Cleansing & cha...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring  

Page 4 / 7
  RSS

 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 5:08 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
On the other hand, if "contacting spacemen" is NOT "part of Thelema", why do you bother to come to a site which deals with the works of a famous spacemen-contacter

If you think smoking pipes is NOT "part of Thelema", why do you bother to come to a site which deals with the works of a famous pipe-smoker? Are you really unable to see how nonsensical your argument is?

Either way, your argument is irrelevant. What is or is not "part of Thelema" is what Crowley said, and we have his writings to tell us that. When you look at them, they agree with me, and not with you. Your continuing inability to understand how someone who doesn't subscribe to your brand of spaceman-Lutz-Thelema would come to this web site doesn't change what Crowley said one tiny bit.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
One earnest question: Is the belief in supernatural powers incompatible with (what you think) Thelema (is)?

I wouldn't say it's necessarily incompatible, because most of the time it's not a serious belief at all. Many types of people have a coffee-shop belief in all kinds of supernatural things, but it's the kind of belief which sits there and doesn't affect their lives in any meaningful way, and which can usually be overturned by getting them to watch a Derren Brown TV show. This type of belief, while pretty daft, isn't really going to interfere with anything.

You'll note that Crowley made a big deal about constantly fighting against what the spacemen were telling him to do, which is pretty convenient, because you can hold on to a belief that spacemen are talking to you and that you're cosmically special, but you can actually go about your daily business as if there were no spacemen at all, and do exactly what you would have done anyway. Then, afterwards, you can pretend the spacemen were guiding you all along. Then, if you're really sneaky, you might try telling other people that they have to do what you tell them, because it came from spacemen, and they're just "telling us". And then, in later years, people will claim that you must have been serious, because you behaved badly of your own free will and paid a price for it, but that because you said spacemen told you to do it, you must actually have been really noble and performing an important task given to you by spacemen at a great personal cost. It would be almost genius if it wasn't so paper-thin and flimsy.

And, in fact, this is what almost all you occultists routinely do. You claim to believe in all kinds of magical powers, but in any kind of meaningful sense, you don't. When it comes to important things, like eating, and making money, not having car accidents, and the rest of it, your beliefs don't affect you at all. None of these occultists would be brave enough, for instance, to cast a levitation spell and then walk off the edge of a cliff to test it out. It's a leisure-belief, a hobby, a middle-class indulgence as the Golden Dawn originally was, a social belief where you can chat to some friends and have fun pretending you're wizards together, some nice Harry Potter thoughts that you entertain when nothing really depends on it, and then return to your "mundane consensus reality" when you have to actually get something important done. It's pretty weak and feeble, at the end of the day.

On the other hand, if you actually think that you are talking to spacemen, and that spacemen are talking to you and telling you what to do, and that you ought to do what they say, then what you actually need is medical treatment. Thelema requires you to pay attention to what matters, and if you're so messed up in the head that you make such fundamental mistakes as this, then yes, that kind of belief is incompatible with sensibly practicing Thelema, because you're going to be incapable of performing the central task. Obviously, you can still going around calling yourself a Thelemite if you want to, so it all depends on what precisely you mean by "incompatible".

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
If your answer to the last question is no, why is it you come here? Really, why then?

This is just a red herring. Your two questions are completely unconnected. Are you suggesting that Lashtal.com is only for people who think talking to spacemen is compatible with Thelema? Do you think that's official policy?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 5:10 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
So you run around [...]

You haven't addressed my points yet. Here was my last post on this, in case you forgot:

"I've been saying that a skeptical approach -- i.e. in this case, not accepting the claim "a ring can be magically charged" until it can be demonstrated -- is the only consistently reliable method of achieving the goal of accepting as many true claims and as few false claims as possible (that is, the goal of having as accurate a mental map of reality as possible).

"You haven't addressed that point at all, nor have you done anything to support your claim that skepticism can somehow lead to "gullibility."

"You've brought up concepts like Zeno's paradox and Godel's theorems, which have nothing to do with "not accepting claims until they have been demonstrated to be true." Or, if you think that they *do* have something to do with it, the connection is not clear at all. So I'm still waiting for you to meaningfully address my argument or support your own claim -- or even give me a practical example of how a skeptical approach could cause someone to accept a false claim. You haven't done any of that yet."
___________________

When you're prepared to address my points, please do so.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 5:17 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
I wouldn't say it's necessarily incompatible, because most of the time it's not a serious belief at all. Many types of people have a coffee-shop belief in all kinds of supernatural things, but it's the kind of belief which sits there and doesn't affect their lives in any meaningful way, and which can usually be overturned by getting them to watch a Derren Brown TV show. This type of belief, while pretty daft, isn't really going to interfere with anything.

[...]

And, in fact, this is what almost all you occultists routinely do. You claim to believe in all kinds of magical powers, but in any kind of meaningful sense, you don't. When it comes to important things, like eating, and making money, not having car accidents, and the rest of it, your beliefs don't affect you at all. None of these occultists would be brave enough, for instance, to cast a levitation spell and then walk off the edge of a cliff to test it out. It's a leisure-belief, a hobby, a middle-class indulgence as the Golden Dawn originally was, a social belief where you can chat to some friends and have fun pretending you're wizards together, some nice Harry Potter thoughts that you entertain when nothing really depends on it, and then return to your "mundane consensus reality" when you have to actually get something important done. It's pretty weak and feeble, at the end of the day.

All very true, but I would put the emphasis in a slightly different way. Beliefs aren't held in a vacuum, usually. Faulty beliefs are the products of faulty thinking, which can go on to affect thinking about other matters in ways that can be difficult to pin down but have serious consequences. A brain that has allowed itself to accept a claim that hasn't been justified is a brain that has been trained, in a sense, to overlook some kind of logical fallacy. This is just plain old bad policy. That brain is liable to repeat such a mistake in the future, when dealing with matters that *do* count.

If the practice of Thelema is to perceive reality -- including the True Will -- accurately, then training one's mind to accept false claims, even as a form of recreation, can be detrimental to the process.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily "incompatible," either, but I think Thelema is best practiced in the context of skepticism, atheism, and naturalism.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 5:31 pm  
"Los" wrote:
All very true, but I would put the emphasis in a slightly different way. Beliefs aren't held in a vacuum, usually. Faulty beliefs are the products of faulty thinking, which can go on to affect thinking about other matters in ways that can be difficult to pin down but have serious consequences. A brain that has allowed itself to accept a claim that hasn't been justified is a brain that has been trained, in a sense, to overlook some kind of logical fallacy. This is just plain old bad policy. That brain is liable to repeat such a mistake in the future, when dealing with matters that *do* count.

This is true, but they're wily enough to have thought of this already. They'll use terms like "don't mix the planes!" to justify claiming to believe in these magical powers, but then acting as if they don't. It's the same device some monotheists use to justify why their prayers fail, and why they pray for something but then try to get it through more "mundane" means by themselves anyway, because you shouldn't test god, and he works in mysterious ways, or some such nonsense.

This kind of slippery thinking enables them to compartmentalize their foolish beliefs. They may even claim that their "magical activities" are directed towards some "higher plane of existence", and that they wouldn't soil their sacred magick by directing it towards the "dross of everyday life". They can even back it up with soundbites like "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's", if they want to give the superficial appearance of being smart.

Either way, the fact that occultists are notably careful to avoid actually trusting anything important to their juvenile beliefs shows that they often to go some length to avoid their hobby polluting their actual real lives, so I don't necessarily think this crossover has to happen. They're not as common as some folks in this thread have suggested, but there actually are some pretty smart and clear-thinking scientists who do hold some religious beliefs, and they usually manage to combine them by appealing to just this kind of "non overlapping magisteria", or similar.

With the simple fact that occultists usually can't think straight, I wouldn't disagree.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2012 5:49 pm  
"Los" wrote:
When you're prepared to address my points, please do so.

I already have. I've addressed every one of them by saying that the model eventually breaks down.

If you can't look at a few scenarios and find out what is common among them, aside from their factual accuracy (1=2), that's your own problem.

You still haven't answered many of my questions either, by the way. Ah well, Los' silly games.

Oh ya, I've decided to help you out with your "goal" of accumulating as many facts as possible, to build your thought map. Here are some "fact claims" for your to sift through. Let me know how it works out for you:
______________________________________________________________________________

        The Paomnnehal Pweor Of The Hmuan Mnid.
        Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch as Cmabrigde Uinervtisy,
        it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are,
        the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.
        The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.
        Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

        The original game of "Monopoly" was circular.
        It costs more to buy a new car today in the United States than it cost Christopher Columbus to equip and undertake three voyages to and from the New World.
        One-fourth of the world's population lives on less than $200 a year.
        Ninety million people survive on less than $75 a year.
        The sentence "the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog" uses every letter in the English language.
        The word racecar and kayak are the same whether they are read left to right or right to left.
        TYPEWRITER, is the longest word that can be made using the letters on only one row of the keyboard.
        Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia is the fear of long words.
        A snail can sleep for 3 years.
        Did you know you share your birthday with at least 9 million other people in the world.
        The average human eats 8 spiders in their lifetime at night.
        More people are killed by donkeys annually than are killed in plane crashes.
        Women blink nearly twice as much as men.
        The continents names all end with the same letter with which they start.
        Shakespeare invented the word "assassination" and "bump."
        According to tests made at the Institute for the Study of Animal Problems in Washington, D.C., dogs and cats, like people, are either right-handed or left-handed --- that is, they favor either their right or left paws.
        A giraffe can go without water longer than a camel can.
        Blue whales weigh as much as 30 elephants and are as long as 3 Greyhound buses.
        Crocodiles and alligators are surprisingly fast on land. Although they are rapid, they are not agile; so if you ever find yourself chased by one, run in a zigzag line. You'll lose him or her every time.
        Birds do not sleep in their nests. They may occasionally nap in them, but they actually sleep in other places.
        Most elephants weigh less than the tongue of the blue whale.
        Butterflies taste with their hind feet.
        Only female mosquitoes bite.
        Mosquitoes are attracted to the color blue twice as much as to any other color.
        If one places a tiny amount of liquor on a scorpion, it will instantly go mad and sting itself to death.
        Every night, wasps bite into the stem of a plant, lock their mandibles (jaws) into position, stretch out at right angles to the stem, and, with legs dangling, fall asleep.
        Ants stretch when they wake up. They also appear to yawn in a very human manner before taking up the tasks of the day.
        Bees have 5 eyes. There are 3 small eyes on the top of a bee's head and 2 larger ones in front.
        The outdoor temperature can be estimated to within several degrees by timing the chirps of a cricket. It is done this way: count the number of chirps in a 15-second period, and add 37 to the total. The result will be very close to the actual Fahrenheit temperature. This formula, however, only works in warm weather. (Try it!)
        In the United States, a pound of potato chips cost two hundred times more than a pound of potatoes.
        Caesar salad has nothing to do with any of the Caesar. It was first concocted in a bar in Tijuana, Mexico, in the 1920's.
        A raisin dropped in a glass of fresh champagne will bounce up and down continually from the bottom of the glass to the top.
        Celery has negative calories! It takes more calories to eat a piece of celery than the celery has in it to begin with.
        You burn more calories sleeping than you do watching television.
        The two longest one-syllable words in the English language is "screeched. & strengths."
        Barbie's measurements if she were life size: 39-23-33.
        Barbie's full first name is Barbara Millicent Roberts.
        All of the clocks in Pulp Fiction are stuck on 4:20.
        A coat hanger is 44 inches long if straightened
        "Dreamt" is the only English word that ends in the letters "mt".
        The word 'byte' is a contraction of 'by eight.'
        The word 'pixel' is a contraction of either 'picture cell' or 'picture element'.
        Isaac Asimov is the only author to have a book in every Dewey-decimal category.
        Cat's urine glows under a black light.
        The average ear of corn has eight hundred kernels arranged in sixteen rows.
        The first Ford cars had Dodge engines.
        Chrysler built B-29's engines that bombed Japan, Mitsubishi built Zeros that tried to shoot them down. Both companies now build cars in a joint plant call Diamond Star.
        On the new hundred-dollar bill the time on the clock tower of Independence Hall is 4:10.
        The vignette on the reverse of the five-dollar note depicts a likeness of the front of the Lincoln Memorial as it appeared in 1922 when it was first dedicated.  At that time, there were only 48 states that made up the United States of America.  The names of 26 states were engraved on the front of the Memorial.  This is why only the names of 26 states appear in the vignette on the reverse of the five-dollar note.  In the upper frieze of the façade in the vignette the states are from left to right: Arkansas, Michigan, Florida, Texas, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, West Virginia, Nevada, Nebraska, Colorado, and North Dakota.  In the lower frieze from left to right the names of the states are: Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Carolina, Hampshire, Virginia and New York.
        All 50 states are listed across the top of the Lincoln Memorial on the back of the $5 bill.
        Almonds are members of the peach family.
        If you add up the numbers 1-100 consecutively (1+2+3+4+5 etc) the total is 5050
        The symbol on the "pound" key (#) is called an octothorpe.
        The maximum weight for a golf ball is 1.62 Oz.
        The dot over the letter 'i' is called a tittle.
        Duddley DoRight's Horses name was "Horse."
        Samuel Clemens aka Mark Twain was born on a day in 1835 when Haley's Comet came into view. When He died in 1910, Haley's Comet came into view again.
        Ethernet is a registered trademark of Xerox, Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T.
        The first hard drive available for the Apple ][ had a capacity of 5megabytes.
        In many cases, the amount of storage space on a record-able CD is measured in minutes. 74 minutes is about 650 megabytes, 63 minutes is 550 megabytes.
        Charlie Brown's father was a barber.
        Nutmeg is extremely poisonous if injected intravenously.
        Of the six men who made up the Three Stooges, three of them were real brothers (Moe, Curly and Shemp.)
        Ohio is listed as the 17th state in the U.S., but technically it is number 47. Until August 7, 1953, congress forgot to vote on a resolution to admit Ohio to the Union.
        If you have three quarters, four dimes, and four pennies, you have $1.19. You also have the largest amount of money in coins without being able to make change for a dollar.
        Only 1/3 of the people that can twitch their ears can twitch only one at a time.
        The volume of the Earth's moon is the same as the volume of the Pacific Ocean.
        Ingrown toenails are hereditary.
        The largest city in the United States with a one syllable name is Flint, Michigan.
        On the cartoon show 'The Jetsons', Jane is 33 years old and her daughter Judy is 15.
        In Mel Brooks' 'Silent Movie,' mime Marcel Marceau is the only person who has a speaking role.
        Only humans and horses have hymens.
        The word "set" has more definitions than any other word in the English language.
        The state with the longest coastline in the US is Alaska.
        We will have four consecutive full moons making two blue moons in 1999 (January 2 and 31, March 2 and 31.) The only other time it happened this century was in 1915 (January 1 and 31, March 1 and 31.)
        Pulp Fiction cost $8 million to make - $5 million going to actor's salaries.
        Spot, Data's cat on Star Trek: The Next Generation, was played by six different cats.
        The longest U.S. highway is route 6 starting in Cape Cod, Massachusetts going through 14 states, and ending in Bishop, California...
        The number of the trash compactor in Star Wars (20th Century Fox, 1977) is 3263827.
        "Underground" is the only word in the English language that begins and ends with the letters "und."
        A full seven percent of the entire Irish barley crop goes to the production of Guinness beer.
        If you toss a penny 10000 times, it will not be heads 5000 times, but more like 4950. The heads picture weighs more, so it ends up on the bottom.
        The housefly hums in the middle octave, key of F.
        Mr. Snuffleupagas' first name was Alyoisus.
        In the movie "the Right Stuff" there is a scene where a government recruiter for the Mercury astronaut program (played by Jeff Goldblum) is in a bar at Muroc Dry Lake, California. His partner suggests Chuck Yeager as a good astronaut candidate. Jeff proceeds to bad mouth Yeager claiming they need someone who went to college. During the conversation the real Chuck Yeager is playing a bartender who is standing behind the recruiters eavesdropping. General Yeager is listed low in the movie credits as 'Fred.'
        Maine is the only state whose name is just one syllable.
        There are only four words in the English language which end in "-dous": tremendous, horrendous, stupendous, and hazardous.
        The longest word in the English language, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is pneumonoultramicroscopics- ilicovolcanoconiosis. The only other word with the same amount of letters ispneumonoultra-microscopicsilicovol- canoconioses, its plural.
        The longest place-name still in use is Taumatawhakatan- gihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokai- whenuakitanatahu, a New Zealand hill.
        Los Angeles's full name is "El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula" and can be abbreviated to 3.63% of its size, "L.A."
        A cat has 32 muscles in each ear.
        An ostrich's eye is bigger than it's brain.
        Tigers have striped skin, not just striped fur.
        After the Civil War the U.S. sued Great Britain for damages that were caused by them building ships for the Confederacy. We originally asked for $1 billion but settled on $25 Million.
        There are 22 stars surrounding the mountain on the Paramount Pictures logo.
        Deborah Winger did the voice of E.T.
        There is a word in the English language with only one vowel, which occurs six times: Indivisibility.
        In most advertisements, including newspapers, the time displayed on a watch is 10:10.
        The only Dutch word to contain eight consecutive consonants is 'angstschreeuw'.
        Alfred Hitchcock didn't have a belly button. It was eliminated when he was sewn up after surgery.
        The Mongol emperor Genghis Khan's original name was Temujin.
        The first word spoken by an ape in the movie Planet of the Apes was "Smile".
        Facetious and abstemious contain all the vowels in the correct order.
        Geller and Huchra have made three-dimensional maps of the distribution of galaxies. In each layer of the map some galaxies are grouped together in such a way that they resemble a human being.
        Telly Savalas and Louis Armstrong died on their birthdays.
        Al Capone's business card said he was a used furniture dealer.
        The second longest word in the English language is "antidisestablishmentarianism".
        When two words are combined to form a single word (e.g., motor + hotel = motel, breakfast + lunch = brunch) the new word is called a "portmanteau."
        Dr. Samuel A. Mudd was the physician who set the leg of Lincoln's assassin John Wilkes Booth ... and whose shame created the expression for ignominy, "His name is Mudd."
        The muzzle of a lion is like a fingerprint - no two lions have the same pattern of whiskers.
        In 1969, the last Corvair was painted gold.
        The real name of the "I've fallen and I can't get up" lady is Edith Fore.
        Betsy Ross was born with a fully formed set of teeth.
        Betsy Ross's other contribution to the American Revolution, beside sewing the first American flag, was running a munitions factory in her basement.
        The only real people to be a Pez head are
        Betsy Ross, Paul Revere and Daniel Boone.
        Steely Dan got their name from a sexual device depicted in the book 'The Naked Lunch'.
        Bob Dylan's real name is Robert Zimmerman.
        Wilma Flintstone's maiden name was Wilma Slaghoopal, and Betty Rubble's Maiden name was Betty Jean Mcbricker.
        Lenny Kravitz's mother played the part of "Helen" on "The Jeffersons."
        Grapes explode when you put them in the microwave.
        A pregnant goldfish is called a twit.
        111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321
        The Ramses brand condom is named after the great phaoroh Ramses II who fathered over 160 children.
        There is a seven letter word in the English language that contains ten words without rearranging any of its letters, "therein": the, there, he, in, rein, her, here, here, ere, therein, herein.
        When the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers play football at home, the stadium becomes the state's third largest city.
        John Larroquette of "Night Court" and "The John Larroquette Show" was the narrator of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre."
        A pig's orgasm lasts for 30 minutes.
        A pig's penis is shaped like a corkscrew.
        A dragonfly has a lifespan of 24 hours.
        A goldfish has a memory span of three seconds.
        A quarter has 119 grooves around the edge.
        A dime has 118 ridges around the edge.
        On an American one-dollar bill, there is an owl in the upper left-hand corner of the "1" encased in the "shield" and a spider hidden in the front upper right-hand corner.
        It's impossible to sneeze with your eyes open.
        "Evian" spelled backwards is naive.
        The plastic things on the end of shoelaces are called aglets.
        Maine is the toothpick capital of the world.
        It was discovered on a space mission that a frog can throw up. The frog throws up it's stomach first, so the stomach is dangling out of it's mouth. Then the frog uses it's forearms to dig out all of the stomach's contents and then swallows the stomach back down again.
        The A&W of root beer fame stands for Allen and Wright.
        A baby eel is called an elver, a baby oyster is called a spat.
        Bingo is the name of the dog on the Cracker Jack box.
        Lake Nicaragua boasts the only fresh-water sharks in the entire world.
        Charles de Gaulle's final words were, "It hurts."
        There are four cars and ten lightposts on the back of a ten-dollar bill.
        ABBA got their name by taking the first letter from each of their first names (Agnetha, Bjorn, Benny, Anni- frid.)
        What five digit number, when multiplied by the number 4, is the same number with the digits in reverse order?
        21978; 21978 x 4 = 87912.
        It was illegal to sell ET dolls in France because there is a law against selling dolls without human faces.
        In the 1983 film "JAWS 3D" the shark blows up. Some of the shark guts were the stuffed ET dolls being sold at the time.
        Montana mountain goats will butt heads so hard their hooves fall off.
        The Beatles song "Dear Prudence" was written about Mia Farrow's sister, Prudence, when she wouldn't come out and play with Mia and the Beatles at a religious retreat in India.
        Cranberries are sorted for ripeness by bouncing them; a fully ripened cranberry can be dribbled like a basketball.
        The giant squid has the largest eyes in the world.
        St. Paul, Minnesota was originally called Pigs Eye after a man who ran a saloon there.
        The numbers '172' can be found on the back of the U.S. $5 dollar bill in the bushes at the base of the Lincoln Memorial.
        Moon was Buzz Aldrin's mother's maiden name. (Buzz Aldrin was the second man on the moon in 1969.)
        Who's that playing the piano on the "Mad About You" theme? It's Paul Reiser himself.. And Greg Evigan sang the "My Two Dads" theme. Kelsey Grammar sings and plays the piano for the theme song of Fraiser.Alan Thicke, the father in the TV show Growing Pains wrote the theme songs for The Facts of Life and Diff'rent Strokes .
        In 1963, baseball pitcher Gaylord Perry remarked, "They'll put a man on the moon before I hit a home run." On July 20, 1969, a few hours after Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, Gaylord Perry hit his first, and only, home run.
        The Grateful Dead were once called The Warlocks.
        Gilligan of Gilligan's Island had a first name that was only used once, on the never-aired pilot show. His first name was Willy.
        The Skipper's real name on Gilligan's Island is Jonas Grumby. It was mentioned once in the first episode on their radios newscast about the wreck.
        The Professor's real name was Roy Hinkley, Mary Ann's last name was Summers and Mrs. Howell's maiden name was Wentworth.
        The male gypsy moth can "smell" the virgin female gypsy moth from 1.8 miles away.
        In England, the Speaker of the House is not allowed to speak.
        Reindeer milk has more fat than cow milk.
        The "L.L." in L.L. Bean stands for Leon Leonwood.
        The original fifty cent piece in Australian decimal currency had around $2.00 worth of silver in it before it was replaced with a less expensive twelve sided coin.
        The letters KGB stand for Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti.
        Alexander the Great was an epileptic.
        The lead singer of The Knack, famous for "My Sharona," and Jack Kevorkian's lead defense attorney are brothers, Doug & Jeffrey Feiger.
        The name for Oz in the "Wizard of Oz" was thought up when the creator, Frank Baum, looked at his filing cabinet and saw A-N, and O-Z, hence "Oz."
        The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 5:58 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
I already have. I've addressed every one of them by saying that the model eventually breaks down.

Well, you've said that, but you haven't done a very good job of demonstrating it.

How, for example, do you think Zeno's paradox (the notion that one can never walk across the room -- or hit a golfball -- because one would first have to travel half the distance, but first half *that* distance, but first half *that* distance, ad infinitum) shows that skepticism "breaks down"?

Or how, for example, do you think that any of the fun fact trivia you posted in your last post demonstrates that skepticism "breaks down"?

I realize that you think the connection is clear as a bell -- and I'm sure it's clear as a bell in your mind -- but it's not clear to readers (or, at least, not clear to this reader). None of your "fun facts" seem to have anything to do with evaluating claims or about the point that it's good skeptical policy not to accept a claim until it has been demonstrated.

I'm willing to answer any question you like, but I'd first like you to have an honest go at explaining yourself so that we can have a productive discussion about your ideas.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/10/2012 6:02 pm  

93!

"Erwin" wrote:
Are you really unable to see how nonsensical your argument is?

YOU talk about nonsensical? Did I ever come here to tell anyone that pipe-smoking is bullshit and people who smoke pipes must be total weirdos? And is there anything concerning the Book of the Law which refers to pipe-smoking? And nothing about being dictated by superhuman intelligence? Really, what a stupid answer.

"Erwin" wrote:
When you look at them, they agree with me, and not with you.

Yep, he never said anything about superhuman intelligence. You're such a loser.

"Erwin" wrote:
I wouldn't say it's necessarily incompatible, because most of the time it's not a serious belief at all. Many types of people have a coffee-shop belief in all kinds of supernatural things, [blah, blah...] And, in fact, this is what almost all you occultists routinely do. You claim to believe in all kinds of magical powers, but in any kind of meaningful sense, you don't. When it comes to important things, like eating, and making money, not having car accidents,  [blah, blah...] Harry Potter thoughts  [blah, blah...]  It's pretty weak and feeble, at the end of the day. [blah, blah...] so it all depends on what precisely you mean by "incompatible".

Okay, so it depends on the seriousness of the belief. I see. And of course, it is a fact, that Crowley was not so serious. Do you realize that you are talking nonsense?

"Erwin" wrote:
This is just a red herring. Your two questions are completely unconnected. Are you suggesting that Lashtal.com is only for people who thinking talking to spacemen is compatible with Thelema? Do you think that's official policy?

I never said anything like that and nobody here would think I suggest this. I just want to know why - granted that you think it's okay for a Thelemite to believe in the supernatural - you come here and do NOTHING BUT insulting this Thelemite.

Now, to me it is pretty clear that you (did you really just said it depends on what I mean by "incompatible"?) just wimped out to answer my question. "It depends on the seriousness of the belief?" Oh, my!

So now, you super-scientist, you say it is a fact that Crowley's presented his anti-occult rationalistic scientific method of Thelema afterwards (let's say for the last 30-40 years of his life) as "guided by spacemen" and because he was so sneaky he thought this "trick" would convince the people who are so afraid of rationality and science. Yep, that sounds logical. Well, why not say it is a fact that he was contacted by spacemen and experienced supernatural stuff, but as he knew this sounds weird he tried to convince people by coughing up some rationalistic pseudo-psychological explanations of all his Magick stuff?

And again: You can falsely say as long as you want that I promote a "brand of spaceman-Lutz-Thelema", I never did. I never said anything about spacemen being neccessary in Thelema. It is you who is claiming to know what is neccessary. Nobody here claims that charging rings is neccessary for Thelema. Nobody claims that a charged ring showed him his True Will. You are simply distorting all things you rate as "occult". You know that Crowley says he charged rings and wanked on papers and contacted superhuman intelligences and you seemingly just can't grasp this. I claim nothing. I am simply doubting that your interpretation of Thelema is the only correct one, I am seeing that Crowley wrote a lot more than you say, and I am asking questions, which you simply did not answer. Why? Because in my opinion your mission is just this ridiculous crusade agains "occultists", or what you think occultists are. And nothing, really nothing, more.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2012 6:02 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Faulty beliefs are the products of faulty thinking, which can go on to affect thinking about other matters in ways that can be difficult to pin down but have serious consequences. A brain that has allowed itself to accept a claim that hasn't been justified is a brain that has been trained, in a sense, to overlook some kind of logical fallacy. This is just plain old bad policy. That brain is liable to repeat such a mistake in the future, when dealing with matters that *do* count.

So now you are saying 'there are no bad people, only bad brains'?

"Los" wrote:
If the practice of Thelema is to perceive reality -- including the True Will -- accurately, then training one's mind to accept false claims, even as a form of recreation, can be detrimental to the process.

What you are effectively saying is that someone declared as the most intelligent person in the world has more change of achieving pure will than the village idiot.

I think that the actual facts will prove your claim wrong by a long shot, as the actual situation is quite the opposite.

"Los" wrote:
I wouldn't say it's necessarily "incompatible," either, but I think Thelema is best practiced in the context of skepticism, atheism, and naturalism.

Thelema is "best practiced" without any -isms.

Take a good look at what you are saying, and see how this statement fits: " Originally, Freud used the word ego to mean a sense of self, but later revised it to mean a set of psychic functions such as judgment, tolerance, reality testing, control, planning, defense, synthesis of information, intellectual functioning, and memory. The ego separates out what is real. It helps us to organize our thoughts and make sense of them and the world around us." source


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
12/10/2012 6:06 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
I already have. I've addressed every one of them by saying that the model eventually breaks down.

Well, you've said that, but you haven't done a very good job of demonstrating it.

How, for example, do you think Zeno's paradox (the notion that one can never walk across the room -- or hit a golfball -- because one would first have to travel half the distance, but first half *that* distance, but first half *that* distance, ad infinitum) shows that skepticism "breaks down"?

No. Tell you what. Since you are busy being dense, how about you tell me how skepticism never breaks down, as you seem to think so.

"Los" wrote:
Or how, for example, do you think that any of the fun fact trivia you posted in your last post demonstrates that skepticism "breaks down"?

Oh no. You said that your goal is accepting as many factual claims as possible to help you build your little brain map. I was only trying to help. Can't just have the main roads on the map, you know... have to have the side streets as well.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 6:12 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And again: You can falsely say as long as you want that I promote a "brand of spaceman-Lutz-Thelema", I never did. I never said anything about spacemen being neccessary in Thelema. It is you who is claiming to know what is neccessary.

No, it's me who is claiming to be able to read what Crowley said Thelema was, and you who is claiming that "Crowley's Thelema" is something other than what he said it was.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I am simply doubting that your interpretation of Thelema is the only correct one, I am seeing that Crowley wrote a lot more than you say,

Sure he did, he wrote lots and lots of things. But when you read what he wrote about what Thelema is, you'll find that it's what I'm telling you. Really. You can go and read it today and find that out for yourself.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
and I am asking questions, which you simply did not answer.

I answered your questions fully. If you didn't like the answers you got, tough.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/10/2012 6:19 pm  

Los, 93!

"Los" wrote:
I wouldn't say it's necessarily "incompatible," either, but I think Thelema is best practiced in the context of skepticism, atheism, and naturalism.

Thanks, Los, it is clear that you think so. But I hope it is also clear that it is YOU who THINKS SO. It is YOUR OPINION. It works for YOU. There is a lot in Crowley's corpus that backs this up. But THERE IS MORE, also written by Crowley. Crowley claims he was sceptical, atheistic and quite naturalistic, but he also claims he sincerely believed in superhuman intelligences he encountered several times in his life, and he claimed so until the end of his life. THIS IS A FACT! You can try to convince people from YOUR OPINION (you do so here or on your blog), but I don't see how you could claim that YOU SPEAK FOR CROWLEY. You don't. That's a fact.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 6:23 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
how about you tell me how skepticism never breaks down, as you seem to think so.

Well, ok. Since you won't explain to me how you think Zeno's paradox shows how skepticism "breaks down," I'm going to have to guess what you're trying to get at and show you, in fact, skepticism does not "break down" at all in that case.

So, the first claim under consideration is, "It is possible to walk across a room." Here is a common, everyday claim that one wouldn't normally spend very much time investigating, simply to save time. However, since it's our topic of discussion, we can investigate it, and we can discover that there is a massive amount of evidence for it being true (including the fact that I just walked across a room before writing this post). We can definitely accept that claim as true.

But then someone comes along and claims, "It's impossible to walk across a room!" Actually, that's not what he claims at all. What he really claims, if we look at it, is "It is possible to use mathematics to make a case that a person can never cross a room." Now, if we've never heard of Zeno's paradox before, this might strike us as rather extraordinary. So we say, "What evidence is there for this claim?" And then, the nice fellow presents the evidence, by explaining exactly how we can use math to make a case that a person can never cross a room (exactly as Erwin demonstrated to you above).

In this example, we had two different claims -- one about the possibility of crossing a room, and one about the possibility of using mathematics to do something -- and we acquired sufficient evidence for each before accepting them both.

That there is a "paradox" created here is only a function of misunderstanding that these claims are made in different contexts, one in a practical context and one in the context of a kind of mathematical game. In fact, the claim "This is a paradox" is also a factual claim about which we can obtain evidence.

So the ball's in your court to show how skepticism "breaks down" in this instance. As I've demonstrated, it clearly does not.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/10/2012 6:29 pm  

Erwin, 93!

"Erwin" wrote:
I answered your questions fully. If you didn't like the answers you got, tough.

I like your answers very much. They are quite revealing. Why don't you go checking how much of your posts you are talking about what YOU THINK "occultists" are. Or go checking how much and often Crowley wrote about the genesis of the Book of the Law, Hidden Masters, HIS (not everyone's) Holy Guardian Angel, discarnate intelligences and so forth?

It's so easy: Compatible or not?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 6:41 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Why don't you go checking ... how much and often Crowley wrote about the genesis of the Book of the Law, Hidden Masters, HIS (not everyone's) Holy Guardian Angel, discarnate intelligences and so forth?

Capital idea. We can start with "whether Aiwass is a spiritual being, or a man known to Fra. P., is a matter or the merest conjecture", and "I now incline to believe that Aiwass is ... a man as I am" from Equinox of the Gods. Then you can come back and try again telling me how important spacemen and "discarnate intelligences" are to Thelema, according to Crowley.

You know, someone really ought to write an essay dealing with this stuff, to put these issues to bed and help prevent people making false claims about what Crowley actually and consistently said throughout his published corpus. Oh, wait...

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
It's so easy: Compatible or not?

I already answered this. When you ask me questions, you get the answers I give you, not the answers you wish you'd been given. You might as well learn to deal with it.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/10/2012 6:51 pm  

93!

"Erwin" wrote:
We can start with "whether Aiwass is a spiritual being, or a man known to Fra. P., is a matter or the merest conjecture", and "I now incline to believe that Aiwass is ... a man as I am" from Equinox of the Gods. Then you can come back and try again telling me how important spacemen and "discarnate intelligences" are to Thelema, according to Crowley.

Yep, and Aiwass the man stood just behind Crowley in his Cairo apartment. This one quote doesn't support superhuman, I agree, but it still supports supernatural! (or was there someone living with the Crowleys?) And you know that a conjecture is not a fact, do you? Unfortunately I have to leave for band rehearsal in a few minutes so I cannot quote what more he also wrote about Aiwass and Alamantrah and so forth. Maybe someone else will for me. Else it has to wait till Monday.

And again: I don't say spacemen are important to Thelema, you say they are incompatible (when believed in heavy enough, of course) with Thelema. Can you see the difference?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 7:00 pm  
"Los" wrote:
There's a direct parallel in the phenomenon of the "God of the Gaps." This term is used to designate the way that religious people simply plug "god" (or the supernatural or "magick") into the gaps in our current understanding of the universe. As science continues to discover more about the universe, the gaps become smaller and smaller, and the role of "god" (or the supernatural or magick) becomes less and less, until it's almost nothing at all.

So, for example, a long time ago, our understanding of the universe was pretty poor. We had huge gaps in our knowledge, and so the god claims were grandiose indeed. Gods were huge anthropomorphic creatures who literally hurled lightning bolts, afflicted mankind with plagues, and shook volcanoes with their rage. Gradually, humanity learned that all of those things have completely natural causes. We filled in those gaps in our knowledge, and so the supernatural was forced to retreat. Religious types then claimed that God -- a much more abstract kind of God -- acts through natural forces, even though these forces work in completely mechanical ways that show no sign of intelligent intervention.

The more we learn, the more abstract, amorphous, and indistinguishable from nothing at all God becomes. If you read a book on modern theology, you'll find theologians -- who tend to be fairly well educated and understand that humanity knows quite a bit about the universe --talking about "God" in such abstract and vague terms that it pretty much amounts to nothing at all. God, they'll say, "is the ground of being, in which is rooted the essence of isness, in which we each live and move," or something along those lines. Pretty much entirely nothing: the gaps in our knowledge are small enough that there's just no room for gods or other supernatural creatures anymore.

Do you view that all Gods, or how ancient people viewed Gods, are nothing more than some wooden totem structures constructed out of fear and superstition to crudely describe some phenomena they didn't understand?

I personally find this highly offensive view, speaking from anthropological standpoint alone, that the Gods of the ancient world would be considered as nothing more than some fillers-in-between-gaps.

Philosopher Epicurus once declared that; "nothing should be believed, except that which is tested through direct observation and logical deduction"
He can be considered a true forerunner of the scientific method and science itself in my opinion. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

But if one goes to say that the Gods were nothing more than fillers for those gaps for all those ancient people ( and I guess those Gaps are not meant to be understood as the Intermedia of the Gods of Epicurus ) I can only reply back with;

"It is not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, who is impious, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them"

There exists Exoteric tradition and there exists Esoteric tradition.

"Gods are imaginary beings created by the human intellect"
This is true, but it is only the half of the Truth.
While the other half of it (Exoteric) might be considered as nothing more than externalized ideas, symbols or thoughts created by the mind, the other half still has its basis in a different aspects of that One Reality (Esoteric) and in those forces reflected through that One Reality that might sustain, create or destroy the world around (and inside) the individual in question.
It cannot be just said to be a simple, primitive form of anthropomorphism if it views Gods as eternal principles or Platonic ideas of which even Man is just an individuated expression and manifestation.

Exoteric (Symbols, concepts, music, prayers, spells, rituals etc. ) were given as suggestive means for the individual to experience that Reality (Esoteric) that wasn't expressed through some dead stone figures formed out of superstition.

When keeping this in mind, the rites of Bacchus can be viewed as something more than lousy excuse to get drunk.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 7:16 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And again: I don't say spacemen are important to Thelema

That's exactly what you say, stop telling lies. You say that leaving the spacemen out is "cherry picking", a mere "derivate", and that it's not "Crowley's Thelema" without the spacemen in it. I say you're wrong. So does Crowley. In print. Lots of times. Whether you like it or not, and regardless of what other argument you want to try to make.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And you know that a conjecture is not a fact, do you?

It doesn't matter. It shows that it's unimportant, that it doesn't matter whether Aiwass was a god, or whether he was just a regular guy. That spacemen aren't important to Thelema, because the message is what the message is, regardless of how it might have been delivered. Quite apart from the fact that Crowley said he had "exclusive access" to Aiwass, so if Thelema is something other people do (because Crowley's dead, and stuff) then spacemen obviously can't be important to it.

Just like when he said of the reputed source of the cipher documents that "the genuineness of the claim matters no whit, such literature being judged by itself, not by its reputed sources." Just like The Book of the Law says itself, with things like, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law", as in, whole, not do what thou wilt, but make sure to contact some spacemen, too. And "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt", including no law that says you have to talk to spacemen or believe in them. "Thelema" even means "will" - it doesn't mean spacemen.

Crowley was very clear that Thelema is concerned with discovering and then doing the will, and also wrote at some length about the types of morality and society that might follow if everybody did that. He wrote this very clearly, and it's still easy to find all the places where he clearly wrote it. Thelema has nothing to do with spacemen. It has nothing to do with spacemen even if you believe that The Book of the Law was dictated by one. You can argue that Thelema is about something else, if you like, but if you try to claim it's "Crowley's Thelema" then you'll be wrong, and you'll be wrong because Crowley says you're wrong, and he gets to decide what his own invention means.

You can cry about this as much as you like, but those are the facts.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
12/10/2012 7:50 pm  
"ayino" wrote:
Do you view that all Gods, or how ancient people viewed Gods, are nothing more than some wooden totem structures constructed out of fear and superstition to crudely describe some phenomena they didn't understand?

I don't think that ancient people themselves viewed their gods in this way -- they obviously saw these gods as real beings worthy of being worshipped or venerated, objects of devotion. But if we look back at ancient societies and their gods and try to figure out, "Gee, why did they come up with a pantheon of gods in which each god has a role (like, a god of thunder, a god of sea travel, a god of love, etc.)?" one answer is that these gods served the purpose of explaining things about reality that they didn't quite understand.

It should be obvious that I'm not trying to claim that the ancients sat around saying, "Hail Zeus! There's clearly no such being, but he's as good an explanation as any for lightning and thunder!" They really believed in these entities, but underlying these beliefs (unconsciously, we might say, if it were possible of speaking of entire societies as having an unconscious) was the very real social need to make sense out of the world, to understand why things are the way they are, and to try to exert control over these things (hence, praying to the gods to secure food, to stave off bad weather, etc.)

Equally obviously, there were "esoteric mysteries" associated with these gods that ancient people -- just like modern people -- could use to produce trance states and various states of consciousness.

William Blake, in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, gives an interesting account of the creation of the gods, presenting the gods as the creation of men (rather than the other way around).

"Blake" wrote:
The ancient Poets animated all sensible objects with Gods or Geniuses, calling them by the names and adorning them with the properties of woods, rivers, mountains, lakes, cities, nations, and whatever their enlarged & numerous senses could percieve.
And particularly they studied the genius of each city & country, placing it under its mental deity;
Till a system was formed, which some took advantage of & enslav'd the vulgar by attempting to realize or abstract the mental deities from their objects: thus began Priesthood;
Choosing forms of worship from poetic tales.
And at length they pronounc'd that the Gods had order'd such things.
Thus men forgot that All deities reside in the human breast.

In other words, "gods" are a kind of poetic personification of natural things, cities, nations, etc. Poets created them and thus knew that "All deities reside in the human breast." It's the later "priests," according to Blake, who make these esoteric poetic creations exoteric by calcifying them into literal beings, rather than metaphors.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
12/10/2012 9:42 pm  
"Los" wrote:
In other words, "gods" are a kind of poetic personification of natural things, cities, nations, etc. Poets created them and thus knew that "All deities reside in the human breast." It's the later "priests," according to Blake, who make these esoteric poetic creations exoteric by calcifying them into literal beings, rather than metaphors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides_(dialogue)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/parmeni.htm


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
12/10/2012 11:30 pm  

93, Erwin!

I am sorry, but it seems you're just too dumb or whatever to talk to. Again: is it NOT ME claiming Thelema is for spacemen, you are claiming it is NOT for people who believe in spacemen, and even when you say it is unimportant for Thelema, believe me, you act like it is the most important thing in the world for you. So what is it now? Unimportant? Then why do you rage like a little child when someone talks about it? Or is it very important to NOT BELIEVE in spacemen?

Believe me, it is very hard to follow your ramblings. I say: A Thelemite can very well believe in supernatural stuff, it simply doesn't matter. It even doesn't matter if the supernatural really exists or not. You say more or less the same (It doesn't matter. It shows that it's unimportant, that it doesn't matter whether Aiwass was a god, or whether he was just a regular guy. That spacemen aren't important to Thelema, because the message is what the message is, regardless of how it might have been delivered.) but on the other hand you act like a 3-year old if anybody does so.

So where does the Book of the Law say: Do not believe in the supernatural? I know it doesn't say "believe in spacemen" and nobody ever claimed a thing like this. Are you really too arrogant to see the difference?

Los at least says HE THINKS it's better not to believe in the supernatural, but you are doing nothing than putting words in my mouth so you just don't have to answer this one little question. Maybe you are really nothing but a coward, I don't know. In any case you are just talking to yourself without any coherence. Have fun in your own little Thelema theme park or answer my question.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/10/2012 12:03 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
I am sorry, but it seems you're just too dumb or whatever to talk to. Again: is it NOT ME claiming Thelema is for spacemen,

You should be sorry, and yes you are. Again, stop telling lies. You've said repeatedly that leaving the spacemen out is "cherry picking" and it isn't "Crowley's Thelema" without the spacemen. In this very thread. Your own words are still up there for anyone to see. I'm not sure what you think you're going to achieve with this bizarre approach.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/10/2012 2:11 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
how about you tell me how skepticism never breaks down, as you seem to think so.

Well, ok. Since you won't explain to me how you think Zeno's paradox shows how skepticism "breaks down,"

No. The point was that the thing breaks down whether you are skeptical about it or not.

The universe is going to do what it is going to do, regardless of whether or not you have "accumulated facts". And that silly map you keep talking about does not function in territory that cannot be charted.

Stop blinding yourself intentionally. Do you honestly think that skepticism is the end-all-be-all, that it has zero faults, and never breaks down? If so, then skepticism is none other than your god of choice.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
13/10/2012 2:55 am  

"That silly map you keep talking about does not function in territory that cannot be charted."

In the midst of this rather obnoxious thread, this line is a lovely bit of brilliance and wisdom. Doesn't even need a context. Stands on its own and has a lot to say. Cheers, Azidonis!

As for me, gotta dash.

Therefore, Magick works!  😉

-Kyle


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 6:23 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
The point was that the thing breaks down whether you are skeptical about it or not.

It's not clear at all what you're saying here. What is it that you think "breaks down"? I've demonstrated that skepticism -- which is a mode of thought, rather than a "system," by the way -- is intact in the Zeno's paradox example. In fact, it is only through skepticism that we can evaluate the claims under discussion there.

If your claim is that skepticism "breaks down" in some way, you need to explain what you mean and provide some kind of specific example of it.


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
13/10/2012 6:42 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
That silly map you keep talking about does not function in territory that cannot be charted.

Skepticism is completely useless when talking about Beethoven's symphonies.  They're ineffable and beyond reason.

But questions like "Does X really exist or not?" are not ineffable and beyond reason.

I'm all for the ineffable.  But "Does charging a ring actually do anything?" is not an ineffable question.  It's perfectly within the confines of statements that can be evaluated rationally.  Claiming that it's beyond reason is as silly claiming that one can rationally explain the genius of Beethoven's symponies.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 7:04 am  
"HG" wrote:
Skepticism is completely useless when talking about Beethoven's symphonies.  They're ineffable and beyond reason.

But questions like "Does X really exist or not?" are not ineffable and beyond reason.

Precisely. And if by "breaking down," Azidonis simply means that skepticism doesn't apply to some situations -- like listening to music or falling in love -- then that's obviously true, but it's not an example of "breaking down." It's just a limit. I have a key that opens my door, but just because the key doesn't work to open other things, it doesn't mean that the key "breaks down."

Skepticism is a tool, and the function of the tool is to evaluate factual claims about the universe. Skepticism is the only consistently reliable tool for evaluating factual claims.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
13/10/2012 7:34 am  

Skepticism is the only consistently reliable tool for evaluating factual claims.

MAGICK makes no "factual claims."


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 7:49 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
MAGICK makes no "factual claims."

MAGICK may not, but people do. You, for example, made several factual claims in this thread, Kyle. This includes the claim that the process you described for charging a ring causes the ring to "join with your aura."

I asked you what evidence convinced you that this factual claim was true. You replied that you've DONE it, which is great because that means you're in a position to tell us what evidence convinced you, but you haven't explained what the evidence was.

Having DONE this operation, surely something HAPPENED afterward that you judged to have been CAUSED by the operation. So what was it, and how did you make that evaluation?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
13/10/2012 7:55 am  

You made several factual claims in this thread, Kyle

No, Los. I have not. You have simply READ my words as "factual claims."

I am in the Zone where there are no "Facts" to be "Claimed."

Step into my Hypercube and we'll talk.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 7:56 am  
"Los" wrote:
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
MAGICK makes no "factual claims."

MAGICK may not, but people do.

Just to develop this a little further, obviously MAGICK can't make factual claims (it's a thing, not a person, for starters....), but also the performance of ceremonial magick is something outside of the scope of skepticism (just as the performance of anything is outside of the scope of skepticism).

But as soon as one starts making factual claims about the performance and the effects the performance supposedly has, the only way to consistently and reliably evaluate those claims is to apply skepticism to them.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 7:57 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
No, Los. I have not. You have simply READ my words as "factual claims."

Ok, so then you admit that it is not true that performing the operation you described causes the ring to "join with your aura"?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1850
13/10/2012 8:25 am  

Los-we’ve been over this before. It’s simple and plain. Do you really think that I’m some drooling idiot wandering down the street waiting for a UFO to safe my snot-nosed self? No. I’m a social worker, a father and a member of my community. I don’t need chiding as to how I ought behave as a rational adult. Were we neighbors, I think we’d see eye to eye on all practical matters and we’d be happy to find each other as fellow Crowley enthusiasts. We’d grill out without any dispute over the basics of charcoal and lighter fluid.

This discussion is not about the practical or the rational. It’s about the MAGICAL. “Magick” is not some Crowleyan way of describing the practical. It’s not a Goetic metaphor for materialism. I am never fighting with you over issues of reason, fact and evidence. I am simply expressing a Way which goes beyond these things and has its own operative method and logic.

Erwin scoffs at this. “Goblins” is his word of choice. Or “Spacemen.” I read his words and only see conceit. The only reason Erwin is here is to tell Lutz that he’s an idiot. I don’t think this is true of you. You bore me at times with your relentless clinging to the “point” (which is fact, skepticism, reason). But I know this is not the sum of what you are.

Do you see that we have no debate? The way we communicate via these threads puts us on opposing sides but this is not an accurate picture of where we are at.

If you want me to justify what I express with back-up references in academic journals that you personally accept, it’s not going to happen. If you want to caricature me as our friend Erwin does, then go right ahead. But if you want to DIALOGUE: then LET’S.

I do NOT make “factual claims” in the sense that you think. For me, Magick is not about this. Nor is it to be belittled as “entertainment” or inspiration for artwork. It is another dimension to experience.

As I expressed to a friend earlier this evening, I feel that Magick is the means to Gnosis and Gnosis is the Way in which we understand the Nature of Bodhisattva (which is the reward of the Master of the Temple Grade). It’s all different “above the Abyss” but this is not meant to imply some elitist state which only the few can get to. It’s part of the Continuum of Reality.

If you will, I concede to your reasoning. I have no bone to pick with you. I stand by your words and objections. But I have ANOTHER ELEMENT within myself-and it is from THIS that I can speak as to charging the ring, communicating with Beings from Beyond and so forth.

I’d like to share this but it won’t be along the lines of acceptance you seem to have laid out. 


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
13/10/2012 11:46 am  

"Meanwhile, back at the ranch, little Betsy has discovered a gold nugget in the family's stream...."


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4060
13/10/2012 12:49 pm  

Oddly enough, I heard that very line in a late 1940s episode of 'Dick Barton: Special Agent' that I was listening to on the wireless last night.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
13/10/2012 1:49 pm  

93!

"Erwin" wrote:
Again, stop telling lies. You've said repeatedly that leaving the spacemen out is "cherry picking" and it isn't "Crowley's Thelema" without the spacemen.

What a desperate weasel you are. Telling you that ignoring all the evidence of Crowley's belief in superhuman intelligence surmounts to cherry-picking (especially in the context of you calling everybody who also believes in superhuman intelligence an idiot - at best - and more or less incapable uf understanding Thelema) is the same as "The belief in the supernatural is essential for Thelema". Of course, I said the former more than once and of course I never said the latter. On the contrary I repeatedly stated that it is irrelevant if or if not your belief in supernatural powers.

"Erwin" wrote:
In this very thread. Your own words are still up there for anyone to see. I'm not sure what you think you're going to achieve with this bizarre approach.

Okay, let's see:

My first post on this thread is a long AC quote about the existence of consciousness independent of certain anatomical structures. It ends with "But please, stop lecturing and claiming this is WHAT CROWLEY MEANT…"

My second post is about my non-acceptance of Los' claim that he knows "where Crowley was wrong". It ends with "THE BELIEF IN AS WELL AS THE REJECTION OF THE SUPER-NATURAL IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT!!! IT IS MEANINGLESS!!! So just stop your lecturing!"

The third post is about Los' mixing up his conclusions with facts, that he is not talking about Crowley's Thelema, but about his interpretation.

Then you came up with your idiotic "list".

My fourth post is about my conviction that your only problem (and probably Los' too) is the fact that Crowley was THE most famous occultist and you simply loathe occultists. Then I say that it is a standard scientific method to claim something, a claim doesn't need facts. Science uses "working hypothesizes" lots of times when phenomena occur that need some hitherto undetected particle/force/whatever so that the phenomena make sense.

My fifth post is about that it is ridiculous to suggest that some phenomenon is actually the charging of a ring. The phenomenon cannot be the working hypothesis, because that is absurd.

My sixth posts is my first reply to your stupid accusation I am saying "Magick works" or "the supernatural is real" anywhere in this thread. It's also again about that your conclusions about what AC really thought and meant are not facts. And it suggests that it would be better if you just keep Crowley out of your philosophy. Thus you don't have to tell everybody that he is wrong when he says the complete opposite of what you say.

My seventh post is again about the absurdity to think that the working hypothesis is the same as the phenomenon.

My eighth post is to moogPlayer, who tried to copy you in his tone. And about working hypothesis and phenomenon.

My ninth post is about Crowley's numerous claims of the existence of superhuman intelligence and that if you think he is wrong there you miss a great part of his work and therefore you are not able to claim that you know what Crowley really meant.

My tenth post is again a statement that is is not me who claims anything about Thelema, but you. It asks why you bother to engage with Crowley at all when you think that he is wrong with so many of his beliefs. And it asks you: Is the belief in supernatural powers incompatible with (what you think) Thelema (is)?

Post eleven is about your so-called "answer" and your misunderstanding that my asking you why you visit this site could mean you shouldn't be allowed to do so. It's about you avoiding to answer if Crowley with his irrational beliefs would be allowed in your "club" at all? I say: I never said anything about spacemen being neccessary in Thelema. It is you who is claiming to know what is neccessary.

My twelfth post is to Los. I wanna make clear that he should be aware that all of what he says about Crowleys real intentions and interpretations are claims made by Los, and not facts.

My thirteenth post: I tell you you should check how much of your posts is only about what you think "occultists" ARE. And the repeated question: Supernatural belief compatible with Thelema or not?

Post fourteen. You quote one instance where Crowley has doubts about his superhuman theories. You know yourself what he wrote, that a doubt is not a proof for anything. I have to repeat: I don't say spacemen are important to Thelema, you say they are incompatible (when believed in heavy enough, of course) with Thelema.

Post fifteen. Again I have to correct you that I never ever said the belief in the supernatural is a prerequisite for practicing Thelema, although you repeatedly say so. I say: So where does the Book of the Law say: Do not believe in the supernatural? I know it doesn't say "believe in spacemen" and nobody ever claimed a thing like this.

This is post sixteen and I repeat: The belief in the supernatural is irrelevant to the practice of Thelema and completely compatible with Scientific Ilusminism. To say otherwise would mean the "inventor" of Thelema would have had absolutely no knowledge about his invention and would exclude him of practicing Thelema. Nobody has to believe in the supernatural of course either. If it is someone's will to ignore this track, then he shall do so. If someone thinks that people who believe in the supernatural are a bunch of idiots he is demonstatably not speaking for Crowley (of course, people who believe in the supernatural can be idiots, as well as people who don't, idiocy isn't indicated by the belief or non-belief in the supernatural), because Crowley believed in superhuman intelligence.

Is that now clear enough for you ... you evil liar yourself!

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/10/2012 2:33 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Okay, let's see

Yes, let's, and let's cut to the chase while we're at it.

So, have you changed your mind, and you now think that a system along this lines that folks like Los and I have presented is "Crowley's Thelema"? Are you retracting your claim that it's merely "cherry picking" the bits that we like, i.e. the "rational" bits? That you now do agree that what's been presented has been "Crowley's Thelema" all along?

Or if not, which parts do you think we are leaving out when we "cherry pick", which parts are missing which are sufficiently important that without them, what's left cannot be said to be "Crowley's Thelema"?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5053
13/10/2012 5:05 pm  
"WilliamThirteen" wrote:
"Meanwhile, back at the ranch, little Betsy has discovered a gold nugget in the family's stream...."

Right. Getting back to THE POINT of this thread (cleaning up and charging a ring), I originally wondered why the ring in question was made of silver. Museum grade Lapis Lazuli has these wonderful specks (like stars), streaks (like a vein), and bands (like the Milky Way) of Gold color. I once had such a stone and it was set in gold to compliment and "highlight by similarity" the gold color in the stone. Of course, the present ring is set in the metal of the owner's choice. For one thing, the price of Aurum is astronomically high (this morning, around $1768 per ounce!). Even Argentum is getting high on the monetary scale, but at least it's still within reason (only about $33 per ounce, today).

"Cleansing" the ring of the influences of goblins, spacemen and warlocks falls ino two categories: (1) The metal, which is going to be subjected to a melting point minimum temperature of 1640 degrees farenheit (893 degrees Celsius - previously called Centigrade in the days of my youth and why did they change it?) when it is liquified and cast into a "ring," and (2) The stone, which is actually rather soft as stones go.

So the metal will get purged by fire in the process of fabrication. The stone could "hold" all types of influence that is now the subject of this thread, which is hot enough to send the "influence(s)" packing - but not the "participants, who are deeply engrossed in proving their non-provable points. After all, the discussion petains to the abstract mental plane. "Abstract" means "not pertaining to dense physical reality.".

The "cleansing" is intended to remove ALL extraneous astral goop and mental thoughtforms. Why? So that the "charging" will be impressed upon a "virginally clear and clean" piece of metal and rock.

The main component of lapis lazuli is lazurite (25% to 40%), a feldspathoid silicate mineral with the formula (Na,Ca)8(AlSiO4)6(S,SO4,Cl)1-2. [Alchemical Qabalistic notations are confusing in forum type style]. Most lapis lazuli also contains calcite (white), sodalite (blue), and pyrite (metallic yellow). Other possible constituents: augite; diopside; enstatite; mica; hauynite; hornblende, and nosean. Some lapis lazuli contains trace amounts of the sulfur-rich löllingite variety geyerite.

The calcite (white) component could/would justify silver as the metal of choice.

Lapis is the Latin word for "stone" and lazuli is the genitive form of the Medieval Latin lazulum, which is taken from the Persian lāzaward, meaning "heaven" or "sky", since the sky is blue; therefore, it is the "stone of heaven" or "sky stone".

Lapis Lazuli is a stone that represents the second ray of Love-Wisdom (Azure Blue & Electric Gold). It really is ["can be"] an intricately beautiful piece of matter. Some examples are not too interesting.

[move:1d4m1rdh][/move:1d4m1rdh]

As to the ongoing debate/arguement/war about whether spacemen brough lapis lazuli to Earth, or whether silver can be altered by thought currents and vibratory mantras, it really doesn't matter!

That's right! It doesn't matter! [Expletive repeated for emphasis].

What matters is what the whole process means to the individual who is performing the act(s).

If the process is meaningful to the magician, and it causes him or her to feel good, or to earn a thousand tax-free dollars or pounds, who cares about the minor details?

Everything I have written here is absolutely true and undisputably accurate.
Notary sig and seal attached.
Like the Nevada Acupuncture Board said, "Further inquiries will be denied."  😮

[/align:1d4m1rdh]


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 5:26 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I do NOT make “factual claims” in the sense that you think.

And this itself is a factual claim. Your post is filled with all sorts of factual claims that I don't think you have sufficient evidence to justify accepting as true. Among these include:

1. "I am simply expressing a Way which goes beyond these things and has its own operative method and logic."

2. "I have ANOTHER ELEMENT within myself-and it is from THIS that I can speak as to charging the ring, communicating with Beings from Beyond and so forth."

3. "I feel that Magick is the means to Gnosis and Gnosis is the Way in which we understand the Nature of Bodhisattva (which is the reward of the Master of the Temple Grade)."

These are all factual claims that you haven't justified. And in a previous post, you made the factual claim under discussion here:

4. that performing an operation will make "the ring join with your aura."

These are claims about the way the universe is, and as such, we can evaluate whether they are true or not by examining the evidence for them. By "evidence," I don't mean "articles in academic journals" -- I mean any data points at all that have convinced you that such things are true. Let's talk about them.

When you say things like, "Well, this is true because I've DONE it," you're not providing evidence: you're just repeating the claim. You're saying, "Performing operation X causes Y effect to happen" (If X, then Y). Factual claim. I ask how you know it's true, and you say, "I've done it!" But that's just a repetition of what you just said. It doesn't explain the evidence that convinced you it's true.

An adequate response would be something along the lines of, "Well, I did X, and then Y and Z happened. And I know that X is the cause of Y and Z because Q."

And then we could discuss whether your evidence and reasoning process sufficiently supports your claim. But right now, you won't even let our discussion get to that stage because you think -- apparently -- that you can make your factual claims immune to such inquiry by randomly declaring them to be outside the scope of skepticism.

This is a problem for your position. If you're telling the OP "Do X and then Y will follow," either you're telling him something you believe to be factually true or you're not telling him something you believe to be factually true. If you don't think it's factually true, then he has no reason to take what you're saying seriously. If you do think it's factually true, then you're making factual claims, and we can discuss how good the evidence is for these claims.

Do you really think that I’m some drooling idiot

No. I think that you -- like most bright people who believe goofy things -- have talked yourself into believing things that aren't justified, and if you would adopt a shred of intellectual honesty and have a real conversation about why you accept these claims -- instead of trying desperately to talk around it -- we could actually have a productive conversation.

Nor is [magick] to be belittled as “entertainment”

Just a note here: I don't consider it "belittling" to refer to something as "entertainment." Shakespeare's plays, classical music, The Sopranos, all of the poetry that has ever been written, etc. -- substantially every aspect of human culture -- can be considered entertainment.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 5:27 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
If the process is meaningful to the magician, and it causes him or her to feel good, or to earn a thousand tax-free dollars or pounds

That the process causes the magician to earn money is a factual claim that needs to be supported.

You, Shiva, obviously cannot support such a claim because you run away from discussion every time you're challenged to support what you say in regards to justifying factual claims like these.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
13/10/2012 6:26 pm  
"Los" wrote:
If your claim is that skepticism "breaks down" in some way, you need to explain what you mean and provide some kind of specific example of it.

If you cannot see the limits of its usefulness and validity, that's your own problem.

Try harder, or just keep worshiping your deity. It makes no difference.

"Los" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
If the process is meaningful to the magician, and it causes him or her to feel good, or to earn a thousand tax-free dollars or pounds

That the process causes the magician to earn money is a factual claim that needs to be supported.

Prove that it cannot be supported.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4060
13/10/2012 7:13 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Your post is filled with all sorts of factual claims that I don't think you have sufficient evidence to justify accepting as true.

Whether Kyle wishes to accept a proposition as true is a matter for him. You may well conclude that there is not sufficient evidence for you to accept it as true, but you are surely being impertinent in attempting to prescibe criteria by which Kyle should order his thinking.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 7:15 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
If you cannot see the limits of [skepticism's] usefulness and validity, that's your own problem.

Nobody who's really interested in discussing a subject just says, "Gee, if you can't see my point, that's your problem, nyeh!"

For example, I've never seen two sociologists talking where one says, "I think the model you've proposed has some serious limitations," and when the other ones says, "Oh? What do you mean by that?" the first responds, "Oh! Well, if you can't see it, that's your problem!!"

That's just not how intelligent conversation proceeds, anywhere.

Now, as far as "limits" of skepticism -- which I would consider different than "breaking down" -- I've already indicated its limits: it can only be used to evaluate factual claims. When it comes to other activities (experiencing, performing, dreaming, imagining, eating, creating art, falling in love etc.), it does not serve a useful function. That's its limit: it's limited to evaluating factual claims.

But when it comes to evaluating factual claims, skepticism (that is, the proper application of rational inquiry) is the only consistently reliable tool.

You had a go at trying to argue the contrary, but you didn't argue it -- you just pointed to a bunch of things like Zeno's Paradox without bothering to make a case for how these examples show the limits of skepticism in evaluating factual claims. I responded by showing how skepticism allows us to evaluate claims like Zeno's.

You can't sensibly come back with, "Oh yeah? Well...my point is just obvious, and if you can't see it, too bad!" The whole purpose of discussion -- which is, not surprisingly, what a discussion board is for -- is to exchange points of view, which means responding to points that others make.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 7:19 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Whether Kyle wishes to accept a proposition as true is a matter for him.

Certainly. Whether each of us accepts a proposition is a totally personal matter. But we can discuss the criteria by which we come to these decisions, which is useful when having a discussion about whether a proposition is true or not.

You do agree that it's useful to know whether a proposition is true or not, right? For example, if I wanted to "join my aura with a ring," I would want to first know 1) that it's true that such a thing is possible, 2) the criteria by which I could judge that I had actually succeeded in doing such a thing.

Don't you agree that it's useful to discuss these things? It's in that context that I'm asking Kyle what the evidence was that convinced him.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 7:24 pm  

Or, to give you another example, Michael, let's say that a poster appears here and makes the claim, "The works of Kenneth Grant were produced by a thousand monkeys sitting in front of a thousand typewriters and punching random keys."

Now, whether that poster accepts that claim is, indeed, a matter entirely for him. And whether any individual reader comes to accept that claim is also a matter entirely for each individual reader. But don't you agree that it's possible and useful to discuss the evidence that exists for such a claim? And don't you also agree that, if absolutely no evidence can be produced that even comes close to suggesting such an outlandish claim, the correct position to adopt is not to accept it?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
13/10/2012 8:44 pm  

93, Erwin!

"Erwin" wrote:
So, have you changed your mind, and you now think that a system along this lines that folks like Los and I have presented is "Crowley's Thelema"? Are you retracting your claim that it's merely "cherry picking" the bits that we like, i.e. the "rational" bits? That you now do agree that what's been presented has been "Crowley's Thelema" all along?

Are you out of your mind? I still say the exact thing as in more or less every post in this thread:

1) The belief in supernatural forces or the rejection of such belief is completely irrelevant for the practice of Thelema.

2) Now it happens that mostly every time anyone on this forum discusses his belief in supernatural forces or "occult" practices Los or you or HG or another one of your "disciples" reply to these discussions, mostly in an insulting way, since you/Los/HG/etc. think - maybe correctly - that modern science cannot verify the existence of anything supernatural. Since you feel - or why would you care to excite yourself so much? - that is neccessary to know as much "true" (verified) things as possible of one's surrounding to successfully practice Thelema, you thereby imply that in your opinion the belief in the supernatural is not compatible with practicing Thelema.

3) Now it also happens that Aleister Crowley, the "inventor" of Thelemic thought and the prophet of Thelemic religion did very much believe in supernatural forces. I guess most scholars agree on that. It is true that he rationalized/naturalized a lot of magical practices, but it is also true that he was absolutely convinced of the the superhuman intelligence of Aiwaz, Alamantrah, Abul-Diz and others and that he thought these entities definitely existed outside and independently of his (or his magical partners') own mind. The evidence he had for this convinced him and he thought it sufficiently convincing for his readers.

4) Now Los and you say that you do not regard Crowley's claims about the supernatural as supported by enough evidence for you and that he was wrong about this point. Fine for you, but leaving out this side of Crowley so you don't have to dismiss your own final conclusions is what I would call cherry-picking and I think it is obvious for everyone that you don't share Crowley's opinions on this point.

5) If Crowley's opinions on the supernatural are irrelevant or fundamental or something in between, is not decisive. They differ greatly from your opinions and so I do not accept your interpretation of Thelemic thought, when it comes to the point of magical practices and working with supernatural intelligence.

6) If you agree with me and Crowley that the belief in the supernatural mustn't in any way be a hinderance on the Thelemic path, you wouldn't act the way you do when the supernatural comes up. If you disagree I think it is obvious that your thinking is in plain contrast to Crowley's thinking and I will continue to say so.

7) I still think the only reoccurring theme in your posts is a deep hatred of "occultists" and the idiotic preconception of "what occultists do".

"Erwin" wrote:
Or if not, which parts do you think we are leaving out when we "cherry pick", which parts are missing which are sufficiently important that without them, what's left cannot be said to be "Crowley's Thelema"?

8. And you delibereately misinterpret me so you can have your little mocking lectures. I never said it is an important or necessary part to believe in the supernatural or that Thelema cannot be practiced without this belief. I only point out that Crowley shared this belief. So your authority to ramble, condescend, insult, foam at the mouth when supernatural discussions come up and your hysterical attempts to "correct" these beliefs as well as your claims that your own opinion is identical with Crowley's opinion is in no way justified by what Crowley wrote. Some of what he wrote coud be interpreted the way you would like to have it, that's what is normally called "cherry-picking". So it is only you who seems to say that the belief in the supernatural is not compatible with Crowley's Thelema.

That's what I am saying more or less in every post here. So, nor sir, no changing of my mind here.

Belief in the supernatural and Thelema: Are they compatible, then it would be just nicer to shut up. Are they incompatible, it is clear that your point of view and your subsequent behaviour are in no way justified by claiming these are identical with Crowley's point of view. (Which by the way is not exactly a standard scientific line of reasoning) So you can expect that only a few here will accept your authority on that matter,

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/10/2012 8:56 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
As I expressed to a friend earlier this evening, I feel that Magick is the means to Gnosis and Gnosis is the Way in which we understand the Nature of Bodhisattva (which is the reward of the Master of the Temple Grade). It’s all different “above the Abyss” but this is not meant to imply some elitist state which only the few can get to. It’s part of the Continuum of Reality.

If you will, I concede to your reasoning. I have no bone to pick with you. I stand by your words and objections. But I have ANOTHER ELEMENT within myself-and it is from THIS that I can speak as to charging the ring, communicating with Beings from Beyond and so forth.

Absolutely. That "ANOTHER ELEMENT within [your]self" is better known as "your imagination". What you call "part of the Continuum of Reality" other people with a better command of English would call "make-believe". You're already pretty well acknowledging that only a "drooling idiot" would believe that "magical powers" are real and that the "Beings from Beyond" they pretend to talk to are actually out there, and that when you talk about magick you "do NOT make 'factual claims'...Magick is not about this". Why, then, do you so stubbornly resist the obvious categorisation of it as make-believe and insist on calling it "real"? Why do you insist on calling "the make-believe world of wizards and magick rings that you've imagined in your head" as a "reality tunnel", as if to put it on an equal footing with actual reality, that you dismissively call the "Reality Tunnel of the Materialistic Worldview handed down by Society" as if "Society" has some gigantic conspiracy theory to spoil your fun?

Look, there's nothing necessarily embarrassing about engaging in make-believe. Civil war re-enactors and World of Warcraft players do it all the time, without apology. They'll happily admit that they get together on the weekends with their friends and dress up as Confederate soldiers with muskets and powderhorns, or come home from work and adopt their alternate persona as Zorbag the orc and go and stab some trolls in the back. While these hobbies are still unusual enough that they might raise an eyebrow from some quarters when revealed, they don't inspire immediate belly laughter and finger-pointing. Hell, even Mr T admits to playing World of Warcraft, and that should be enough for anybody. It only becomes foolish and laughable if people start to actually claim its real, that they really are fighting musket battles or slaying elves. People don't generally laugh at RPG wizards casting spells, because they'll happily acknowledge that it's just make-believe - why won't you acknowledge this, when you're doing everything to point it out short of actually using those words and still insisting that it's "real"?


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5053
13/10/2012 9:02 pm  
"Los" wrote:
You, Shiva ...

Your condescending attitude is noted.

"Los" wrote:
You, Shiva, obviously cannot support such a claim because you run away from discussion every time you're challenged to support what you say in regards to justifying factual claims like these.

I am still here. However, I do not choose the path of justification.

"Los" wrote:
That the process causes the magician to earn money is a factual claim that needs to be supported.

Nothing "needs" to be supported. I have the money in my pocket and I will be buying food with it in order to survive. If I am deluded. there will be no food and I will die. This has been a perfectly logical message. All other inquiries will be used to further pull your leg.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/10/2012 9:04 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
8. And you delibereately misinterpret me so you can have your little mocking lectures. I never said it is an important or necessary part to believe in the supernatural or that Thelema cannot be practiced without this belief. I only point out that Crowley shared this belief. So your authority to ramble, condescend, insult, foam at the mouth when supernatural discussions come up and your hysterical attempts to "correct" these beliefs as well as your claims that your own opinion is identical with Crowley's opinion is in no way justified by what Crowley wrote. Some of what he wrote coud be interpreted the way you would like to have it, that's what is normally called "cherry-picking". So it is only you who seems to say that the belief in the supernatural is not compatible with Crowley's Thelema.

Stop being a weasel. When you're writing about Thelema, it's not "cherry picking" to only look at "some of what he wrote" when that "some of what he wrote" is "everything he wrote about Thelema". It's not "cherry picking" to exclude what he wrote about Crowley Pool, or curry recipes, or mountaineering, or chess, from one's consideration of "Crowley's Thelema", because those writings are nothing to do with Thelema.

So, stop being evasive and answer the simple question without waffling on and twisting and turning with your red herrings to avoid doing so. Do you agree that what I present as "Crowley's Thelema" - which essentially boils down to "Thou must (1) Find out what is thy Will. (2) Do that Will" and which according to Crowley himself does not require any "magick" or talking to spacemen - actually is "Crowley's Thelema", or don't you? If you don't, and you think I have "cherry picked" the bits I like, then what do you think I have left out? You appear to think if you just go of at a tangent and write a lot of words, I'll forget that you've evaded the question. I won't.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
13/10/2012 9:20 pm  

93!

If I remember correctly you were the one evading my question about belief in the supernatural and its compability with Thelema.

Of course Thelema is about finding and following the True Will. And of course it is not neccessary to believe in the supernatural. I have been saying this quite a few times by now. You are implying the non-belief in the supernatural is neccessary and that claim is unsupported.

I am asking you again and that's what it is all about: Is Thelema compatible with belief in the supernatural? Yes, or no? (not: "it depends on the seriousness of the belief.") If yes, your attitude towards people believing in it is idiocy. If no, you are excluding Mr. Crowley from being a Thelemite. Which could be called also idiocy.

Very few words. Very simple question.

Your disciples can tell you how well you present "Crowley's Thelema".

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 9:35 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
If I remember correctly you were the one evading my question about belief in the supernatural and its compability with Thelema.

Erwin answered that already. Where have you been?

He's been arguing that supernatural beliefs -- specifically the belief in discarnate intelligences -- are not part of Thelema, even though AC himself appeared to accept these beliefs and wrote about them elsewhere in his work (outside the scope of Thelema).

I don't think that Erwin has -- at all -- been saying that people who adopt such supernatural beliefs are "bad Thelemites" or anything like that. He's been (correctly) pointing out that they don't have sufficient evidence to accept such claims and that their acceptance of such claims makes them worthy of mockery.

In other words, the objection is not that "These beliefs are incompatible with Thelema!! Bad!!!" The objection is, "These beliefs are puerile, stupid, unsupportable, and worthy of being laughed at. So I'm going to laugh at them."


ReplyQuote
Page 4 / 7
Share: