Notifications
Clear all

93  

Page 1 / 2
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2010 9:03 pm  

this is something that was posted on my myspace account a long while ago

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HISTORY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i grew up on a farm, my father and mother , although they got married because my mom got pregnant(with me), are still together after 29 years. my dad's side of the family are all "country folk" except for one aunt and uncle. my mothers side of the family are all "city folk". my mom's mom is from philly, and her dad is from detroit. one of my aunts on that side toured with the grateful dead from 1981-1991. i graduated high school and went to a trade school and took all the classes needed to get a job in the computer industry, in 1994. I never got the associates degree cause when i got the job they told me i didnt need any more and they would pay for me to go back to school in a few years when the technology changed again. after working for a little under a year, i quit my job, gave away most of what i owned and left indiana and just wandered around the united states for the next five years. i came back to indiana for a few months each year and lived in friends houses or other places. since 1995 i have been to all 48 continental states, canada, mexico, jamacia, and puerto rico. i've always thought, from the time i was still in elementary school that being an individual was the most important thing in life. when i was in the third grade i thought that everyone else in school was playing a game where they were all pretending to be like people on tv. at first i was disappointed that no one had invited me to play, but a couple years went by and i decided that most everyone didnt think they were playing a game. they didnt know who they were and instead of trying to find out, they acted like someone else who they liked, to keep them from having to look at themselves. i spent a lot of time in high school and jr high as an outcast. but im glad i did, i feel like i have done everything i could my whole life to be true to myself and not lose my identity to some societal face. i used to be very anti social before i had come to terms with myself, i think that partly stemed from the fact that for a long time i thought that i was the only person who was not caught up in the dumb gane. but when i realized that there were other individuals out there i decided to go find them. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SPIRIT/WORK~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~when i was young my mother was a jehova's witness(/sigh), when i was in the 5th grade i told my mom i thought her church was full of shit(probably not in those words) and she told me if i wanted to play basketball in school i had to go to church, thus ended my basketball career, before i was 18 i went to quite a few different types of christian churchs, but never really liked any of them, even some that were nice it just wasnt me. when i was 18 me and a few friends started studying paganism and witchcraft. We read book and talked about it for about 6 months, then met someone who told us they would teach us, but instead just tried to steal energy from us. We decided to do a ritual from a book called "The Witch's Bible" to remove any connections with us, he may have made. After that every month on the full moon for almost 2 years anywhere from 3-8 people did a tradition celtic full moon ritual, where we would raise up as much energy as we could and direct it to the overall betterment of the entire plant. the group slowly dwindled, some people moved away, didnt want to do it anymore, one went to jail. but anyway we stopped doing it. about a year after that me and one of the other people started studying hermetic ceremonial magicks. We, through the guidance of some practicing magicians that we met in bloomington, which almost all moved away within two years. we started do some rituals using the kabbalah. We have done rituals to connect us with the energy of the different spheres as well as the different paths. We also did a set of rituals invoking the archangel of each sphere, 10 rituals over a 10 month span. we find a book at the local university library describing many different spirits from many different belief systems, christianity included. this book included information about the realms that each spirit was from, including things like their favorite plants, colors, inscense, as well as other things, and it also had the geometric design for each one. We did not want to use the traditional method for invoking spirits(which is forcing them to come). We were trying to do the rituals for the sole reason of learning more about ourselves, and the universe, so we didnt want to force any spirit to do this for us because we kne if they didnt want to and we forced them they would lie to us and trick us. so using the information in the afforementioned book we decorated the temple room with things that each spirit was familiar with, and someone would try to astral travel to the realm where the angel lived and ask them to come. the first angel told us that they had all agreed to help us as long as we kept to our origional intent and just receive knowledge. This series of rituals taught me many things about myself and the world around me, many things that were within me that had been hidden. but really the most important thing i learned was that to truely seek what we were seeking we should just go out and live life. Just Be. I have studied as many religions and forms of spiritualuty as i could find out about. i have read the bible, the koran, the bagdavad gita, the rig veda, as well as about 20 or so other vedas, and the writings of over 100 others who believe that what they wrote is the word of god. in my humble opinion, they all say pretty much the exact same thing. i presently have just restarted regularly doing ritual after taking almost an 8 year break ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VISION~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The series of rituals that i have been a part of has led me through a very interesting series of events that are still working years later. ever since i was a child i have been able to sense spirits when they are present. shortly after i started doing celtic ritual during meditation sometimes i would have visions of different places and events, most didn't seem to be real places, or predictions or anything like that. it was like i was suddenly somewhere else, being awake and doing something, instead of meditating. these visions always taught me something. i can always sense my body during this but its just like a vague awareness, i mostly go fully into these visions. During normal meditation this is different, although sometimes i am very much involved in wherever i am, i always have complete awareness of my physical body.
one of the angels in the kabbalah rituals asked us if we could have one thing to advance ourselves spiritually what would it be. i answered that i would have the ability to be fully aware of everything, no matter how miniscule, that was caused by every action i did. about four years later i was lying in a hot spring, called the spencer hot spring, near jemez, nm. i was alone at the spring, it was about 4am or so. there is a safe spot in the spring where one can lye down without being able to roll over, its like a bowl kinda. but i was lying here trying to go to sleep, when suddenely i wasn't lying in the spring anymore, i was standing in the woods on a path. you can read about this vision in my blogs. its the one with the beautiful woman. but this lady i met in the vision gave me a key, as well as many other things she showed me. but ever since this experience my connection with the spirit realms has been extremely detailed and im always aware of many of the multiple dimensions that are existing around us. i have full vision with any spiritual being and the ability to fully communicate with them. many of them have since come to me to ask for things, i assume since i can hear them they come ask me things. i also have the ability to go anywhere on any spirit realm, open any door, and go through any maze, while always retaining full connection with my body. before this there were places i would go and i would encounter a closed door that wouldnt open, or a guard that would tell me i couldnt pass. i have been back to all the places i was before not allowed to go and can now pass freely. i also have been deep within the faerie realm without any disorientation. the other thing that came from that event, and probably the most difficult one to deal with. i received full connection to the collective conscious(and unconscious) history of human kind that is located within the mind of each person. the hindu's called it the Akashak records. Receiving this ability was extremely painful, i witnessed every moment of my present life go in reverse all the way to when i was born, and even to before it. i have spoken to many people presently who can perceive this as well, but most of them say they cannot see past 5000 years ago, i on the other hand can see back to wherever, or whenever i want to go. I havent really searched through this ability a whole lot, many things i have seen arnt that pleasent. for example the thing that happened on this planet around 5000 years ago that is most likely the reason that most people cant look past it. most people probably wouldnt really want to see it, or mabye couldnt handle it. i have been witness to many things that many people dont think are real. i have seen, ghosts, elementals, angels, elves, a dragon, even a unicorn. but yeah so a lot of peole who read this will think im wierd, well i am 🙂 i enjoy being different. the one thing i want to say to anyone who ever wants to deal with spirit beings, or does whether they want to or not. is always remember " No matter what.(really no exceptions) as long as you believe that any being that lives on another plane of existence cannot harm you, it can not, no matter what. and for all those who believe this is full of shit. as long as you believe something is not real, it isnt. your mind is the ultimate creative force, same as the mind of the being in whose image we were all made


Quote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
15/03/2010 10:24 pm  
"Zelldeb" wrote:
always remember " No matter what.(really no exceptions) as long as you believe that any being that lives on another plane of existence cannot harm you, it can not, no matter what.

You're absolutely right that no "being that lives on another plane of existence [can] harm you", but not for the reason you give.

"Zelldeb" wrote:
and for all those who believe this is full of shit. as long as you believe something is not real, it isnt.

I'd be interested in seeing a youtube video of you standing on the tracks in front of a speeding train while believing that it's "not real". That should settle the issue easily enough, and we can then reliably determine who's "full of shit".

And while you're at it, I'd appreciate it if you could believe that my lack of a fleet of Ferraris is "not real" too; that'd really help me out, here.

By the way, you might find this link helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 8:15 am  

your argument is irrelevant, for something physical to be changed i doubt my will alone would suffice, in theory it could be possible to the wills of many believing in changing something, to actually succeed in changing it. there were many philosophers who surmised that if humans did not collectively believe we were all supposed to eventually grow old and die no one would. obviously that theory presents obvious holes. but the same type of theory holds true to many european traditional cultures myth as to why there used to be magick and magical creatures, and now there no longer exist. some even go as far as to say a dark force or group of beings worked to close the minds of many so as to be able to use the energy for themselves. i know nothing about any of it. i just go by what i have experienced and what my heart tells me.

also if you are a grammar critic thats fine, but that was written over a decade ago, it was my myspace profile description, i wrote it very quickly and all off the top of my head i have never proof read it and never even spell checked it until this post because firefox did it for me. i liked it and copied it to a blog because of its excess length. and have since used it as a vague introduction to who i am.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 10:48 am  
"Zelldeb" wrote:
your argument is irrelevant, for something physical to be changed i doubt my will alone would suffice,

Ergo, your statement that "as long as you believe something is not real, it isnt" was so "full of shit" that even you don't agree with it. That being the case, you evidently have a peculiar definition of "irrelevant".

"For something physical to be changed" is trivially easy, by the way. The trick is to actually change it, instead of just believing that it's been changed.

"Zelldeb" wrote:
i know nothing about any of it.

Perhaps actually acquiring some knowledge would be a useful next step for you, then.

"Zelldeb" wrote:
i just go by what i have experienced and what my heart tells me.

Which is an exceptionally unreliable way of reaching conclusions, as you've demonstrated.

"Zelldeb" wrote:
that was written over a decade ago, it was my myspace profile description,

And there was me thinking myspace had only been around since 2003. Maybe I just lack faith.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 10:58 am  

well i will reiterate that the first statement wasnt ment to be taken literally it was regarding a more widely regarded philospohy rather than one person trying to change something with his own will.

secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything except that i dont know nearly as much as i had previously thought.

excuse my lack of a sense of time, my life has changed many time very drastically over the years since i began practicing that i rarely pay attention to the passage of time other than how it regards to my present schedule. if i need specific dates i reference my journals. but this was written within a few months of myspace becoming open to the public.

it just seems to me that you are just filling an inner need to be feel like you are superior to others who have different ideas than those you yourself hold


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 11:20 am  
"Zelldeb" wrote:
secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything

What more needs to be said, really?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 11:23 am  

Welcome to LAShTAL.com Zelldeb! 😀

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
16/03/2010 11:27 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
"Zelldeb" wrote:
secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything

What more needs to be said, really?

That is a completely gratuitous, and I may say offensive, "snip". The actual quote from Zelldeb was:

"Zelldeb" wrote:
secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything except that i dont know nearly as much as i had previously thought. [emphasis mine]

Cutting someone off when they're halfway into a sentence, in order to score a point in a debate, is totally unacceptable, and demonstrates complete intellectual bankruptcy.

As you will doubtless claim to know, Zelldeb's full sentence was actually a paraphrase of one of Socrates' best-known lines, a sentiment echoed in what became Crowley's Liber Librae. Another line from Liber Librae sums things up:

Yet, oh aspirant, let thy victories bring thee not Vanity, for with increase of Knowledge should come increase of Wisdom. He who knoweth little, thinketh he knoweth much; but he who knoweth much hath learned his own ignorance. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool, than of him.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 12:02 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
"Erwin" wrote:
"Zelldeb" wrote:
secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything

What more needs to be said, really?

That is a completely gratuitous, and I may say offensive, "snip". The actual quote from Zelldeb was:

"Zelldeb" wrote:
secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything except that i dont know nearly as much as i had previously thought. [emphasis mine]

Cutting someone off when they're halfway into a sentence, in order to score a point in a debate, is totally unacceptable, and demonstrates complete intellectual bankruptcy.

What utter poppycock. The snipped section actually makes his position worse. Observe:

"secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything except that i dont know nearly as much as i had previously thought."

Translation:

"1. I acquired knowledge of how to change a light bulb.

"2. Acquiring that knowledge didn't show me anything except that I didn't know nearly as much as I had previously thought.

"3. Ergo, acquiring that knowledge didn't show me how to change a light bulb.

"4. Ergo, I didn't acquire that knowledge at all.

"5. Ergo, my entire statement is self-evidently complete and utter bullshit."

Pay attention.

"ianrons" wrote:
As you will doubtless claim to know, Zelldeb's full sentence was actually a paraphrase of one of Socrates' best-known lines, a sentiment echoed in what became Crowley's Liber Librae. Another line from Liber Librae sums things up:

Yet, oh aspirant, let thy victories bring thee not Vanity, for with increase of Knowledge should come increase of Wisdom. He who knoweth little, thinketh he knoweth much; but he who knoweth much hath learned his own ignorance. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool, than of him.

Well, this is what happens when you allow your own indignation to cloud your own eyes and lead you into seeing things that aren't there, isn't it? You must try harder, Ian. Note, as an illustrative example of the kind of egregious error you've just made, the literary minor but substantially vast difference between:

"he who knoweth much hath learned his own ignorance"

and:

"he who knoweth much hath learned only his own ignorance"

One is a "paraphrase" of Zelldeb's remark, and the other isn't. Further, one of those sentences makes sense, and the other is total self-contradictory gibberish. See if a little measured consideration will enable you to tell which is which, and then you can come back and try talking to me about "intellectual bankruptcy" and Socrates.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 12:41 pm  

...and then came the sophists 🙄

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
16/03/2010 1:35 pm  

Erwin,

"Erwin" wrote:
What utter poppycock. The snipped section actually makes his position worse. Observe:

"secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything except that i dont know nearly as much as i had previously thought."

Translation:

"1. I acquired knowledge of how to change a light bulb.

"2. Acquiring that knowledge didn't show me anything except that I didn't know nearly as much as I had previously thought.

"3. Ergo, acquiring that knowledge didn't show me how to change a light bulb.

"4. Ergo, I didn't acquire that knowledge at all.

"5. Ergo, my entire statement is self-evidently complete and utter bullshit."

Pay attention.

Although you allow the basic point, that you "snipped" him to make your argument (which you would do well to openly admit), there is even yet a problem with your revised position. The central issue is with point (2). This point (2), which would lead to (3) and (4) – but not (5) except through the "principle of [Britney Spears] explosion" – requires a rather subtle sleight of hand which glosses over the point that Zelldeb was making, and which is epistemologically important.

This point, the one being made by Zelldeb, is that knowledge of things leads one to question those very things; such as: what is a "light bulb", and what is "light", which then leads on to other things that make us question whether we really know anything at all, including necessarily the original supposed "knowledge". Socratic dialogue is a way to get there, as is Thisarb and so on. Do you really think you know how to change a light bulb? It only depends on a number of assertions, and your belief in them, ultimately; which doesn't say anything about true "knowledge" in an objective sense.

In your formulation of point (2) and what follows, you are merely begging the question; that is, "taking for granted a premiss which is either equivalent to, or itself depends on, the conclusion, and requires proof".

"Erwin" wrote:
Pay attention. [...] Well, this is what happens when you allow your own indignation to cloud your own eyes and lead you into seeing things that aren't there, isn't it? You must try harder, Ian.

Can we skip the patronising remarks, do you think? I have noticed you tend to make strikingly similar comments whenever someone disagrees with you, so I don't take it personally, but let's just engage with the topic on this occasion.

"Erwin" wrote:
Note, as an illustrative example of the kind of egregious error you've just made, the literary minor but substantially vast difference between:

"he who knoweth much hath learned his own ignorance"

and:

"he who knoweth much hath learned only his own ignorance"

Going back to the source, what Socrates is alleged to have said is: "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing". I think this fits better with your latter quote, and I would generally agree with Socrates that knowledge only shows a vaster wilderness, implying (if not proving) ignorance of the original "knowledge" (oh no, a contradiction!). I am happy to defend the second quote, therefore. What you suggest, by supporting the first of your quotes, is that a thing known is still known even after analysis. This is inherently alien to Socratic dialectic when it leads us asymptotically to an acceptance of the falsity of knowledge both particularly and generally, not merely the acceptance of our ignorance of things not known (which is, in itself a meaningless proposition).

Therefore I regard your position with great scepticism, in that it seems to imply that a certain type of knowledge is ultimately certain, whilst inherently allowing something meaningless (ignorance only of non-knowledge – a "safe" position! Oh, Augustine!) in its place.

But let us, for instance, turn to your light bulb, if you will. Would you like to prove to me your knowledge of how to change a light bulb? Let us start with a definition of a light bulb – can you please provide a definition for the purposes of this debate?

"Erwin" wrote:
One [of the previously quoted propositions] is a "paraphrase" of Zelldeb's remark, and the other isn't. Further, one of those sentences makes sense, and the other is total self-contradictory gibberish. See if a little measured consideration will enable you to tell which is which, and then you can come back and try talking to me about "intellectual bankruptcy" and Socrates.

Why do you think that the second proposition is "self-contradictory gibberish"? I think the apparent contradiction should actually lead to more than just an emotional statement of opinion...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 2:56 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
Although you admit the basic point, that you "snipped" him to make your argument

No, I don't "admit the basic point". I "'snipped' him" and I made my argument, not to make my argument. The snipping is incidental. The point is that he said, in essence, acquiring new knowledge doesn't result in the acqusition of new knowledge. This point is evident in his original words with or without the snipped portion.

"ianrons" wrote:
This point, the one being made by Zelldeb, is that knowledge of things leads one to question those very things; such as: what is "light", what is a "light bulb", which then leads on to other things that make us question whether we really know anything at all.

No. This is the fundamental problem with this kind of approach to epistemology, which I have discussed here before - for instance on the Go-go-godel thread - and which Crowley was certainly guilty of falling into, which makes it on-topic here, to my mind.

Your argument contains an unspoken assumption that to know anything, you need an unbroken chain of reasoning of effectively infinite length all the way down to the bottom, and the simple fact is that you don't. Knowledge, in the real world, is not constructed in this way.

As an elementary example (knowing how to change a light bulb is not a great example here, since its an example of procedural knowledge rather than the kind of descriptive knowledge which is really the issue) I can put two photographs in front of you, one a photograph of a cat, and one a photograph of the space shuttle. Now you will - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt - be able to reliably identify which is which. That is, you can correctly identify a photograph of a cat as a photograph of a cat, and you can correctly identify a photograph of the space shuttle as a photograph of the space shuttle.

Do you need to know what a cat "really is" to have this knowledge? Do you need to know what a space shuttle "really is"? No, you don't. All you have to be able to do is to reliably assemble a collection of various impressions into a composite that legitimately goes along with the label "cat". You don't have to know everything in order to know something. You don't have to have knowledge of some "fundamental essence of a cat" in order to be able to correctly identify a cat, and to have confidence that you have, in fact, correctly identified it.

"ianrons" wrote:
which doesn't say anything about true "knowledge" in an objective sense.

This is the problem I alluded to earlier. This "true knowledge" of which you speak bears absolutely no relation to actual knowledge in the real world. It's an entirely imaginary concept which philosophers have invented, apparently for the sole purpose of arguing over. These philosophers are defining "knowledge" in a way that they think it should be, instead of looking at actual knowledge in the real world and try to reason about that. This should be self-evident. You are arguing that, essentially, knowledge is impossible, yet you (rightly, in my view) press for more discussion about "you know, facts". Your own actions show that you don't actually believe in this concept of "true knowledge" of which you speak, here. What you are calling "true knowledge" here is actually not "true knowledge" at all; it's false knowledge, a kind of "knowledge" which bears no relation at all to the actual kind of knowledge which exists in the minds of real people.

A similar objection can be made to Crowley's argument that "Knowledge is, moreover, an impossible conception. All propositions come ultimately back to 'A is A.'" in Magick in Theory and Practice. This would be perfectly true if we, for instance, learned language by consulting a dictionary and understanding our words purely in terms of other words. But we don't. This is simply not how language works. More generally, the bulk of what we call our knowledge simply does not, in reality, arise as a result of us extrapolating in a purely formal and logical way from a set of agreed-upon axioms. That isn't how it works. The process by which actual knowledge is formed is far more loosely rational than that. So any implication that "we don't have real knowledge" because we cannot follow such a formal chain right the way back to something "true" is a total red herring.

Thus, this whole practice of "exhausting the reason and demonstrating its impotence" does not, in fact, achieve any such thing, Crowley notwithstanding; all it achieves is a demonstration that you're using the words "knowledge" and "reason" in a manner contrary to observed fact, that you have done nothing except confuse yourself with philosophy, and that you have created what is in essence the straw man argument to end all straw man arguments. When we come to these "contradictions" which you imply are "epistemologically important", that, I suggest, is the important thing they actually do reveal, not some inherent deficiency in the rational process. This is the kind of thing which happens when people focus on philosophy and forget about reality.

"ianrons" wrote:
Can we skip the patronising remarks, do you think?

Well, I don't know. Can we skip the melodramatic complaints about "intellectual bankruptcy", and the veiled suggestions that you're the only person in the Northern Hemisphere to have read Plato, do you think? I'm always happy to reciprocate in kind.

"ianrons" wrote:
Going back to the source, what Socrates is alleged to have said is: "As for me, all I know is that I know nothing".

Yes, and he then went around peddling that observation to make a lot of people look stupid, and to demonstrate that he was, in fact, a lot smarter than they were. Again, his reported actions betray his reported beliefs. This is another contradictory position; if all he knows is that he knows nothing, then he doesn't know that he knows nothing at all, and may well know a lot of things, for all he knows. The amount of knowledge you need to have in order to assert that you know nothing may be surprising to you, knowledge of the language in which that assertion is made being a primary one to start with. Sure, you can play the "oh noes! A contradiction!" card if you like, but I'm sure you'll forgive me for not being in the least bit convinced by it.

But, that being said, this isn't the Home of the Socrates Society. The relevant "source" here is Liber Librae which doesn't say anything at all about "all I know is that I know nothing", and even that isn't particularly relevant, since the sentence you quoted that I reiterated, "as you will doubtless claim to know", wasn't written by Crowley anyway.

"ianrons" wrote:
Therefore I regard your position with great scepticism, in that it seems to imply that a certain type of knowledge is ultimately certain.

No, it doesn't seem to imply that at all. What it does imply is that knowledge is, in fact, knowledge. Nowhere have I ever even vaguely implied that knowledge has to be "certain" in order to qualify as knowledge. Quite the opposite, in fact.

"ianrons" wrote:
But let us, for instance, turn to your light bulb, if you will. Would you like to prove to me your knowledge of how to change a light bulb? Let us start with a definition of a light bulb – can you please provide a definition for the purposes of this debate?

And here's an example. Notwithstanding the fact that this light bulb example is not the best one for the reasons given - and yes, I know it was my example in the first place - you don't need "a definition of a light bulb" before you can be said to have knowledge of how to change one. All you need to be able to do is to reliably identify it as such. We simply do not acquire knowledge by creating definitions and going from there. On the contrary, in order to define anything at all, evidently, you need to already know what it is. To argue that knowledge arises out of definitions, which is what you appear to be suggesting, is to get it precisely backwards; definitions are just convenient representations of things we already know, and you cannot legitimately attempt to demonstrate the presence or lack of knowledge by appealing to them. The entire essence of your approach here is misguided for this reason. Real world knowledge is simply not built on the foundations that these attacks against it think they are pulling away. Knowledge is a factor of consonance with observed facts - in this case, the "proof" would come from you observing me changing a suitably large selection of light bulbs, without a solitary definition in sight - not something which has to be philosophically argued into existence.

"ianrons" wrote:
Why do you think that the second proposition is "self-contradictory gibberish"?

I would have thought it was self-evident. If "he who knoweth much hath learned only his own ignorance", then he hasn't learned anything except his own ignorance, and if he hasn't learned anything except his own ignorance, then he doesn't "knoweth much" at all, merely one fact, and a fact which, at that, doesn't appear to be a real fact at all. You cannot simultaneously "knoweth much" and only know one thing, even if that thing were not false, which it is.

To reiterate, for clarity, the substance of my rebuttal to you is that your argument is based entirely on a concept you call "true knowledge" but which I assert is merely some obfuscatory philosophical imaginary creature which bears little or no resemblence to the kind of knowledge that I'm talking about, which is the kind of knowledge that actually exists in the real world, and which reflects the common understanding of the word "knowledge" in the language which we are currently employing in an attempt to communicate.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 2:58 pm  

Goody!!

With a bit of luck, and some help from our forefather’s gods, we could get Aleister Crowley’s work involved in the discussion and turn the topic from “93” into “The influence of the Socratic thought on Aleister Crowley’s work and Thelema”! 😀

((((((((((Ian)))))))))) - ((((((((((Erwin))))))))))


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
16/03/2010 3:42 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
The snipping is incidental.

Oh no it isn't!

"Erwin" wrote:
The point is that he said, in essence, acquiring new knowledge doesn't result in the acqusition of new knowledge.

No, he didn't say that at all. He said:

"Zelldeb" wrote:
secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything except that i dont know nearly as much as i had previously thought.

But you cut him off mid-sentence, your quote being:

secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything

which is a totally obnoxious "snip". You "'snipped' him and [...] made [your] argument"... seriously entering the Tuat [sic].

"Erwin" wrote:
This point is evident in his original words with or without the snipped portion.

No. You are being totally disingenous to someone else on this forum, and I won't accept it.

"Erwin" wrote:
Your argument contains an unspoken assumption that to know anything, you need an unbroken chain of reasoning of effectively infinite length all the way down to the bottom

On the contrary, I pointed out that "knowledge of things leads one to question those very things", which is quite the opposite. You really are totally misrepresenting my position in its entirety.

"Erwin" wrote:
Do you need to know what a cat "really is" to have this knowledge?

Well obviously I would have to "know" what a cat "really is" to have "knowledge" of a cat. What a stupid thing to say.

"Erwin" wrote:
All you have to be able to do is to reliably assemble a collection of various impressions into a composite that legitimately goes along with the label "cat".

So how does one "reliably" do that? Oh, does one just "know"... in one's gut... like a kind of "truthiness"?

"Erwin" wrote:
This is the problem I alluded to earlier. This "true knowledge" of which you speak bears absolutely no relation to actual knowledge in the real world. It's an entirely imaginary concept which philosophers have invented, apparently for the sole purpose of arguing over. These philosophers are defining "knowledge" in a way that they think it should be, instead of looking at actual knowledge in the real world and try to reason about that. This should be self-evident. You are arguing that, essentially, knowledge is impossible, yet you (rightly, in my view) press for more discussion about "you know, facts". Your own actions show that you don't actually believe in this concept of "true knowledge" of which you speak, here. What you are calling "true knowledge" here is actually not "true knowledge" at all; it's false knowledge, a kind of "knowledge" which bears no relation at all to the actual kind of knowledge which exists in the minds of real people.

This is a weird rant, not related to any views I have expressed... but ending in you asserting a priori that "true knowledge" is "false knowledge". And "This should be self-evident."?

"Erwin" wrote:
A similar objection can be made to Crowley's argument that "Knowledge is, moreover, an impossible conception. All propositions come ultimately back to 'A is A.'" in Magick in Theory and Practice. This would be perfectly true if we, for instance, learned language by consulting a dictionary and understanding our words purely in terms of other words. But we don't. This is simply not how language works. More generally, the bulk of what we call our knowledge simply does not, in reality, arise as a result of us extrapolating in a purely formal and logical way from a set of agreed-upon axioms. That isn't how it works. The process by which actual knowledge is formed is far more loosely rational than that. So any implication that "we don't have real knowledge" because we cannot follow such a formal chain right the way back to something "true" is a total red herring.

You talk about a "loosely rational" idea of language, and of ideas, which apparently ought to survive the kind of rational criticism that ordinary ideas can be exposed to. This is merely a device.

"Erwin" wrote:
Thus, this whole practice of "exhausting the reason and demonstrating its impotence" does not, in fact, achieve any such thing, Crowley notwithstanding; all it achieves is a demonstration that you're using the words "knowledge" and "reason" in a manner contrary to observed fact, that you have done nothing except confuse yourself with philosophy, and that you have created what is in essence the straw man argument to end all straw man arguments. When we come to these "contradictions" which you imply are "epistemologically important", that, I suggest, is the important thing they actually do reveal, not some inherent deficiency in the rational process. This is the kind of thing which happens when people focus on philosophy and forget about reality.

How am I using the word "knowledge" in "a manner contrary to observed fact"? Would you like to define "observed fact"? Of course, I have already asked you to define "light bulb", etc., but you avoided the Socratic dialogue that would have resulted (stating "you don't need 'a definition of a light bulb'"). How very convenient!

"Erwin" wrote:
This is another contradictory position; if all he knows is that he knows nothing, then he doesn't know that he knows nothing at all, and may well know a lot of things, for all he knows. The amount of knowledge you need to have in order to assert that you know nothing may be surprising to you, knowledge of the language in which that assertion is made being a primary one to start with.

What seems obvious here is that your second sentence (where you admit that you can know that you know that you know nothing) contradicts your first.

You make a number of further comments which I simply don't have the patience to pick apart as above, but which remind me of why I banned you at least twice whilst I was a moderator here. I honestly don't think there's any point talking to you – you seem completely off your face.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 4:03 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
Oh no it isn't!

Oh yes it is.

Erwin: "The point is that he said, in essence, acquiring new knowledge doesn't result in the acqusition of new knowledge."

Ian: "No, he didn't say that at all. He said: 'secondly aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything except that i dont know nearly as much as i had previously thought.'"

So, when he acquired knowledge, he said that the only result was him discovering he knew less than he thought he knew before. Thus, he didn't acquire any new knowledge as a result of acquiring knowledge, only chipped away at his previous thoughts about what he did know.

So yes, that's exactly what he said, and you seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties.

"ianrons" wrote:
No. You are being totally disingenous to someone else on this forum, and I won't accept it.

Go ahead and refuse to accept it, then. I can give you the facts, but I can't compel you to accept them.

"ianrons" wrote:
Well obviously I would have to "know" what is cat is to have "knowledge" of a cat. What a stupid thing to say.

Talk about "totally misrepresenting my position in its entirety!" I followed that right up with a quote about "fundamental essence of a cat" to denote what "really is" is intended to mean, which you obnoxiously snipped. You are being totally disingenuous to someone else on this forum, and I won't accept it.

Sheesh. Kids, these days.

"ianrons" wrote:
So how does one "reliably" do that?

By comparing it to observed facts. By, you know, learning, and stuff. If you pick up a pillow, and it scratches your face, then it evidently wasn't a pillow at all. Babies do this, Ian, it shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.

"ianrons" wrote:
like a kind of "truthiness"?

As I said, your entire argument consists of refusing to accept how knowledge actually works, by insisting some spurious philosophical nonsense represents reality, and just complaining about the facts. Again, if this floats your boat, go for it, but you can forget about convincing me with this kind of silliness.

"ianrons" wrote:
You talk about a "loosely rational" idea of language, and of ideas, which apparently ought to survive the kind of rational criticism that ordinary ideas can be exposed to.

Again, that's the way knowledge forms and that's the way language is learned. The fact that you personally don't approve of that because it renders your favourite criticisms impotent is neither here nor there. If you don't like reality, that's too bad for you.

"ianrons" wrote:
How am I using the word "knowledge" in "a manner contrary to observed fact"?

I explained it for you in the very post you're responding to. See how discussion works, like that? It's neat.

"ianrons" wrote:
stating "you don't need 'a definition of a light bulb'"). How very convenient!

And very true. We know that you don't personally approve of the facts, by now, you don't need to keep repeating it.

"ianrons" wrote:
What seems obvious here is that your second sentence (where you admit that you can know that you know that you know nothing) contradicts your first.

My second sentence doesn't admit that at all. All it admits is that you can assert that you know nothing. Honestly, when you're driven to making things up out of thin air, you should know you're on a loser.

"ianrons" wrote:
You make a number of further comments which simply remind me of why I banned you at least twice whilst I was a moderator here.

Yes - because you're completely incapable of sensibly responding to the points I make, and you don't like it. That's understandable. All you've been able to do in response to my post is to rant. The substance of it appears to have gone completely over your head. Perhaps all that "magickal universe" stuff you believe in is the culprit.

"ianrons" wrote:
I honestly don't think there's any point talking to you

Then don't. There's no need to stamp your little feet and complain to me about it. You were the one who started to talking to me, here; I didn't invite your ill-conceived mystical ramblings.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
16/03/2010 4:17 pm  

The sad thing is that there really is an interesting discussion about epistemology, Popperian philosophy, etc., that was waiting to be discussed.

However, the substance of your criticism seems to be that " seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties", " refuse to accept it", "[my] entire argument consists of refusing to accept how knowledge actually works", " just complain about the facts", " don't like reality", " can [only] assert that know nothing", "[I'm] completely incapable of sensibly responding to the points [you] make, and don't like it", "the substance of it appears to have gone completely over [my] head", don't personally approve of the facts", and " need to stamp [my] little feet and complain to [you] about it".

You are a complete fucking twat.

I sincerely regret that you are not banned for life from this forum.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 4:29 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
The sad thing is that there really is an interesting discussion about epistemology, Popperian philosophy, etc., that was waiting to be discussed.

Yes, it really is.

"ianrons" wrote:
However, the substance of your criticism...

...is what you are repeatedly and singularly failing to address and/or comprehend at every turn. All you've done is complain about that substance and fail to engage with it. I did my part. I tried to have a reasonable and substantive discussion with you, but it turned out that was something beyond your capability to do, on this particular topic at least. If you think it's a "sad thing" that this "interesting discussion" is not taking place, then you know exactly who to blame for that.

"ianrons" wrote:
You are a complete fucking twat.

"Can we skip the patronising remarks, do you think?...I don't take it personally" - Ian Rons


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
16/03/2010 4:57 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
So, when he acquired knowledge, he said that the only result was him discovering he knew less than he thought he knew before. Thus, he didn't acquire any new knowledge as a result of acquiring knowledge, only chipped away at his previous thoughts about what he did know.

Erwin, the funny thing is that you exactly know what Zelldeb meant, even if he phrased it admittedly poor. He's tallking about a before and after state of self perception (which you detect perfectly in your first sentence). If you want to show him that he should express himself more precisely, you exceeded your goal. It's perfectly logical to realize only after learning how to change a light bulb that you also don't have any idea about changing a neon tube or refilling a gas lamp, thus the knowledge percentage of the "perceived fraction" of all there is to know has decreased since the "perceived fraction" of all there is to know has increased much higher. What's so difficult about that? I guess nothing, you probably just want him to either a) express himself more precisely or b) stop with that "occult self-deception" or c) both of it. My money is on the awful o-word you so much despise. But I agree that he should quit his case insensitivity.

Love=Law
Lutz

P.S. I could also argue that there is a difference between "acquiring knowledge" meaning the act of the actual aquiring "acquiring knowledge" meaning the result of that. The reading of a light bulb change manual is not the knowledge of light bulb changing you have after reading it and having understood it and having done it actually.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
16/03/2010 5:05 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
...is what you are repeatedly and singularly failing to address and/or comprehend at every turn. All you've done is complain about that substance and fail to engage with it. I did my part. I tried to have a reasonable and substantive discussion with you, but it turned out that was something beyond your capability to do, on this particular topic at least. If you think it's a "sad thing" that this "interesting discussion" is not taking place, then you know exactly who to blame for that.

Yes, it's a sad thing that we can't have a discussion; and the person I blame is Paul for not moderating this forum more assiduously, frankly, though it pains me to say so. The level of signal-to-noise in your posts is so poor that it is impossible for anyone to have any kind of discussion with you, as many people have said in the past. When you come back to me saying " seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties", it just illustrates the point entirely. Why would anyone bother?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 5:06 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Erwin, the funny thing is that you exactly know what Zelldeb meant,

Yes, I do.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
He's tallking about a before and after state of self perception (which you detect perfectly in your first sentence).

No, he's not. Here's the full context, which is still up there for everyone to see.

The initiator was the patently ridiculous implication that something is not true if you believe it to be not true. Having called him on this implication, the following ensued:

Zelldeb: "i know nothing about any of it. i just go by what i have experienced and what my heart tells me. "

Erwin: "Perhaps actually acquiring some knowledge would be a useful next step for you, then."

Zelldeb: "aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything except that i dont know nearly as much as i had previously thought."

Very clearly, the implication was "I have no knowledge, and I see no reason at all why I should acquire any knowledge. I'll just stick with going with 'what my heart tells me', thank you very much."

All this nonsense about epistemology was introduced by Ian, solely out of his own head. The initial exchange was clearly about real-life, practical knowledge of the world, not some spurious mystical concept of "true knowledge" that Ian was on about, and not about the type of "self perception" which you describe. Context is king, as ever.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
It's perfectly logical to realize only after learning how to change a light bulb that you also don't have any idea about changing a neon tube or refilling a gas lamp, thus the knowledge percentage of the "perceived fraction" of all there is to know has decreased since the "perceived fraction" of all there is to know has increased much higher. What's so difficult about that?

What's difficult about it is exactly what I've been saying from the beginning, that the "decrease" in the "perceived fraction" is all that has been accomplished by acquiring that knowledge, which is clearly and incontrovertibly untrue. The knowledge of how to change a light bulb has also been gained.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I could also argue that there is a difference between "acquiring knowledge" meaning the act of the actual aquiring "acquiring knowledge" meaning the result of that. The reading of a light bulb change manual is not the knowledge of light bulb changing you have after reading it and having understood it and having done it actually.

Yes, this is the difference between "procedural knowledge" and "descriptive knowledge" that I already raised.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 5:12 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
Yes, it's a sad thing that we can't have a discussion; and the person I blame is Paul

Yes, of course. Paul is to blame for your inability to have a sensible discussion with me. How foolish of me to not have seen that. I don't know what I was thinking in supposing your inability to have a sensible discussion with me to be the root cause. It's all the moderator's fault.

"ianrons" wrote:
The level of signal-to-noise in your posts is so poor that it is impossible for anyone to have any kind of discussion with you

Impossible for you, maybe. Lots of other people evidently have no difficulty with it whatsoever. I'm not sure why you think you're going to curry favour with anyone by blaming the moderator for your failings, and then going on to publicly project them onto the rest of the membership. Your behaviour here is becoming more bizarre by the minute.

"ianrons" wrote:
When you come back to me saying " seem to have some reading comprehension difficulties", it just illustrates the point entirely.

Yes - it illustrates the point that you have grossly and egregious failed to comprehend - no, to read - a simple sentence I put to you. It does, indeed, illustrate the point precisely.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
16/03/2010 5:16 pm  

93!

Well, if Zelldeb really meant that, I will say no more. I had the impression he simply wanted to sound as clever as you driving him into the corner and just phrased it badly using "except". But that's up to him to clarify if he wishes.

What I wanted to say with my P.S. is that because we don't know which kind of "acquiring knowledge" was meant in your point 2. one cannot simply jump to your points 3. and 4.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 5:19 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
What I wanted to say with my P.S. is that because we don't know which kind of "acquiring knowledge" was meant in your point 2. one cannot simply jump to your points 3. and 4.

I have no difficulty conceding, as I did, that I could have picked a better example, but the meaning was evidently clear, since you, at least, appear to have understood it.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 1126
16/03/2010 5:26 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
Yes, of course. Paul is to blame for your inability to have a sensible discussion with me. How foolish of me to not have seen that. I don't know what I was thinking in supposing your inability to have a sensible discussion with me to be the root cause. It's all the moderator's fault.

On the contrary, the problem is with you, in responding with continual snide remarks on every occasion, always.

"Erwin" wrote:
"ianrons" wrote:
The level of signal-to-noise in your posts is so poor that it is impossible for anyone to have any kind of discussion with you

Impossible for you, maybe. Lots of other people evidently have no difficulty with it whatsoever. I'm not sure why you think you're going to curry favour with anyone by blaming the moderator for your failings, and then going on to publicly project them onto the rest of the membership. Your behaviour here is becoming more bizarre by the minute.

I'm sure you believe all of those things.

"Erwin" wrote:
Yes - it illustrates the point that you have grossly and egregious failed to comprehend - no, to read - a simple sentence I put to you. It does, indeed, illustrate the point precisely.

You seem to have a rather megalomaniac personality, which reflects in these sorts of statements. Of course, in your world, nobody else could possibly have anything worthwhile to say to you. Do the angels sing: You are the King! You are the Master! All hail Erwin, O Sainted Priest of Reason! How those fools trouble you with their silly pointed criticism! Oh, how you ignore it! All hail Erwin! Ta-da-da-DA!

But still you could address the various points I've made without resort to insult and misdirection. Just try.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 5:41 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
On the contrary, the problem is with you

Oh, I see. So when you said "the person I blame is Paul" what you actually meant was "the person I blame is Erwin"?

I guess we can add writing as well as reading to the list of things you need to practice.

"ianrons" wrote:
I'm sure you believe all of those things.

I'm just explaining to you what you wrote, since you seem to require that.

"ianrons" wrote:
Do the angels sing: You are the King! You are the Master! All hail Erwin, O Sainted Priest of Reason! How those fools trouble you with their silly pointed criticism! Oh, how you ignore it! All hail Erwin! Ta-da-da-DA!

I think you are nearing some sort of breakdown.

"ianrons" wrote:
But still you could address the various points I've made without resort to insult and misdirection.

I already did. You chose to complain about it and go off on your silly little rant. On the matter of responding to the other's points, the ball is squarely in your court right now. If a sensible discussion is really what you're after, then you can go back and address all the points I raised instead of crying about them, and if you manage to make a reasonably sensible contribution, I'll probably respond, but since this is at least the second time you've thrown a tantrum after trying to have an epistemological discussion with me, my hopes aren't high, even though I'm magnanimous enough to not hold that against you. If it isn't, that's fine too.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 6:05 pm  

(((((((Paul)))))))


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 6:20 pm  

Isn’t it true that it takes two to have an argument? 🙄

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
spike418
(@spike418)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 213
16/03/2010 7:03 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
You are a complete fucking twat.

I sincerely regret that you are not banned for life from this forum.

Ian
I would imagine that more than a few on here, myself included, share that view!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 7:36 pm  

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose!
Is there any hope at all for the human race?
Every time I think these gents cannot be serious, but I'm sadly quite sure you are. Aren't you.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3951
16/03/2010 7:45 pm  
"ianrons" wrote:
You are a complete fucking twat.
"ianrons" wrote:
. . .and the person I blame is Paul for not moderating this forum more assiduously, frankly, though it pains me to say so.

You couldn't make this stuff up, could you?

🙄


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/03/2010 7:57 pm  

As someone who followed the Go-go-Godel thread and this one, I would be very curious to see anyone actually mount an argument against Erwin, which I have not yet seen.

Erwin's point seems clear: what Ianrons is calling "true knowledge" doesn't bear any relation whatsoever to the real-world thing that we designate with the label "knowledge." So when Ian claims that knowledge leads us to "question whether we really know anything at all," he's talking about two entirely different things, but using a single label ("knowledge") for both of them.

To reiterate what Erwin's been saying, "true knowledge" in the philosophical sense (whatever it means) is not necessary in order to know how to do things...thus, attacking knowledge on this basis fails.

The human race obviously knows a lot of things, and not having "true knowledge in the objective sense" -- whatever that is -- clearly has not prevented us from knowing things, as our technological developments can attest: we know how to build bridges, send messages over long distances, build computers, etc.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 8:17 pm  

Los"Erwin's point seems clear: what Ianrons is calling "true knowledge" doesn't bear any relation whatsoever to the real-world thing that we designate with the label "knowledge." So when Ian claims that knowledge leads us to "question whether we really know anything at all," he's talking about two entirely different things, but using a single label ("knowledge") for both of them.

To reiterate what Erwin's been saying, "true knowledge" in the philosophical sense (whatever it means) is not necessary in order to know how to do things...thus, attacking knowledge on this basis fails."

this is what i was trying to say with the first statement that someone decided to pick on because i was unable to word it to their specifications. spiritual knowledge has nothing to do with trains or light bulbs except as far as they are a part of the universe like everything else, those are physical tangible things. erwins argument from my perspective only goes to inflate his own ego. like someone said their is no way to win an argument when there really is no argument, only "im better than you are"inflection of a 5 year old.

also im sure somoene will point out that i dont know how to quote on a forum. i dont so dont be surprised


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 8:20 pm  

Thank you for that Los, in that case I take it there is hope then.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 8:25 pm  

http://xkcd.com/386 /"> http://xkcd.com/386/


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 8:34 pm  

"No, he's not. Here's the full context, which is still up there for everyone to see.

The initiator was the patently ridiculous implication that something is not true if you believe it to be not true. Having called him on this implication, the following ensued:

Zelldeb: "i know nothing about any of it. i just go by what i have experienced and what my heart tells me. "

Erwin: "Perhaps actually acquiring some knowledge would be a useful next step for you, then."

Zelldeb: "aquiring knowledge has never shown me anything except that i dont know nearly as much as i had previously thought."

Very clearly, the implication was "I have no knowledge, and I see no reason at all why I should acquire any knowledge. I'll just stick with going with 'what my heart tells me', thank you very much."

All this nonsense about epistemology was introduced by Ian, solely out of his own head. The initial exchange was clearly about real-life, practical knowledge of the world, not some spurious mystical concept of "true knowledge" that Ian was on about, and not about the type of "self perception" which you describe. Context is king, as ever. "

from erwins rantings

this first statement he referred to was completely misunderstood by him. as i stated previously i was referring to the cultural mythos that belief in magic is what causes magick to work.

the second statement i made was referring to the above mentioned myth.

the third statement i made as erwin mentioned is a paraphrase of socrates.

although i was not responding to what he assumed i was with my statements, apparently he just assumed i would be paying attention to him since getting people to do that seems to be his only reason for posting here


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/03/2010 8:43 pm  
"Zelldeb" wrote:
spiritual knowledge has nothing to do with trains or light bulbs except as far as they are a part of the universe

And the response here is that "spiritual knowledge" -- or "transcendental knowledge" or "true knowledge" -- isn't knowledge at all. It doesn't mean that you "can't know" anything, and it doesn't mean that there's no point in knowing things (and that we're all better off following what our "hearts" tell us).

It's one thing not to like Erwin's tone, but it's another thing only to complain about his tone and not make any arguments against him whatsoever.

Since Erwin's arguments undermine Crowley's claims about knowledge, surely someone from the Aleister Crowley society can make a convincing argument against him, no?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 8:49 pm  

Greetings

Well, this is not fair and I don't even believe I'm watching this happening!

It’s not fair to use your competence in debate to intimidate the others.

It’s not fair to ruin the otherwise nice atmosphere of this place, which is dedicated to AC’s legacy and the discussion of his work, by dynamiting every single attempt of someone to discuss and turning it into a world war.

It’s not fair to have one person struggling to keep this thing working with every possible personal effort and accuse him at the same time that he is not doing his job assiduously enough! - Shame on you Paul, you should change their dippers too -at least until they grow up!

What’s good in being “clever” and having some artful arguments when using this skill only destructively!

So my own way to oppose to that, is to stop reading both Ian’s and Erwin’s posts, since they will end up fighting, anyway, either with each other or with anyone else!

It’s not going to make any difference to anyone of you, but it is the only way to state my aversion to those tactics!

Regards
Hecate


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 8:51 pm  
"Los" wrote:
As someone who followed the Go-go-Godel thread and this one, I would be very curious to see anyone actually mount an argument against Erwin, which I have not yet seen.

Erwin's point seems clear: what Ianrons is calling "true knowledge" doesn't bear any relation whatsoever to the real-world thing that we designate with the label "knowledge." So when Ian claims that knowledge leads us to "question whether we really know anything at all," he's talking about two entirely different things, but using a single label ("knowledge") for both of them.

To reiterate what Erwin's been saying, "true knowledge" in the philosophical sense (whatever it means) is not necessary in order to know how to do things...thus, attacking knowledge on this basis fails.

The human race obviously knows a lot of things, and not having "true knowledge in the objective sense" -- whatever that is -- clearly has not prevented us from knowing things, as our technological developments can attest: we know how to build bridges, send messages over long distances, build computers, etc.

Exactly and precisely so, except for the avoidance of doubt "'true knowledge'...is not necessary in order to know how to do things" should also be read to include "'true knowledge'...is not necessary in order to know things", since both descriptive and procedural knowledge are covered by the above argument. For instance, we know our own names, we know that Barack Obama is the current president of the United States, and we know that dogs (usually) have four legs, and the lack of "true knowledge" - whatever that is supposed to mean - has absolutely no bearing on that knowledge of ours whatsoever. It's an utterly trivial point that only needs raising in the first place because we're dealing with people who believe in "magickal universes" who have elected to thoroughly confuse themselves with philosophy and mysticism. It should not be a difficult point to grasp for anyone, and it certainly shouldn't generate any controversy in any group of sane people.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 8:56 pm  
"Zelldeb" wrote:
this first statement he referred to was completely misunderstood by him. as i stated previously i was referring to the cultural mythos that belief in magic is what causes magick to work.

What you actually said was (emphasis added):

"No matter what.(really no exceptions) as long as you believe that any being that lives on another plane of existence cannot harm you, it can not, no matter what. and for all those who believe this is full of shit. as long as you believe something is not real, it isnt. your mind is the ultimate creative force, same as the mind of the being in whose image we were all made"

If you are trying to claim that you were just talking about a "myth" all along, and that you didn't really mean any of it, then you're either lying, or you're a complete time-waster, take your pick. I respond to what people actually write, not to the stories they tell about it after the event.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5304
16/03/2010 8:57 pm  

Ian,

I refer you to my email.

"ianrons" wrote:
...and the person I blame is Paul for not moderating this forum more assiduously, frankly, though it pains me to say so.

It's a pain when the day job gets in the way, but I do my best.

Very disappointing…

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 9:05 pm  

in response to los, there is no reason to actually agrue with someone like erwin, he has made it apparent that his only goal is to be "right" he takes things out of context to validate his points and no matter what anyone says will twist things to validate his own ideas.

as he again expressed he completely misunderstood what i was trying to say by applying knowledge to the idea of self knowledge, just to make himself look better in his own eyes from my perspective.

i would also like to say thanks to hecate for the welcome.

and there is no need to call in the "forum"police , its like telling the teacher when the bully picks on you in elementary, my own experience i ignored them and took the physical and mental abuse with laughter and they got bored and went away.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 9:08 pm  

And you would spend an eternity on this side of the river bank reasoning the best way of crossing whilst I cross using no faculty of reason whatsoever. Magickal universes indeed! What other type of label would you put on it! See you.....


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 9:10 pm  

Missed the boat, last to Erwin.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/03/2010 9:12 pm  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
And you would spend an eternity on this side of the river bank reasoning the best way of crossing whilst I cross using no faculty of reason whatsoever.

You can figure out how to cross a river bank without using reason?

Obviously, reason is used to determine how to cross a river bank.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 9:18 pm  

I do it perhaps more quickly.;-)


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 9:25 pm  

taking the risk of being "shunned by all, as centres of pestilence"

Liber AL ch 2
25. Ye are against the people, O my chosen!

26. I am the secret Serpent coiled about to spring: in my coiling there is joy. If I lift up my head, I and my Nuit are one. If I droop down mine head, and shoot forth venom, then is rapture of the earth, and I and the earth are one.

27. There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason.

28. Now a curse upon Because and his kin!

29. May Because be accursèd for ever!

30. If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought.

31. If Power asks why, then is Power weakness.

32. Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.

33. Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!

34. But ye, o my people, rise up & awake!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 9:32 pm  
"Zelldeb" wrote:
taking the risk of being "shunned by all, as centres of pestilence"

Liber AL ch 2
25. Ye are against the people, O my chosen!

26. I am the secret Serpent coiled about to spring: in my coiling there is joy. If I lift up my head, I and my Nuit are one. If I droop down mine head, and shoot forth venom, then is rapture of the earth, and I and the earth are one.

27. There is great danger in me; for who doth not understand these runes shall make a great miss. He shall fall down into the pit called Because, and there he shall perish with the dogs of Reason.

28. Now a curse upon Because and his kin!

29. May Because be accursèd for ever!

30. If Will stops and cries Why, invoking Because, then Will stops & does nought.

31. If Power asks why, then is Power weakness.

32. Also reason is a lie; for there is a factor infinite & unknown; & all their words are skew-wise.

33. Enough of Because! Be he damned for a dog!

34. But ye, o my people, rise up & awake!

Oh, please - save us new-agers and their woolly, personal interpretations of The Book of the Law!

"We must not suppose for an instant that the Book of the Law is opposed to reason. On the contrary, its own claim to authority rests upon reason, and nothing else. It disdains the arts of the orator. It makes reason the autocrat of the mind." - Aleister Crowley, "new comment" to AL II, 28.

Refer to http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=40 2"> http://www.erwinhessle.com/blog/?p=402 for much, much more on this subject.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 50 years ago
Posts: 0
16/03/2010 9:33 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
Oh, please - save us new-agers and their woolly, personal interpretations of The Book of the Law!

"...save us from..."


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/03/2010 9:35 pm  
"RemeaviThantos" wrote:
I do it perhaps more quickly.;-)

This is a problem for some occultists -- a lot of them claim to have "transcended reason" or to do things "without reason" when in fact all they have done is ignore the reasoning process that they do indeed use.

When you come to a conclusion about something, you are -- by definition -- using reason to reach the conclusion, as "conclusions" are rational constructs. Even if your conclusion is that "reason does not work," you cannot reach it by any means other than reason (which would neatly invalidate that particular conclusion).

The result of this "transcend reason" attitude leads to -- in many cases, anyway -- a tendency among some occultists to deprecate knowledge, reason, and legitimate skeptical investigation of the universe. It also leads to the acceptance of false beliefs, among them the belief in "spiritual knowledge" and that actual knowledge is pointless and that one should merely "follow one's heart."


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/03/2010 9:42 pm  
"Zelldeb" wrote:
taking the risk of being "shunned by all, as centres of pestilence"

As an illustration, you are implicitly making a claim that follows a certain logic:

1. The Book of the Law says we shouldn't use reason.
2. We should all obey the Book of the Law.
3. Therefore, we shouldn't use reason.

There are two problems here: 1) In order to make this claim, you need to use reason, invalidating the conclusion, and 2) Your first two premises are false. The Book doesn't say not to use reason, as Erwin pointed out, and it's not necessarily true that "we should all obey the Book of the Law." The premise that the Book of the Law gives us commands to obey should be examined and questioned.

Your conclusion isn't correct, but the only way to know this is to actually use reason, instead of denying it.


ReplyQuote
Page 1 / 2
Share: