Cleansing & cha...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring  

Page 5 / 7
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 9:37 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
"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.

Since you "do not choose the path of justification" -- and the topic of discussion is justifying claims -- you are running away from the discussion. Q.E.D.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 9:48 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
my question about belief in the supernatural and its compability with Thelema.

If you're curious, it was I who have been saying, in other threads on here, that accepting unsupported beliefs is detrimental to the practice of Thelema.

So I wouldn't say that such beliefs are "incompatible" with Thelema, but "detrimental" to its practice. And the reason is simple: the practice of Thelema requires an individual to remain focused upon reality, and the more unsupported beliefs an individual accepts, the more he hampers his practice in general. This isn't just limited to supernatural beliefs: the more unsupported beliefs, of any kind, the more difficulty the individual could have in practice.

On this thread, however, I haven't been advancing this as an argument against accepting supernatural claims. My entire argument here has been that there is insufficient evidence to accept such claims as true.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
13/10/2012 9:56 pm  
"Los" wrote:
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."

Los, 93!

Thanks, that will do it for me. While I am not agreeing that your and especially Erwin's behaviour can be called mockery, I concede that this is a matter of a personal sense of humour. And of course I see that anyone who thinks that his "idol" is a stupid moron, has a very special sense of humour. Congrats to you two (other disciples excluded).

And sorry, but Erwin's "it depends on how serious someone believes in the supernatural" is not a real answer. And if it counts, than I would say that most scholars of Thelema and Crowley agree that Crowley was very serious about this. So...

While I won't question your sense of humour any longer, I am still convinced that your crusade against occultism has some other roots than "occultists are worthy of mockery".

"Los" wrote:
AC himself appeared to accept these beliefs and wrote about them elsewhere in his work (outside the scope of Thelema).

There is much evidence that Thelema was intended to be a "religion" and that his beliefs are extremely relevant. But ... not today ...

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 10:06 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And of course I see that anyone who thinks that his "idol" is a stupid moron, has a very special sense of humour.

If you're referring to Crowley here, I wouldn't consider him my "idol," nor would I consider him a "stupid moron."


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
13/10/2012 10:15 pm  
"Los" wrote:
If you're referring to Crowley here, I wouldn't consider him my "idol," nor would I consider him a "stupid moron."

Los, 93!

I am too lazy to look up the exact terms you or Erwin used when "mocking" someone who believes in the supernatural. Effectively you say: "What Crowley accepted as the *birth of Thelema* is detrimental to its practicing." Since he never wrote such a thing I concede that this is your personal interpretation and that's what I am talking about since the beginning. Capiche? (I am trying to imitate your tone here).

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
13/10/2012 10:58 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Shiva" wrote:
"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.

Since you "do not choose the path of justification" -- and the topic of discussion is justifying claims -- you are running away from the discussion. Q.E.D.

Choosing not to box with you is not running away; it's choosing not to box.

You clearly enjoy these debates; some others find them a waste of time.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/10/2012 11:07 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
If I remember correctly

Which you don't.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Of course Thelema is about finding and following the True Will. And of course it is not neccessary to believe in the supernatural.

Answer the question - is what I am presenting "Crowley's Thelema", or isn't it? I ask because you've repeatedly said it isn't, but here you appear to say it is. So which is it? For the umpteenth time, stop evading the question.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
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.")

And I'm telling you again - it does depend on the seriousness of the belief. Unlike what I asked you, it's not a "yes or no" question. Your question is like asking if having a handicap is incompatible with running a mile - if your handicap is a slightly gimpy hand, then it isn't, but if you're missing both legs and both arms and half your head, then it is. If you're mentally ill and hallucinating so badly that you can't distinguish reality from your dreams, then you can't sensibly follow Thelema. If you have the kind of coffee-shop belief in the supernatural that is not really a belief at all, then you can.

I've already told you, when you ask me a question, you don't get to put any conditions on the answer. You get what you're given, and that's that. If you don't like it, I don't care.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/10/2012 11:18 pm  
"Los" wrote:
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."

Yeah, this is pretty much right. All this stuff about whether supernatural beliefs is "compatible with Thelema" is all out of your own head, Lutz. I'll humour you by answering your questions about it, if you like, but it's got pretty much nothing to do with anything I've been talking about.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5195
13/10/2012 11:31 pm  
"Los" wrote:
-- and the topic of discussion is justifying claims ...

No, the topic of discussion is  ...
[move:28uhggyk]Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring[/move:28uhggyk]

Certain usurpers have changed the topic to
[move:28uhggyk]How it is impossible to Cleanse & charge anything[/move:28uhggyk]

And then they have played, "I said...you said...see my posts...I am right...you are stupid"," until no-one can remember the original topic anymore.

[/align:28uhggyk]


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
13/10/2012 11:38 pm  
"Shiva" wrote:
No, the topic of discussion is  ...

The topic of discussion includes questions about or elaborations on the subject of the opening post. If you refuse to engage with the matter currently under discussion, you can't boast about not running away from it. Which you have. You continue to run away from it by making distractionary posts like the one you just made.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
13/10/2012 11:56 pm  
"Los" wrote:
The topic of discussion includes questions about or elaborations on the subject of the opening post. If you refuse to engage with the matter currently under discussion, you can't boast about not running away from it. Which you have. You continue to run away from it by making distractionary posts like the one you just made.

He's not running away; he simply doesn't want to engage with you on what you regard as "the matter currently under discussion". Why is that so difficult for you to understand?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/10/2012 12:13 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
He's not running away; he simply doesn't want to engage with you

You say tomato....

In all fairness, there certainly is a difference between not wanting to talk to a person, on the one hand, and actually backing down from a discussion, on the other.

In most contexts, people who don't want to talk to another person simply don't (just like people who are "bored" by another person simply don't bother with them). When a person is already participating in a conversation, gets challenged on a fundamental point of what they're saying, and then immediately tries changing the subject instead of rising to the challenge, that's called running away.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/10/2012 12:32 am  

This is comical.

Any approach is born out of thought. That is, the moment something is recognized as an approach, it has become a thought, an idea. As such, it holds water within the realm of thought, and its limitations are within the field of thought.

Stars will continue their existence whether thought is involved or not. Atoms will continue on their course whether thought is involved or not. Whatever is not born out of thought will be as it is, regardless of thought.

To use thought in an attempt to capture such movement is futile, as it only catches an idea about something. It does not capture the thing in and of itself.

So however you want to approach thought, is irrelevant. What you will learn is about thought, and not thought itself. If you approach thought with faith, or skepticism, or anything else, you are using thought to approach what you know about thought, and that is it. It is futile and meaningless, and the thinking process continues regardless of what you think about it.

Thought creates the thinker, in an attempt to look at itself. It then pulls as many things as it can, be they fact or fiction, towards it, telling the thinker "Look at this. Look at me. Look at what I can do." It does this in order to create an illusion of continuity, in an impossible attempt to ensure its own survival (see The Five Skandhas). And the thinker, wanting its own existence, latches onto some things and refuses others, seeking to find various ways to identify and express itself, in spite of the fact that it is just a projection, a hologram, and it is impermanent.

Regardless of this, 15 pages of bickering (and many years of countless other threads) have gone on about various perceptions of something that cannot be perceived, no matter how it is approached, skeptically or otherwise. Truth cannot be captured. It cannot be contained by thought. Thought, at best, can make a futile attempt to communicate about Truth, but cannot communicate truth itself. All efforts to communicate Truth then are ultimately in vain.

If you want to do your True Will, or "the Truth as it relates to 'you'", then it is simple, says Crowley: "Sit still. Stop thinking. Shut up. Get out!"

It has nothing whatsoever to do with thought. "Do" is action. There is no action in thought. All thought is past tense, and therefore dead.

If the guy wants to have a ring made, and personalized, and his thought process tells him this will be beneficial to him in some way, for whatever reason, that's his own business, his illusion to deal with, and no one else's.

If the futility of the entire situation is not realized, all of the clinging in the world won't help anyone, whether they cling to pink unicorns, skepticism, or anything else born of thought, any other idea.

The whole thing only leads to further divisions, those divisions being the birthing places for the seeds of confusion.

Don't take my word for it. Don't ask me to sit and explain it over and over again. Do your own Work, and figure it out.

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

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

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


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/10/2012 12:44 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
If the guy wants to have a ring made, and personalized, and his thought process tells him this will be beneficial to him in some way, for whatever reason, that's his own business, his illusion to deal with, and no one else's.

Of course it's his business. But when that same guy starts saying things in public about it -- including expressing the idea that it's possible to "charge" the ring with magical power -- other people are well within their rights to challenge that claim.

Any approach is born out of thought. That is, the moment something is recognized as an approach, it has become a thought, an idea. As such, it holds water within the realm of thought, and its limitations are within the field of thought.

Obviously. Skepticism is a mode of thought. As such, it only applies to thoughts. It is limited to evaluating the truth of factual claims, which are thoughts (and "truth" itself is a thought).

Luckily for us, we happen to be talking about thoughts on this thread. So how about showing us how skepticism "breaks down" in terms of evaluating claims within the realm of thought? Or would you rather retract that claim of yours?


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 86
14/10/2012 1:34 am  
"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, who cares about the minor details?

This is not progressive thinking at all. You are essentially saying that practicing magic is no different from being a christian, or a muslim, or a superstitious new age nut. It's just a matter of preference. All these people believe that what they practice is beneficial too. All I can see is a lot of backwards thinking that leads to endless war, and public schools being forced to teach nonsense.

Unless you can prove that performing magic works in any demonstrable way (that cannot arguably be called a coincidence), smart people will challenge your bullshit claims. Traditionally, people who want money work really hard. You are a doctor right? Are you saying you relied just on magic to get through life, and that you never studied for a single test? Because unless you are saying that performing magic guarantees you to pick winning lotto numbers, or find casks of treasure on your door step in the morning, you got nothin'.

It's astounding that this is coming from someone who made a stink about how muslim people believe in things that are fundamentally "bad". I seem to also remember that you were worried about how popular this kind of belief is becoming.

"Los" wrote:
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."

Beyond being worthy of ridicule, we are trying to make the argument that this kind of backwards thinking is no good for anyone. If we don't figure this out soon, history is doomed to repeat itself. I'd really hate for there to be another dark ages, just because people still haven't figured out the difference between fantasy, and fact.

This is what the whole conversation boils down to. That the silly beliefs and perceptions of you hippy dippy wizards, are really no different from the same nonsense beliefs that make other religions worthy of suspicion.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5195
14/10/2012 4:49 am  

The True Secrets

"These teachings may be considered "self-secret." This means that even if they are told in the plainest possible language to a person, that person would not necessarily understand the teachings unless they are able to receive the information in the proper context.  In this way the teachings are inherently "secret" to the minds of those who are following the path with nothing more than a simple sense of curiosity." 

- Treatise On Naught (c)2012[/align:2a1uqxo5]


ReplyQuote
HG
 HG
(@hg)
Member
Joined: 11 years ago
Posts: 96
14/10/2012 4:56 am  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
And of course I see that anyone who thinks that his "idol" is a stupid moron, has a very special sense of humour. Congrats to you two (other disciples excluded).

You know, I absolutely adore the works of Richard Wagner, but I scoff at his anti-Semitism.

If I met a Wagner fan that said: "I am an anti-Semite, and that's OK, since that's what Richard Wagner thought," I would consider him a fool and mock him.

Do I have "a special sense of humor"?

Or am I simply behaving as rational people behave?


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
14/10/2012 11:44 am  

there are also those who cannot listen to Wagner, though they may love the music, because of his reprehensible anti-semitism and the purposes for which both were utilized...  not sure that has any bearing on the current "discussion" but perhaps it is not so far afield...


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
14/10/2012 2:28 pm  

My dearest Erwin!

"Erwin" wrote:
"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

Answered. I agree. You present this extremely important part as perfectly as possible. Congrats.

Here is your answer to my question:

"Erwin" wrote:
it does depend on the seriousness of the belief. [...] If you're mentally ill and hallucinating so badly that you can't distinguish reality from your dreams, then you can't sensibly follow Thelema. If you have the kind of coffee-shop belief in the supernatural that is not really a belief at all, then you can.

Fine, I said I am satisfied with that and add: Crowley DID repeatedly say that Liber Al was dictated to him by a supernatural intelligence and he was so serious about it that he presented a mass of evidence to "prove" this. He also did this when he evaluated his contacts with Alamantrah and Abul-Diz. Now he's everything from mentally ill to having just a coffee-shop belief in the supernatural, according to your answer. Since you won't be able to "prove" which it is, and your personal opinions of how serious his belief in the supernatural was (by the way, I am also not able to finally evaluate his seriousness) are nothing more than your personal opinions, I am really satisfied with this. Really. Thanks.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2012 3:40 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Answered. I agree. You present this extremely important part as perfectly as possible. Congrats.

Not answered. You're weaseling again. You seem to strongly imply that there are other "important parts" of "Crowley's Thelema" that I'm not presenting "as perfectly as possible", or not presenting at all. Do you think this? If so, which parts are they?

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Fine, I said I am satisfied with that and add: Crowley DID repeatedly say that Liber Al was dictated to him by a supernatural intelligence and he was so serious about it that he presented a mass of evidence to "prove" this. He also did this when he evaluated his contacts with Alamantrah and Abul-Diz.

Sure he did. But these don't have anything to do with "Crowley's Thelema". A blueprint for a nuclear-powered toaster does not change whether I claim I came up with it all by myself, or whether I claim it was delivered to me by aliens. The toaster is independent of its purported origins, and so is Crowley's Thelema unless the following of it requires contacting spacemen or doing the bidding of spacemen in some other manner, which you have conceded it does not. His other "contacts" were equally unimportant to it. Were they important to Crowley? Possibly. Are they important to Crowley's Thelema? Not in the slightest.

You can't separate Christianity from Jesus because the very following of it requires accepting Jesus as your personal living saviour and planning to live for eternity by his side one day. Christianity doesn't make any sense at all if you try to take the supernatural out of the equation, but Crowley's Thelema is not like this - the system itself has nothing to do with Aiwass, or Secret Chiefs, or spacemen, or anything like that, as you have acknowledged, and it is entirely independent of its purported origins or of the personal beliefs of its inventor. Trying to argue that Crowley's beliefs are important to it is like trying to argue Freud's personal complexes are relevant to the modern practice of psychotherapy - it's nonsense.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Now he's everything from mentally ill to having just a coffee-shop belief in the supernatural, according to your answer.

I think you have serious reading comprehension difficulties, I really do.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
Since you won't be able to "prove" which it is, and your personal opinions of how serious his belief in the supernatural was (by the way, I am also not able to finally evaluate his seriousness) are nothing more than your personal opinions

Yes, yes, I know how much you like to say that there are no facts, only opinions, and all opinions are equal, we've been here before. Fortunately, the "opinions" in question here are not relevant to anything that's being discussed.

Perhaps his beliefs did prevent him from sensibly practicing his own Thelema, for all we know. After all, he wanted to be the World Teacher, run successful magical organisations and social clubs, institute a new brotherhood of man, usher in some "New Aeon", be the world's greatest poet, and fulfill the plan of the "Secret Chiefs", and he failed miserably at every turn. You certainly don't know whether or not he was following his will, that's for sure. It's not exactly a secret that Crowley was a pretty chronic bullshit artist, so the kind of idle speculation you seem to want to engage in is futile, at the end of the day.

Either way, Crowley's Thelema remains unaffected and unchanged by the seriousness of his supernatural beliefs, or lack thereof. It's entirely possible that a man can create an admirable system despite being singularly unable to follow it himself, so your whole question is purely academic.


ReplyQuote
tc
 tc
(@tc)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 40
14/10/2012 4:19 pm  

93

Sometimes we can't see the wood for the trees.

I don't know if charging a ring can cause an actual change in it, but that really isn't the point.
The point is that it CAN change US. I suppose a practical value of a 'charged' ring is that it may act
as a reminder to focus on the Work or to bind the wearer closer to it.

The meditation, the rituals, Resh and all the rest...it's ourselves that are changed, by ourselves. That's what it's all about...isn't it?

93 93/93

Tim


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2012 5:05 pm  
"tc" wrote:
The meditation, the rituals, Resh and all the rest...it's ourselves that are changed, by ourselves. That's what it's all about...isn't it?

That's what it would be about if people didn't claim that they were actually charging rings, and really talking to independent beings, and causing real change at a distance with their "magick". But some people do claim this. If they didn't, this type of discussion wouldn't happen. Not everyone thinks that magick is all in their minds, or at least, they don't say that that's what they think.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
14/10/2012 7:54 pm  

"Consecration is the active dedication of a thing to a single purpose." - Crowley


ReplyQuote
sonofthestar
(@sonofthestar)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 375
14/10/2012 8:16 pm  

93!

Crowley's definition of Magick,
..."the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will"...
This above, is actually an ESSENTIAL "aspect" of "Crowley's THELEMA".
      Thelema, could be accurately elaborated denotation wise as ...
the Science and Art of  "Discovering/Knowing/Doing"  Your True Will.

Once Your Will is Known, you DO/MANIFEST that Will.  How?
By bringing about "change" in conformity to It.
By the process Crowley called MAGICK !
This is an individual's Thelema! His/Her Knowledge of it,
as well the Doing of it.

I consider anyone who proclaims that Magick is not part of Crowley's Thelema,
(as said Magick is defined and written about, and practiced by Crowley),
---to be making one very spectacular ass of His/Herself.
Now this in no way implies,
that said Ass's Thelema, does not--Not consist of  Magick. And yet, paradoxically
"Their Thelema" would still have to have some magick (wether they believe it or not)
or it would be no Thelema at all.

Magick, is part of Crowley's Thelema.
Magick is that process (as defined by him)
of causing changes in conformity to the Will/Thelema.
This Thelema or "True Will" of an individual, could indeed be likened to,
Willing Itself, or Self begat--once known and manifestly conversant:
Thelema/Will--Manifesting--Will/Thelema.
The Will and the Willing---are perfect! being One.
Success being, "Your" only proof.
The Magick "of Aleister Crowley" consisted of "so called" mundane acts
(such as writing letters, eating, etc)...
as well  the invoking and evoking of  supernatural entities/beings. And still more!
To attempt the divorce of any particular facet of the Magick practiced by Crowley,
from Crowley's Thelema,
after proclaiming one or the other of those facets valid or invalid,
is a futile exercise in foolishness or subterfuge.
To conjure this division in the first place,
betrays a basic and  fundamental "misconstruing" ...
of what "Crowley's" Thelema/Magick really is.

By the way,
"I" am only using the term "Crowley's Thelema" as applicable to the discourse in this thread.
If an individual choosing to call his/her self "a Thelemite" is successfully manifesting their Will,
(using any of an infinitude of Magickal actions available)...
I would simply say, they are achieving  "Thelema".  It is uniquely theirs...
regardless of it being achieved (intentionally, or unintentionally) in a manner quite similar, or very dissimilar to 666, or anyone else for that matter.

Furthermore, "Crowley's Thelema" comprises the entirety of his Life experience.
The mountain climbing, the poetry, the art, the writings, the painting, the rituals, etc, etc.
From the most mundane everyday aspects of his life,
all the way to the exalted height of his unique adepthood; all that, and more---is the Magickal essence of "His" Thelema.

93! 93! 93!


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
14/10/2012 8:39 pm  
"Los" wrote:
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?

The analogy about the authorship of Kenneth Grant's work above is a poor one to raise. It's not remotely comparable with these arguments about the efficacy of magical work, since there are revised typescripts, notes and diary entries by Grant that would readily disprove the proposition.

I've got no problem in discussing things, in exchanging opinions with others. However, for you discussion is adversarial: a boxing match in which the aim is not to have an exchange of opinions, but to knock out your "opponent", to demonstrate the superiority of your opinions over those of others. This simply leads to entrenched positions, to sound and fury and little more if anything. This is amply demonstrated over the course of this thread, as countless other threads. It's just the same record over and over and over again; being trapped in some Eternal Recurrence but without the spider and the moonlight.

So far as evidence goes, my criteria for what is acceptable evidence does not match yours. If you are suggesting that in the absence of evidence that would satisfy you, then I have no right to accept something as true, then of course I disagree; hence my reference above to impertinence.

I've never charged a ring, or anything similar. I undertake rituals in order to bring about changes in awareness. Any change in awareness is apparent to me, but perhaps not to someone observing me. To the observer, there may well be no evidence to suggest that the ritual has "worked", so he or she may conclude that there is insufficient evidence for the proposition. The observer is welcome to his or her opinion, but it's laughable if they then expect me to accept it in preference to what is clear evidence to me.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
14/10/2012 8:43 pm  

93!

"Erwin" wrote:
Not answered. You're weaseling again. You seem to strongly imply that there are other "important parts" of "Crowley's Thelema" that I'm not presenting "as perfectly as possible", or not presenting at all.

What you presented ("It boils down to etc.") is perfect. Really. Nothing implied. Or do you want to quote me on the backcover of your next book? The topic here is not how you are presenting Crowley's Thelema and I couldn't care less how you or anyone else think you do it. Spacemen are not a prerequisite, that's correct.

"Erwin" wrote:
I think you have serious reading comprehension difficulties, I really do.
"Erwin" wrote:
it does depend on the seriousness of the belief. Unlike what I asked you, it's not a "yes or no" question. [...] If you're mentally ill and hallucinating so badly that you can't distinguish reality from your dreams, then you can't sensibly follow Thelema. If you have the kind of coffee-shop belief in the supernatural that is not really a belief at all, then you can.

But that's what you wrote. Maybe my English is not good enough. Maybe in English "Now he's everything from..." means he actually IS everything. Sorry, it's different in German. What I mean is: Since Crowley obviously believed in the supernatural, the reasons for his belief lie (according to you) somewhere between and including "mentally ill" or "coffee-shop belief in the supernatural".

"Erwin" wrote:
Either way, Crowley's Thelema remains unaffected and unchanged by the seriousness of his supernatural beliefs, or lack thereof. It's entirely possible that a man can create an admirable system despite being singularly unable to follow it himself, so your whole question is purely academic.

My question is purely academic in the sense that we cannot determine the seriousness of his supernatural beliefs. I think it is very much affecting "his" Thelema.

But let's leave it here, I have a tough working week ahead of me and I am afraid I don't have the time to indulge in these "conversations" as much as during the last days. And I don't want to be accused of avoiding a discussion. I really was only interested in your views on the compatiblity of belief in the supernatural and Thelema. You have answered to my satisfaction. Thanks.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2012 8:52 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
The topic here is not how you are presenting Crowley's Thelema and I couldn't care less how you or anyone else think you do it.

It is when you repeatedly crow "Not Crowley's Thelema! Not Crowley's Thelema!" at me, but since you seem to have changed your mind on that, I'll let it go.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
My question is purely academic in the sense that we cannot determine the seriousness of his supernatural beliefs. I think it is very much affecting "his" Thelema.

Not if Thelema doesn't involve any supernatural beliefs, it doesn't, which is something you've already accepted. It might affect the way he practiced Thelema, but it doesn't affect the "Crowley's Thelema" that anyone else practices.


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
14/10/2012 9:15 pm  

thank "the gods" you two got that worked out...


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 5328
14/10/2012 9:23 pm  

Oh, good grief, someone's brought up 'the gods'! How about we all just ignore that and let this thread waste gracefully away?

😉

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
William Thirteen
(@williamthirteen)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 1090
14/10/2012 9:28 pm  

if i could have made the quotation marks any larger i would have, i swear!


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
14/10/2012 9:31 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
So far as evidence goes, my criteria for what is acceptable evidence does not match yours.

But we can still discuss what the standards of evidence are for particular claims and try, as best we can, to determine what is a sufficient standard of evidence for a particular claim (even if, ultimately, the evidence can only be observed by a single individual).

For example, let's say that a guy accepts the claim that "aliens are beaming messages into my head." His evidence? He hears voices.

I say that we can rationally discuss the situation and determine that merely hearing voices is insufficient evidence to support that claim, and we can still reach that conclusion regardless of the fact that only one person can hear those voices. I also contend, if the guy who hears these voices is reasonable and open minded, he can be persuaded that the evidence he has is insufficient to support that claim.

Don't you agree? If not, why not?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/10/2012 11:30 pm  

Wow, 16 pages and counting!  I've not been able to make it past the single digits, long ago bored by the bullshit.  The perseverance with which you guys have been going at it, is almost astonishing.  C'mon guys, enough!  On to something else now, please!?! 


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 12:24 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
long ago bored

But interested enough to continue to comment. Your initial impulse was the best strategy for you: run away from the discussions you cannot adequately address.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2012 1:01 am  

I didn't run away.  I left, because the prospect of another thread, ruined by your incessant yammering over and over of the same shit, bored the hell outta' me.  I found more appealing things (and people) to do with my time, so I haven't read a page or posted since my last one about half a dozen pages back.  I only poked my head in to agree with Paul about the overdue death of this mess of a thread you all have made.  Aren't you fuckers finished, yet?  Let's talk about something else, and hopefully, the next thread won't devolve into the same sort of battle that has become so routine around here.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
15/10/2012 1:04 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
"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.

Yeah, it's not as simple as that.  There are many places where "Crowley's Thelema" is presented in a "spaceman-neutral" sort of language, that's true.  But when you take the whole of his work into consideration, it seems to me that those instructions are from the point of view of the "lowest common denominator". 

IOW, Thelema is totally relevant to the ordinary, rational family guy who has no interest whatsoever in the supernatural.  The instructions are relevant and applicable to such a person, absolutely.  (And since even people who do believe in the supernatural live part of their lives in an ordinary way, that aspect is relevant to them too.)  That's the aspect of Thelema you are talking about, and I think most people here would agree that you present that aspect clearly and concisely.

But there's more to it than that.  As follows:-

Let's say, there are two areas of uncommon experience that Crowley explored and often spoke about: mystical experiences, and magickal experiences.  Most people haven't had these kinds of experiences.  Most people haven't experienced Samadhi, or had subjectively convincing experiences of talking to spirits, etc.

Now, the point you are missing, and the point I think Lutz and some of the others here are trying to get you to grasp, is that while it's perfectly true that Thelema doesn't require anyone to venture into these areas, IF PEOPLE DO, then there is Thelemic instruction that deals with those areas.

For example: what do you think you are?  What are the "nature and powers" of your own being?  The answer you will get, going by some particular premise about who you are, will partly determine what "Will" means.  If you think you are a distinct and separate physical entity in a physical universe, that the mind is an epiphenomenon, etc., then an investigation into your True Will will give you one kind of answer.  However, if you are a mystic, and you think that what you really are is the Universe, then an investigation into the True Will will give you another type of answer, in which the first type of answer may be nested (under some appropriate logical transformation, as "illusory").

Also, Liber AL is prima facie a text purportedly delivered by a "spaceman", that talks about "spaceman" things.  And while it's true that philosophical metaphor can be extracted from the spaceman stuff (or an LCD way of talking about it that applies to ordinary people who haven't had the uncommon experience stuff) can be abstracted from the text, the text itself draws limits on rationality (or rather, the concept of sufficient reason - causality, logical necessity, etc.), and INCLUDES the kind of stuff that happens in uncommon experience (both mystical and magickal) in its ambit.

This is the sense in which you are missing (or perhaps deliberately eliding) the scope of "Crowley's Thelema".

Furthermore, it's true that Crowley veered back and forth a bit as to the objective (i.e. subject to the principle of sufficient reason) validity of those uncommon experiences and insights, but as someone said above, you could just as easily see that as Crowley trying to get rationalists to join in with the game, as it being Crowley having cold feet about spacemen and the people who are into them.

If anything comes across as the main "flavour" of Crowley as a person, it's that he was an experimentalist (remember the story of young Alec and the nettles?).  More than anything, I think his intended audience is fellow experimentalists, people who are willing to try things out, no matter how barmy they may seem to the multitude.  And while he tries, often, to couch his ideas in a rational form, and to make them relevant (as they indeed are) to ordinary folks, his heart is really more with the crazies among us.

Better be a Shaker, or a camp-meeting homunculus, or a Chataqua gurl, or a Keswick week lunatic, or an Even Roberts revivalist, or even a common maniac, than a smug Evangelical banker's clerk with a greasy wife and three gifted children -- to be bank clerks after him!

Better be a flagellant, or one who dances as David danced before the Lord, than a bishop who is universally respected, even by the boys he used to baste when he was headmaster of a great English public school!

That is, if religion is your aim: if you are spiritually minded: if you interpret every phenomenon that is presented to your sensorium as a particular dealing of God with your soul. (from Eleusis, Collected Works)


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 5195
15/10/2012 1:52 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
... hopefully, the next thread won't devolve into the same sort of battle that has become so routine around here.

Fat chance of that. Any threads that make it to, say, 2 or 3 pages, seem to draw in the usual suspects who have an open agenda, which rarely changes. You used the word: "Routine." Yep, it's human nature on display.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2012 3:46 am  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Yeah, it's not as simple as that.

Yes, it is.

"gurugeorge" wrote:
But when you take the whole of his work into consideration

Then don't do that. Only take into accounts the parts that deal with Thelema.

"gurugeorge" wrote:
Now, the point you are missing, and the point I think Lutz and some of the others here are trying to get you to grasp, is that while it's perfectly true that Thelema doesn't require anyone to venture into these areas, IF PEOPLE DO, then there is Thelemic instruction that deals with those areas.

So what? People can balance beachballs on their noses in the following of Thelema, if they want to, and anyone could concoct some "Thelemic instruction" for that. It wouldn't make balancing beachballs on your nose a part of Thelema.

"gurugeorge" wrote:
For example: what do you think you are?  What are the "nature and powers" of your own being?  The answer you will get, going by some particular premise about who you are, will partly determine what "Will" means.  If you think you are a distinct and separate physical entity in a physical universe, that the mind is an epiphenomenon, etc., then an investigation into your True Will will give you one kind of answer.  However, if you are a mystic, and you think that what you really are is the Universe, then an investigation into the True Will will give you another type of answer, in which the first type of answer may be nested (under some appropriate logical transformation, as "illusory").

Sorry, but what the True Will is isn't contingent on your views about the universe. You might be thinking about Wicca.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2012 3:48 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
Any threads that make it to, say, 2 or 3 pages, seem to draw in the usual suspects who have an open agenda, which rarely changes. You used the word: "Routine." Yep, it's human nature on display.

Yes, it does get pretty tiresome to continually watch the "usual suspects", as you put it, trying to turn what is "not an occult site" into exactly that, and having the "open agenda" of trying to censor those who'd challenge their absurd religious beliefs. Charging rings? It's an embarrassment. This site deserves so much better than what you people continually try to degrade it into.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 5:50 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
I didn't run away.  I left

Ohhh, gotcha. I guess it was a coincidence that your “boredom” set in right around the time the discussion turned to points that you have not – and, from the looks of things, cannot – adequately address.

"gurugeorge" wrote:
For example: what do you think you are?

“I” seems to be an illusion created by the firing of neurons. Within the illusion, there’s the part of the illusion that’s consistent with another part of the illusion (what we call “True Will”), and there’s another part of the illusion that’s at variance with another part of the illusion and that creates inner conflict when followed (what we call “false will” or “restricting thoughts of the mind,” etc.).

And by the way, none of the above suggests that “charging rings” is possible, so this whole “what do you think you are?” tangent is a wild distraction from the main discussion of this thread.

The answer you will get, going by some particular premise about who you are, will partly determine what "Will" means.

No, it won't. You can read Crowley's consistent descriptions of the True Will to discover what it means in the Thelemic system.

And while it's true that philosophical metaphor can be extracted from the spaceman stuff […]

Thelema – the system dealing with discovering and following an individual’s True Will – isn’t a “metaphor." It’s the system that Crowley created based primarily on his interpretation of Liber AL. If anything, that means that the images contained in the Book are metaphors for concepts in the system, not the other way around. Hence, the "gods" are depictions of abstract concepts, represented as gods for "literary convenience," as Crowley tells us.

Thelema deals entirely with discovering the carrying out an individual’s True Will. It does not deal with conversing with spacemen. That some Thelemites might, as part of their True Wills, engage in practices in which they make believe they are talking to spacemen is an unrelated point.

When those Thelemites come out in public and make factual claims about their practices – such as “there are discarnate intelligences” – other people will challenge their factual claims. Some of those challengers will be other Thelemites, who may be doing their own True Will by challenging those claims.

"Erwin" wrote:
Charging rings? It's an embarrassment. This site deserves so much better than what you people continually try to degrade it into.

Absolutely.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2012 10:01 am  
"Los" wrote:
"N.O.X" wrote:
I didn't run away.  I left

Ohhh, gotcha. I guess it was a coincidence that your “boredom” set in right around the time the discussion turned to points that you have not – and, from the looks of things, cannot – adequately address.

Los,

No, boredom set in right around that time the discussion turned to non-points, in yet another thread you, selfishly, hijacked.  I told you, before I left, that I refused to participate in another one of your thread derailments.  I had no desire to explore the resulting train-wreck of a thread, either.  Your interruption (for that is was it, truly and rudely, was) and all this mess that came after, is irrelevant.  I provided some actual advice on how to charge the ring, like he asked for.  You go off on some tangent, unhelpful and condescending as usual.  "Expanding the scope of the original topic" or some such shitty excuse for taking the thread in your own direction, oh and look where we've ended up.....back where all of your threads end up.  That same old cul de sac that awaits all such conversations that you steer.  I refused to go along with you, because I, for one, am sick of seeing that same shitty neighborhood.  I'm tired of riding around in circles, listening to you sing along to that that same old song, stuck eternally on repeat. 


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 10 years ago
Posts: 86
15/10/2012 11:16 am  

"Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Ash nazg thrakutulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne,
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie!"

This incantation is sure to work. Just make sure to mold the ring out of gold forged in mount doom. Whats that you say? Can't Find mount Doom? It's in the land of Mordor! Need a map? google it.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
15/10/2012 11:28 am  
"Erwin" wrote:
Yes, it does get pretty tiresome to continually watch the "usual suspects", as you put it, trying to turn what is "not an occult site" into exactly that, and having the "open agenda" of trying to censor those who'd challenge their absurd religious beliefs. Charging rings? It's an embarrassment. This site deserves so much better than what you people continually try to degrade it into.

The owner of this site is the arbiter of what is and what isn't appropriate, not you. If there are threads or posts which you judge to violate the guidelines of the site, then clearly you should discuss this matter with him.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2012 11:46 am  
"Los" wrote:
If anything, that means that the images contained in the Book are metaphors for concepts in the system, not the other way around. Hence, the "gods" are depictions of abstract concepts, represented as gods for "literary convenience," as Crowley tells us.

The problem what most of here have with statements like these is that you seem to be denying these 'abstract concepts' to be substantial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia
This degrades all symbolism, mythology and 'Gods' of any tradition to be nothing more than mute objects of artistic fantasy at their best.

"Los" wrote:
Thelema deals entirely with discovering the carrying out an individual’s True Will. It does not deal with conversing with spacemen. That some Thelemites might, as part of their True Wills, engage in practices in which they make believe they are talking to spacemen is an unrelated point.

When those Thelemites come out in public and make factual claims about their practices – such as “there are discarnate intelligences” – other people will challenge their factual claims. Some of those challengers will be other Thelemites, who may be doing their own True Will by challenging those claims.

The method of yours seems to advocate that of Positive science.
That is, gathering organizing of data provided by sensory experiences and only after
making certain choices between them (excluding those results with qualitative nature and essentially relying on those that can be measured) inductively arriving at some "knowledge" that is under laws of an abstract and conceptual nature.

Intuition is this way made obsolete. Man is denied of aquiring unmediated perception through intrinsic evidence.

Reality has been conditioned and made dependent on experimental experimation and
Man has been denied of any possibility of Direct Knowledge.
While one might this way arrive in a high degree of precision how forces of world (inner or outer) act, he still has absolutely no idea what they really are.

I am not attacking you any way in this post.
This is just one observation why these debates may continue endlessly, same way how Aristotle never denied the notion of Plato's supra-rational, but he did deny the man to the right to have any knowledge or intuition of it.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4087
15/10/2012 2:30 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
So far as evidence goes, my criteria for what is acceptable evidence does not match yours.

But we can still discuss what the standards of evidence are for particular claims and try, as best we can, to determine what is a sufficient standard of evidence for a particular claim (even if, ultimately, the evidence can only be observed by a single individual).

For example, let's say that a guy accepts the claim that "aliens are beaming messages into my head." His evidence? He hears voices.

I say that we can rationally discuss the situation and determine that merely hearing voices is insufficient evidence to support that claim, and we can still reach that conclusion regardless of the fact that only one person can hear those voices. I also contend, if the guy who hears these voices is reasonable and open minded, he can be persuaded that the evidence he has is insufficient to support that claim.

Don't you agree? If not, why not?

If I were hearing voices that I judged to be inside my head, then yes I would probably discuss the matter with others, seeking their opinions. But I wouldn't consult people with a clear agenda, whether that agenda was to convince me that it was hallucination, or to convince me that the voice was indeed coming from an external source.

That would clearly exclude consulting you, of course.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 2:36 pm  
"ayino" wrote:
The problem what most of here have with statements like these is that you seem to be denying these 'abstract concepts' to be substantial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia
This degrades all symbolism, mythology and 'Gods' of any tradition to be nothing more than mute objects of artistic fantasy at their best.

I wouldn't say that I'm denying that the concepts are "substantial." The gods of Thelema are -- and indeed the gods of any mythology can be read as -- metaphors, which means they symbolize and point to something real.

For example, Nuit represents all potential: potential is certainly a real thing. Hadit represents each point of view: points of view certainly exist.

The method of yours seems to advocate that of Positive science.

I'd say that I advocate evidence-based inquiry. I accept claims only after I acquire sufficient evidence (such evidence does not have to be strictly "scientific" or consisting of formal "experiments").

Science is one subset of evidence-based inquiry.

Intuition is this way made obsolete. Man is denied of aquiring unmediated perception through intrinsic evidence.

It depends on what we mean by "intuition." If we're talking about "hunches" that may be unconscious extrapolations of likely possibilities that suddenly intrude into consciousness, such hunches may, on occasaion, be accuarte and useful. But the only way that we can tell that such hunches are accurate and useful is by using evidence to confirm them.

If by "intuition" we mean Neschamah in the Qabalah, that faculty does not pertain to making factual claims, so the point is moot.

Either way, we evaluate factual claims by means of reason and evidence-based inquiry, not intuition. Evidence-based inquiry is the only consistently reliable method of distinguishing fact from fantasy.

Reality has been conditioned and made dependent on experimental experimation and
Man has been denied of any possibility of Direct Knowledge.
While one might this way arrive in a high degree of precision how forces of world (inner or outer) act, he still has absolutely no idea what they really are.

What things "really are" is what they do.

I am not attacking you any way in this post.

You're not, and it does not come off as you attacking me at all. Your post is polite, engaging, and interesting in a way that the others on here are not. Thank you for that. Take note, everybody else.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 2:38 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
If I were hearing voices that I judged to be inside my head, then yes I would probably discuss the matter with others, seeking their opinions.

And my question was, don't you agree that the people whose opinion you seek could rationally come to agree that hearing voices, in and of itself, isn't sufficient to support the claim that "aliens are beaming messages into my brain"?

In other words, this is a phenomenon that only one person can observe, but the "standards of evidence" for accepting that claim are something that we can discuss and come to conclusions on. To put it another way, the experience of hearing voices is entirely subjective (in the sense of "arising in the mind of only one individual"), but the conclusions that one comes to about the experience don't have to be subjective (in the other sense, of being "colored by personal bias"). One's conclusions -- and the standards of evidence by which one comes to those conclusions -- can be objective (in the second sense, of being "uncolored as much as is possible by personal bias"). Through rational discussion, we can evaluate those standards of evidence and conclusions.

If you disagree with this, I think it would start a productive discussion if you explained where you disagree and why.

(Edited for clarity)


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 3:12 pm  
"Los" wrote:
What things "really are" is what they do.

A little more on this one.

Nietzsche famously attacked the idea that there is a "doer" apart from action. One example that he uses, which I find quite helpful in grasping what he means, is that of a lightning flash. We say things like, "The lightning flashed." That sentence suggests that there's a thing (lightning) that does an action (flashing).

However, Nietzsche says, this is a trick of grammar. Language requires us to write sentences with subjects and verbs, but we necessarily thereby falsify reality: lightning isn't some thing that's out there waiting to do an action called flashing. The lightning is the action of flashing. It is our minds, which need to break up the flux of reality into subjects and verbs, that create the idea that there is a doer behind that action.

The connection between this observation and the idea that the "self" is an illusion should be obvious. (Yeats, himself an avid Nietzschean, asks in a poem, "How can we tell the dancer from the dance?" We might ask, how can we tell the willer from the will?)

The very idea that there is some kind of "is-ness" beyond what things do is an idea that should be ruthlessly attacked. When we are able to describe what things are made of and what they do, then we do know what they are, because they are nothing more than that, ultimately.

If you disagree with this, then you'll have to explain why you think there is some "is-ness" apart from what stuff is made out of and what stuff does.


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 456
15/10/2012 3:37 pm  
"Erwin" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
But when you take the whole of his work into consideration

Then don't do that. Only take into accounts the parts that deal with Thelema.

But the whole of his work (after his acceptance of his Prophethood) deals with Thelema.

"Erwin" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
Now, the point you are missing, and the point I think Lutz and some of the others here are trying to get you to grasp, is that while it's perfectly true that Thelema doesn't require anyone to venture into these areas, IF PEOPLE DO, then there is Thelemic instruction that deals with those areas.

So what? People can balance beachballs on their noses in the following of Thelema, if they want to, and anyone could concoct some "Thelemic instruction" for that. It wouldn't make balancing beachballs on your nose a part of Thelema.

Well the "so what" is that "Crowley's Thelema" does happen to include beachball-balancing Thelemic instruction, and you are laughably, ludicrously wrong to deny that it does.  You are perfectly within your rights to deny the relevance of the beachball-balancing stuff to your own life, and your own understanding of Thelema, but you are being pants-on-head-retarded if you deny that it's part of "Crowley's Thelema". 

That's always been the only issue here: nobody has any problem with your understanding of Thelema, a lot of people have a problem with you palming off your understanding of Thelema as being identical with Crowley's understanding of Thelema, or as being some sort of true and accurate representation of Crowley's Thelema.

"Erwin" wrote:
"gurugeorge" wrote:
For example: what do you think you are?  What are the "nature and powers" of your own being?  The answer you will get, going by some particular premise about who you are, will partly determine what "Will" means.  If you think you are a distinct and separate physical entity in a physical universe, that the mind is an epiphenomenon, etc., then an investigation into your True Will will give you one kind of answer.  However, if you are a mystic, and you think that what you really are is the Universe, then an investigation into the True Will will give you another type of answer, in which the first type of answer may be nested (under some appropriate logical transformation, as "illusory").

Sorry, but what the True Will is isn't contingent on your views about the universe. You might be thinking about Wicca.

But it is contingent, and obviously so.  Even in an ordinary sense, an investigation into one's True Will as a callow youth would be different from an investigation into one's True Will as an experienced adult, because one's sense of one's self and the world (of what they respectively are) would have changed.  The difference would be even more marked when one takes into consideration mystical and magickal experience.

Now, of course, it's quite true that public claims must be subject to rational proof standards; but when it comes to one's own experience, what one is convinced by or not, there is no such requirement.  The field is free for experimentation.

Now, it so happens, that Crowley was experienced in both those areas (mysticism and magick) and part of his work is about Thelemic instruction in those areas (i.e. instruction as to what the True Will, and the search for it, might mean in that expanded context).

You are free to ignore that expanded context, but you are not free to claim that "Crowley's Thelema" doesn't include that expanded context.

You have "Erwin's Thelema", which is a subset of "Crowley's Thelema".  Be happy with that, it's fine, you don't need to semi-cling to Crowley's authority by claiming "Erwin's Thelema" is "Crowley's Thelema".  Cut loose!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2012 3:43 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I wouldn't say that I'm denying that the concepts are "substantial." The gods of Thelema are -- and indeed the gods of any mythology can be read as -- metaphors, which means they symbolize and point to something real.
"Los" wrote:
What things "really are" is what they do.

The point of mine was, that even if we happen to learn all the processes and constant laws of governing (physical) phenomena, our existential situation towards it has not changed even the tiniest bit.
This phenomena is compelled to act under certain laws, but these laws are nothing more than differential functions, integrals and some abstract entities of algebra, of which we cannot be said to have any intuitive image or a concept - they are nothing more than mere instruments of calculations. Terms like "Energy" or "Mass" are nothing more but verbal symbols.

And even after gaining all this knowledge of this phenomena, our relationship with it has not changed the tiniest bit.
Some people might now think that "But we have harnessed it for our use!" and point out few of the latest technological advancements, but I still maintain the stance that our existential relation to this phenomena has not changed. One can talk of Quantum field theory of curved space, but he still cannot escape the influence of Time.

I am not against scientific thought, but one should see how it petrifies nature itself to mute, dead appearances and makes modern man even more clueless than our primitive ancestors when faced with all phenomena he may perceive around him.
These dead appearances now make room only for the aesthetic and lyrical emotions of the poets, artists and musicians, but these experiences have no scientific or metaphysical value, since they are nothing more than subjective experiences of those people. Gods of any pantheon become useless fetishes of deranged men.

"Los" wrote:
If you disagree with this, then you'll have to explain why you think there is some "is-ness" apart from what stuff is made out of and what stuff does.

I have no idea. I am clueless.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 4:03 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
But the whole of [Crowley's] work (after his acceptance of his Prophethood) deals with Thelema.

No, it doesn't. We can find lots of things he wrote about lots of other subjects unrelated to Thelema. Look at Magick Without Tears, for example, where he writes essays on all sorts of topics other than Thelema (including some essays on aspects of Thelema).


ReplyQuote
Page 5 / 7
Share: