Cleansing & cha...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Cleansing & charging a new Lapis Lazuli & silver ring  

Page 6 / 7
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 4:08 pm  
"ayino" wrote:
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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "existential situation" or why we would want to change this "situation." But you were claiming that things are somehow more than what they are made of and what they do. I was suggesting that you don't have sufficient evidence to make that claim. And indeed, I was right, as you freely admit: for when I ask you why you think this, you respond honestly with "I don't know."

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.

But those experiences have value to the individual, which is the whole point. "Value" is an entirely individual phenomenon to begin with. Something doesn't acquire more value by being a "real" god or "real" magick. Individuals value things that they, subjectively, deem valuable.

Now maybe you wish that wasn't the case, but that's a different question.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
15/10/2012 5:13 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "existential situation" or why we would want to change this "situation." But you were claiming that things are somehow more than what they are made of and what they do. I was suggesting that you don't have sufficient evidence to make that claim. And indeed, I was right, as you freely admit: for when I ask you why you think this, you respond honestly with "I don't know."
"Los" wrote:
Now maybe you wish that wasn't the case, but that's a different question.

To make myself clear on this point, I insist that the rational knowledge can no way extend beyond the realm of generalities and cannot by itself reach any transcendent truth or touch Reality itself in any form.

It is like linking intelligence to reason or linking intellection to logic, cause and effect have been reduced to the same thing.

It's not that I would favor irrational for the sake of irrational, or because of some obscure hope that I wish the world to be any different than it is, but because I somehow acknowledge the superiority of supra-rational, even though it might remain as a nothing more than a mere possibility for me.

Edit: I now part from this conversation & thread. It has been an interesting read, but I am absolutely sure we will soon reach page 50 and no one has learned a thing  ;D


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 8:16 pm  
"ayino" wrote:
To make myself clear on this point, I insist that the rational knowledge can no way extend beyond the realm of generalities and cannot by itself reach any transcendent truth or touch Reality itself in any form.

Well, how do you know that there is such a thing as "transcendent truth" or "Reality (capital R)"?

Either you have knowledge of such a thing -- which means that your reason figured it out -- or you don't have knowledge of it, and you're just guessing or engaging in wishful thinking.

I somehow acknowledge the superiority of supra-rational

Somehow...how? How do you know there is such a thing? Or what makes you think it's even remotely likely to exist? Again, you either think this on the basis of some evidence, or you're just engaging in wishful thinking.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
15/10/2012 9:18 pm  
"Los" wrote:
Either you have knowledge of such a thing -- which means that your reason figured it out -- or you don't have knowledge of it, and you're just guessing or engaging in wishful thinking.

There's a medium for knowledge other than reason. It's called intuition.

"Los" wrote:
Somehow...how? How do you know there is such a thing? Or what makes you think it's even remotely likely to exist? Again, you either think this on the basis of some evidence, or you're just engaging in wishful thinking.

Clearly for you there cannot be such a thing as the supra-rational. Some others don't wear your blinkers.

We come down again to the fact that others have different criteria for assessing their experience than you. Sure, you don't like that, and regard it as invalid; tough. I prefer to assess my experience in terms of my criteria, rather than your criteria. It may be that the poster feels similarly.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 9:29 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
We come down again to the fact that others have different criteria for assessing their experience than you.

As I was trying to express with you earlier in the thread, experiences are subjective (in the sense of arising in the mind of a single individual), but conclusions about experiences -- and the criteria one uses to reach those conclusions -- don't have to be subjective (in the other sense, of being colored by personal bias). In fact, we can rationally arrive at criteria to evaluate conclusions that are objective (in the second sense, of being as uncolored as is possible by personal bias), despite the fact that the experiences about which the conclusions are reached are subjective (in the first sense, of being experiences contained entirely in the mind of a single person).

You haven't addressed this point yet. You obviously are under no obligation to address the points I make, but if you're interested in having an exchange of points of view -- as you claim to be -- then addressing the point would indeed exchange points of view. So I ask again: do you disagree with my above paragraph? If you do, where and why?


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
15/10/2012 10:35 pm  

93, Los!

"Los" wrote:
don't have to be subjective (in the other sense, of being colored by personal bias). In fact, we can rationally arrive at criteria to evaluate conclusions that are objective

What you just wrote is easy to agree with, because you just wrote (I took the liberty to highlight it) that they (the conclusions) don't have to be subjective and we can arrive at objective conclusions (whatever this is). You are right (probably), but this also means that conclusions can be subjective and we don't have to arrive at objective conclusions. So where is there a *point*? Can you clarify that?

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
15/10/2012 10:49 pm  
"Los" wrote:
experiences are subjective [...] but conclusions about experiences [...] don't have to be subjective [...] we can rationally arrive at criteria to evaluate conclusions that are objective

A subjective experience creating an objective conclusion... qualified as, "being as uncolored as is possible by personal bias"... but the thing you are using to come to this "uncolored conclusion", it's very function is to color what it thinks it experiences, by using the colors (biases) it has used in order to color past experiences (presuppositions), and that coloring is the conclusion it arrives at.

On presuppositions, see underlined content.
On objective creation, see bold content.

"<a wrote:
This Book explains the Universe.

The elements are Nuit— Space— that is, the total of possibilities of every kind— and Hadit, any point which has experience of these possibilities. (This idea is for literary convenience symbolized by the Egyptian Goddess Nuit, a woman bending over like the Arch of the Night Sky. Hadit is symbolized as a Winged Globe at the heart of Nuit.)

Every event is a uniting of some one monad with one of the experiences possible to it.

“Every man and every woman is a star,” that is, an aggregate of such experiences, constantly changing with each fresh event, which affects him or her either consciously or subconsciously.

Each one of us has thus an universe of his own, but it is the same universe for each one as soon as it includes all possible experience. This implies the extension of consciousness to include all other consciousness.

In our present stage, the object that you see is never the same as the one that I see; we infer that it is the same because your experience tallies with mine on so many points that the actual differences of our observation are negligible. For instance, if a friend is walking between us, you see only his left side, I his right; but we agree that it is the same man, although we may differ not only as to what we may see of his body but as to what we know of his qualities. This conviction of identity grows stronger as we see him more often and get to know him better. Yet all the time neither of us can know anything of him at all beyond the total impression made on our respective minds.

The above is an extremely crude attempt to explain a system which reconciles all existing schools of philosophy.

For "aggregate", see The Five Skandhas.

If we are both looking at the same tree, you are using whatever knowledge you have in order to look and say it is a tree, at X/Y coordinates in space-time, etc. I also am using whatever knowledge I have in order to look and say it is a tree, at X/Y coordinates in space-time.

The fact that we can both agree it is the same tree is only relevant when it comes to interaction within society (read: mind). If we want to eat fruit from that particular tree at the same time, we both have to agree it is the same tree, and that we both want to eat fruit from it. That is all.

With that social agreement that we are looking at the same object completely out of the picture, a further perspective is born. The object "tree" is the same. But take that out of the picture.

When you go to look at it, everything that is "you", all of your knowledge, and the events that have led to the culminating point of you looking at anything at all, is involved in looking.

When I am looking, everything that is "me", all of my knowledge, and the events that have led to the culminating point of me looking at anything at all, is involved in looking.

Each one of us then translates what we think we see by means of our prior knowledge. We use that knowledge to determine what we are looking at.

Without that knowledge, there is no way of determining anything about what it is we are looking at. Knowledge itself is a divisive (or dualistic) phenomenon. To say it is a tree means also that it is not everything that is not a tree, for example.

So in order to interact 'sanely and intelligently' with the object we call "tree", we have to have a knowledge about it. But, it is the knowledge that is interacting with its idea of an object, mind interacting with its own ideas. And it is the knowledge (read: mind) that forces the body to follow and interact with itself, the knowledge of a "self" interacting with the knowledge of the tree object. Eventually, the mind may convince the body to go eat the fruit from the tree. Then, the body goes over like a little puppet, takes a fruit from the tree, and eats it. This is slavery.

However, through all of that, there are two types of changes.

1. The constant change of the universe.
2. The changing of your perception, as you use the knowledge you have to determine what the thing is and what to do with it.

The first change, that of the universe, is completely unaffected unless the body actually moves and does something to or with the tree. That is action.

The second change, that of the perception or mind, has no effect on the changing universe until it forces the body to move and do it's dirty work.

The first change is natural. The second change is created by thought, in an attempt to mimic the workings of the universe, in an effort to provide a sense of continuity for itself.

""Daodejing Chapter 37" wrote:
The Tao does nothing,
yet leaves nothing undone.

If powerful men and women
could center themselves in it,
the whole world would be transformed by itself, in its natural rhythms.

People would be content
with their simple, everyday lives,
in harmony, and free of desire.
When life is simple,
pretenses fall away;
our essential nature shines through.

When there is no desire,
all things are at peace.
When there is silence,
one finds the anchor of the universe
within oneself.

The whole call for "Pure Will" is a call to remove "change 2", the hold of the mind over the body, the illusion of self-continuity, in favor of the continuity of existence that is already there. One can not even come close to "Pure Will" (metaphorically), until the emancipation from thought occurs.

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.

ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
15/10/2012 10:56 pm  
"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
93, Los!

"Los" wrote:
don't have to be subjective (in the other sense, of being colored by personal bias). In fact, we can rationally arrive at criteria to evaluate conclusions that are objective

What you just wrote is easy to agree with, because you just wrote (I took the liberty to highlight it) that they (the conclusions) don't have to be subjective and we can arrive at objective conclusions (whatever this is). You are right (probably), but this also means that conclusions can be subjective and we don't have to arrive at objective conclusions. So where is there a *point*? Can you clarify that?

I thought it was fairly clear that conclusions that are entirely subjective (second sense, colored by personal bias) are conclusions that are less likely to be true and that everyone -- including the guy making them about his own subjective (first sense, arising in the mind) experiences -- has less reason to accept as true.

Once more, the guy who has the subjective (first sense, arising in his mind) experience of hearing voices might reach the subjective (second sense, colored by personal biases) conclusion that these voices are caused by aliens beaming messages into his brain. But rational discussion will reveal that his criteria for accepting that claim is flawed and that objective (second sense, as uncolored as possible by personal bias) inquiry will reveal that hearing voices is insufficient evidence for supporting the claim.


ReplyQuote
the_real_simon_iff
(@the_real_simon_iff)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1836
15/10/2012 11:12 pm  

Los, 93!

What you are writing (and of course you cannot claim more) is "less likely" and "less reason". This alone is vague enough. But your claim that "rational discussion will reveal that his criteria for accepting that claim is flawed" is just a claim. In one example (the reception of the Book of the Law) it doesn't even help because rational discussion revealed that two people (Aleister and Rose) were hearing the same things. You either accept this or you say Crowley is a liar, because rational discussion between those two people hearing the same things did not show that one of them was hallucinating, when they heard the same (Rose was filling in missing words).

What you are saying is that rational discussion will reveal this and that before this rational discussion even has taken place, so it's just what you think rational discussion will reveal, and nothing more.

You have to be more precise, I guess.

Love=Law
Lutz


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/10/2012 12:06 am  

Scientific theories of the near-death experience
near-death experiences explained

"The fact that near-death experiences can be chemically induced and explained by neurological mechanisms suggests a natural -- instead of supernatural -- cause."

Chemical reactions in the body and brain, that are different than what the mind (or 'self') is used to. Since these reactions are "foreign" to the mind, the mind gives them an image of something foreign.

One could argue that Aiwass, Crowley's "HGA", an "illuminated being" (recall Aiwass as 10=1), was merely Crowley's own body beginning the loosening process that would eventually lead him beyond the Abyss of knowledge. Since it would have been foreign to his mind (knowledge/mind), and he was trained in 'the occult', then it makes sense that the impressions would have appeared to him as such. Thus, we get "Aiwass" described as being a tall man, standing behind him, with a booming voice, etc (or whatever, find the quote).

Of course, Crowley maintained:

"Aiwass wrote:
Crowley went to great pains to argue that Aiwass was an objectively separate being from himself, possessing far more knowledge than he or any other human could possibly have. As Crowley writes in his Confessions: "I was bound to admit that Aiwass had shown a knowledge of the Cabbala immeasurably superior to my own"[3] and "We are forced to conclude that the author of The Book of the Law is an intelligence both alien and superior to myself, yet acquainted with my inmost secrets; and, most important point of all, that this intelligence is discarnate."[4] Finally, this excerpt (also from Confessions, ch.49):

    "The existence of true religion presupposes that of some discarnate intelligence, whether we call him God or anything else. And this is exactly what no religion had ever proved scientifically. And this is what The Book of the Law does prove by internal evidence, altogether independent of any statement of mine. This proof is evidently the most important step in science that could possibly be made: for it opens up an entirely new avenue to knowledge. The immense superiority of this particular intelligence, AIWASS, to any other with which mankind has yet been in conscious communication is shown not merely by the character of the book itself, but by the fact of his comprehending perfectly the nature of the proof necessary to demonstrate the fact of his own existence and the conditions of that existence. And, further, having provided the proof required."[4]

However, Crowley also spoke of Aiwass in symbolic terms. In The Law is for All,[5] he goes on at length in comparison to various other deities and spiritual concepts, but most especially to The Fool. For example, he writes of Aiwass: "In his absolute innocence and ignorance he is The Fool; he is the Saviour, being the Son who shall trample on the crocodiles and tigers, and avenge his father Osiris. Thus we see him as the Great Fool of Celtic legend, the Pure Fool of Act I of Parsifal, and, generally speaking, the insane person whose words have always been taken for oracles."

Perhaps more importantly, Crowley later identified Aiwass as his own personal Holy Guardian Angel and more. Again from Equinox of the Gods: "I now incline to believe that Aiwass is not only the God once held holy in Sumer, and mine own Guardian Angel, but also a man as I am, insofar as He uses a human body to make His magical link with Mankind, whom He loves, and that He is thus an Ipsissimus, the Head of the A.'.A.'."[6]

Recall:

"Ipsissimus wrote:
(10°=1□): Beyond the comprehension of the lower degrees. An Ipsissimus is free from limitations and necessity and lives in perfect balance with the manifest universe. Essentially, the highest mode of attainment. This grade corresponds to Kether on the Tree of Life. Ipsissimus is quite hard to translate directly from Latin to English, but it is essentially the superlative of "self", translating rather approximately to "His most Selfness," or "self-est." (c.f. generalissimo for the same superlative form in use for a grade from same Latin root.)

Crowley named as a condition of this grade the trance Nirodha-samapatti,[15] which reduces heartbeat and other life functions to the bare minimum.[original research?] Theravada Buddhist monks traditionally attain nirodha-samapatti by producing the aforementioned Formless States one after the other, and perceiving in each what they call the Three Characteristics of all existence: sorrow or tendency towards sorrow, change or unreliability, and insubstantiality or lack of self.[16] Crowley and the A∴A∴ however seek to replace this threefold view with the quest for balance as both a motive for discipline and the means of achieving their end goal.[17] In Liber B vel Magi they urge the Magus seeking further progress to identify the Buddhist Three Characteristics with the opposite states. "Wherein Sorrow is Joy, and Change is Stability, and Selflessness is Self." Crowley's version of nirodha includes "seeing first the truth and then the falsity of the Three Characteristics" according to his published theory[18] -- in other words, he uses the goal of Theravada to aid in the joyous affirmation of the Eternal return.

The Ipsissimus should keep the achievement of this final grade secret even from the rest of the Order and continue with the work of the Magus, while expressing the nature of an Ipsissimus in word and deed.[19]


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/10/2012 12:17 am  

I have finally read through this entire thread and it has, indeed, devolved into the same boring bickering bullshit that I knew it would.  It went entirely off-topic.  This is why I left, in the first place.  Instead of ruining threads, Los and Erwin, START YOUR OWN!  Goddamn, this is ridiculous!  Reading through the thread became a chore, a tedious task, no longer enjoyable and fun. 

It's like you people are host to some vampiric force, preying upon innocent, young threads.  The Venom of your bite mutating them into the same grotesquely uninteresting, off topic form.  We are left with bloated, barely recognizable corpses, which litter the forum floor, and its starting to stink up the place.  You have been making a mess of off-topic and argumentative threads around here for years.  Its embarrassing to look around the forums and see all of them.  Frankly, its just bad manners, fellas. 


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4948
16/10/2012 12:43 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
One could argue that Aiwass, Crowley's "HGA", an "illuminated being" (recall Aiwass as 10=1), was merely Crowley's own body beginning the loosening process that would eventually lead him beyond the Abyss of knowledge. Since it would have been foreign to his mind (knowledge/mind), and he was trained in 'the occult', then it makes sense that the impressions would have appeared to him as such. Thus, we get "Aiwass" described as being a tall man, standing behind him, with a booming voice, etc (or whatever, find the quote).

In at least one place, Perdurabo tells us that the Angel is (of course) part of us and is our own higher nature, but that it is more convenient to assume that s/he is an independent, external being.


ReplyQuote
Shiva
(@shiva)
Not a Rajah
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 4948
16/10/2012 12:46 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
I have finally read through this entire thread ...

Good Lord, man!  Are you daft?
Is there anything we can do to help you?


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/10/2012 1:25 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
One could argue that Aiwass, Crowley's "HGA", an "illuminated being" (recall Aiwass as 10=1), was merely Crowley's own body beginning the loosening process that would eventually lead him beyond the Abyss of knowledge. Since it would have been foreign to his mind (knowledge/mind), and he was trained in 'the occult', then it makes sense that the impressions would have appeared to him as such. Thus, we get "Aiwass" described as being a tall man, standing behind him, with a booming voice, etc (or whatever, find the quote).

In at least one place, Perdurabo tells us that the Angel is (of course) part of us and is our own higher nature, but that it is more convenient to assume that s/he is an independent, external being.

This reminds me of Liber LXV, Chapter 1:

"Liber LXV wrote:
3. For the colours are many, but the light is one.
4. Therefore thou writest that which is of mother of emerald, and of lapis-lazuli, and of turquoise, and of alexandrite.
5. Another writeth the words of topaz, and of deep amethyst, and of gray sapphire, and of deep sapphire with a tinge as of blood.
6. Therefore do ye fret yourselves because of this.
7. Be not contented with the image.
8. I who am the Image of an Image say this.
9. Debate not of the image, saying Beyond! Beyond!
10. One mounteth unto the Crown by the moon and by the Sun, and by the arrow, and by the Foundation, and by the dark home of the stars from the black earth.
11. Not otherwise may ye reach unto the Smooth Point.
12. Nor is it fitting for the cobbler to prate of the Royal matter. O cobbler! mend me this shoe, that I may walk. O king! if I be thy son, let us speak of the Embassy to the King thy Brother.
13. Then was there silence. Speech had done with us awhile.

ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/10/2012 1:28 am  
"Shiva" wrote:
"N.O.X" wrote:
I have finally read through this entire thread ...

Good Lord, man!  Are you daft?
Is there anything we can do to help you?

"Daft"?  No, just exasperated with all this.  Its gone from consecrating rings to the nature of Aiwass.  ::)

"Is there anything we can do to help you?" Nope!  Nothing, now.  Just carry on, until this thread gets locked.  Its already too far gone to be saved, anyway.

It sucks having a conversation interrupted by some off-topic post, doesn't it?  With that, I shall take my leave, into the Darkest Shadows to shine the Brightest Light.  Until next time, folks, I bid you a fond farewell.  Now, I will leave you all to your ever-shifting discussion, with my best wishes, and high hopes that someone, sometime, might gain something useful from all this strangeness.

N.O.X, out.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/10/2012 1:45 am  
"N.O.X" wrote:
With that, I shall take my leave, into the Darkest Shadows to shine the Brightest Light.  Until next time, folks, I bid you a fond farewell.  Now, I will leave you all to your ever-shifting discussion, with my best wishes, and high hopes that someone, sometime, might gain something useful from all this strangeness.

See you tomorrow.  🙂


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
16/10/2012 2:30 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
We come down again to the fact that others have different criteria for assessing their experience than you.

Duh! No one has been disputing this.

The case is only being made that your reasoning is faulty. For the same reasons that Christians are wrong about what they believe.

You have every right to believe the way you do. Just don't expect that the evolving world will continue to take you seriously.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
this also means that conclusions can be subjective and we don't have to arrive at objective conclusions.

This doesn't change the fact that objective conclusions are reached, and that some people are just wrong.

I'm sure that racist people have criteria with which they judge that they are right. Also, sexist, and homophobic people. People who want to believe in spacemen. Most the time these perspectives are arrived at because of the type of unprogressive thinking which you guys are defending. Time eventually reveals that these beliefs are pointless and potentially dangerous. It's the kind of thinking that eventually restricts and limits personal liberty. A theme very consistent with thelema.

Honestly now, this thread is just going in circles... and if you're really so worried about future threads becoming so compromised, why don't you guys just concede? Or is it too much to realize that everything your base your entire life on might just be a house of cards?

I see this all the time. I used to live in Salt Lake City, and Mormons are just about the worst religious apologists out there.

"the_real_simon_iff" wrote:
You either accept this or you say Crowley is a liar

I'll say it. I personally think he was lying about this particular event. No one has proved this (yet), but when it comes down to it, there is ultimately good reason to assume that it was a fabrication, or that he exaggerated about how the events took place.

It could just be that what he wrote in the equinox of the gods, and confessions is nothing more than propaganda to prop up his agenda. It's pretty well documented that Crowley was a prolific liar. There is no reason for you to accept the story the way that he wrote it. Bringing up Rose is a moot point because she left no evidence to corroborate his claims.

Now we are definitely getting off topic...


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/10/2012 3:29 am  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
Or is it too much to realize that everything your base your entire life on might just be a house of cards?

On neither "side" here, but do you not understand how reason itself is a house of cards, no matter how it is applied?


ReplyQuote
gurugeorge
(@gurugeorge)
Member
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 456
16/10/2012 4:03 am  
"Los" wrote:
"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).

"Work" doesn't refer to every jot or tittle he wrote, obviously; it refers to anything that might be considered "teaching".  After accepting Liber AL, and even more after his time in the States, his whole life was aimed at teaching and promulgating the Law of Thelema.

So, again, the point is that his teaching certainly includes as its lowest common denominator a rational teaching suitable for the man on the Clapham Omnibus, there's a huge chunk of his teaching that pertains to the discovery of the True Will in an expanded context that includes both mystical and magickal experience.

Hence, as Lutz correctly says, it isn't necessary for anybody to get into the magickal and mystical stuff to practice Thelema.  However, if you do start experimenting with magickal and mystical stuff, there is Thelemic teaching there waiting for you, that will help you discover the "nature and powers" of your own being, and thence your True Will, in that expanded context.

And, like it or not, that's "Crowley's Thelema".


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/10/2012 5:48 am  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
So, again, the point is that his teaching certainly includes as its lowest common denominator a rational teaching suitable for the man on the Clapham Omnibus, there's a huge chunk of his teaching that pertains to the discovery of the True Will in an expanded context that includes both mystical and magickal experience.

Certain kinds of experience, perhaps, but not belief in the supernatural.

Crowley's magical instructions are aimed at generating experiences. Those experiences can be used in the service of Thelema. But Crowley was consistent -- emphatic -- on the point that one should be skeptical about beliefs about those experiences.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/10/2012 5:54 am  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
I'm sure that racist people have criteria with which they judge that they are right. Also, sexist, and homophobic people. People who want to believe in spacemen. Most the time these perspectives are arrived at because of the type of unprogressive thinking which you guys are defending. Time eventually reveals that these beliefs are pointless and potentially dangerous. It's the kind of thinking that eventually restricts and limits personal liberty. A theme very consistent with thelema.

This is an excellent point. "I've just got my own criteria for judging these things!" is the cry of every nutbar, racist, and weirdo this side of eternity.

Obviously, Christians disagree with me because they've got their "own criteria" for coming to conclusions. Equally obviously, Muslims disagree with me because they've got their "own criteria" for coming to conclusions. Members of the American "Tea Party" movement disagree with me because they've got their "own criteria" for coming to conclusions. People who believe in "auras" disagree with me because they've got their "own criteria" for coming to conclusions. Etc., etc., etc.

It's altogether pretty ridiculous to try to pretend that there is no objective (in the sense of being "as free as possible from personal bias") criteria for arriving at conclusions, even conclusions about experiences that are subjective (in the other sense, of "arising entirely in one individual's consciousness").


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/10/2012 12:54 pm  
"gurugeorge" wrote:
But the whole of his work (after his acceptance of his Prophethood) deals with Thelema.

No, it doesn't. This is erroneous wishful thinking on your part. Perhaps you're confusing Thelema with Crowleyanity. Either way, the evidence trumps your tedious arguments from personal belief, so unless you have something better I have no inclination to yet again revisit this tired old canard of yours.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
16/10/2012 12:55 pm  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
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.

Some more of your own advice you should be taking.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
16/10/2012 2:46 pm  

"experiences are subjective (in the sense of arising in the mind of a single individual), but conclusions about experiences -- and the criteria one uses to reach those conclusions -- don't have to be subjective (in the other sense, of being colored by personal bias). In fact, we can rationally arrive at criteria to evaluate conclusions that are objective (in the second sense, of being as uncolored as is possible by personal bias), despite the fact that the experiences about which the conclusions are reached are subjective (in the first sense, of being experiences contained entirely in the mind of a single person)."

I disagree. These so-called "objective conclusions" are of the same nature as the so-called "subjective experience." They are limited, conditioned and created by the mind. Through this cumulative process arises what Michael calls "Criteria." In Thelema, criteria is related to the True Will-and such criteria addresses every veil of the mind-construct as it is wrapped about or emanating from that Will. There is no universal criteria of "Reason" as much as the function we label as "Reason" is adapted to the True Will.

Even this perspective is such for myself at this point in Spacetime: an observing, relating, engaging thought process spiraling upwards from the Central Sun of my Will. However, Every Man and Every Woman is a Star-and we do not follow the same orbital course.

Moving within this process, we determine, for ourselves, how effective our methods are, ranging from evidence-based reasoning to intuition and impulse. The approach here is both an art and science and these two have many blending points within the human psyche. Danger is to “confuse the planes” but avoiding confusion does not mean resisting FUSION.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/10/2012 5:26 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I disagree. These so-called "objective conclusions" are of the same nature as the so-called "subjective experience."

The process of coming to conclusions is indeed subjective (in the sense of the first definition, “arising entirely within the consciousness of one individual”). But the conclusions themselves do not have to be subjective (in the sense of the second definition, “colored by personal bias”).

You’re getting yourself mixed up because there are two entirely different and unrelated meanings that we use one word (“subjective”) to indicate.

The first definition is “arising entirely in the consciousness of a single individual.” All experience – including the experience of coming to conclusions – is “subjective” in this sense.

The second definition is “colored by personal bias,” and it applies primarily to conclusions themselves. Not all conclusions are subjective in this sense. By "personal bias," I'm specifically talking about arbitrarily introducing ideas not in evidence and leaping to conclusions not justified by evidence.

The word “objective” also has two entirely separate meanings, which correspond to the two meanings of “subjective.”

The first meaning of “objective” is “existing independently of the consciousness of any single individual.” This sense of the word applies primarily to (surprise, surprise) objects of reality. In this sense of the word, my personal experiences are “subjective,” but the light I leave on in my house and forget about and is still on when I get home is “objective” (even though the only information I can receive about this thing is through my subjective [in the first sense] experience).

The second meaning of “objective” is “as uncolored as possible by personal bias.” This sense of the word applies primarily to conclusions.

As an illustrative example – to go back to the one I’ve been using – let’s say that a guy hears voices, and he concludes, “Wow! Aliens must be beaming messages into my brain.” This is a totally subjective experience (in the first sense), but the conclusion that he gives above is also subjective (in the second sense): it’s colored by alien fantasies not justified by the evidence.

An objective (second sense) analysis of his conclusion would reveal that there is insufficient evidence to claim that the presence of voices means that aliens are beaming messages into his brain.

There is no universal criteria of "Reason"

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say: there certainly is objective criteria for evaluating factual claims.

For example, the claim “aliens are beaming messages into my brain” is – objectively, in the second sense – sufficient but not necessary (as an explanation of the phenomenon under discussion). As such, based solely on the evidence presented, an individual cannot (validly) accept the claim.

That’s an objective conclusion because it does not matter what I (or anyone else) personally think about aliens: we can’t (validly) accept a sufficient but unnecessary cause without evidence that suggests it’s operating in this situation.

In the same way, if I lose my keys, I can’t say, “Well, that means that aliens must have taken them.” Aliens taking my keys would be a sufficient explanation (it certainly would cause me to lose the keys), but it’s not necessary: there’s nothing about the evidence that even remotely suggests it’s likely at all.

This is objective (second sense), universal criteria for analyzing this kind of claim.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/10/2012 5:59 pm  
"Los" wrote:
People who believe in "auras" disagree with me

Are you saying that you have never sensed the energy of a living organism?


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
16/10/2012 6:33 pm  

(This should be fun!)


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/10/2012 6:57 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
I disagree. These so-called "objective conclusions" are of the same nature as the so-called "subjective experience."

The process of coming to conclusions is indeed subjective (in the sense of the first definition, “arising entirely within the consciousness of one individual”). But the conclusions themselves do not have to be subjective (in the sense of the second definition, “colored by personal bias”).

You’re getting yourself mixed up because there are two entirely different and unrelated meanings that we use one word (“subjective”) to indicate.

The first definition is “arising entirely in the consciousness of a single individual.” All experience – including the experience of coming to conclusions – is “subjective” in this sense.

The second definition is “colored by personal bias,” and it applies primarily to conclusions themselves. Not all conclusions are subjective in this sense. By "personal bias," I'm specifically talking about arbitrarily introducing ideas not in evidence and leaping to conclusions not justified by evidence.

Quantum mechanics disagrees.

You are trying to illustrate a point about personal bias, but personal bias is created by presuppositions. It is those same presuppositions, that same knowledge, that gives us ideas of the world around us.

From the very beginning we are taught this. As soon as we are taught "this is my eye, this is my hand, etc", we are forming a knowledge base. That knowledge base is what we use to experience things in the world, past tense. Without that knowledge base, or some way to interpret events, we cannot experience anything.

As the knowledge base grows, preferences are created. One may prefer to sit on a soft chair instead of a hard one, or vice versa. These preferences create presuppositions. I presuppose, that is, determine by prior knowledge and experience, that the soft chair will be more comfortable than the hard one. And so, I go through my life only sitting on soft chairs, and harboring an aversion to hard ones. (I don't really. This is just an example.) The one who creates these biases and preferences is the thinker.

So when something comes into the field of knowledge, we use that knowledge to make determinations about it as it relates to our prior knowledge. If we cannot make a determination, we need more knowledge in the area concerning the thing that has come in.

Physics posits a point A and point B, where the path of an atom is C. They learned, over time, that they can learn the positioning of an atom (past tense - snap shot, where it was when they took the snap shot) as a distance on the path C between A and B. They learned that if an atom is so far away from A, and so close to B, it's position must have been D of C. Then, they learned that they can measure the velocity of an atom by measuring how quickly it goes from point A to B along C. It is interesting to note that using said model, it is impossible to know both position and velocity at the same time.

Quantum physics came along, and posited that points A and B really do not exist until we create them. Instead, it is an array. Instead of point A, there is array E,F,G,H and instead of point B there is array I,J,K,L. So the atom, at any time, can be moving from any part of the array to any part of the array. There is not set path to which the atom moves, or has to move. When we observe it, however, we observe it at a point, and call it A. We then observe it having moved to somewhere, and call that somewhere point B. When it is not being observed, both points A and B do not exist.

David Bohm Quantum theory versus Copenhagen Interpretation

So the mind creates its own version of reality, and the thinker colors it by picking and choosing various aspects of that reality to approach. The storehouse of choices in memory is the presuppositions, or biases.

The scientific method begins with a question. In order to formulate that question, whatever the question is, prior knowledge must be used (knowledge of language, etc.). From that question, a hypothesis is necessary, that thing Y acts in a certain way when observed, and not like thing Z. Then the testing begins.

With mind it is the same divisive process. It begins with "this is my hand, this is my nose, etc.". Saying, "this is my hand" is also saying "everything that is not this is not my hand", and that is a division. It goes all along until it comes to an identification of itself, saying, "this is my self" and also saying, "everything that is not this is not my self".

All of this is colored with presuppositions, choices made by the use of memory and past experience.

To view the world without any presuppositions whatsoever, requires an annihilation of the sense of duality. As long as the sense of duality is in place, bias will indeed be there, and it will continue to color our perceptions.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/10/2012 7:37 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
To view the world without any presuppositions whatsoever, requires an annihilation of the sense of duality.

You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.

I’m saying that conclusions – and we’re in the realms of knowledge, reason, and duality here – conclusions are more likely to be accurate when the process of evaluating evidence is as untainted as possible by assumptions not present in the evidence or by leaps of logic not justified by the evidence.

I think the word “bias” is throwing you for a loop. I am categorically not talking about the sum total of a person’s experience of the world. By “bias,” I am specifically designating assumptions not present in the evidence and leaps of logic not justified by the evidence.

What I’m saying only applies to the process of reaching conclusions. It takes place entirely within the realms of reason and duality.

In no sense am I suggesting that a person needs to be entirely free from all bias or free from duality in order to perform this process: I am suggesting that the evaluation process is most effective when it is – as best as possible – stripped of assumptions unwarranted by evidence and leaps of logic unwarranted by evidence.

I’m further saying that any reasonable third-party can review someone’s account of his or her evaluation process and determine whether the evaluation was sufficiently stripped of these assumptions and leaps of logic. This is still the case even if the evidence itself can only be observed by a single person, such as the voices in the head. It’s the evaluation process we’re talking about here.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
16/10/2012 8:42 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
To view the world without any presuppositions whatsoever, requires an annihilation of the sense of duality.

You’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.

I’m saying that conclusions – and we’re in the realms of knowledge, reason, and duality here – conclusions are more likely to be accurate when the process of evaluating evidence is as untainted as possible by assumptions not present in the evidence or by leaps of logic not justified by the evidence.

If you plan on making no assumptions about something, you are either assuming that you know all of the possible facts pertaining to it (impossible), or you are entering into the examination of something with the use of no prior knowledge, ie. the unknown. Instead of veering off into the "spooky unknown", a simple example of the unknown is the "Pepsi Challenge". Scenarios of this type usually begin with the thought, "What would happen if...", or "Would you be able to tell the difference if I..."

Of course, we try to mimic "entering the unknown" by withholding what we know. It is the equivalent of saying, "I'm going to hand you this hammer, and then put a blindfold on. Strike something with the hammer, and I will tell you whether or not you struck it with the hammer." Intentional blindness.

"Los" wrote:
I think the word “bias” is throwing you for a loop. I am categorically not talking about the sum total of a person’s experience of the world. By “bias,” I am specifically designating assumptions not present in the evidence and leaps of logic not justified by the evidence.

Then you are talking about bias or presuppositions. Any leap in logic, or attempt to fill in the gaps, can only be filled in with prior knowledge. This is not the way, and I think you may be suggesting something similar.

So you want to withhold your prior knowledge, try to examine something (a process which requires prior knowledge), and then not use your prior knowledge to to examine it, without filling in the gaps.

It is the equivalent of reading Buddhist sutras, then claiming enlightenment because you have memorized them all. But I don't think you are saying that. Heaven forbid we are only dealing with intellectual nuances. If so, I'm wasting my time on this thread.

This is a tricky subject, and I think a common reference point of the method you are describing my be found in Liber 73: The Urn. The Urn, for anyone who may not be aware, is Crowley's account of entry into the Grade of Magus. One interesting part of this Record, as was pointed out to me by a Brother due to my failure to make any significance of it, is his reference to Jung and Buddha. If you would like to use those references as an example, we can.

"Los" wrote:
What I’m saying only applies to the process of reaching conclusions. It takes place entirely within the realms of reason and duality.

In no sense am I suggesting that a person needs to be entirely free from all bias or free from duality in order to perform this process: I am suggesting that the evaluation process is most effective when it is – as best as possible – stripped of assumptions unwarranted by evidence and leaps of logic unwarranted by evidence.

I’m further saying that any reasonable third-party can review someone’s account of his or her evaluation process and determine whether the evaluation was sufficiently stripped of these assumptions and leaps of logic. This is still the case even if the evidence itself can only be observed by a single person, such as the voices in the head. It’s the evaluation process we’re talking about here.

I understand what you are saying with this. Assumptions are made all the time.

The crux of your point seems to be:

"Los" wrote:
if the evidence itself can only be observed by a single person, such as the voices in the head

To which I must ask this question, for clarity. The dialogue that goes on inside of you, the thinking process. You are the only one that can hear that. Since I cannot hear you thinking, do you think that myself, and others observing you, should evaluate that you have a neurological problem due to that?


ReplyQuote
MoogPlayer
(@moogplayer)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 86
16/10/2012 10:46 pm  

Azidonis is it really that hard to apprehend what Los is actually saying?

He has made a very masterful attempt at articulating this point in several ways, and you guys just don't get it.

Los, I'm sorry that your sharpened intellect is lost on all these people... but than again, we live in a world where people still accept that the bible has any intrinsic value. Sometimes I like to think that we are progressing past this bullshit, but all I have to do is turn on the tv, or read a news paper, or hop on a forum like this, to see that people are still firmly planted with their heads in the sand... and now we hear that it's apparently just because they like the view.

I'm going to go back to lurking until another interesting conversation comes up here. In the meantime I'll enjoy reading through the various Athiesm pages on Facebook; reminding myself that there are at least a small number of rationally thinking people out there.

In the meantime, I hope that everyone here believing in space men has had a chance to read the news this week. The Taliban shot a little girl for advocating education for women. You guys are aware of how this all started right? A long time ago, someone thought they were being talked to by a spaceman... what a world!

Edit- I'm not saying that any belief is right or wrong, or good or bad in the sense of making a values judgement... however, if we are honestly concerned with the progression and development of the human race, we need to start taking this into account.

Maybe it's not your will to take an interest in such a thing. Fine. Stick with your primitive thoughts and superstitious tendencies. Just don't be surprised when you get caught in the dust of all the people who are ready to move forward.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
16/10/2012 10:47 pm  
"Azidonis" wrote:
If you plan on making no assumptions about something

I’m not planning on that, nor am I proposing it.

I’m saying that when one evaluates a claim – and only when one is evaluating a claim – one must eliminate from the evaluation process (as best as possible) all assumptions unwarranted by the evidence and all leaps in logic unwarranted by the evidence.

As an example of what I mean, the guy who hears voices and concludes that aliens are beaming messages into his brain is making all sorts of leaps unwarranted by the evidence, and I say that if this guy shares with us his process of evaluating that evidence, then any reasonable person would look at his process and conclude that he is making leaps of logic unwarranted by the evidence.

What I’m saying has nothing to do with “never making an assumption”: it has everything to do with -- when in the process of evaluating a claim -- sticking with the evidence in a given case and only with the implications and conclusions that are justified by the evidence, that follow from the evidence.

Heaven forbid we are only dealing with intellectual nuances. If so, I'm wasting my time on this thread.

I have been talking entirely about the process of drawing conclusions from evidence, which is an entirely intellectual activity that takes place entirely within the realm of reason and duality. If you think I’m talking about something else, you’re mistaken.

The dialogue that goes on inside of you, the thinking process. You are the only one that can hear that. Since I cannot hear you thinking, do you think that myself, and others observing you, should evaluate that you have a neurological problem due to that?

I’m genuinely puzzled by this.

Obviously my thoughts can only be detected by me (purely subjective, in the first sense of arising entirely within the consciousness of one individual). On the basis of that evidence, I can  evaluate claims about my thoughts, including the claim that I suffer from some neurological problem that impairs my thinking. Based on the evidence that my thoughts are clear, I find insufficient evidence to support that claim. When I report my process of evaluating that claim, any impartial observer would agree that the presence of clear thoughts fails to support the claim I have a neurological problem.

Of course, in this particular case, it’s possible that if I have a neurological problem then I’m not properly observing the evidence, but luckily we don’t just have my account: we have the evidence of my writings (the products of my thought), which I think that any reasonable observer would conclude could not be the product of someone with a neurological disorder (at least, not a disorder serious enough to hamper the quality of my writing and expression).

The way to evaluate a claim like that -- or any other factual claim -- is to stick with just the evidence and what conclusions are justified by the evidence.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
17/10/2012 4:13 am  

Moog P-

Honestly, the Taliban didn't kill a girl because of "Spacemen."

It's interesting: those from "Space" have many conflicting messages. It reminds me of something a friend of mine once said: "Fuck the Masters on the Inner Plane. If they even exist, they're as screwed up THERE as we are HERE."

This comment makes me think of the statement in the movie White Noise (Michael Keaton) regarding communicating spirits: "They can't all be good-they can't all be bad."

Like our earthly connections, it takes a discriminating person to surround themselves with good company.

If I may oversimplify things: the Vudu Spirits I am connected to are against any animal sacrifice and the Typhonian Powers I work with are more Buddhist in their nature than anything else. 

"Belief in crazy shit" does not necessarily = "Destroying human lives."

Now, I am in full agreement that the Taliban are seriously sick. My own Inner Plane contacts inform me that there are erroneous beliefs held by this and many other groups, beliefs rooted in not understanding what the human being IS. I didn't become convinced of this because an Angel told me. It just so happens that my reason, my emotional nature and my overall Being hold views on this matter, views which link me to certain "forces" operating along the same lines.

I have observed certain "Thelemites" embracing Crowley's revelations with the same fanaticism as fundies do with the King James version of the Bible. For myself, despite how interesting Crowley's words are re: the transmission of AL, I am not satisfied with his "evidence." I need to go further-I need to contact this AIWASS myself! 

And so I did. Funny, he didn’t tell me I was the Prophet or give me some message to bend all Crowleyites to the “New Gematria.” But he DID appear. The “Spirit” was tested on a very obtuse mathematic problem and answered the inquiry in 3 different ways.

My point in sharing this is not to elicit mockery from the atheistic rationalist camp but to express something I think is important:

I’m not a blind follower of someone else’s revelation. Nor do I kneel down and
"comply" just because I think something is a "Spirit." I have practically gotten into fistfights with entities, including those who didn't bring the needed “evidence” to justify their own claims.

You can’t simply say “Belief in Spacemen” = the shit we are dealing with as we try to deal with each OTHER.

You may object that, even if it’s “harmless,” it’s still untrue and will lead to something bad. The “no spirits” atheism you seem to like can do the same thing. This is something we’ve discussed on these forums before, how ethics and morals relate to Thelema. Could it be my “True Will” to rape and murder? Could it be “success” for me to “get away with it,” adapting to my environment per MTP? There’s no “dread hereafter.” Can we get a cookie for Hannibal Lector?

So, it comes down to: am I deceiving myself? (it’s OK, Erwin-you don’t need to cut and paste the question and answer with a terse “Yes.”). 

Please note: I’ve just spoken about my contacts with AIWASS and (ahem) “Spacemen” but I’ve provided no details. I have these but I don’t feel in any way compelled to share them as a JUSTIFICATION of what I THINK. And I am happy to have my views on such things shattered. My personal occult voyage has been something of see-saw like that: it looks this way then BAM! It’s looks THIS way. Aha! And WHAM! I was wrong-I was right-no, I was wrong…

I’ve adopted the Robert Anton Wilson approach. I don’t “believe” in ANYTHING. I am a human being in time and space, experiencing and acting. My own nature leads me away from watching football and tv shows and into an incessant exploration of Being and Cosmos. Like you, I’m getting older each day and I anticipate that I’ll eventually kick it.

Do we both just blank out and there isn’t even oblivion because we can’t even assess this in our non-beingness?

If this is the case, it really doesn’t matter whether we shoot little girls or whatever. It all gets sucked into and purified through our Sun’s supernova. The end.

But I’m not clinging to some crazy idea which will help me cope with the possibility of what I just wrote.

I GET a lot of what Erwin and Los write. And it should be obvious that I have a perverse affection for both of them. These guys aren’t my enemies. Well, they kind of ARE on this site-but we all LIKE this. As Blake wrote “Opposition is True Friendship.” Yes, we sneer at each other and sometimes call names. Don’t expect this to go away anytime soon. But I’m very happy to be here on Lashtal and-quite honestly-I feel that Erwin has become an aspect of this site. (It’s OK, Mr. Hessle...you can call me a fruitloop soon enough. I’ve got my set of names for YOU! 🙂 )

My point with this obnoxiously long post?

Mohammed believed in “Spacemen.” Kyle “believes” in “Spacemen.” Kyle’s scriptures look NOTHING like Mohammed’s. It was CROWLEY who wrote that he was about to suck the egg of the Camel Thief of Mecca.  Kyle is more inclined to OM MANI  PADME HUM.

Moog-Los is a sharp guy. But his sharpness doesn’t cut the mustard for me. Don’t go praising and then seek refuge in Facebook Atheist Groups. Stick with us-in the cold water.

NOX is sick to death of all of this but I’m not. We’re punching each other for a purpose. And in the end, it’s not about who ends up on top. Wasn’t it Socrates who said “The unexamined life is not worth living?” We’re ALL “examining life.” And those of us on this thread (or the forums in general) are wanting this “examination process” to involve others.

Don’t bow out quite yet. Important questions have been raised, answers vary and there is a Lapis Lazuli ring to charge!

93,

Kyle


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
17/10/2012 5:06 am  
"Los" wrote:

Heaven forbid we are only dealing with intellectual nuances. If so, I'm wasting my time on this thread.

I have been talking entirely about the process of drawing conclusions from evidence, which is an entirely intellectual activity that takes place entirely within the realm of reason and duality. If you think I’m talking about something else, you’re mistaken.

Thanks for being specific on this. Enjoy talking about your illusion with yourself... or yelling it over and over again on the forums for years on end.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
17/10/2012 5:09 am  
"MoogPlayer" wrote:
Azidonis is it really that hard to apprehend what Los is actually saying?

He has made a very masterful attempt at articulating this point in several ways, and you guys just don't get it.

It's not that I don't understand what he is saying. He presents it as though it is the 'end-all-be-all' and it is most certainly not.

Unlike you though, Los at least recognizes the boundaries of his claims, though he doesn't like to admit them, and prefers to work within them. It's his choice, his cage.

You just hang onto his curtails like an ornament.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/10/2012 5:10 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
For myself, despite how interesting Crowley's words are re: the transmission of AL, I am not satisfied with his "evidence." I need to go further-I need to contact this AIWASS myself! 

And so I did. [...] he DID appear.

I don't doubt that you had this experience. It was a subjective experience (first definition, arising entirely in the consciousness of a single individual).

What I'm skeptical about are the conclusions you drew about this experience, particularly your conclusion that Aiwass "DID appear" (in the sense of Aiwass being a real being, the same real being that Crowley was supposedly in contact with, that really appeared to you). I don't think that the evidence you have sufficiently supports this claim: and -- if you report to us your process of evaluating this claim and the evidence for it -- we can examine whether your evidence sufficiently supports the claim, despite the fact that the evidence is only accessible to you.

It's precisely parallel to the point I was making about the guy who hears voices and then concludes "Well, that must be aliens beaming messages into my head." His experience is certainly real. But his conclusions about the experience are not accurate: we can tell this by examining his process of evaluating the claim and the evidence for the claim -- if and when he reports his evaluation to us.

Kyle, you haven't addressed what I've been saying about the distinction between experience and conclusions about experiences. Could you please address this point -- whether you agree or not and why -- and then indicate how your specific example of "contacting Aiwass" is a claim that you think is sufficiently supported by evidence (even if the evidence is only available to you)?

And before you try to say "I'm not making claims!" I'll point out that you just did, multiple times in your post. If you seriously think you "contacted Aiwass," in the sense of contacting a real being that Crowley was also in contact with, then that's a factual claim.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/10/2012 5:14 am  
"Azidonis" wrote:
Thanks for being specific on this. Enjoy talking about your illusion with yourself

So, just so we're all clear, you agree that when it comes to making and evaluating factual claims about the world -- entirely within the realms of reason and duality -- factual claims are more likely to be correct when the process of reaching them is stripped (as best as possible) of assumptions unwarranted by evidence and leaps of logic unwarranted by evidence?


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
17/10/2012 6:05 am  

Los-

Here is the scoop, my skeptical friend:

I was present during a situation where a tremendous stress was felt (both by myself and the medium involved here).

In response, I performed AC's Star Ruby and then went on to an impromptu evocation Aiwass.

Aiwass came (through the medium).

At one point, I though this is bullshit. I then asked (silently, with a poker face): give me proof. And furthermore, give me proof by giving me the formula of Pi-!

The medium then stopped (and you'll just have to trust me that my poker face was good). She said: "He says you want some kind of sign, some proof?" I acted casual. I was then given THREE different ways of expressing Pi.

The medium here? She has no idea what Pi even WAS-!

Now, does this tell me that Aiwass is "real?" No. But what it DOES tell me is that some weird shit went down (remember: this was not a "testing session"-there was a LOT more being communicated). 

This type of experience was not some isolated thing, either. I found that such results could and would occur again and again.

I am a cynic with regards to the "cold readings." As it happens, I know the medium intimately and can vouch for what she may or may not KNOW.

My conclusion: I don't have one. Maybe the two of us were somehow telepathically linked in that moment and there still is no god, no afterlife. It's just something that "brains do." Do you see? I am not attaching experience to a dogmatic statement!

BUT-! This experience pales in comparison to what I went on to experience. And just as I form conclusions based on my "physical encounters," so my adventures in the "Strange Universe" have chiseled my understanding of things.

I still look both ways before I cross the street. I deal daily, through my profession, with people who are delusional. All I can say is that when Crowley writes that he is convinced there is an order of beings independent of the human nervous system, I hear him. Crazy Crowley with his massive drugs and gargantuan intellect and extreme lifestyle...he went beyond the "polite" into the "mystery."

Los, it sounds like you and Erwin have it all wrapped up. You know what fools we are and you are in touch with Reality and the Ultimate. How does it feel? Or can you tell me ANYTHING about your present Rubicon and what troubles you the most?

If there's nothing: congrats, Ipsissismis. Sorry I can't join you. I got pulled in by this whole crazy Bodhisattva thing. So I'm sticking around in the world of illusion and occlusion.

We never had a quibble over "evidence." Kyle never believed in "Goblins" nor did he wear a "D & D" style Thelemic cloak. I never disagreed with the common sense approach you took (with it's objective 3rd parties and so on).

I simply couldn't stay within your worldview.

Your worldview is what it is. And MAGICK goes beyond it. If you want to interpret Magick-ala Crowley-as any intentional act, then please tell us how the last wad of toilet paper catching your skid-marks is "Magick." We'll all be impressed at the artfulness of the wipeage.

Well, all but ME in my ghost-spook-spirit world.

People on this site are not stupid. We GET all the "evidence" shit.

The question remains: can you get what WE are saying when it goes BEYOND this rational criteria?

Part of me thinks you CAN. After all, you're smart and you like Blake.

Another part of me thinks you're hopeless: You are afraid to swim out into those shark infested waters beyond the bounds of your reason.

I am really interested in what you have to say about this. Not from a debate standpoint but from a bloody personal standpoint.

Let's just say I agree with all your comments. Now, please tell me where you get torn to pieces and splatter onto the next initiatory gate.

-Kidney


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/10/2012 6:29 am  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
My conclusion: I don't have one.

Yes, you do. You said it earlier that Aiwass DID appear when you called him. That's a conclusion about what the experience was.

If you're now taking that back and saying that you've been claiming all along something like, "Gee, it was just some weird shit, and I don't really know what it was...maybe it was Aiwass or maybe it was something telepathic or maybe something else," then I never would have challenged such an honest declaration of "I don't know."

I even anticipated this move above ("And before you try to say "I'm not making claims!" I'll point out that you just did, multiple times in your post"). You've already made a claim about what you thought the experience was (you summoned Aiwass and he DID appear). Here's my question to you: are you backing down from that claim and now saying that the experience was just a bunch of weird shit that you're not sure what it was?

Because if you are, that's a very different claim.

By the way, I'll happily address all the points at the end of your post, but I'd like to wait for your answer to the above question first. You'll hear from me tomorrow.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
17/10/2012 6:35 am  

I even anticipated this move

Because we're playing a competitive game, yes?

It's not a human being sharing something with another. It's a MOVE.

Come on, Los. WIN this Game! 

(As if what I share is simply meant to beat you down and prove you wrong)


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/10/2012 1:26 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
It's not a human being sharing something with another.

First you shared a rather bold claim of "X happened." Then, when pushed on it, you shared the greatly reduced claim of, "I don't know what it was."

Which is it that you're claiming?

I'm not trying to be "competitive." I'm trying to get a clear idea of what you're sharing.


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 4021
17/10/2012 1:37 pm  
"Los" wrote:
I'm not trying to be "competitive." I'm trying to get a clear idea of what you're sharing.

Don't be disingenuous. You habitually turn discussion into a boxing match which you must at all costs be seen to "win".


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
17/10/2012 3:45 pm  

Highly Recommended reading for anyone reading, writing, lurking, or otherwise interested in the meta discussion of this thread: The Spectrum of Consciousness

"Los" wrote:
"Azidonis" wrote:
Thanks for being specific on this. Enjoy talking about your illusion with yourself

So, just so we're all clear, you agree that when it comes to making and evaluating factual claims about the world -- entirely within the realms of reason and duality -- factual claims are more likely to be correct when the process of reaching them is stripped (as best as possible) of assumptions unwarranted by evidence and leaps of logic unwarranted by evidence?

Los, I am not interested in filling in any gaps, sorry. When the thought/thinker complex is not there, no gaps are there. It is only when the tandem is there that a "there/not there" question even has the ability to arise, creating the possibility of gaps.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
17/10/2012 4:11 pm  

kidneyhawk wrote: "I even anticipated this move"

You're claiming the faculty of intuition (intowishin) yet again, Kyle. What we want are FACTS, which is clearly an alien concept to you.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
17/10/2012 5:09 pm  
"kidneyhawk" wrote:
Los, it sounds like you and Erwin have it all wrapped up. You know what fools we are and you are in touch with Reality and the Ultimate. How does it feel?

Pretty fucking good. Every breath is pure bliss. Is there not joy ineffable in this aimless winging?

Or can you tell me ANYTHING about your present Rubicon and what troubles you the most?

Being “troubled” by things is just a thought in the mind, so no, nothing “troubles” “me.”

What are you asking? What the next step is for me, in an initiatory sense? Honestly, thinking about this sort of stuff is nothing more than dreaming up stories that basically just distract from the Work (which is why “orders” with “grades” are almost always a trap). I suppose -- since you asked -- eventually down the line I may come across the next stage, the “Adventure of the Abyss” (and even calling it that makes me feel like I’m writing the plot to a crappy RPG). But then again, maybe I won’t. There’s not an “I,” anyway, so it’s really not something that concerns me very much right now.

We never had a quibble over "evidence." Kyle never believed in "Goblins”

You said you did. You told me above that you summoned up Aiwass. Then you took it back. At the very least, that strongly suggests that you don’t have a firm grasp on how you evaluate claims and communicate them.

Your worldview is what it is. And MAGICK goes beyond it.

Here’s another factual claim of yours. Now, I might be inclined to agree with it, depending on exactly what you mean by it. It is certainly true that ritual magick can generate experiences that reason is inadequate to convey: but for that very reason, such experiences in and of themselves cannot be used as the basis for sensible conclusions about what they were.

Crowley, by the way,  says pretty much the same thing throughout his entire body of work. For example, in a well-known extract from Book 4, Part 1, he writes:

“By [Dhyana’s] light all other events of life are as darkness. Owing to this, people have utterly failed to analyse it or to estimate it. They are accurate enough in saying that, compared with this, all human life is absolutely dross; but they go further, and go wrong. They argue that "since this is that which transcends the terrestrial, it must be celestial." One of the tendencies in their minds has been the hope of a heaven such as their parents and teachers have described, or such as they have themselves pictured; and, without the slightest grounds for saying so, they make the assumption "This is That."

“We are now in a position to say what happened to Mohammed. Somehow or another his phenomenon happened in his mind. […] he connected it with the story of the "Annunciation," which he had undoubtedly heard in his boyhood, and said "Gabriel appeared to me." But in spite of his ignorance, his total misconception of the truth, the power of the vision was such that he was enabled to persist through the usual persecution

[…]

“The history of Christianity shows precisely the same remarkable fact. Jesus Christ was brought up on the fables of the "Old Testament," and so was compelled to ascribe his experiences to "Jehovah.”
_______________________________________

You’ll notice that Crowley doesn’t say, “Gee, well, I guess Mohammed and Christ had their own criteria for judging these things…who am I, after all, to say what they experienced? Everyone’s got their own criteria, so we should all just do the work and forget about talking about claims…”

No, he says the opposite: he suggests the importance of “analys[ing] and “estimat[ing]” these experiences, and he presents as an obstacle the faulty reasoning of “since this is that which transcends the terrestrial, it must be celestial.” As he notes, people go wrong when “without the slightest grounds for saying so [i.e. sufficient evidence] they make the assumption ‘This is That.’”

Does he sound like anyone you know in that above passage? Does his argument seem a bit familiar to you? It should because it’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Just plug in “Aiwass DID appear” for “Gabriel appeared to me” and you’ve got what I’m saying.

Once more: the experience may “go beyond reason,” but when it comes to making claims about what the experience actually was, we have to analyze it and need “grounds” for making factual claims about it.

People on this site […] GET all the "evidence" shit.

You say that, but when push comes to shove, you draw a conclusion on insufficient evidence (“Aiwass DID appear!”). It’s only when you get called on it that you retract the claim and say “I don’t know what happened!” If I were a betting man, I’d say that after our conversation wraps up, you’ll go right back to telling people that you summoned up Aiwass, as if we had never had a conversation at all. And Michael wants to talk about “disingenuous”…

can you get what WE are saying when it goes BEYOND this rational criteria?

Of course I get what you’re saying. You guys are arguing, basically, that reason is indeed “king” of the lower half of the Tree (Daath is its crown), but that its limitations mean that there comes a point when reason “breaks down” as a tool for evaluating claims, when Intuition (or Understanding) becomes the only sufficient tool when dealing with phenomena encountered beyond the scope of reason. For above the abyss, every statement contains its opposite, so that “Aiwass appeared” and “Aiwass didn’t appear” are not only contained within each other, but each statement actually is the essence of the other statement. For all appearances are lies, all claims are but half-formed and incomplete statements of a greater Reality beyond them. Each must be paired with its equal and opposite so that 2 may be realized to equal 0 so that the creation of the world – occurring every moment under our noses – may be noticed.

I’m arguing, in contrast, that reason doesn’t “breaks down” as a tool for analyzing factual claims because all factual claims are produced by reason operating on evidence, including those claims that one mistakenly thinks one accepts on the basis of “intuition.” There’s no separate criteria for certain kinds of factual claims.

No one’s seriously addressed this point, and even your own examples don’t help your case (“I summoned up Aiwass…well, actually, who knows!”).

Go back to Crowley’s comments about the “Man of Kether” in the Soldier and the Hunchback. He says that a “Man of Kether” sees boots and hats as illusion, but that doesn’t mean that he wears boots on his head or puts hats on his feet. In a similar way, we might say that a Man of Kether sees the claims “Aiwass appeared” and “Aiwass didn’t appear” as illusions, but that doesn’t mean he accepts the former as factually true without sufficient evidence.

You could also consult the description of the Master of the Temple in One Star in Sight. An MT puts two thoughts together and refuses to prefer either: that is, he eliminates preference in thought. An MT sees “Aiwass appeared” and “Aiwass didn’t appear” next to each other and doesn’t prefer either one. That being the case, when he needs to decide which one is factually true, he appeals to evidence instead of preference.

You are afraid to swim out into those shark infested waters beyond the bounds of your reason.

It’s lines like these that make me think you have some kind of reading comprehension problem. When, for example, have I ever expressed hesitance about having non-rational experiences? (Okay, all experience is non-rational, but I’m talking specifically about the trippy, trance-like experiences induced by meditation and magick)

Frankly, I think you’d be surprised at the depth of my experience with non-rational states of consciousness (ahem…all states of consciousness are non-rational, but I’m talking specifically…etc., etc.)

I’m simply not willing to say – like those folks Crowley points to – “this is that” without grounds for saying so. And I’m more than willing to point out the people who do routinely say “this is that” without grounds for saying so. And you're one of those people, Kyle.


ReplyQuote
Azidonis
(@azidonis)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 2964
17/10/2012 8:06 pm  

All visions, all ideas, 'divine' or otherwise, occur within the realm of thought.

As soon as a division occurs between the sight and the seer, it is no longer one, but two. Any experience soever implies at least two.

Thought and thinker cannot exist without each other.

Thus, the "thought" of God, or spacemen, or science, or anything else is still only a thought.

Thought is past tense. It is dead. Thought is a dead thing trying to make contact with the living being, the living universe, and it cannot do so.

"His weapons fulfil the wheel; and on What Axle that turneth is not known unto Him." - Liber B

"All this wheeled in fire, in star-fire, rare and far and utterly lonely -- even as Thou and I, O desolate soul my God!" - Liber VII IV:43

I offer the following, take it or leave it.

_________________________________[/align:3v1yxxnk]

"Crowley wrote:
"Yet she shall be known & I never." - AL II:4

The Old Comment

4. The circumference of Nuit touches Ra-Hoor-Khuit, Kether; but her centre Hadit is forever concealed above Kether. Is not Nu the Hiding of Hadit, and Had the Manifestation of Nuit? (I later, Sun in Libra, An. VII, dislike this note; and refer the student to Liber XI and Liber DLV.

The New Comment

See later, verse 13, "Thou (i.e. the Beast, who is here the Mask, or "per-sona," of Hadit) wast the knower." Hadit possesses the power to know, Nuit that of being known. Nuit is not unconnected with the idea of Nibbana, the "Shoreless Sea," in which Knowledge is Not.

Hadit is hidden in Nuit, and knows Her, She being an object of knowledge; but He is not knowable, for He is merely that part of Her which She formulates in order that She may be known.

Thought creates the thinker.

"Crowley wrote:
"I am the Magician and the Exorcist. I am the axle of the wheel, and the cube in the circle. "Come unto me" is a foolish word: for it is I that go." - AL II:7
The Old Comment

7. Hadit is both the Maker of Illusion and its destroyer. For though His interplay with Nuit results in the production of the Finite, yet His withdrawing into Himself is the destruction thereof.

"Even to the abyss, annihilation." - Liber VII Prologue:14

"Crowley wrote:
"...the axle of the wheel", another way of saying that He is the Core of Things.

"... the cube in the circle." Cf. Liber 418, The Vision and the Voice, 30th Aethyr.

"'Come unto me' is a foolish word: for it is I that go." That is, Hadit is everywhere; yet, being sought, he flies. The Ego cannot be found, as meditation will show.

The thinker cannot look at itself. Likewise, thought cannot look at itself without the thinker, and even then what you learn is about thought, but not thought. - paraphrase, U.G.

"Crowley wrote:
The New Comment

"It is I that go." The Book Aleph must be consulted for a full demonstration of this truth. We may say briefly that Hadit is Motion, that is, Change or 'Love.' The symbol of Godhead in Egypt was the Ankh, which is a sandal-strap, implying the Power to Go; and it suggests the Rosy Cross, the Fulfilment of Love, by its shape.

Given that Hadit is Motion, and Nuit is Matter, Thelema unites both conventional and absolute truth (see: Two Trtuhs doctrine). This is the foundational "why" all programs become obsolete. Conventional truth states that thinker and thought, is the "Go-er" and the "whence" it goes. Thought is matter. This does not undermine Thelema, nor the two aspects of Hadit and Nuit. Rather, it exalts them, in that thinker and thought is an attempt to mimic the workings of the universe, constantly changing, without a center. This is the aimless winging. It is above the Abyss, and beyond the comprehension of thought.

"Crowley wrote:
The Wheel and the Circle are evidently symbols of Nuith; this sentence insists upon the conception of Lingam-Yoni. But beyond the obvious relation, we observe two geometrical definitions. The axle is a cylinder set perpendicularly to the plane of the wheel; thus Hadit supplies the third dimension to Nuith. It suggests that Matter is to be conceived as Two-dimensional; that is, perhaps, as possessed of two qualities, extension and potentiality. To these Hadit brings motion and position. The wheel moves; manifestation now is possible. Its perception implies three-dimensional space, and time.

This is the origin of thought and thinker. It is also a Key, and that Key is thus: Kundalini-shakti rests at the base of the spine, arising to awaken a sleeping Shiva in the Sahasrara. The very Opening of the Eye of Shiva destroys the universe, or identity. Likewise, Hadit is a coiled serpent at the base of the spine, that rises to unite with Nuit, to fulfill "the consciousness of the continuity of existence". Note the masculine/feminine switch, as they are Keys to both Mysticism and Magick. This is the formula of Adeptus Major.

Adeptus (Major). —Obtains a general mastery of practical Magick, though without comprehension.
"Crowley wrote:
But note that the Mover is himself not moved. The "cube in the circle" emphasizes this question of dimensions. The cube is rectilinear (therefore phallic no less than the axle); its unity suggests perfection projected as a "solid" for human perception; its square faces affirm balance, equity, and limitation; its six-sidedness sets it among the solar symbols. It is thus like the Sun in the Zodiac, which is no more than the field for His fulfilment in His going. He, by virtue of his successive relations with each degree of the circle, clothes Himself with an appearance of "Matter in Motion," although absolute motion through space is a meaningless expression (Eddington, Op, cit.). None the less, every point in the cube -- there are 2 of them -- has an unique relation with every point in the circle exactly balanced against an equal and opposite relation. We have thus Matter that both is and is not, Motion that both moves and moves not, interacting in a variety of ways which is infinite to manifest individuals, each of which is unlike any other, yet is symmetrically supported by its counterpart. Note that even at the centre of gravity of the cube no two rays are identical except in mere length. They differ as to their point of contact with the circle, their right ascension, and their relation with the other points of the cube.

A further elaboration on the methods by which thinker and thought operate, on a conventional level. Unfortunately, this is the instrument. "Thought is not the instrument, and there is no other instrument." - U.G.

The Mystery of Sorrow.

"Crowley wrote:
Why is Nuith restricted to two dimensions? We usually think of space as a sphere.

Note: U.G. used the term, "thought sphere". He also used the term World Mind.

"Crowley wrote:
"None ---- and two:" extension and potentiality are Her only projections of Naught. It is strange, by the way to find that modern mathematics says "Spherical space is not very easy to imagine" (Eddington, Op.cit.p.158) and prefers to attribute a geometrical form whose resemblance to the Kteis is most striking. For Nuit is, philosophically speaking, the archetype of the Kteis, giving appropriate Form to all Being, and offering every possibility of fulfilment of every several point that it envelops. But Nuith cannot be symbolized as three-dimensional, in our system; each unit has position by three spatial, and one temporal, coordinates. It cannot exist, in our consciousness, with less, as a reality. Each 'individual' must be a 'point-interval;' he must be the product of some part of the Matter of Nuit (with special energies) determined in space by his relations with his neighbours, and in time by his relations with himself.

A 3D model is just a model. It can do nothing without the passage of time. The thinking process creates time. In the past it has perceived X, now it is perceiving Y, and in the future it will perceive Z.

The problem here is that the present does not exist for the mind. The thinker can only capture thoughts, signal relays by the brain, made into images and words. It is all past tense. So the mind, clever thing that it is, superimposes the past onto the present. It has to do this, in order to maintain an illusion of continuity, of continual identification. So it creates time. "I took a snapshot then, then, then, then, and then. I put them altogether, and used those, and related them to what just occurred. Now, I can have knowledge of what has happened." Since the process is actively going on, we say that it is "happening", which is an attempt to fill in the gap of the unknown present with the information of the past. Thus, mind creates an illusion of the present, by transplanting the illusion of knowledge over the actual living taking place. This is the Abyss of Knowledge.

Mind then posits for itself a future, in order to give itself the illusion that it will continue. All religion, and all progressive thinking, is born from this illusion of the future. Some of it becomes tangible, some of it does not. There is no way to know what will become tangible and what will not become tangible except through the passage of time.

It takes time for Hadit and Nuit to interact. That they are separate at all, "divided for love's sake", implies they need time in order to unite. When they do unite, both the thinker and the thoughts are no longer two, but one. However, they are none, because there is no way to experience it. Both the experiencer and that which can be experienced are absorbed into one another. The thinker and the thought unite. This absorption is samadhi.

Of course, there is a return from samadhi. It is a momentary unity. Or, if perceived from "above", it is a momentary stillness. Duly noted, the term "momentary" is a misnomer, as are all terms that attempt to describe such an event, as it cannot be described. However, the process does not just stop at the initial samadhi, and that really should be a separate thread.

Also, consider the Four Powers of the Sphinx: to Know, to Will, to Dare, to remain Silent. Consider to Know is past tense. To Will is present tense. To Dare is future tense. To remain Silent is no tense at all.

It should come as no surprise then, that the Powers of the Sphinx are major components of the Outer Order. As its crowning achievement, the Task of the Adeptus Minor is thus:

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

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

"Crowley wrote:
It is evidently "a foolish word" for Hadit to say "Come unto me," as did Nuit naturally enough, meaning "Fulfil thy possibilities;" for who can "come unto" Motion itself, who draw near unto that which is in very truth his innermost identity?

It is impossible for the thinker to look at itself.


ReplyQuote
wellreadwellbred
(@wellreadwellbred)
Member
Joined: 9 years ago
Posts: 1014
17/10/2012 9:52 pm  
"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
"Certain very serious questions have arisen with regard to the method by which this Book was obtained. I do not refer to those doubts -- real or pretended --which hostility engenders, for all such are dispelled by study of the text; no forger could have prepared so complex a set of numerical and literal puzzles as to leave himself [...] angrily unwilling to proceed with that part of the Work appointed for him which is detailed in Chapter III, even when the course of events on the planet, war, revolution, and the collapse of the social and religious systems of civilization, proved plainly to him that whether he liked it or no, Ra Hoor Khuit was indeed Lord of the Aeon, the Crowned and Conquering Child whose innocence meant no more than inhuman cruelty and wantonly senseless destructiveness as he avenged Isis our mother the Earth and the Heaven for the murder and mutilation of Osiris, Man, her son."

Quote from chapter 7, "Remarks on the method of receiving Liber Legis, on the Conditions prevailing at the time of the writing, and on certain technical difficulties connected with the Literary form of the Book.", in The Equinox of the Gods.

"Aleister Crowley" wrote:
"In this revelation is the basis of the future Aeon. Within the memory of man we have had the Pagan period, the worship of Nature, of Isis, of the Mother, of the Past; the Christian period, the worship of Man, of Osiris, of the Present. The first period is simple, quiet, easy, and pleasant; the material ignores the spiritual; the second is of suffering and death: the spiritual strives to ignore the material. Christianity and all cognate religions worship death, glorify suffering, deify corpses. The new Aeon is the worship of the spiritual made one with the material, of Horus, of the Child, of the Future. Isis was Liberty; Osiris, bondage; but the new Liberty is that of Horus. Osiris conquered her because she did not understand him. Horus avenges both his Father and his Mother. This child Horus is a twin, two in one. Horus and Harpocrates are one, and they are also one with Set or Apophis, the destroyer of Osiris. It is by the destruction of the principle of death that they are born. The establishment of this new Aeon, this new fundamental principle, is the great work now to be accomplished in the world."

Quote from the introduction to chapter 8, "Summary of the Case", in The Equinox of the Gods.

"MoogPlayer" wrote:
I personally never considered Nuit and Hadit to be these independently existing entities that function somehow like all the other gods and goddesses from various religions. In my opinion, this totally takes away from what Thelema is and puts it on the level of "Just another religion". (If that's the case, than why should we even give it any attention or consider it specially?) What makes Thelema unique is that these concepts don't require a dogmatic belief in anything super natural whatsoever. The concepts themselves may encompass things that are still unknown, but this does not necessarily open the door to fantastical nonsense that is more of the same dogmatic bullshit.
"Los" wrote:
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.
"Erwin" wrote:
What is or is not "part of Thelema" is what Crowley said, and we have his writings to tell us that.

At the beginning of this posting, are quotes from Aleister crowley where he states that "Ra Hoor Khuit" is "the Crowned and Conquering Child", and "Lord of the Aeon", and that "The new Aeon" is "the worship of the spiritual made one with the material, of Horus, of the Child, of the Future.", and that "The establishment of this new Aeon, this new fundamental principle, is the great work now to be accomplished in the world.", and that "the new Liberty is that of Horus".

What certainly real thing, or something certainly existing, does the god "Ra Hoor Khuit" of Thelema represent?

And "The establishment of this new Aeon," "the worship of the spiritual made one with the material, of Horus, of the Child, of the Future", "this new fundamental principle," which "is the great work now to be accomplished in the world", according to Aleister Crowley, does this represent something certainly existing, or something certainly real?   

And does "Aiwass" of Thelema represent something certainly existing, or something certainly real?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
18/10/2012 4:51 am  
"wellreadwellbred" wrote:
What certainly real thing, or something certainly existing, does the god "Ra Hoor Khuit" of Thelema represent?

The True Self of each individual.

And "The establishment of this new Aeon," "the worship of the spiritual made one with the material, of Horus, of the Child, of the Future", "this new fundamental principle," which "is the great work now to be accomplished in the world", according to Aleister Crowley, does this represent something certainly existing, or something certainly real?

These can be read as different ways of talking about promulgating Thelema.   

And does "Aiwass" of Thelema represent something certainly existing, or something certainly real?

"Aiwass" can be read as representing the energy of 418. Hence, he is the "minister" of the Silent Self.


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
18/10/2012 5:56 am  

"Aiwass" can be read as representing the energy of 418. Hence, he is the "minister" of the Silent Self. -Los

What? You sound like Kidneyhawk here. "Energy of 418?" "Silent Self?" These descriptions seem to be themselves representations. Metaphors for metaphors?

Could you please define the "Energy of 418" and let us know what evidence there is that such a thing ought to be taken seriously? 


ReplyQuote
kidneyhawk
(@kidneyhawk)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 1846
18/10/2012 5:58 am  

kidneyhawk wrote: "I even anticipated this move" -The Spurious One

Actually, no. That was Los making a claim to precognition. I should have duly credited him with the quote.


ReplyQuote
Page 6 / 7
Share: