@dom

What a find! A riveting article, which made me realise it was time to read Colin Wilson's early books again.

Glad you like it Michael.

@dom

Out of his new existentialist “foundation work” of 1956-‘66, Wilson developed the notion of “faculty x” . . . This concept of “the reality of other times and other places” came to him in on a snowy day in Washington DC in late 1966”. . . The historian Arnold Toynbee experienced it as brief understanding of all history; the poet Robert Graves once described it as if he “knew everything” intuitively; and the playwright August Strindberg experienced it as a kind of ‘duo consciousness ’, a strange feeling of being in two places at once . . . earlier, Wilson had spoke of it as the ‘phenomenological faculty’, the ability to grasp reality . . .

Just some excerpts from the essay you highlighted. When I read this, I thought of Spare's Kia. This is an extract (p.47) of his Book of Pleasure:

Know the subconsciousness to be an epitome of all experience and wisdom, past incarnations as men, animal, birds, vegetable life, etc., etc., everything that exists, has and ever will exist.

This is the Kia.

Usually "our"consciousness is constrained by habit-patterns, conditioning and the like to what is in effect a bubble which we think of as ourselves, and which we take as reality. Sometimes consciousness moves beyond those constraints and we become aware that there is more to us than meets the eye, so to speak.

Sorry if this makes me look like Ann Elk and her theory of the dinosaurs, but it can't be helped.

Quote: Know the subconsciousness to be an epitome of all experience and wisdom, past incarnations as men, animal, birds, vegetable life, etc., etc., everything that exists, has and ever will exist.

MS: This is the Kia.

KIA = 20+10+1. A simple QBL correlation ... that just so happens to be the "Key" to Liber AL. Holy Cow and the 23 Dragons! The synchronicity just keeps rolling in. Please note that my Short (Olde Tyme slang term for a "horseless carriage") is a Kia, a trusty steed indeed.

The Quote cited above just so happens to be a fairly reasonable description of the well-known Akashic Records, which also fits the description of the 7th neurocircuit - which is accessible from Sphere 4, called Chesed by the Hebrews.

"Kia" reminds me of the cognate military acronym "KIA" ["Killed In Action"]:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killed_in_action

Not a terribly useful contribution to the discussion, i realize.

"Faculty X" sounds like the direct cognition of all reality that is one of the notable effects of adequate doses of psychedelics consumed with appropriate set and setting. See also AL's "certainty not faith".

There are correlations with the other Wilson/Dr Tim's first circuit of the right lobe ie the neurosomatic circuit. I'm sure CW would not disagree that Faculty X parallel's the opening of RAW's circuit 5.

CW gives the example in his The Occult of how when we check out of our hotel on holiday say in a foreign land or whatever we feel good we 'eat significance', we are fascinated by new scenery. We are in an unusual situation/environment and we make that effort to take it all in.

CW was not into psychedelics by the way.

@dom

CW was not into psychedelics by the way.

I think ignant666 made that remark to indicate one of several methods of experiencing "the direct cognition of all reality". I agree there's no indication I'm aware of that Colin Wilson took drugs. Although I used to take psychedelics many years ago, now I prefer magical and mystical experience - or "the direct cognition of all reality" - without taking drugs. That's just a matter of personal preference; I learnt a lot from psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin mushrooms.

CW took acid once and once only and no he was not a pothead. RAW appears to have been a heavy pot user. Faculty X isn't really about popping pills or lighting up, anyone can do that. Faculty X is about Will.

@dom

Faculty X is about Will.

In what way is it "about Will"?

In what way is it “about Will”?

You don't know?

@dom

I thought ignant666's remark "the direct cognition of all reality" was a pretty succinct definition. What prevents this direct cognition is our identification with what we consider our individual minds - little more than a robotic rag-bag of habit-patterns and social conditioning, It's set out pretty clearly in The War Against Sleep, Colin Wilson's study of Gurdjieff.

The experience of "other times and other places" occurs when we set aside what we consider to be "ourselves".

Michael you asked why I say it is about Will.

@dom

Michael you asked why I say it is about Will.

Yes, I did.

Yes, I did.

Keep reading your CW books and you will get it.

@dom

Keep reading your CW books and you will get it.

Thank you for your idiotic and patronising remark. I've been reading books by Colin Wilson for many decades now. Faculty-X is wide-ranging and he continued to develop it throughout his work. We're not talking about a scientific treatise here with a precise, cut-and-dried definition and a few how-to-get-there steps.

I'm not so much interested in precisely what Colin Wilson meant by it, but rather in its affinities with magical and mystical experience, and what use I can make of it. I have the same approach to the work of Grant, Spare, Crowley, etc etc etc.

I was under the impression that by creating this thread you wanted to discuss Faculty-X and related matters. My mistake: you're just interested in point-scoring, smart-arse comments and the like. Fine by me; I have plenty of other things to be getting on with. Over and out, buddy.

While we all hope that your recent study of logic will cause/has caused you to abandon "Skeptical Thelema" (as you have hopefully noticed that it lives up to neither description), you really could stand to rein in your sometimes very smug, snide, and condescending tone, david.

It's a bit of a pattern with your posts here- you ask a question, or raise a topic, get some cogent responses, and then sneer at them.

What, actually, is the point of this? Has it not occurred to you that it makes you look silly?

If you think it is so obvious that Wilson's "Faculty X" "is about [AC's concept of] Will", why not dazzle us all by clearly explaining this in terms that make us doubt our own intelligence for not having noticed it before?

Michael it's difficult not to look like an ass when I want you to genuinely figure it out for yourself. It's like asking me what does Sartre have to do with nausea? I thought in your study of CW you would've come across his observation of human civilization generally making things habitual and easy for us compared to our ancestors' existence. The robot the automaton 'takes over' when we learn something new but once we nail it then effort is no longer required hence the reason that being bored stiff is the general malaise of civilization.

@dom

I don't disagree with you. That's why I referred to Gurdjieff and to the robotic habit-patterns and social conditioning. I have "figured it out out for" myself, as you put it. Wilson knew that what he called Faculty-X was nothing unique to his work, but had corollaries in all sorts of fields, hence his omnivorous interests.

Ok anyway to be totally specific about it,did you hear about CW's episode when driving in unexpected heavy snow? He knew that the road was riddled with ditches but didn't know where, after he got through it he felt alert, faculty X. From then onnwhenevet he drove to the local supermarket he would apply the same focus on his environment and induce Faculty X thereby. It's not just when driving but when walking also. Gurdjieff told Ouspensky to "sense" the houses he walked past. A similar thing.

CW said when some tribe believed that they were able to see by firing light beam out of their eyes that they were probably more in tune with this concept. Hopefully you see what i mean by will and effort applied to simple activity overcomes the robot in our left lobe and induces Faculty X.

Sorry for the double- post but Shiva's point about the historian Toynbee and his 'time warp' Faculty X experience as being parallel to Leary's circuit 7 is a great point. It confirms what I said earlier about Faculty X as the opening of circuit 5 which of course can lead to the opening of other circuits. Michael then you are right for in that case Faculty X is less of a scientific description of what's happening.

CW stated that there are basically two people in our brains or more. This correlates to the left brain and right brain. When the connection between these two lobes is cut they are oblivious to each other and behave like two separate people. The problem is that we think we are just the left lobe, we think wrongly that we will what we do. Somehow Gurdjieff knew this before science discovered it.

Isn't Alchemy a science? (transferred to psychology by Jung) ;=)

As Staley commented earlier on in the thread: it was a central theme in Austin Osman Spare's books, and used in what I identify as an user manual for how to reorganize the letters in the sacred alphabet: The Formula of Zos Vel Thanatos.

I've tried to connect the dots in my The Black Terra Project blog which can be visited:

https://karlirjohanarnt.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/the-magical-steles-of-zos-vel-thanatos-equinoxes-and-solstices/

@michaelstayley

I’ve been reading books by Colin Wilson for many decades now. Faculty-X is wide-ranging .

Is it? How do you mean?

and he continued to develop it throughout his work

What was an early incarnation of it and when and how did he add to it?

dom, Los' emphasis is on the practical applications of Thelema, and Los' emphasis is on the practical actions that Thelema requires.

dom, does "faculty-X" have practical applications?

dom, does "faculty-X" require practical actions?

dom, Los’ emphasis is on the practical applications of Thelema, and Los’ emphasis is on the practical actions that Thelema requires.
dom, does “faculty-X” have practical applications?
dom, does “faculty-X” require practical actions?

Wrwb, I'm not too concerned with Los's views on Faculty X.

Faculty X, yes it is a practical matter.

dom: "Faculty X, yes it is a practical matter."

dom, will you mention one way to use this Faculty X in a practical way?

dom, will you mention one way to use this Faculty X in a practical way?

I already did. maybe reread what I have said so far here.

By the way, on the subject of Los ie reductive materialist atheism, CW said that atheists are trying to run whilst trying to simultaneously break their own legs. I'll try and dig out the part of the youtube-interview where he says it.

me: dom, will you mention one way to use this Faculty X in a practical way?"

dom: "I already did. maybe reread what I have said so far here."

Is this you dom, earlier on page one in this thread mentioning one way to use this Faculty X in a practical way?:

"CW gives the example in his The Occult of how when we check out of our hotel on holiday say in a foreign land or whatever we feel good we ‘eat significance’, we are fascinated by new scenery. We are in an unusual situation/environment and we make that effort to take it all in."

(Source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/what-is-faculty-x-and-how-is-it-attained/#post-110163)

Is this you dom, earlier on page one in this thread mentioning one way to use this Faculty X in a practical way?:

That was a description of what "eating significance" is which in a way is Faculty X for a lot of us however people who become holiday addicts thereby are barking up the wrong tree.

@wellreadwellbred

dom, Los’ emphasis is on the practical applications of Thelema, and Los’ emphasis is on the practical actions that Thelema requires.
dom, does “faculty-X” have practical applications?
dom, does “faculty-X” require practical actions?

Can you explain why anyone interested in Faculty-X should be interested in the criteria that you think Los would use to assess the usefulness or otherwise of Faculty-X? Do you consider Los some sort of authority?

Can you explain why anyone interested in Faculty-X should be interested in the criteria that you think Los would use to assess the usefulness or otherwise of Faculty-X? Do you consider Los some sort of authority?

I think it was a botched attempt at point-scoring Michael.

dom has been accused of of having Los as a guru.

According to the latter's blog Thelema and Skepticism, it is of chief importance to Los' perspective on Aleister Crwoely's Thelema "... that experience has no explanatory power [...] because the process of explaining is a rational one. It is rational thinking about experience that has explanatory power." (Source: http://thelema-and-skepticism.blogspot.com/2015/10/experience-has-no-explanatory-power.html)

According to the text provided by dom at the beginning of this thread, Colin Wilson insists that rationality and poetic intuition are two aspects of the same reality. The detailed rational view is our everyday attitude, and the poetic intuitive view may come to us as glimpses of a larger meaning. The poetic intuitive view, however, tends to occur accidentally, and we need - according to how Colin Wilson's Faculty X is described in the said text - to learn how to make it happen intentionally. And within the text provided by dom at beginning of this thread, it is stated that the rational view and the poetic intuitive view should function together, according to Colin Wilson's Faculty X. (Source: Faculty X --- https://colinwilsononline.com/faculty-x-2/)

dom claims that "Faculty X is about Will." (Source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/what-is-faculty-x-and-how-is-it-attained/#post-110167)

But dom has given no answer to the following question to dom from ignant666:

"If you think it is so obvious that Wilson’s “Faculty X” “is about [AC’s concept of] Will”, why not dazzle us all by clearly explaining this in terms that make us doubt our own intelligence for not having noticed it before?" (Source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/topic/what-is-faculty-x-and-how-is-it-attained/page/2/#post-110176)

I think I already explained about sensory information meeting willed effort as Faculty X so yes I did answer Ignant's query. Go forth and develop Faculty X is identical to Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law then. Why complicate it?

I could elaborate by once again including Gurdjieff's concept of essence in the right brain and false will in the left brain and work or effort as a means to overcome fake will. Overcoming fake will to release true will? Yes that's pretty "Crowleyan" isn't it?

interesting subject, interesting thread.. I have experienced faculty X fleetingly .. Amazing experience....earth shattering...

working on the intentionality aspect.... marrying the rational and intuitive....

It scares people, its easier to pretend the emperor has new clothes than to see the naked truth in front of them.

DOM... CW stated that there are basically two people in our brains or more. This correlates to the left brain and right brain. When the connection between these two lobes is cut they are oblivious to each other and behave like two separate people. The problem is that we think we are just the left lobe, we think wrongly that we will what we do. Somehow Gurdjieff knew this before science discovered it.

I feel there is only one in me...

but there is multiple facets that come down to the two which is the millennial me AKA the being subjected to 2018 whims and standards and laws and the stripped naked me... AKA the really real the one who knows
they are separated and have been for centuries, herd mentality - Divided for chance of union ....