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.