Cleansing & cha...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring  

Page 2 / 7
  RSS

Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/10/2012 2:25 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
On the specific thing I mentioned, however, a published peer review of a double-blind experiment can be found here.

Seriously? "Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing"? An experiment conducted by a dude with a degree from the rough equivalent of a cracker jack box? How about a cutting-edge article in "The Wacko Journal of Praying over Water"?

When I said a "peer-reviewed journal," I obviously meant a legitimate one. I have to run for the moment, but I'll be back later to explain the peer-review process and how to distinguish a legitimate journal from woo.

Oh, right. Now you are more specific.

Have you done your own rice experiment?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/10/2012 2:44 am  

Holy blue fuck has this thread taken off!

Listen I'm not here to debate whether I believe in the metaphysical/supernatural.  I do and that's all there is too it. I have a very open mind & know there is much more to this world than meets the eye. I could care less what you do or don't believe in, but stop trying to debunk me like I'm some crazy.  Get off a magick site if you don't like people talking about weird shit.   

I've got my head on my shoulders even for how crazy I think I am and think very rational.  But I also know there is more to this world than you can just wrap your shadow hand around.

Do you believe in aliens, ghosts & entities?  I do.  I have also done extensive research into field of psychedelics and understand that we aren't the only things out there.  I've also had supernatural/ghostly experiences myself.  Energy flows through everything.  We're stardust & connected to it all.  There are many planes/dimensions of existence that have entities that reside inside of them.

So you're on a magick site saying metaphysical & supernatural don't exist.

It seems your VERY "western views" are limiting your ability to see deeper into consciousness.

I like how you think you're the only one who has been enlightened & that all the voodoo and magick that has been practiced for thousands of years is all fake and that everyone is just "Crazy" but you've managed to figure it all out as one big hoax.

 


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/10/2012 3:14 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
I was referring to "Erwin" clones, as members of the site such as Los and Moogplayer, who have adopted your materialistic skepticism

I love how you refer to "my" material skepticism, as if it's something other than how practically all educated people think. Nobody's "adopted" any such thing from me - it's just how educated and sensible people generally think.

"N.O.X" wrote:
How does typing that, which is a common phrase that has long been used in certain Traditions, make me sound like a gimp?

How? You may as well ask how prancing down the street wearing a harlequin costume and waving a bunch of daffodils makes you look like a gimp. If you don't already know why, then there's no point explaining it to you. Perhaps you think that kind of thing is normal, I don't know.

"N.O.X" wrote:
I was asked directly, by Moog, if I believed that magick actually works, so what else was I to do than appeal to my own experiences, which you insultingly refer to

Accurately refer to. However much you might like to believe otherwise, contemptuous nonsense is still rightfully deserving of contempt.

To actually answer your question of "what else were you to do", saying "I honestly have no idea whether magick or not works, I'm just pulling this all out of my rear end because I love dressing up as a wizard, you're not supposed to take it seriously" is the course of action which most obviously and immediately springs to mind.

"N.O.X" wrote:
as "paltry" or "hamfisted" and "sauce-induced dreams and fantasies".  All you've done in your entire reply is fling insults, at me.

See, that's what's wrong with you people. You publicly admit to wanking over little drawings and pretending that you're performing some kind of "effective magick" by doing that, and then you act all offended and surprised when people laugh at you. Seriously, do you ever leave your house? Because you definitely need to get out more if you're not used to this happening all the time.

"N.O.X" wrote:
Fuck you man, you don't know me, what my practices are,

Sure I do, you've just listed a few of them.

"N.O.X" wrote:
and what evidence I do have of my Workings being succesful or not.

Sure I do. Absolutely none.

"N.O.X" wrote:
This evidence is in my private magical diaries.

Riiiight. And the angels really did take Joseph Smith's golden plates away so nobody else could verify their existence.

There is no "evidence" in your "private magical diaries", because wanking over little drawings doesn't make money appear, or give you knowledge of sciences, or any of that malarkey, so there's simply no evidence to be in there or anywhere else. As Los keeps trying to tell you, if anyone actually did demonstrate that "magick works", it would be absolutely world-changing overnight. If any old societal dropout could demonstrate that "magick works" by ejaculating on a biscuit and writing down his callow opinions in his little diary, then in thousands of years of trying, somebody would know about it by now. We have people who can build computers, split the atom, and send men to the moon, I'm sure they're more than capable of shooting their glue on a picture to see if it does anything special. The reason nobody does know about it is because the whole thing is absolute bullshit, whatever you might elect to believe.

You're not at Hogwarts, and you're not a real wizard. Deal with it.

"N.O.X" wrote:
This does not accurately describe myself nor any of the other Thelemites that I know.

It doesn't accurately present how you would describe yourself, perhaps. But that's a very different thing.

"N.O.X" wrote:
If you regard the practices done by its founder, Aleister Crowley, as well as just about everything else in AL, as pure fantasy, why even bother with Thelema, at all?

Because Aleister Crowley's Thelema has nothing to do with wanking over little drawings or pretending to talk to goblins. Your question is as much of a non sequitur as "why even bother with mountain-climbing?" would be.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/10/2012 3:15 am  
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
Get off a magick site if you don't like people talking about weird shit.

This isn't a "magick site". Perhaps you took a wrong turn.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 5:17 am  
"Los" wrote:
When I said a "peer-reviewed journal," I obviously meant a legitimate one.

Right, so a little more on this. A lot of people aren't aware that science isn't based on what one single scientist says (or even what a handful of scientists say) or on one experiment or study. Science advances through a peer-review process, in which papers and research are...well, reviewed by other experts in the field, who will usually give feedback and make sure the study is valid (often requesting that certain changes be made before the paper is published, etc.)

One can always find a nutty few people who happen to hold PhD's who have silly ideas that they can't demonstrate (of course, they *think* they can demonstrate them). When some of these folks can't get their "research" published in actual, legitimate journals run by real, respected scientists, they start making up their own "peer-reviewed" journals that treat nutty woo seriously. In other words, it's a ploy. "What's that? Of course we have our research published in a peer-reviewed journal! Which one? Why, it's the Journal of Wand Waving and Chanting, publishing papers produced by weirdos who have no actual education in science!"

And that's another problem: people buying degrees -- rather than earning them -- and just calling themselves "Doctor." In the case of this nonsense about "charging" water, the studies are run by a dude who got his degree from the Open University of Alternative Medicine in India, which is basically just a place where you buy your degree. He's the same con man who tried selling water that had been "charged" with positive "intentions." 'Cause I guess water is just better for you when it's been charged with good intentions. Sound like groundbreaking science to you? If so, I've got some swampland in Florida I could sell you for a low, low price...

You can't just aimlessly google around for "experiments charging thoughts" and then just accept whatever you read. You've actually got to do some digging if you seriously want to assert claims that would turn everything that humans know on its head.


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 2581
10/10/2012 5:50 am  

Los. Just so we are all on the same page, what journals will you accept for evidence of this type of phenomenon (ie charging an object/ affecting the physical medium/energy with intent), since that peer-reviewed journal was not good enough? 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 5:59 am  
"christibrany" wrote:
Los. Just so we are all on the same page, what journals will you accept for evidence of this type of phenomenon (ie charging an object/ affecting the physical medium/energy with intent), since that peer-reviewed journal was not good enough? 

It's not that that "peer-reviewed journal" was "not good enough." It's that it was a ploy cooked up by nutbars to try to lend credibility to their fatuous beliefs.

You're approaching this question in an odd sort of way. My request for peer-reviewed journal articles was nearly a rhetorical question because we both know full well that the scientific community -- you know, legitimate scientists with actual standards for research -- don't accept that "intentions" can "charge water," the claims of a con man who sells "charged" water for outrageous prices notwithstanding.

If any of these claims were remotely true, they would have been demonstrated by legitimate science a long time ago, and real scientists would be jumping on the band wagon, trying to get grant money to study this subject further. In other words, if any of this stuff were real, it would sweep through the professional scientific community, to the point that no one would have any legitimate grounds for doubting it.

But that's not the case, here. We have these claims being made by small pockets of a lunatic fringe who cannot get their ideas published in reputable journals that have real research standards. On what grounds should any reasonable person be convinced by this?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 6:01 am  
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
Listen I'm not here to debate whether I believe in the metaphysical/supernatural.  I do and that's all there is too it. I have a very open mind

I would not describe the position of "I believe it and that's all there is to it!" as the position of someone with a "very open mind."

A person with an open mind is open to being swayed by evidence and open to being shown that the evidence upon which he currently accepts claims is faulty.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
10/10/2012 6:08 am  

"This isn't a "magick site". Perhaps you took a wrong turn."

No. It's a site dedicated to the Legacy of an Englishman who devoted his life to the practice and promulgation of "MAGICK." You know, that thing he did involving the sucking of sexual fluids, noodling with numbers and attempting to contact disincarnate Beings who might lend a helping hand. If you want to run with the "Aiwass was sales-pitch" theme, please also regard our friends Abuldiz and Amalantrah.

This is the same guy, btw, who identified such endeavors as an "Arte."

Now, ere you accuse me of justifying foolish "beliefs" by appealing to some authority in all of AC's predilections, let me simply say that I test and try, having no issue with letting go of what seems repugnant. Apparently, Erwin, you feel the same. The difference, however, is that my own interaction with Crowley's body of lit is meant to hang onto the baby as the bathwater sails. Your own approach seems quite content with sawing the baby in half.

You seem to want "Magick in Theory and Practice" without the MAGICK. Unless, of course, that "MAGICK" is defined by conformity to particular determinants such as "accepted evidence" and "peer-reviewed lab tests." Funny, though: the oft harped upon "True Will" fits into neither category. Los asks how investigating aliens and fairies and the like help one discover the True Will. This is as much a  non-issue as to how a community college course in automotive maintenance "helps one discover the True Will." Someone is in there because they OUGHT TO BE and someone is in there because they THINK THEY SHOULD BE.

Is it incumbent on all who are struck by the Message of Thelema to don robes and spend two decades “meddling with the Goetia?” Hardly. But those who do may very well be guided by the impetus of the Will. Activity and conclusions will vary.

Remember Crowley’s example in MTP of the person who would be happier in an attic with a lover than in some lavish societal setting and an empty relationship? The only determinant here is that she “really likes it better” than pursuing an idea she had as to what she SHOULD like.  The True Will here cannot be tested or quantified outside of one’s subjective preferences.

Maybe this is why it’s still an “Arte” and not a “Science.”

Now: the realm of “subjective preferences.” I know that “rational people” don’t think there are any fairies about in the woods but you know what? I LIKE THIS SUBJECT. Maybe it was some book I was read when I was four or maybe it’s my way of not facing up to the real issues oppressing me. Who cares? I would much rather investigate Fae Phenomena than shuttle through life within the Reality Tunnel of the Materialistic Worldview handed down by Society. And so I investigate. And then I encounter things or events which CANNOT be assessed by the same measuring stick whereby you decide how much a rock weighs on a given scale. Erwin wants a snapshot of Tinkerbell. But guess what? Tinkerbell doesn’t belong to the plane wherein snapshots are taken. That’s OK. Through interest and pursuit and practice (following the Invisible and improvable “True Will”), I develop into the means whereby I can apprehend what a camera can’t. And I do so as a Being who also exists in the world where cameras function.
 
Am I deluded? Or am I Monet to the colorblind?

Is that a documented dot? Or something you can’t conceive of called a “Sphere” touching down into the Flatland you have yet to grow out of?

But speculations over whether something is this or that are really futile. When we DO tap the power in what we’re dealing with, we WANT to share and communicate and develop it. And herein is born the genre of “Magical Lit.” The classic The Lotus Sutra declares that the Wisdom of the Buddha can only be understood between Buddhas. Perhaps this is like a love poem which can only be really grasped by one who has had their heart broken in the same way.

N.O.X. is experimenting and tapping that “Spooky Action at a Distance.” You’re telling him he is an ass because no such thing exists. Not in your world it doesn’t. And that marks the borders of your world and Reality.

Rise, fall and know so much. Assume that knowledge is all and sneer at those who waver outside the box wherein a throne may be erected.

Yes, Crowley was a ruthless skeptic. He was also ruthless even with his skepticism, knowing that knowing is always with limit-and yet driven towards a Limitless Impulse.

I appreciate Los’ commenting above that he was at one time convinced of some magical reality which he later determined to be a delusion. The thing is: our subsequent “clarity” is just another rung on the ladder. Get ready for the next mindfuck, the next disillusionment, the turning of the wheel. And jettison the idea of following this chain all the way back to some primordial monad. This is the so-called “Quest for the Foundation of Mathematics.” It may be turtles all the way down but your flesh is going to fall off your face along the way.

You can charge a magical ring beyond ritual metaphor. Intelligences beyond the terrestrial are active. Don’t buy it? That’s cool. It’s not even a reason to debate. Doing the Magick was never an issue of proving it to oneself (let alone others). It was always an issue of Doing, of Cause and Effect (and taking that relationship beyond the limits of what is presently provable).

In the meantime, Erwin laughed. He laughed at all the fools who had deceived themselves in so many ways. And in his laughter, he failed to hear the chuckling from the Void wherein he had deceived himself into thinking that he knew anything at all. He rose and sank, a bubble in the Diamond Sutra. Round, he thought himself the world. Reflective, he thought himself all-seeing. And so it was for that moment which vanished as a child, laughing, pissed into the stream of which the bubble would know nothing.

There remains Wisdom in Crowley’s Folly. 


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/10/2012 9:20 am  

Los,

I concede the point. "Proves" was a faulty word choice. "Indicates" might have been a better one.

You asked for a peer reviewed journal, and I gave you one. Upon further investigation, I learned that the guy supposedly applied to 150 different [legit] journals, and only one took him, which also had his address on it (go figure).

However, have you done your own rice experiment? I have not. I watched some videos on it, and out of the 4 I picked at random, 3 of them showed an actual difference in the rice after the experiment. I admit that watching some YouTube videos is not as valid as doing one's own experiments. Aside from that, the evidence still indicates that water may indeed respond to intent, as they claim.

The whole point of the water example was to show that humans do have an impact on objects we may not necessarily perceive ourselves to have an impact on. Granted, it was not a very good example. You can harp on it, or we can debate the principle.

That humans have some impact on objects is not unfamiliar territory. The case in the thread, of course, is whether or not humans can have a verbal impact on the properties of a metallic object such as a ring. To say that humans do, without proper scientific verification, is nonsense. To say that they don't, without proper scientific verification, is equally nonsense... the skeptic would rather say nay until proven wrong, a quality akin to maintaining the world is flat until evidence indicates otherwise.

Some believe until their beliefs are proven otherwise. Some choose not to believe until their un-belief is proven otherwise.

What do you think of the claim that an atheist is a type of theist?

Also, you didn't answer the Cakes of Light question.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
10/10/2012 2:27 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Erwin wants a snapshot of Tinkerbell. But guess what? Tinkerbell doesn’t belong to the plane wherein snapshots are taken. That’s OK. Through interest and pursuit and practice (following the Invisible and improvable “True Will”), I develop into the means whereby I can apprehend what a camera can’t. And I do so as a Being who also exists in the world where cameras function....

Am I deluded?

Yes.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 6:08 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Some believe until their beliefs are proven otherwise. Some choose not to believe until their un-belief is proven otherwise.

Well, these former “some” are entirely misguided. Rational inquiry – i.e. the kind of inquiry we should adopt if we’re interested in having true beliefs – requires that the default position be not accepting the claim until there is evidence to support it.

In other words, when we are presented with a claim, we begin from the position of not accepting it. That doesn’t mean we think that it’s false: we just don’t accept it as true yet. If we encounter sufficient evidence to support the claim, then we move from our position of not accepting the claim to a position of accepting the claim. If we do not encounter sufficient evidence to support the claim, then we remain in our default position of not accepting the claim.

And we all know this. When some guy comes up to us and says, “The moon landing was a hoax!” We don’t start out by immediately believing him. We encounter this claim in a position of not accepting the claim. That is to say, we don’t necessarily think it false, but we’re not in a position of accepting it as true (at least not yet). We then evaluate the evidence before we decide if our position is to change.

Now, in daily life, we don’t have the luxury of submitting every claim to exhaustive analysis, though we could if we wanted to. If my friend tells me he just got a new cat, I don’t really have the time to thoroughly review the evidence for that claim (unless he’s got the cat with him). So, in our daily lives, we often grant claims that we deem relatively ordinary.

However, when we encounter extraordinary claims in our daily lives – that is, claims that fly in the face of what we know about how the world works – we often insist on going through the full critical process. So, for instance, if you claimed to have a cat, I probably would just tentatively accept that, but if you claimed to have a firebreathing cat, I would go through the whole critical process: I would start out not accepting the claim, and I would have to be convinced by means of evidence.

All serious critical inquiry starts like this. No reasonable person starts out from the position that an extraordinary claim is true until it’s proven false. Do you begin from the position that Jesus Christ is the one true savior of humanity until you can find concrete evidence that he’s not? Do you begin from the position that there is only one God and Mohammed is his last prophet until you can find concrete evidence that that’s not the case?

Or do you (sensibly) start from the position of not accepting any of those claims as true until there’s sufficient evidence for them?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 6:21 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Is it incumbent on all who are struck by the Message of Thelema to don robes and spend two decades “meddling with the Goetia?” Hardly. But those who do may very well be guided by the impetus of the Will. Activity and conclusions will vary.

Remember Crowley’s example in MTP of the person who would be happier in an attic with a lover than in some lavish societal setting and an empty relationship? The only determinant here is that she “really likes it better” than pursuing an idea she had as to what she SHOULD like.  The True Will here cannot be tested or quantified outside of one’s subjective preferences.

For the zillionth time, nobody is saying, "Never practice ceremonial magick for the purposes of entertainment!"

I went out of my way to say, earlier in this very thread, that I have nothing against the performance of ceremonial magick for the purposes of enjoyment or entertainment. I wish N.O.X. all the success in eating all of the bloody pussy he can stand. I wish him well in his endeavors to spread sexual fluids on drawings. In the same exact way, I have no problem at all with someone engaging in S&M sex play, indulging in humiliation fetishes, or playing golf on the weekends. Now, I may find some of those activities silly (especially the golf), and I may occasionally say so, but I still have no problem with anyone doing any of those things. I wish them all the best.

Activity isn't the issue. Claims -- factual claims about the world -- are the issue.

If you want to engage in any of the above activities, or if you want to sit around having conversations with imaginary creatures you make up in your head, then knock yourself out. If you find it fun or entertaining, cool. If it gives you inspiration for art, awesome. If it's your True Will to do any of this, then go for it. You're not going to get any argument from me. It's none of my business.

But if you pop up in a public forum and make factual claims that you cannot support, then I will take issue with that because now you've wandered into my sphere of activity (since my sphere of activity includes public discourse and my own interest in analyzing public discourse). Such factual claims include, "Doing these acts causes coincidences to happen" or "Doing these acts causes me to learn more about my True Will" or "Doing these acts reveals more factual information about the universe (such as, for instance, that there are intelligences operating independently from humans)."

If you're not making factual claims like those, then I'm not talking to you. If you are making claims like those in public, then I challenge you to support them in public.

As ever, you (and I mean you, Kyle, here) consistently confuse my objection to claims with an objection to activity. You have been corrected on this point numerous times over a long period of time. Is there some reason that you haven't grasped this point yet?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/10/2012 6:34 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Well, these former “some” are entirely misguided.

This is not entirely true. While I think the approach you have indicated does work in many cases, it does not work in all cases. Therefore, to lump all cases into one scenario, thereby creating a division and standing on either side of it, is a hit or miss practice. One might argue the success rate as a reason to take that approach, sure. Or, one might argue using the approach as a safety net.

I don't disagree with you. I think a lack of skepticism can lead to gullibility, but too much skepticism can lead to an equal amount of gullibility.

"Los" wrote:
Rational inquiry

Do you think that occurrences exist that cannot be rationalized? This is not a question of scientific progress, I'm talking about the inability to rationalize an occurrence.

"Los" wrote:
true beliefs

If something is true, does it really matter if you believe it or not? It is going to be true regardless of whether or not one believes it, regardless of one's approach too, whether it be through skepticism or some other approach.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
10/10/2012 7:40 pm  

93!

Ah, the men of science are back - the ones that have scientifically proven that it is their True Will not to like spinache - and they are boring as usual. But what should we expect of men of science? When fourty (or so) percent of them actually believe in God, there also must be some that actually believe they interpret Crowley correctly when in fact they understand nothing (okay, probably little).

"It has apparently not occurred to him [the average man of science] that his position in doubting the existence of consciousness except in connection with certain types of anatomical structure, is really identical with that of the narrowest geocentric and anthropocentric Evangelicals. It is comic to limit consciousness. [...] The arguments against the existence of spiritual intelligence stink of false analogy; on the top of being attempts to prove an universal negative, and à priori fallacies full of ignoratio elechi, non distributio medii, non sequitur ["ignorance of the point in dispute", "undistributed middle", "it does not follow"]. [...] Nature is continuous, and it is therefore absurd to suppose that any special group of phenomena and no other should exhibit unique qualities. [...] I merely add that all matter is to some extent conscious; and so that there may be, all over the Universe, individuals of many orders - only the shallowest salvationists would sneer "why don't we see them?" The Unknown - from "Australia before it was discovered" (as the child's riddle says), to bacilli. Hertz rays and electrons - had the impudence to exist without our formal recognition." (A.Crowley)

You have been corrected on Crowley's views numerous times over a long period of time. Is there some reason that you haven't grasped this yet? And I repeat, I don't mean and never meant: "Do not practice your self-invented scientific-skeptic-rationalistic pseudo-Thelema for the purposes of entertainment!" You are entitled to do so as long as you will. But please, stop lecturing and claiming this is WHAT CROWLEY MEANT...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 7:40 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I don't disagree with you. I think a lack of skepticism can lead to gullibility, but too much skepticism can lead to an equal amount of gullibility.

Give me a practical example of skepticism -- as I've described it -- leading to someone being more likely to accept a false claim.

To put it a different way, it's obviously the case that one can be careful and skeptical but still end up accepting false claims (because one doesn't have enough evidence or because one analyzes the evidence incorrectly, etc.). But I'm saying that the skeptical process itself (not accepting claims until there is sufficient evidence) makes it far more likely that an individual will, on the whole, succeed in the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.

In fact, I assert that skeptical, evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of distinguishing fact from fantasy and the only consistently reliable method of achieving the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.

From where I sit, I only see drawbacks to accepting a claim as true until it can be proven wrong.

If you disagree with any of this, I'd like some practical examples of what you're talking about.

"Los" wrote:
Do you think that occurrences exist that cannot be rationalized? This is not a question of scientific progress, I'm talking about the inability to rationalize an occurrence.

Yes, people generally do have all sorts of experiences that they cannot explain or account for. In these cases, the only correct and honest thing to say is, "I'm not really sure what that was."

More broadly, the function of reason is not to perfectly explain and describe everything. Experience is, in a sense, "ineffable," in that it cannot be completely described in language/reason. We must, necessarily, falsify our experience in order to classify and describe it. For example, I cannot put into words *precisely* what it feels like to, for example, listen to a beautiful song.

But that's no problem because the function of reason isn't to describe/explain perfectly the universe: it's to evaluate claims.

Again, can you give a practical example of what you're talking about?

"Los" wrote:
If something is true, does it really matter if you believe it or not?

It matters to the individual in the sense of our need to have a practical map of the territory.

If I'm going to, for example, build a computer or fix a car or go out to a bar to find a partner, etc. I need to have in my mind a model of how these activities work: the better my model is -- i.e. the more elements of this model match reality, i.e. the more this model is built on true beliefs about the world -- the more likely it is that I'll succeed in my endeavor, whatever that endeavor may be.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 7:48 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Ah, the men of science are back [...] and they are boring as usual.

But interesting enough for you to respond, evidently. 

You have been corrected on Crowley's views numerous times over a long period of time. Is there some reason that you haven't grasped this yet?

What in the world are you talking about? Crowley claimed to believe in the existence of disembodied consciousness and to believe in the existence of "forces" currently "unknown" to science (in his day...and, by the way, still in our day as well). He also claimed to believe that he was in communication with some of these intelligences.

Where exactly do you think I have denied that Crowley said any of those things?

I've gone out of my way -- repeatedly -- to say that I think Crowley was wrong in these beliefs (which, of course, means that I acknowledge he believed these things, or at least said he did). Luckily, the fact that he was wrong in these beliefs don't have any practical bearing on the practice of Thelema.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/10/2012 8:40 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I don't disagree with you. I think a lack of skepticism can lead to gullibility, but too much skepticism can lead to an equal amount of gullibility.

Give me a practical example of skepticism -- as I've described it -- leading to someone being more likely to accept a false claim.

To put it a different way, it's obviously the case that one can be careful and skeptical but still end up accepting false claims (because one doesn't have enough evidence or because one analyzes the evidence incorrectly, etc.). But I'm saying that the skeptical process itself (not accepting claims until there is sufficient evidence) makes it far more likely that an individual will, on the whole, succeed in the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.

In fact, I assert that skeptical, evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of distinguishing fact from fantasy and the only consistently reliable method of achieving the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.

From where I sit, I only see drawbacks to accepting a claim as true until it can be proven wrong.

If you disagree with any of this, I'd like some practical examples of what you're talking about.

"far more likely" - It sounds like you have weighed a set of probabilities based on speculation.

If you do not see that both skepticism, and its opposite (fanaticism?), are both in one sense a demonstration of willful ignorance, then I am skeptical that examples will do any good within the context.

"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Do you think that occurrences exist that cannot be rationalized? This is not a question of scientific progress, I'm talking about the inability to rationalize an occurrence.

Yes, people generally do have all sorts of experiences that they cannot explain or account for. In these cases, the only correct and honest thing to say is, "I'm not really sure what that was."

More broadly, the function of reason is not to perfectly explain and describe everything. Experience is, in a sense, "ineffable," in that it cannot be completely described in language/reason. We must, necessarily, falsify our experience in order to classify and describe it. For example, I cannot put into words *precisely* what it feels like to, for example, listen to a beautiful song.

But that's no problem because the function of reason isn't to describe/explain perfectly the universe: it's to evaluate claims.

Again, can you give a practical example of what you're talking about?

And you would rather spend your entire life 'evaluating claims' than 'experiencing the ineffable'?

This is not a sleight, and it goes back through many conversations. The general standpoint from which you post indicates a "fuck the ineffable, look at the claims" approach, from which you sit and play with claims all day long. This is where the skeptic appears as a type of evangelist, and it is a cage.

"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
If something is true, does it really matter if you believe it or not?

It matters to the individual in the sense of our need to have a practical map of the territory.

If I'm going to, for example, build a computer or fix a car or go out to a bar to find a partner, etc. I need to have in my mind a model of how these activities work: the better my model is -- i.e. the more elements of this model match reality, i.e. the more this model is built on true beliefs about the world -- the more likely it is that I'll succeed in my endeavor, whatever that endeavor may be.

If you are going to build a computer, beliefs don't much matter. The operation itself is mechanical, and whether or not you believe the RAM goes into a particular slot is irrelevant, as there is only one set of slots in which RAM can actually fit. Your instruction booklet (map of the territory) can be completely wrong (or in a foreign language), and yet you may still find a way to get the machine to work, by using a more sophisticated machine, the human brain.

So are you skeptical of the map itself, or are you skeptical of what is placed onto the map and how it is placed? If the map is wrong, or needs to change, what has the skepticism ultimately done for you?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
10/10/2012 8:43 pm  
"Los" wrote:
But interesting enough for you to respond, evidently

93, Los!

Well, you know, after a hard day at work with much unexpecting turns, it is just soothing to know that you can rely on some things. And moreover: boredom is a luxury these days!

"Los" wrote:
Luckily, the fact that he was wrong in these beliefs don't have any practical bearing on the practice of Thelema.

So, you decided it a "fact" that Crowley was wrong? Not bad. Do you have any proof? Ah, wait, I forgot: Nobody ever photographed Aiwass!!!! Why don't you have the balls to say that you are not clever enough - insert Peter Griffins's voice here: *or* ... *is* ... *it* ... *too clever*? - to grasp Crowley's system. You are so lucky that he left a door open for non-believers like you but you have to accept the fact that you simply cannot speak with any authority about Crowley's Thelema but only about your little derivate - maybe we should call it Thelemish? Theleptic? Scielema?

Or you act in accordance to what you just said about the "practical bearing on the practice of Thelema". THE BELIEF IN AS WELL AS THE REJECTION OF THE SUPER-NATURAL IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!!! IT IS MEANINGLESS!!! So just stop your lecturing!

Love=Law
Lutz

P.S. let me guess, you will soon complain about alleged occultist "claims", won't you?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/10/2012 8:46 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I think Crowley was wrong in these beliefs
"Los" wrote:
the fact that he was wrong

How did you go about proving he was wrong? Especially since,

"Los" wrote:
the existence of "forces" currently "unknown" to science (in his day...and, by the way, still in our day as well).

So you either have made up your mind, based on speculation or skepticism, that Crowley was flat-out wrong, and have been sticking to it for a number of years, or you have learned with demonstrable proof that he was wrong, even though some of the "forces" he claims to have been in contact with are still "unknown to science", indicating that you somehow have access to something science does not, and said access allows you to say with all certainty that Crowley was wrong.

Which is it?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 8:54 pm  

I think he was wrong in thinking that there was sufficient evidence to justify his beliefs.

Could you please answer my last post, now?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 8:56 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
How did you go about proving he was wrong?

Ok, so to give you a little more detail here, I didn't "prove" that these claims are absolutely false (nor did I say that I have). I have observed and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support his claims.

When he claims that there are such things as disembodied entities, he is implicitly suggesting that he has been convinced of this by means of evidence. I think he's incorrect in thinking that the evidence is sufficient to make such a claim.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
10/10/2012 9:29 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I didn't "prove" that these claims are absolutely false
"Los" wrote:
the fact that he was wrong in these beliefs
"Los" wrote:
(nor did I say that I have). I have observed and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support his claims.

93!

So, it is a fact that he was wrong but his claims are not absolutely false. Blahblah. Just accept it. You - are - NOT - talking - about - Crowley's - Thelema! So don't tell us you are. Maybe one day we will bathe in the light of Losianity (I hope your real name - or pseudonym - makes a better brand-name), but to-day you are just a little voice* on a Crowley site telling us that Crowley was wrong. Which is - strictly for amusement - absolutely okay.

Love (one of the terms, that are currently totally unexplained by science)=Law
Lutz

* Okay, not a *little* voice...


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
10/10/2012 9:57 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
How did you go about proving he was wrong?

Ok, so to give you a little more detail here, I didn't "prove" that these claims are absolutely false (nor did I say that I have). I have observed and concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support his claims.

When he claims that there are such things as disembodied entities, he is implicitly suggesting that he has been convinced of this by means of evidence. I think he's incorrect in thinking that the evidence is sufficient to make such a claim.

No. You said, "the fact that he was wrong".

fact
[fakt] noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5. Law . Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law.

If he was indeed wrong, then we can verify it. Observe:

"Los" wrote:
Crowley claimed to believe in the existence of disembodied consciousness and to believe in the existence of "forces" currently "unknown" to science (in his day...and, by the way, still in our day as well). He also claimed to believe that he was in communication with some of these intelligences.

1. something that actually exists:

"Crowley claimed to believe in the existence of disembodied consciousness and to believe in the existence of "forces" currently "unknown" to science (in his day...and, by the way, still in our day as well). He also claimed to believe that he was in communication with some of these intelligences." - did not exist.

False. It did exist, as per the definition of existence, definition 3, "actual or present occurrence". He wrote about it often. Going by the basis of definition 1, saying the existence of the statement is wrong, meaning that it did not exist, and calling that a fact, when in fact it did exist, is a false claim.

2. something known to exist or to have happened:

To say that is false is to say it did not happen, which it did. You even admit in your quote that he said such, and that such happened, though you think it is false. It was not false for Crowley. It may be false for you, but you are not Crowley, and you simply were not there. Try digging up any unsolved court case that has been closed for 100 years, has no remaining witnesses, and see whether or not you can prove any verdict beyond reasonable doubt. This is what you are trying to do with Crowley, coming to the conclusion, based on assumptions I might add, that what he says happened did not happen, or at least not in the manner in which he described, thereby calling him a liar. If you aren't willing to call him a liar, and throw the whole thing out, then you have gone into the realm of hypocrisy.

3. a truth known by actual experience or observation:

Since you dodged the evidence portion, it is safe to assume you saying based upon observation... with what credentials? What have you actually observed, and where is the evidence that you have observed it? Since you weren't there, you first have to try to replicate the experiment, at the least. Have you replicated the entire experiment? It is more like you have made a series of assumptions, rationalized them, and decided upon them as facts.

4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

You aren't denying he said any of it, so I do not think number 4 applies here.

5. Law.

Doesn't appear to apply here.

Conclusion: The evidence suggests that currently there is no way to know for a fact whether Crowley was wrong without repeating the experiments, and even so, with current scientific measures the case must remain open for further investigation.
___________

So, in fact, it is not a proven fact that he was wrong, as you say. Not only that, but you have admitted that he pointed to some things "currently "unknown" to science (in his day...and, by the way, still in our day as well)", meaning that you cannot possibly have all of the information necessary to determine whether or not he was wrong beyond all reasonable doubt, and especially not enough information to say that calling him wrong is a fact.

Furthermore, this doesn't actually matter, except for the fact that you continually participate on the forums claiming your conjectures as facts, and saying anyone viewing from the opposite standpoint is wrong.

You are sitting on one seat of a see-saw, calling the person on the other side of the see-saw wrong for sitting on the same see-saw as you, and perceiving it differently.

And that, sir, is wrong according to the Law of Thelema, which indicates that, "The word of Sin is Restriction", and you have done your absolute best over the years to Restrict anyone you possibly can from "taking their fill of love" in the manner that best befits them, by constantly berating them on these forums, in the interest of your own personal aggrandizement, in an attempt to solidify the paltry conjecture you have made and deemed a fact.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 10:37 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
No. You said, "the fact that he was wrong".

It is a fact that he was incorrect in thinking that there is sufficient evidence to confirm those beliefs.

Seriously now, what is this? We were having a perfectly fine, reasonable conversation, and you have to sidetrack it to play some kind of lame "gotcha" game?

Crowley thought -- or at least claimed to think that -- there is such a thing as intelligence apart from a physical brain. He was incorrect (that is, wrong) in thinking that evidence supports this claim. That is a fact. We can tell that by surveying the available evidence to support this claim. But I'm not claiming it was some kind of "absolute truth" that he was incorrect -- I'm willing to be swayed on this point by reasoned argument and evidence.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
10/10/2012 10:41 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
And that, sir, is wrong according to the Law of Thelema, which indicates that, "The word of Sin is Restriction", and you have done your absolute best over the years to Restrict anyone you possibly can from "taking their fill of love" in the manner that best befits them, by constantly berating them on these forums

Al I:41 is talking about execution of the Will, not evaluating claims.

The Book of the Law is emphatically not saying "It's wrong to point out facts."


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 12:27 am  

You people do realize that just about everywhere else, when people are challenged on their claims they either withdraw them, or back them up, right? This happens at work, down the pub, on other discussion forums, everywhere, even for relatively mundane claims. It's only when you come to religious forums like this that people start to think they ought to have the right to bullshit everyone else without being called on it, and act as if it's somehow against the rules of normal discourse to be challenged on spurious claims.

For instance, here's a list, from this one thread, of different methods which have been used, directly or indirectly, to avoid the need to back up outrageous claims, in approximate order of appearance:

1. Jack Parsons was a magician. Jack Parsons blew himself up with chemicals at his house. Obviously, he worked with occult forces that led to his destruction. Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

2. You're trying to talk about facts. Facts are off-topic. Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

3. Facts are predictable and boring. We don't want to be predicable and boring, do we? Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

4. I feel I'm in the right place with the right people who are highly intelligent & have the experience to guide one such as me to where I could trust their info. Someone here told me magick works. Why would they lie? Therefore magick works. (JohnnyScience)

5. If you believed in the rituals of cleansing/charging gemstones/amulets/rings etc you wouldn't think my ideas were strange. Therefore magick works. (JohnnyScience)

6. I'm not making this whole concept up. Therefore magick works. (JohnnyScience)

7. By trying to talk about facts, you're restricting my will. That's unthelemic. Therefore magick works. (Azidonis)

8. You are completely unable to see things other than from your purely material point of view. If magick was real and there was another way to see things from, then you'd agree with me. Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

9. You don't believe in magick because you're no good at it. If you were good at it, it would have worked. Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

10. People have been doing magick since the dawn of humankind. Do you really think they were just mistakenly believing that it was actually having an effect? That couldn't possibly be true. Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

11. You seem to be embarrassed of Crowley. Being embarrassed of Crowley is bad. Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

12. Aleister Crowley believed in magick. Do you think he was mistaken? Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

13. Magick is only for the few who have an aptitude for it. If you had the aptitude for it, you'd be smart. Therefore you're not smart. Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

14. We're going to rule the many and the known, one day. So you'd better watch out. Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

15. I have a whole bunch of evidence that magick works. However, it's all in my secret little private diaries, and you can't look at them, so nyeeehhhh. Therefore magick works. (N.O.X.)

16. Some dude with a degree from a box of cornflakes said he charged some water with good intentions, and published his account in his own comic. Therefore magick might work, you can't say it doesn't. (Azidonis)

17. I believe in the metaphysical/supernatural.  I do and that's all there is to it. Therefore magick works. (JohnnyScience)

18. I've done research into the field of psychedelics. I know magick is real, because I've seen it. While I was hallucinating under the influence of mind-bending drugs. Therefore magick works. (JohnnyScience)

19. There are many planes/dimensions of existence that have entities that reside inside of them. I wouldn't have said it if it weren't true, would I? Therefore magick works. (JohnnyScience)

20. So you're on a magick site saying metaphysical & supernatural don't exist. That's dumb. Therefore magick exists. (JohnnyScience)

21. The True Will here cannot be tested or quantified outside of one’s subjective preferences. Therefore facts don't exist, so go ahead and believe in magick. (KidneyHawk)

22. I would much rather investigate Fae Phenomena than shuttle through life within the Reality Tunnel of the Materialistic Worldview handed down by Society. Because I'd rather do that, it must be true. Therefore magick works. (KidneyHawk)

23. Am I deluded? Or am I Monet to the colorblind? Obviously I'm not deluded. That would be crazy. Therefore magick works. (KidneyHawk)

24. But speculations over whether something is this or that are really futile. So who cares? Therefore magick works. (KidneyHawk)

25. Doing the Magick was never an issue of proving it to oneself (let alone others). Facts don't matter! Therefore magick works. (KidneyHawk)

26. If something is true, does it really matter if you believe it or not? Facts don't matter. Therefore magick works. Azidonis)

27. Science is boring. Do you want to be boring? Therefore magick works. (Lutz)

28. And you would rather spend your entire life 'evaluating claims' than 'experiencing the ineffable'? 'Experiencing the ineffable' would be far better, right? Therefore magick works. (Azidonis)

29. Crowley's occults claims are irrelevant to practising Thelema, you say? Then whether or not you believe in the supernatural is irrelevant to anything! Therefore magick works. (Lutz)

30. Love is totally unexplained by science. Therefore magick works. (Lutz)

31. You're trying to prevent people from 'taking their fill of love'. That's unthelemic. Therefore magick works. (Azidonis)

And that's just from one five-page discussion. Honestly, just being able to get such a nest of blatant weasels in one place is something approaching an achievement. You people are an embarrassment to yourselves and to this web site.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/10/2012 12:32 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
No. You said, "the fact that he was wrong".

It is a fact that he was incorrect in thinking that there is sufficient evidence to confirm those beliefs.

Insufficient evidence according to you, not according to Crowley, who calculated extremely high odds at things happening the way they did. Fact is, they happened. He gave his best educated estimation, although he abhorred it at times, and even found it repulsive. In spite of that, he chose the explanation he did very carefully.

"Los" wrote:
Seriously now, what is this? We were having a perfectly fine, reasonable conversation, and you have to sidetrack it to play some kind of lame "gotcha" game?

Nope. I'm simply pointing out the nature of your claim. You don't like it?

"Los" wrote:
Crowley thought -- or at least claimed to think that -- there is such a thing as intelligence apart from a physical brain. He was incorrect (that is, wrong) in thinking that evidence supports this claim. That is a fact. We can tell that by surveying the available evidence to support this claim. But I'm not claiming it was some kind of "absolute truth" that he was incorrect -- I'm willing to be swayed on this point by reasoned argument and evidence.

I'm skeptical of your wording. You say "intelligence apart from a physical brain".

Intelligence is defined as:

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, especially secret information.

Crowley actually used the term "praeter human intelligence". Praeter is Latin meaning, "besides, except, beyond, more than". So what he actually said was, a "more than human intelligence".

The term intelligence is tricky. Cells in the body, for instance, operate in accordance with DNA and whatever else (we don't need a biology lesson). Do you think that is a form of intelligence? Yet, there is no indication that cells have the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, etc. As far as we know, it is simply a set of mechanical processes, though much more accurate than mechanical things we have created. In my opinion, that is a form of intelligence. A tree may not be aware of the processes it goes through constantly, but it nevertheless does so, with remarkable accuracy. I would say that this too, is an example of intelligence, although it does not necessarily fit the definition of the term. Such definitions are necessarily homo-centric, but I would certainly be hesitant to say that the universe and its machinations is not an example of "intelligent design".

I am not saying that with the intent to draw up a mystical conversation, or a religious one, or any of that. I'm simply saying that it is brilliant ingenuity, meaning:

1. the quality of being cleverly inventive or resourceful; inventiveness: a designer of great ingenuity.
2. cleverness or skillfulness of conception or design: a device of great ingenuity.
3. an ingenious  contrivance or device.

In my opinion, it is a type of intelligence, although not strictly so by the dictionary definition of the term. That said, the changes in nature that allow for life are indeed ingenious by design (turn of phrase - feel free to insert 'accident'), and do give a clear indication of intelligence beyond the human brain, intelligence that one could label praeter human.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/10/2012 12:36 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
16. Some dude with a degree from a box of cornflakes said he charged some water with good intentions, and published his account in his own comic. Therefore magick might work, you can't say it doesn't. (Azidonis)

26. If something is true, does it really matter if you believe it or not? Facts don't matter. Therefore magick works. Azidonis)

28. And you would rather spend your entire life 'evaluating claims' than 'experiencing the ineffable'? 'Experiencing the ineffable' would be far better, right? Therefore magick works. (Azidonis)

31. You're trying to prevent people from 'taking their fill of love'. That's unthelemic. Therefore magick works. (Azidonis)

I recall that the last time I spoke to you, I called you Erwin the Coward.

So, you are still at it, eh? Still like putting words into people mouths, I see. Still have no clue what the hell you are talking about, too. You must be proud of yourself.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 12:54 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
And that, sir, is wrong according to the Law of Thelema, which indicates that, "The word of Sin is Restriction", and you have done your absolute best over the years to Restrict anyone you possibly can from "taking their fill of love" in the manner that best befits them, by constantly berating them on these forums

Thelema is not some kind of libertines' charter, as you seem to think it is. You seem to have conveniently forgotten the caveat about it being the "strictest possible bond".


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 12:59 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I recall that the last time I spoke to you, I called you Erwin the Coward.

How very manly of you that must have been. I wonder how I managed to cope with being called a coward by someone who believes in goblins. I guess I must have found a way.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 1:01 am  

I don't know who is a bigger, more annoying asshole, Erwin or Los.

Just because you two haven't had supernatural experiences, or clearly haven't altered their consciousness doesn't mean everyone else who has is crazy.  Did you ever take that into consideration Jackie Chan?  Or do you two just think you're the only enlightened ones in this weird, weird world of ours?

In fact one of the wisest men to ever life said this:

"The evolution of mankind is in the alteration of consciousness" - Dr. Albert Hofmann

Do you two even understand what consciousness is?  Just because you can wrap your shadow hands around an object it, feel, see & smell it doesn't mean that's all there is too life. 

Ever hear of "behind the veil"  You do realize there is more to this world than just walking in a park and positively knowing it's real because you can see & feel it with your shadow foot?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/10/2012 3:03 am  
"selfseeker" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
And that, sir, is wrong according to the Law of Thelema, which indicates that, "The word of Sin is Restriction", and you have done your absolute best over the years to Restrict anyone you possibly can from "taking their fill of love" in the manner that best befits them, by constantly berating them on these forums

Thelema is not some kind of libertines' charter, as you seem to think it is. You seem to have conveniently forgotten the caveat about it being the "strictest possible bond".

Oh look, more of Erwin's lackeys come out to play! Unfortunately, you have no clue as to the meaning of the words you have quoted.

"Erwin" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I recall that the last time I spoke to you, I called you Erwin the Coward.

How very manly of you that must have been. I wonder how I managed to cope with being called a coward by someone who believes in goblins. I guess I must have found a way.

Still a Coward, and still trying to twist things. Fitting, you brought your presuppositions and your lackeys into the thread. My, how you've grown. You were better off lurking.

If you actually want me to acknowledge you further, try pinpointing the exact spot in this thread, in which I actually said, exactly what you claim I have said, namely, the little tibit you wanted to conveniently add to the end of your misquotes.

For all of the pink bunny bashing you like to do, you sure make it a point of seeing your share.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/10/2012 3:54 am  

You have yet to respond to this:

"Azidonis" wrote:
I think a lack of skepticism can lead to gullibility, but too much skepticism can lead to an equal amount of gullibility.

Give me a practical example of skepticism -- as I've described it -- leading to someone being more likely to accept a false claim.

To put it a different way, it's obviously the case that one can be careful and skeptical but still end up accepting false claims (because one doesn't have enough evidence or because one analyzes the evidence incorrectly, etc.). But I'm saying that the skeptical process itself (not accepting claims until there is sufficient evidence) makes it far more likely that an individual will, on the whole, succeed in the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.

In fact, I assert that skeptical, evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of distinguishing fact from fantasy and the only consistently reliable method of achieving the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.

From where I sit, I only see drawbacks to accepting a claim as true until it can be proven wrong.

If you disagree with any of this, I'd like some practical examples of what you're talking about.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/10/2012 4:01 am  
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
Just because you two haven't had supernatural experiences, or clearly haven't altered their consciousness doesn't mean everyone else who has is crazy.

You seem to have missed the substance of what I've been saying: I have been claiming that you have insufficient evidence to support the claim that it's possible to charge a ring.

If you disagree, then feel free to present the evidence that convinced you of this claim.

Please also feel free to finally answer the question of what, precisely, the practical difference is between a "charged" and "uncharged" ring.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 4:36 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Still a Coward, and still trying to twist things. Fitting, you brought your presuppositions and your lackeys into the thread. My, how you've grown. You were better off lurking.

If you actually want me to acknowledge you further, try pinpointing the exact spot in this thread, in which I actually said, exactly what you claim I have said, namely, the little tibit you wanted to conveniently add to the end of your misquotes.

For all of the pink bunny bashing you like to do, you sure make it a point of seeing your share.

What a funny little fellow you are.


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
11/10/2012 5:07 am  
"JohnnyScience" wrote:
Just because you two haven't had supernatural experiences, or clearly haven't altered their consciousness doesn't mean everyone else who has is crazy.  Did you ever take that into consideration Jackie Chan?  Or do you two just think you're the only enlightened ones in this weird, weird world of ours?

Please explain exactly what you mean by "supernatural experiences". I'm afraid your point is moot because from the perspective of some people, there are no supernatural experiences to have. Most people would call them wild fantasies, day dreams, hallucinations, coincidence, etc. Oh well, just a matter of opinion I guess.

I myself have experienced many things which I could not explain at the time. In the absence of what was known, I admit that it would have been easy to attribute the experiences to something paranormal. Especially when I was younger, it was hard not to jump to these conclusions. However, a more likely explanation has always presented itself.

Ever hear of "behind the veil"  You do realize there is more to this world than just walking in a park and positively knowing it's real because you can see & feel it with your shadow foot?

Please also explain the phrase "behind the veil", and "shadow hands/foot". I wonder if you can do so without resorting to any new age hogwash.

As a follow up question to you (Johnny Pseudo-Science), N.O.X., Azidonis, Kidneyhawk, etc.: Have you ever once considered that you are wrong? Even hypothetically? Because I have. You see, I used to believe in a lot of ridiculous crap, and now I don't... One day I started to question my assumptions, and realized that I too didn't have anything besides my own subjective opinions to base any of it on. I am not saying I know all now, but still... you see where I'm going with this?


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
11/10/2012 7:14 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
HG,
Thats not at all what I meant.  Quit being a smart ass and go back and read AL ch. III.

You go and read the Gospel of John from the Bible:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

So have you accepted Jesus Christ as your savior, and gotten eternal life as a reward yet?  Have you?

After all, it says so in a book - a holy book - so it has to be true, right?


OK, now let's assume that your Liber Al quote is true, that there are kings that will rule over lesser men.

What makes you think that you are a "king"?
Because you believe in fairy dust and magic wands?  Is that what makes someone a king?

What I was pointing out with my "muhahahahaa!" quote is that you have escaped into a fantasy that one day you will be a king and all those who trample you now will be so sorry.

Like Erwin said somewhere, the belief "I am a king!" turns people into slaves.  It's an insidious trap.

(By the way, "Erwin's lackeys" is such a lame term.  I much prefer "Erwin's vicars on Earth" from a previous discussion.  😉 )


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
11/10/2012 7:26 am  
"Los" wrote:
Crowley thought -- or at least claimed to think that -- there is such a thing as intelligence apart from a physical brain. He was incorrect (that is, wrong) in thinking that evidence supports this claim. That is a fact.

You know, I actually think you are wrong and Crowley is right, when you look upon it from this point of view:

OK, so you are an intelligent human being.  You can do extraordinary things with your massive brain.

But can you make your brain?  Can you grow it, in all it's magnificent complexity, from a single cell?  Can you take that single cell and construct a functioning human body with trillions of cells from it?

Yet you do have that intelligence inside of you.  All of us do.  But it is most definitely not the intelligence we know and use all the time.

Perhaps Crowley was talking about this very intelligenge.  It's alien, it's apart from our physical brain, and we can make contact with it when we're discovering our will.  ("I like cabbage but I loathe mushrooms.  I have no idea why it is so.")

(It's neither discarnate nor extraterrestial, by the way.)


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/10/2012 7:28 am  
"Los" wrote:
You have yet to respond to this:

"Azidonis" wrote:
I think a lack of skepticism can lead to gullibility, but too much skepticism can lead to an equal amount of gullibility.

Give me a practical example of skepticism -- as I've described it -- leading to someone being more likely to accept a false claim.

To put it a different way, it's obviously the case that one can be careful and skeptical but still end up accepting false claims (because one doesn't have enough evidence or because one analyzes the evidence incorrectly, etc.). But I'm saying that the skeptical process itself (not accepting claims until there is sufficient evidence) makes it far more likely that an individual will, on the whole, succeed in the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.

In fact, I assert that skeptical, evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of distinguishing fact from fantasy and the only consistently reliable method of achieving the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible.

From where I sit, I only see drawbacks to accepting a claim as true until it can be proven wrong.

If you disagree with any of this, I'd like some practical examples of what you're talking about.

I don't disagree with it, as I have said.

However, there is danger in extreme notions, which can lead to saying things are "facts" that aren't necessarily facts. Note that I am not saying that the other end of the see-saw is any better in this regard. This is all I have been pointing out, despite all the rhetoric surrounding our conversation.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
11/10/2012 10:21 am  

93!

I once thought it is a kind of magick when using a keyboard to type the words "occultism" or "supernatural" I can command the desperately salivating demon ER-WIN to appear on this board. Then I learned that I only trigger a conditioned reflex in him that makes him appear and salivate and that the demon is probably just a standard smart-ass Erwin (the know-it-all bullying type encountered numerous times in life), puzzled and angry because his hero was an occultist and believed in the supernatural. Now I probably should just pity him...

Los, it seems obvious that your mission is to reconcile Crowley's Thelema with *your* Thelema so your narrow rationalistic world view won't be shattered and I can imagine a dozen psycological reasons why a person would act this way. Probably every philosophy/religion gives birth to some "renegades" or "heretics" who think they know better than the rest and feel the urge to lecture and convert the rest (see the Plymouth Brethren). What I find slightly annoying is your refusal to accept that it is a perfectly scientific method to *claim* or *postulate* something that would explain phenomena that cannot be explained so far. In fact a lot of scientific models are just a *working hyothesis*. Sometimes scientists succeed in finding what they expected to find, sometimes they don't and they have to adapt their models to the new findings. But in the long run all science does is describing phenomena, it can never finally explain the phenomena. You seem to be satisfied when you know *that* you don't like spinache (or was that Erwin?), others want to explore *why* they don't like spinache.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1088
11/10/2012 10:33 am  

you know that feeling you have when you've been chewing a stick of gum for a long while and all the flavor is gone and the gum has grown rather small, rather hard and yet you keep chewing, chewing, chewing despite that fact your jaw is sore and your head beginning to ache? somehow this thread brought that to mind for me.

regarding AC's thoughts on some of these topics there is an excellent essay by Marco Pasi in Bogdan & Starr's new "Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism" entitled "Varieties of Magical Experience: Aleister Crowley's Views on Occult Practice" which illustrates that the Old Goat himself wasn't consistent in his opinions whether magical experiences were purely psychological or had consequences beyond the consciousness of the practitioner.  Perhaps it would be wise to keep this in mind when we cite his writings in support of our positions.

Now back to our regularly scheduled quibbling....


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/10/2012 2:29 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
However, there is danger in extreme notions, which can lead to saying things are "facts" that aren't necessarily facts. Note that I am not saying that the other end of the see-saw is any better in this regard. This is all I have been pointing out, despite all the rhetoric surrounding our conversation.

I'm just asking for a practical example of the application of skepticism leading to someone being more likely to accept a false claim.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
11/10/2012 3:16 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
What I find slightly annoying is your refusal to accept that it is a perfectly scientific method to *claim* or *postulate* something that would explain phenomena that cannot be explained so far.

Are you talking about "supernatural" phenomena here, like charging rings?

If so, before you can "postulate" something to "explain" this phenomena, first you have to demonstrate that this phenomena is anything at all. And no, I don't mean, "prove it to me 'cause I'm a mean ol' skeptic." I mean that -- if you're serious about not fooling yourself -- you need to demonstrate that charging rings is actually something at all.

Once more, what's the practical, detectable difference between a charged ring and an uncharged one? If there is none, then no one -- not even the guy who believes he can "charge" a ring -- has any reason to think that "charging" is anything at all .


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
11/10/2012 3:43 pm  

Los, 93!

Look, I am not a ring-charging pro, but as long as you think the "phenomenon" is a "practical, detectable difference" of the ring, you are on the very wrong track. And I am really surprised that you ask that question at all. You might even ask for the practical, detectable difference between someone's Self and his "True" Self...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
obscurus
(@obscuruspaintus)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 315
11/10/2012 4:03 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

I hear you William.

As day and night chase each other round the globe in an endless race, I scratch my head and wonder what strange, lush fruit this twisted vine might bear? What good are skepticism and lazer like analytical skills if they bind us up so tightly that we can no longer dance freely in the magic of the moonlit midnight? Without dreams and imagination the power of skeptical analysis turn to dry stone in its own light. Where is the wisdom and understanding to synthesize and meld the two together and reveal the jewel within? While arguement moves us along the path, will the end result in a conclusion of any value? 

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 4:26 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
The term intelligence is tricky. Cells in the body, for instance, operate in accordance with DNA and whatever else (we don't need a biology lesson). Do you think that is a form of intelligence? Yet, there is no indication that cells have the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, etc. As far as we know, it is simply a set of mechanical processes, though much more accurate than mechanical things we have created. In my opinion, that is a form of intelligence. A tree may not be aware of the processes it goes through constantly, but it nevertheless does so, with remarkable accuracy. I would say that this too, is an example of intelligence, although it does not necessarily fit the definition of the term. Such definitions are necessarily homo-centric, but I would certainly be hesitant to say that the universe and its machinations is not an example of "intelligent design".

In my opinion, it is a type of intelligence, although not strictly so by the dictionary definition of the term. That said, the changes in nature that allow for life are indeed ingenious by design (turn of phrase - feel free to insert 'accident'), and do give a clear indication of intelligence beyond the human brain, intelligence that one could label praeter human.

For modern thought, it is very hard to even speculate on the idea, that different dimensions of consciousness or 'intelligence' than our own might even exist.

We accept the stance that there can only exist the human consciousness and it is the only intelligence there is and it is the very intelligence raised on the throne where every other form is considered lesser.

The intelligence of animal is inferior to that of Man. The intelligence of a plant is inferior to that of animal. Mineral ( if they can be considered to have one 🙂 ) intelligence is inferior compared to that of plant, yet all physical life and consciousness resulting from it has the fundamental basis in the minerals.

This mineral 'existence' is the absolute zero-point, a state that could be compared to the 'existence' preceding the events of the "big bang".
It is the state, where physical reality and consciousness has been downgraded or 'returned', so to speak, to something "negative" or back to the state where it is only left with potentia

This existence 'which is not' (I refuse to use any Qabalistic terms at this point ) or the state before the creation of the universe, is probably the highest idea of 'nothingness' that the human mind can grasp - there is no room for time, space or materia. It is a world without a center or place, yet this incomprehensible nothingness produces Something that is bound under certain Laws.

Where were those Laws written into that nothingness? What "tells" this nothingness that it is going to produce the potential universe?

I certainly won't see nothing wrong with the idea that there might have existed certain Laws, Logic or Intelligence, that precedes Time and Space.

The Green Man is a personification of the mysterious influence that produces the phenomena of spring. It is hard to say why it should be so, but it is so
00-Fool.jpg


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
11/10/2012 4:30 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I once thought it is a kind of magick when using a keyboard to type the words "occultism" or "supernatural" I can command the desperately salivating demon ER-WIN to appear on this board.

Here's a little experiment that should be within even your powers. Go back and read each one of your posts on the forum over, say, the last three years, and count how many times you've typed "occultism" or "supernatural". Then, count the number of threads in which you've said either of those words and in which I have posted.

This experiment will have two benefits. First, it'll give you a good lesson in how to learn that your "magical commands" are complete bullshit if you pay attention to actual facts instead of to the contents of your own fevered imagination. Second, it'll keep you occupied for a while and distract you from making inane and meandering comments such as this.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Then I learned that I only trigger a conditioned reflex in him that makes him appear and salivate and that the demon is probably just a standard smart-ass Erwin (the know-it-all bullying type encountered numerous times in life),

Oh noes! People who correctly label bullshit as bullshit are "know-it-alls" and "bullies"! Why can't people leave us to pretend to believe in this outrageous bullshit in peace, and sell our snake-oil to others without impediment? The injustice of it all!

This could be number 32 on the list.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Look, I am not a ring-charging pro, but as long as you think the "phenomenon" is a "practical, detectable difference" of the ring, you are on the very wrong track.

If there's not a "'practical, detectable difference' of the ring" then the ring isn't getting charged, and Los is absolutely on the right track. It's you who's "on the very wrong track".

This is just yet more typical and predictably slippery occultist wordplay in a desperate attempt to hold onto ridiculous beliefs. People claim that they're charging rings, and then you come back and say, "well, they're not actually charging rings, what on earth made you think they were saying that?" And then they'll go right back to pretending that the ring really has been charged as if nothing had happened. This could be number 33.

Look, this comment demonstrates that you're already just a millimetre away from admitting that you too think this whole magick guff is purely imaginary. Why don't you just come out of the closet and put the record straight?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
11/10/2012 5:16 pm  

93, Erwin!

You are just hilarious. Even the use of these terms is suspicious now? Well, why don't you go back through my posts and tell me where I have ever been claiming that "magick works" or "the supernatural is real" or whatever you think that those "occultists" say and think all the time. All I have been saying for years is that the Thelema that you and Los are trying to sell as Crowley's Thelema is nothing but a derivate of those parts of his ouevre you happen to like, or happen to understand or think you understand. You think you are actually presenting any *facts* where Crowley was wrong or what he *really* meant. But I just don't buy into your self-help coffee-table version of pseudo-Thelema. Look, your comments (all of them) only demonstrate that you're less than a nanometre away from admitting that you think this whole Crowley guff is purely imaginary. Why don't you just come out of the closet and be the next Dale Carnegie instead of bending Crowley's system to your liking? It's uncool, heh? This Crowley guy is much cooler! Too bad he's a damn occultist!

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
11/10/2012 5:18 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
However, there is danger in extreme notions, which can lead to saying things are "facts" that aren't necessarily facts. Note that I am not saying that the other end of the see-saw is any better in this regard. This is all I have been pointing out, despite all the rhetoric surrounding our conversation.

I'm just asking for a practical example of the application of skepticism leading to someone being more likely to accept a false claim.

I'm not interested in discussing the probabilities, a ratio of which is determined more by speculation than actual results here on these boards.

It's probable that one can be skeptical all of one's life, and not fall into such an extreme viewpoint that has been suggested. Equally, one can take a more imaginative approach and still not succumb to the extreme of that approach. An attempt to weigh the perceived probabilities of each approach in order to determine how to form a world view is a matter of convenience, and ultimately, security.

But can you throw it all out? All of it, completely. All skepticism, all imagination, everything.

Worth (re)considering:

To attain the Grade Adeptus Major, he must accomplish two tasks; the equilibration of himself, especially as to his passions, so that he has no preference for any one course of conduct over another, and the fulfilment of every action by its complement, so that whatever he does leaves him without temptation to wander from the way of his True Will.

Secondly, he must keep silence, while he nails his body to the tree of his creative will, in the shape of that Will, leaving his head and arms to form the symbol of Light, as if to make oath that his every thought, word and deed should express the Light derived from the God with which he has identified his life, his love and his liberty --- symbolised by his heart, his phallus, and his legs. It is impossible to lay down precise rules by which a man may attain to the knowledge and conversation of His Holy Guardian Angel; for that is the particular secret of each one of us; as secret not to be told or even divined by any other, whatever his grade. It is the Holy of Holies, whereof each man is his own High Priest, and none knoweth the Name of his brother's God, or the Rite that invokes Him.

To attain the Grade of Magister Templi, he must perform two tasks; the emancipation from thought by putting each idea against its opposite, and refusing to prefer either; and the consecration of himself as a pure vehicle for the influence of the order to which he aspires.

He must then decide upon the critical adventure of our Order; the absolute abandonment of himself and his attainments. He cannot remain indefinitely an Exempt Adept; he is pushed onward by the irresistible momentum that he has generated.

Should he fail, by will or weakness, to make his self-annihilation absolute, he is none the less thrust forth into the Abyss; but instead of being received and reconstructed in the Third Order, as a Babe in the womb of our Lady BABALON, under the Night of Pan, to grow up to be Himself wholly and truly as He was not previously, he remains in the Abyss, secreting his elements round his Ego as if isolated from the Universe, and becomes what is called a "Black Brother". Such a being is gradually disintegrated from lack of nourishment and the slow but certain action of the attraction of the rest of the Universe, despite efforts to insulate and protect himself, and to aggrandise himself by predatory practices. He may indeed prosper for a while, but in the end he must perish, especially when with a new Aeon a new word is proclaimed which he cannot and will not hear, so that he is handicapped by trying to use an obsolete method of Magick, like a man with a boomerang in a battle where every one else has a rifle.

In prevention of a double post.[/align:38ekrbzf]

"ayino" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
The term intelligence is tricky. Cells in the body, for instance, operate in accordance with DNA and whatever else (we don't need a biology lesson). Do you think that is a form of intelligence? Yet, there is no indication that cells have the capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, etc. As far as we know, it is simply a set of mechanical processes, though much more accurate than mechanical things we have created. In my opinion, that is a form of intelligence. A tree may not be aware of the processes it goes through constantly, but it nevertheless does so, with remarkable accuracy. I would say that this too, is an example of intelligence, although it does not necessarily fit the definition of the term. Such definitions are necessarily homo-centric, but I would certainly be hesitant to say that the universe and its machinations is not an example of "intelligent design".

In my opinion, it is a type of intelligence, although not strictly so by the dictionary definition of the term. That said, the changes in nature that allow for life are indeed ingenious by design (turn of phrase - feel free to insert 'accident'), and do give a clear indication of intelligence beyond the human brain, intelligence that one could label praeter human.

For modern thought, it is very hard to even speculate on the idea, that different dimensions of consciousness or 'intelligence' than our own might even exist.

Yes. However, this "modern thought" is not really modern. It is based upon many thousands of years of thought, and a derivative of it. One aspect of this, especially in western thought, is homocentricity.

"ayino" wrote:
We accept the stance that there can only exist the human consciousness and it is the only intelligence there is and it is the very intelligence raised on the throne where every other form is considered lesser.

Yes. Humans are selfish to their very cores, and thought being the imitator that it is, makes an attempt to do the same. The net result is a world view that is based largely around the perceived superiority of human thought, the bundle that gives rise to the hologram of "I" being the central focus for said thought. 

"ayino" wrote:
The intelligence of animal is inferior to that of Man. The intelligence of a plant is inferior to that of animal. Mineral ( if they can be considered to have one 🙂 ) intelligence is inferior compared to that of plant, yet all physical life and consciousness resulting from it has the fundamental basis in the minerals.

These are further divisions. The formulation of all knowledge is based on division. The more divisions exist, the more confusion may abide. Hence, people have made so many divisions and definitions, seeking to define themselves and others, as the "I" works to find a little niche of thought, a cage whereby it can surround itself and call itself sovereign.

"ayino" wrote:
This mineral 'existence' is the absolute zero-point, a state that could be compared to the 'existence' preceding the events of the "big bang".
It is the state, where physical reality and consciousness has been downgraded or 'returned', so to speak, to something "negative" or back to the state where it is only left with potentia

Absolutes are created by thought.

"ayino" wrote:
This existence 'which is not' (I refuse to use any Qabalistic terms at this point ) or the state before the creation of the universe, is probably the highest idea of 'nothingness' that the human mind can grasp - there is no room for time, space or materia. It is a world without a center or place, yet this incomprehensible nothingness produces Something that is bound under certain Laws.

The universe that you are calling the universe is the universe perceived through thought.
The universe perceived without the use of thought, without the interference of "I", completely and totally, is the Natural State. It has many other names, such as True Will.

"ayino" wrote:
Where were those Laws written into that nothingness? What "tells" this nothingness that it is going to produce the potential universe?

I certainly won't see nothing wrong with the idea that there might have existed certain Laws, Logic or Intelligence, that precedes Time and Space.

It has an incredible intelligence of its own, but thought cannot grasp it.

"ayino" wrote:
The Green Man is a personification of the mysterious influence that produces the phenomena of spring. It is hard to say why it should be so, but it is so
00-Fool.jpg

Pan - All-Devourer, All-Begetter. Everything comes from, and is destroyed by it. Knowledge is thus useless for actually describing it.

Consider the correspondence with Shiva in Pralaya:
dancing-shiva.jpg


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 7
Share: