also:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › There are numerous concepts of reality. It is a struggle for philosophers from the earliest beginnings of philosophy on.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Philip K. Dick said it perfectly: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." So what if you don't believe in goblins and so forth , but they don't go away?

Alastrum wrote: › I'm delighted to be reminded that my HGA is none other than my own subconscious mind... now, if one of you could perhaps just point out to me exactly where my subconscious mind is located...?

Alastrum wrote: › even though less people have actually seen a subconscious mind than have seen goblins,

Alastrum wrote: › which by some of the logic exhibited in this thread, makes it even less likely to exist

gurugeorge wrote: › Erwin, once again I find myself in partial agreement and partial disagreement with you. I like your rationalism, and I share it to a large extent, but it has to be said that if you are claiming that Crowley thought the Magick stuff was trivial, or anything of that kind, then that's just plain wrong.

gurugeorge wrote: › Liber O is a foundational text in a one-to-one teaching tradition, the agnostic showing there is meant as a "set to zero", a kind of calibration. Of course Crowley did believe in "praeterhuman intelligences" and such, and said so more explicitly in his later writings (from his assumption of the Grade of 666 onwards I think).

gurugeorge wrote: › Now the thing is, it's a rational procedure to not give belief to that which hasn't been tested scientifically.

gurugeorge wrote: › But (as you well know) there is no guarantee to be found anywhere in the process of knowledge-gathering.

gurugeorge wrote: › The Magickal theory of the Universe is a bold punt. If it's true, then it really opens up our knowledge, it's potentially a huge prize. It is not entirely without empirical support, it's just that the empirical support is still weak (and remember, we've only been at this science thing for a few hundred years) - it's still largely anecdotal.

gurugeorge wrote: › How would you scientifically test what Daoist Master Chuang is really experiencing when he "talks to spirits", and is there any way one could test the real-world effectiviness of his magick?

gurugeorge wrote: › The Magickal theory of the Universe is a bold punt. If it's true, then it really opens up our knowledge, it's potentially a huge prize. It is not entirely without empirical support, it's just that the empirical support is still weak (and remember, we've only been at this science thing for a few hundred years) - it's still largely anecdotal.

Erwin wrote: › Hope this helps.

MichaelStaley wrote: › Yes, it certainly does. It establishes that Kyle never used the term "spacemen".

MichaelStaley wrote: › I've never come across someone who "debates" as dishonestly as do you.

gurugeorge wrote: ›

Seriously, it shouldn't need pointing out how appallingly tawdry and pathetic this whole sorry charade is. You talk about "advances in science" and "empirical support" as if this "magickal theory" is actually a serious set of hypotheses worth actual consideration. It isn't. It's mindnumbingly inane and ridiculous. To actually conduct serious "research" into this type of stuff would be incredibly foolish. Sure, it would be a "big win" if it were true, but it would also be a "big win" if we could learn to shoot fireballs from our fingers, or, to paraphrase a weirdo showing up here recently, if we could learn to get "all mad powerful like Skeletor". I mean, think of the military applications. But nobody seriously talks about conducting actual scientific research into such things for the simple reason that the idea is truly boneheadedly stupid, and exactly the same thing goes for this "magickal theory". There are millions of other patently stupid claims that aren't worth testing, either, and there's absolutely no reason to single out this "magickal theory" as being an exception. As I said, you strike me as a reasonable guy, but what you are indulging in with this is wishful thinking of the most objectionable kind.

And as for this "magickal theory" itself - there isn't one. There are only magickal claims. Nobody has been able to advance any serious and workable "theory" about how any of this is supposed to function, and whimsical ramblings about "vibrations on the astral" and "all existence is consciousness" aren't going to qualify.

Take a step back for a moment. Imagine a proposal where we wish to cause an accident to occur to our arch-nemesis (since we're all obviously involved in scary black magick wizard wars), so we write their name on a bit of paper, roll it up and tie it with a ribbon, then set fire to it and drop it in a pewter cauldron bought from the local curio store while whispering some mysterious words under our breath. Or, we want to know what's going to happen to our business venture, so we get some sticks, throw them up into the air, and draw conclusions based on how they land.

Now, seriously, who in their right mind who has never been exposed to these "magickal claims" is going to consider either of those proposals and think to themselves, "yeah, that sounds like it might work." No self-respecting scientist is going to think "hey, you know, this just might be worth looking into!"

The whole sorry affair is nothing but ludicrous, crackpot, sentimental high-school piffle. To even suggest that it warrants scientific investigation is to give it far more credence than it deserves, which is none. I know there are plenty of people around who think it is only polite to let these fools indulge in their fantasies without being challenged, but doing that really doesn't render any service to anyone or anything.

Erwin wrote: › Out of interest, exactly how many people do you assert have "seen goblins"?

Erwin wrote: › Anyone can directly perceive a part of the mind other than the conscious part by simply stopping the conscious mind from chattering for a while. It's easy for anybody to do with a little practical application. Now, whether this "part" corresponds well to any proposed models of the "subconscious mind", whether it is properly classified as a "part" of anything or just another aspect of a single thing, or whether the "mind" can be said to have any separate existence from thoughts and feelings at all is entirely another question.

Alastrum wrote: › Dunno, never counted them. But I've seen various books and magazines full of tales of people from all over the world who claim to have seen goblins/demons/something similar,

Alastrum wrote: › Exactly. So this whole idea of mind is a mental construct

Alastrum wrote: › But my point is that exactly the same principle apply to HGA's, goblins, or what have you:

Alastrum wrote: › maybe they don't have an objective existence outside of consciousness (nothing does, does it?) But people do have very real experiences. They cannot classify or make sense of those experiences according to the 'rational' world, because the 'rational' world denies that the experience occurred, when the experiencer knows that it did.

Alastrum wrote: › Anyone who's actually done magick has usually seen or experienced something that every prior thing they've learned about "reality" says couldn't possibly have occurred.

Alastrum wrote: › It's when "reality" fails to explain the experience that other explanations are sought elsewhere. And all you've done so far is pour scorn on those alternative explanations...

Alastrum wrote: › maybe you could offer a better explanation for all these experiences that people have, if you really want to convince them?

Alastrum wrote: › Do tell us precisely where we are all going wrong...

Alastrum wrote: › And your argument about observing the mind is faulty anyway: because it's the mind doing the observing! This is like trusting a faulty computer to correctly diagnose what's wrong with itself, LOL.

Alastrum wrote: › Oh, and just for the record, Tarot cards CAN predict the future, depending on how they are used. They don't tell fortunes, like "you will marry a rich Swede", but they can predict future astronomical events.

magispiegel wrote: › I think you have come up with some interesting arguments in this thread. However, I do remember that your erwinhessle forum consisted of slating my work (which you have not seen?)

magispiegel wrote: › and even my profession?!

magispiegel wrote: › But you have never met me?, you don't even know me? and you have never read any of my work?

magispiegel wrote: › P.S. BTW, is the colour of your screwdriver box sky blue?

Erwin wrote: › Well, you and I continue to disagree as to whether "faith healing" constitutes an actual "profession". I prefer to describe it as "fraudulent quackery". I suspect that most real medical professionals would take issue with you claiming to be amongst their number.

magispiegel wrote: › http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=42957&cat_id=5

Get my profession right.

Alastrum wrote: › You twisted my meaning, deliberately or not: I simply stated that the "rational" world offered no satisfactory explanation for my (and others) experiences, other to say that they couldn't have happened.

Alastrum wrote: › Yet, I have a memory so vivid that I can see, hear, smell and feel the experiences still. And that memory is indistinguishable from my memory of the smell and feel of an apple I held weeks ago. Is one a "mental" construct" and not the other? If both, is one "real" and one not? How can YOU tell? How can I tell? Of course, I'm not stupid: I'm pretty certain my "encounter" didn't involve me leaving the house, or at least certainly not the East Wing anyway, and I definitely didn't wander round the grounds or my boots would have been muddy and the hounds would have barked.

Alastrum wrote: › Nevertheless, my "experiences" were REAL to me, at the time, as real as any other sensory experience regardless of circumstances.

Alastrum wrote: › As the "rational" world cannot come up with any explanation other than "hallucination"

Alastrum wrote: › You classify science's explanations as "good", yet science admits it doesn't even know what causes hallucinations.

Alastrum wrote: › So please stop hiding behind "rationality" and throwing rocks, until you can actually come up with a solid argument, and PROOF

Quote: ›
We don't need to understand what causes thunderstorms in order to determine whether or not one is occurring.

Quote: ›
There are some things that only exist for me (purely subjective realities).

Quote: ›
In contrast, there are things that exist for everybody

kidneyhawk wrote: › We can agree for the moment that there is "something" we are perceiving and therefore experiencing. When you state that a "hallucination" is not "real," it doesn't change the fact that its being experienced. Hence, it has an "existence," which is to say a "reality." How that "reality" fits into another's assessment of reality is different thing.

kidneyhawk wrote: › Without specific examples of what we are dealing with, it really IS silly to take pot shots at imaginary culprits who you've placed on the other side of Erwin's Acceptable Assessment of Reality. I'm not particularly compelled to transcribe 100 pages of my "magickal record" to offer "proof" which might win me this "debate" with you.

kidneyhawk wrote: › Artistic inspiration from my "spiritual spookiness" aside, I DO perceive a reality to discarnate Intelligences. I also think that your questions and critique are something to account to as a good portion of what we are as humans is built to assess things in a way that is beneficial to our survival. Hence, the deluded soul who thinks fire is his friend may meet a flesh-frying end over the campfire.

kidneyhawk wrote: › The "reality" which these Intelligences I refer to inhabit is one which I believe we may contact and increase our ability to contact. But it is a sphere which is qualitatively different in nature from that which rational assessment is capable of apprehending.

kidneyhawk wrote: › "Emotions" are very real things. But we don't jaunt into the store and buy a box of one. Yet they are an essential aspect to what we are as humans. My feelings of sadness, rage or happiness are not, as such, "illusions." They are realities, experienced by MYSELF, not of necessity shared with the person next to me.

kidneyhawk wrote: › He kept inquiring and enjoying the inquiry. I'll keep doing the same.

kidneyhawk wrote: › Or more simply, how do you answer the observation that your perception of "objective reality" is a "subjective experience" itself?

Los wrote: › It's an irrelevant objection because even if I am just a brain in a vat, trapped in the "Matrix," it doesn't change the fact that within this so-called illusion, I can still distinguish between things "real for me only" and "real for everybody [the apparent others]" in the illusion.

Poelzig wrote: › What amuses me most about this thread is how much I agree with Erwin, yet I still think Crowley's writings on Magick are his strong-suit (from a depth psychology perspective of dealing with the unconscious by way of symbols), and that LIBER AL is a low-water mark in his writings - whereas I get the impression that Erwin regards some of the more philosophical/ethical implications of AL as the redeeming element in Crowley's work.

Erwin wrote: › A purely mental world can be just as consistent as a purely physical world, and if, for the sake of argument, we do live in a purely mental world, then it would appear that that's precisely the kind of purely mental world we live in.

Yygdrasilian wrote: › There is no way around it - a ‘strictly’ rational, materialist perspective will never, nor can ever, accept the ontological validity of a praeter-human, supernatural intelligensia;

Yygdrasilian wrote: › But, the times are a-changin’ faster than any of us care to admit, and it’s a ‘safe’ bet sooner than later the Pookah will turn you on your head.

Yygdrasilian wrote: › Doesn’t mean you gotta put stock in goblins, unicorns, or even citibank.... but you may find it helpful to ‘look in’ on those beings from the deep, blue light. They are waiting for you.

Alastrum wrote: › Erwin's "debate" is unfortunately merely Eristic, which does not offer any plausible alternative but is merely concerned with winning the argument by shouting the loudest. Such methods are not worth engaging with,

Alastrum wrote: › and until Erwin actually begins to support his point of view

Alastrum wrote: › instead of merely picking apart semantics,

Alastrum wrote: › the debate is going nowhere.

Alastrum wrote: › Erwin continually bangs on about "proof", but then mistakenly shifts the "burden of proof" onto us, but the accepted rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains."

Alastrum wrote: › It is up to Erwin to prove that magick is bunkum

Alastrum wrote: › This automatically shifts the "burden of proof" to the newcomer, simply because it's a newer theory or point of view.

Alastrum wrote: › So Erwin, the ball's in your court:

Alastrum wrote: › As a working hypothesis, I'm happy to accept that. Just as I'm happy to accept the entire concept of a "subconscious mind" as a working hypothesis (even though less people have actually seen a subconscious mind than have seen goblins, which by some of the logic exhibited in this thread, makes it even less likely to exist). Or even a HGA, for that matter.

Quote: › Some people seem to be confusing the map with the territory, and others seem to be asserting there is no map, just the territory. Personally, I find maps useful, as long as it is remembered that sometimes interesting places don't always appear on maps...

Alastrum wrote: › So... no proof then, just more of the same:D

Show me proof and I'll quite happily agree with you, and maybe even buy you a beer. I'm quite happy that the earth has been proved not to be flat, and that the moon has been proved not to be made of cheese, and that the earth goes round the sun, so having it proved to me that "magick" (using it as an umbrella term to include any environment that supports such things as "goblins" for example) is bunkum will make me equally happy: I could give it all up and go and do something else I've always wanted to do.

Come on.... we're waiting...

Camlion wrote: ›

Good morning, Alastrum. Actually, if this were a debate on the earth being flat or not, back when that was a legitimate issue of contention, I'm pretty sure that Irwin would be arguing that it is obviously flat, and that those who waste their time imagining it as otherwise are fools without proof. This debate is merely a modern installment of the explorers versus the nay-sayers. The issue is complicated only by the fact that so much nonsense had already been written about magic when Crowley took up the cause of rehabilitating it, calling it Magick (and including scientific mysticism), and so much nonsense has been written on the subject concurrent to and since Crowley's work. Of course, Irwin is also throwing in references to the stuff of fairy tales and childhood fantasy, ghouls and goblins and such, to muddy the waters of the debate to his advantage, challenging the existence of the "supernatural" as a straw man.

There will always be nay-sayers challenging the explorers, and since the unexplored territory today includes 'inner space,' human understanding of its own existence and experience, the 'subjective' is going to butt up against the 'objective' time and time again, until an accurate balance in perspective is finally arrived at.

IAO131 wrote: ›
Is it fathomable that some "explorers" HAVE explored and not deemed it necessary to label their experiences 'praeterhuman' or 'supernatural'? Is it possible that even people who perform Magick dont entertain these superstitions? I think so, but either way: if you make an objective, empirical claim, it should be submitted to objective, empirical scrutiny and not 'interior conviction.'

Poelzig wrote: › It is pointless arguing with anyone incapable of making the distinction between an object they imagine in their head and an object sitting in front of thier eyes.

Alastrum wrote: › So... no proof then, just more of the same:D

Show me proof and I'll quite happily agree with you, and maybe even buy you a beer.

Erwin wrote: › Is this kind of pitiful tomfoolery really what you've been reduced to?

Yathaniel wrote: › Erwin, I hold no ill-will towards your line of thought, nor do I consider mine superior to your own. I simply think both have their place, and both have their realities and their application. I think we more or less agree on that,

Yathaniel wrote: › You have made good points, though, I have found some of your statements to be hypocritical, though I do not estimate this is a deliberate attempt at dishonest debate on your part, but more a flawed internal process of reasoning. For example, your statement implying conformity with Crowley's points that comply with your perspective as seemingly being a logical standard of participation in a forum dedicated to his life and works, while also disregarding any aspect of his life and work that contradicts your narrow viewpoint.

Yathaniel wrote: › You go so far as to question the sincerity of Crowley's belief when presented with direct statements from him that contradict your own, implying somehow those statements may not have reflected what he actually thought.

Yathaniel wrote: › Ironically, you use Crowley's statements, arguably taken out of context,

Yathaniel wrote: › to engage in debate, and yet dismiss Crowley's statements as ridiculous and unconvincing when they are provided to illustrate a contrary point of view. You really can't have it both ways, but you seem to be unaware of the dichotomy involved...

Yathaniel wrote: › Either way, I think this conversation has definitely challenged and deepened my own understanding of Thelema and magick,

Camlion wrote: › As for the course of this thread, on the nay-sayer side, I think that Los, Poelzig and yourself have made legitimate contributions toward redressing an obvious common imbalance in current occult thinking. I suspect that Irwin's actual agenda is much less clear, very possibly to himself, as well.

IAO131 wrote: ›

People have said this about 5 times but no one is denying the subjective reality of demons, fairies, gods, angels, etc. but what people are denying is the objective reality of these entities. Its quite simple. Those things which can be detected by multiple people - like a computer in Los' example - are objective and that which is only in someone's mind - like a dragon in Los' example - are subjective. An experience of Jesus is only subjective and may bring subjective conviction but it can never reveal the objectivity existence of jesus, coming to one etc.

zardoz wrote: › That's poor criteria for objectivity. That would mean that the so-called appearance of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima witnessed by thousands was objective.

zardoz wrote: › Consenual reality simply means we all or mostly all, through our subjective experiences agree on certain things we call decide to call reality. But it doesn't indicate objective existence.

Alastrum wrote: › Could it be because, even though we’re not superstitious stone-agers but reasonably sophisticated and well-educated 21st century Westerners, we’ve actually tried it, and perhaps found it works?

Erwin wrote: ›

The key word is "detect". I don't think he's arguing that objectivity can be determine just by what a bunch of people "agree they saw", which would indeed be "poor criteria for objectivity". I think he's clearly implying that there has to have been some reliable method of detecting whether or not it's actually there. Sometimes simple eyesight will be that reliable method, but sometimes it won't. It depends on the circumstances.

Erwin wrote: ›

Again, if for the sake of argument we all lived in a mental world, there are still things which can be reliably detected time after time after time by anyone who cares to make a reasonable attempt at doing so. There are other things - such as goblins - of which this is not true. The former type of things are said to objectively exist, and the latter type are not.

Erwin wrote: ›

We can very easily assert that something exists without having to decide on what "existence" entails in some sort of ultimate metaphysical sense, in exactly the same way as people could determine that a rose was red before they really understood how colour works. The fact that "a rose isn't really red, it just appears that way because of how the rose reflects certain wavelengths more than others" is completely irrelevant to this observation, because the initial statement does not assert anything about the "metaphysical reality of colour".

Erwin wrote: ›
Seriously, when I say people are confusing themselves with philosophy, I'm not joking. Some people here are seriously trying to assert that there is no way to distinguish things that are real from things that are not, and they are doing this because they think the question is contingent on the senses being able to detect some ultimate metaphysical properties of the universe. The simple fact is that the question just isn't contingent on that at all. It's just word games - using the word "reality" in one narrow sense and insisting on interpreting it in that sense every time they come across the word.

This is important: you folks who think that you can't distinguish between real and unreal because "all experience is subjective" are just flat out mistaken, because you can. You yourselves do it every day. You're just using "subjective" and "unreal" in one sense to argue against "objective" and "real" in a completely different sense, and confusing yourself with philosophy. This is not a sensible way to conclude on this issue, or any other issue for that matter.

Erwin wrote: › This is important: you folks who think that you can't distinguish between real and unreal because "all experience is subjective" are just flat out mistaken, because you can. You yourselves do it every day. You're just using "subjective" and "unreal" in one sense to argue against "objective" and "real" in a completely different sense, and confusing yourself with philosophy. This is not a sensible way to conclude on this issue, or any other issue for that matter.

zardoz wrote: ›

Exactly what reliable method would that be? Scientists can not agree whether light behaves more like a wave or like a particle, for instance.

Quote: ›
I didn't say or imply that we live in a mental world. In a subjective world there are many things that can be reliably detected and agreed upon 'as if' objective.

Quote: › How do you know that goblins cannot get detected, you have made attempts to do so?

Quote: ›
The subjective nature of experiencing phenomena doesn't exclude the ability to distinguish what is real or unreal to our common consensual awareness.

magispiegel wrote: ›

Erwin, seeing everything works on the basis of memory, even dreams, hallucinations, etc, just like 'rational' events leave an impression upon the memory. Seeing that death obliterates memory, even on a mass socio- cultural level over time, it would seem that your realism is itself a complete illusion, having only a relative 'reality', and importance, if that.

Quote: › Seeing you have an interest in Thelema, it seems a very different understanding than is shared by most,

Quote: › how would you promote your understanding of thelema to people who have no interest or belief in things spiritual, which you think is the wrong idea?

IAO131 wrote: › An experience of Jesus is only subjective and may bring subjective conviction but it can never reveal the objectivity existence of jesus, coming to one etc.

zardoz wrote: › Exactly what reliable method would that be? Scientists can not agree whether light behaves more like a wave or like a particle, for instance.

zardoz wrote: › I didn't say or imply that we live in a mental world.

zardoz wrote: › In a subjective world there are many things that can be reliably detected and agreed upon 'as if' objective.

zardoz wrote: › How do you know that goblins cannot get detected, you have made attempts to do so?

zardoz wrote: › Agreed. This argument applies equally to "goblins" also.

Erwin wrote: › Until you provide the evidence, your ridiculous claims will remain empty and baseless, no matter how much you want to bizarrely pretend that everyone else has to prove that goblins don't exist because hundreds of years ago some people thought they might.

Los wrote: › Subjective experience, in and of itself, without independent confirmation, is only proof of subjective experience. It can't tell you anything about whether it corresponds to anything objective (i.e. something real for everybody).

IAO131 wrote: › If I understand you rightly... yes. We can understand what is 'real' and 'unreal' by distinguishing what is subjectively and objectively (common consensual awareness) real.

Alastrum wrote: › Nothing bizarre about it. That's how it works.

Los wrote: › The position that "we can't know anything" is deeply flawed. Of course it's likely accurate to say that we can't have absolute certainty of anything. But that doesn't mean that we can't assign likelihood to claims -- and understand the likelihood of truth or falsity very, very, very well.

Los wrote: › And P.S. what's with all this "Prove to me magic doesn't work!" or "Prove to me that goblins aren't real!" stuff?

magispiegel wrote: › Erwin, seeing everything works on the basis of memory, even dreams, hallucinations, etc, just like 'rational' events leave an impression upon the memory. Seeing that death obliterates memory, even on a mass socio- cultural level over time, it would seem that your realism is itself a complete illusion, having only a relative 'reality', and importance, if that.

Erwin wrote: ›

Mouth is open, Charlie, should be shut.

IAO131 wrote: › Good thing humans learned to communicate, relate stories, etc. and eventually develop books so people's understandings weren't 'obliterated' upon their deaths... IAO131

Erwin wrote: › Mouth is open, Charlie, should be shut.

Erwin wrote: ›

No, it isn't. You can cry about it until you're blue in the face, it won't change that fact.

IAO131 wrote: ›


How about show how Thelema gives solutions to ethical, moral, social, sexual, and political problems like A.C. said quite a few times?

IAO131

Alastrum wrote: › Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven."

Alastrum wrote: › Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven."

Alastrum wrote: › YOU'RE the one making the bold claim:

Alastrum wrote: › You came in and started telling us we were "imbecilic buffoons".

Alastrum wrote: › The burden of proof therefore most definitely lies with you. Now stop being such a coward

Alastrum wrote: › Here's a sane viewpoint from someone at Georgia State University:

Alastrum wrote: › Erwin's absolute certainty is just as "irrational" as a belief in "goblins"

Los wrote: › Is it just as irrational not to believe in Bigfoot as it is to believe in Bigfoot?

Is it just as irrational not to believe in sock-stealing leprechauns as it is to believe in sock-stealing lephrechauns?

Is it just as irrational not to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as it is to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Is it just as irrational not to believe in the Christian god as it is to believe in the Christian god?

Speaking of which, what do you think of the Christian who claims to be able to speak to Jesus? Does he have evidence that Christianity is true?

kidneyhawk wrote: › I would be truly curious, Erwin, how you feel your assessment of objective and subjective reality relate to the "Ordeal of the Abyss" and the subsequent attainment of Master of the Temple? It would appear that the "Abyssal" Zone evokes the opposite of every idea until all are destroyed. This allows for the Master of the Temple to eventually rise up from the process...he has NOT lost the ability to exist in the world or to differentiate between Objective and Subjective phenomena but it is a different matter for him.

IAO131 wrote: ›

This is a gigantic Non sequitur. First of all, the 'reliable method' changes in accordance with circusmtances. If you want to say a demon manifested visibly, take a video; set up the conditions so they are double-blind in certain circumstances (e.g. have a person who claims they can move things physically through the astral sit in room A and tell them to move the object in room B).

IAO131 wrote: ›
As for your second sentence... Suppose scientists didnt agree on whether light behaves more like a wave or particle; would that even have any bearing on what a reliable method might be? Theyre totally disconnected ideas. Also, scientists agree: light behaves as a wave in certain circusmtances and as a particle in others. There is no debate about whether light behaves 'more' like one or the other; there is a complementarity principle (look it up).

IAO131 wrote: ›

Like this forum. We detect conversation, we agree to talk about certain subjects and agree to certain guidelines but no one has the exact same interpretation of what is being said. We experience this forum subjectively. It's different for everyone. Everyone experiences a different Universe. This does not mean that everything is subjective, though.




This is asking for negative proof which is impossible. No one believes Santa Claus exists even though no one has detected him or made attempts etc... goblins and other things are in the same category.

Erwin wrote: ›

It's not that goblins "cannot" get detected, but that they don't get detected - because they don't exist. And I know they don't exist because nobody has ever been able to reliably detect one, which is good enough evidence for me to support the evidence-based claim that they don't.

zardoz wrote: › Agreed. This argument applies equally to "goblins" also.

Quote: ›
Precisely my point. And when you apply this same test to goblins, the conclusion you come to - if you make a reasonable and honest attempt, of course - is that they aren't there.

Quote: ›
That's the important point: if "everything is subjective", then that applies to everything as the phrase suggests, which means that distinction becomes utterly meaningless. Even if "everything is subjective", we can still reliably distinguish between things which do exist - such as televisions - and things which do not - such as goblins. This is what I am trying to get across - claiming that "everything is subjective" or that "personal experience is all there is" in no way, shape, or form gets you away from the fact that goblins don't exist. Even to one's "subjective experience" they don't appear to exist. Right now, in the everyday world, we can distinguish between "real" and "unreal". If someone reads a philosophy book and thinks to themselves that "everything is subjective", we don't suddenly get transported to a world where we can no longer do that. The argument that some people are making to "support" the existence of goblins is flawed, for this reason; that argument just doesn't work.

Erwin wrote: ›

OK, that's a fair enough question.

The short answer - which, to avoid disappointment, I'll expand on slightly - is that this "assessment of objective and subjective reality" really doesn't relate to the "Ordeal of the Abyss" at all. What the "Ordeal of the Abyss" really relates to is exactly what Crowley said it did:

"the emancipation from thought by putting each idea against its opposite, and refusing to prefer either"

This is not some injunction to indulge in a wishy-washy intellectual stupor where you become the most gullible nutbar in history and becoming willing to accept any old notion as being as "potentially true" as any other. It means, again - there's a theme, here - to do exactly what it says: "refuse to prefer either". This includes, amongst other things, refusing to prefer the idea that "truth is relative" or however else you want to phrase your current position - "each idea", including that one.

It's literally an injunction to not let thought be contaminated by personal preference - exactly what it says again. For instance, some people might look at evidence and come to the conclusion that reincarnation is true, not because the evidence supports it, but because they'd like it to be true. Equally, to avoid accusations of being unfair, neither do you want to "prefer" thoughts simply because they are reasonably supported by evidence, either. That contamination of preference in its entirety needs to go.

"So why all this fuss about evidence?" I hear you cry. Well, why not? There's no reason to prefer it, but there's no reason to prefer something else, either. Refusing to prefer one thought over another doesn't leave you agonising about what basis you're going to use to think one thought instead of another - it frees you from that. Just like this idea of "I will interpret every phenomenon as a particular dealing of God with my soul" doesn't mean that you sit around pondering all day, diligently tracking down every possible implication of every phenomenon that happens to come your way and trying to "figure out" what the importance of it is; you just accept that "every phenomenon is a particular dealing of God with my soul" and that's the only "meaning" each phenomenon has. Again, it's a liberating rather than a constricting injunction, because once you banish preference in thought it simply doesn't matter what a phenomenon might "mean" - you just deal with it as what it is and then happily go on your way.

So, one observes that phenomenon which are "scientifically demonstrable" can be used to reliably determine what's going on and that phenomenon which are not cannot, for example, and when one wants to determine what's going on, that's how one selects which thoughts to go with. You don't start thinking how much more "meaningful" and "rich" life would be if you believed in goblins and start selecting other thoughts on that basis because you are preferring thoughts any more. Similarly, distracting yourself with metaphysical speculations about the actual nature of "truth" is also a symptom of preference in thought, but it's something you (needlessly and incorrectly) feel like you have some kind of obligation to get to grips with. As I said before, you don't need to determine the ontological reality of the universe in order to determine how to set your VCR, and if you're letting that sort of thought distract and confuse you you're doing it because you have some kind of preference for doing that, not because it actually serves any useful purpose or gets you anywhere, and if you didn't have such a preference you wouldn't think things like that all the time. Exactly the same thing with people who feel some sort of need to defend their beliefs, to "stand up for their beliefs" and to "defend occultism", as if those beliefs are actually worth something in and of themselves. Again, preference in thought.

Similarly, there is no conflict if one wishes to "explore the mind" in the way that you're interested in, because in such a case one really isn't interested in "reliably determining what's going on", so you don't need to select those thoughts, or any thoughts at all in some cases. You pay attention to the thoughts which come in handy for whatever your present purpose is and you don't let your pet preferred theories get in the way of that. You use thought as a tool, instead of being a slave to it. And stubbornly insisting that "truth is relative" and "reason is bullshit" to talk yourself into taking a wishy-washy attitude to determining facts is categorically not being the master of your thoughts, it's letting a favoured philosophical attitude dictate what you are or are not going to accept, and letting thoughts rule you.

In a nutshell, what that part of the "Ordeal of the Abyss" is really getting to is just letting the thoughts be whatever they are, and refraining from insisting that they be one thing or another. Personal preference, in thought as much as in anything else, is a quality of the personality, and what you're trying to do there is achieve "the perfect annihilation of that personality which limts and oppresses [the] true self." Notice what the passage a few paragraphs down implies about this - "an annihilation of all the bonds that compose the self". No actual "bits" get destroyed in this process, and the Master of the Temple doesn't turn into some mindless zombie, because it's not these "bits" which constitute the self in the first place - it's the "bonds". One of those bonds is a preference for things being one way rather than another way, and the sum total of these preferences constitutes a significant part of what is recognisable as the "personality". You can see this in everyday life when you meet somebody after a long period of separation and they no longer believe in the same kinds of issues, no longer have the same passions - they seem like completely different people, because those pattens of preferences that constitute the motivating force of the personality - or the "conscious will" - have changed. One very big part of "annihilating the personality" consists of letting those preferences go altogether, and this includes preference in idea and thought. It's generally considered to be a traumatic process because letting go of one's preferences is not particularly pleasant, because - obviously - one prefers to keep them. But, if that's where you want to go, that's what you have to do.

Los wrote: › Is it just as irrational not to believe in Bigfoot as it is to believe in Bigfoot?

kidneyhawk wrote: › It seems to me that switching the burden of proof to Erwin is a poor argument. "Prove to me that "Goblins" aren't real. Can't do it? You lose!" What kind of argument is that?

kidneyhawk wrote: ›
The reason I'm reacting to this response, as seen in posts above, is that it doesn't seriously address something which, despite invective and insult, Erwin DOES tackle in a serious fashion. He is making the statement that claims for objective reality of discarnate intelligences and like phenomena is bunkum. He is basing this on his personal experience of reality, how he perceives others perceiving the same world and processes of logic and rationality apllied to available information.

kidneyhawk wrote: ›

I would do something very similar if I met a crackpot who was truly convinced that he was The Great Beast reincarnate and ready for another go in the Malkuthian realm. I've met plenty of people claiming utterly stupid and ridiculous things. My own process of judgement and assessment dismisses their claims. And it doesn't give a nice disclaimer that in their universe it IS true and so on...

kidneyhawk wrote: ›
Now having stated this, Erwin's feather ruffle and he comes along with cynicism and the "show me the proof!" I would prefer NOT to insult him for doing so or come back with some counter along the lines of "well, show me it's NOT true, man!"

kidneyhawk wrote: ›
My experiences are my experiences...and my experiences tell me that the nature and quality of experience CAN grow beyond what we assume is the be-all end-all. The "brain in a vat" perspective (thank you, Los) I don't see so much as a theory to be backed by "proof" as I do a perspective which allows for a differently angled investigation of phenomena. Buddhism comes at it less sci-fi but from a similar vantage point. The world is an Illusion. It's a virtual reality and it's befuddled us from perceiving the real nature of existence. Or we can see ourselves as Gurdjieffian "Sleepers." Or whatever. It's a proposal that we can open ourselves to experiencing our lives in a different and deeper fashion.

With regards to a specific proposal ie. that such an expanded awareness can allow us to make contact with discarnate intelligences such as Aiwass, we require both a) the experience and b) a way to understand it. Again, I'll refer to Robert Anton Wilson who created his chart of various "models" to see things as objectively as possible. Or at least not to get trapped from understanding by getting enclosed in the pet view he likes the most. This, too, is part of that push to "go beyond." To keep on moving and keep on breaking barriers.

kidneyhawk wrote: ›
With regards to Intelligences such as Aiwass, I feel strongly that they have their existence in a place where the debate between the objective and subjective cease, being resolved by a type of "Initiation" which restructures the mind. I have heard the term "Imaginal" used and in clear distinction from the derogatory use of "Imagination." It's not a matter of suspending belief or accepting the subjective as objective but entering and working in a place where these categories are transcended. The technologies of magic and mysticism are aids to this process.

When we are speaking of LAM, for example, we are NOT referring to a corporeal "spaceman" who someone could take a picture of. The nature of LAM is Imaginal and is neither objective nor subjective...on some levels of consciousness, LAM will manifest in these seeming categories but this is an extension INTO the categories. The nature of LAM lies on more "interior" level which can only be accessed when the dualism discussed here is pushed through.

I would be truly curious, Erwin, how you feel your assessment of objective and subjective reality relate to the "Ordeal of the Abyss" and the subsequent attainment of Master of the Temple? It would appear that the "Abyssal" Zone evokes the opposite of every idea until all are destroyed. This allows for the Master of the Temple to eventually rise up from the process...he has NOT lost the ability to exist in the world or to differentiate between Objective and Subjective phenomena but it is a different matter for him. He relates to these ever shifting areas of experience as an extension of the transcendental state which has now become active in his consciousness. He is not a madman. He is "super-sane." And thus Crowley will refer to some things only being "true" up a certain point on the Tree.

I will also put forward that it is within this "place" that the "spacemen" of your derision reside. And that "they" stand in a yet unfolding process which, like the Deities of Tibetan Buddhism, take us beyond even them. But at that "Imaginal" level, a level which is different that what we might isolate as pure subjectivity, their existence is no more illusory or real than our own. And they act accordingly.

zardoz wrote: › Radio waves also weren't detected until relatively recently. Does that mean they didn't exist? Can you not consider the possibility that there will be things in the future currently undetectable that will get discovered and reliably measured?

zardoz wrote: › How do you know that you just don't have the ability to detect them?

zardoz wrote: › I didn't say nor do I consider everything to be subjective.

Erwin wrote: › If there was some effect caused by radio waves that was observable before radio waves were detected, it would be rational to assert that something might be there, we just don't know what it is.

scarobminor wrote: › Ok how about the story of meteorites?

Poelzig wrote: › It is amazing to me that just because a few scattered ideas once thought nuts were subsequently confirmed by science, that some think every far-fetched idea in circulation is a scientific fact waiting to happen.

Alastrum wrote: › Like I said, absolute certainty without proof is irrational. Until proof is demonstrated, the wisest course of action would be to remain undecided.

Poelzig wrote: › It is amazing to me that just because a few scattered ideas once thought nuts were subsequently confirmed by science, that some think every far-fetched idea in circulation is a scientific fact waiting to happen.

Los wrote: › I'm curious: what other basis than evidence is there for accepting claims?

Erwin wrote: › Well, those are the lengths that people have to go to these days in order to maintain a tenuous grasp on their ridiculous beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › It seems to me that so far you were only able to show "overwhelming evidence" that goblins do not exist like wood or metal does.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › That's a lot, but that's not very surprising, and I think you don't have to congratulate yourself constantly on your lonely crusade against all those ridiculous occultists/new-agers/magicians.

Erwin wrote: › Well, those are the lengths that people have to go to these days in order to maintain a tenuous grasp on their ridiculous beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. Every tiny little smidgeon of hope can be pressed into service, most perniciously of all: "nothing is certain!"

Quote: ›
a load of banal fortune cookie platitudes, bad Egyptology, and a bunch of easily debunked self-referential numerological garbage.

Quote: ›
if value

Poelzig wrote: › Another weird cultural byproduct is the commonly encountered need to assert "I am into ________ (Crowley, TM, Spare, Islam, Christianity, QBL, etc.)" as some kind of substitute for wearing a "Hi! I'm BOB" button or wearing a t-shirt devoted to their favorite rock band or consumer product. Only instead of a bunch of CDs or model race cars they have a collection of bad ideas poorly understood.

Poelzig wrote: › One would think a bodyless mind able to transcend time and space would be at least able of sharing some substantial or useful information that would at least lend some weight to the claim.

Poelzig wrote: › Sorry kids, not impressed.

Erwin wrote: › Yes, overwhelming evidence that they do not exist in an "actually existing" sense. If you want to argue that they exist in a different, "purely imaginary" sense, then that's fine, but I think you're obstructing communication if you're using the word "exist" in that sense.

Erwin wrote: › Yeah, it sure is lonely, what with just me and the other six billion or so people who don't believe in goblins either.

Alastrum wrote: ›

Yes, of course it is. It's irrational to blindly believe in ANYTHING, whether it be ridiculous or not, without some sort of proof. But irrationality is just as valuable a viewpoint as rationality, as long as one is aware one is merely adopting it for convenience, and not blindly allowing it to 'take-over' to the exclusion of other patterns of thought.

I have absolutely no idea how "magick" works, and I don't pretend to know. All I know is, I've done some particular actions and some particular results have followed, results that I'm fairly sure, all things considered, would not have occurred had I not done those actions. I suspect the same is true for all those who continue doing magick: "success is your proof".

Of course, the specific actions themselves were not important: what was important was the belief invested in those actions. This is why, for Erwin, magick REALLY IS bunkum, because he doesn't believe. And it will never work for Erwin, or any other scientist, because their starting point is a lack of belief, the very ingredient that seems necessary to make it work. For Erwin to change his mind, he will need to adopt the irrational (to him) belief that magick really works. It's Erwin's loss really, that he can't (or won't) do this. My world is far more interesting, and fun, than his.

Like it or not, there are a significant proportion of members here who are practising occultists, by the very nature of the site. It's a community of people who share broadly similar beliefs, ideals etc.

Now, if I were to barge into another community, say a community of scientists, as a self-confessed "outsider" who declares upfront that he doesn't share their beliefs, start insulting them, and assert that the very thing that brought them together as a community is absolute rubbish, I think they'd be entirely justified in asking "Where's your proof?" The burden of proof is on the complainer, not the community, the "new boy" not the "elders". It's just common sense.

But I really do think that a genuine scientist, an enquiring mind, a really intelligent person, wouldn't be so dogmatic and would actually reserve judgement until all the results are in, until proper experiments were conducted on the right terms (and not terms that favoured one set of beliefs over the other), in other words, until PROOF exists. Of course Erwin can't show us proof: there is none, either for or against, (YET!) and instead of being a man and admitting it he prefers to insult again, and keep banging the same old drum, thus demonstrating that he's no more "rational" than anyone who blindly believes in goblins.

scarobminor wrote: › Ok how about the story of meteorites? A few hundred years ago everyone who had a scientific education knew for a fact that they didn't exist.
There were no rocks in the sky so how could any possibly become dislodged and fall to the ground?
Those who had witnessed such events were obviously superstitious peasants. Any meteorites they may have seen fall which they had then collected to show to a man of science had nothing special about them compared to any other rock.
But the people who had seen meteorites fall still knew what they had seen and witnessed even if it took several hundred years for science to prove they were correct.

Yathaniel wrote: › and I do find myself having a new appreciation for the wisdom of keeping sound and accurate journals of magical operations, though I am a bit ashamed that it's taken this discussion to show me the necessity of doing so. I confess my laziness has left me with very little except my own memory of successful work, when I should indeed have been keeping proper records.

MichaelStaley wrote: › Sometimes, in retrospect, it's the apparently incidental detail which is the more important.

kidneyhawk wrote: › Poelzig-

Fair enough criticism. Returning to the topic of this thread, however, am I to assume that your assessment of Liber Al itself is, in fact:



Or were you referring to the general glut of new-agey "communications" from Ascended Masters and the like?

And have there been any such documents which you feel DID offer something if value as a "communication from Beyond?"

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › You must be joking. If you mean "commonly encountered" in the "real" and everyday world, it is hard to imagine that people do this, I never met one so far (ah, maybe one or two). If you mean "people" in this forum (dedicated to their "hobby" entirely), what it is so wrong about introducing shortly one's interests and moreover, what is so much better with your "Hi, I'm Poelzig, and I think Thelema sucks!"? Thank Goddess I'm no psychiatrist else I would find myself speculating about the origin's of your and Erwin's loathing of occultists.

Quote: ›

Why would one think so? To convince you?

MichaelStaley wrote: › What I would like to know is why it bothers you so much that I don't share your view, because it clearly does.

Poelzig wrote: ›

Liber AL has its moments but overall I include it in that same category. As I've said before, I don't consider myself a Thelemite - I think that aspect of Crowley is his most embarrassing and least interesting. Most of the Holy Books are more interesting and substantial than AL, as are most of his other writings. Book IV part II, Liber Aleph, The Heart of the Master, Book of Thoth, and a cluster of others I would include among his high-water marks.

No, I have never seen anything alleged to be a "communication from beyond" that offered more of value than could be brainstormed without a communication from beyond. Most of it is tripe wrapped in pretentiousness.

Camlion wrote: ›

That is interesting, Poelzig, as Crowley, in his later years, had relegated Magick in priority behind the promulgation of the message of Liber AL. You and he do not seem to agree on the evaluation of his work.

Erwin wrote: ›

Well, those are the lengths that people have to go to these days in order to maintain a tenuous grasp on their ridiculous beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence. Every tiny little smidgeon of hope can be pressed into service, most perniciously of all: "nothing is certain!"

zardoz wrote: ›

Seems like you go to great lengths yourself. Like using the umbrella branding term 'goblins' as a gloss for paranormal phenomena. I find it derogatory and disrespectful to practitioners.

I don't automatically trust so-called 'overwhelming evidence'. I saw Colin Powell present rational, 'overwhelming evidence' to the United Nations Security Council that Iraq had WMDs in development, for instance.

Erwin wrote: ›

In other words, nobody was claiming to be able to send radio messages before radio waves were discovered. Anybody who did start to claim to be able to send radio messages would be able to demonstrate the existence of something very easily, for the very good reason that if they couldn't, they'd have no grounds for claiming to be able to send radio messages. They'd be able to say, "look, I press this button, and a noise comes out over there, and it does it every single time I press this button". Anybody would be able to confirm that.

Poelzig wrote: › BTW: I have done workings that resulted in "texts" rich in numerical and allegorical symbolism that far surpasses most famous published texts of this type. It is not that big of a deal. Anyone experimeting with the technology of magic should have little problem achieving such a thing. It is delusional or disingenuous to use it as the foundation of some messianic project.

Kids, you too can do this at home!

Poelzig wrote: ›

Difference being WMDs are something that actually exist in the world.

I'm sure his overwhelming evidence would have been less convincing had he been arguing that Saddam had an army of goblins or a Vulcan Death Ray.

Poelzig wrote: › Crowley also thought that THE EQUINOX would be preserved for its literary content rather than its esoteric content, so he used the literary content as a trojan horse for the esoteric content.

I think history has demonstrated that he had it exactly backwards.

Quote: ›
To respond to the original question

zardoz wrote: › To respond to the original question: to me, it makes no difference nor detracts from the claims of authorship to put Crowley's name on the cover of Liber Legis.

Poelzig wrote: › I'm also not convinced that it is "belief" in most cases. Based on direct experience of actual breathing humans making these kind of assertions and corroborating it with the rest of their demonstrated personality traits it is more often than not posturing or an ad hoc identity prop rather than really doing anything or exploring anything of any real consequence.

Poelzig wrote: › I don't have a problem with people exploring different states of consciousness (without drugs), having visions or whatnot

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I don't think that "purely imaginary" is the only alternative to your materialist view of "actually".

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › FYI, the following percentage of US citizens believe in these "paranormal" occurences.

Yathaniel wrote: › I can't calculate a percentage, but the work I have done, seems to have been successful to a degree far beyond coincidence.

Erwin wrote: › The point being, you can't just default to "coincidence or goblins".

zardoz wrote: › Seems like you go to great lengths yourself.

zardoz wrote: › Like using the umbrella branding term 'goblins' as a gloss for paranormal phenomena. I find it derogatory and disrespectful to practitioners.

zardoz wrote: › I don't automatically trust so-called 'overwhelming evidence'. I saw Colin Powell present rational, 'overwhelming evidence' to the United Nations Security Council that Iraq had WMDs in development, for instance.

Erwin wrote: › I further note with interest that all these individuals who profess to "respect everyone's beliefs" seem to have no issue at all with not respecting my view that their belief is worthy of contempt and ridicule.

gurugeorge wrote: › Lots of options anyway. I can easily see how Magick could be real, and the situation be exactly as it is now, with there being only scant anecdotal evidence for it.

gurugeorge wrote: › Another thing is, I'm actually more interested in the phenomenon - I just wouldn't be as uninterestedly dismissive as you are.

gurugeorge wrote: › Even if most of the people here are delusional, then in my preferred (oops! ) nondual materialistic theory, their delusion is at least interesting (e.g. there's the aforementioned consisistency and cohesiveness about all these "sightings" - why?);

MichaelStaley wrote: › Au contraire, they probably respect your view as much as you do theirs.

MichaelStaley wrote: › By the way, what's this obsession with goblins you have?

Quote: ›
What's this obsession with aliens, time capsules and tentacles that you have, Michael?

erwin wrote: ›




Yet now you've accepted the evidence to the contrary, presumably. So when are you going to accept the overwhelming evidence - which isn't going anywhere, and isn't getting any less overwhelming - that goblins don't exist? Is the implication that you only trust "overwhelming evidence" when it already conforms to your preconceived ideas about what's what?

sonofthestar@Gmail.com wrote: › Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

“For example: I don't have a problem with Crowley hearing voices, seeing shadows, and having an experience that some seemingly discarnate intelligence dictates the text of AL to him. Whether this account of the event is sincere or not, My only problem is with him or anyone else asserting the objective existence of what was a hallucination or visionary state, or asserting that his inner experience or "transmitted" message is of universal significance, when the meat of it is less significant than much work by himself or others that is ……..”

“BTW: I have done workings that resulted in "texts" rich in numerical and allegorical symbolism that far surpasses most famous published texts of this type. It is not that big of a deal. Anyone experimenting with the technology of magic should have little problem achieving such a thing. It is delusional or disingenuous to use it as the foundation of some messianic project. enerated in a straightforward manner by thinking and writing.”


Poelzig,
In referencing the above, in referring to Mr. Crowley,
I would think---that if he really were 666---then it would totally invalidate most of your argument (as well the arguments of others) insinuating that he had messianic delusions, and that he/and/ or his message, lacks for universal significance.

Furthermore, if 666 is a tangible reality, (and I do not mean the vilifying denotation as found in the Bible)---then if that tangible reality of 666 has not been proven so already, it certainly will be so.

And so far as any such proofs are concerned,
---since we are so early into the Aeon of Horus,
I guess we will just have to wait a tad before we can “scientifically” arrive at a valid assessment as to whether or not 666 was indeed Aleister Crowley---and if his Magick is true to those claims.

Also take into account, that if there really is such a thing as reincarnation,
we have all the time in the world to see this Glorious Legacy of our work brought to fruition and ultimate success in at least one of our lifetimes!
(smile emoticon goes here)

I really do not think that any Thelemites
having experienced the reality of Thelema’s Magick
---are getting their knickers in a twist upon learning that some folk dismiss such possibilities as poppycock---or Goblin-de-gook!


Love is the law, love under will.

zardoz wrote: › Goetic magick does work, btw, but it's far better for people like you to believe that it doesn't.

zardoz wrote: › I'm extremely underwhelmed by your overwhelming evidence.

zardoz wrote: › Your game rule and rigid belief that Magick needs to conform to logic and popularly held notions of consenual reality in order to work seems patently wrong.

Alastrum wrote: › I have absolutely no idea how "magick" works, and I don't pretend to know. All I know is, I've done some particular actions and some particular results have followed, results that I'm fairly sure, all things considered, would not have occurred had I not done those actions.

Alastrum wrote: › I suspect the same is true for all those who continue doing magick: "success is your proof".

Alastrum wrote: › IOf course, the specific actions themselves were not important: what was important was the belief invested in those actions. This is why, for Erwin, magick REALLY IS bunkum, because he doesn't believe. And it will never work for Erwin, or any other scientist, because their starting point is a lack of belief, the very ingredient that seems necessary to make it work. For Erwin to change his mind, he will need to adopt the irrational (to him) belief that magick really works.

Alastrum wrote: ›
Of course, the specific actions themselves were not important: what was important was the belief invested in those actions. This is why, for Erwin, magick REALLY IS bunkum, because he doesn't believe. And it will never work for Erwin, or any other scientist, because their starting point is a lack of belief, the very ingredient that seems necessary to make it work. For Erwin to change his mind, he will need to adopt the irrational (to him) belief that magick really works. It's Erwin's loss really, that he can't (or won't) do this. My world is far more interesting, and fun, than his.

Poelzig wrote: › Am I hallucinating or has the assertion "Most people believe in some form of the supernatural" actually been presented as an argument more than once in this thread?

Erwin wrote: › I'd be interested to hear what you think the other alternatives might be for things which are not "actually existing".

Erwin wrote: ›

So post a video to youtube showing me one of the demons you've evoked to physical appearance. Until then, you can continue to make your bizarre and spurious claims until you're blue in the face, it's not going to count for anything with me.

zardoz wrote: › I'm extremely underwhelmed by your overwhelming evidence.

Erwin wrote: ›
I'm not remotely surprised. People who make claims based on fantasy instead of evidence generally don't tend to place much importance on evidence.

zardoz wrote: › Your game rule and rigid belief that Magick needs to conform to logic and popularly held notions of consenual reality in order to work seems patently wrong.

Los wrote: › The analogy to WMDs in Iraq fails on every level.

Poelzig wrote: › Thanks for the condescending lecture o mystical wizard of elfland.

sonofthestar@Gmail.com wrote: › Poelzig,
If my post seemed condescending, I apologize. It was not meant in any way to be mean-spirited.


Do not be so quick to criticize the “childish” method I gave, which perhaps lacked for
a proper explanation in the haste of my hurry..

In all seriousness, it will indeed---work!
So long as they do not attempt anything of an exceedingly mean or negative nature, there should not be any problems.
For instance, suppose they have tried every method possible to find an out of print book,
and have had no luck whatsoever; let them compose a ritual dedicated to their obtaining this book ---“knowing” that said book will not come their way through the ritual.
Remember, this is meant for those who truly Do Not Believe that ANY magick, works!

I admit, that the consequences of the magick working might be tragic, (though not by any means necessarily so) in getting them the book. So I reiterate—this method is only of use to those who
1. honestly and truly think that “all” forms of magick are bunk.
2. thoroughly disrespect those who engage in it..
3. have a proper grasp and knowledge of magical theory and methods.
Their purpose in doing things this way, should be to actually “prove” that no thing can come of it.
This “childish” method I have proposed, is not for children, but rather for intelligent skeptics, who are indeed well versed in magical literature---yet truly believe that the claims made in such literature cannot possibly work.
Now, knowing full well that if the magick does indeed work, they will get the object of their intent—through either a positive, or a negative means of manifestation....
and “fear” working the ritual armed with this knowledge, then it means they do actually “believe” that the success of the ritual is quite possible.
If they are resolute in their belief that the ritual must needs fail,
yet are fully equipped with the knowledge and details of magick,
knowing full well how everything has to be worded “just right”---then I would urge them by all means to test my procedure.
I repeat, this method is for those who are convinced that “all forms of Magick” are
foolish, ineffectual, and otherwise worthless.

Good night, to all.

Love is the law, love under will.

MichaelStaley wrote: ›
Condescending?



Crikey. Perhaps you should go back and look at some of your recent posts in this thread, still so slick with the spittle of contemptuous invective that it's a wonder none us have slipped and broken a leg.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I thought I did so. Would you deny your mind exists? No, I guess. But can I have dinner with it? No, I am sure. It exists, without being a physical object (or the physics have not been found yet). Also it can not be described as "imaginary". Since praeterhuman messages (I am not talking about goblins) are purely information, they might exist. If you know of a theory showing that the mind is simply a physical object or even have photographs, please let us know about it.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › The same with goblins.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I would say that their "being seen" very well might be simply "imaginary", but the cause of seeing them, might not and it is not a "scientific fact" that their sightings are always a product of the wishful thinking of the people who see them, though in many cases it probably is. Somewhere on the net somebody phrased it like this:"The question is whether there is another way of bringing mental phenomena into a unified conception of objective reality, without relying on a narrow standard of objectivity."

zardoz wrote: › Take your own advice, Erwin and pay better attention. I said goetic magic works. I didn't claim to evoke a demon to physical appearance.

zardoz wrote: › My statement is based on personal experience personally experienced.

zardoz wrote: › This blind faith in external evidence is not that much different than having a blind faith in Jesus.

zardoz wrote: › I've demonstrated the fallibility of your sacred cow, evidence.

zardoz wrote: › I don't invest faith in what people say, but prefer to verify things for myself.

zardoz wrote: › Any assertion I make is based on my experience. You have indicated no experience with magick yourself apart from reading books.

IAO131 wrote: ›

Wow. Just... wow.

Erwin wrote: › And that's gobbledigook and wishful thinking. "Unified conception of objective reality" really only means "including imaginary things".

Erwin wrote: › The effects of the mind, whatever it is, can be reliably detected, even if we don't know much about how it actually works. The effects of goblins cannot.

Erwin wrote: › The fact the nobody has "photographed a mind" is stunningly irrelevant.

Los wrote: › I'm not out to convince most people here that the supernatural isn't real.

Los wrote: › I'm writing this for those "on the fence." I want people new to Thelema to know that it's ok to be rational and not accept supernatural beliefs.

Erwin wrote: › Since this is the home of the Aleister Crowley Society, I'd be interested if anybody could post one - just one - quote from Crowley's over fifty years of work that even hints at "belief" being necessary for magick to "work", rather than saying the exact opposite and exhorting the constant scepticism that he always did.

Quote: › In the straightforward or "Protestant" system of Magick there is very little to add to what has already been said. The Magician addresses a direct petition to the Being invoked. But the secret of success in invocation has not hitherto been disclosed. It is an exceedingly simple one. It is practically of no importance whatever that the invocation should be "right". There are a thousand different ways of compassing the end proposed, so far as external things are concerned. The whole secret may be summarised in these four words: "Enflame thyself in praying."

This is Qabalistically expressed in the old Formula: Domine noster, audi tuo servo! kyrie Christe! O Christe!

The mind must be exalted until it loses consciousness of self. The Magician must be carried forward blindly by a force which, though in him and of him, is by no means that which he in his normal state of consciousness calls I. Just as the poet, the lover, the artist, is carried out of himself in a creative frenzy, so must it be for the Magician.

zardoz wrote: › This blind faith in external evidence is not that much different than having a blind faith in Jesus.

Erwin wrote: › If it's based in evidence, it's not "faith".

Poelzig wrote: › The discussion was about the non-existence of discarnate intelligences - not about burning candles to get that rare copy of Llewellyn's MAGICK FOR RETARDS.

Quote: ›
The discussion was about the non-existence of discarnate intelligences

Quote: ›
why is it being used to adumbrate such experiences?

Poelzig wrote: › The discussion was about the non-existence of discarnate intelligences

kidneyhawk wrote: › Actually, this discussion was about the nature of the authorship of Liber AL.

MichaelStaley wrote: ›
You know, there's something so deeply, deeply wrong with you. I have never encountered such a mean-spirited schmuck in my life before.

Erwin wrote: ›
Since this is the home of the Aleister Crowley Society, I'd be interested if anybody could post one - just one - quote from Crowley's over fifty years of work that even hints at "belief" being necessary for magick to "work", rather than saying the exact opposite and exhorting the constant scepticism that he always did.

I think some people here have been reading too many Wicca manuals written for teenaged girls.

Poelzig wrote: ›

Ghosts and space aliens are not a prerequisite for magic, with or without a "k."

DNA wrote: ›

Never anywhere in this thread was this implied, so I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion? I'm getting increasingly irritated -and you Poelzig, appear to be the chief exponent- by the use of, as I've said before, disingenuous terms such as "ghosts" and "goblins". Are you intentionally trying to be condescending and patronizing, or is this how you refer to such phenomena?

Poelzig wrote: › I think the argument of this thread breaks down to Aiwass as a facet of Crowley's own mind vs. Aiwass as literally a seperate mind without a body (or discarnate intelligence) who chose to relay his message to Crowley.

Erwin wrote: ›

If somebody claims they can "evoke a demon to physical appearance", I really couldn't give a stuff if "magick could be real" - for that particular claim, as far as I'm concerned they either stick a video camera up before their next evocation and post the results to youtube for everyone else to see, or they just can't do it, and they're either deluded or lying through their teeth.

Quote: › These theoretical issues are distracting from the point at hand.

DNA wrote: › And I've also noted that constant use of the word "supernatural" us being employed by the same people- why? This word has connotations that have nothing to do with magical/mystical experiences, so why is it being used to adumbrate such experiences?

Poelzig wrote: › I think the argument of this thread breaks down to Aiwass as a facet of Crowley's own mind vs. Aiwass as literally a seperate mind without a body (or discarnate intelligence) who chose to relay his message to Crowley.

Iskandar wrote: › So what then of Aiwass: part of Crowley's unconscious mind or an 'objective' entity? As I tried to convey above, my position is that even if Aiwass is "only" an aspect of Crowley, encounter with him amounts to such a level of experience where it would be [m]ore proper to say that Crowley belonged to Aiwass than the other way round.

Camlion wrote: ›

Yes, that is the debate, Poelzig. A few more thoughts on this argument...

Since, at present, the extent and limitations of the scope of the mind have not been fully and clearly defined, these two ideas are not necessarily mutually exclusive, at least as it pertains to function - to practical purposes. The contents of the mind might easily be mistaken for being other than that, for being external to that. Components of the mind do seemingly function independently of one another and communicate with one another as if separate.

In addressing this question of the authorship for Liber AL, and by adhering strictly to the method of science, toward the aim of religion or otherwise, we can only benefit. Crediting a 'part' of Crowley's mind as the author must be the default position. The fact that this 'part' seemingly operated independently and with greater vision or ability or whatever than Crowley might have consciously been capable does not, in itself, rule it out as being a 'part' of Crowley's mind; it only, perhaps, broadens our understanding of the mind itself. Therefore, we benefit by having broadened our understanding of ourselves, an understanding which is admittedly incomplete at present.

The alternative to the above is to run off chasing after authorship outside the mind of the scribe, before having exhausted the possibilities of internal authorship, which is contrary to method of science. Also, in chasing after 'discarnate intelligence,' we are employing only our own minds as the instruments of investigation, so any results can easily be attributed thereto, and that must our first suspicion, by the method of science. Any 'discarnate intelligence' that we happen to discover cannot be verified as such, as being separate from our own minds. Such efforts can only succeed in broadening the definition of own minds, of ourselves. This is not, after all, a bad thing. Is this not the true definition of the first step in the Great Work, to discover the nature and powers of our own beings?

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › it probably was not the case that Aiwass, the minister of Hoor-Par-Kraat came bodily down to whisper in AC's ear.

lashtal wrote: ›
And that's the crux of the matter, surely? Conveniently, it returns the thread to its original topic, too!

Crowley made it abundantly clear that this is exactly what did happen: that the book was literally dictated to him. And there's some internal evidence that the manuscript was written down at dictation, with apparently misheard letters crossed out and replaced as appropriate. So, the question might well be as simple as: "Who did the dictation?" Aiwass? If we take Crowley at his word - and he certainly appears to have lived much of the rest of his life AS IF he was speaking honestly - we're left with the puzzle: what - or who - Aiwass "really" was.

Crowley specifically didn't describe Aiwass as a "supernatural" being, or indeed, a goblin or an extraterrestrial; he used terms like "praeternatural" to accommodate many possible interpretations. At times he was happy to accept that Aiwass might have been exactly what he appeared to be: a bloke, a human male.

So, what if "Aiwass, the minister of Hoor-Par-Kraat came bodily down to whisper in AC's ear?" How does that affect things? Do we need the magical trappings that are sometimes so irritatingly and unnecessarily dangled from the ears of Thelema? Or does Thelema encourage us to consider the possibility of a religion without mumbo-jumbo, a self-development system independent of angels, demons, gods, spirits, LAMs or ... goblins?

Erwin wrote: ›

You appear to be using an extremely idiosyncratic definition of "works".

Erwin wrote: ›
Why don't you tell us, precisely, exactly what you think it is that "goetic magick" is intended to do, then we can discuss whether or not it "works". If it's not evoking demons to physical appearance, what exactly do you think it is? After all, if you assert that it "works", you must be able to describe what it's trying to do, otherwise you wouldn't be able to conduct that assessment.

zardoz wrote: › My statement is based on personal experience personally experienced.

Erwin wrote: ›
No, it isn't. It's based on personal experience rationally interpreted, and rationally interpreted badly, at that. We've been through this.

Erwin wrote: ›


No, you don't. If you eschew evidence and claim that your magick doesn't have to conform to such a silly thing as "logic", then you're not "verifying" diddly squat. You're just making a lot of silly shit up.

Poelzig wrote: › Did Crowley use the term "praetrnatural" or did that come from Kenneth Grant? I don't recall.

Quote: ›
Grant's more inclined, it seems, to "extraterrestrial".

kidneyhawk wrote: › Despite the "color" of Grant's work, I see the terminology compatible.

lashtal wrote: ›
Crowley.

For example, Equinox Of The Gods, chapter 7, speaking about "praeternatural knowledge": "Man has no such fact recorded, by proof established in surety beyond cavil of critic, as this Book, to witness the existence of an Intelligence praeterhuman and articulate..."

Grant's more inclined, it seems, to "extraterrestrial".

kidneyhawk wrote: ›

Despite the "color" of Grant's work, I see the terminology compatible.

Quote: ›
'praeternatural' can be taken as 'beyond the norm.'

lashtal wrote: › Or does Thelema encourage us to consider the possibility of a religion without mumbo-jumbo, a self-development system independent of angels, demons, gods, spirits, LAMs or ... goblins?

Quote: ›
I don't see them as compatible at all. Without the Grant's "color," 'praeternatural' can be taken as 'beyond the norm.'

Camlion wrote: › I prefer it unadorned, certainly, so that it can easily be presented to any reasonable person, and not limited to so narrow a group.

Quote: ›
I prefer it unadorned, certainly, so that it can easily be presented to any reasonable person, and not limited to so narrow a group.

kidneyhawk wrote: › Then perhaps The Book Of The Law should be removed from the equation, since it goes far beyond the simple proclaiming of and elucidation of "The Law."

kidneyhawk wrote: ›

Well, I don't quite think that Crowley used the term in such a general fashion. It certainly wasn't evoked to describe many of his experiences which pushed him "beyond the norm," be they behavioral or magickal in nature. He DID use it to refer to a specific class of Intelligence which saw as distinct from, say, the Goetic (which, despite being "beyond the norm," he identifies as being part of the human make-up).

lashtal wrote: ›
Huh?!

Poelzig wrote: ›

What is more important: "Truth" or marketing?

Quote: ›
Huh?!

Quote: ›
Being able to tell Truth and have it given due consideration is most important, IMO

kidneyhawk wrote: ›
Here's where I have to question Poelzig's observation that the "story" was one of "marketing." From one angle, yes it could be seen that way. From another, AC was shooting himself in the foot. But when discussing Liber AL with anyone, can you really expect to skirt the proclaimed provenence of the text, which automatically delivers its own implications, problems and questions?

kidneyhawk wrote: ›
Otherwise, we're essentially dealing with a very simple notion of living which is hardly original to Crowley. I'm not saying it's not important-or even ALL important! But if that's IT...Do What Thou Wilt...don't you think the Book Of The Law is a superfluity as opposed to the nice poetic package we know AC was capable of delivering (and DID) as medium for the message?

Poelzig wrote: › I mention this to counterbalance what could be percieved as contempt towards AC on my part.

Poelzig wrote: › I could start another thread on all the points on which I think AC was fascinating and correct.

MichaelStaley wrote: › Similarly, I find your insinuation - that my magical working somehow categorises me with those who wish to bring about the Umma, or those who murder abortion doctors, or those who oppose stem-cell research - equally absurd.

kidneyhawk wrote: › But if that's IT...Do What Thou Wilt...don't you think the Book Of The Law is a superfluity as opposed to the nice poetic package we know AC was capable of delivering (and DID) as medium for the message?

Quote: ›
It seems, kidneyhawk, that you think we would be lost without impenetrable mystery; i.e., that we would be lost if we were not lost.

Admittedly, though, we would have nothing else to do but our Will

Quote: ›
I think this is a false dichotomy. The Book can be a nice poetic package that is also superfluous

kidneyhawk wrote: ›

I'm all for penetrating the Mystery, Camlion. Hence, inquiry into the topics at hand, alongside practice...

And are you suggesting that doing so is in conflict with the Way of Will?

As to whether or not another is "lost" because they fail to share my interests or viewpoints, I don't believe I've ever made that statement.

Nor would I believe it's true.

Kyle

Camlion wrote: › I'm only suggesting, Kyle, that some people get so caught up in the trappings of Liber AL that they forget about its message.
....and the message of Liber AL puts an end to these superstitions if it is applied to everyday life.

magispiegel wrote: › It's message is antinomian with labyrinthine corridors that lead to all kinds of territories.

magispiegel wrote: › Basically, you do not make any sense to me.

Quote: ›
Antinomianism (from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law"), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ἀνομία,[1], "unlawful")

magispiegel wrote: › Antinomianism (from the Greek ἀντί, "against" + νόμος, "law"), or lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ἀνομία,[1], "unlawful")

Liber AL is a paradox, as it is antinomian in its structure.

Camlion wrote: ›

Basically, you do not make any sense to me.

Best Wishes

Charles

magispiegel wrote: › A.C.'s mind was so astute, and he knew what he was doing when he decided what to call the name of this strange book... It is antinomian to the nth integer...and beyond!

magispiegel wrote: › Is everyone really stupid on this site or what?

lashtal wrote: ›
And that's the crux of the matter, surely? Conveniently, it returns the thread to its original topic, too!

Crowley made it abundantly clear that this is exactly what did happen: that the book was literally dictated to him. And there's some internal evidence that the manuscript was written down at dictation, with apparently misheard letters crossed out and replaced as appropriate. So, the question might well be as simple as: "Who did the dictation?" Aiwass? If we take Crowley at his word - and he certainly appears to have lived much of the rest of his life AS IF he was speaking honestly - we're left with the puzzle: what - or who - Aiwass "really" was.?

Alastrum wrote: › Personally I believe...

Alastrum wrote: › TBOTL was indeed dictated to Crowley... but the actual voice he was hearing was Rose's.

Alastrum wrote: › it's abundantly clear that she was not outside the room when Crowley was writing the text down: how else could she have "heard" the words he failed to hear?

phthah wrote: › 93,
Contempt! You? Surely you jest!Now that I would like to see. Please, by all means, proceed!

93 93/93
phthah

sonofthestar@Gmail.com wrote: › Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

”So, what if "Aiwass, the minister of Hoor-Par-Kraat came bodily down to whisper in AC's ear?" How does that affect things? Do we need the magical trappings that are sometimes so irritatingly and unnecessarily dangled from the ears of Thelema? Or does Thelema encourage us to consider the possibility of a religion without mumbo-jumbo, a self-development system independent of angels, demons, gods, spirits, LAMs or ... goblins?”


I would define praeter-human intelligence as exactly that, prater-human!

Beyond any and all conceptions man has had concerning such entities (real or imagined)
Such as Gods, Angels, Devils, devils etc.
Beyond any denotations of superstition, real or imagined.
Transcending all thought constructs of what is or is not.
Beyond any and all conceptions as to having form, or no form.
No assumptions to cloud the perception—or impinge upon the “awareness” of the experience of such a “being”?

Forget for a moment how AC proclaimed Aiwass his guardian angel---maybe yes, maybe no. This is how he reconciled and sought to come to terms with what he, Aleister Crowley--experienced ---upon his “communion” with Aiwass, using his knowledge, his mind, his emotions---his humanity.

So we have praeter-human intelligence---beyond corporal and incorporeal.
Transcending form and no form. Not limited by time or space, but accommodating to those who are bound unto such constructs of “reality”.

I liken it to an invocation I made over and over from the age of about 11, on.
I made it long before I read my first copy of anything written by AC.
As I perhaps made mention of it-- in some other post here on this magnificent web site and community, I now reiterate it if I have not already done so.

Oh thou who hath never demanded the sacrifice of any living thing,
Thee do I invoke!

Oh thou, who transcends the religions of all men,
Thee do I invoke!

Oh thou who wills that man be free,
Thee do I invoke!

Oh thou who transcends all Gods, Angels, devils and spirits,
Thee do I invoke!

Oh thou who’s name is infinite and inconceivable,
Thee do I invoke!

Essence of Life, Thee do I invoke!
Essence of Love, Thee do I invoke!
Light of illumination, Thee do I invoke!

Imbue me! Indwell the sanctum of my mind and consciousness!
Indwell this vehicle of flesh!

That is essentially what I repeated, standing on top the roof of my shed, every day when I came home from school.

It is all I could then, and mostly all I can now---fathom praeter-human to mean.

Love is the law, love under will.

lashtal wrote: ›
But you're being selective as to which parts of the account to consider truthful, apparently for no better reason than that it meets your personal bias. I quote from The Equinox Of The Gods: "I failed to hear a sentence, and (later on) the scarlet Woman, invoking Aiwass, wrote in the missing words. (How? She was not in the room at the time, and heard nothing.)" (Emphasis added...)

It just seems that you add another label of supposition and assumption on what is, on the face of it at least, a simple account of an apparently extra-ordinary, or at least unusual, event.

Yathaniel wrote: › It is possible Crowley in saying the scarlet woman was outside of the room, was speaking to the exception of her body, which remained inside the room, as a medium.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › No, it doesn't. What you are proposing is that the mind and mental processes are imaginary things and non-existent.

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Concerning your mentioning of scientific research on the functions of the mind, I would even argument that most scientists agree that no machine will ever be able to comprehend anything, and therefore will never be able to really imitate a mind. I can't understand how you can say that it doesn't objectively exist,

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › But you are constantly whining for a photograph of a goblin...

daimonos wrote: › It's not quite 'belief', but there's this from Book 4:

the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I thought you wanted like to avoid word games. But now "faith in external evidence based in evidence"? Which of course would mean that you have blind faith in the unfallibility of "external evidence based in evidence". Which is what zardoz seems to address here. The faith in the infallibility of external evidence.

gurugeorge wrote: › The entities spoken of might not be capturable by a camera, yet still be objectively real.

gurugeorge wrote: › What do you have if you have a situation like this: 3 people see something, describe its antics independently, yet tally, but a camera sees nothing?

gurugeorge wrote: › As Popper said, the exhortation "Observe!" is meaningless without a prior theory about what counts as a thing to be observed,

zardoz wrote: › I'm not going to waste my time trying to communicate to someone so obviously close-minded.

Alastrum wrote: › Pssst! Has he gone yet?

Alastrum wrote: › Well, that was rather like being told "sex is overrated", by a virgin!

gurugeorge wrote: ›

Hehe, Erwin slipped it in elegantly somewhere near the beginning of the thread. I think it may just have been a slip, though, he's too smart to miss the obvious irrelevance of the term to this discussion.

magispiegel wrote: › What are you talking about Paul? LOLOLOL!

This is a revelation! There is no difference! Message, Structure...(rolling eyes). Sun in Pisces, Moon in Cancer. The waters of Nuith right 'now' are reflecting in her magickal mirror the antinomian nature of Liber AL. There is no bloody LAW (except on Lashtal-joke!!!! lol!). That's the whole point! Is everyone really stupid on this site or what?

Liber AL is a metaphysic, does not anyone get it?

If you think you do...then it's gone. In a flash I say, yay, I say, In a flash!

Los wrote: › 1) Does the Christian who claims to talk to Jesus have evidence that Christianity is true? Why not?

2) Let's get back to kidneyhawk's idea about double-blind tests of these occult powers. Are there any powers that have measurable results that are not open to interpretation? For instance, could one of these spirits predict the roll of a die or locate a nugget of gold hidden in one of ten identical boxes? Could these results be duplicated repeatedly, again and again, at a rate much higher than what we would expect from mere chance?

If so, it would be very, very easy to design a double-blind test and carry it out. You could prove the existence of these powers to all doubters (and probably win a Nobel Prize while you're at it).

Erwin wrote: › I've been stating consistently that the "reality" of "magical experiences" is not at issue, here - merely the reality of the actual phenomena that those experiences are (mistakenly) believed to represent.

Camlion wrote: › Perhaps these endless attempts to either debunk or defend occultism would be better suited to an occult website? Just a thought.

Iskander wrote: › I disagree with you that only 'gross' reality is real and the other kind is not. If that is indeed what you are saying, which is how I understand you.

Quote: ›
If this is an inappropriate discussion for the site, feel free to ignore it.

Los wrote: › Again, let me jump in here and draw a distinction between "real for me" and "real for everybody."

I don't think that anyone is denying that mystical experiences are "real" for the person experiencing them; but they're not "real" in the sense of being real for everybody. It's just like my thoughts. My thoughts are real for me, but they're not real for everybody.

I can think of a dragon, but that dragon isn't objectively "real" -- it only exists for me and cannot cause changes in the reality we all share.

kidneyhawk wrote: › Despite Lashtal not being an "occult website," it is, never the less, dedicated to one Mr. Crowley, whose life was immersed in what we might commonly refer to as "the occult." I hardly think "occultism" is an off-topic for the site!

lashtal wrote: › Do we need the magical trappings that are sometimes so irritatingly and unnecessarily dangled from the ears of Thelema? Or does Thelema encourage us to consider the possibility of a religion without mumbo-jumbo, a self-development system independent of angels, demons, gods, spirits, LAMs or ... goblins?

lashtal wrote: ›
Do you really think so? I ask again on what basis one adds all this supposition, unless it's because one just wants to see Rose included at the event? If you're not going to accept Crowley's clear statements, why accept the bits one likes?

At the risk of labouring this point:

1 - Crowley appears to have acted for much of the rest of his life AS IF the reception of The Book Of The Law was an authentic and remarkable event.

2 - He gave a detailed account of the event.

3 - That account says he was alone in the room together with the "praeterhuman intelligence" that did the dictating.

4 - He states unequivocally that Rose wasn't present and that he had to resort after the event to his usual technique of invoking the intelligence through his current seer to fill in the gaps.

Quote: ›
Again, let me jump in here and draw a distinction between "real for me" and "real for everybody."

I don't think that anyone is denying that mystical experiences are "real" for the person experiencing them; but they're not "real" in the sense of being real for everybody. It's just like my thoughts. My thoughts are real for me, but they're not real for everybody.

I can think of a dragon, but that dragon isn't objectively "real" -- it only exists for me and cannot cause changes in the reality we all share.

Iskandar wrote: › I am not convinced. If I hurt my finger trying to hit a nail by the hammer, are you telling me that my pain does not exist objectively because only I can feel it? If you are telling me that this does not really work that way because we can objectively verify the existence of pain by the aftereffects or by attaching electrodes to my hand, which can measure the changes in my blood pressure etc., my response is that similarly, if a person has a nightmare, we can objectively verify that by similarly observing by various instruments "actual" changes in the way my body reacts to the nightmare. Does it then follow that the boogie-man from my nightmare really exist?

Quote: ›
the owner of the website wrote just yesterday:

Quote: ›
the actual nightmare is only real for you.

kidneyhawk wrote: › HOWEVER even in the "phenomenal" realm, what is "real" for me may not be "real" for you.

Quote: › As to the reality which is only true for me not being able to impact others, I have to disagree [...] ideas and experiences, emerging from those subjective realms, can find form and expression in a multitude of ways

Iskandar wrote: › To return briefly to the issue of 'belief.' Crowley did in fact write something very important on that subject: it is the Credo of the Gnostic Mass, central ritual of the OTO

Iskandar wrote: › Okay Erwin, but aren't you here stating precisely that "Archangels and angels et hoc genus omne exist (i.e. in your own words as "magical experiences" that have their own 'kind' of reality, as you say - what I was referring to as 'subtle' reality in my previous post) although not in a way that our butchers exist (i.e., inn your words again, as "actual phenomena").

Iskandar wrote: › In other words, although I totally agree with you that these two types of 'reality' (what Tantras call 'gross' and 'subtle' reality) should not be confused

kidneyhawk wrote: ›

So, did the owner ask a question as part of our discussion or state that discussion of "occultism" is now forbidden on his site?

Iskandar wrote: ›

I am not convinced.

Los wrote: › The way I interpret those lines, they refer (poetically) to things that "exist for everybody" and that can be verified by evidence and observation. No "faith" required whatsoever.

Remember, Crowley says that he wrote the Mass so that it would be endorsed by the "most materialistic man of science" (that's almost a precise quote from the Confessions).

Iskandar wrote: › Somewhere in the Introduction to his "Psychology and Alchemy" Jung answers the accusation that things about which he writes exist 'only' in the psyche. His response is that absolutely everything has to exist and does exist in the psyche, otherwise we would not be aware of it. Therefore, the idea of "God" is as "real" or even more real to many people than the objective existence of natural phenomena.

Iskandar wrote: › In other words, although I totally agree with you that these two types of 'reality' (what Tantras call 'gross' and 'subtle' reality) should not be confused

kidneyhawk wrote: › HOWEVER even in the "phenomenal" realm, what is "real" for me may not be "real" for you. We are only aware of our own field of experiences.

Erwin wrote: ›

Me either, in this case. Existence doesn't depend on somebody else being able to confirm it, even if the rational acceptance of a claim to existence sometimes might. "Thoughts" are as real as apples, tables and space shuttles are. If Los thinks of a dragon, then that thought is an "objectively" very real one, and it is real for everybody, even if nobody but Los can detect it.

What isn't real, of course, is the dragon, and that dragon does not "exist for Los" any more than it exists for everyone else.

Iskandar wrote: › We often have subjective experiences (e.g. pain in my finger), which we still generally accept as 'objectively' real.

Quote: › Even subjective experiences that do not have an external phenomenal existence (e.g. nightmares) are still capable to make changes in 'this' reality.

Erwin wrote: › "Thoughts" are as real as apples, tables and space shuttles are. If Los thinks of a dragon, then that thought is an "objectively" very real one, and it is real for everybody, even if nobody but Los can detect it.

What isn't real, of course, is the dragon, and that dragon does not "exist for Los" any more than it exists for everyone else.

Iskandar wrote: › But Erwin, aren't you here yourself displaying a preference - towards one kind of reality as really real - against which you yourself warned in this thread.

Iskandar wrote: › I mean, you consistently give credence and preference to the material existence observable by senses (and scientific instruments, which are the extension of our senses). And while this is fine in itself, it is not necessarily the only way of conceptualizing and validating reality.

Los wrote: › A thought is "real for everybody" in the sense that it's based on electrical impulses in the brain that can be detected by anybody. But no one else on earth can directly perceive the content of the thought.

Los wrote: › the point is that the dragon doesn't exist outside of my mind, and on this, I think we agree.

Iskandar wrote: › Erwin, it's not just word games. I am trying to remind you of the fact that reality is a constructed notion and that various cultures at various times conceptualize it differently. Which should give one a pause to reconsider what does one base one's convictions on. Similarly, when Crowley states that an Archangel does not exist in the same manner as one's butcher, the implications is that there is more than one kind of reality: the one where Archangel exists, and the other where one's butcher does. My understanding of Crowley's statement is that these two kinds of reality should not be confused. I understand that you are saying that there is only one reality, the one where the butcher lives, and this is where I disagree with you and I think that this is where you also disagree with Crowley. Which is not a biggie, why should we always agree with the old man, but my impression is that your claim is that your position is consistent with his, and I don't think so.

Iskandar wrote: › But Erwin, aren't you here yourself displaying a preference - towards one kind of reality as really real - against which you yourself warned in this thread. I mean, you consistently give credence and preference to the material existence observable by senses (and scientific instruments, which are the extension of our senses). And while this is fine in itself, it is not necessarily the only way of conceptualizing and validating reality. To Indian philosophical tradition, the material universe is unreal, because it is contingent and impermanent, and so is the evidence of our senses. The fact that the material universe appears as real is explained by the metaphor of the coiled rope in the semi-darkness resembling a snake. A person sees it and has a rush of blood in the head and a panic attack thinking it a snake, finding only later that it was only a rope. In other words, illusion (whether material or 'supernatural') may have an effect on 'this reality' - its effect is not in itself a proof of its 'reality.' Be that as it may, I am only - with this post - trying to alert you to the fact that you yourself appear to be having preferences in thought. Cherished idea does not necessarily have to be of metaphysical sort: one can exhibit preference in thought by being a skeptic and materialist. An atheism is an ideology as is theism; disbelief is a conviction as is belief. From one point of view, this can be a New Agey wishy-washy 'everything is the same' type of thinking. But if you really stand behind your earlier expresses position that one should not have preference in thought, the perhaps you could also reconsider your own convictions, however brilliant they may be.

Poelzig wrote: ›

If two people are standing on the edge of a cliff and one believes they are on the edge of a cliff and the other does not - by the same standard of valuation you suggest, their beliefs are equally valid.

Iskandar wrote: › Erwin, it's not just word games. I am trying to remind you of the fact that reality is a constructed notion and that various cultures at various times conceptualize it differently.

Iskandar wrote: › Similarly, when Crowley states that an Archangel does not exist in the same manner as one's butcher, the implications is that there is more than one kind of reality:

Iskandar wrote: › my impression is that your claim is that your position is consistent with his, and I don't think so.

Camlion wrote: › I did not say that it was forbidden but, yet, beneath the masthead is writ large: LAShTAL.COM is NOT an occult web site...

Los wrote: › Believers are fond of saying stupid things like, "I can't prove that my thoughts exist to anyone else, and in just the same way, I can't prove that God is real to anyone else. You take it on faith that my thoughts are real, so you should take it on faith that God is real." [after all, if his thoughts are "as real as a table," then he thinks his god is as "real as a table"...he can't show you evidence of his thoughts, so why should be show you evidence of his god?]

Erwin wrote: ›
Well, I think a better response to that would be that we don't "take it on faith that [someone else's] thoughts are real" at all. I have thoughts that I can objectively verify are very real. Everybody else claims to have thoughts, and they appear to act on those thoughts in the same way that I act on mine, so it's rational to assume that when they claim to have thoughts, it's because they actually do.

Quote: › Further, since we all appear to have evolved through the same process and from the same origins, it would be pretty much inconceivable that I have thoughts and no other human beings do. The fact that I cannot directly detect someone else's thoughts doesn't mean that it's irrational for me to accept their claim that they do have them, and it doesn't mean that I'm taking those claims on "faith", either. I'm taking those claims on evidence - it's just that such evidence does not include direct observation of their thoughts.

Quote: › It's similar to these people who try to claim that the fact we've never physically seen a monkey evolving into a human means that we therefore have no evidence to support the idea that monkeys and humans evolved from a common ancestor - it's just nonsense.

lashtal wrote: ›
Crowley's occult interests were but one aspect of his life and form only part of Thelema.

Los wrote: › Believers are fond of saying stupid things like, "I can't prove that my thoughts exist to anyone else, and in just the same way, I can't prove that God is real to anyone else. You take it on faith that my thoughts are real, so you should take it on faith that God is real." [after all, if his thoughts are "as real as a table," then he thinks his god is as "real as a table"...he can't show you evidence of his thoughts, so why should be show you evidence of his god?]

MichaelStaley wrote: › Perhaps I've led a very sheltered life, Los, but I've never heard or read this argument before.

IAO131 wrote: › That is, as you say, an assumption and not objective verification. How would one 'objectively verify' that thoughts 'are very real' if you only do through induction by observing behaviors?

IAO131 wrote: › And therefore isn't objectively verifiable. You take it on a faith that is founded in some common sense & most importantly induction - the same kind of reasoning can be applied to the faith that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

IAO131 wrote: › Its actually different because they are demanding physical evidence of a phyiscal process which can be measured, accepted as empirical proof, etc.

Erwin wrote: › This sort of "argument" is advanced all the time,

MichaelStaley wrote: › Thank you, Erwin. However, I'm interested not so much in "this sort" of argument as in this particular argument, which was stated as being common.

Erwin wrote: ›

As I said to Kidneyhawk, "awareness" and "reality" are not the same thing. Reality remains reality in the absence of any awareness at all. With that in mind, the whole idea that something can be "real for A" and "not real for B" is revealed to be false. Something is either real "for everybody", or it isn't real at all, because there is only one reality. .

IAO131 wrote: › It is a faith that [the sun will rise tomorrow], and it will not necessarily do so (see Hume's arguments about causality & induction), but it is well-founded because we can infer from other circumstances that this is the most likely outcome.

Erwin wrote: › Well, I think a better response to that would be [...]

MichaelStaley wrote: › Perhaps I've led a very sheltered life, Los, but I've never heard or read this argument before. The "Believers" who say this might well exist inside your mind, but can they thereby be said to exist outside of it?

kidneyhawk wrote: › To think we've arrived at some "total knowledge" is fallacious, IMO.

herupakraath wrote: › As usual, the argument boils down to semantics.

herupakraath wrote: › You believe that anything that is real must be apparent to most of the human senses,

herupakraath wrote: › My experiences contradict your definition of reality.

herupakraath wrote: › I had an incredible experience once

kidneyhawk wrote: › Could I perhaps observe that, within this discussion, we seem to all be appreciating-or at least acknowledging-different aspects, planes and dimensions of experience?

kidneyhawk wrote: › The contention seems to be as to the value of what those different aspects are.

kidneyhawk wrote: › To think we've arrived at some "total knowledge" is fallacious, IMO.

kidneyhawk wrote: › But I think one of the problems within his arguments is that he is very aggressively trying to squeeze the vision of such individuals into his own model of reality, which is not "wrong" but with limitation. You're not going to get a photo of LAM because LAM doesn't operate or exist in the "zone" of reality where photos work. For Erwin, this means LAM doesn't exist PERIOD. When arguments are put forward as to how things can be experienced "within the mind," these are shut down on the basis that such things belong to a somehow "inferior" reality, one which can't compete with the seeming solidness or consistency of how things operate "here."

kidneyhawk wrote: › But he has not successfully demonstrated much by demanding that we submit such proof to him when he is asking for it on terms that do not comprehend the nature-or value-of said "Goblins."

Los wrote: › My drawing of the subjective/objective dichotomy points out that feelings, desires, thoughts, etc. exist, but that we don't have to prove them because we're not claiming that they're detectable by everybody.

However, a claim like "God exists" or "goblins exist" asserts that these critters *do* exist for more than one person and are, at least in principle, detectable by anybody.

Camlion wrote: › I wonder, Charles, how long you have been pondering this text, and when did you first read it?