| From the Galleries |
2096 pictures in 33 albums
Ankhefenkhons
Stele of Revealing
Last Updated Picture:
Sutekh Ammon Deith
|
|
| Statistics |
Site visits since 30 September 2003:
34,052,839
Yesterday's visits:
29,260
Registrations:
Today: 4
Yesterday: 3
Overall: 7031
Newest Members:
|
|
| Random Quote |
|
I have learned a few tricks along the way, a few random skills and simple avoidance techniques- but mainly it has been luck, I think, and a keen attention to karma, along with my natural girlish charm.
-- Hunter S Thompson, 2003
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Erwin |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 12:09 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
Azidonis wrote: › So you are seriously saying that it your reactions to the event would have no bearing on the way things are,
Correct. My reactions to reality don't change reality. That's why it's called "reality".
Azidonis wrote: › yet as everyone constantly creates their own reality,
What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense. Everyone might constantly create a imaginative personal representation of what they perceive reality to be, but this is a long, long way from that representation actually being reality. It is indeed this mistaking of your imaginative personal representation of reality for reality itself which is the core problem the study of magick is intended to address.
Azidonis wrote: › I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page.
OK, so you're criticising posts you haven't read? As long as we all know that's what you're doing. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 12:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
nashimiron wrote: › This is not a static statement of current fact, but one suggesting change ("shall be") meaning "thou" must make it so.
I essentially agree with this in that it applies to one's actions on a "go forward" basis. Such language is common in temporal law, also.
nashimiron wrote: › Also, the use of "thou" suggests it is being communicated from one "person" to another, as few people refer to themselves as "thou". So implicit in the statement is the communication of the statement.
Yes, the communication of the statement from the author of the Book of the Law to its reader. It's not a communication from the reader of the Book of the Law to everybody else in the universe.
nashimiron wrote: › If you wish to communicate "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" to someone, murdering them is probably not a good way of doing so.
Irrelevant, since in the kinds of cases we are discussing it's unlikely that making such a communication will be inherent in the actor's will.
nashimiron wrote: › If the Law of Thelema was "Do what i will is the whole of the law" then the last 4 pages of this debate would have had some validity. So arguing over whether the will of me over-rules the will of thou is irrelevant to Thelema, except for those who are having difficulty getting to grips with it's basics.
You are confused.
nashimiron wrote: › How can you live by "Do what thou wilt" if a person you are interacting with (the "thou" in any given circumstance) is being prevented from doing their will by you?
Because you are the "thou" in any given circumstance, not the other person. You are attributing "thou" to the wrong party, here. Evidently so, since if "thou" is to be attributed to someone else, then you are under no obligation to abide by "Do what thou wilt" in the first place, since that injunction would obviously be directed at someone else. This is elementary.
You are thinking yourself into confusion, here. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Azidonis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 12:24 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Posts: 383
Location: Ellensburg, WA
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Aum,
[quote="Aum418"]
Quote: ›
What would you gain by saying its 'not' True Will? Would you create some Thelemic law to ban it? Or just recognize it as 'bad' like you alreadyt do? The point is that we cannot say whether anything is a priori part of true will, to make exceptions is to fall into the pit. There is no law beyond do what thou wilt, and thou hast no right but to do it, at least according to Liber AL. Anyone who has studied even a little western philosophy will learn that morals are totally arbitrary and relative, though they serve a social/cultural practical purpose obviously (althoug they may not have any validity in the scheme of Murder is Absolutely Wrong, etc.)
On the Outer, people need boundaries. In society people need boundaries. This is because they sometimes just don't know what's good (or bad) for them. I agree, every event and every type of person making that event is totally necessary, in some way. But I still don't believe that a serial rapist could have found his "way to god". I'm not condemning them or saying they are wrong or bad, it just seems like an imbalance somewhere, to constantly find people to take over sexually against their wills.
Quote: ›
I can say that honestly, I think you are right for the majority of cases, but I see no reason to say that rape & murder are always, a priori, "wrong" or "un-Thelemic." I wouldnt deny that most of these are driven by totally ridiculous ideas and desires that a normal healthy psyche wouldnt even consider, but again there are many situations that show me that absolutes (i.e. murder is absolutely bad) only serve to constrain in general.
I agree with this. I did think we were talking about cases of "bad murder" and "bad rape" (as opposed to "good murder" and "good rape"?  , which is why I took the initial stance I did. Its definitely clear that peace and love both imply war, as is part of nature. In that light, it's bound to happen whether society excuses it or not. In most cases, perhaps the murder is justified. There are those cases that aren't too, so to say that murder 'could' be a part of one's Will is in a way justified, but not in all cases. The danger in this is the thin line in between, which is something I do not see our current (or near future) society being able to walk. Hence my stance that it shouldn't be considered too openly as possibly being part of one's True Will. What if that decisiosn was left to... who? As there really is no way to know when a person is doing hir Will, it's something to be left unto the higher planes. Where society is concerned, I'm not sure how they would go about making murder acceptable in some cases and unacceptable in others. It would take quite a tough measuring stick!
As for rape... I'm still not clear on that, but perhaps violate is the operative word.
Quote: ›
I totally disagree and Im surprised by teh amount of emotion reaction this question has brought up in people. Its not insane at all. Think of self-defense. Theres one situation of murder I doubt you think is insane. You yourself brought up the idea of war and shooting the enemy. Is that insane? Also think of the person who finds their wife in bed with another man and stabs them to death in a fit of passion. This could really happen to just about anyone. For example, Look at this woman with absolutely NO criminal record who shot her husband in a fit of passion just because she found pornography... Also think of the mob mentality when normal people cause total havoc, push and shove, yell and scream profanities, and bludgeon people to death - mob mentality is a well studied phenomena.
War is essential in some cases, though not always agreeable. If I ever find my wife in bed with another man, I'm going to look at him and tell him he just saved me the effort of figuring the shit out anyway lol Then I'd priobably beat the hell out of him and get a divorce.
The woman who shot her husband is a really crazy example. I haven't looked at the site, as I'm not sure if the information is censored or not (using the ship's comp), but one owuld initially think that such issues as pornography would be resolved before the marriage began.
Mob mentality in that case is just a bunch of people with a common cause who are really pissed off about the same thing. How angry does one have to be before their vision becomes blurry and they lose sight of things, such as Will? Then, how many of them in the same mob are just there to follow the others?
Quote: ›
Balanaced doesnt mean one withdraws frmo the conflict of life. One mind may be more inclined to communicating in abrasive ways while another likes flowery language, for example - the true nature shines through this psyche and someone might perceive it from afar as being 'wrathful' or 'crazy' or 'asshole,' but Im sure a lot of Zen monks were called assholes (im sure the masters were by many).
Well I can't too much disagree with that, as I've been called an asshole from time to time, and will probably be that way until my end of days, thought I am neither completely balanced, a Zen monk, or a master.
I think there are certain arenas for this though, and such behaviour isn't necessarily beneficial in all cases. That said, are they really actions becoming of a master?
Quote: ›
I think if you repress the instinctual natural self enough it will burst out, often in neurotic symptoms. The best way, I think, is the way of Thelema and assimilating experience by "love under will." Both the mystical and magical paths offer very practical and active ways to solve psychic complexes (but one is also very liable to develop them as well in these practices!)
I wonder what the % chance is that one would be on the path and develop a clinical neurosis and enjoyment for rape, and still attain.
Quote: ›
Not necessarily, nor not not necessarily. Im just playing... the point is you can say "it seems high unlikely that 95% of people would ever even consider this" but thats the point, theres no point in saying most people would probably do htis so lets make it a rule, those 5% who do not act like the other 95% also have the right to carry out their wills.
The ratio may be a bit higher, like 98: 2 or something. Regardless of that, we seem to agree that murder does occur. Sometimes it is necessary, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it very well may be part of one's Will, and sometimes it won't. There is no way to judge a man's Will, and that's how things are. Society's view of murder is designed to protect the masses (98%), and thus it's a very tough arguement to bring to parliment.
I still don't think this same thing applies to rape, or pedophilia (as an example). I feel that some things are morally wrong and also are a direct violation of the (what would be) otherwise unhindered Will of the victim. I honestly still don't see how it owuld be part of the mutual Will... in the chance case that one got extremely lucky, and the 2% found each other somehow, then I may be able to stretch my mind to believe it. But with society again geared towards protecting the 98%, its obvious that we are debating a very fine line of something that most people won't encounter all their lives. (Pardon the inclusive statement.)
Quote: ›
Qabalistically they are horizontal and find this much more balanced. Thinker 'good' as 'better' than 'evil' makes one fall into that trap of duality over and over and over. Whatever is successful though, to each his own.
I was talking about something else. Mainly, the gross muddled matter of the mind at the beginning, becoming less violent and more calm and clear over time. The point in it was that the gross muddled matter is possibly the root cause for 98% of the cases of rape, as we've been discussing.
Quote: ›
Again, the point is that, yes, naturally people will start to (theoretically) gravitate away from violence, rape, etc. but there is no justification for calling any action Absolutely Wrong. Thats my point.
I'll agree with you then, in some way. In the chance case that 2% of the cases of rape in the world *could* be possibly an act of mutual will, however small the chance is. So there is a glimmer of hope for the rapist! If we agree that out of 98% of the cases are commited by people with clinically fucked up heads, and then there is a 2% chance in which the rape is a mutual act, and within that mutual act by the 2% of rape assailants and victims, there is still the question of whether that mutual act is indeed just desire or indeed the Will of god. That is an extremely low ratio, and probably a very rare case. In either case, if we agree that there is a chance, then there could very well be a chance, however unlikely.
I'm sure society's take on it would be a different story though, and I would not want to be the one to defend the rapist in court (which if it ended up being mutual and further, Willed by both, then it probably wouldn't get reported anyway).
Quote: ›
Cant you just see you are the judge who happens to have more power/society behind him? If he happened to have more power he would wipe you out because he thought oyu were equally 'abominable.'
Yea, I see it and have seen it. It's just my personal opinion though... going to take a whole different debate to crack that egg.
Quote: ›
I think that nature also always has variation, and thats the beauty of it too. Not all people will be identical if they investigate their true nature. Crowley once said someting like think of a world full of arahans... extremely boring place! Finding one's truen ature brings beauty & strength in your own unique way. The idiosyncracies arent faults or anything of the sort, but what help manifest our natures in various ways.
I agree. It is said in Liber Aleph, "variation is the key to evolution".
Quote: ›
I think theres also a plane to be considered that "all that happens is right" from the deterministic or absolute point of view, in which "Nero was necessary" no matter whether we could go back in tiem and kill him at birth or not to save people he persecuted. If a thing happens, if it is successful in manifesting then that itself is its own proof: success is your proof. But practicallly this point of view is virtually useless.
Hrm... Again on the thin line. Something manifesting only means that the conditions were properly met in order for it to manifest. Right and wrong is a label placed on it by human beings, commonly denoting favorable or unfavorable to the individual and to society.
So was he right? Not necessarily. Was it necessary? Who knows. It did manifest, and that manifestation is only proof that the conditions were proper in order for it to occur. I can't immediately see where Will is a huge factor. I mean, the cosmos is rolling along, and shits out a Nero or a Hitler, they run and do their thing and eventually get destroyed, leaving their mark, but there's really no way to say that the lump of shit was indeed waste, or a beneficial germ planted just to stir things up.
What a wonderful discussion!
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 12:25 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
fraseth wrote: › The magnet's assumed "will" is a quality.
Actions are not qualities, they are the results of them.
fraseth wrote: › A quality is a characteristic of a thing which can not be changed intentionally by the thing itself, because, at a given time, it lies within the nature of the thing.
This is an odd thing to say. I possess ten toes, for instance, a characteristic which I can change intentionally any time I like, although I am unlikely to do so. Is my ten-toed-ness therefore not a quality? Does it not lie within my nature that I am ten-toed?
fraseth wrote: › The mind can be excluded from nature because if can lie within the nature of a thing to not have a will. Mind and will can not be seperated though. They depend on each other, some even say they are equivalent.
I certainly wouldn't say that. It is the mind that gets in the way of the will. That's why so many magical practices are aimed at suppressing its influence. If the will was just the mind, you could just think any old tripe, and it would automatically be your will. This is neither a useful nor a sensible definition. Furthermore, the equating of will with mind makes no allowance for unconscious actions or tendencies, so in any case would at best be incomplete. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 12:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Actions are not qualities, they are the results of them.
Actions are the results of will, qualities lie within nature. They are not necessarily results of qualities.
Being magnetic is not a will driven action, it is a quality, like being red, or black (ie the quality of absorbing all light), which lies within the nature of a thing itself. The magnet can not say, "I intentionally change my polarisation this morning", or "I stop being magnetic tomorrow night".
Erwin wrote: › This is an odd thing to say. I possess ten toes, for instance, a characteristic which I can change intentionally any time I like, although I am unlikely to do so. Is my ten-toed-ness therefore not a quality? Does it not lie within my nature that I am ten-toed?
You are confusing the terms "thing" and "will" here. If you were a brainless rock, a marble statue for instance, you indeed could not change your ten-toedness. It could change, but it would require someone else's act. If I came along and would chop one of your toes off, your characteristics would seize to be ten-toed, and, at that time, you would start to be nine-toed.
Since you are not a brainless rock, I assume, you can change your ten-toedness but it would require a will-driven and probably painful act. So don't do it.
Erwin wrote: ›
I certainly wouldn't say that. It is the mind that gets in the way of the will. That's why so many magical practices are aimed at suppressing its influence. If the will was just the mind, you could just think any old tripe, and it would automatically be your will. This is neither a useful nor a sensible definition. Furthermore, the equating of will with mind makes no allowance for unconscious actions or tendencies, so in any case would at best be incomplete.
Kant & Spinoza may disagree. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Azidonis |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:06 PM
|
|
Joined: Jul 05, 2006
Posts: 383
Location: Ellensburg, WA
Status: Offline
|
|
93 Erwin,
Azidonis wrote: › So you are seriously saying that it your reactions to the event would have no bearing on the way things are,
Erwin wrote: ›
Correct. My reactions to reality don't change reality. That's why it's called "reality".
I agree.
Azidonis wrote: › yet as everyone constantly creates their own reality,
Erwin wrote: ›
What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense. Everyone might constantly create a imaginative personal representation of what they perceive reality to be, but this is a long, long way from that representation actually being reality. It is indeed this mistaking of your imaginative personal representation of reality for reality itself which is the core problem the study of magick is intended to address.
The point within my assertion is that (as with the more recent post) out of the 2% of rape victims and assailaints who we agreed may have found each other fulfilling, and the further small percentage of those people who's Wills it might actually be, none of those people fit into "my reality" or, the reality I choose to live in. Of course, the reality of the world is such, but the personal reality of "my world" does not include this small percentage. Therefore it's not necessarily "schoolboy nonsense" as I doubt I'll have to entertain and deal with feelings of rape and such in order to attain (with the exception maybe of this thread).
Another simple example is that my uncle enjoys hunting deer and other game. I don't. Therefore, while it is part of "reality" that people do indeed hunt deer and kill them for sport, it is really not a part of "my reality" I don't suppose, unless I choose to eat the lovely deer steak.
Azidonis wrote: › I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page.
Erwin wrote: ›
OK, so you're criticising posts you haven't read? As long as we all know that's what you're doing.
Actually, I did stop reading the posts. I got to the point where Uni_Verse got his ability to post freely suspended and reinstated, zain continued to threaten to tell the moderators on everyone instead of deriving an intelligent rebuttal, the_real_simon_iff, yourself, nashimiron, sonofthestar, Aum, and Paul were continuing the debate, and somewhere along the bottom of the third page, I decided to interject and display the view of society, as it seemed to be missing from the thread. This led to a much further discussion of the thin line in which such acts commonly denoted as "criminal" could quite possibly be one's Will, no matter how small the chance.
93 93/93 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:10 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
fraseth wrote: › Being magnetic is not a will driven action, it is a quality, like being red, or black (ie the quality of absorbing all light), which lies within the nature of a thing itself.
You're getting confused. It's not the "being magnetic" that's the action, its the motion that the magneticism results in that is the action. The nature of the magnet causes it to act in a certain way; in other words, the will of the magnet arises from its nature.
fraseth wrote: › The magnet can not say, "I intentionally change my polarisation this morning", or "I stop being magnetic tomorrow night".
And?
fraseth wrote: › You are confusing the terms "thing" and "will" here.
No I'm not. I didn't use the words "thing" or "will" once in that excerpt. Are you sure you're reading the right posts?
fraseth wrote: › If you were a brainless rock, a marble statue for instance, you indeed could not change your ten-toedness. It could change, but it would require someone else's act. If I came along and would chop one of your toes off, your characteristics would seize to be ten-toed, and, at that time, you would start to be nine-toed.
Since you are not a brainless rock, I assume, you can change your ten-toedness but it would require a will-driven and probably painful act. So don't do it.
So is my ten-toed-ness a characteristic and a quality, or is it not? You appear to be saying it is, above, which would seem to be a change in your position.
fraseth wrote: › Kant & Spinoza may disagree.
Good for Kant & Spinoza.
As I said, will results from nature and is a manifestation of it. In the case of conscious individuals, the mind can and does interfere with that manifestation. Even were the conscious mind to become perfectly aligned with the will, the mind is still only the executor of the will; the will doesn't arise from it. The mind belongs to the individual, and is his tool. It is obvious that it is inherent to the nature of that individual that he has a mind in the first place, but the individual's will doesn't arise from that mind, any more than it arises from his thumbs. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
Erwin wrote: › You're getting confused. It's not the "being magnetic" that's the action, its the motion that the magneticism results in that is the action.
That would be the reaction, not the action.
Erwin wrote: › So is my ten-toed-ness a characteristic and a quality, or is it not? You appear to be saying it is, above, which would seem to be a change in your position.
I clearly said it is, and do not see any indicators for a change in position in any of my posts. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:26 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
Azidonis wrote: › I agree.
OK. What are you arguing with me for, then?
Azidonis wrote: › The point within my assertion is that (as with the more recent post) out of the 2% of rape victims and assailaints who we agreed may have found each other fulfilling,
I don't recall "agreeing" anything like that.
Azidonis wrote: › and the further small percentage of those people who's Wills it might actually be, none of those people fit into "my reality" or, the reality I choose to live in.
They certainly do fit into the reality you choose to live in, since that reality is the same as everyone else's reality. It might not fit into the what you choose to accept that reality is, but that's another issue altogether.
Azidonis wrote: › Of course, the reality of the world is such,
Precisely.
Azidonis wrote: › but the personal reality of "my world" does not include this small percentage.
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop using the word "reality" to describe something that it not reality. It will only lead to confusion. You can use "my world" if you like, since it's an appropriate and time-honoured tradition to restrict the boundaries of your "world" to the things you are aware of.
Azidonis wrote: › Therefore it's not necessarily "schoolboy nonsense" as I doubt I'll have to entertain and deal with feelings of rape and such in order to attain (with the exception maybe of this thread).
You may not have to deal with the "feelings of rape and such" in order to attain, but for that attainment to represent anything meaningful you'll certainly have to come to grips with the nature of reality along the lines I've been describing, I can tell you that. Apprehending reality (and I mean the real kind, not your own personal kind) is central to attainment.
But besides that, it is simply not the path of wisdom to deny the existence of possibilities purely on the grounds that they upset you on an emotional level, neither is it wisdom to insist that Thelema or anything else must be this way or that simply because that's how you'd prefer it. This is the problem you get when you try to "create your own reality", you actually end up just creating a big old imaginary universe for yourself that panders to your own personal feelings and prejudices. And if it's attainment you're after, that's the polar opposite of what you should be doing, since living in an imaginary world is going to stop your progress dead.
Once you get over the initial shock of having to discard some of your most cherished and comforting notions, you'll find that the real universe is actually far, far grander and more sublime than anything your imagination could ever come up with. The real universe is big; the universe in your mind is tiny. The existence of acts that you personally find deplorable contribute to the perfection of the real universe, they don't detract from it. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:30 PM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3192
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › Once you get over the initial shock of having to discard some of your most cherished and comforting notions, you'll find that...
Just a quick note of moderation, Erwin: you really don't have to be quite so patronising or condescending to other members of the site that you engage with in conversation through these forums. It doesn't make you look either big or clever... Given the snippets of personal detail that Azidonis has chosen to reveal, I suspect he's experienced enough discarding of comforting notions.
Please do not respond to this note of moderation within the thread. |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
Last edited by lashtal on Oct 04, 2007 - 01:34 PM; edited 2 times in total
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:33 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
fraseth wrote: › That would be the reaction, not the action.
A reaction is a response to another action. Whichever way you want to define the term, "magneticism" is not an action.
Erwin wrote: › I clearly said it is, and do not see any indicators for a change in position in any of my posts.
OK, well explain this to me, then:
Fraseth: A quality is a characteristic of a thing which can not be changed intentionally by the thing itself.
Fraseth: you can change your ten-toedness but it would require a will-driven and probably painful act
Fraseth: I clearly said [your ten-toed-ness] is [a quality]
So, a "quality" is a characteristic that cannot be changed intentionally, and I can change my ten-toed-ness intentionally, yet my ten-toed-ness is still a quality? Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't see a problem with your logic, there? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 01:56 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
lashtal wrote: › Erwin wrote: › Once you get over the initial shock of having to discard some of your most cherished and comforting notions, you'll find that...
Just a quick note of moderation, Erwin: you really don't have to be quite so patronising or condescending to other members of the site that you engage with in conversation through these forums. It doesn't make you look either big or clever... Given the snippets of personal detail that Azidonis has chosen, I suspect he's experienced enough discarding of comforting notions.
I disagree. "Discarding...cherished and comforting notions" is a critical part of development, and it is neither "patronising" nor "condescending" to point that out. This individual has shown a marked inability to deal with the issues we've been discussing in an objective manner, which suggests that discarding some cherished and comforting notions may be in order, here. It's a useful, pertinent and relevant observation.
lashtal wrote: › Please do not respond to this note of moderation within the thread.
Sorry, but if you're going to post "notes of moderation" within the thread, then I'm going to respond to them within the thread, and you should have both the common courtesy and the personal integrity to accept that.
As I've told you before, if you don't like what I post to your site, you only have to ask me to stop, and I'll be perfectly happy to respect your wishes with regards to your own creation. To remove the possibility of any misunderstanding in this respect, my posts are entirely as I choose to make them; you are obviously at liberty to decide whether you want them here or not at all, but both the content and the manner of presentation are wholly my own business, and are beyond the scope of your moderation. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:01 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
Erwin wrote: ›
OK, well explain this to me, then:
Fraseth: A quality is a characteristic of a thing which can not be changed intentionally by the thing itself.
So, a "quality" is a characteristic that cannot be changed intentionally, and I can change my ten-toed-ness intentionally, yet my ten-toed-ness is still a quality? Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't see a problem with your logic, there?
I am seriously telling you I don't see a problem with my logic, yes. I do see one with your's though. Actually, not with your logic in itself, rather with with mixing up terms.
We are still at the very first post where I said you probably misunderstand or misinterpret the term "thing".
I never said a quality can not be changed in general, I only said the quality of a thing without a mind cannot be changed by said thing at a given time by itself. The difference lies within the definition of "thing", which I see, let's say, as a statue, and you see as yourself, introducing your own ten-toedness.
Since you are not a thing (I assume that), you can intentionally change your toe-count, which requires will > action > reaction.
Things can not do that.
(The only exception seems to be my spouse's computer, which, at times, seems to develop it's own mind, and does evil, will driven things by itself). |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:09 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
fraseth wrote: › I am seriously telling you I don't see a problem with my logic, yes.
OK. Then it is fruitless to continue this discussion. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:18 PM
|
|
Joined: Aug 28, 2007
Posts: 117
Location: TPA
|
|
Erwin wrote: ›
OK. Then it is fruitless to continue this discussion.
Come on man, don't get upset now. We are all learning here, I know I do. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
MichaelStaley |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:29 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 1308
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense.
You've filled this thread with little else.
Azidonis wrote: › I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page.
I doubt if you're alone.
lashtal wrote: › Just a quick note of moderation, Erwin: you really don't have to be quite so patronising or condescending to other members of the site that you engage with in conversation through these forums.
No, he doesn’t have to; but he does so enjoy it. |
_________________
"It's all in the egg".
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:43 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
fraseth wrote: › Come on man, don't get upset now. We are all learning here, I know I do.
I'm not getting upset. If your reasoning is devoid of logic, then it's quite literally impossible to have a sensible discussion of the issues, and therefore fruitless to try. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 02:47 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
MichaelStaley wrote: › Erwin wrote: › What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense.
You've filled this thread with little else.
As opposed to this "valuable contribution" of yours, I suppose? Do feel free to offer an opposing analysis at any time, if a reasoned discussion of Thelema is within your ability, which I doubt. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 04:13 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 798
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
Erwin wrote: › If your reasoning is devoid of logic, then it's quite literally impossible to have a sensible discussion of the issues, and therefore fruitless to try.
93, Erwin!
Well, obviously you have another concept of a "sensible discussion". I can follow fraseth's logic pretty easily, I also can follow most of what you are saying, and what others are saying also. But you seem to know what the reasoning of others actually IS, you seem to know what reality IS and what the Will IS, and THAT is making discussion impossible, or difficult at least. Of course it is your right to think whatever you want, but it borders on "lecturing" which becomes pretty boring over the time. Well, that said, I am still of the opinion that for someone who has found his True Will and follows its, it is impossible to commit murder or rape. I can find nothing in your arguments that says otherwise (apart from the theoretical "True Will Murderer" whom I keep in the same box with "Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he himself can't lift it?"). "All events are equally lawful - and every one necessary, [...] in theory; but in practice, only one act is lawful for each one of us at any given moment. Therefore Duty consists in determining to experience the right event from one moment of consciousness to another." says the prophet and later on, after making us consider the faulties of politics, the disturbings of societies, and the daily atrocities: "We are children. How this new Aeon of Horus will develop, how the Child will grow up, these are for us to determine..." To me this sounds pretty much like a "bettering" of the planet, I would conclude that the condition of our planet and our society (that have not so much changed in those years) were not very much to Crowley's liking. And again: "Do what thou WILT shall be the whole of the Law". There is nothing in there that says that the Will embraces every possible thing on earth and elsewhere. "Each action or motion is an act of love [...]; each act must be 'under will', chosen so as to fulfil and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned." You seem to imply that it is in some people's true nature to be murderd or raped, I can find nothing in Crowley's writing that says so. "The technical methods of achieving this are to be studied in 'Magick'." From the admittedly little I know of Magick, it is impossible for me to comprehend that a highly advanced Thelemite might be somehow led to murder or rape. I can see no proof for the theory that two stars who are colliding on their orbits, are both following their True Will. You are simply interpreting certain lines of the BOTL, these interpretations might not be right. There is no moral principle involved, I don't think that it is an evil thing to murder or rape (but that is because I don't think in those categories, murder or rape are obviously terrible), but I think that the True Will, once found and followed, won't lead anyone to murder or rape (this does not abolish murder or rape on this planet, since the True Will of course also can be lost again). There are many quotations that can "prove" my point, it depends on the interpretations of those quotes. Again, your efforts of "proving" your point so far resulted only in "admittedly, it is not very probable, but IF it is someone's Will to murder or rape... because DWTWSBTWOTL and so on and on... Would it be such a great loss to you, if the True Will does not embrace everything that is possible?
Hopefully you still care to convince me that you are right...
Love=Law
Lutz |
_________________
"Economic pressure is destroying the ideal of the family; and the craze for pleasure is both eating away the health of the individual and mortgaging the future of the state. - What other remedy than this: the Law of Thelema?"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aum418 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 04:21 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 01, 2006
Posts: 812
Status: Offline
|
|
MichaelStaley wrote: › Erwin wrote: › What utter and puerile schoolboy nonsense.
You've filled this thread with little else.
Azidonis wrote: › I didn't miss any of them. I simply got tired of reading the nonsense that kept pouring out onto the page.
I doubt if you're alone.
lashtal wrote: › Just a quick note of moderation, Erwin: you really don't have to be quite so patronising or condescending to other members of the site that you engage with in conversation through these forums.
No, he doesn’t have to; but he does so enjoy it.
Do you only come in to post vitriolic criticism and offer absolutely nothing constructive? Youve done it twice in this thread...
65 & 210,
111-418 |
_________________
.: http://iao131.cjb.net :.
-~: The Journal of Thelemic Studies :~-
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 05:11 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Well, obviously you have another concept of a "sensible discussion".
Evidently. My concept of it is sensible, for starters.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I can follow fraseth's logic pretty easily,
Really? Then do go back to the three statements of his I highlighted, and explain them to me. If you cannot or do not do this, then I will consider you to be wilfully misrepresenting the facts.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I also can follow most of what you are saying, and what others are saying also. But you seem to know what the reasoning of others actually IS,
Call me old fashioned if you want, but I begin by assuming that the reasoning of others is reflected in what they write, especially when I ask them to confirm my understanding of their reasoning is correct, and they reply "yes". Of course, they could be writing complete gobbldigook and only pretending to reason, and telling great big lies about my understanding of it, but I have a tendency to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume in the first instance that this is not what they are doing. Maybe that confidence is misplaced.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › you seem to know what reality IS
I have a fair idea.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › and what the Will IS,
Yes.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › and THAT is making discussion impossible, or difficult at least.
So you think discussing the will would be made a lot easier by everyone having absolutely no idea what they are talking about, then?
If so, I believe I have correctly identified the source of the difficulty you are having understanding my posts.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Of course it is your right to think whatever you want, but it borders on "lecturing" which becomes pretty boring over the time.
Suggest you don't respond to my posts then, if you find them boring.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Well, that said, I am still of the opinion that for someone who has found his True Will and follows its, it is impossible to commit murder or rape.
So you keep saying, and I keep asking you to back this opinion up, and you persistently refuse to do so. Why is this?
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I can find nothing in your arguments that says otherwise (apart from the theoretical "True Will Murderer" whom I keep in the same box with "Can God create a rock that is so heavy that he himself can't lift it?").
With absolutely no justification.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › "All events are equally lawful - and every one necessary, [...] in theory; but in practice, only one act is lawful for each one of us at any given moment. Therefore Duty consists in determining to experience the right event from one moment of consciousness to another." says the prophet and later on, after making us consider the faulties of politics, the disturbings of societies, and the daily atrocities: "We are children. How this new Aeon of Horus will develop, how the Child will grow up, these are for us to determine..." To me this sounds pretty much like a "bettering" of the planet, I would conclude that the condition of our planet and our society (that have not so much changed in those years) were not very much to Crowley's liking.
Yay for Crowley.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › And again: "Do what thou WILT shall be the whole of the Law". There is nothing in there that says that the Will embraces every possible thing on earth and elsewhere. "Each action or motion is an act of love [...]; each act must be 'under will', chosen so as to fulfil and not to thwart the true nature of the being concerned." You seem to imply that it is in some people's true nature to be murderd or raped,
No, I don't. Feel free to quote where I "seem to imply" this, if you like.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I can find nothing in Crowley's writing that says so.
Me either.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › From the admittedly little I know of Magick, it is impossible for me to comprehend that a highly advanced Thelemite might be somehow led to murder or rape.
Try harder, then.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › I can see no proof for the theory that two stars who are colliding on their orbits, are both following their True Will.
"Proof"? I think you're getting confused, again. "Proof" is not a useful concept to this kind of discussion.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › You are simply interpreting certain lines of the BOTL, these interpretations might not be right. There is no moral principle involved, I don't think that it is an evil thing to murder or rape (but that is because I don't think in those categories, murder or rape are obviously terrible), but I think that the True Will, once found and followed, won't lead anyone to murder or rape (this does not abolish murder or rape on this planet, since the True Will of course also can be lost again).
So you keep saying, and still you continually refuse to say why or to even acknowledge that you've been asked to.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › There are many quotations that can "prove" my point, it depends on the interpretations of those quotes.
So let's see some of them.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Again, your efforts of "proving" your point so far resulted only in "admittedly, it is not very probable, but IF it is someone's Will to murder or rape... because DWTWSBTWOTL and so on and on... Would it be such a great loss to you, if the True Will does not embrace everything that is possible?
I don't know what you are talking about. Whether or not something would be a "great loss to me" is completely unconnected with truth. You've gone off on a tangent again.
I don't think I'm getting through to you. You're just saying the same things over and over again, and refusing at every turn to justify or explain any of them. Traditionally, in a debate, one party advances statements, the other challenges them, and the original party backs them up. You are advancing statements, I am challenging them, and you're just repeating them over and over again. Until you start actually engaging in the issues you are talking about, I don't see a lot of point in continuing. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
MichaelStaley |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 05:19 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 1308
Status: Offline
|
|
Aum418 wrote: › Do you only come in to post vitriolic criticism and offer absolutely nothing constructive? Youve done it twice in this thread...
There was nothing vitriolic - that's a colour you have brought to my remarks. Mocking, yes; I'll enter a guilty plea to that, with pleasure.
"Constructive"????????????
Do you seriously think there's anything remotely constructive about Erwin's perorations in this thread? It's all empty, posturing rhetoric, reminiscent of a cock crowing on its dungheap. It might pass muster in the Little Rock debating society for precocious little boys, but that's about it. |
_________________
"It's all in the egg".
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
the_real_simon_iff |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 06:50 PM
|
|
Joined: Nov 07, 2003
Posts: 798
Location: Munick / Germany
Status: Offline
|
|
93!
Erwin wrote: › Evidently. My concept of it is sensible, for starters.
So not only you have a concept for a sensible discussion, but even a sensible concept for a sensible discussion?
Erwin wrote: › Then do go back to the three statements of his I highlighted, and explain them to me. If you cannot or do not do this, then I will consider you to be wilfully misrepresenting the facts.
Why should I? He pointed it out pretty well what he meant. It is just two posts after your post.
Erwin wrote: › I have a fair idea.
Well, normally you talk about what IS, and not what fair idea of it you have.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › and what the Will IS,
Erwin wrote: › Yes.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › and THAT is making discussion impossible, or difficult at least.
Erwin wrote: › So you think discussing the will would be made a lot easier by everyone having absolutely no idea what they are talking about, then?
I did not say this. But a discussion to me means that both sides are open to accept the fact that the other side could be right. Don't see anything of that on your part. But that's only what I think a discussion is, you don't have to agree.
Erwin wrote: › If so, I believe I have correctly identified the source of the difficulty you are having understanding my posts.
No, you did not.
Erwin wrote: › Suggest you don't respond to my posts then, if you find them boring.
How about trying to be less boring? Or do you mean, I should not respond to your posts if I don't agree?
Erwin wrote: › So you keep saying, and I keep asking you to back this opinion up, and you persistently refuse to do so. Why is this?
Well, the quotes I used do back up my opinion, I think. But of course you say no more about this except "Yay for Crowley". That's really impressing reasoning.
Erwin wrote: › No, I don't. Feel free to quote where I "seem to imply" this, if you like.
Okay, here it comes:
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › When stars are colliding, do you think one star was on his right way and the other one not?
Erwin wrote: › No, both were.
1. Every man and every woman is a star.
2. Stars collide
3. Let's call this collision "rape" or "murder".
4. I say, then at least one must have been following the "wrong orbit", or not following their True Will.
5. You say, no, both were following their "right orbit".So, the murderer/rapist and the victim were both following their True Will.
6. There is a "True Will" to get raped/be murdered.
Or do you want to say that only the victim is not following its True Will. Then Hooray! Become a Thelemite, find your True Will and you won't be raped/murdered.
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › From the admittedly little I know of Magick, it is impossible for me to comprehend that a highly advanced Thelemite might be somehow led to murder or rape.
Erwin wrote: › Try harder, then.
So hard to reach finally your opinion?
Erwin wrote: › "Proof"? I think you're getting confused, again. "Proof" is not a useful concept to this kind of discussion.
You are constantly asking me to back up my opinion. Isn't it hairsplitting that you did not use the word "proof"?
Erwin wrote: › So you keep saying, and still you continually refuse to say why or to even acknowledge that you've been asked to.
You did it again.
Erwin wrote: › So let's see some of them.
Feel free to re-read my post and the "quotes of the prophet" (sound of rolling thunder!!!)
Erwin wrote: › I don't know what you are talking about. Whether or not something would be a "great loss to me" is completely unconnected with truth. You've gone off on a tangent again.
It was just a guess, a question. Derived from the eagerness with which you defend your positions and constantly not even try to understand other positions. As you I have to judge a person from what I read from him/her. That's what I deducted. Of course you deduct that I am still caught in my bunny world of moral and social conventions.
Erwin wrote: › I don't think I'm getting through to you. You're just saying the same things over and over again, and refusing at every turn to justify or explain any of them. Traditionally, in a debate, one party advances statements, the other challenges them, and the original party backs them up. You are advancing statements, I am challenging them, and you're just repeating them over and over again. Until you start actually engaging in the issues you are talking about, I don't see a lot of point in continuing.
Then stop it. I don't care. I am here to learn, are you only here to teach? You probably think that because you compressed your thoughts in an essay means: It's in the essay - it is right! You are simply also saying the same things over and over again and refusing to see that your explanations or justifyings may not be the last word. That's all...
He that is righteous shall be righteous still, he that is filthy shall be filthy still...
Love=Law
Lutz |
_________________
"Economic pressure is destroying the ideal of the family; and the craze for pleasure is both eating away the health of the individual and mortgaging the future of the state. - What other remedy than this: the Law of Thelema?"
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Erwin |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 07:54 PM
|
|
Joined: Feb 15, 2007
Posts: 734
Status: Offline
|
|
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › Erwin wrote: › No, I don't. Feel free to quote where I "seem to imply" this, if you like.
Okay, here it comes:
the_real_simon_iff wrote: › When stars are colliding, do you think one star was on his right way and the other one not?
Erwin wrote: › No, both were.
1. Every man and every woman is a star.
2. Stars collide
3. Let's call this collision "rape" or "murder".
4. I say, then at least one must have been following the "wrong orbit", or not following their True Will.
5. You say, no, both were following their "right orbit".So, the murderer/rapist and the victim were both following their True Will.
6. There is a "True Will" to get raped/be murdered.
OK. I'll try to get this into your head one final time. I've already explained this to you, so you are misrepresenting the facts again, here. If you still don't get it, then I'm done with your tiresome weaselling.
Your statement number 6 does not follow from your statement number 5. Both were "following their right orbit", and "both were following their true will", up until the point of collision. At the point of collision, the weaker of the two wills is defeated by the stronger of the two wills. The rape/murder victim has been prevented from carrying out their will by the rapist/murderer.
This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Consult AL II, 59 and AL III, 59. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Kalki93 |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 08:02 PM
|
|
Joined: Sep 11, 2007
Posts: 33
Status: Offline
|
|
| This is all just so much nonsense. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
MichaelStaley |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 08:44 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 21, 2004
Posts: 1308
Status: Offline
|
|
Kalki93 wrote: › This is all just so much nonsense.
I think that most of us - apart from Erwin and Aum418 - feel the same way.
Paul, I think that this thread - never a particularly savoury one - has passed its sell-by date, and is perhaps best put out of its misery.
Michael. |
_________________
"It's all in the egg".
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
lashtal |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Oct 04, 2007 - 08:52 PM
|
|
Site Admin
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 3192
Status: Offline
|
|
MichaelStaley wrote: › I think that this thread - never a particularly savoury one - has passed its sell-by date, and is perhaps best put out of its misery.
I agree and I regret not having locked it much sooner. |
_________________
Editor and Owner
LAShTAL.COM
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in 0° 
: 
in 6° 
: Anno IVxviii 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
